[Rec]

The trend in horror to film from the perspective of a camera, as if the scenes unfolding before us were, in fact, real, is one that can divide audiences as much as excessive gore. Cloverfield worked because the story was interesting and the monster was fascinating. Also, the camera work wasn't entirely too hectic and thus motion sickness and vomiting wasn't an issue. The Blair Witch Project is the most famous example (and one I haven't seen at the time of writing), yet Paranormal Activity, and the ridiculous amount of money it has raked in, certainly can be called the most successful. But while the aforementioned films can be deemed good or bad almost entirely upon the camera work and scare factor, I think none in the genre is better than [Rec].

[Rec] is a Spanish horror flick from the minds of Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza. The plot, and setting, is fairly simple. Angela Vidal is a reporter doing a fluff news piece on a team of firefighters when a call comes in. When they arrive at the apartment complex where the call came from, they find no fire, but instead distressed tenants. That's when everything goes awry and the firefighters, the news team, and the tenants are sealed in the apartment to contain a virus that turns people into zombie like crazies. Like the rage infected Brit's from 28 Days Later, but in a more contained area. It's not so much the plot that makes [Rec] so interesting, but the way it is presented. Balaguero and Plaza keep the audience's perspective strictly inside the news camera, so the scares come from what you don't see (or what jumps in your face). And while some of the scares are of the cheaper variety, there is a building sense of dread throughout the film that makes it a truly effective horror film.

The writing isn't much different from what you'd find in an average horror flick, but it certainly isn't worse. There is the set up, the screaming and yelling required of the characters, and the scary shit happening in between everything. But the acting, for the most part, works because the actors seem like real people trapped in an awful situation. Or maybe they are just unknown actors speaking a foreign language. Either way, the characters felt genuine, so feeling bad when everything came crashing down around them was easier than most horror movies allow. And, as is inherent in handheld cinema, characters are allowed to act "on," because there is a camera in their face. That gives a lot of leniency to the actors.

Not to sound too repetitive, but the real effectiveness of [Rec] comes from the camera work and directing style. Balaguero and Plaza have the audience at their mercy, letting them see what is in front of the camera and having them guess at what is just out of frame. A big death at the foot of the main stairway and the films climax are truly chilling scenes and prove how skillful the directors are at their craft. [Rec] is a horror film, and a scary one, that proves that some of the best thrillers are coming from outside the U.S. And you can be sure the American remakes won't nearly match the originals quality (which is true for [Rec]'s shot-for-shot remake Quarantine).

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Fantastic Mr. Fox

You've got to appreciate a year where two high-profile kids movies come out that test the limits of what we typically call a kids movie, even if that number is sadly low. Where the Wild Things Are was Spike Jonze's effort, and in my opinion, he knocked it out of the park. Wes Anderson, who has as much, if not more, indie cred than Jonze, takes his chances with the Roald Dahl adaptation Fantastic Mr. Fox. He, like Jonze, wants nothing to do with straight-up, conventional storytelling. So what do you get? A stop-motion, bright (in all of Fall's wonderful colors) motion picture starring a fox voiced by George Clooney.

Anderson is best known for his deadpan comedies, such as The Royal Tenenbaums or Rushmore, but tackling this Roald Dahl story shows he has more to him than oddball indies. Sure, Fantastic Mr. Fox feels like an indie film, looks like one, feels like one - and is certainly of the oddball variety - but it isn't what you'd typically expect from Anderson. Viewed as a kids film, this one may push the limits on conventions even more so than WTWTA did from earlier in the year. Anderson's script, penned with friend and writer/director Noah Baumbach, whose The Squid and the Whale is one of my favorite films, is filled with a twisted sense of humor that comes out mostly in the quick-witted dialogue. For example, the film doesn't shy away from cussing, but, as it is geared towards children, the film opts to use the word cuss, in all its many forms, as a substitute for any language parents wouldn't want their kid hearing. I may be quick to use the word genius, but that was one of the most memorable, and enjoyable, aspects of the film.

The visual work is also quite stunning, but not in the same way as WTWTA (sorry for the many comparisons, but these two films are some of the most exciting children's stories to hit the screen outside of Pixar). This is an animated film, and is a throwback to an animation style not often seen anymore, which is sad. As much as CG has changed the movie industry, and is necessary for many films, practical effects still, and rightly so, have a place in cinema. To see the "imperfections," which would equate to the hairs on the characters moving or clothing getting crumpled, is almost magical. Not everyone will be a fan of this style of animation, but I challenge everyone to try and see past the unconventional (damn, there's that word again) nature and appreciate it as more an art form than anything.

All the voice work is perfectly matched, and by that I mean the actors fit their character. Clooney does a great job as Fox, Jason Schwartzman could only play Fox's son, and Bill Murry makes me wonder if Badger was written with him in mind. Obviously, it was. It's Anderson and Murry. Duh. With an animated film, voice work may be the most important detail. If the animation is good, but the voice actors don't seem to fit, then it almost renders the animation useless. Luckily, it all works out here.

In the end, Dahl's story, and dark sense of humor, isn't lost in translation (funny right? Bill Murry was in a movie titled that. Totally unintentional). Anderson respects the source material, and as a result, makes an enjoyable, funny, and gorgeous film to watch. Maybe this is a new trend in family films, which I am now dubbing those films that appeal to both the young and old crowd, where conventions can be tossed and real, interesting film making can replace it. I guess we have to wait and see.

Genre - Animated (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

Where The Wild Things Are

Where the Wild Things Are is a sad, yet beautiful, reminder of how children's stories should be told. These stories should be about childhood, about growing up and all the emotions that are experienced in those early years of life, so that children and adults alike can relate to them. Which may make them dark and depressing, goofy and silly, confusing and wondrous, exciting and quiet, happy and full of life. Stories for and about children have been told utilizing these, and other, emotions since time began, and films for children did the same until recently, when some of the emotional spark has been lost to generic, dull, and easy feature films.

But Where the Wild Things Are stands out from the assembly line films, the cookie cutter stories, or, in other words, the average stuff. Writer/Director Spike Jonze, along with his co-writer Dave Eggers, have created not only a beautiful film to look at, but also a magical film to experience. We don't need to get too corny, but the visuals in WTWTA are truly stunning. After Max, the young boy central to the story, runs away from home and travels to an island full of wonderful things, is when Jonze really shows off his stuff. The Wild Things themselves are gorgeous to look at, credit mostly due to the fact that each of them are real. And by real I mean full body suits, with actual tangibility, and not simply some CGI rendering of a creature (though, smartly, the faces were rendered digitally). Carol, KW, Alexander, Douglas, Judith, Ira, and the Bull all become actual characters because of it. The world they live in, with the stick huts, the enormous fort they construct with Max, the desert past the forest and the beach past the desert, all make it seem like it is a place that actually exists.

It must be said that the visuals aren't the only things driving WTWTA. The writing is where the really powerful stuff lies. Jonze, and Eggers especially, truly know how to convey human emotion, and do so with amazing, and occasionally frightening, results. The joy in Max, and in all his Wild Thing friends, is shared by the viewer. As an audience member, you can't help but connect with them on some level. But for as much joy, there is equal sadness. Max finds himself in tears a number of times, whether it's because he feels hurt or because he caused another it, but this is something most of the children in the audience should recognize in themselves, and the adults can remember of themselves. But it is fear that Jonze and Eggers really nail. I found myself frightened by the intensity of the Wild Things, especially by Carol. I don't know the last time I felt that by something made for and about children. Carol has real pain and anger, and it makes him scary, which we, as a society, have seemed to want to censor from children. It's as if we think they cannot handle it, as if they didn't see it every day in each other or on the streets or in their homes.

Where the Wild Things Are is an excellent film, one that some will criticize as being too slow, or too scary, or not fun enough. It's a shame though, because Jonze has crafted himself an amazing film, one I believe will stand proud for decades, right along side the book it was adapted from.

Genre - Fantasy (4)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Zombieland

Zombie movies, while occasionally overplayed, offer so many exciting opportunities to comment on so many aspects of human nature that despite wading through mostly garbage, it is worth filtering out the bad to find the real gems. Consumerism, teamwork, the evils of humanity, and racism are only some of the subjects a zombie film can comment on. For Zombieland, the focus is on family, and how important a family (real or created) can be, especially in trying times.

What may be most surprising about Zombieland, is that while the film is comedic in tone throughout, and inherently a zombie film - hence the title - the film features very little actual zombie action. Sure, there are a couple of great scenes, including a zombie-filled climax, and zombies do appear throughout, but they are certainly not more important than the characters. That is a rare find, considering the writing duo of Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick had to juggle keeping the film funny and giving horror fans enough of the gruesome stuff to keep them happy. But back to the characters themselves. In the newly formed "United States of Zombieland," nobody has names, only the towns where they once came from. It prevents everyone from getting too close to each other, so when they do end up biting it (he...he...ummm, sorry for that pun) nobody is too hurt. And thus we meet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). Only one character is given an actual name, which is fair because it is a cameo of someone starring as themselves, but I won't spoil who, because it is one of the best parts in the movie.

The film is well directed, and I give the man behind the camera, Ruben Fleischer, credit for adding a creative and inventive style to the picture. Zombieland is bright and glossy, but only in a way to heighten the tone of the film. There may be terrible things happening in the world, but fun can still be had. And the decision to continually display the rules Columbus lives by on the screen as they are relevant is a nice touch as well. When running from a zombie, Cardio is key. When taking down a zombie, make sure to put an extra bullet in the head as insurance, thus the Double Tap. Also, be sure to avoid any bathroom you don't know for damn sure is safe and secure. And, as Tallahassee teaches young Columbus, you must remember to "enjoy the little things," because that may be the most important rule of all.

I give credit to Zombieland for keeping me both entertained and laughing during the entire run of the film. The tone was consistent from start to finish, which I maintain is especially important in comedies. And the characters, while the focus of the film, were given only the slightest bit of back story, so that we, as an audience, have the opportunity to feel what is like to live in this nameless world, where the past is meaningless and the future, and day-to-day survival, is the only thing essential. Zombieland, in the end, is a zombie film that has enough to say about the importance of family that it isn't simply a throwaway film, something entertaining but ultimately worthless. No, there is something more to the movie, there is meaning and commentary, and because of that it will likely stand the test of time and be included in the list of zombie films the next generation must see.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

Soylent Green

There are many great arguments as to why remakes should be avoided, but there can be as many good reasons for remaking certain films. Sure, most remakes are of films that have reached a near classic status, begging the question as to why bother toying with it at all. But then you have a film like Soylent Green, a "classic" sci-fi tale featuring Charlton Heston. While I respected many aspects of this dystopic film, there are so many areas ripe for improvement, I think an updated version is almost necessary.

The story is limited by its insistence to follow a murder mystery plot that doesn't really matter. We have no need for it, as its only purpose is seemingly meant to lead to the uncovering of what the Soylent Green product is. That should be the mystery, but instead we are stuck with Heston's cop character interrogating people we don't really care for, and having a relationship with a prostitute that comes completely out of left field. And the film is disjointed, which I blame mostly on the terrible directing by Richard Fleischer. There are bits and pieces of a great story here, certain images, characters, ideas, but none of these are capitalized on, leaving audiences with an incomplete experience.

Sol (Edward G. Robinson), Heston's aging partner, is one of the better parts of the film. As a character, he is the heart, the one that keeps interest generated and the link to what we know we love, yet often take for granted. Then there is the dystopic vision of the future, where over-population and crowding has drained resources and space. How the government deals with the problems was captivating, yet we saw so little of this world. Finally, you have the signature twist ending, and an extremely famous one at that. Soylent Green, revealed to be (spoiler warning for the 36-year old movie) people, as a food product fed to the world, is iconic and shocking. The rest of the movie should be as shocking, the focus pinpointed on uncovering the secret and not some random guys death.

So, remake or not, Soylent Green was an interesting watch. Not only for its classic status, but for the promise this frightening world had to shock the audience into fear of what their very future held. It should not be dismissed, and hasn't, just because of its failures. There are more to films than simple "love it or leave it" critiques. Soylent Green has more to it than meets the eye.

Genre - Sci-Fi (2.5)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Inglourious Basterds

As if no time had passed, Quentin Tarantino is back. Occasionally a leap year, or even just half a decade, we as a humble movie going crowd are privileged enough to see Tarantino's latest. Inglourious Basterds, a film he has talked about making for many, many years, has finally arrived. And the verdict? Everything you want from Tarantino. Sure, his name may often be uttered with overestimation, or even disdain, but for me, the man knows how to make a damned entertaining flick. Inglourious Basterds is loosely based on an Italian war film from the late 70's, but is essentially it's own film. There are Nazis, American-Jews hunting Nazis, and a plan to end WWII. But like most Tarantino films, the plot may be the least important aspect. Trademark dialogue and wonderful acting usually are the marks of a great Tarantino film, and this one is no different. Christoph Waltz, as a Jew-hunting, Nazi officer, is probably the strongest and most interesting character in the film, though the likes of Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, and Melanie Laurent are certainly up there. Each have their own story to tell, and each one is equally interesting. Action may not be as high as expected, but when fighting does happen, it is usually bloody and in your face. But did you really expect a ton of action? I didn't think so. Either way, Inglourious Basterds is a 2.5 hour film that hardly feels like it, and is funny, dramatic, and disturbing all at the same time. That's all I need.

Genre - Drama (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

District 9

District 9 is a different breed of creature. Like the aliens showcased the film, District 9 is a movie that takes time getting used to. What kind of creature is it (action, comedy, drama), which is its real face (straightforward narrative or first person/faux-documentary)? In reality, it is a combination of all these, and the fact they are seamlessly stitched together makes the end product something fresh and new and exciting. So while the story itself is kind of thin, and typical storytelling techniques are used to tell it, the real power comes from the racial commentary the alien/human conflict generates. Some people love the aliens, while others hate them, wanting them segregated, even using racial slurs, like "prawns," to denigrate them. The first half of the film features a lot of these xenophobic relations, as the corporation, MNU, overseeing the aliens the last two decades decides to move them from Johannesburg to a facility some couple hundred kilometers away. But once our main "hero" becomes more deeply involved with the alien race, the action intensifies and some amazingly intense and raw footage is shown. The alien weapon technology is some of the coolest stuff you'll see on screen this year (decade?). It doesn't end where you expect it, but certainly where it should. District 9 is, for a lack of a better word, fun. And I mean ridiculously fun. Definitely one of the best of the summer. Blood, guts, and aliens. Is there anything better?

Genre - Sci-Fi (3.75)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

Halloween (2007)

It took a couple of years, but I finally decided to watch the remake of the horror classic Halloween, this one by Rob Zombie. Me and Zombie have a shaky history, and with the sequel fast approaching, it seemed like I should finally give it an actual shot. Could he do John Carpenter's original justice? Well, in short, no.

Problems: The backstory, for a couple of reasons. It shed too much light on a character who is more powerful and frightening when shrouded in mystery. Michael Myers is the embodiment of evil, and a tortured past just lessens this fundamental aspect of the killer. Plus, the backstory lasts far too long, which only hurts the second half of the film. By the time we meet Laurie Strode and her gang of soon-to-be-dead friends, we only spend a couple minutes with them before Michael comes storming in with that damned knife of his. No character development for the far too annoying characters. Too cap it all off, these time issues are even worse when the film runs too long, thus proving how mismanaged things were.

Successes(?): Zombie can shoot a decent looking film, that is for sure. There might not be any tension in the shots, but they look nice. And Zombie's casting choices can be especially great, especially with his Devil's Rejects friends (Ken Foree being the finest of them) and Malcolm McDowell. Maybe these better portions will be put to better use in the sequel. I'm hoping so at least.

Genre - Horror (2.5)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (2)
Directing (3)

Better Off Ted (Season 1)

Like some great shows before it, I was hesitant to watch Better Off Ted when commercials first began to air. The title was kind of dumb (still kind of is), the premise seemed 50/50 at best, and it appeared to be too sitcom-y for my taste. Yet, when the show was scheduled to hit the air, I was on the couch, ready. Good buzz, a solid looking cast, so why not try it? I would have skipped Arrested Development too, had I not got this strange pull from the commercials. I assumed I'd be let down, but tried it anyways, and thank god for that. Risk is sometimes the ingredient necessary to find really quality shows.

So Better Off Ted began and right from the get-go I was hooked. The writing was sharp and funny, each cast member handling their lines with just the right amount of over-the-top. I like all the characters, though scientists Phil and Lem are probably ranked just a little bit higher than most. But I return to the writing, which is probably the reason I love this show so much. The first seasons strongest episode is the fourth, titled "Racial Sensitivity," holds nothing back and goes for broke. I hadn't laughed that hard at a single episode of television since...well, probably since Arrested Development. There is nothing too strange for the show to handle, and that leaves an unlimited source for jokes. Plus, the fake Veridian Dynamics commercials they play near the beginning of every episode are awesome. Certainly, the show isn't perfect, but most episodes were solid if not brilliant. And because ABC decided to give the show a second season, there may be some (hopefully) positive changes that will lead to an even stronger season. The dysfunctional office comedy has seen success in recent years, with the likes of 30 Rock and the aptly titled The Office, and Better Off Ted has earned its place beside the two. If subsequent seasons are as strong as those other shows following seasons were, then the world is in for a treat. So now maybe more will watch and I won't have to see another great television series end too early.

Genre - Comedy (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

(500) Days Of Summer

Desire and reality are two forces that rarely seem to mix well. It's that whole oil and water thing. We want what we desire, believe it is attainable, yet in the end most will find only disappointing results. Which is sad, but made all the worse when you know from the beginning that what you want won't be what you get. And thus we delve into the little indie rom-com, (500) Days of Summer. Utilizing a time hopping narrative, we are told the story of a young man who falls in love with the girl of his dreams, Summer. In a traditional rom-com, there would be little doubt one could guess the outcome of the relationship without ever seeing the film, and the same would go for (500) Days of Summer if that damned narrator didn't shoot that idea out of the water in the first few minutes. And knowing the end doesn't ruin it, but forces the viewers to hope beyond reason that what they know to be true is false, which is kind of the point. I credit the writers, Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter, for using the disjointed narrative perfectly, getting both the good and the bad of the Tom/Summer relationship almost simultaneously. A couple of scenes are so great that you wish you could have watched a film entirely composed of like scenes. One is a dance number that goes on long and ends hilarious, pushing past cute and tiresome into funny. The other is shown in split screen, detailing what Tom, our main character, expects to happen at a party with Summer and what actually takes place. Again, desire and reality mixing to ill effect. But while the writing was solid, so was the acting. Zooey Deschanel plays her cute and funny and wonderfully weird role perfectly, making a great pairing for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He is an actor who picks his roles carefully, winding up in a diverse and solid group of pictures, which one might have scoffed at the idea back when they were watching him on 3rd Rock from the Sun. So while desire and reality might not mix, the creative forces behind (500) Days of Summer do, which may make the whole thing that much more powerful.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (3)