Day 041 || Big Fan

Big Fan, 2009

Dir. Robert D. Siegel

Big Fan is the debut directorial effort from Robert D. Siegel, previously known for his scripts such as The Wrestler (co-writer) which was a character piece in a much similar way. The Wrestler is also a better film in just about every way. That's not to say Big Fan is necessarily a bad film, it's just one that has been done before, and one that had been done better at that.

Patton Oswalt plays the protagonist of the film who is portrayed in the first half of the film as a sympathetic sports fan, one whose fanatical obsession begs our pity and is relatable in a sense. We all have our hobbies and passions, and again, for the first half of the film I saw myself in the character. Then the film comes to a point where a big event happens, that has Oswalt's character having to make a really tough decision between the team he loves, the Giants, and doing the right thing. It's at this exact point in the film and forward that his character becomes borderline psychotic and frightening in his obsession. And it's at that point that the character becomes unrelatable and scary. The route he takes throws away any sympathies earned.

Sure, this make for a complicated character, but the huge problem with this is that he's extremely unlikable. One could make the argument that he's not supposed to be a likeable character, but when 90% of the film follows him to a tee, if he isn't likeable it quickly becomes a jarring, unpleasant and numbing trip. At the end of the film, instead of feeling relieved or saddened, as I would with most character arcs, I felt nothing. I felt nothing at all because I lost any emotional investment in this character at the end of the first act. It doesn't help that the second act, a transitional act in every sense, really drags.

But for all the negatives I have, this film does have a ton of potential. It's shot very well and the color palettes are interesting, if not purposefully handled here. The yellows, reds, and blues that dominate a monochrome scene are very indicative of the mood and atmosphere. And everyone gives a great performance, from Oswalt to Micheal Rappaport. It's an interesting and often times engaging film, but one that just doesn't manage to live up to the rave reviews surrounding it. Big Fan is an extremely average film which falters about as much as it succeeds, and it's all in part to an odd pace that permeates the film, and the strong lack of a likeable lead character.

2 out of 5

Day 040 || Legend

Legend, 1985

Dir. Ridley Scott

"The dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity."

Legend is one of those oft-regarded classic fantasy films from the 1980's, but happens to be one I have managed to miss for some reason or another. It's a fantasy epic that belongs right beside Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, and Dark Crystal, and if you're into any of those, I imagine you'll really dig on Legend.

Legend is the dark story of Princess Lili and Jack, who inadvertently give the opportunity to the Lord of Darkness to strike out against a mythical pair of unicorns who hold the power of daylight in their horns, so that the sun will never rise again and darkness can be eternal. Yeah...that long-winded summary isn't exaggerated, nor is it simplifying the story. It's a really bizarre concept, and one that's altogether base and over-the-top. But in fairness, most all fantasy movies are, so I can't really fault Legend for that.

What I will fault Legend for, is a drab and boring script and uninteresting characters that do not do justice to the beautifully crafted world surrounding them. The exception being the Lord of Darkness himself, whose motivations may be simple and uninspired, but Tim Curry's acting along with some really great character design pushes his character forward as one of the most interesting and engaging parts of the film. Sadly he's placed far too late in the film and we don't get to spend too much time with him before the film ultimately comes to it's end.

As I mentioned before the cinematography is gorgeous and often times stunning and breath-taking. Scott uses beautiful and dazzling color palettes to create such an incredibly rich and varied world, not only with the environments but with characters designs as well. The scene where Princess Lili is seduced into the darkness is as beautifully realized as it is strange and enigmatic, which is a compliment in every sense of the term.

But all of this design was wasted on such a hollow and uninvolving love story, one that fails to hold any emotional depth or complexity. Again, some people may eat this type of film up, but there's nothing substantial here outside of the sheer aesthetics of the film. The acting is competent, with the exception of Curry (who is exceptional), but the story is so mundane that it becomes numbing. Legend left me wishing Ridley Scott would revisit it now, seeing that he is capable of making both a gorgeous film, and now imbues them with rich and deep characters and lasting stories. As it stands Legend is a wholly competent film, and often times reaching moments of brilliance, but it's largely hollow and won't resonate with time. It's not a film I'd revisit, but one that, for the most part, I enjoyed watching, and would recommend sheerly for the visual concepts at play.

At least it was better than Labyrinth. Sorry David Bowie.

3 out of 5

Day 039 || Magnolia

Magnolia, 1999

Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

"And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And as the book says 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us'."

Magnolia is one of Paul Thomas Anderson's films that I have been meaning to see for awhile. Anderson's style and wit that he brings to all of his films makes it clear as to why he is heralded as one of the most important and greatest modern directors. His works easily compare to Wes Anderson's, Quentin Tarantino's and The Coen Brothers'. But with that level of genius and by non-conforming to the norm, Anderson's films are just as divisive as those aforementioned directors.

Magnolia might be one of Anderson's divisive films yet.

Magnolia tells several stories of seemingly unrelated characters and then slowly starts to pull all of them together in a cohesive way that mirrors several other films of the type, such as Crash or Love Actually. But whereas those two films took on racism and love, respectively, Magnolia aims it's sights seemingly on reconciliation and forgiveness. With loss and coping with loss. To say Magnolia was a happy and uplifting film would pretty much be a lie. It ends on a sweet, and heartwarming note, but most of the three-hour running time is filled with broken and damaged characters who have lost a great deal of who they are, be it to their own devices or because something was taken from them. Anderson paints a tragic portrait for all these characters, and he does it so masterfully.

To give all the credit to Anderson would be foolish, because without great actors, these characters wouldn't be brought to life so richly. William H. Macy, Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Riley, Phillip Baker Hall, and Melora Walters round out an impressive and astonishing cast, who make all the characters stand out. In any other film, giving the same amount of characters an equal amount of screen time might wash out or dilute the relevance and importance of a few of the characters, but here they all shine (for the most part) in their own ways. I say for the most part, because it might just be me, but I felt that Tom Cruise towards the end of his character arc, and Julianne Moore (to a much lesser extent), were over-the-top in their key emotional scenes...so much so that it almost became laughable. This is a very small complaint as they never reach the levels of absurd (and too over-the-top) acting that Daniel Day Lewis reached in There Will Be Blood. And aside those few scenes, they do superbly.

Another complaint was that the film feels largely unedited. I'm not sure if trimming off bits of the running time would necessarily be great for the film, as the reason why Magnolia works so well is because of the characters, and if you start cutting the film, you start cutting away at the characters. It seems like Anderson was in a rock and a hard place because the film definitely feels long, and it is, but I couldn't see places where I would trim it down either.

Overall, Magnolia was a great and emotional experience, one that will leave the audience touched, or completely confused and dumbfounded. In fact, there's a scene where frogs literally start raining from the sky, without any explanation at any point in the film. It's just a strange thing happening seemingly randomly that ties all of these characters together, and if that sounds too bizarre or strange for your tastes, you should probably avoid this film. For the more open-minded and curious though, I'm positive Magnolia will satisfy and deliver. It's definitely a film that the more I reflect and think about, the more I love and dig on it. I plan on watching this again soon, and showing more people, and I hope that with each viewing I appreciate it more and more.

5 out of 5

Day 038 || Attack Girls Swim Team vs. The Undead

Attack Girls Swim Team vs the Undead, 2007
Dir. Koji Kawano

"Let's begin with apples!"

I debated long and hard whether to write up an actual review for this film, or if for comedic effect (and to be quite to the point) simply write "F*** this movie", and have that serve as the review. For better or worse, I ended up deciding I might as well write up a review for what may be one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Attack Girls Swim Team vs the Undead was something I came across after watch The Machine Girl, which was a dumb, but entirely fun and entertaining Japanese homage to the grindhouse film. It embodied everything the grindhouse film stood for. So being as entertained as I was with The Machine Girl, I looked for more Japanese grindhouse features, and this one seemed to be something the community wholly recommended so I added it to my queue. And come on, all recommendations aside, that name screams dumb fun.

I was wrong.

Instead of a gory, thrillride, I was treated to the Japanese equivalent of a bad Troma film. The first time I noticed something was off was about ten minutes in and it seemed like the director had an eye for shots focused on women's butts or upskirt, panty shots. A little pervy, sure, but forgivable if it's fun and the horror stuff is played up well. Well, it never quite gets fun, and the horror elements are on par with a film made for a school project. Along with the script (if there even was one), and the acting. It's definitely a feat when even through subtitles and a language barrier you can tell the acting is really dreadful.

And going back to the pervy butt and panty shots, at several points I had to fast forward through overly long sex scenes. Often while watching this "film", I wondered if I accidentally came across a Japanese porno, because Attack Girls just reeks of the non-existent budget I imagine a porno flick would contain. And while it's never too graphic or sexually explicit (thank god), it does resemble something softcore and consistently awkward.

Attack Girls Swim Team vs the Undead sounded like it could've been a lot of fun, much in the vein of The Machine Girl, but it ends up being something akin to a reject Troma film...which means no plot, no acting, no budget, but plenty of T&A. If that sounds like it's up your alley, you might enjoy it, because apparently a ton of people do enjoy this as a guilty pleasure. I absolutely hated it, and if it wasn't for the rules established when I started this AFAD project, I would've turned it off at several places. This film actually makes me rethink giving Ong Bak 2 a 0 out of 5, because at least that could be considered somewhat artistic in comparison. To say Attack Girls is one of the worst films I've ever seen, is not hyperbole. It embodies everything a film isn't, and why it's popular in the least bit I will never understand. Avoid this film like the plague it is.

0 out of 5

Day 037 || The Time Traveler's Wife

The Time Traveler's Wife, 2009
Dir. Robert Schwentke

"I wouldn't change one second of our life together."

The Time Traveler's Wife is about a man, Henry (Eric Bana), whose born with a genetic disorder that sends him jumping through time without a moment's notice. While the condition sounds like it could be fun, it's not. He doesn't get the luxury of controlling where or when he jumps to, and every time he jumps to a different time and place, he ends up naked and defenseless. In a chicken and the egg type of scenario, Henry meets Claire Abshire (Rachel McAdams), or she meets him, it's never really clear how it starts...one of the great what-ifs of the time travel film often ponders. But meeting each other, they know they were meant to be together, and a troubled romance begins.

The Time Traveler's Wife should have been a movie I loved. I'm both really fascinated with time travel tales (see my obsession with Lost and several great films like Timecrimes) and I love cheesy and sappy romance films...I don't know why, I just do. In fact, a film that mixed both of these elements before, The Lake House, ended up being a really enjoyable film, one that I occasionally revisit.

The Time Traveler's Wife, however, managed to disappoint with a borderline mopey and dull script. It's a script that manages to turn time travel into somewhat of a bore. The genetic disorder is a clever twist, and the script deserves credit for that, but all of the romance scenes and everything else just falls a little bit flat. There's not a single memorable line in this film, and that's because all of the dialogue is what you would find in a basic love story. There's no "You had me at hello," or the speech Harry gives Sally when he's telling her all the things he loves about her. This script is just very bland. Serviceable, but bland.

Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams do have a very good chemistry together, and the cinematography is often times incredibly gorgeous, but the weak script, dialogue, and characterizations make it hard to truly appreciate this film. As it stands, it's inventive at times, but an altogether tedious affair which had so much potential for a brilliant melding of two very different genres.

2 out of 5

Day 036 || Couples Retreat

Couples Retreat, 2009

Dir. Peter Billingsley

"It's like a little kid gets a puppy for the first time, just hugs it so much, snaps it's neck. It's puppy cradle death syndrome. All that love is gonna snap that neck."

Couples Retreat is a film that received a ton of hate when it was released and it seemed like it would be one of those comedies that really failed on all fronts, despite in incredibly likeable cast. Maybe I'm soft, or some other discerning factor, but I don't think Couples Retreat really deserved all the hate. It's not a great film, nor does it really add anything new to the comedy genre. It's just a solid little comedy, that sometimes divulges a bit too much into sappy and mishandled melodrama.

The best parts of the film are easily the actors, since the script is paper thin. Seeing Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau back together is always a welcomed treat. It's like visiting old friends again. And the daftly underused Faizon Love is great as well, as a tired, old man who's trying to keep up with his new twenty year old girlfriend. Jason Bateman is good, but it's sad to see his character so minimalistic and unlikeable. There's nothing really interesting or deep about any of these characters because all of their situations and problems ring hollow.

It's a shame because there's no real focus here. It's either sappy melodrama or light and breezy comedy. The film never really finds its equilibrium and we're treated to two very different tones that sometimes synch up, but for the most part feels uneven. Couples Retreat would've benefited from picking one tone or direction and sticking with it. Either give us a light-heated comedy, or dig deeper into the characters and give us a better written script that actually tries to say something.

Couples Retreat is a quasi-dramedy much in the vein of The Break Up, but whereas that film had rich characters and the balls to actually try to make a point, Couples Retreat is an efficient and often funny comedy, that is altogether thoughtless and has nothing really interesting to say on the subject of marriage or the problems that arise within marriages. Fans of the actors will be happy to just spend time with the enjoyable cast, but everyone else might be a little disappointed to the lack of real substance. Recommended for a diversion, just don't expect anything life-changing.

3 out of 5

Day 035 || Transamerica

Transamerica, 2005

Dir. Duncan Tucker

"Hormones are hormones. Yours and mine just happen to come in purple little pills."

Transamerica is the story of a pre-op transexual, Steve or Bree, who a week before having the "big" surgery (I'm not sure what it's called, pardon the ignorance) finds out she allegedly has a son from her college years. And on top of that, Bree won't get consent for said surgery unless she meets and interacts with her son, in order to close off loose ends.

On the whole, it's a road trip film, except with a twist. It's Road House meets the Adventures of Sebastian Cole. Which probably isn't a winning endorsement, and that's because it's not necessarily a good thing. The elements that I loved and hated in the Adventures of Sebastian Cole are all on display in Transamerica. The son (Kevin Zegers) is unlikeable, and I mean completely unlikeable. The only thing redeeming his character had going for him was his openness and willingness to accept the transgender/sexual community (seen during the party scene). Otherwise he's a foulmouthed, drug addicted loser, and why Bree ever warms up to him is mindboggling. I don't think that's Kevin Zegers fault, he did a fine job, it's mostly the script's fault.

On the other hand completely, Felicity Huffman as Bree, was wonderful. Her character may not have been superbly written, but she carries the film. What could have been a Lifetime Original Movie performance was given class and detail. Her mannerisms portray years of abuse and hurt, without her having to ever say anything. And not for a second did I ever look at her as a woman trying to play a man trying to be a woman (wrap your mind around that), she came across as Bree through and through. Any kudos or nominations Huffman received from Transamerica, she deserved in full.

However, the rest of the movie is a mess. The story and production values mirror that of the aforementioned Lifetime Original Movie. The scenes are set up so drably and without any interest or style...which could be an argument that through doing this the director let's us focus on the characters and the story, but the only character worth paying attention to is Bree. The film feels and looks cheap, and it seems the only one who brought enthusiasm to the film was Felicity Huffman.

And the story is a muddled mess. It never really knows what to say or how to say it. It tries really hard to not be an "issue" film, but manages to hit all the notes an "issue" film would hit. Everything's left entirely open and ambiguous with most of the characters, to the point that there's no lasting effect, or nothing interesting said or hinted at. Even the end of the film is a copout, where Duncan Tucker pulls out ending things on a smaller happy note, wanting us to believe things are fine and dandy...but they aren't. Nothing's resolved in the film or even hinted at being resolved. It all just seems hollow and thinly handled. Through the all of the clunky melodrama, there's no meaning or message and that's the biggest problem I had with Transamerica. It's not a bad film, but it's not a good film in any sense of the imagination. Huffman shines as the lead, but everything else pales in comparison and looks all the more mediocre in comparison.

2 out of 5

Day 034 || Cidade de Deus (City of God)

Cidade de Deus (City of God), 2002
Dir. Fernandes Meirelles

"It was like a message from God, 'Honesty doesn't pay, sucker!'"

Cidade de Deus, or City of God as it will be referred to from here in, is the story of Rocket, a poor kid stuck in the slums Rio de Janiero. Rocket has a passion for photography which plays a pretty integral part of the story as he gets wrapped up in two rival gangs, one lead by Li'l Zee and the other by Knockout Ned. It's not an easy film to summarize because it's not focused enough to be given a black and white one sentence summary. Maybe not even a paragraph.

And in all honesty it's that lack of black and white that is the film's biggest asset. None of these characters are cliched or paper thin. They all have depth and character, and you never know who exactly to root for. There's a clear protagonist, the aforementioned Rocket who grounds the film, but he's not as clean or upright as you would expect. Being a part of the area he comes from influences decisions he makes here, and not all of them are morally sound. This makes his character not only fascinating, but ultimately human.

Not to mention the antagonists, Knockout Ned and Li'l Zee constantly cross the line between being likeable and altogether despicable, in much the same way someone like Tarantino would treat his characters. These are bad guys, through and through, and what they're depicted doing is horrific at times, but being very human and well written and acted, these characters are sympathetic at times, and even (gasp) relatable.

I previously mentioned Quentin Tarantino's work in reference, and there's more than just a similar treatment of the characters at work here, but the style and cinematography is all reminiscent of Tarantino's. The quick cuts, interesting camera angels, and the sheer sheen of the film are all spectacular. For a film about such an awful and bleak subject, it's a beautiful looking film...something of a conundrum, but one that works in favor of the film.

If I have negatives, and there are some, it's that the film is largely unfocused. We spend too much time with too many characters that the driving narrative is sometimes lost amidst the chaos and spectacle. But then when it picks up again, the film is so spot on that it's easy to forgive the flaws. I would easily recommend this to anyone who can get past the grim subject matter, and believe me I don't use grim lightly. City of Men is an interesting film that tries to tackle a serious socioeconomic problem in an interesting and engaging way. It's a film that's earned all the praise it has received, but could easily turn some people off.

4 out of 5

Day 033 || The Great Escape

The Great Escape, 1963

Dir. John Sturges

"We have in effect put all our rotten eggs in one basket. And we intend to watch this basket carefully."

The Great Escape is a cult classic that I'm sure everyone has at least heard of by now. It's the story of a band of officers, all different cultures and nationalities, joining together to escape from a WWII, Nazi POW camp. It's a simple story, told really simply.

Everyone around me, and in the film community, seems to love this film unconditionally, but I must say that I was disappointed and mislead into the greatness of this film. Firstly, the story is about as basic as they get, which is all fine and dandy, because usually a basic story allows you to fully realize and develop your characters...this is sometimes the case in The Great Escape. Steve McQueen's character, in particular, is such a great lead, and has a chemistry with everyone on the screen. When people remember this movie, there's reason that McQueen is usually at the top of the list of why. His final stunt sequence, a motorcycle chase through the hills of Germany is enthralling and holds up really well. But what really makes his performance memorable are the small character touches granted to him throughout, such as the glove and baseball and his rowdy celebration of Independence Day.

I'd be remiss if I left out James Garner in the review, who also plays a fascinating character, another American, who has all the charisma that McQueen has...albeit in a slightly different way. He plays a pickpocket, or a scavenger, who steals the show, along with McQueen, whenever he's featured. His interaction with Verner, one of the guards, is great and offers some much needed comedy.

The rest of the film, however, is extremely average. Maybe it's because I'm just now watching it, a near fifty years after release, or it's due to legitimate concerns, but it's definitely one of the more overhyped films I've seen. It's not a bad film, just one that manages to hit all the notes adequately, without really ever excelling anywhere but in the two leads I've mentioned. For starters, any of the other characters in the film are extremely flat and one note. This film liberally uses movie cliches, such as a man who digs tunnels, suddenly announcing his fear of enclosed spaces. Never mentioned this in the 17 previous tunnels he dug, but now, for dramatic effect and "tense" scene it pops up. Which leads me to another argument is that the only time I was really tense or felt worried for the characters was in the last stretch of the film, where we follow the actually escape. Any of that tension or fear is largely absent in the camp scenes, because the camp in all honesty doesn't seem that bad. Sure it's drab, and monotonously brown (much like the color palette of the film, zinger!) but The Great Escape portrays Nazis as friendly and nicer than jail guards are portrayed nowadays.

So add in some really cliched character bits, a lack of tension, and not to mention an extremely bloated running time (this film could have easily been trimmed, especially in the camp scenes), and you have several enough flaws to argue against this film's classic status. But for all the flaws I really did enjoy the last hour or so, and loved James Garner and Steve McQueen. God knows how this film would've turned out if they weren't a part of the cast. It's a good film, but doesn't deserve a lot of the praise it gets, I much prefer other classic escape films (Escape From Alcatraz) or even other films from that time and genre (The Dirty Dozen). Fro those who haven't seen it, I wouldn't recommend it, but I wouldn't discourage you from watching it. My opinion is about as down the middle as one could be, but because of the two aforementioned performances, I'm leaning slightly more favorably.

3 out of 5

Day 032 || Fletch

Fletch, 1985
Dir. Michael Ritchie

"Can I borrow your towel for a second? My car just hit a water buffalo."

Fletch is an 80's comedy vehicle for the often hilarious, and daftly underutilized, Chevy Chase (well, nowadays anyways). It's the story of a newspaper writer, Irwin Fletcher, Fletch for short, who stumbles upon an odd plot involving drugs, the police, and rich, eccentric socialites. It's not necessarily one of the most original plots, but for it's time, the fast paced humor, and Chevy Chase's performance as the titular character are more than enough to make up for any short comings.

I'm not too familiar with Chevy Chase's film career, and I've really only seen him in the National Lampoon Vacation films. Otherwise I couldn't tell you a single film he was in. I figured I might start off my Chase education with one of his classics, and probably most memorable role, Fletch. After an awkward start, where we're thrown into one of Fletch's cases, the movie either found its legs, or I got into the groove of it all. And once in that groove, I had a blast watching Fletch's fast retorts and quick wits, all leading to some really classic quotes and one liners. Many of which could stand up to several of the great 80's comedies.

I really enjoyed Fletch, and I thought it was great fun. It was hilarious, tightly paced, and well written and acted. As it stands, it's probably my favorite Chevy Chase film, and now I'm eager to delve into his filmography to find more gems like this. I'm definitely looking forward to catching the sequels, because Fletch is one of those characters that is greater than the film he's in. He's iconic and it's a shame Fletch isn't as culturally relevant anymore, as it's a film that easily stands toe-to-toe with Ghostbusters, Stripes, Caddyshack, and is hands down superior in every way over Animal House.

4 out of 5