Day 031 || Planet Hulk

Planet Hulk, 2010
Dir. Sam Liu

"Now Hulk know who to smash!"

Planet Hulk is the newest Marvel animated film that actually does something new. Instead of creating an entirely new story for these features, Marvel decided to model the film after one of the comic runs that was largely successful, that being Planet Hulk. Much like the first Ultimate Avengers feature. The movie is a lot like the comic, but more of a stripped down and clean experience.

The Avengers, or as we see in the film Tony Stark and Dr. Strange, due to copyright issues I imagine, capture and decide to send the Hulk to a remote island with no signs of life so his destructive properties will not do harm to anyone ever again. Unfortunately the planet Hulk lands on is a civilized one, that quickly captures him and places him in a gladiatorial setting where he's quested with three fights he must win in order to gain his freedom. It's an interesting concept, not in the plot, but in the relationships he builds with the other gladiators. The plot is really just a way for Hulk to smash stuff, and the comic even manages to wrangle in a fight between the Silver Surfer and the Hulk. Thanks to copyright issues again, the Silver Surfer never shows up. Instead we get the Thor reject, Beta Ray Bill. It's virtually the same fight, but nowhere near as epic or shocking.

My biggest complaint with the film is that it ends entirely too early and leaves important character bits out. The comic arc manages to keep going and eventually ends up being a tragic love story. What we currently get is a one minute scene towards the end that, out of nowhere, shows that Hulk and Caiera are in love. Any of the emotional weight, and the huge set-up for World War Hulk are gone. Also gone are many of the interesting side plots with Hulk gladiatorial teammates, especially Miek, and more importantly, any of the scenes where Hulk is being haunted by Bruce Banner, his former self, which gives the character a depth not found currently in the film.

The characters here are paper thin and are thinly veiled excuses for about eighty minutes worth of fight scenes. Which are done pretty well for the animated feature. They're on par for the course, but nothing truly remarkable or revolutionary. Without any of the weight, as I mentioned before, the film feels a little flat and a lot of the enjoyment could only be taken from the fight scenes. If you want more from your animated films, like I do, you'll likely want to stick with DC Universe films, especially Wonder Woman which had great characterizations and voice actors. Marvel animated features, with the exception of Doctor Strange, have really been struggling to get the formula down leading to a bunch of average films. And Planet Hulk is one of the lesser ones.

2 out of 5

Day 030 || Ong Bak 2: The Beginning

Ong Bak 2: The Beginning, 2008

Dir. Tony Jaa

There's no quote this time, because you'd be hard pressed to find anything worth repeating from the dialogue in this abortion of a film. And I don't use abortion strictly for shock factor, this film feels aborted and abandoned, but that is something I'll get to a little later on in the review.

Ong Bak 2 is the prequel/follow-up to the first Ong Bak, but as far as I can tell, there's no relation to the first film. Furthermore, there's not much of a coherency to the basic plot either. From what I gathered it's the story of a a young orphan (Tony Jaa) who is taken in by a group of outlaws after his royal family was killed before his eyes. Everything else that follows is your typical revenge flick...with the exception that typical implies some sense of normalcy.

Ong Bak 2 fails on most levels, and is surely a step backwards from it's predecessor in every conceivable way, with one exception. The cinematography is often times stunning, and often reaches beautiful. The color palettes used are very interesting and some shots are set up really well. And here's the but. Every time I was about to give credit to the cinematography, Jaa decides to set up a shot in slow motion. Slow mo shots aren't necessarily bad, as they can really emphasis key scenes are can be used to great effect to show how beautiful a shot really is. Well Jaa must have thought every other scene in this movie was the coolest thing ever, because close to every minute we're treated to another slow-mo shot. Not even necessarily one slowing down an action or fight scene.

And of the fight scenes, we're treated to three. One after he's joined the outlaws which has him fighting all the masters to prove his worth, which is pretty average, ending in a RIDICULOUS fight between him and a feral man, complete with the sound effects of a bear growling the entire time. Then later on we're treated to my personal favorite set piece in the film, which has Jaa fighting against a group of guys in Drunken Master style, which contains the quick pace and brutality that fans of his will love. And then towards the very end of the film we have a borderline exhaustive fight that goes on for about twenty minutes between Jaa and an entire army, it seems. And all of these fights don't come remotely close to anything we've seen in Ong Bak, The Protector, or even the recent Jaa imitation film, Chocolate. All of those have superior fight scenes, and all are better films. And for the record, I enjoyed all of them, just in case you might think I have something against the genre or Tony Jaa.

Altogether the fight scenes make up roughly half an hour, which leaves the other hour of the film filled with mindless and sappy melodrama, none of which is interesting or engaging in any single way. After the first 30 minutes of the film, it becomes a test of patience...it left me waiting for another fighting scene, and in all honesty, the end of the film. Which comes abruptly in the middle of the last fight in the film. It ends on a cliffhanger that doesn't leave the audience demanding the sequel, but instead imbues confusion and a cheapened feel.

To say I disliked Ong Bak 2 is an understatement. I loathed Ong Bak 2. For a film based around cool fighting set pieces, and taken only in the light, it's still an unoriginal failure. Worse, if it's taken for a film as a whole, it's easily one of the most pretentiously and shamelessly hollow excuse for ego-stroking I've seen. Tony Jaa is a great martial artist, no doubt, but a filmmaker he's not.

I'm placed in a lose-lose situation. If Ong Bak 3 does actually come out, I don't care anymore. The second one was so offensively boring and mindless, that it turned me off to the series for good. And if Ong Bak 3 doesn't come out, it makes Ong Bak 2 entirely worthless and needless, and all the more offensive. Ong Bak 2 is the worst of the worst, and in fact I would be remiss to even refer to this as a film, as that implies some sort of integrity and artist merit.

0 out of 5

Day 029 || Suspiria

Suspiria, 1977

Dir. Dario Argento

"Bad luck isn't brought by broken mirrors, but broken minds."

Suspiria is Dario Argento's seventies cult classic, and master work according to several genre enthusiasts. Being a horror fan myself, I really wanted to go back and get acquainted with some of the older films in the genre for this Film a Day Project. I didn't know exactly what to expect, but kept high expectations...which was clearly a mistake.

Suspiria is about a young American girl traveling to a foreign ballet school to study with the best, supposedly. Upon arrival, Suzy (Jessica Harper), witnesses a young girl panicking and running from the school, only to find out later that she was murdered that very night. And as Suzy spends more time at this school, it slowly starts to show that things aren't quite adding up and something's not exactly right.

To say this is Argento's masterpiece is definitely hyperbolic, or maybe everyone had such low standards for the genre when originally viewing this film that it stood out...either way, viewing it now, it's clear that Suspiria didn't age well. The film is beautiful, and it's shot in such a way that it conveys a technicolor nightmare. The color palette is constantly shifting, again, alluding to the dream-like or more apt nightmarish quality to the film.

Too bad none of that carried over into the acting or story. Sure, it's visceral and gorgeous, but from ten minutes in, you're going to know exactly what's going on. The surprise twist as to why the school is killing people off is laughable, and isn't anywhere near scary or horrific. Again, I use laughable.

Suspiria is a wonderfully shot and visually stunning film, especially for it's time, and has an atmosphere and jarring soundtrack that actually fits. It's sad that those are the only redeeming qualities, as this film suffers from a ludicrously inane script, ham-fisted acting (if it can even be called that), and a pacing that borders on tedious. I've heard several people say this is film that gets better and demands multiple viewings...but seeing as I barely tolerated one, I don't see my future self revisiting this one anytime soon. Am I glad I saw it? For the most part. There was a scene or two that stood out, but by the end of it I just felt exhausted, and not in a good way.

1 out of 5

Day 028 || Finding Neverland

Finding Neveralnd, 2004

Dir. Marc Forster

"Young boys should never be sent to bed...they always wake up one day older."

Finding Neverland is the charming biopic of J.M. Barrie and the creation of his timeless, symbolic character Peter Pan. And more than just being another biopic, it's actually terrific biopic, one that manages to do most everything right, and elevates itself to more than just an average look at an auteur's life.

Instead of focusing on the entirety of his life or career, J.M. Barrie (Johnny Depp) comes in after his last play was received largely as a failure, and immediately moves into James accidentally coming across the Davies family, who ultimately reignites the creativity and wonder inside of him. Allowing him to write the play he was always meant to write. Peter Pan.

And that's the reason this movie succeeds, over any of the other biopics. Other films that focus on celebrities, focus too heavily on the lifespan of the particular celebrity, in an unfocused and unrestrained life, relying completely on the actor to bring something compelling to the performance. There's no doubt or argument from me, that Joaquin Phoenix was phenomenal as Johnny Cash in Walk The Line, but was the bigger picture there? What was the message? Looking back it's kind of hard to see a point amidst the complexity and expanse of it all.

Finding Neverland manages to be impressive in it's simplicity and focused look on creativity and what inspires us. About the childhood wonder all of us are capable of if only we imagine. So more than looking at the life and hardships of J.M. Barrie, we're treated to a script and film that treats the audience with respect and offers an insightful look on the magic of imagination. I highly recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it, as not only is it a really great film, but it's the best and perfect example of what a biopic should strive to be. Purposeful.

4 out of 5

Day 027 || Pi

Pi, 1998
Dir. Darren Aronofsky

"Something's going on. It had to do with that number. There's an answer in that number."

Another day, another look at a director's earlier work that I missed. Today is Darren Aronofsky's first film, Pi, which is easily his most unfocused, unrefined, and completely open-ended film, even more so than The Fountain. But whereas I loved The Fountain and was willing to work at it to find meaning and purpose in it, Pi simply didn't engage me and came off as a jumbled homage to David Cronnenberg and David Lynch.

I'll start with the positive. Pi is a very well shot film, set in a grungy New York City with a brilliant black and white filter that's put to great effect. Aronofsky has crafted a beautiful and visually engaging film that accurately and cleverly portrays the paranoia and fear that radiates throughout. Clint Mansell is also on board for the soundtrack, as par with all other Aronofsky films, and it's a good score. Not great, because the trance and techno feel of the music at times doesn't correctly mesh with the mood and atmosphere.

And at times this film becomes grippingly interesting, mostly when the mathematics of numbers are on display. A sense of curiosity and mathematical philosophies are brought up on occasion, and it's in these moments where the lead character, Max, are explaining the Fibinacci sequence, or golden rectangle, that things start to get really intriguing and promising.

The rest of the film doesn't really come together. Maybe the point of the film is to leave the audience in the dark. To keep us guessing what exactly we watched, long after the credits have rolled. But I wasn't engaged with any of the characters, and some of the mathematical jargon kind of flew over my head, and I'm not the average viewer. I happen to think I'm more open minded and tend to dig deeper into films...maybe I just missed something, but it doesn't really seem like there's much to delve into here.

So what we're ultimately left with is a gorgeous and visceral film, that rings hollow through and through. As Aronofsky's first film, it definitely shows where the filmmaker was and is headed, and you can see pieces of his style here, albeit very unrefined and unfocused. It's a promising start, but that's about it.

2 out of 5

Day 026 || Puddle Cruiser

Puddle Cruiser, 1996

Dir. Jay Chandrasekhar

"What's the difference? It's just a bunch of old white men legislating my uterus anyways."

Some of you readers may be familiar with the comedy troupe/film team, Broken Lizard, and even more of you will be familiar with their breakout hit Super Troopers, a film that made all of the characters huge. Well, some more than others. Super Troopers, although still rough around the edges and filled with several flaws, earned it's place among great genre and cult comedies, and have lead to the team getting picture deals working on several follow-ups, Club Dread, Beerfest, and the soon to be released The Slammin' Salmon and follow-up, Super Troopers 2.

But what many people might not know is that Super Troopers wasn't their first film, but actually their second. And there's good reason.

Puddle Cruiser is the first film by Broken Lizard and features all the main players. The guys are all here, be it much, much, much younger and more immature. Maybe because I'm about fifteen years removed from this film, or because I've grown used to their more evolved approach to comedy, but Puddle Cruiser is never really becomes a comedy. Sure there are some comedic bits, and a few times you might chuckle, but it resembles more of an immature (a word I'm pretty sure will be used quite a bit in relation to this film), awkwardly paced indie film.

The production values are low and it looks like it was shot on the weekends for super cheap on a campus somewhere. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Look at Kevin Smith's Clerks for example. The soundtrack cost more than it did to shoot the film, yet it managed to be not only funny, meaningful, but it still holds relevance to this day. If anything, Puddle Cruiser resembles a bad parody of Mallrats, Smith's most flawed and loosely reined in film.

Puddle Cruiser, again much like Mallrats, shows signs of brilliance here and there, and it's definitely evocative and showing of the true talent behind the film...but ultimately Puddle Cruiser is weighted down in mediocrity, and subpar film-making, acting, and comedy. It's definitely a disappointed, and for fans of Broken Lizard, I'd say this might be worth a rental purely to see the roots of the team. For those uninitiated with the group, stay away from this film, because it's just not worth the time.

1 out of 5

Day 025 || Surrogates

Surrogates, 2009
Dir. Jonathan Mostow

"Honey, I don't know what you are. I mean, for all I know, you could be some big fat dude sittin' in his stem chair with his dick hanging out."

The conceit of man versus machine has been a philosophical point of interest for quite some time, and it's been documented and explored several times in film history. From the early days of film, seen in Metropolis, to the recent decade where it's become a huge point of interest (The Matrix trilogy, to the recent, and incredibly profitable and popular Avatar). The idea is something very simple, yet infinitely intriguing and being mostly philosophical in nature, it provides several great "what if" ideas.

Sadly, Surrogates doesn't seem to really want to explore many of them. It poses some really interesting questions and thoughts in it's mere 89 minute running time, but they're never fleshed out or given proper discourse. What could have been a sleek and new approach to the philosophical nature of machines has instead been trimmed down to an efficient action flick, that doesn't suck, but doesn't offer much of anything else.

Whereas some critics and fans were disappointed by how the Matrix sequels turned out, you have to give them credit for handling the series with thought, love, and sophistication. Sure, they might have gotten a little too lost in the philosophy aspect, but give me that over a mindless action/suspense film, any day.

Bruce Willis is pretty much your typical Bruce Willis here. He's definitely not bringing his best, and what we get is a somewhat lifeless performance ironically, considering the subject matter. The rest of the actors and actresses do a decent job, at the best, but most seem to be sleepwalking through their parts. Even Ving Rhames, who is usually charismatic and lights up the screen sizzles in Surrogates.

And I'm blaming that solely on the script. I'm not sure if Surrogates is based on an established property, such as a comic or something, but the world seems ripe for ideas, but the script lazily ignores many of them and favors the set pieces involving humans leaping from car to car, and a one arm Bruce Willis surviving yet another aircraft crash. Not to mention there are several plot holes and inconsistencies in the story. And it's all wasted since there is a wonderful production backing the film. It looks and is shot very cleanly and wonderfully. It's almost like a lighter and more modern version of Blade Runner with the color palettes used.

But if you're looking for an average action flick, you won't be disappointed. Well, I take that back. You might still be disappointed, but this isn't the worst film you could pick up. On the other hand there are much, much better films to watch, several even on the subject at hand. I don't recommend Surrogates, but I also wouldn't stop someone from renting it. I didn't care for it, but for those turned off by the introspective and thought-provoking Matrix sequels, this might be more up their alley.

2 out of 5

Day 024 || Saw VI

Saw VI, 2009

Dir. Kevin Greutert

"You think it's the living who will have ultimate judgement on your, because the dead will have no claim on your soul. But you may be mistaken."

Unlike my previous review for Whip It, I don't really feel a long-winded review is necessary here. Saw VI is the next film in a series that has been struggling to get it's bearings after the third one killed off the main antagonist in a brilliant ending that had me wondering where the series was heading, and what I could expect. Well three years  ago, if I knew this was what I could expect, well I'd be disappointed to say the least.

Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is still present in overly long and unnecessary flashbacks, but the main villain is still the same boring, corrupted police detective we've seen in Saw IV and V. In all honesty, I've never really liked this character, and his place as the new Jigsaw seems forced, and uninspired at best. Even after three films I don't care about him, which makes one of the big twists in Saw VI fall even harder on it's metaphorical face.

Along with a mediocre villain, we also get trite and uncreative traps, something the Saw series is known for. Instead of putting thought into elaborate traps and twists, instead the writers focus on melodrama between characters who haven't been a part of this series for a few films. Is it really necessary to show Flashbacks to events that occurred during and before the third installment? The reason we killed off these characters in Saw III was to get a fresh start and take the series into a new and interesting direction.

Clearly when Bousman (the previous director and creative head of the series for II and III) left, he took with him the spirit, energy, and creativity of these films. Every installment after III has become more and more average, leaving us with a hollow shell of a once promising series. Saw VI is terribly mediocre and what's worse is that you can see an interesting idea left to rot. Saw VI's take on the Health Care and Insurance industries could have made for a clever and horrific look at an industry that somewhat parallels some of the ideologies that Saw has covered in the past. Instead we get rudimentary torture porn and an in your face flashback where Jigsaw is on a soapbox decrying the fouls of the insurance industry.

But as much as I just didn't care for this film, and in large don't care about the series, it's not offensively bad (ala Paper Heart). I wasn't angry and I didn't feel like I wasted the 80 minutes (of which 20 minutes are dedicated to flashbacks, most of which we've already seen). It's just disappointing to see a series I was once invested in have dwindled into such a mindless and lame excuse for a horror/suspense film.

2 out of 5

Day 023 || Whip It

Whip It, 2009

Dir. Drew Barrymore

"You guys came in second out of two teams. Yeah, let's celebrate mediocrity! That's fantastic."

I'm just going to come right out and say it and skip all the formalities. I unapologetically loved the hell out of Whip It, Drew Barrymore's first directorial effort. I could make a laundry list of everything I loved about this film, and that could essentially be the entirety of the review.

I could blame it on a film high, or simply because my expectations were lowered, but I'd be a lying. And then what kind of a internet "critic" would be, right? No, I was actually looking forward, very much, to this film ever since I saw the trailers and was sold on the quirky, girl-empowerment, comedy angle. It didn't hurt that Kristen Wiig and Zoe Bell were in it, who I absolutely adore for a variety of reasons.

Seeing Jim Fallon was a part of it...kind of did hurt my chances of liking it. But Jimmy Fallon, though easily one of the smaller and non-memorable parts, was pretty funny actually. His commentator character doesn't hold a grudge to the great performances we've seen such as in Dodgeball (Jason Bateman specifically) or Best in Show.

I think the fact that I was able to write an entire paragraph about the good work Jimmy Fallon (for repetition's sake, Jimmy Fallon people!), has done here, speaks to the quality of this film. All the leads are incredibly likeable, along with having several layers and depth to give them intrigue. And that could just be applied to Bliss' (the focal point of the story, played subtly and honestly by Ellen Page) family, because as well acted as Bliss' parents are (Marcia Gay Harden and underutilized Daniel Stern), it's nothing compared to The Hurl Scouts.

The Hurl Scouts are the roller derby team that Bliss eventually joins as she falls in love with the sport and the "take-no-name" leading ladies. The Scouts consist of various actresses, the aforementioned Zoe Bell, Kristen Wiig, Eve, and Drew Barrymore, herself, as Smashley Simpson. This team dynamic could've played out as something we've seen several times before but it turns into a maternal family, which is helped by the fact that the entire cast of girls had such great chemistry together. Anytime The Hurl Scouts are on the screen, the film passes the line of really good, and becomes sublime.

That's not to say that there aren't some very cliched and played out moments, because there most definitely are. This is a sports film, after all. You'll pretty much know how everything is going to play out, but because Barrymore handles everything so sweetly and energetically, it's hard not to forgive the film for it all.

Whip It has some flaws, mostly the cliched moments one would come to expect from this type of film and a second act that loses some of it's energy and gets sidetracked in melodrama, but it nails everything else perfectly. Even with said flaws, it's a film that I fell in love with almost immediately and can not wait to show to all my friends. The characters that inhabit this world are so enjoyable that the film flies by, and you're almost sad to leave them. Whip It's not a perfect film, but it's pretty close, and so damned enjoyable that I'm going to give it the highest recommendation I can give. It's the best film in it's genre/type hands down.

And it's easily a better film than Juno. Yeah...I said it.

5 out of 5

Day 022 || The Graduate

The Graduate, 1967

Dir. Mike Nichols

"Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me. Aren't you?"

The Graduate is one of those classic films that somehow managed to escape me in the twenty-three years I've been watching movies. It's a film that we can look back on and easily see how it's influenced other films from the the 1990's and onward. It's comedy, but not in the sense that most people are familiar with. It's more of a comedy in the style of Wes Anderson or Jared Hess (of whom is admittedly a lesser version of Anderson). It's dry and the jokes aren't found in situations or dialogues within the film. The joke is the film.

The film earns it's reputation as a classic due to how well all of the elements come together. The story, the characters and the soundtrack (performed entirely by Simon and Garfunkel) all work to make something very memorable and enjoyable, yet awkward and off-putting. The Graduate is a hard film to pin down tonally, again, much akin to an Anderson film.

The characters are very honest, and all of their intentions and actions are believable, something the audience can invest in, save for a few moments with Elaine's character (Katherine Ross). And having just graduated myself, it's very easy to feel the same emotions and emptiness that Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) is currently going through. The pressure of being the center of attention for all his family and their social circle, and then having to deal with the weight of all their heavy expectations. It makes it easy for us to buy into his reluctant embrace of Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft). His awkward trepidation and hesitance comes across as very honest and it doesn't seem morally offensive or wrong when he does it. It seems innocent and shows his youthful naivety.

The ending alone, which I'm not going to spoil, is so perfectly handled under Mike Nichols' direction, it could easily be one of the highlights of the film for me. It's either the inspiration for the ending of Spider-Man 2, or Sam Raimi  unwittingly borrowed heavily from it. It keeps you completely rushed and engaged in the moment, leaving you rooting for an ending that when finally delivered, not only do the characters reflect on whether it was the wisest decision, but it leaves the audience introspective on the entire experience.

The Graduate is still, to this day, a film I would highly recommend and easily earns it's place as a classic film. It's largely a film of the 1960's and parts of it didn't age as well as I might have hoped, but it's nowhere near as dated as most. It's still relevant and the story is very apt even to this day. I highly recommend this film, if not for one of Dustin Hoffman's earlier performances, then for the exceptional storytelling on display.

4 out of 5

Day 021 || Lymelife

Lymelife, 2008

Dir. Derick Martini

"You meant Millennium Falcon in a good way, right?"

Lymelife is a clever and enjoyable indie film about dysfunctional relationships, and the affects they have on family life. It's about Scott Bartlett (Rory Culkin) a teenage boy growing up in Long Island in the 1970's where lyme disease is rapidly becoming the large concern of the times, much like the swine flu's prevalence today, and the bird flu of the last decade. His best friend Adrianna's (Emma Roberts) father is actually undergoing the illness which leads to problems in not only Adrianna's family, but Scott's family as well.

The best thing I can say about this film is that it's floored by stellar performances. Rory Culkin, who I'm really only familiar with from Signs, holds his own amidst Alec Baldwin, Jill Henessey, Timothy Hutton, and Cynthia Nixon who all give very strong performances. Baldwin's performance alone is a much more subtle and drastic change.

The melodrama of the story is what largely drives it forward, and it's interesting to see how all these characters interact and intertwine with one another. It makes for a tense and moody film, that happens to be pretty entertaining and a fascinating watch. But as with most indie films and coming-of-age stories, or god forbid indie coming-of-age tales, it manages to be entertaining, if not largely forgettable.

No matter how strong the performances are, and they are very strong, the story isn't quite up to par with the best Hollywood has to offer. It's shot extremely well, and again the characters are fascinating, but the story isn't anything to write home about. It serves the film well enough, but there's a reason no one remembers this film and it didn't get any recognition this award season. Easy recommendation, but it's nothing that's going to set the film world ablaze.

3 out of 5

Day 020 || JCVD

JCVD, 2008
Dir. Mabrouk el Mechri

"It's stupid to kill people...they're so beautiful!"

JCVD is about Jean Claude van Damme (played by himself, naturally) going through a mid-life crisis of sorts. He's facing the problems of old age, losing roles to other C-List action stars (Steven Seagal I'm look at you), and he's going through a heart-breaking child custody battle, where the prosecution is tearing his image by condemning him for the thoughtless, violent films he made in his heyday.

And on top of it all he manages to stumble into a bank heist.

JCVD is an odd film, one that manages to intrigue and fascinate throughout it's running time, but one that also manages to make some really off the wall choices, such as stopping the film completely to have Jean Claude deliver a six minute monologue about himself, his films, his audience and peers and the critics. It's almost like a surrealist painting, with so many ideas to convey, but they all seem to get lost here. It's clear that this film is meant to be unlike any other film starring van Damme, but one that isn't too radically different from other bank heist films.

The only noticeable difference would be van Damme's supposed personal life put out in the open here, which for fans might be a huge plus and a treat. I've not seen many of van Damme's previous works, because I'm not much for brainless action flicks, but I'm sure that he's evolved as an actor here, and at times comes really close to channeling Mickey Rourke (a compliment to JCVD), but for the uninitiated it's not really anything special.

JCVD is a good, solid film, but nowhere near the revelation people and critics make it out to be. Is it worth seeing? Most definitely, but it's not a film you should go out of your way to see, unless of course, you are a huge fan of Jean Claude van Damme, as this is probably his best work. I say that, again, because I'm not familiar with his career. JCVD is severely flawed, but entertaining, and manages some truly great moments (the opening long shot, and several of the more humorous moments).

3 out of 5

Day 019 || Love & Sex

Love & Sex, 2000

Dir. Valerie Brieman

"We were instant best friends. Two people who understood each other without having to say a word."

Love & Sex chronicles a struggling writer, Kate Welles (Famke Janssen), who isn't content with writing fluff-pieces on love for the magazine she works for, especially when she doesn't have a grasp on what love even means to her. Much in the same vein as Paper Heart, the leading lady is a jaded cynic, who is doubtful of everything about love, but what separates Kate from Charlene Yi, is that Kate is actually quite a likeable protagonist.

And likeable is the term I would actually use to classify the entirety of Love & Sex. It's nothing new, and it doesn't really make any new or shocking revelations on the subject of love or relationships, but it is a nice and quirky look at the entire life cycle of a relationship. From the sweet beginnings to the unfortunate and wince-inducing break. It's charming, sweet and often times pretty funny and clever.

It's film that is reminiscent of some of the better Woody Allen comedies, which is a huge compliment. And at a brief running time of around 80 minutes or so, it keeps the story breezy and whimsical, which works quite well for the film. And before I end the review, much kudos goes to Jon Favreau who plays Kate's love-interest Adam with a certain depth and charm. Favreau is turning out to be the underdog actor who I'm starting to love and hope gets more and more roles.

3 out of 5

Day 018 || Moon

Moon, 2009
Dir. Duncan Jones

"I hope life on Earth is everything you remember it to be."

Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is a mining astronaut sent to the dark side of the moon in the near future to harvest a source of hydrogen to fuel an energy depleted Earth. Towards the end of his three year stay on the Moon, he starts to experience a series of odd occurrences that lead him to a startling discovery that ultimately pushes him to question humanity and delve into an existential crisis.

There is so much that Moon does right for the science fiction genre. It doesn't talk down to the audience and treats the subject in an intelligent manner. The script and storytelling here are pretty exquisite, even more so knowing that this was Duncan Jones' first film. To say anything about the narrative or story, other than it is a very cerebral and contemplative story, would be to ruin the fun and surprise of it all.

What I will talk about, however, is the great performance by Sam Rockwell, who brings several layers and depth to his character. It's a shame he didn't get any award recognition, because Rockwell's a power-house here and carries the film, much in the same way Tom Hanks did in Castaway. Both are brilliant performances, and Rockwell shines here, more than he has in most of the other films I've seen him in. Kevin Spacey's voice as GERDY, the helping robot who's primary function is to serve Sam, is very apt and fitting.

The cinematography is wonderful, and the entire film is beautifully shot. The scenes outside in particular are breathtakingly done, which is amazing considering the extremely low budget the film was shot on. There were many quiet moments where the film just stops to gaze wondrously out into space, where I was so entranced I didn't notice that nothing was really happening. I think this is also largely due to the incredible score from Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream), whose work here is very reminiscent of 80's sci-fi films, yet manages to be subtle, effective, and captivating all the same.

The film does tend to drag a tad at times, but it's nothing most people won't be able to handle, as the film is kept pretty tightly edited. But really, that's my only complaint, this is an otherwise amazing film, one that I can't wait to watch again and take in all the details I may have missed the first time. This is an easy recommendation, one that anyone with a little patience and an open mind will more than likely enjoy.

4 out of 5

Day 017 || Paper Heart

Paper Heart, 2009

Dir. Nicholas Jasenovic

"We’re not a very patient society so if something goes wrong, and there’s no quick fix, they give up. If you can hang in there, it just gets better."

Paper Heart is a Charlene Yi's mockumentary about finding love, as she believes (which is doubtful, and conceived strictly for sake of plot) that love doesn't exist, or in a smaller way she doesn't know what love is. So she sets out on a quest all around the world to find out what love is and if she herself can ever experience it. Slowly Michael Cera (also playing himself) works his way into the plot and a budding romance starts to form between the two.

What follows is a largely uneven movie, that asks several great questions without answering a single one of them. It adds up to a disappointing and annoying indie film that never really does anything new or interesting. This could be due to several reasons, which I'm well about to go into in full detail over.

Charlene Yi should not be a leading lady, in any film, ever, and Paper Heart is resounding proof of it. She's not charismatic, charming, likeable and often feels very contempt with simply slurring off her lines in an unintelligible mumble. If you can actually stomach watching her for ninety-minutes, you might enjoy the film, and there's emphasis on "might". This is easily one of the biggest flaws in the film as she is essential to ground the film. We're supposed to care about her plight and journey, something that I lost interest in, twenty minutes or so into the film. She is playing the same character she played in Knocked Up, but instead of a few minutes of screen-time we're treated to her "presence" for an entire film.

The second biggest flaw here is that the love story between Michael Cera and Charlene Yi (which was made up for the movie) was awkward, irritating, and seemed incredibly staged. Worse, the two leads had no chemistry at all (which is troubling considering the two actually dated in real life for 3 years). The lack of chemistry and the falseness that resonates throughout this relationship is even more focalized when it's placed next to the interviews of real couples who ARE in love and come off more genuine than either of the leads. In fact, the interviews are the only redeeming parts in Paper Heart.

To say I was disappointed by Paper Heart would be a vast understatement. I was borderline offended, and thirty minutes into the film I was ready to be done with it. Fans of Charlene Yi and Michael Cera will probably enjoy this, along with hopeless romantics who can get past Yi's slow and stoner-like delivery, which try as might, I couldn't. Paper Heart occasionally works as an interesting series of interviews, but as a film it falls flat on it's face. It's unfocused, lead by unlikeable leads, lacking any chemistry or charm, and above all, it's boring. I can easily recommend that most everyone should just skip this film, if you can call it that.

1 out of 5

Day 016 || Kataude Mashin Garu (The Machine Girl)

Kataude Mashin Garu (The Machine Girl), 2008

Noboru Iguchi

"I'm a demon. I'll stay a demon until I kill all of Yu's enemies."

The Machine Girl is about a young highschool girl who's brother is killed by the son of a Yakuza, who then goes on a blood-bath of a revenge against all who had part in it. It's a simple film that heavily relies on the revenge plot, much akin to Kill Bill (one of my favorites), and even references the film here (the Yakuza clan is named the Hanzo Hattori clan). But, lacking the beautiful style and cinematography, along with the well written script in characters, it's clear that Noboru Iguchi was more intent on creating something along the lines of a Grindhouse film, also borrowing heavily from the style, tone, and machine gun appendage of Robert Rodriguez' Planet Terror.

The Machine Girl isn't a good film by any means. I actually wanted to watch it because I thought it was going to horrible, but fun and goofy all the same, and I wasn't necessarily disappointed. The script is completely throw-away, so much so that I had trouble finding an apt or even decent quote for the intro. The characters are paper-thin and don't have any depth at all. The good guys are blatantly good, and the bad guys have no redeeming qualities. But you know what, all that didn't matter. It was still a great time watching this film, and at the end of the day that's all one could really ask for.

Sure, no one's going to go out of their ways to analyze this for deeper meanings or thoughts on the nature of life or anything, but it's a highly enjoyable film. In spite of all of it's shortcomings, it manages to be charming in it's exploitation of the Asian horror/action genre, and the low budget feel to it is heavily reminiscent of the Evil Dead trilogy, and I mean that as a huge compliment. This is a film that I wanted to show to my friends immediately, because the absurd nature of it all, and the over-the-top effects and gore (all practical, rarely any CG, another huge plus in my book), gave the film a campy and fun sense, complete with some very black humor.

It could definitely improved with better effects, a tighter script, actual characters (not cardboard cutouts for leads), and a better score/soundtrack (which as it is, is possibly one of the most bland collections of music I've heard). Again, it may seem like I had a lot of criticisms with this film, and they are most certainly there, but I loved this film, and would highly recommend this film to anyone looking simply for a good time, who doesn't mind black humor and (very fake and over-the-top) gore.

3 out of 5

Day 015 || L'auberge Espagnole (The Spanish Apartment)

L'auberge Espagnole (The Spanish Apartment), 2002

Dir. Cedric Klapisch

"For some idiotic reason, your most horrific experiences are the stories you most love to tell."

L'auberge Espagnole is another coming-of-age story about Xavier, a young French man who decides to go study in Spain to further his career. It's in Spain that he ends up renting a room in an apartment-sized mixing pot, filled with several people from Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy, and other areas, and ends up going through one of the best years of his life that ultimately leads him down a new path.

It's hard to fully describe L'auberge Espagnole, because in the case of many coming-of-age tales, things tend to unfold for no reason, and the plot isn't as important as the journey. Some films are able to pull this off by depicting a brilliant, fun, and moving journey, whereas several films aren't able to grasp this magic and end up having a hollow, shell of a film that never seems to go anywhere. L'auberge Espagnole, luckily, manages to sidestep the mediocrity that most of these films seem to meander in, and ends up being not only a fun experience, but touching and honest, at the same time.

The film starts off rather roughly, and I'll be honest, in the first ten minutes or so I about made up my mind as that I wasn't going to enjoy where this was going. It seemed to be all style and no substance to make up for the cheap cameras it's shot on, but then once Xavier's trip to Spain actually goes underway, the film takes off and slowly starts to draw you in until the credits. And then by that point you'll actually be sad to see the characters go. I would love to see further adventures of this Spanish apartment, and all the wonderful roommates. There's an honest chemistry between them all that lights up the screen and makes this a truly engrossing film.

Sure, it'd be easy to pick apart the faults with this film, and there are several, but ultimately it's a film that relishes in human spirit, in connections, and that ultimately leaves you with a smile on your face. These are wonderful characters, with honest, human interactions that help make this film a charming, enjoyable, and easily recommendable film.

4 out of 5

Day 014 || Taking Woodstock

Taking Woodstock, 2009

Dir. Ang Lee

"Perspective is what keeps the universe out. It's what keeps love out."

Taking Woodstock is the story of Eli (or Elliot, played quite well by comedian Demetri Martin) who moves back home to help his parents with their failing hotel. To get the business flowing again for his parents, and for the livelihood of the his home town, he decides to get Woodstock to use one of the local areas as the primary location of the free-love and music festival. What follows is a young man's journey into finding himself.

The thing that a lot of people take issue with this film over is the lack of music, or the presence of Woodstock. It's here in the film, but it's always at a distance. We deal with the crowds of people and really get to experience the sheer size and mass of it all (which is admittedly one of the best aspects of the film), but never do we see any of the great musical performances. People who complain about such a trivial point, are blindly missing the message of the film. It's a coming of age story where Eli, through the surrounding craze that is Woodstock finds himself, as simultaneously most of the youth of the world were trying to find themselves. It's not about Woodstock as much as it is about Eli.

No, my problems with Taking Woodstock are much more real and valid. The film is a huge build-up to such a small character development. I'm not saying I needed some life-affirming or anything, but the place where Eli comes to at the end of the film is such a small move forward. In much the same way I take issue with biopics or films of that sort, we're largely just getting this man's life, but on film. It's a shame because by going this route directors often forget what power films can have and hold, and the medium just never seems to work with these types of stories. Instead of having thematically relevant and symbolic experiences, we see Eli encountering things by pure happenstance and luck, rather than something that actually means something.

Again, it is disappointing, but the film isn't bad by any means. It's just a largely uninvolving one. I enjoyed watching it, with the exception of some severe tone issues, but I'm not going to talk about it or dig deeper into it, because there's nothing deeper on display here, much like The Adventures of Sebastian Cole (which coincidentally has another great performance by a cross-dressing actor, this time played by Liev Schreiber).

Taking Woodstock didn't affect me one way or the other, and writing about it today I had trouble even remembering most of it. It's an uneven, though well shot, well acted, sometimes enjoyable, and completely forgettable film. One that's ultimately hollow and lacking of any real substance, and that I can't honestly recommend.

2 out of 5

Day 013 || Dogville

Dogville, 2003

Dir. Lars von Trier

"Dogs can be taught many useful things, but not if we forgive them every time they obey their own nature."

A mysterious woman, named Grace (Nicole Kidman) is on the run from mobsters and is reluctantly offered a place to hide out in the small Colorado town of Dogville. The plot may not sound all to original (but rest assured it's very original and refreshing), but what is noticeable from the very credits is that this film is unlike any other. The entire film is shot on a completely flat, black sound stage, with outlines taking the place of roads and houses. This completely stripped down experience resembles a play or theater performance (with better camera effects and shots). This is going to be a turn-off for a few people, as it is entirely unconventional and unheard of, but those with an open-mind will be rewarded as the film offers some of the best performances on film (thanks in no little part to the stripped down, non-intrusive visuals), and a brilliant story that questions the very nature of man.

It's that latter part that I want to elaborate on, as the film is really genius in it's subtle allegories to Jesus Christ, and for those getting up in the arms at the thought of that, it's not ham-fisted or tritely done. It's not in your face, you'd really have to dig for the clues and piece it together for yourself...that is with the exception of the final chapter where a great appearance by James Caan bluntly puts everything into perspective. If you were unsure of what the film was trying to say, Caan's "Big Man" will clear it all up.

For everything this film does right (John Hurts as the wonderfully, dry narrator, for instance), there are a few nagging issues, such as a three-hour running time, which is bound to be as big of a turn-off as the lack of visuals. There were some parts that could've been trimmed down, and I think with a half hour shaved, it would've been a more efficient and smoother experience.

With Dogville the good easily outweighs the bad, and it isn't hard to tell that I really enjoyed it's complex story set against it's very simple design. It's a brilliant film, with more depth than most other films I've seen this year, and it is an easily rewatchable film due to it's layered and allegorical story that speaks to the vile nature of humanity. But simply because of the running time and bizarre (yet admittedly brilliant) approach, it's one that I will find hard to recommend to most people. But that latter issue is only really odd for the twenty minutes or so, and then you buy into the reality of Dogville, just like any play or theatrical show you may have seen.

For those who simply enjoy and embrace innovative film-making, please do yourself a favor and check out Dogville. It is well worth the time and investment. For everyone else, well, there's plenty of brainless, explosion-fueled films out there, go check one of those out.

4 out of 5

Day 012 || Teeth

Teeth, 2008
Dir. Mitchell Lichtenstein

"The toothed vagina appears in the mythology of many and diverse cultures all around the world. In these myths, the story is always the same. The hero must do battle with the woman. The toothed creature must break her power."

The above is not only quote from the film, but based on actual mythology of the vagina dentata, which is, apparently, some misogynistic cultural story where a hero comes (the typical man) and slays a toothed monster, which happens be a woman's vagina. If I'm loosing you already, I know, it's a stretch, but this mythology is the basic groundwork for the film Teeth.

It's pretty much a feminist interpretation on this bizarre mythology, one in which our hero, Dawn (Jess Weixler) is a pro-abstinent, straight, and very clean-cut girl with a secret, as she's about to find out. Her vagina has teeth. After a rape sequence, which would normally be pretty shocking in a film regardless, her vagina attacks back. In a sense, it's humorous and darkly horrifying all the same, and the film manages to walk on this line pretty well.

There's a real sense of women's empowerment from the get-go, as we're lead to believe that Dawn has grown these teeth in an evolutionary sense, to ward off the dangers of the world (which the director would lead you to believe is every man, we're all dicks, no pun intended). It's an interesting idea that's played off pretty well, and if it wasn't for the feminist angle this film would largely by just shrugged off as a mindless genre piece. That isn't to say that it's not a genre film, because this film revels in it's schlock factor at times, even throwing out homages and references to other genre films (pay attention to the televisions in the background).

I would be remiss if I left out my issues, which I just about did. When I say this is a feminist interpretation, I mean down to the fact that almost every man in this film is a piece of shit. No nice guy gets hurt here. Aside from her father, all the men in Dawn's life are assholes. Every single one tries to rape or take advantage of her. Seeing as I am a man, it's a little disheartening that men are portrayed in such a dim light, and not one is portrayed as a decent person. Not all men are perverted, forceful rapists as Teeth would like you to believe. And some of the acting leaves a little to be desired at times. For the most part it all works, but there's a moment when a line will come across hilariously, and it's not intended to.

Teeth isn't a film for everyone, as you could probably tell, just from the review. It's a dark comedy, with it's tongue firmly in cheek, but it also offers more thought provoking issues hidden under the surface, for those who wish to dwell on it. If it wasn't for the hidden layers, as I've already said, I would not have been able to recommend it as easily, as this is a very bizarre and difficult subject. But as it stands now, those with an open mind, and especially those with an appreciation of dark humor, should check out Teeth. Everyone else, should probably stay away.

3 out of 5

Day 011 || Humpday

Humpday, 2009

Dir. Lynn Shelton

"You're not as Kerouac as you think you are, and I'm not as plain-picket white fence as you think I am."

Humpday asks a simple question, what if two straight men have sex on film for art? What would be the repercussions? What would be the emotional issues brought up? Humpday actually ends up asking a few questions, but never really answers a lot of them. It could be viewed wholly as philosophical movie, asking rhetorical questions to get you to think, and I guess, in that sense it succeeds. But part of me can't help but feel that it's a little lazy on the film's part to get into these issues and then cop out by not fully exploring them. They start to scratch the surface more towards the end, but there's nothing really here interesting on the characters part.

That could very well be because it doesn't feel like these characters are really well written or fleshed out, due to the constantly improved feeling of the film. The non-stop shaky, documentary camera style doesn't help in the least bit. The effect is that the viewer gets the feeling that this is in fact an art-house, college film project or something. A film with a clever idea, but has nothing else going for it to have it resonate or elevate itself above a some funny moments and a great on-screen chemistry between Mark Duplass and Joshua Leonard.

So far this review is probably coming off very negative, but for all the issues I've taken with the film, and I enjoyed watching it, and not once was I bored by the film. It just seems like a good starting step, something like an animatic or rough shot you would show to the studio before someone with a bigger vision and better editing/cinematography/soundtrack/script comes in and takes over.

Humpday is a great idea, and has so much promise for poignant characters, relationships but it never really goes anywhere and just flops around in mediocrity. It's disappointing, because unlike The Adventures of Sebastian Cole (recently reviewed) I can actually see the brilliant sparkle in this film, I can see what they were trying to achieve. And where as that film was a complete mess, Humpday sadly is just poorly executed. Given good talent in a few crucial areas Humpday could've been great. As it stands, I could only give a hesitant recommendation for the film.

2 out of 5

Day 010 || It Might Get Loud

It Might Get Loud, 2008
Dir. Davis Guggenheim

"What's going to happen? I'm predicting a fistfight."

It Might Get Loud is a film I've been meaning to see for awhile now, as it featured a get together of some of rock and roll's finest guitarists, James Page (Led Zeppelin, The Yardbirds), Jack White (The White Stripes, The Raconteurs) and The Edge (U2), and promise of deep discussion on the guitar and its impact on them.

Color me all hues of disappointed when I find out that none of them really have anything too interesting to say and the film plays out like a mixtape of Behind the Music moments. There are the occasional highlights brought up, such as the forming of U2 and straining to create a new song and the thin line between failure and success, and Jimmy Page recollecting of his formative years. But nothing here really resonates. I'm sure there are several guitar and musical puns I could use at this point, but I'm going to restrain.

But that's right, once these three finally converge, nothing happens. There's no spark, no connections made...there's nothing. Hell, they don't even talk to each other for most of this documentary. About 80% of the stories are told to a camera man when the three are on their own and separated.

The films amounts to little more than an altogether disappointing, tedious and strenuous film to watch. Unless you have a vested interest in any of these bands (and even then be wary, because I'm a die-hard U2 fan, and pretty keen on Jack White's work), or are a guitar purist you're likely to enjoy the musical performances but get lost in the ultimate point of this film. If a genuine point in this film does exist, I was hard pressed to find it through the disjointed and broken story segments.

2 out of 5

Day 009 || Up in the Air

Up in the Air, 2009
Dir. Jason Reitman

"Make no mistake, moving is living. Some animals were meant to carry each other to live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star crossed loves, monogamous swans. We are not swans...we are sharks."

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a businessman, whose business is letting people go. It's not an ideal job, but it is not only one he handles flawlessly, but one that allows him constant travel. Where one person might not appreciate the kind of life on display here, Ryan is a rogue who believes in not being tied down and connected, and travels with very light luggage (thematically, metaphorically and quite literally). His way of life is threatened when he meets two women, Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) a potential love interest and Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) who's a bright young start at his company who through the use of technology is making Ryan irrelevant.

The brilliance of Up in the Air, and there's a lot of it to go around, comes from the characters. Sure, there is a lot to be said for the thematic complexity and depth to the plot (if one actually tries to look for it, it tackles technology, human connections and several other rich and intriguing subjects, and quite exquisitely at that), but ultimately the biggest draw to this film is the characters. In the last few reviews I've written I have expressed how much I have loved certain characters, but with the exception of Amelie (which is even referenced in this film), I have not cared about them nearly as much as I do here. One of the best things you can say about a film is that it leaves you wanting more without feeling cheap, and I feel this has always been said and I hold it true, personally, when I watch movies. I wish Up in the Air could've kept going, I wanted to see what these characters were doing after the credits. I wanted to see how these relationships continue to evolve.

Yes, the characters are that fully realized and played. George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, and Anna Kendrick all deserve attention for their acting and character work here. If you've ever wondered to yourself what exactly good acting is, then do yourself a favor and watch Up in the Air.

I've touched upon the great script and characters, but the cinematography is also quite brilliant (it's easily the best shot/looking film Jason Reitman has put out [previously Juno and Thank You For Smoking]). There's a simplistic, sleek, and stylistic beauty to the way his shots are set up, and the plane-view interstitials were brilliant. The soundtrack too is a high note, and is something Jason Reitman has proven he has a knack for with all his films.

I honestly can't recommend Up in the Air enough. It's one of those movies that is just so good, I couldn't see why people wouldn't like it. It's funny, smart, sharply-written, and superbly acted. It has deserved all the attention it has received during the award season, and deserves even more, if you ask my humble opinion. As it stands Up in the Air might be my favorite Reitman film and quite possibly the best, but I think that's left decided for repeat viewings. Please go see Up in the Air!

5 out of 5

Day 008 || Thirst (Bakjwi)

Thist (Bakjwi), 2009
Dir. Chan-wook Park

"Your blood and mine are the same now. You're all I have."

It has been several years since I've felt anything for vampires in the media. I think the last time I actually enjoyed a vampire film would be the Blade series, and even then it was more of a goofy, comic-book thrill ride type of enjoyment, instead of an actual vampire tale. Now it seems the world is littered with stories and films about the subject, but none of them are doing vampires justice. Vampires aren't emotional stalkers, who spout love songs at teenage girls, which is entirely creepy and weird to think about as they are thousands upon thousands of years old. No, vampires are scary, predatory, and animalistic in the worst sense of the words. Earlier this year I found out about a film, Let The Right One In, which earned a great deal of my respect and actually made me pay attention to the vampire culture (I guess, that's what one would call it). It was a toned down, horror love story that wasn't dumbed down or marketed for the masses. It was honest, chilling, and effective. Everything a vampire film should be.

Enter Chan-wook Park. One of my favorite auteur directors, who helmed the amazing Vengeance trilogy (Sympathy for Mr. and Lady Vengeance, and Oldboy), which any fan of film will tell you is a must-see if you're able to enter a film with a completely open mind. And it is with an open mind I went into Thirst with, Park's Korean take on the vampire mythos.

Now, I usually delve deep into plot, but I think it's best to leave this one as vague as possible, because it keeps going new places constantly. Just when you think you have the film figured out and you think there's going to be a clear point or symbolism made obvious, it switches paths and heads down a new plot development, and a potentially new point. It makes for a sometimes uneven watching experience, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't parts in this film that I downright didn't care for, and borderline hated, such as a painfully on the head representation of the psychological manifestation of guilt the two main characters have over killing another character (and yes I'm being vague, for good reason). The scene shows the two having sex with the dead member literally between them. It's awkward and really takes you out of the film, as it could have probably went without being so bluntly stated that their was guilt between the two.

But taken as a whole this film is really, really good. It takes the mythos into a bold and fresh direction, and makes vampires dangerous and powerful again. These vampires aren't ones the audience will fall in love with, but maybe, just maybe, you'll find them sympathetic, at best. There are moments of brilliance on display here which easily make up for any of the rougher moments in the film, such as the entire third act, which plays out like American Psycho meets Interview With the Vampire. It's tragic, fun, hyper-stylistic, tragic, and moving...and it comes together to make one of the best final acts in any film I've seen in a long time.

I highly recommend this film if you have an open-mind and are willing to put up with some off pacing and some bizarre missteps, because it is well worth a watch, and might even demand repeat viewings. I for one can not wait to rewatch this film.

4 out of 5

Day 007 || Adventures of Sebastian Cole

The Adventures of Sebastian Cole, 1998
Dir. Tod Williams

"First I have to live a little so I have something to write about."

This is a first on several occasions. This is the first movie I'll be reviewing that wasn't made within the last decade...it's the first movie I've been completely unfamiliar with before viewing it...and sadly, it's the first film I haven't enjoyed, which is going to make this review tougher.

The Adventures of Sebastian Cole is about a boy named Sebastian (Adrian Grenier) who fancies himself becoming a writer at some point, given he actually puts effort into it. This movie is presumably the years where he gets his material for writing, the adventure years, hence the title and the previous quote. In it we experience the very typical coming of age stories and warnings of loves, drugs, and sex...changes. Yeah, there's a slight twist here that is very interesting, and that is that Sebastian's step dad (Clark Gregg) very early on makes a rough decision to get a sex-change that has a huge impact on Sebastian's family and his relationship with his step-dad.

Clark Gregg plays Hank/Henrietta, Sebastian's step-father and is very good in the part, very believable without being over the top, which is a route this film could've taken rather easily. Thankfully they didn't. Adrien Grenier, who I'm only familiar with from Entourage, is also very good in his part as Sebastian, and together, he and Gregg have a great relationship on screen. It's always quite engaging to watch these guys (?) relationship as it develops and is genuinely heartbreaking at times.

And that's the best of what this film has to offer. Unfortunately, it brings with it some mediocre camera work, direction, and cinematography. It's not bad, but it's a far cry from being good, or memorable in the slightest. The characters are also thinly written, and it's clear from the get go how most of the arcs will pan out. The only truly fascinating character through and through is Clark Gregg's Hank/Henrietta. I've already said Grenier did well acting-wise, but the character of Sebastian is not only not engaging, but is completely unlikeable. I don't honestly see why anyone in the audience would route for his character in anything he does. He mopes, whines, cheats, lies, and lacks any aspirations other than to be a complete slacker. It'd be different if he was maybe a side-character or comic relief, but to have him as the main focus and to be asked to take the character seriously? Come on.

And I don't really hold it against this film, but I just want to say...pick a different song in all these films, Hollywood! No more "Where Is My Mind" by the Pixies, we all know it's a good song, stop using it in every other film!

I feel like I could just keep tearing more and more of this film apart, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. I just didn't really care for it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Adventures of Sebastian Cole isn't a bad or boring film, it's just not a very good or engaging one either. It's very uneven and the script could've used quite a bit of work. I guess the point of the film is to be a loose sort of look at the life of a writer before he made it, and it worked...if that writer put out pieces of fiction that I wouldn't want to read.

2 out of 5

Day 006 || State and Main

State and Main, 2000
Dir. David Mamet

"Everybody makes their own fun. If you don't make it yourself, then it isn't fun. It's entertainment."

If that quote, taken from one of the characters in State and Main, then this film isn't fun. It's just really, really well done entertainment.

State and Main is one of the several tongue-in-cheek films that Hollywood puts out, which heavily criticizes and almost condemns itself. The story largely follows Joseph Turner White (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who is getting his script, The Old Mill, made into a motion picture. Everything is far from great however, as one problem after another pops up, such as the town they're shooting in does not have an Old Mill, and since the crew spent all of the budget, well...there's no mill for the move The Old Mill. How does one exactly shoot that? And with Hoffman's story arc, we are also introduced to a love interest in Rebecca Pidgeon, and eventually he'll have to make a choice over what's more important, Hollywood and fame, or the small town girl who understands him completely.

The other half of the story fares out slightly better, as it follows Walt Price (William H. Macy) an overloaded producer (I'm guessing that, because they don't ever fully address what he is), who has to juggle just as many problems, such as a leading actor (Alec Baldwin) who has made a hobby out of sleeping with underage girls, and a leading actress who takes issue with the nudity in the feature (Sarah Jessica Parker). If you haven't picked up on it by now, this is a very dark comedy, and a lot of the humor comes from some very touchy and dark subjects.

That said, I found it thoroughly hilarious and engaging, even despite some serious flaws. Alec Baldwin, who I usually love was kind of flat here. He did have a few good lines, but for the most part he seems to be channeling one of his brothers, probably Daniel Baldwin which was a poor choice. I also took severe issue with Rebecca Pidgeon's character, the love interest for Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character. She was fell even flatter than Alec Baldwin and her acting was on par with the delivery someone in a coma would give. She couldn't emote, and not once did I actually buy any of her character's motivations or choices, which makes the already unbelievably fast moving relationship with her and Hoffman even more ludicrous.

But aside from those two gripes, I really did enjoy the hell out of this film. It's charming, vulgar, entertaining, and hilarious, not an easy mix to pull off. If ever was there a point when I wanted to use a half point for the grading scale on a movie, it's with this one, and I think it'd be a perfect 3.5. Unfortunately I've decided long ago that things will get too complicated and messy if throw in halves, so since I genuinely enjoyed State and Main, despite some big reservations, I'm going to bump it upwards instead of knocking it down. I highly recommend State and Main, flaws and all.

4 out of 5

Day 005 || About a Boy

About a Boy, 2002
Dir. Chris and Paul Weitz

"In my opinion, all men are islands. And what's more, now's the time to be one. This is an island age."

About a Boy is in all actuality two stories that meet up somewhere in the middle and then rely on each other to resolve themselves. One story is about Will (Hugh Grant) an unlikeable, loner (and one whom likes it that way) who through chance ends up dating a single mother and starts believing them to be dating's single best kept secret. He starts going to SPAT meetings (Single Parents Alone Together) to hook up with single moms. And it's through SPAT (technically) that he meets Marcus (Nicholas Hoult), the focus of the other story. Marcus is a kid growing up in a single parent household, who seems all too eager to put others before himself. He's not popular, and is in fact one of the biggest outcasts in the school, so much so that other unpopular kids won't hang out with him for fear of being harassed. Will and Marcus eventually meet over a SPAT picnic and don't quite hit off. But you, the clever reader already know what is going to happen.

And that is one of my big issues with About a Boy, a film I was so convinced I was going to love before watching it. It's entirely predictable and not really moving, as everything here has been done before, and better. Maybe it's because I'm eight years behind the curve of the film, and it was more fresh in 2002, but watching it today I wasn't surprised, moved, or even really touched by the film in anyway.

Now, that's not to say it's a bad film, by any stretch of the imagination. I would easily recommend this film to someone in the mood for it, but it's not one of my favorites, and it's nowhere near as great as people make it out to be.

The acting is terrific all around. Hugh Grant is likable and charming, but I take issue with this because Will's not supposed to be a likable guy. He's a bastard in every aspect of the word, a misogynistic misanthrope. But with Grant, we never really see that. Even when we get towards the climax and Will and Marcus get into a fight and Will says some pretty unreasonable things to him, still he's pretty likable. This is in no way Hugh Grant's fault as he does give a very layered performance, and is quite good at that. He is simply just miscast here. Nicholas Hoult is incredible as Marcus giving one of those rare child performances that doesn't come off as too cutesy or unbelievable in anyway. The two play off each other quite well and when they're together on screen make for some of the best bits of the film. Toni Collette's here also in fine form (by which I mean acting-wise), and there's an extended cameo with Rachel Weisz who plays the obligatory love interest for Will.

I wish I enjoyed this film more, as I've heard nothing but good, if not great things about it. I think given a more memorable script, soundtrack, or cinematography this one might have aged better, but looking back it will be very hard for this one to stand out in the crowd and differentiate itself in any way. It's an efficient and entertaining film, but in all honesty, there's nothing more to it. Some great performances in an otherwise competent and wholly average film.

3 out of 5

Day 004 || The Blues Brothers

The Blues Brothers, 1980
Dir. John Landis

"We're on a mission from God."

I apologize in advance because this is going to most likely be one of my worst reviews. I'm sick as a dog (whatever that means), and as I type this now I am still experiencing some pretty awful fever chills. The good news is that I getting this over with early on into the project, because now every other review will never seem as bad.

The Blues Brothers is one of those cult films I've avoided most of my life, simply because I never had a strong desire to see it. After seeing a few trailers attached to other films I've bought or watched, I thought I had it all figured. I got the gimmick or joke, and thus didn't need to see it.

But the joke was on me because I fell in love with the iconic team that is the Blues Brothers, consisting of Joliet Jake Blues (John Belushi) and Elwood Blues (played by the always brilliant Dan Akroyd). The two go together greatly and play off of each other with dry deliveries that are very reminiscent of the Coen Brothers' sense of "humor" (if you can call it that). Before I continue, I'll also that I was pleasantly surprised by John Belushi who I've only seen in Animal House before this, but wasn't really a fan of. He was over the top and obnoxious in that film, but here he is much more toned down and was given a character with more depth.

If you're going to the Blues Brothers for depth though, you'll be out of luck because there isn't much to be found. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because it allows for some really great surreal moments, such as some terrific cameos from Ray Charles, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, John Candy and Steven Spielberg. Though sometimes the movie veers a tad too bit into straight up absurdity, such as Carrie Fisher playing Jake's scorned lover, seen wielding ridiculous weapons such as rocket launchers and flamethrowers.

But for all the absurd, there is a brilliance to the musical bits, and the bond between the brothers that is always engaging and had me smiling (through coughing) throughout the film. Unlike Animal House, a film which I had so many reservations with and felt didn't hold up over time, The Blues Brothers is a great film that has aged pretty well, and is one that deserves its cult status. I would easily recommend The Blues Brothers, and anyone who is fan of Akroyd, Belushi, or director John Landis, it seems like a no-brainer.

4 out of 5

Day 003 || Amelie (Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain)

Amelie "Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain", 2001
Dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet

"These are hard times for dreamers."

Ryan Demarest is a film enthusiast. He likes foreign films. Quirky, off-beat comedies. Bread. He doesn't like popcorn. Formulaic plots nor characters. Ashton Kutcher. And popcorn.

He also happened to absolutely adore Amelie (alliteration?). For years I've missed out on this film, largely due to a mix-up on my part. Whenever brought up in conversation, I always assumed Amelie was the [equally great film] Chocolat, for some reason. So when asked what I thought of Amelie, I would give them my opinions on how great of a villian Alfred Molina was, and what a great lead Juliette Binoche made or even what an odd pirate Johnny Depp made (oh, the irony, right?). Imagine my surprise when I found out Amelie and Chocolat were actually two different films.

The better surprise was finding out just how wonderfully crafted Amelie was. It's a simple love story, told in an elegant, cute, and very engaging way. Amelie is the story of, well, Amelie (Audrey Tautou), an introverted woman who after a happenstance accident decides to help those around her in secret. Much like a French, cute version of Robin Hood or Zorro, the latter of which is actually heavily alluded to in the film. Along the way she meets her equal, someone just as odd, interesting and endearing to her. To say anything else would ruin the mystery of this film.

Now, I will admit, I am a sucker for slightly left of the mainstream films, and anything that even attempts to try to do anything new or inventive wins points in my book. But I'm just being easy or favoring Amelie for being different. Amelie is a beautifully shot and fully realized love story, that not only focuses on the often covered theme of love, but it touches on the human spirit. Amelie connects on such a deep level that it is hard to imagine anyone not walking away touched from this film in some way. The characters on display here are all richly imagined and given their own histories that are only hinted at, but still provide more depth than most films allow. Maybe even more touching than the budding romance between Amelie and her mystery soulmate, Nino (Mathieu Kassovitz), is the relationship between Amelie and her neighbor, also an introvert but for very different reasons.

Amelie is such a hard film to write about for the simple fact that I would love to tell you everything I loved about the film, but it would be ruining so many great moments that are best seen and experienced for yourselves. Now, I guess I would be lying if I said I didn't have a few nitpicks, as I think it could've been trimmed ten minutes or so and been more effective and efficient. Likewise my absolutely least favorite movie plot device shows up, which is a misunderstanding between a couple that causes heartbreak for someone, but it's so quickly done that I definitely did not mind it as much here. Again, these are very minor nitpicks, and this film is pretty close to perfection.

Amelie is a film that as soon as I was done watching it, I wanted to play it over again to take in the world and the characters, as they are all wonderfully realized and engaging. I wanted the story to continue and see more adventures of Amelie, and I guess that's the mark of a true film...when it leaves you wanting more, but at the same time completely satisfied. I loved Amelie, and am looking forward to sitting down with it again in the future. I'm happy to say Amelie is going to get the first perfect score during this project. I can't recommend this film enough, please, go see it.

5 out of 5