Rest in Peace, Jackie Treehorn. Ben Gazzara died today of pancreatic cancer.

2012 is starting out surprisingly strong, isn’t it? We look at the just-released Chronicle, and the notion of “found footage” movies in general, and then step back by a week and examine the reborn career of Liam Neeson, c/o The Grey.

To download this episode, use this URL: http://rowthree.com/audio/mamo/mamo239.mp3

I could not tell you what this film is about from this minimalist design, but could tell you the film has played a lot of festivals! Actually, the third film from Russian visual-stylist Andrei Zvyagintsev (Think the Russian version of Anton Corbijn) is a cause for celebration. While The Banishment didn’t light the festival circuit on fire (it was really solid – I liked it), the director’s debut, a meditation on manhood and fathers and sons, The Return, was one of the best films of 2003, period.

The internet these last few days has been abuzz with Super Bowl commercials. I don’t even need to watch the game this year. Usually I watch to see some of these fun ads and eat mini-wieners. These days I’ll just eat the mini-wieners as I’ve already seem all the good ones.

So in am effort to be more of a sheep than I already am and conform even further, how can I not post my favorite pre-Super Bowl ad right here on our movie site?

Now you might be thinking, “This is Andrew so he’s totally going to post the dogs barking out The Imperial March.” But you’d be wrong. And of course Old Spice has been a champ for the last couple of years. But remember, I’m a child of the 80s who dreamed of being a rock star. So ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, welcome to the carnival that is Mötley Crüe (and bronco rhinos, flaming face kicks, giant sandwiches and lumberjacks)…

[This is an ongoing series where Cinecast regular and antagonist (He is our "Q") Matt Gamble offers an immediate reaction to new movies coming to a theatre near you; they are cross-posted from his corner of the internet, Where The Long Tail Ends]  

I’m sure you’re quite aware of my fondness for comic books. I’ve been reading them, fairly faithfully, since the early 80′s and I don’t plan on stopping anytime soon. That being said, as I’ve aged I’ve drifted further and further from reading mainstream titles from Marvel and DC. Nothing against them, I’m a pretty die-hard fan of Vertigo, but I just don’t have much interest in most superhero titles these days, and Marvel and DC’s primary publications focus almost entirely on superheroes.

Nothing against superhero comics, I’m just a bit worn out after almost 30 years of reading them. They are still great when done well, but I simply don’t have the free time to wade through mediocrity, and unfortunately, in recent years too often mainstream superhero comics have been more concerned with just getting by then trying anything different or interesting.

Oddly enough, certain cinephiles are undergoing similar reservations when it comes to superhero movies. Sure they are one of the most popular sub-genres in recent memory, but man if critics don’t seem eager to crow about their downfall. Populism doesn’t pay the bills when you are a movie critic. Well, unless you are Peter Travers. That shill will rave about anything put in front of him.

Chronicle has had a pretty interesting marketing campaign to date, focusing on the idea of teenagers getting super powers and being unable to deal with the moral complications involved with them. It’s hardly a new idea, Rick Veitch produced probably the most seminal version on the concept with his Brat Pack comic back in 1992, but when it comes to film it certainly would appear to be a new idea, and one that has film snobs actually interested in a superhero film.

But the concept behind Chronicle is a hard task to pull off. Teenage melodrama can often appear frivolous and self-aggrandizing, making for a delicate balancing act in trying to woo audiences to invest in the characters emotional well-being. Toss in a fantastical element like super powers and you are left with a difficult balancing act often shunned by your standard superhero movie audience.

Leaving Chronicle I was left with mixed emotions on how well they pulled off this high wire act. The effects were solid, and while the first-person camera gimmick was hardly needed, it was passable at worst and offered some truly fantastic moments when it was at its best.

But as I rolled things over in my brain I tried to figure out why Chronicle never quite grabbed hold of me. The film did a remarkable job of toying with the audience on who would develop into the “super villain”, tempting each of the trio of main characters with gifts and character flaws that could lead to their fall from grace.

As for the boy who would inevitably become the antagonist, Chronicle offered up one of the better insights into the mind of madness and hatred I’ve seen in sometime on film. Lucas certainly provided far less for Anakin Skywalker in the total of his three films than Chronicle was able to pull of in just under eighty minutes. It’s rare for a villain to be given ample screen time to show how he became the monster, and Chronicle never lacked in effort or skill in doing so.

But in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, I struggled with truly identifying or sympathizing with the characters, and this was Chronicle’s fatal flaw. Its hard to root against the villain when he is the most interesting character, and the one who you’d most like to know more about, and most people don’t like the feeling of rotting for the mass murderer.

That being said, while I initially have a conflicted, if not ultimately a negative reaction to Chronicle, I can’t stress enough that I believe the film succeeded in its goals, often rather brilliantly. Chronicle capably challenges its audience and does its best to never pander, but at the same time struggles to truly engage the audience. Its an interesting film, and one I am eagerly hoping to revisit. Because challenging and interesting films always seem to age the best.

[Because The Innkeepers is graduating from Video On Demand to Theatrical Exhibition today, we revisit Kurt's Toronto After Dark Review. If you want to go further back in the archives, Jandy's review is here.]
 

There is a scene, perhaps midway through Ti West’s most recent film of spooky interiors and patient tracking-shots, where an underpaid employee struggles to get a bag of garbage in to the rear alley bin. It is as good of a touchstone for what he has been managed thus far with his career, going against the grain of mainstream horror trends (torture, found footage, etc.) by making more patient, measured films which rely exclusively on atmosphere and tension. Making a horror film in this day and age that eschews gimmickry and/or mounds of bad CGI (and worse dialogue) while actually getting it out into the marketplace is a herculean task in and of itself. Alas, for all the chatter (and wonderful key art) posted on the internet about The House of the Devil, the film is only a success within the select niche of genre aficionados. Notwithstanding some very minor issues with its digitally-flat (and rather abrupt) ending, it is one of the great horror pictures of the past 10 years. I have little reservation in calling it a master-work in terms of generating both tension and anticipation, which when you boil things down is damn near everything in the horror genre. Yet, suspense seems seems to be dying off with each new re-invention of horror-formula with only a few notable exceptions.

Back to the bag of garbage.

The employee is Claire and she is one of only two remaining staff serving a meagre three guests living at the The Yankee Pedlar Inn until the business shutters at the end of the week. The bag is leaking some sort of fluid as she drags it haltingly across the uneven cracked asphalt. She makes several Sisyphean attempts to heave the hulking sack into the bin whose lid seems close just a millisecond too soon. The whole scene plays out as a charming bit of physical comedy, a levity that rests purely on the comic timing and chummy vibe of Ms. Sara Paxton which, more than a bit, reminds me of Anna Faris’ endearing goofiness in Smiley Face. And so goes The Innkeepers, a haunted hotel story that trafficks in the gentle, snarky comedy of its pair of underpaid and unambitious wage-slaves before breaking out the Shining and the ghosties and turn-of-the-screw tension to become one of most effective horror films of 2011. One of the smartest, too. An early gag in the movie, which threatens to echo/resonate in the films final shot, is one hell of a deconstruction of the jump-scare and its often gross misuse in the genre. This is a good sign that West has his brain and his talent laser focused on the nature and the possibility of this type of filmmaking. The syntax similar to The House of the Devil, but the tone could not be more different. Gone is the late 70s early 80s setting, although it retains a feel of classic, vintage filmmaking that outside of a few laptop computers, and a latte bar across the street, could place the film anywhere in the 20th century. Horror and comedy are rarely mixed well, but resulting cocktail here is shaken and stirred. Hell, it is downright effervescent. The icing on the cake is that the ending here feels far more organic to the themes brought out in the storytelling than House of the Devil. In its own fashion The Innkeepers turns the rules of this sort of film inside out while still managing to follow them. It’s a neat trick, and a welcome one.

Sarah and her bespeckled co-worker Luke (Pat Healy) have a solid plan to wile away their final few days of employment. The boss has taken off to Florida and they have free reign to indulge in a little ghost-hunting in the nearly deserted Inn. Like most century-plus old hotels, there is a legend of a ghost associated with the old place and Luke is keen to get some audio or video for his personal website on the establishment. The website, like anything the characters do, is a fair bit of a lark; something done for amusement as a time-killer. The guests also provides a bit of a distraction. A divorcee with her kid and a litany of complaints, an old man staying there as much out of nostalgia for the place as anything else, are fodder for front desk banter, but an actress at the very tail end of her career (Kelly McGillis plays the part with delicious self-deprecation) is in town for a psychic/medium convention offers a bit more interaction. Is she there by cincidence, fate, serendipity? As Sarah and Luke unconsciously lean forward with their microphones into the stretching corridors of the inn – or slump down on their elbows in frustrated boredom at the front desk – a curious thing starts to happen. They might just have whipped themselves into a fervour of belief that the place is indeed haunted. The director refuses to tell. West never quite reveals whether or not anything supernatural occurs, and this is definitely to the films benefit. Some backstory on the the film reveals that when Ti West and his crew were shooting The House of the Devil, they lived in the Yankee Pedlar Inn, a quite real place in Torrington, Connecticut that provides the wonderful atmosphere, architecture and furnishings for The Innkeepers. It also turns out that a number of the crew, as well as the director, were experiencing more vivid than usual dreams while staying there; they were, after all, making a movie about evil and the supernatural at the time. West has said he does not believe in ghosts, but he also believes that this does not stop them from scaring the crap out of you when you are alone in a dark, empty room.

The first time I saw Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1966 film Blow-Up, I made the mistake of watching it as a simple narrative story and so by the end of it I was not only slightly confused but also a bit frustrated. It had a sudden, abrupt ending and some very odd scenes of shifting perspectives. For example:

1) Photographer Thomas (played by David Hemmings) is rolling around the floor with two young nubile models. As the expressions on the faces of the young women seem to alternate between happy and frightened, you become unsure whether they are participating in this willingly.

2) While at a club, Thomas witnesses the crowd fighting for the broken neck of a guitar which was thrown into the crowd by an angry Jeff Beck (while the rest of The Yardbirds – including Jimmy Page – keep playing). Thomas jumps into the fray, desperately grabs the guitar neck and dashes toward the door. The crowd follows him as if getting that broken piece of wood was the most important thing they’ve ever had to do. Thomas escapes to the street, looks over his prize, then tosses it to the ground and walks away.

I left the film with a frown on my face. But it stayed with me and it kept rolling around in my mind. What I came to realize was that those scenes only make sense if you look at them (and the entire movie) as showing different perceptions of reality depending on given contexts and points of view. So within that concert hall, the guitar neck is important – outside, not so much. Thomas thinks the young women are having a great time rolling around on the floor with him – the women, not so much.

This changing of one’s perception also goes for one of the best sections of the film. Thomas re-examines some photos he took in the park as he suspects they might help him unravel a mystery. He blows up a number of the pictures and scatters them on the wall. He looks from one to another, blows up some further portions and then, as he thinks he has put it together, we see a set of images from his photos in order:

It’s a terrific scene and it feels as if the narrative thrust of the film has just kicked in: will Thomas actually solve the mystery? In Thomas’ mind, he has now sequenced these photos to tell a story (not necessarily “the” story): a woman drags a man to the park as a setup for murder, notices the cameraman, becomes nervous and then approaches him. For the rest of the film, Thomas tries to follow up on his new found discovery and prove his story. If it all doesn’t quite go where you think it might or end with satisfying closure, consider again the main theme of the film – reality is what you make it within a given context.

Thomas has convinced himself that he has witnessed something. As he zooms his photos in closer and closer, we can see that everything becomes more and more blurry until, suddenly, we see a very clear picture of a hand holding a gun. But was it actually there or was that what Thomas wanted to see therefore making it much clearer in his mind then it really is on the piece of film? I was reminded of this scene recently while re-watching the fantastic Cafe De Flore and a scene right near its end which slowly zooms in on an old photograph. It’s supposed to immediately bring you back to another scene earlier in the film, but without that context it’s just a blur of black and white. So what does it actually show?

I admit I didn’t exactly “get” Blow-Up after my first viewing, but its many references to an individual’s reality being tied to their perception (e.g. the mimes playing tennis, the stoned woman, etc.) rattled in my brain for a few days and settled into what I felt was its common theme. It changed my view of the film completely.

At least that’s the way I see it.

On paper, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang ought to be a film I absolutely love. Film noir homage? Check. Twisty turny crime plot? Check. Self-aware meta narration? Check. Robert Downey Jr? Check. Yet when I first saw the film several years ago I remember being underwhelmed and every time I’ve thought of the film since it’s been with a sort of vague discontent. But a lot of people who generally like the same stuff as I do constantly praise it and think it’s brilliant. I couldn’t really remember enough about the film to identify what it was that left me cold, so I figured it was time for a rewatch – maybe I’d get it this time, or at least be able to pinpoint what about it didn’t work for me.

The initial premise is pretty great, with RDJ as a small-time crook who stumbles into an audition as he’s running away from the cops after a badly botched job (in which his partner got shot and killed). Unwittingly playing along, he winds impressing the casting directors and is carted off to Hollywood, where he’s assigned to shadow a real detective (Val Kilmer) as preparation for this role he might get. Even though the detective, nicknamed Gay Perry (“because he’s gay”), insists that real life detective work is boring and not like the movies, bodies soon start piling up, seemingly unrelated events turn out to be intertwined, and RDJ ends up right in the middle of all of it. Meanwhile, he offers almost continual narration of the most self-aware type; he comments on how things like this play out in the movies (“don’t you hate in movies when it seems like that one guy died, and then it turns out he didn’t and jt’s so fake”) or how bad a narrator he is (going back to tell a part of the story he neglected to tell earlier).

And this self-awareness is something I both love and dislike about the movie. As a whole, I liked the movie better this time than the first time, but still have difficulty outright loving it. On the one hand, its pop culture pomo self-awareness is something I find very clever and humorous – the dialogue and narration are both extremely witty, and most of the notes I took while watching ended up just being quotes. On the other hand, it completely overwhelms everything else about the movie, creating a superficial veneer that ultimately makes the movie fairly empty, even as an homage.

There are a lot of interesting things going on in the plot, but that’s part of the problem, too – there is way too much plot for something that takes such a breezy tone. The plot is convoluted and difficult to follow anyway, but probably not a lot more intricate than something like L.A. Confidential (which I also rewatched recently), but by privileging meta humor to such a degree, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang actually encourages you not to pay attention to the plot – until the last third of the movie suddenly throws a gazillion plot turns at you and expects you to care about something it hadn’t shown a whole lot of interest in until then. I don’t mind complicated plots at all, but this movie doesn’t need such a convoluted one; that’s not what it’s about, and even once it starts to become about that it doesn’t commit to it, constantly shifting back into superficial meta mode constantly.

The problem with everything I just said, of course, is that I easily forgive meta, self-referential genre homage movies ALL the time. I like pomo stuff, and fully understand that part of that is divorcing the signifier from the signified, cutting the reference loose from the referent. Sometimes I don’t mind at all when a movie uses pop culture referentiality that’s essentially meaningless, as I think it is here. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is pulling on film noir tropes, but it isn’t really a noir film in any real way. Actual noir is marked by NOT being self-aware; it isn’t even a genre people knew they were making at the time. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang never has a single moment where it doesn’t know exactly what it is, yet precisely because of that, it fails to be what it’s homaging.

Yet, is that necessarily a bad thing? There’s no rule that a film that uses existing tropes has to be true to any pre-conception of what those tropes should be. KKBB is clearly a comedy first (and it succeeds at that), and a noir film second, if at all. Maybe I’m asking the film to be something it doesn’t intend to be. And maybe the convoluted plot is actually a joke in itself, poking fun at films like The Big Sleep that leave plot threads hanging entirely in order to focus on other things (in that case, the chemistry between Bogart and Bacall). Yet I can’t shake the feeling that there’s a missed opportunity here to be more than just a fun, wittily written spoof. I can’t shake the sense of uneasy tension I have watching the movie, a tension that stems from the comedy and the suspense being unbalanced, as the movie tries to do and be too many things without a solid basis.

So I rewatched, and I reconsidered, and I did come away with a greater enjoyment of the superficial qualities of the film, but I still can’t bring myself to call it brilliant, as so many of my friends do. It isn’t brilliant. It’s fun. And that’s it. And maybe that’s okay. But it still leaves me at a 3.5 out of 5 rating.

Another glaring omission I can see if the motorcycle chase in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. What say you? Find anything particular smart in here or is there some big missed opportunities?

Over the course of film history, the motorcycle, be it a souped-up chopper or humble scooter, has become much more than a symbol of rebellion, sexual prowess, and freedom. Well, maybe the two-wheeled ride is still all of that. But, as you’ll see below, great motorcycle moments have appeared in movies other than so-called biker films.

10) Zed’s dead, baby!, Pulp Fiction (1994)
“It’s not a motorcycle, baby. It’s a chopper.” There’s nothing more stressful, after you’ve just escaped the dungeon of two sadists and narrowly avoided getting killed by the local crime boss, than trying to hurry up your wife so you both don’t miss a train. It’s enough to tear a couple apart and tears are inevitable. But a gentle word with a big hug goes a long way when two people love each other. Having a tricked out chopper ready to go doesn’t hurt either. No doubt these two will make that train. But what will they do with the chopper?

9) Buster Keaton’s motorcycle ride, Sherlock Jr. (1924)
Okay, so there are a few camera tricks here and there, but for most of this crazy montage, it’s just Buster Keaton riding, block after block, street after street, on the front handle bars of a policeman’s motorcycle with nobody in the driver’s seat. Keaton’s stunts prove that today’s CGI is for sissies. The final crash through the wall of the hideout probably put Keaton in the hospital. That said, it’s still incredibly funny. The soundtrack you hear in this clip is a new one created by The Clubfoot Orchestra.

8 ) Jimmy’s cliffside ride, Quadrophenia (1979)
This powerful film is loosely based on The Who’s classic rock opera Quadrophenia. Phil Daniels plays Jimmy, a teenaged Mod experiencing a serious personality crisis while gangs of Mods and Rockers mindlessly beat each other senseless on the beaches of Brighton. Fancy, Italian-made scooters are all the rage among Jimmy’s Mod brethren, and in the final stages of an emotional breakdown, Jimmy rides a particularly fancy one along the cliffs of Beachy Head. The clue as to whether or not he has sailed over the cliff with the scooter appears in the very beginning of the film, when we see Jimmy at sunset, turning and walking away from the edge of the very same cliff.

7) Every scene in which Marianne Faithfull rides a motorcycle, The Girl on a Motorcycle (1968)
“It’s only people who allow themselves to be treated as machines!” In this psychedelic French flick, Marianne Faithfull’s character leaves her newlywed husband, takes off on a Harley-Davidson dressed only in a leather jumpsuit, and goes on a reckless trip in search of love. The movie’s poster image of that suit’s half undone zipper may have inspired Erica Jong’s Fear of Flying. In 1968, with the women’s liberation movement just beginning to gather its momentum, Faithfull’s performance shows that there was definitely something in the air.

6) Steve McQueen motorcycle jump, The Great Escape (1963)
Steve McQueen’s character in the World War II prisoner-of-war drama The Great Escape spends most of the film causing headaches for and attempting to escape from his captors. In the final climatic break-out, McQueen nearly rides a motorcycle to freedom. The final pat he gives to the wrecked bike while hopelessly tangled in barbed wire is one of those gestures that made McQueen a star.

5) Che’s life-changing journey, The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)
January 4, 1952, a young medical student named Ernesto Guevara de la Serna hopped on a beat-up motorcycle with his buddy Alberto Granada and began an eight-month road trip through South America. This humble and unreliable mode of transportation brings Guevara, played in the film by Gael García Bernal, in close contact with poverty and suffering throughout a country he had yet to discover.

4) “Born to be Wild,” Easy Rider (1969)
The quintessential ’60s road movie. The film begins with Peter Fonda, dressed in stars and stripes, and Dennis Hopper, dressed in Native American fringe, hitting the road on two loud-as-hell choppers to find America. Both bikes were designed and built specifically for the film by chopper builders Cliff Vaughs and Ben Hardy, following ideas of Peter Fonda. Steppenwolf’s snarling, heavy metal anthem “Born to be Wild” is the soundtrack for this opening scene, and it will forever rock.

3) Bike crash, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985)
Like The Wild One, this too is the story of a rebel and his bike. The rebel in this case is a man-child named Pee-Wee Herman, played by comedian Paul Reubens. While on a road trip to recover his beloved stolen bicycle, Pee-Wee wanders into a biker bar — the private club for a gang called The Satan’s Helpers — and, after inadvertently knocking over all of the gangs’ motorcycles, saves his butt by dancing on the bar to the song “Tequila”. The bikers give Pee-Wee a motorcycle which he promptly crashes into a billboard.

2) Brando’s gang arrives, The Wild One (1953)
This film may seem dated and kind of tame, but Marlon Brando’s iconic performance as biker Johnny Strabler defined the visual image of the ’50s-era rebel, influencing fellow actor James Dean and even Elvis Presley in his look for the movie Jailhouse Rock. At the start of the film Brando, riding 1950 Triumph Thunderbird 6T, leads the Black Rebels Motorcycle Club into a small town to check out their motorcycle competition. Soon, all hell breaks loose. When someone asks the leather-jacketed Strabler what he’s rebelling against, he coolly responds, “Whad’ya got?”

1) Brothers on wheels, Rumble Fish (1983)
Based on the novel by S.E. Hinton, Francis Ford Coppola’s black-and-white film Rumble Fish stars a young Matt Dillon as gang leader Rusty James and an almost unrecognizable Mickey Rourke as his older, smarter, and weirder brother, The Motorcycle Boy. The motorcycle is a recurring symbol throughout the film, signifying violence, temporality, and transcendence. When, close to the tragic conclusion of the film, The Motorcycle Boy takes Rusty for an impromptu ride on a stolen bike through the dark, quiet streets of Tulsa, their mode of transportation solidifies their bond as blood brothers. Drummer Stewart Copelandof the rock band The Police composed the score.

Director: Léa Pool
Screenplay: Léa Pool, Patricia Kearns, Nancy Guerin
Producer: Ravida Din
MPAA Rating: G
Running time: 97 min.

As the closing credits rolled on Léa Pool’s excellent documentary Pink Ribbons, Inc., I was boiling with anger. I wasn’t angry with the corporations which use an ugly, deadly illness to grow their bottom line. I wasn’t even angry at the organizations that make it their directive to dispense millions of dollars for cancer research that has yet to yield any major breakthroughs. I was angry at myself that this “pinkwashing” (using cancer to sell goods and services) has been happening right in front of me, that I’ve seen it and even contributed to it and never considered the bigger questions. I blindly bought into the capitalist marketing machine that stands behind cancer research and never thought to make a stink about it because I, in some capacity, thought it great that companies were stepping up to the plate and helping the community at large by investing money and effort to try and save lives.

What a joke.

Based on Samantha King’s book which various sources note as being very academic in its approach to breast cancer philanthropy, Pool’s film takes a much more human and easily accessible approach to the subject. Questions on everything from where the money comes from to where it goes are addressed and Pool doesn’t shy away from the difficult questions. In some cases, we just don’t know the answers and it’s infuriating. How a disease that has been in the public eye since the 1940s with the Women’s Field Army for Cancer Control and for which various organizations have raised billions of dollars, still doesn’t have a cure… it’s staggering. There’s a good reason for this of course: money. It all comes down to money.

While major organizations like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation are out there organizing walks and raising money for breast cancer research and the eventual eradication of the disease, most of the funding doesn’t go to research on prevention but rather to treatment. Not to say that finding better treatments isn’t important but doesn’t it make more sense to look for prevention methods so that women don’t become sick to begin with? The problem is that much of the funding raised by Komen and other foundations like it, comes from big business and sometimes those same businesses are responsible for women getting sick to begin with.

Alongside the non-profits raising funds for a cure are the billion dollar pharmaceutical companies and their studies into treatments and medications to help suffering women. Co-founders of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month AstraZeneca, one of the big pharmaceutical firms, seems keen on keeping women happy and healthy but by the same token, they manufacture pesticides that have been directly linked to cancer. They’re not alone: food chains, car manufacturers, cosmetics companies – they make millions of dollars a year by pinkwashing when often, the items they sell are direct contributors to illness or contain harmful ingredients.

What’s most apparent, and disheartening, about Pink Ribbons, Inc. is not simply what is says about the search for a breast cancer cure but what it means for anyone, man or woman, suffering from any illness. Medical research has, in many cases, turned into a capitalist game where money is of utmost importance. Sure, there are individuals within big companies that truly believe in raising money for a cure to (fill in the blank) but their bosses, presidents and board members are only interested in fattening their wallets and a cure for breast cancer, or any other illness for that matter, simply isn’t profitable. They’re not in it to find a cure but, as Ellen Leopold so bluntly puts it, to medicate it.

Pink Ribbons, Inc. isn’t all encompassing but it touches on many of the important issues surrounding breast cancer research and the ongoing gong-show that is the search for a cure. This battle has been raging for over sixty years and at this rate, it will be another sixty before we have any clear answers. Someone needs to step up to the plate and put an end to the current state of affairs because throwing money at the problem isn’t producing any answers. In the meantime, see this documentary, share it with the people you love and the next time you encounter a pink product, consider the bigger picture before shelling our your hard earned money. You’re likely better off writing a cheque to the charity of your choice.

As always, please join the conversation by leaving your own thoughts in the comment section below and again, thanks for listening!

 
 
Full show notes are under the seats…

  show

  show

Cinecast (Andrew and Halfyard show)
After the Credits (Marina and Co.)
Mamo! (Matt and Matt)
ALL the RowThree Podcasts on one feed
All posts and discussions from RowThree

  show

IN-HOUSE BUSINESS:
– Jandy Stone Hardesty on The Demented Podcast
(L.A. Confidential and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)
– Homework assignments are back! (see show notes further down the page)
– Letterboxd.com
– - (Andrew’s profile)
– - (Kurt’s profile)
– - (Cinecast profile)

MAIN REVIEWS:
– The Grey

TOP 5 EXERCISES IN “MANLINESS”:

Andrew – Letterboxd link
10) Predator
9) Desperado
8 ) Braveheart
7) Saving Private Ryan
6) Jaws

5) Romancing the Stone
4) Bridge on the River Kwai
3) Shawshank Redemption
2) Fight Club
1) Bull Durham

Kurt – Letterboxd link
5) Predator
4) Glengarry Glen Ross
3) Heat
2) The Thing
1) Jaws & Master & Commander

THE WATCH LIST:

Andrew
– A Single Man

Kurt
– Ferat Vampire
– Atonement

HOMEWORK:
– email me with your favorite “jazzed” up” period piece. Listen to this episode for more details and examples.

OTHER STUFF MENTIONED:

NEXT WEEK:
A Separation
Star Wars: Episode I (3D)
Chronicle
Safe House
The Innkeepers
Kill List

PRIVATE COMMENTS or QUESTIONS?
Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, or email us:
feedback@rowthree.com (general)
andrew.james@rowthree.com
kurt@rowthree.com

FOLLOW US:
Andrew: Twitter, G+, Letterboxd
Kurt: Twitter, G+, Letterboxd
Matt: Twitter
RowThree: Twitter, G+, Letterboxd

Maybe it’s because it was thought that it wouldn’t pull in money at the box office due to Gibson’s slide in popularity or maybe it is just a sign of the times and the increase in home theater systems, but whatever the case, Mel Gibson’s latest R-rated action comedy Get the Gringo is coming straight to DirecTV before being released on Blu-ray, DVD, VOD and digital download. According to Reuters, DirecTV will premiere the film in HD on May 1, 2012 for $10.99. Get two friends together and you’ve easily saved the money it would cost to go to the theater – that, I’m guessing, will be the point that DirecTV will be trying to hit home in viewers.

The film was written by Gibson and his Apocalypto first assistant director Adrian Grunberg, who also helped write the screenplay. It’s an interesting move and the trailer (which you can watch below) looks like the film could go either way, but I tend to be a Gibson movie apologist, so I am sure I will check this out as soon as I can get it On Demand.

Chime in after watching the trailer below! What are you thoughts on the studio releasing the film in this manner?

I‘d immediately write this off as a piece of Direct-to-DVD trash (ala last years Tresspass), if it were not for Roger Donaldson at the helm. Like John Frankenheimer and Sidney Lumet before him, Donaldson (Thirteen Days, The Bank Job), tends to consistently make solid more-or-less-grounded genre efforts that stand above the usual array of hack-work polluting the action-thriller section. No he’s not quite as good as his similarly named (I often confuse the two!) contemporary Roger Mitchell (Changing Lanes, Enduring Love) but if you want yeoman’s work, Donaldson is your man.

Here a shaved headed Guy Pearce drops a Star-Chamber-esque service into the lap of every-man Nic Cage (as if!) following the maiming of his wife (January Jones) leaves her hospitalized (probably some irate X-men fan.) The faustian bargain: We’ll give you vigilante justice if you owe us an undisclosed favour down the road. Of course the favour down the road has Cage dodging the sliding rear wheels of a 6 tonne flatbed truck. Lots of intensely silly mayhem ensues. Seeking Justice looks to sit somewhere in the middle ground between modern vigilante fantasies; not as outright stupid as the similar Gerard Butler-vehicle, Law Abiding Citizen nor as talky or restrained as the Jodie Foster-vehicle The Brave One.

Of course, it will be worth watching this movie, when it drops into theatres March 16, just to get to this image:

Game of Thrones Season 2 kicks off on HBO on April 1st

Director: Daniel Monzón
Novel: Francisco Pérez Gandul
Screenplay: Jorge Guerricaechevarría, Daniel Monzón
Producers: Álvaro Augustín, Borja Pena, Emma Lustres Gómez, Juan Gordon
Starring: Carlos Bardem, Luis Tosar , Alberto Ammann, Marta Etura, Antonio Resines
Country of Origin: Spain
MPAA Rating: NR
Running time: 110 min.

Few films have the wherewithal to bring its audience into a pulse pounding situation in the opening minutes of a movie and then manage to keep that gripping intensity going full throttle throughout the entire running time of the picture without either going off the rails, so to speak, or becoming tedious or eye-rollingly obvious. Cell 211 has no problem with it and in fact, excels at it. Never once holding back any punches and keeping a relatively simple plot kicking and screaming with minor complications yet avoiding confusion while keeping the chaos is what makes Cell 211 one of the most excellently constructed action/thrillers I’ve seen in ages.

New prison guard Juan Oliver is starting his first day on the job just becoming acquainted with his co-workers and the basic procedures of working “on the inside” when a carefully constructed riot breaks loose and during the chaos renders Juan nearly unconscious. Unable to carry him and at first not realizing the extent of the turmoil the prison is about to fall under, the guards place Juan in an empty cell bed. Before they can figure out what to do next, they’re forced to flee the facility, leaving Juan behind as the prisoners quickly take over the compound. Juan is left to his own devices and cleverly convinces the prisoners he is one of them. Having now inadvertently become an undercover officer, he must remain undetected while gaining simultaneously gaining the trust of the prison population’s head figure, Malemadre. As more and more complications arise and clever plot turns unfold, this task is not as easy as it may at first appear and Juan is faced with several very unpleasant decisions.

The simplicity of the story is what works here. The plot practically writes itself, yet there is plenty of room for some twists and obstacles to make for far more compelling, and in some cases gut wrenching, material. While much of the film plays like a typical hostage negotiation story, the interesting dynamic among the inmates within the prison walls is what will keep the audience on its collective toes here and nothing ever comes off as contrived or obvious despite the simplicity and elements of stories we’ve seemingly seen a million times before.

There are some underlying political messages about the state of Spanish prisoners and if looked into hard enough the film has some things to say about the nature of people in general. Prisoners and guards: are they all that dissimilar when faced with unpredictable and underhanded circumstances? What about simple human interaction? Can the behavior of a person or a collective society be changed, molded or evolve with the simplest of changed circumstances or are some people just animalistic by nature? Sure it’s not a new question or one that hasn’t been asked many times before, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen it asked under this kind of compelling plot structure.

The duality between the two lead characters makes for great personality dissection. While the new guy would in real life likely be the proverbial “bitch” within these walls, he’s believably able to insinuate himself among the higher-ups within the inmate population. Because of his intellect and wit, he becomes essentially the right hand of the big man in charge. Neither of these performances are what one might consider excellent, but the intensity of the eyes and physical presence is what makes these men (on opposite sides of the law, but now both incarcerated) interesting to watch and play against each other. Mind games and physical one-upmanship interaction become almost a psychological nightmare for inmates and the theater audience alike. Are these two men playing each other or do they truly trust each other with their lives; and how does that dynamic evolve throughout the course of the film?

The outside forces bolster heavy challenges for our protagonist. If those on the inside find out who he is, they’ll torture and kill him. With access to phone lines and 24 hour available prying media outside the walls, keeping his identity a secret is not easy and gaining trust is small in comparison to keeping out the truth. With riots cropping up in other prisons around the country and Juan’s pregnant wife desperately trying to gather information, keeping the proverbial bomb from going off is the goal of some, while letting chaos reign is deep within the hearts of others.

Giving away too many details would of course spoil the action intensity on display here. But rest assured the opening sentence of this review is spot on. As I mentioned, the movie won’t hold anything back with its punches. There are moments of true brutality here and delves into scenarios of which nearly all Hollywood films would simply pull the plug on. This can make for some extremely heartfelt moments and others of pure, pumping adrenaline. With strong leads in an explosive situation that bounces effortlessly and believably from one brutal situation to the next, this is a movie that should have audience members riveted and excited throughout.

Cell 211 is available on DVD and Blu-ray on Tuesday, January 31st.

DVD Extras: None.

Tracking everything from the CIA’s involvement with the Italian elections to the slow fall of Communism power, Cold War provides insights into some of the most memorable moments of the cold war and the wins and losses on both sides. Everything from Russia’s lead in the space race to Nixon’s visit to Russia and the two leader’s fight over washing machines, these are the bits of history that we can now look upon with amused smirks but which marked some of the largest wins and losses of a war of ideologies fought with words and pictures.

Cold War covers a wide variety of material over four episodes but with less than an hour per episode and nearly 50 years of material to choose from, there’s also quite a bit of history that’s not even touched on. This is most definitely an introduction and George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC’s man of the hour and the go to guy for programming that appeals to a younger demographic, is the perfect choice of host for this particular series which acts as a crash course on the Cold War and a great introduction to a confrontation that lingered with the public for decades.

Using images and footage from the period with expert commentary and talking heads, the doc moves ahead from story to story with Stroumboulopoulos guiding the way. Occasionally peppered into the mix are effective but somewhat confusing voice-overs telling stories of individuals who were affected by whatever issue is being discussed at the time. What I couldn’t figure out is whether these accounts are fictionalized or taken from memoirs and the accents which seem put on don’t help matters any. It would have been nice to get some clarification on these as they appear frequently throughout the series and are never explained.

By fart he most interesting part of this release is the disc of supplements which features an amazing collection of material from the CBC archive along with other sources. Everything from original coverage of the Apollo 11 landing to the footage of the McCallum Family emerging from a fall out shelter after living there for a week. To cap it all off and my favourite part of the collection is the US Civil Defence’s “Duck and Cover” film from 1951.

Love Hate & Propaganda: The Cold War isn’t the be all end all of Cold War documentaries and compared to the original series feels a bit underdeveloped but as an introduction to a long running standoff rich with stories and history, it certainly provides an informative introduction. As a nice bonus to the DVD release, the CBC also has an extensive website for the series with additional material which enriches the viewer experience.

Love Hate & Propaganda: The Cold War is available on DVD on Tuesday, January 31st.

MPAA Rating: G
Running time: 516 min.

Director: Michael Brandt
Screenplay: Michael Brandt & Derek Haas
Producers: Patrick Aiello, Ashok Amritraj, Andrew Deane, Derek Haas
Starring: Richard Gere, Topher Grace, Stephen Moyer, Martin Sheen
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 92 min.

It doesn’t happen often but sometimes you can just tell that something’s been in the works for a while. That’s the case with The Double. The directorial debut of writer Michael Brandt who often works with Derek Haas, the film is based on a script that the duo had originally sold to MGM and which they re-acquired when the studio went under. The script had sat on some MGM shelf for 10 years before the duo rescued the rights and set off to make their film.

Set in the world of espionage and double agents, Richard Gere stars as Paul Shepherdson, a retired CIA operative brought back into the fold when Cassius, a Soviet assassin he chased around the world, re-appears after years of being inactive. As per usual with this sort of fare, Gere is partnered up with a book smart FBI agent who literally wrote the book on Cassius. Ben Geary (Topher Grace) is smart and determined and when he gets a little too close to revealing the truth, that Shepherdson is actually Cassius, he’s pushed off course and even threatened.

“OMG! You just revealed a key plot point!” It may look like this is the key element to the story but it’s revealed early on in the film not to mention the little fact that it’s in the trailer. This leads to The Double’s major problem. Once they give you that tidbit of information, what’s left to reveal? The information comes so early that it’s obvious that there is some other key point that they’re holding back and when it too is revealed, too late in the story to be of any importance, it’s dropped as passing nugget that doesn’t play into anything that’s come before; it’s a failed “Gotcha!” moment and a missed opportunity because the implications of what’s revealed would have made a much better premise for a movie.

Gere seems to be trying really hard and failing at finding his footing now that he’s getting too old (in Hollywood terms) for romantic lead material and though this is a valiant effort on his part, the script is weak and his skills a bit limited. For his part, Grace has yet to shine in a dramatic role and he doesn’t succeed here either.

Brandt makes a good effort of building suspense in The Double and keeping the action moving at a good pace but the story is halted early on by a mediocre script and it never manages to pick-up after the initial reveal. The energy drains from the screen with each new scene and the chase sequences feel like they’re shown in slow motion.

The one moment in the entire film that works is Shepherdson having dinner with Geary and his family. Sure, it’s a less effective rip-off of the dinner scene in Seven, but there’s a bit of heart and actual acting in that one scene, something is lacking through most of the film, and which is even more effective once the second secret is revealed.

Thought it tries hard to be an effective thriller, The Double doesn’t manage to deliver either in thrills or effective drama not to mention the Russian connection feels like it’s 20 years too late but I can’t help to feel particularly disappointed by the fact that Brandt and Haas didn’t see the missed opportunity with Geary’s character. Maybe in another ten year’s time Brandt will direct a sequel of sorts and we’ll get to see that story. I’d definitely give it a chance.

The Double is available on DVD and Blu-ray on Tuesday, January 31st.

Blu-Ray Extras: A behind the scenes featurette and a rather interesting feature commentary by Michael Brandt and Derek Haas.

I admit I’m biased (but I love this!):

Shooting the MGM Opening Logo:

Hey, if you’re gonna plagiarize someone, you could do a lot worse than Michael Douglas:

Potentially NSFW (mild):
show

DoubleStar Corp. Zombie-X AK with Chain Saw:

Fan of R.E.M.? Ingrid Michaelson Covers “Nightswimming” in her own unique way:

Some Pretty Awesome Graffiti:

Filming Godzilla:

Other fun links:
Oscar Nominated Film Posters (if they were honest)
Minimalist Heroes and Villains posters
Worst Stadium Seats in the World

A little obvious, maybe. But after a recent viewing of Joe Carnahan’s blunt, but highly entertaining, ‘Man vs. Nature’ (but really Man vs. himself with nature lighting the fire under his feet) horror picture, The Grey, my immediate thought was back to Spielberg’s early super-blockbuster, Jaws. This was not so much for the obvious comparison of being stuck somewhere fighting something that wants to eat you, but more in how the film processes manhood through a bunch of hands-on characters. Martin Brody (Roy Schieder), Quint (Robert Shaw) and Martin Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss, not pictured above) work as three representation of manhood – their analogues in The Grey would be Peter Henrik (Dermont Mulroney), Ottway (Liam Neeson) and John Diaz (Frank Grillo). Spielberg has a smoother sense of framing and setting up his characters, as the stakes are not as balls-out immediate in Jaws until the final act – and The Grey, outside of the oil-rig prologue, is pretty much only ‘the final act’ of Jaws. There are hundreds of great shots and moments in Jaws, that is what makes it one of the all time classic populist blockbusters, but at its heart, the film is simply guys standing around thinking about consequences and actions within the twentieth century masculine purview, and I kinda sort of like that.

If there is ever a preach-to-the-choir kind of comedy, it is this one. Bobcat Goldthwait has a bone to pick with manners in his country, and he is doing it with heavy artillery and hilarious satire. I caught God Bless America at TIFF where it premiered in the Midnight Madness sidebar (My TIFF-Review is here and on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 no less…) and the audience lapped it up, particularly the texting-in-the-cinema gag which is featured in this trailer. The road-trip rampage film may run out of gas in the final act, but if you were looking for a more ‘hands on’ (i.e. Falling Down) mixed with Bonnie and Clyde riff on Idiocracy, than look no futher; the best D-Fens is a good offence.

Soderbegh claims he’s retiring. Yeah right. Every time I turn around my IMDb smart phone app is alerting me to something new he’s working on. Haywire was something we heard about what seems like ages ago now and it’s finally here. Does it live up to the wait and the expectations? Matt Gamble takes another one in the nuts for the team with Red Tails and the latest Underworld picture; in 3D this time. Kurt’s children chime in for a couple of minutes on their thoughts on the 80′s animated series “Dungeons and Dragons.” After that technical snafu, we’ve got a helluva watch list this week rounds out the show with 80s, underrated goofery, catching up with some underseen gems from 2011, a love fest for Ti West’s latest, some Man for Earth discrepancies and a whole lot more.

As always, please join the conversation by leaving your own thoughts in the comment section below and again, thanks for listening!

 
 
Full show notes are under the seats…

  show

  show

Cinecast (Andrew and Halfyard show)
After the Credits (Marina and Co.)
Mamo! (Matt and Matt)
ALL the RowThree Podcasts on one feed
All posts and discussions from RowThree

  show

IN-HOUSE BUSINESS:
– New Site Design
– Spoiler Alert(!) Podcast – The Innkeepers

MAIN REVIEW:
– Haywire

OTHER REVIEWS:
– Red Tails
– Underworld: Awakening (3D)

THE WATCH LIST:

Kurt
– Certified Copy *SPOILERS*
– Moscow-Cassiopeia
– Adolescents in Space
– Radio Wars
– Spartan

Willem & Miranda
– “Dungeons & Dragons”

Matt
– The Other F Word
– The Innkeepers
– The Man from Earth

Andrew
– Clue
– The Women (1939)
– Senna

Other Stuff Mentioned:
Matt Brown’s Red Tails Review
Marina’s Man on a Ledge review

NEXT WEEK:
The Grey
Man on a Ledge

PRIVATE COMMENTS or QUESTIONS?
Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, or email us:
feedback@rowthree.com (general)
andrew.james@rowthree.com
kurt@rowthree.com

FOLLOW US:
Andrew: Twitter, G+
Kurt: Twitter, G+
Matt: Twitter
RowThree: Twitter, G+

No other classic cartoon director was as visually inventive as Tex Avery, who could come up with a visual pun for just about anything. He was also able to take a joke far past the point where most other directors would’ve left it and vary it just enough to keep it hilarious. After a brief stint at Warner Bros., where he contributed greatly to the development of Bugs Bunny in A Wild Hare, he ended up at MGM directing the Droopy cartoons as well as a bunch of toons starring the nearly forgotten Screwy Squirrel. And also the trio of modernized fairy tales that perhaps stand as his finest legacy – Swing Shift Cinderella, Little Rural Riding Hood, and the one that started it all it, Red Hot Riding Hood. From breaking the fourth wall by having the characters demand a new version of the story to the sexed up Riding Hood as a burlesque dancer to the depiction of the wolf as a Hollywood womanizer to the manhunting grandma, this is the risque side of Avery turned up to eleven, and it is awesome.