TIFF Review: Deadgirl

I am completely torn on Deadgirl. This is one movie that plays very well with a Midnight Madness crowd but at any other time it will not. While watching it I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s movie Blood Car, which I saw at Toronto After Dark. Both movies push buttons and have a good sense of humour. I have since watched Blood Car a few times and I get a kick out of it each time. I just can’t see that happening with Deadgirl. It relies too much on jump scares when it wants to be scary while Blood Car really makes no attempt to truly scare you.

In Deadgirl, two high school friends JT and Rickie discover the body of a chained naked woman in the basement of an old asylum. In stead of releasing the nearly comatose woman JT decides that they should “keep her” and use her as a sex slave. Rickie doesn’t want anything to do with this and leaves. The next day JT grabs his friend tells him that he has to see something. After some coaxing Rickie goes along and JT tells him how he had to beat her when she tried to bite him. A fight between the two friends ensues and JT ends up shooting the woman. The audience and Rickie discover that the woman can’t be killed.

The rest of the movie is all about the secret getting out as more and more people are brought down to the basement and also on Rickie’s crush on his childhood sweet heart who of course is in dating the obnoxious jock. The humour is pretty dark and was fun but I spent the rest of the movie not enjoying the story. The Midnight Madness audience definitely enjoyed themselves but there is nothing in Deadgirl that makes me want to revisit it and without the large festival crowd it will not play well.

TIFF Review: Vinyan

There is a scene in Fabrice Du Welz’s new film where the white folks, stranded in the jungle without guide or means, are viciously ridiculed, teased and denied the simplest of sustenance: a small ball of rice. It is a moment of uncomfortable horror in the so-called global village, a moment of extreme retribution for casual western exploitation of so many southeast Asian countries. Vinyan, the title of the film, is loosely translated as “drifting soul” and it can be applied to the film in several meaningful and stimulating ways. Those few who were enthusiastic about Du Welz’s (criminally underseen) Calvaire will recognize the rice-ball scene as his budding auteur moment. While the films are miles apart in setting, language, and tone, there is no mistaking that they are the product of a master horror filmmaker rising to the top of his game. I said after reviewing AJ Anilla’s Sauna (our review) that if I see a better horror film than that one in 2008 that I’d eat my shirt, who knew that I would be having to set the table less than 24 hours later! Taking the large Tsunami’s as the divine hammer for a sinning population, Vinyan is both poetical and political; those who take it literally are bound to get a little stuck with the film. Taken as a visceral meditation, it is a sublime success.

The film starts off thrumming and pounding on the audiences senses. A close up of unidentifiable static turbulence and titles so large they threaten to swallow the audience, it is not a surprise that the cinematographer was the same fellow who shot Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible. The camera eventually comes into focus to reveal the static to be air bubbles frantically trying to get to the surface of the ocean. Jeanne (a radiant Emmanuelle Béart) rises from the drink to greet her equally attractive husband, Paul played by Rufus Sewell. Curiously, she offers him a pair of shoes she found in the marketplace. Not really what he needs or even want, but perhaps they will do. An interesting bit of foreshadowing to one of the films audience straining narrative pathways. Du Welz’s intent seems to be to challenge the audience while simultaneously alienating them. Paul and Jeanne have lost their son 6 months ago in the Tsunami that wiped out a lot of the southeast Asian coastline, and they have lingered in Thailand with the thin hope that he may still be alive somewhere. At a charity even, a woman has a video of the extreme poverty of the villages along a river in central Burma. Jeannne is convinced she has spotted her child in that video. Despite protestations of her skeptical husband, it is not long before Jeanne is wandering through the seedier parts of the red light district looking for a Triad contact to get her into closed off Burma. What follows is a decent into the heart of darkness, into the void where the void most certainly looks back. The allure of violence and sexuality that attracts westerners to Bangkok is woven throughout the proceedings as well in the form of primal sexual hum particularly in a curious inversion of the form of the foreign aid worker encountered by the couple.

I find it curious that the Thai mobster leading their party into the jungle deals with the death of his wife at the hands of the Tsunami radically different, a stoic acceptance, rather than the hubristic denial from the white folks. Du Welz comments on how the cost of different races are still measure differently on the global scale. As the couple go further in the jungle, it is not even clear if they encounter ghosts, or have become ghosts themselves, in an uncharted part of the word were arrogant, desperate folks are not likely to return. In a way Vinyan is the spiritual remake Narciso Ibáñez Serrador’s fabulous daylight horror Who Can Kill a Child? with inflections of the aggressive spirit arthouse French cinema of Haneke and the visceral intensity of Aja and Noe. Du Welz blends the best of all these things, while tapping into a dark reflection of the power and force of need in small children that is into something very much his own, universal and also very much of our times.

TIFF Review: Burn After Reading

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen
Producers: Tim Bevan, Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Eric Fellner
Starring: George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, J.K. Simmons, Richard Jenkins
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 96 min

After a darker shade of moral dilemmas and poor decisions compounding on one another in last year’s Oscar winner, No Country for Old Men, The Coens bring back that same attitude again with Burn After Reading. This time though, in true Coen fashion, they’ve brought back their screwball aspect to storytelling let the actors have all the fun they want without taking anything too seriously. And a lot of fun it is!

An all-star cast shines brilliantly, each with their own personal goals and problems… or some just don’t really give a hoot about anything at all (”aw, that must be exhausting”). Frances McDormand and her obsession with plastic surgery, George Clooney’s adulterous affairs, Tilda Swinton and John Malkovich’s constant bickering, Brad Pitt’s bumbling, “try to be a spy” routine and JK Simmons’ CIA director with a “let’s just see what happens with all these idiots” mentality all weave together to become one of the most enjoyable of circus spectacles in the cinema this year.
(more…)

TIFF Review: Goodbye Solo

[Regular reader Michael Sloan, known around these parts as simply ‘rot’ is also making the TIFF rounds and he has offered to share with the world his take on a few films.]

There is a certain kind of film that I seek out when going to the film festival; foregoing the list of talent that I feel compelled to see on name recognition alone, there ends up being three or four films which seduce me with their promise of real pathos. These films tend to be foreign, and tend to slip under most people’s radar due to their sheer lack of novelty. Call me old-fashioned but my favorite genre remains the straight up drama. My whole ambition is to empathize with the characters depicted and be transported on an emotional level to their faraway reality. This year I have earmarked a couple of films with the hopes that they will do just that; they include Sugar, Linha de Passe, Afterwards and Goodbye Solo.

Of the films I have thus far seen at the festival, Goodbye Solo has left the deepest impression. Granted that is not saying a lot considering the poor films I have seen, and Ramin Bahrani’s film is not a complete success, but it was the one that at least extinguished the festival pomp and circumstance and transported me to the disparate world of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to care about the modest ambitions of a Sengalese cab driver, Solo, and his fare, a deeply wounded Texan, William. Bahrani had the audience teary-eyed before the film even started with his touching dedication to a friend that had recently died of cancer and had helped him with finding the locations for the film. In the same introduction we learned that Goodbye Solo had won an award at the Venice film festival, and this only add to our interest in what was to come.

From my interpretation of the synopsis I had anticipated the story to be reminiscent of My Dinner with Andre, one uninterrupted conversation between cab driver and customer, touching upon important life altering and philosophic topics, but I soon discovered this not to be the case. Within the first minute of the film the premise is set: William asks Solo to take him to the top of Blowing Rock in a week, no questions asked, to which Solo suspects suicidal tendencies and spends the remainder of the film trying to inspire William to live on. Rather than being a contained one set narrative the story persists through the week as Solo comedically ingratiates himself into every aspect of William’s life with a buoyant attitude that contrasts sharply with William’s dour mood. Actor Souleymane Sy Savane steals the show as the ever persistent Solo, doing everything in his power to correct his new friend’s destructive path. What may seem as an unlikely premise is made plausible through his effortless sense of benevolence, and when the fateful day comes his character arc rings true in a way one least expects. The same goes for William, whose laconic existence becomes elevated by a few scratched lines in a journal, all minimal but nicely played.

While I enjoyed this story and could appreciate the reluctance Bahrani took from being overly expositional in his story, in the end I longed for something more, and maybe that is a defect in me, speaking more of where I am in my life than about the characters, wanting to be shaken into something more violent then which is ultimately presented. That said, Goodbye Solo is a fine film and has inspired me to look into the director’s back catalogue, the lauded Chop Shop and Man Push Cart.

TIFF Review: Vinyan

One can not help be reminded of Apocalypse Now and Who Can Kill A Child in Fabrice Du Welz’s psychological ghost story Vinyan. The movie opens with an assault to the senses as the credits fill the screen and a blaring siren is played at what must be the maximum volume possible. As the credits fade we see what must surely be a view of someone drowning deep under turbulent water. Welz continues with this assault on the viewers throughout out the entire movie.

Rufus Sewell and Emmanuelle Béart are Paul and Jeanne Bellmer. Six months ago they lost there son, Joshua to the typhoon in 2004. Both have remained in Thailand as Jeanne is unable to move on past this tragedy. One night at a Jeanne glimpses what must surely Joshua in a DVD of some of the villages in Burma. Paul and others are unsure but in order to calm Jeanne down Paul agrees to head off on the dangerous trek into Burma. Initially they try to track down a member of the Triad whose name they have heard but they are intercepted by what must surely be a a conman who agrees to take them in but at great cost. Without any other hope they agree on his terms. The longer they travel with this man the more they realize that they are in over their heads.

Fortunately the Bellmers they meet up with the Triad member they know of and while he is still interested in the money he also appears more genuine. This is where the true journey of Paul and Jeanne begins. They are taken to the village and find the child but it is not their Joshua and Paul is ready to give up yet Jeanne refuses. At this point the movie turns and the viewers are left to their own as to whether Vinyan represents a crossing over of the into the spirit world or perhaps a descent into madness or maybe just maybe the movie is to be taken literally and what we get is a view of children who have finally been pushed to the limits of suffering and are now taking the revenge on the adults. Personally, I would go with a bit from column A, B, and C all together as Vinyan is a movie that is not meant to offer any easy answers to its questions.

Vinyan is beautifully filmed truly is an assault on the senses. It will also push many buttons and is sure to drive mainstream audiences away unfortunately. The closing scene alone is enough to cause Vinyan to never be seen in the majority of theatres. It is a shame as Vinyan is a strong psychological thriller with a fair amount to say. If you are someone who is willing to be challenged by a movie and pushed to the limits then Vinyan is one to check out when you get the chance.

TIFF Review: Religulous

[Regular reader Michael Sloan, known around these parts as simply ‘rot’ is also making the TIFF rounds and he has offered to share with the world his take on a few films.]

Organized Religion is a very easy target for ridicule, it consists of a group of individuals each keeping the other in check over a list of doctrines and rituals that have no intellectual authority of their own, but which much like a child’s game of make-believe, insist upon the mutual imagination of one’s playmate. It becomes all the more concerning when children are raised with the belief that these activities and beliefs are more than just cultural curiosities, but are in fact steadfast conclusions about your very being in the world that you cannot escape nor challenge. This pursuit to, as Kirk Cameron says in a choice clip, circumnavigate the intellect, is the core problem for atheist crusaders like Bill Maher and Larry Charles, the creators of Religulous, who try everything in their power to persuade the faithful to account for inconsistencies in their reasoning. But not even theme park Jesus was having any of that.

Focusing on the three biggie religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) this thinly veiled stand-up routine of a documentary goes for the laugh at the expense of the lesson virtually every time. The fringe faiths of Mormonism and Scientology are kicked around as well so as to add to the bounty of foolish ideas proposed under the assumption of a higher being. For Maher and Charles, it seems the stranger the better, and while they claim to have a fourteen hour cut of the film which perhaps nuances the debate, this lean and mean ninety minute version is as pensive as a South Park episode. I say this as a fan of Maher’s HBO show and of the open dialogue he affords about all topics, including religion, but with this film he has done a great disservice to the atheist argument. The believers who feel belittled by someone with big ideas about what is logical will feel more the same, the continual undercutting of what they say in this film with cheap jokes, gag reels, subtitles, does nothing but make a farce of any kind of debate.

The film begins with Maher discussing his religious childhood and using it as a platform for discussing dissenting views, trying weakly I may add, to ingratiate himself with the likes of the average person; instead he inevitably comes off looking as a Borat of the West Coast, waiting for an opportunity to insert a punch line as the interviewee comes off as someone more willing to debate than he. It was as if Larry Charles told Maher to behave more like Borat in his interviewing techniques, with cringe worthy remarks like the one to the ExChange representative, a former gay man who converted to being straight for his religious cause: “so you were gay, but now are straight and married a former lesbian and have three kids, of which the jury is still out on them”. These kind of cheap jabs give reprehensible people like those at ExChange the perceived moral high ground because for five or so minutes they are ritualistically victimized with unnecessary jokes.

That said, I did laugh, there was enough funny material in the film to make me recommend it as a comedy but unfortunately it is at the expense of deepening the trench between believers and non-believers. In the film he does interview some scientific-minded individuals, who of course are not challenged with comic barbs but should just as well; however, the clips of the neurologist or astronomer were fleeting, and barely sticking to any kind of factual evidence but used as a segue way to the next object of ridicule. Occasionally, as if by accident, the film does hit a nerve and attempts to shake up the foundations of religion, when for example the myth of Jesus is shown to be one told long before he was born (granted all to the music of Walk Like an Egyptian). But before this sort of information can be fully appreciated we are on to the next reincarnation of Jesus who dresses like a pimp and has a twinkle in his eye. More a freakshow than an actual exposé into the issues, Religulous resoundingly preaches to the choir.

TIFF Review: Lovely, Still

Ever see a film that is so sweet that it passes beyond your instrinsic gag reflex and makes you love it despite any misgivings from the brain? From sheer force of screen presence and chemistry Martin Landau and (positively radiant) Ellen Burstyn, they manage to hold the film on the rails and stabilize it amongst young director Nik Fackler’s need to inject jittery gimmickry into the narrative. It is perhaps one of the first films about December-December romance that will appeal to the younger set (well if there were any way to get them to see it). It is as if Fackler decided to make his own Away From Her through the editing rhythms of Darren Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream. Where Sarah Polley had the prose of Alice Munroe as a starting point and captured her story in a straightforward manner, Fackler aims for M. Night Shyamalan, which slightly hurts and cheapens the film in the final act. This film could have been an honest contended for annual Christmas viewing ritual along the lines of It’s A Wonderful Life (which unsurprisingly is watched at one point in the film) or A Christmas Story until the rushed final moments, nevertheless, it is Still quite Lovely.

The story follows Robert Malone, a man of advanced years that is so lonely, he meticulously and deliberately wraps a single Christmas present: From Robert to Robert. The opening camera starts on the street of a town in holiday lights that is a modern spin of a Norman Rockwell scene. A panorama of lighted Christmas purity, before stalking into Roberts tidy bachelor home. The only thing amiss are ghostly stains are on the wall where pictures have been removed, as if his life is unfinished somehow. Robert gets up to go to work in the morning, closeups of Martin Landau flossing and brushing his teeth are revealing and interesting and somehow give insight to the warm, yet lonely man that Robert is. On his way out the door he sees a new family moving in next door, he lingers at the scene, but doesn’t wave back to the cheery movers. At work, where he bags groceries, he has an amusingly parental relationship with his boss, a goofy David Brent type (for fans of BBC’s “The Office”), who quaintly believes in an Amway styled cook-book scheme to the point where he actually tries to sell Robert on it. Robert politely and delicately declines and wanders on home, alone.

Enter the stunningly beautiful Mary (Burstyn) who gets a meet-cute with Robert by pretty much invading his house. They have a joyously silly awkward moment, before the very forward Mary asks him out on a date. The date and the budding relationship to follow is so wonderfully, cinematically, romantic that you will find yourself drowning in syrupy sugar, yet not want to leave it. This kind of thing can only happen this visually and emotionally perfect in the movies. There is a joy captured in the interplay between Burstyn and Landau that is the simplest of movie magic harkening back to a different period of film, not much seen today. Just let the actors spend time together performing. Guaranteed to burble tears of joy from even the most cynical movie goer, the middle act of the film is sublime in successful and natural manipulation of the viewer. It is not interested in the ‘realistic’ complexity of the lives of senior falling in mad love along the lines of Paul Cox’s wonderful Innocence, but rather intent of movie fantasy (the good kind). It is a remarkable feat that this is even possible in the climate of the uninspired shooting of Judd Apatow and Nora Ephron ‘romantic comedy’ flicks. And make no mistake, Lovely, Still has a warm generous, even intimate, sense of humour that never belittles Mary or Paul as human beings. The laughs are as natural as a warm, honest smile. And while are strong supporting roles from Elizabeth Banks (An Apatow regular) and Adam Scott, the romance between Robert and Mary and there Christmas surroundings is clearly the focus.

The third act is a doozy though, I believe a major misstep in the film that is difficult to tiptoe around without spoilers. I don’t know how to end the film, but I do know that the ending events are at odds emotionally from the rest of the film, and this is very much to the detriment of the film. It is not that they don’t make narrative sense, they do very much (like the rest of the film) in a very neat and tidy manner. But a false one, even by the films fantasy standards. Still, the picture is worth a look for two seasoned profession actors allowed full reign on their craft to strut their stuff.

TIFF Review: Appaloosa

Ed Harris’ directorial sophomore project Appaloosa is an excellent example of what a popcorn movie should be. It is fairly light when it comes to meaning and importance but it sure is a lot of fun with some good action and its fair share of well timed humour. In the long run it will not be the most memorable movie but it was fun and you could definitely do a lot worse.

Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are Virgil and Everett, two law men who provide their services to towns for a cost. They arrive in the small town of Appaloosa to take up the mantle of sheriff and deputy after Bragg played by Jeremy Irons guns down the previous sheriff and deputies. Every thing seems to be going as planned, Virgil and Everett gun down a few of Bragg’s men and get ready for the confrontation with Bragg himself. Then Rene Zellweger at Allison arrives on the train and catches the attention of both Virgil and Everett. What we are left with is the eventual arrest and confrontation between Bragg, his hired henchmen, Virgil and Everett and the possible disagreement between Virgil and Everett.

The whole romance triangle could have played out in the staid standard way but Harris and the script manage to throw in enough twists that you won’t see coming to Appaloosa and charming and fun western. The action is well done and are combined with a good sense of humour. It was a nice joy to catch something a bit lighter and fun in my dark genre filled schedule here at TIFF.

As one final comment on Appaloosa, it was great to see Lance Henriksen and Timothy Spall show up in smaller supporting roles.

TIFF Review: Sauna

One of the great joys of attending a film festival is that every so often you get to see a movie that comes out of nowhere and blows all other movies out of the water. Sauna for me is one of those movies. I had almost no expectations going in. I still have not seen Antti-Jussi Annila’s first movie, Jade Warrior and I never got around to watching the trailer. All I was going with was the writeup on the TIFF site. I have to say this right now, Sauna is one of my favourite movies of the year and is will be in my list of top horror movies for a long time. It is not some simple slasher horror flick but is in fact a challenging thinking person’s horror movie.

Sauna opens up to a brutal murder being performed by Finnish soldier Eerik Spore and being witnessed by his cartographer brother Knut. Eerik tells Knut that that the man went for an axe and that he had no choice. From there we flash back to the events that lead up to the murder. The Spore brothers have been sent by Sweden in the 16th century to meet up with the Russians in order to create the new border between Russia and Sweden after a 25 year war. From my limited knowledge and what was explained during the movie the war was caused due to a split in the church. On the way there they stay at a small cottage where Eerik discovers that the peasants actually follow the Russian religion and the father is murdered and the young daughter is locked in a cellar to starve.

After the brothers meet up with the Russians Eerik convinces everyone that they need to split a large swamp by placing the markers down as per his orders when in truth he simply wants to evade pursuers who are likely following him and his brother because of the murder. On their journey through the swamp Knut starts to see visions of what may or may not be the ghost of the girl who may or may not still be alive in the cellar. His brother is able to calm him down and convinces him not to run back to cellar to free the girl. It is around this point that we learn the Eerik has killed 73 people during the war and feels no remorse for it. After traveling a bit farther into the swamp the brothers and the Russians discover a small village with 73 older men, women and one child living. Next to the village is a small Sauna.

The rest of the movie takes place in the village and sauna where Annila provides us with more than enough atmosphere and scares to please any horror fan. He is also able to bring forth a dissertation on just how at some point past sins can build up to a point where the consequences can’t help but harm the perpetrator and those around him. This is a dark deep movie that will surely divide audiences as it does not take the easy road to tell it’s story. In the end though after some serious scares we are left with a dark nihilistic look at sin and consequences that is deeply compelling. If you are willing to be challenged by your horror movies I can’t recommend Sauna enough.

Be sure to check out Kurt’s review of Sauna.

TIFF Review: Me and Orson Welles

[Regular reader Michael Sloan, known around these parts as simply ‘rot’ is also making the TIFF rounds and he has offered to share with the world his take on a few films.]

During the Q&A of his film Tape, Richard Linklater remarked that it took a lot for a story to grab him and that when mining literary material for cinematic possibilities he was particularly selective, looking for that new voice to make the filmmaking exercise worth doing. It was 2001, and he had just finished Tape and Waking Life, two unique projects that held firm to this principle. Had you asked me then of whom did I consider to be the five greatest directors still working, his name would have certainly come up. But something has changed, in me perhaps, but I feel it also in his more recent work, this palpable shift in principle, with certain projects that he has chosen clearly suggesting a disinterest in the ‘new voice’ he so fondly spoke of before. Films like Bad News Bears, Fast Food Nation, even School of Rock, and now added to the list, Me and Orson Welles.

What I find so contemptible about such a film as Me and Orson Welles is not that it is a bad film but rather that it is so middling in its efforts, so willing to be conventional in every way and let a consistent state of déjà-vu infect the presiding of yet another backstage thespian story. Even more contemptible because it is Richard Linklater at the helm, someone fresh off of A Scanner Darkly, someone whose talents need not be wasted.

Visually and performance-wise there is a lot to enjoy about this recreation of a period in Orson Welles career when he helmed a lauded production of Julius Caesar at the Mercury theater in New York. Here we have a Welles prior to his many successes as a movie star and director, yet still admired for his radio and theater work, a colossus of talent around which everyone encircled, patiently waiting for him
to begin. The main occupation of the Mercury theater is to wait for Orson, and as the production teeters on the edge of collapse, we watch an artist in his element take from the chaos that which makes greatness in art. We watch from a particular point of view, that of a budding thespian, Richard Samuels, who spends his time learning about the theory of the world in high school only to have it materialize at the Mercury. The film is intended to be a love letter to actors, and an affectionate look at a time and place when the business and the world around it felt bursting with possibilities, everything tinged in nostalgia (unfortunately never going for more than soft light admiration).

While full of some nice comedic bits at the expense of a sometimes cartoony impression of a brutish dictator in Welles, the ambition of recreating a sense of the world behind the play felt incomplete, relying too much on archetype characters doing archetype things and lacking any of richness of detail that something like Mike Leigh’s Topsy-Turvy was in abundance of. Everything felt conveniently laid out, and the love story was completely telegraphed from the very first scene, and in this respect of relying so heavily on conventions I feel disappointed with this latest effort.

But really I can sort of understand why it was done, and anybody who sees this film will within the first ten minutes come to the same realization: Christian McKay IS Orson Welles. Now I know we have all seen our share of imitations, Cate Blanchet as Katherine Hepburn, Jamie Fox as Ray Charles, but let me say definitively, and once again, Christian McKay IS Orson Welles. He does not just nail the voice, he without any prosthetic nose or such looks like a dead ringer of him! How do you find someone who looks like the man, sounds like the man, and on top of it all can genuinely act? Christian McKay is a miracle, an oddity, a freak show that one delights in with ever second he is onscreen. It seems fitting that for a story about the craft of acting that the one great achievement of the film is the meta-admiration of a real actor doing otherworldly things. There can me no doubt that no matter how inoffensively average this film is, Christian McKay will be nominated at next years Academy Awards and likely win.