Oscar-Winning Annoyance

I suppose I could put this on Filmchaw too, but it's more rant than review.

TIFF runs more than their big annual festival in these parts. They have a rather impressive tower now that houses theatres, workshops, a gallery, and other film-related stuff. In many ways, it's a year-round festival of various films and concepts.

They've just started this season's various series(es?), one of which is Food on Film. This series consists of 6 films about food, followed by a Q&A with a chef of some fame.

Last night kicked off with Babette's Feast and a Q&A with Scott Conant (owns Scarpetta, judges on Chopped, been on Top Chef).  The movie won the best foreign film Oscar for a reason.  Conant gets on TV for a reason. These two things were able to drag this first event above its two shortcomings.

First, the good. Babette's Feast is a Danish film about a small, remote, fishing village/religious sect.  The people live a pious life with little luxury. Meals are a mush of bread and ale, or saltfish soup.  Along comes Babette, a French woman escaping the French revolution of the mid 1800's.  She slowly adjusts these simple meals - a little bacon, a spring of rosemary, some onions. Nothing much, just enough that the locals notice and appreciate it.

Then an anniversary comes up and she offers to make a French feast for the village. This brings up questions of spiritual devotion among the faithful, and memories of one man's greatest meal ever. It's a hell of a feast, and a great piece of film-making.  If you can take subtitles, don't mind a slow start, and like food - it's a must-see.

After the film, Conant showed himself to be affable, confident (almost to the point of arrogant, but not quite in that annoying way), gracious, and a good interview.  Sadly, Jason Bangerter, the executive chef of the TIFF restaurants isn't much of an interviewer.

The night started with the resident Chef receiving an introduction that seemed to go on forever. Every restaurant he worked at was listed in detail. I'm surprised it didn't start with "His first dish was a sublime scrambled egg he made whilst still in utero".  By the end of the celebration of Bangerter, you'd think the guy was the second coming of Joël Robuchon. In comparison, Conant was practically introduced as "some guy who cooks."  I'm not sure how you get away with talking up the interviewer more than the guest.

Bangerter's interview style was very much the "I ask a question, you respond, then I move to the next with wooden grace" style.  Rarely was it conversational, nor did he seem able to follow up on interesting answers.  Or if he did, it was in the middle of another answer, as if it took 2 or 3 minutes for what he heard to sink in. Considering this should be a meeting of peers, where the insights of an accomplished chef add to the observations of a celebrity chef regarding a movie about food, it fell flat. I hope he improves as the series goes on.

But that was overshadowed by the woman in my vicinity who wouldn't shut up. Before the movie, during the movie, during the Q&A, it was an endless stream of patronizing pedantry and agonizing arrogance spewing from her.  "Oh, I'm only seeing this one, because none of the other films hold any interest at all for me."  "That's a black truffle." (said in the "how can he not know that?" tone when an audience member was asking a question).  Commentary loud enough to drown out the dialogue of the film. The ire was already rising by the time she took the mic for the Q&A and felt she had to correct an audience member, and both executive chefs on the stage with this stunning piece:

"It wasn't a cow's head. It was a calf's head."

Thanks. The world needed that minutiae shared. I suppose her point was it was veal demi-glaçe and not a beef one, but throw in the attitude and audacity and I wanted to tear into her. THEN she gets into an "argument" about women in the kitchen with Conant. Her point, "Woman have always been a force in the kitchen in Italy."  This was in regards to an earlier discussion about how women are becoming more prevalent in restaurant kitchens in North America.  Conant's response was along the lines of, "I wouldn't limit it to Italy. There are amazing female chefs in Spain, Hong Kong. Michelin Star chefs. There's one that is easily one of the top 50 in the world in Italy and everyone should try her food if they have the chance."  In short, he agreed and expanded. She came back with "No, but I'm talking Italy. Like, if you go back a few years, they've been big in Italy."  It was like she was expecting an argument and didn't know how to deal with agreement. An obviously annoyed Conant came back with "Sure, there was Catherine de' Medici if you really want to go back."

As she spoke, the nails-on-chalkboard annoyance across the room was palpable.  I'm incredibly happy she won't be at any future screenings in the series.I also gave an internal cheer when she was, once again, answering audience questions to nobody in particular and was just wrong enough to be wrong. [under her breath loud enough for everyone in a two row radius to hear] "It was sour cream."  [Conant] "That was crème fraiche."

But despite these unsavoury aspects, the film and guest were able to elevate the experience. It's a solid concept for a series, and I look forward to the upcoming films. After all, you can't control who buys a ticket.

Vote Happy Crow!

Filmchaw, top characters of the 90's, round whatever. Go vote already!

Oh, but vote for Eric Draven and Happy Gilmore, the rest of those guys all suck.

Vote Bag o' Bones

Round 1, heat 2 is now up over the 'chaw. Once again, I have but one entry in this heat, but it's a doozy - Jack Skellington

Below is Riggs' defense of his "character", followed by mine.

---

Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, A Few Good Men

You have that luxury… you have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiagos death, while tragic probably SAVED LIVES. And my existence, which is grotesque, and incomprehensible to you, SAVES LIVES. Deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you WANT me on that wall… you NEED me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a lifetime spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a person who rises and sleeps under the very blanket of freedom which I provide, and then QUESTIONS the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just say Thank You, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. EITHER WAY, I don’t give a GODDAMN… WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO!

I didn’t even recount the most famous of lines, or most commercial I should say, which is of course, YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Nor did I recount the funniest… “Tom, get me the president, we’re surrendering our position here in Cuba”… Or how about,” What I want is for you to stand there in your faggety white uniform, and with your Harvard mouth, extend me some fucking courtesy”.

No, don’t really need to. The beauty of this character, so eloquently portrayed by one the most talented and revered actors of our time, is how he convinces the viewer of how terrifying a man he really is, and at the same time how necessary he is. Not because he is inhuman, but because it is his JOB. His total disregard for one human life, or several, in order to do his job, which is to save thousand as he sees it, is evident in his stance as a Marine. The fact is, men like this (ok, women too you liberal feminist fags), NEED to exist. Jack shows why and more importantly HOW, with his portrayal of Colonel Nathan R Jessup. (insert cheap shot at competing writer) Leave it up to a Canadian to not understand that. After all, what do they ever need to defend. A country? BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..

OK, kidding about the Canadian thing… I think… As a movie character, aside from the fantastic acting, the writers make this character. Jack is nothing more than a talented vessel. The writers really try to show the horror of this maniacal, egotistical narcissist who in the end makes you believe that his existence, although grotesque, and incomprehensible to you, really does need to exist. See a sane person knows that it is necessary. A liberal, humanist can keep their head in the sand until another tower falls I guess.

-Riggstad


Jack Skellington, The Nightmare Before Christmas

Jack Skellington from The Nightmare Before Christmas vs Jack Nicholson. Yah, I know it says "Col. Nathan R. Jessup", but let's be honest here - did ANY of you remember that was his name? No. He's "Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men." A middling movie remembered for ONE line. The character isn't memorable, the scenery chewing from one of the greatest actors of the 20th century is. But we aren't here to debate actors or their best quotes. No, we're here to find the best CHARACTERS.

But MY Jack? Why he's ALL character. Do you know who does his voice? Nope. Sure, you can look it up, but that's not necessary, because you remember Jack Skellington, not Chris Sarandon and Danny Elfman. Yah, that's right - TWO people were needed to bring this walking, singing, dancing saviour of Halloweentown to life. Skellington is a case study in character growth. Starting out as the toast of the town, putting on the best Halloweens every year, we see that this soul is lost. Having feared that he can't top himself, he wanders and discovers a world he just can't comprehend. His good intentions lead to the Christmas from hell, and through this journey he discovers not only the old "meaning of Christmas", but himself. This leads to him bringing righteous retribution down on the villains of his town, while begging for forgiveness for those he was wronged. Find me one other character from the 90's that can be as joyful, lovable, misguided and terrifying as Jack Skellington. He GROWS, he IS the movie. He doesn't just show up for a cup of coffee and a good yell at some pretty-boy Scientologist, he elevates what could have been just another holiday special to a classic.

Here's a test. Jessup's famous line: "You can't handle the truth!" Now please, recite ANYTHING else he says in that speech.

A line from Jack: "There are children throwing snowballs, instead of throwing heads. They're busy building toys, and absolutely no one's dead!" You're welcome for the earworm.

Sometimes the truth hurts, but I'm sure you can handle it. Jessup doesn't qualify for this tournament since you don't recognize his name without the picture. 19 years after A Few Good Men, Jessup is good for a single line in Nicholson retrospectives. 18 years after Nightmare, Jack Skellington is still gaining fans, being seen in theatres in 3D, and causing people to hum songs about their confusion about snow. Truly great characters endure through time and become legends. Mediocre ones only survive through their best line.

- Astin


-----

Remember to go over to Filmchaw to vote. NOW. Vote Skellington!

Best of the 90's - Round 1a

AKA Mia Wallace Division, Day 1. AKA I only have one horse in today's race.

That horse? An actor's actor playing an actor's actor - John Malkovich from Being John Malkovich.

He's facing some bull-headed religious nut who studied Philosophy 101 from a decrepit old book he found in a Zion basement - Morpheus. But enough about a dude with a fixation on 90's Elton John songs.

Granted, my opponent, one HDouble, wrote an eloquent and tl;dr defense of the self-styled prophet, peppered with quotes that themselves are too long to recall (seriously, who remembers anything more than something about taking a pill based on colour?). But quotes taken from the Moleskine of some high-as-a-kite teenager do not a great character make. To the battle!

Vote over at Filmchaw. You'll also find the whole round 1a over there, where below is only my battle for this round.

---------------

Morpheus, The Matrix
It's rare to find a movie character who can believably pull off so many dimensions simultaneously.

Prophet, Mentor, Keeper of the Faith, Martial Arts expert, Hero.

As I was trying to figure out how best to show why Morpheus is a "better" character than John Malkovich, I ended up with a few approaches that all failed to capture the greatness of . So let's go straight to the source and break down my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movie characters of all time.

Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Morpheus's first lesson to his pupil is delivered with calm intensity, and explains in simple terms the way in which the "unexamined life" and materialism can imprison us. It's something an expert painter might say to an aspiring painter who has shown early promise. The speech also illustrates the painful reality of being a caring human being: we fight to save our enemies and open their eyes to a way of living outside the system.

Morpheus: I know *exactly* what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

The teacher continues his lecture, using a powerful simile to make his point. The "splinter" he refers to reminds us of those moments when we aspire for a more fulfilling life and a better world. In a world filled with depressing headlines, cynicism and sarcasm fill our mind with storm clouds that threaten apathy. With this speech, Morpheus offers us a ray of idealism that pierces the dark clouds.

Morpheus: Free your mind.
[Morpheus jumps from one building to another a long distance away]
Neo: Whoa

Like all great teachers, Morpheus first explains a concept, and then illustrates the concept by doing it himself. Just as Yoda lifts his pupil's ship from the swamp when Luke sees only the impossible, Morpheus forces his pupil to see beyond the limitations created by his mind. Sitting in the theater as a 22 year old, I remember sharing Neo's amazement at the sight of Morpheus's leap of faith.

How many Malkovich quotes do you remember? Do you remember his voice? Do you remember what he was wearing? Take the red pill.

-HDouble


John Malkovitch, Being John Malkovitch
Some characters are incredibly one-dimensional. Others have some pathetic other side that is intended to add depth. Nowadays it seems everything is going 3D. But Malkovich? He's multidimensional, he's got dimensions you can't even imagine. Accessible through a small door on the 7 1/2 floor, you too can be this broad-based auteur. Thespian, tortured soul, puppeteer and puppet both, a man controlled by the whim of petty man-gods, with direct access to the side of the New Jersey Turnpike, Malkovich fights an ultimately fruitless battle against forces he can barely understand. Man vs Army of Senior Citizens inside his own mind isn't frequently visited territory for most actors, but John Malkovich lives it in a means beyond the deepest method actors. Rare is it that one can face oneself, let alone oneself lying on a piano reciting oneself's name. Morpheus nearly broke under the "duress" of being asked some questions by an Australian with an hearing aid. John Malkovich rebelled against a man almost literally pulling his strings. Also, he's best friends with Charlie Sheen. Morpheus is best friends with some dork hacker who refuses to accept the reality of spoons.

- Astin

90's Characters Kick-Off

If you haven't already, go read Goat's intro over at Filmchaw for the Greatest Movie Characters of the 90's. I'll wait.

.
..
...
....
.....

Oh, sorry, I went to grab a sandwich, and then there was this thing on TV that reminded me to check out a site someone e-mailed me earlier... guess I didn't really wait. Anyway, we're both back now.

This is going to be fun. I'm not sure even the four of us writing this thing are sure how it's going to play out. Can our mastery of language sway our readers from the obvious choices? Did a late-position, "I can't believe they're still available" choice create insane first-round matchups? Are we missing obvious choices? Probably.

I think Goat's got some details on the drafting rules and such coming, so I'll spare duplication here. But one complaint I've seen in a couple places is the lack of women on the list.

64 characters, 10 years, 4 women.

I had a few on my short list, but with only 16 choices, I had to make decisions based on character strength. Looking back, perhaps not having Trinity in there is a mistake, but is she a better choice than Smith? In hindsight... probably. Oops.

We did have a limitation on picks from a movie - each of us could only take one character from any given movie. So once I picked someone from, say, Pulp Fiction, it fell to someone else to pick another character. Mia Wallace was on my list, but Jules is obviously a stronger character.

Lola from Run Lola Run? Thought about it, but she's not really as strong as just about everyone else. Darla from Dazed and Confused was there, but I couldn't figure an argument to put her above, say, Darth Maul (you'll see where I'm going with that one soon enough). I thought about Leelo instead of Zorg, but dammit, the more I thought about it, the more I liked Zorg as a character. "You found me beautiful once" just doesn't match up to "Honey, you got reeeeeal ugly."

But hey, at least we didn't create a ladies' tournament. The 4 that made this list are more than capable of holding their own against their male opponents. I mean, we already know how Sarah Connor vs The Terminator turns out... and she was a big-haired party girl when they first faced off. T2 Sarah would turn the first movie into a 15 minute short.

Let's do this.

TIFFing It Up

Four movies down, six to go.

Reviews of everything I've seen are over at FilmChaw.

Antichrist - Disturbing, brilliant, and graphic. You leave this one loving or hating it. They hated it in Cannes. We love it in Toronto.

Suck - Canadian vampire band road movie comedy. 'Nuff said.

Daybreakers - Most original take on Vamps I've seen in a while. Intelligent for a vampire movie, with the expected social commentary hidden between bloodbaths.

The Road - The end of the world has never felt so brutally realistic. Best of the fest so far for me.

Tonight is Bitch Slap. I've heard it disappoints. How can a movie where all I expect is cleavage, legs, cleavage, guns, and shit blowing up disappoint? Did I mention cleavage? What? I'm supposed to be high-brow? Fuck that.

A Photographic Turning Point?

An interesting day so far, camera-wise.

Canon announced some new camera. The G11 and the S90. A new camera announcement is generally nothing big, becuase there are hundreds of models out there across a dozen brands.

But these are interesting, to me at least.

The G11 is the successor to the G10, a rather popular semi-pro point-and-shoot. This would be your standard upgrade to a series, new image processing software, some ergonomic changes, etc.. The return of a flip-screen is nice, but the big change is that they DROPPED the megapixel count from 14.7MP to 10MP. This is fantastic news in the digital camera realm.

MP became the focus of camera manufacturers years ago. You only have a 3MP? You need to get 5MP camera. 5? Why not 6? The problem is, that as you increase the MP count, you need to increase the sensor size accordingly, and this wasn't being done. This is why your 10MP point-and-shoot takes incredibly noisy pictures if you're not outside on a sunny day, and why people dropping $3k on a high-end SLR get such crisp shots at higher ISO settigns (among other reasons).

14.7 MP on a a standard P&S sensor size is ridiculous. Most photographers have known this for a while, but the wider market finds these things out too late, when they enter "why are my pictures so noisy?" in Google.

So Canon pulling back on MP with a new model is impressive. It shows that the leader in the camera market is doing what's right for the user, not the marketing department. In the end, most people won't even notice the drop, but will notice the improved quality of their photos in lower light.

The S90 is another interesting foray for Canon. They dropped the S-line 4 years ago as it fell between their other P&S lines. But the recent popularity of Panasonic's LX3 - a compact camera with some pretty professional features - has seemingly revived this line from Canon.

It's a very compact camera with a professional-quality lens, and relatively large sensor. This, as stated above, means lower noise, and a much higher image quality. There are all kinds of manual settings, and Canon has moved some control to a lens ring that mimics your standard SLR use. Initial reviews are positive on this interface change. The S90 is a huge entry into a growing area of digital cameras - the professional compact. There are times when your SLR just isn't practical, is too cumbersome, is at risk (say, a hike over rough terrain, or visiting the UK) or frankly, just too much camera. The LX3 has been the current favourite for this range, but Canon coming back into the game is huge.

Finally, not new, but impressive, was this link to a wedding video. The wedding itself isn't important, but the quality of the video itself is. The whole thing was shot with Canon 5D Mark II's. Granted, there's a lot of other equipment being used to keep cameras steady, focused, etc.., but the actual filming device is a consumer SLR that can picked up in any camera shop. High def video of this quality, for a fraction of the cost of professional high def equipment is a HUGE game-changer. Digital video brought a new era of indie films, where the quality was no longer "Canadian" quality video, but clear images that didn't look like they were done on the cheap. Inexpensive high def will bring an even higher quality of image to filmmakers that don't have access to the big studios. Think the current digital photography boom, but in movies. A couple more interations in the firmware realm for these cameras, and there will be more 12-year olds making zombie films before you know it.

Hey, I'm excited.

Why Aren't You Reading Over There?

Go head over to FilmChaw right now. I SAID NOW!

The Goat's assembled a pretty varied list of writers, and you can join too! I've already got two posts up, so I think I'm winning. Go read them. DO IT!

Because I Don't Blog Enough

Here's a paraphrased version of a conversation I had with Julius_Goat last night.

JG: You seem to like movies.
Me: I do.
JG: Remember Filmchaw?
Me: Filmwha? Is that still on the Internets?
JG: Forget I asked.
Me: Nonono! I'm kidding baby. Here, have some flowers. I'm sorry.
JG: Yah right, I've heard that before.
Me: I mean it this time. I'm sorry I made fun of your dead film blog.
JG: UN-dead film blog. I'm resurrecting it!
Me: Oh?
JG: Yah, you want to write for it? PLEEEEEEEEEEASE?
Me: If I say yes, what's my commitment?
JG: None.
Me: I can work with that. How much does it pay?
JG: Nothing.
Me: Seems fair for the commitment involved.
JG: I agree.
Me: I also agree.
JG: Do you know how to make soap?
Me: Did YOU know that soap-making can be used as a cover to topple the credit card system?
JG: It's almost like we're the same person.
Me: Except we're totally not.
JG: Right.
Me: Any rules about Filmchaw?
JG: Well, the first rule of Filmchaw is: Talk to EVERYONE ABOUT FILMCHAW. I WANT HITS!

So, in my neverending (it's over) quest to compete with Dawn Summer's blogcount, I'm now writing over at Filmchaw with the Goat. Well, I haven't written anything YET, but I will.

I've got me some 25 Criterion DVDs to pick up tomorrow. Seem a good place to start.

3-3

Ovechkin gets a hat trick? Well then, Crosby steps up and gets one in the same game. Shame someone else scored a 4th goal for Washington. Or not. I don't really care as I'm so far out of the money in my playoff pools that it doesn't really matter.

Here's hoping Pittsburgh steps it up and wins a couple. I'd hate to see this series end in a sweep.

On the far more important front, after blowing through a big chunk of change on Sunday (did that day ever suck poker-wise), I grabbed back some of it last night by taking down a $30 super turbo on Tilt. No skill involved in those, just an ability to fold and catch.

But I'll miss the PLO Skillz Game tonight (dammit!). Don't YOU miss it, 9:30 ET on Full Tilt, password : skillz.

Tired, unfocused... that's today. That's every day. Still, got a doc at 10 tonight that I want to see. A Rothschild discovers Thelonius Monk, that's got to be a good story. The puma-raising meth addict ticket is bought as well, but that's later on.

And I only caught the first bit of Star Trek: Generations last night (up to Picard crying about the loss of his family), but I'll be damned if the beginning of the whole thing isn't better than I remembered. The "joke" about everything coming in on Tuesday seems to have a darker tone now than it did originally, and the camaraderie between the original crew (or, Kirk, Scotty and Chekov at least) moves nicely to the friendship with the Next Gen crew on the deck of the sea-faring Enterprise.

The Undiscovered Country was on Sunday - yup, pretty great Trek movie. The Rura Penthe stuff was a bit weak though.

Yah, this definitely gets tagged under "rambling".

Drawing a Blank

I was going to rant about people with expensive cameras who don't know how to use them, but couldn't get it the way I liked it. It was also hard to avoid becoming the pot to their kettle in some places. Maybe another time.

Hot Docs is in town here, and I'm having a hard time getting excited. There doesn't seem to be a Dear Zachary or Look! Up in the Sky! this year that's grabbing me. Still, there's a couple I'll see tonight, and maybe something else will tickle my fancy. I suppose I could seek out something political or economic in nature, but I somehow feel I'd just get angry at the screen.

The one about the meth addict who raises tigers looks cool.

Space (the Candian SyFy, without the budget) is running all 10 Star Trek movies leading up to the premiere of the new reboot. You know what? I forgot how much I liked the old cast. Sure, The Motion Picture is overdone and completely misses the point and heart of the series, but Wrath of Khan and Search For Spock make up for it in spades. Spock's death is still one of the most poignant moments in Sci Fi, if not movies. Possibly Shatner's finest moment too.

I didn't like The Voyage Home the first couple times I saw it, but this time around, I finally appreciate it. It's the first time the cast got a chance to have fun in the movies, and there are some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments in it. Sure, the save the whales message is about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the eye, but if you can overlook that, it's a solid film.

The Final Frontier (V) - well... it still sucks. Some of the jokes work, but some fall with a terrible thud. The "deep" moments are just corny. The message moments are heavy-handed. Shatner's acting is terrible. But I realized one saving grace this time through - the relationship between Spock, McCoy, and Kirk isn't just explored, it's the main theme, and it's actually done pretty well. If it wasn't for Shatner's overacting (and overdirection, and overwriting), they might have been able to pull it off.

I'll likely miss The Undiscovered Country (or catch the midnight repeat), but I recall it being decent. I mean, Captain Sulu, you can't go wrong with that. That, and the fact they acknowledge their age is a big plus for it. Oh, and Kurtwood Smith as the President of the Federation.

As for the Next Gen movies? They generally blew. First Contact is awesome, Generations is confusing and a rehash of themes from the original crew movies, Insurrection just blows, and Nemesis is such a big letdown from what it could have been.

But regardless, they've succeeded where countless trailers, posters, and ads have failed - I'm genuinely excited for the new movie next week.

Oh, did I fail to mention I like Star Trek? Fuck you.

Hmmm, it seems that even when I've got nothing to write, I can fill a page.

Congrats to Joanne and Buddy! Bloggers - building bridges between nations.

Always Liked the Pun

See, Jon Osterman wanted to grow up to repair timepieces like his father... making him a watchman...

I guess nobody needed that explained to them. Or maybe you did.

Anyway, I saw Watchmen last week. Short review - if you liked the book, you'll like the movie.

If you haven't read the book, you might be a bit confused. At the very least, you'll wonder what all the hype was about.

If, however, you're fanatical about the book, you may bitch and complain about the minor changes and omissions and the alteration of the ending.

I, however, thought a giant squid was always kind of dumb. I like the idea BEHIND the giant squid, but the actual execution was goofy. The change in the movie makes more sense I think, although the build-up to it is poorly done.

The movie strips away anything that isn't of primary importance to the story. Even then, it comes in at 2 1/2 hours. What's sacrificed by this? Layers.

Snyder's vision gives the plot, and gives us the first layer beneath the surface. This causes an emotional detachment from the world. The movie focuses purely on the Watchmen themselves, not the people who they affect. So when bad things happen, we don't actually care that they're happening to people, because those people are little more than set dressing.

In the book, there are conversations occuring all around, panels dedicated to seemingly minor people. An entire storyline about Rorshach's psychiatrist going mad. These are missing on the screen, so our view of how fucked up the world really is gets changed. Our pathos for the innocent people disappears. This doesn't even touch on the absence of Under the Hood or Tales of the Black Freighter.

But apparently all these things will be on the DVD. Another hour of cut scenes exist to be reintegrated, and that secondary material is already produced. I imagine the DVD will be very different experience.

The acting is sufficient for the movie. Jackie Earle Haley is excellent as Rorshach. Billy Crudup is TOO detached as Doctor Manhattan (I think Crudup is talented enough that he could have added an iota of charisma to the blue guy, but that doesn't come through until the story demands it, which I think is too late), but I don't fault him for it. Malin Akerman is fine as Laurie - she's not good, but she's not so terrible as to be distracting like some critics claim. Matthew Goode as Ozymandias is far, FAR worse. And Patrick Wilson? He's a whiny Nite Owl, but mostly carries off Dan Dreiburg's awkwardness and lack of joy well. The supporting cast, what there is of it, are fine. I feel like Sally Jupiter was hurt by editing, and reserve judgement on Carla Gugino's portrayal of her until the DVD.

Seeing Matt Frewer as Moloch was cool, and Stephen McHattie as Hollis Mason was great. Then again, I'll pretty much watch anything with McHattie after Pontypool.

Oh, and let's get Laura Mennell in more 50's outfits... looked good on her as Janey Slater. Way better than 10 years ago when she was a medieval catholic girl in a Stargate SG-1 episode.

I digress.

The film looked great, and did an unbelieveable job of lifting the scenes from the page to the screen. The violence and sex were also no worse than the book. In fact, I think the sex was toned down. Complaints about Snyder's slo-mo are barely warranted as those moments create a sense of watching a graphic novel come to life before your eyes.

Speaking of that style - the opening credits alone are worth the price of admission. A gorgeous, silent recap of how we got to where we are, all to some classic Dylan.

Good soundtrack too, except I still think "Sounds of Silence" was an obvious choice that sticks out. It wasn't inappropriate, but a touch of originality in song choices there would have been appreciated. At least it wasn't Terry Jacks.

All-in-all, I enjoyed the movie. It won't be for everyone, but I think it will satisfy the fans, flame out at the box office, and then find classic status on home theatres everywhere. I seem to recall some talk about a Director's cut being released in the summer in theatres... I may pony up again to see that, but in the meantime, I have the book if I need to revisit the movie.

They Used to Edit

So, three guys, Steve, George, and Larry get together at one of their homes. Steve and George invited Larry to take a bunch of their ideas and combine them into a coherent form. They had a story in their heads about some guy from Indiana who taught archeology and robbed tombs.

125 pages of transcript are online between Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan discussing Raiders of the Lost Ark in its early stages. A pretty decent recap of the whole thing is here. Ideas from this meeting made it into all three of the original Indiana Jones movies (the less said of IV, the better). It's a pretty fascinating look at how these guys thought back then. It also underlines the importance of Lawrence Kasdan when it came to making Lucas's tripe into some the greatest films of my generation.

This + That

Heading to the Raptors game tonight vs some team from Detroit named after a car part. I'm hoping Iverson gets the go-ahead to play, otherwise it's what, the Kwame Brown show? See, I like the Raps, but I'm not really a basketball fan (despite going to more Raps games than Jays or Leafs games every year... go figure). I enjoy the live game though. Two 3-0 teams facing off, and without Iverson playing for the Pistons, the Raps are by far the better team. With the Answer? A much more entertaining game.

Wolfed down a delicious dinner at a great nearby restaurant last night (The Fat Belgian), as my friend and I rushed to catch Zack and Miri Make a Porno. This folks, is what we call a rental. It had some really funny parts, some generally amusing parts, and in between all that was a whole bunch of boring parts. It was far more restrained than Clerks II, but nowhere near the levels of early Kevin Smith. The guy can still write some interesting dialogue, but I think he's too intimidated by his actors who aren't his friends, and still tries waaaay too hard to be a visual director. He's improved on the latter, but the slow-mo walk-and-stare between Zack and Miri was almost funny... but it wasn't overdone enough that it was SUPPOSED to be funny. As for the intimidation, I say that because he gets great performances out of his regulars. Jason Mewes and Jeff Anderson were the best of the main cast. The cameos from Brandon Routh and Justin Long were over-the-top and funny, but they were small parts and the actors were obviously having fun. But when it came to Elizabeth Banks and Seth Rogan? They were good, but it felt like Smith was afraid to tell them to be raunchier in their delivery. I mean, this is a guy who gets some great stuff out of Ben Affleck, and Rogan and Banks felt like... well, like they were trying too hard, and considering the other work they've done, that amazes me. At the end, I turned to my friend and said, "this movie NEEDED Jason Lee" and she agreed instantly.

So, worth seeing? Sure, but save it for your home theatre.

Then we wandered to a bar and had shitty drinks (I'm pretty sure that wasn't Grey Goose in my martini, and her mojito blew) as we watched the election. It was on at the restaurant earlier too. I found it amazing that we were sitting in Toronto, and every bar had the election on. Once McCain conceded, we went outside and watched the crowd gather at Yonge & Dundas for the post-election party. We skipped that and found a TV with sound to catch Obama's speech. My friend's an American and was in disbelief that Obama won. A black president was huge. I was happy for the win, but not as dumbfounded or awed by the event. Perhaps its because I've grown up here, where racial lines aren't as rigid... but then, we haven't had a non-white Prime Minister yet (but one female for a few months).

Oh, over 64% voter turnout? Way to go! That's the best in over 100 years.

Mutants!

My foray into the Toronto After Dark Film Festival continues. Last night saw me watching The Mutant Chronicles, starring Thomas Jane and Ron Perlman. Devon Aoki (Miho from Sin City) and John Malkovich were in there too.

First though, the short that preceeded it - Laser Ghosts 2: Return to Laser Cove. Done in faux-trailer style, it was about 10 types of awesome. You can watch it here. It's ultra-low budget, punny as hell, and ridiculous to the nth degree. They take every cheapo early 90's sci-fi concept and use it in 9 minutes. Mucho laughter.

The same cannot be said about The Mutant Chronicles. Based on a pen-and-paper RPG (and tabletop game, and comic books), it couldn't have been more derivative. As my buddy said, "they tried to be 7 different movies." A steampunk/WWII/sci-fi backdrop set 700 years in the future. The world is controlled by 4 corporations, constantly at war. An alien machine once turned a lot of humans into mutants, some guy sealed the machine, and now thousands of years later, war has broken the seal. The order of monks who know of the machine assemble a small team to go and destroy it. World is in danger, team gets assembled, violence ensues.

Except they didn't quite know what they wanted to do. A full half of the movie is spent showing the war, the recruitment, and the explanation. Then they head off, head into a ruined city, talk about faith, and then enter the tunnels. At this point I'm thinking "how long is this movie? It's 90 minutes in and they haven't reached the underground part yet." Then they cut to what seems to be the home stretch, people die, a battle is fought. Then they're at the machine, there are random fire spurts from random moving platforms, and more fighting. The end.

Here's the thing. Each piece individually was pretty well done, but they didn't work well together. They tried to cram too much in. The film was visually interesting - think Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow with colour and a brown overtone to make it post-apocalyptic and steampunk-futurish. There were odd anachronisms like coal-powered spaceships. 700 years, massive corporations constantly at war, and they're at the same level of technology we are except for the space travel thing, which is powered by guys in a furnace room?? Okay then.

Tonight is Tokyo Gore Police, a BLOODY, violent, ridiculous piece of Japan gore that promises to be at least amusing. Wish me luck.

Withdrawal or Boredom?

So I'm 4 1/2 days into my two weeks sans poker, and the weekend was interesting for it. While I was busy Friday night and Saturday during the day, I found myself home by 9pm on Saturday with nothing to do. My first instinct was to fire up some games, maybe the 50-50, and spend time that way. But that would hardly be 2 weeks without poker, so I didn't load up anything. Granted, I couldn't play anything but play money on Full Tilt anyway (yay responsible gaming option), but Stars, Mansion, and even Absolute still have money on them (Absolute is something like $10 they gave me free a year ago, like I'd deposit another penny on that site). But nope, didn't play any of them.

Same thing Sunday, when I had zero plans. I instead filled my time with DVDs, video games, and food. I have to be careful about the food, as I tend to snack when I'm bored and could easily gain 10 lbs. I didn't realize how much of a time-filler poker was until this weekend. I've never considered myself addicted, because poker's always fallen low on the priority list. If I have any other plans, they come first, but if I've got nothing to do, poker becomes the default option. This break will definitely be a good thing.

Saw a low-budget Chilean martial arts film on Saturday, as part of the Toronto After Dark Film Festival. MirageMan was pretty much as expected. Low budget with a tongue firmly planted in its cheek, moments of visual comedy, and a whole boatload of unchoreographed ass-kickery. It's what happens when you get a stuntman and his stunt crew together to do a martial-arts movie. No pulled punches, no wires, no CG, and lots of fun.

It was preceeded by a Canadian short film called Hydro-Levesque, which was nominally about Rene Levesque and Winnipeg and Quebec and a nun. I would have SWORN it was by Guy Maddin as I watched it, but it was actually by Matthew Rankin, who obviously is a big fan of Guy's. Black and white with plenty of shadows, Winnipeg featured prominently, jerky cuts, and strange comedy, with odd technologies in play and a nods to Canadiana. The only non-Maddinesque thing was that it was all in French. Then again, Rankin is a founder of The Atelier in Winnipeg, and has been doing low-budget experimental films for a few years now, so it's no wonder Maddin is a big influence. One could call this an homage.

I've got Mutant Chronicles and Tokyo Gore Police coming up this week, both of which should be... interesting. Repo! The Genetic Opera was on Saturday as well, and the line stretched around the block. I'll wait until its "wide" release on Nov 7th to see it.

Final TIFF

Chocolate

Every time I pick a move for TIFF, certain expectations exist. Rarely is there more to go on than the description in the official program, or the occasional early review. Some don't live up to the hype, others meet my standards, and some exceed these expectations.

I picked Chocolate expecting one thing - A whole whack of ass-kicking. It didn't disappoint.

Zen is the daughter of a Yakuza boss and Thai ganglord's girlfriend (or something). She is, as related in the story, a special child, with special needs. The audience decided she was, in fact, autistic. Slow to develop, and fairly non-communicative, her mother Zin gives up her life to raise Zen. Years pass, and Zen watches the kickboxers practicing in front of her house, martial arts movies (including Ong Bak - the director's previous film), and displays sharp reflexes and a keen sense of hearing.

Her best (and only) friend Moom uses Zen's talents to entertain crowds and take tips. She becomes a busker. The money is used to pay for Zin's cancer treatments. One night, Moom finds a book of Zin's from her gangster days, detailing who owes her how much. Naively, he and Zen go to collect from the underbelly of their city.

And that pretty much sets up increasingly impressive martial arts scenes as the debtors refuse to pay up without a fight... or more specifically, without the entire staff of whatever establishment they own putting up a fight. It's no surprise that the adversaries are little more than cannon fodder for Zen's grace.

This gets the attention of the gangsters (who happen to have a large number of Ladyboys as henchmen... go figure), figuring Zin is up to something. Of course, we all know where this is leading.

The Midnight Madness crowd are the people who own the fringe horror, categorize their martial arts movies by fight choreographer, and could probably correct Quentin Tarentino on mistakes in his homages to the Asian film world. The last time I heard them react like they did in this film was Banlieu 13, except this time it was pretty constant throughout the movie. Just when you think the bar's been set, it gets raised a bit higher.

When Zen walks into the dojo straight of Kill Bill and a dozen men come streaming down the stairs, you know you're in for a treat. The battle between her and another "special" kid (who the programmer of Midnight Madness referred to as "B-boy crackbaby") moves from an odd display of moves to a beautifully choreographed breakdancing fight scene that just has to be seen.

There's a plot, it's meant to connect the fight scenes. There's acting, it keeps it from being a silent movie. There's tragedy, because rarely do people fight for comedic reasons. In the end? It was the perfect way to end what turned out to be a great festival for me.

Penultimate TIFF

Me and Orson Welles

With a few drinks in me, I powerwalked from the subway to the theatre a city block away. Released some of the beer back into the wild, and found a seat in the balcony with minutes to spare.

The plot goes thusly: A teenager, Richard Samuels (Zac Efron), in 1937 New York talks his way into a small roll in Orson Welles' (Christian McKay) production Julius Caesar at the Mercury Theatre a week before curtain. He quickly learns his part and spends the next week rehearsing, falling in love with Orson's assistant (Claire Danes), and trying to survive the larger-than-life genius of Welles.

On it's own, and with Zac Efron, this hardly sounded like an appealing film for my limited selection. Except for one thing - it was directed by Richard Linklater.

I didn't realize he had nothing to do with the writing of it though. In fact, I didn't realize that until the credits rolled. Linklater's loved for films like Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Waking Life, and A Scanner Darkly. They're movies that thrive on the conversations, and in the case of the the latter two, the rotoscoped visuals that add to the conversations.

So doing a film set during the rise of Welles' career, in 1937 New York seems like a good fit for him. Lush visuals, rapid-fire conversation, and a simple story that relies on the actors and their words. And fit it did.

Linklater tries a few interesting shots here and there, but for the most part the direction is safe and serves its purpose of putting the story on the screen. Although I do like the effective use of props and tight scenes to create 1930's New York -- it seems appropriately low-budget for a movie about a low-budget theatrical production. Where his talents really come through is in the direction of the actors.

By the end of the film I'd decided that Christian McKay needs to be in a TON of movies now, because he carries this film as Welles. The man knows Orson, having done a one-man theatrical show as Welles before being grabbed for this movie. His delivery, look, and speech are dead-on. He plays Orson Welles playing the character of Orson Welles (a bombastic individual who was seldom not "on") perfectly, with brief, subtle moments where the real man comes through - in the eyes, a genuine smile, or a rage. Eventually you come to distrust every word he says, realizing he's always playing a role. I do hope he's not a one-trick pony though, and his ample skills at playing Welles can be transferred to other parts.

Claire Danes is Claire Danes. She's a strong, independent woman who aggressively goes for what she wants - be it men or career. Zac Efron is very much the teen idol trying to broaden his horizons beyond Disney musicals. He tries admirably here, but still has a lot of work to do. Efron feels like someone acting. He seldom overacts (one or two scenes near the end), but he doesn't fully embody Richard, and it leaves you somewhat detached from the film. It's a step in the right direction though, with the right cast and crew to lead him to better things.

The rest of the cast ranges from serviceable to good as Mercury players trying to put on their first show.

The romantic subplots are kept brief and in the background. They serve mainly to advance and resolve conflict. The focus stays squarely on Richard and Orson.

There's nothing heavy here, no life-changing message that will stick with you well after the lights have come on. It's a week in the life of one of the greatest dramatic personalities of the 20th century, and the effect he has on those around him. The movie achieves its goal nicely. Definitely a worthwhile way to spend a couple hours.

----

My last movie comes Saturday at midnight. I'm expecting big things from Chocolate. What kind of things? Well, a minimal plot used to service the idea of a Muay Thai martial arts fest from the creator of Ong Bak. It'll be a rowdy crowd and a hell of a way to end this fest.

TIFF Part Something

Adam Resurrected

As a director, Paul Schrader has given us a few recognizeable movies - Cat People, American Gigolo, Auto Focus, and, um, a movie about Patty Hearst? As a writer though... Well, there's American Gigolo, Cat People, Bringing Out The Dead, City Hall, The Last Temptation of Christ... and a couple small films - Raging Bull and Taxi Driver.

For Adam Resurrected, he dons the director's cap, but not the writer's. The result is a movie that really tries to be a great one, and even leaves you with the impression you just saw an important film. But it's like the arrow just missed the bulls-eye and the shadow plays tricks with your eyes.

Adam Stein (Jeff Goldblum) was once Germany's most famous clown. He grew from a humble nightclub act to filling theatres with his Circus. Of course, when you're a Jewish clown in Berlin in the 1930's, things aren't going to go well for you.

Yup, another Holocaust movie. As Schrader pointed out at the post-film Q&A though, this one is a total fiction, and nowhere near as reverent as the movies in this genre are supposed to be. That said, it's not REALLY a comedy so much as a drama with comedic moments.

The bulk of the film takes place in the 1960's, Adam is alive, but not necessarily well. He's at a clinic in Israel for the survivors of the camps. It's essentially an asylum where experimental treatments are performed on those the most far gone. A woman who is constantly holding up the sky with one arm, a man in uniform blowing a bugle, and others with various dementias. In fact, Adam appears nearly sane - he's a genius, seemingly a psychic, and has charmed the doctors, a particular nurse, and the rest of the patients with ease. He has free reign of the place, invests the other patients money in the stock market, and has booze hidden away throughout the clinic.

We get his history through flashbacks. His days as the funniest man in Berlin, the night he saved a man's life by preventing him from committing suicide (using his psychic abilities and comedy), and the day the Nazis shut him down...

Then one day at lunch, he smells a dog. He becomes upset, confronting the head doctor, and tracking down the animal to a distant wing of the hospital. There, we begin to learn the true depth of his madness and pain.

Goldblum is very good as Stein, with the exception of his accent moving all over the place. He's charming, witty, and believable as a man trying to hide his suffering. Willem Dafoe plays a Nazi Commandant who destroyed Stein. His final scene is particularly good. Tudor Rapiteanu is particularly good as a boy who believes he is a dog.

But somehow, it misses the mark. Goldblum doesn't quite nail it, and is sometimes just Jeff Goldblum with an accent (or none). Considering the amount of work he says he put into the role, I'm surprised he slips out of it as often as he does. The narrative has some holes of believablity, and the movie tries to draw you in, just to let you go.

As is often the case, it's not a bad film by any means, and is, in fact, good. But it fails to achieve its aspirations, which makes it disappointing.

More TIFF

Synecdoche, New York

Go ahead, pronounce it, I'll wait.

Okay, I'm done waiting. Sin. Eck. Dock. Key.

Giving a definition wouldn't help things.

Charlie Kaufman's resume as a writer is a list of some brilliant, brilliant films (and some quirky mainstream TV). Being John Malkovich, Human Nature, Adaptation, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are all his. Yet with such a unique voice, he had yet to direct his works. Luckily, people like Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze have been more than up to the task. In fact, it was Spike that was going to direct Synecdoche, but when schedules didn't match up, Charlie decided to take the reigns himself with Spike's blessing.

I went in with high hopes. Kaufman is a lock to be quirky, odd, hard to follow, and challenging. He's a perfect fit for a festival film. He didn't disappoint. Much like Eternal Sunshine, he starts off with a seemingly normal premise, with a hint of "off", and slowly cranks it up to a surreal, meta, exploration into... something.

Caden Cotard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is a successful theatre director in Schenectady, New York. He's married to artist Adele Lack (Catherine Keener), and has an adorable daughter, Olive. His latest production of Death of a Salesman is critically acclaimed, but his wife points out that he's stuck. He's getting praise for something somebody else wrote. Then his life falls apart - health and family both start to fail.

In the midst of this, he gets a "genius" grant, giving him financial freedom to create something magnificent. He decides to create an honest, real-life piece of theatre as his masterwork.

And this is where Kaufman goes all Kaufman on us... brilliantly. The movie shifts to New York City, where Caden buys a giant warehouse to stage his play. He starts creating a simulacrum of his life, and it grows into a reproduction of the lives of everyone else. Through it all, he deals with love, marriage, and life in general.

And that is the barest structure of the plot, which has so little to do with the experience that is this film. I think I could watch it a dozen times and have 12 different interpretations of things. It's recursive, metafictual, self-refrencing, and yet seldom confusing. By the end, I just kept staring at the screen, processing what I'd just watched. Somehow, through the increasing abstraction and blurring of lines between the fiction of the play and the reality of the film, a strong sense of pathos and pain comes through.

The directing was spotty at times. Unlike his writing, Kaufman didn't take too many risks with the camerawork. It's fairly basic, with a few interesting cuts, but it serves the purpose of the story. At times its confusing... some of those times are purposeful, but others seem to be unintentional. I forgive it all though.

I wish I could do this film justice. Many people will likely hate it, passionately, but I found it fantastic. Imagery that will take multiple viewings to work out, only to then believe something different entirely, moments of laughter that may seem like sadness in hindsight, relationships so screwed up that you sit in awe, it's all over the map, but what a fun journey it is.

Loved it, from top to bottom. This one and Pontypool would be enough to make this a top-level fest experience for me.

Tonight - Adam, Resurrected. A holocaust comedy.

*EDIT: Something I forgot - the wordplay! There is some great use of language and ambiguity in this film. It's a film that rewards those who listen to every word, and watch the entire screen.