Review: Dancer in the Dark

Version I Watched: Region 2 DVD from Denmark.

Starring: Bjork, Catherine Deneuve, and David Morse

History: Conceived as the third is Lars von Trier's "Golden Heart Trilogy," the other two films being Breaking the Waves and The Idiots. An early concept for the film titled, "Taps" would feature tap dancing in every single scene. This idea was scrapped because it wasn't conceivable to teach untrained performers such as Bjork the complexity of tap dancing and have it performed well in an efficient amount of time. When the film was made it was made with a budget of 120 Million Swedish kroner (or 12.5 Million USD). It was a huge hit at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival and received with standing ovations. The film was a box office success earning approx. $45 Million worldwide. The song, "I've Seen It All" featured in the film was nominated for the Academy Award for best song.

My Personal History: This is my first viewing. All I knew about it was what I read briefly and from screenshots. I hadn't even watched a trailer before watching it.

Review: My history with Lars Von Trier films is not the most extent. It is also based mostly on his more recent work. Before this film I had seen Dogville, Antichrist, and Melancholia. Having a general idea of his work I somewhat knew what I was getting into for this film. I especially knew I wasn't going into it for the laughs. LVT is easily one of the hardest emotional hitters in modern cinema. Although he did direct a comedy once back in 2006 but I don't know how that turned out. I also have even less experience with the work of Bjork, which is relevant because she doesn't just act in this film. She also sings. And not only did she sing the songs she composed them as well. Having both of these limited experiences with the two main individuals involved in this project gave me a fresh perspective on the film without any sort of bias. I can't even really compare this or make expectations in stylistic choices based on the LVT films I had seen before. Antichrist and Melancholia were much more modern in style and execution, not to mention a bit more explicit (Especially Antichrist) while Dogville was so crazy unique in it's visual and set style alone anything shot not on a sound stage where all the buildings are freaking mimed isn't comparable to that (AMAZING!) film. Then the only thing I knew about Bjork was her music is considered by many to either be considered amazing or weird depending who you're talking to. Regardless of these factors it's always best to be hesitant when a musician crosses over to acting, or when anyone who has a specialty in a particular art goes over to another art. They've made an establishment in one area so it seems strange to jump to a different one. Some succeed... most fail miserably or have to take a few hits before they're good at it (See Mark Wahlberg for example).

The very first thing seen in this film is of all things, an overture. I should have come to expect something like this from LVT. This is the first sample of the work Bjork composed for the film. It's short but sweet. The overture is accompanied with a blend of artistic visuals that splash in color. The reason for this visual has to do with how LVT wanted the film to be presented theatrically. In the European versions of the film the overture would play in a dimmed room just before the curtain opened. However since many American theatres do not have curtains anymore he chose to go with the visual companion to keep somewhat of the original vision he had for the overture. I like it when films have an overture. If for anything it is for the aesthetic value of it. What I didn't realize going into it was how well it fit with the musical aspect of the film. That's right, before going into this film I had no idea there would be song and dance numbers. So after the viewing I felt it was even more appropriate to have that overture in there just as LVT based a lot of his artistic choices on the classic American musical. That's not to say he didn't bring his own ideas into this, I mean, this is LVT we've got here. When he makes a movie he's the one in charge. And in charge he is! Right after the overture it jumps right into things...
Which I would like to make a quick aside to. I'm not a very big fan of opening credits period. I can't stand when movies take an eternity to get going because it feels the need to have a musical montage listing everyone who stars in the movie no matter how short they may be in it. A title is enough to get things going. I like it even more when there is no title, too. It just gives a better sense of immersion. I am hesitant to say I have a few exceptions to this complaint in general, such as Watchmen. The opening credits overlay the montage that gives history to the film's story in order to set things up. But that could have been done the exact same way without the credits covering everything up. Aside from that the only other exception would have to be the classic films when the credits were at the beginning period and then when the end rolled around, it was the end, without any after film credits. Okay... back on track.
The title is presented and we're off. It opens to a play rehearsal for a small production of The Sound of Music. I hate to say it but I have a complaint right off the bat with this film. It's the visual style chosen. It was shot digitally with handheld cameras. Now I do not have any issue with films being shot digitally. I kinda like it because it gives more of a realistic feel to the film instead of the other world HD cameras that shoot most films these days. What I don't like is how they tend to be put together. Usually when they're shot it's shot handheld. This means a lot of the time the camera is moving even when it's technically a "still" shot. It's dizzying and feels sloppy. Rachel Getting Married would pull a similar trick less than a decade later and it doesn't look any better. The only time I ever feel this style works is when it's a found footage style film because it makes sense for the camera to be jumping around all the time. Luckily later in the film it was decided to use a tripod for at least a few moments.

It's best to get used to seeing Bjork because she is in pretty much every single scene in this film. She plays Selma, an Eastern European woman who travels to America with her young son having hopes and expectations it would be similar to a Hollywood musical. She works at a factory making not a whole lot of money to support herself and to save funds on the side in secret. Selma lives in a trailer home with only her son and has become close friends with her landlord and cop husband who inherited a great deal of money some years ago. What seems to keep her going is her friend from work Kathy and her love of musicals. She is in the Sound of Music production as previously stated. It's easy to tell they've got a lot of work to do. They're stumbling quite a bit through the songs. This is a good, lighter opening to the film that makes it easy to jump into it despite being a little awkward seeing them stumble a lot. Does make me think of some of the productions I've been in when we didn't know what we were doing yet. Shortly thereafter it moves onto what Selma does for work. She works in a factory with heavy machinery which is where a fair chunk of time is spend in the film. This is also when we first see her express herself as a mother in the story. Now, I felt the introduction of her character was a little unfortunate. I get that she is upset her kid isn't in school but I also felt she was a bit harsh. Either that or I was surprised to see her so heated so quickly. Made me wonder how the rest of the film would be if that's how she was. Strangely that's one of the few moments we actually see her angry. What I soon learned was how much I liked Selma's character, something Bjork helps deliver really well. I really appreciate the humble, naive type of person you may run into in life. I can easily say I knew a few people like that mostly in college and I really liked them a lot because they're easy to be around. This is especially true when you need to be around someone who is easy to be around. I also find Bjork to be adorably cute in this film. I can imagine many guys would have mixed feelings about that thought but I like her. Her soft spoken selfless nature is very appealing which makes her character's broken English easy to get around. Which brings me to my next point. Her accent and dialogue delivery was fantastic! I found her performance to be very believable. Sure it helps that Bjork isn't from America but I'm sure a lot of what she did was in a performance to make herself feel especially foreign. Like I said she has a tendency to quite a bit of broken English throughout. The thing is that I never found myself annoyed by it and I was always interested to hear what she had to say next. In short, I really enjoyed watching Bjork and her playing the character she did.

Despite living in poverty Selma seems to have at least a pretty decent life. She somehow has time and energy to be in a musical production albeit it's a very small community theatre, she has time for her child at night, her landlord and husband are very nice and friendly to her, and she even gets to go to the cinema pretty frequently to enjoy another classic musical, something she uses to escape from the harder parts of her life. Not only that but there's a pretty nice (only slightly creepy from my perspective) guy interested in her who offers her rides home from work on a nearly daily basis. This turns around with a confessional scene early in the film. One night Selma's landlord's husband Bill comes over and tells Selma a terrible secret of his. The large amount of money Bill inherited a while back is running dry. His wife just spends and spends because she "knows" how much money they have. Bill is far too afraid to tell his wife because he feels she won't love him anymore. His salary isn't enough and unless he gets more money within a month or so they'll be flat broke. To comfort Bill, Selma reveals a secret of her own as well. Selma's large, thick glasses showcase partly how bad her eyesight is. Actually, she reveals her eyesight is so bad that she will be going blind within a year. It's a disease she's had her whole life and she knew it would happen to her one day. This disease has been passed onto her son. Up to this point there has been hints given toward her frugal nature not just because of how little she already has but because she isn't "one of those mothers" which I'm assuming she means to spoil her child. On the inside she is hiding the fact that she saves up what she can on the side to help pay for a surgery to treat the inevitable for her son. Keep in mind this is also a disease he is unaware of. She hasn't told him because the stress and worry would only make it worse for him, and not just mentally. It's implied that the condition itself will get worse. It's at this point where it's made clear what she was doing at the eye doctor's office at the beginning of the film. She was looking over a sheet of the eye chart, cheating on her eye exam to avoid anyone finding out about her condition. It may be just me but even thinking back to my first impressions I didn't really feel like it was clear she had an eye condition until after she said something about it. Then it was VERY clear she had an eye condition especially with what followed in the film. It may have been just something I missed with my first viewing for all I know, but with first impressions I felt it wasn't really clear until it was told to us. Before leaving for the night Bill tests how bad her eyesight is and pretends to leave only to stand in the corner next to the door. Once Selma believes Bill is gone she goes to her secret hiding place for her money. Bill makes note of where it is and leaves. Who we thought was a nice and decent enough man turns out to be desperate and backstabbing in nature.

Since the severity of her condition is settling in she understands time is running out. She is nearly to the point of paying off the doctor's bill but wants/needs it quicker. Among other things she decides to take on the night shift to get paid more. With more pay comes more responsibility. Selma isn't lazy but does struggle with keeping up sometimes between her failing eyesight and her tendency to daydream on the job. This is the first of many moments where one of the more unique aspects of the film comes alive. I had no idea going into this film that it would be similar to a musical. A tone made up of the noises around her play through her head and she starts singing and dancing. What I liked most of all about this was that we got to see exactly what was going on inside her head while she daydreamed. It wasn't even a short glimpse, it was a full song and dance number. As I said much earlier I do not know Bjork's music at all. Since watching this film I've been tempted to look up her music for comparison sake... but until I finish writing this I'm not going to listen to any of it so I can hang onto a clear opinion of the music based entirely on what was presented in the film. What was presented in the film was fantastic. I like Bjork's singing voice with her unique way of speaking and diction. Not to mention the sound of her voice while singing I felt was nice to listen to. The song stays fun and exciting and the camera work HAS TRIPODS! It was finally a lot easier to look at this film with a balance, un-jolting camera wobbling around with every shot that moves (or intends to stay still). At this point I'm still trying to figure out the placement and purpose of this song and dance number. I get that it's her imagination getting her through work... there's got to be something more to it. By the end of the song it hits reality again where Selma is far too lost in her daydream to realize she improperly uses the machine she's working with, too distracted to notice it, and breaks it. This is the beginning of Selma's spiral into her demise with all the terrible things that happen to her. This mess up at her job eventually leads to her being fired.

The second song that shows up is initiated by a comment Jeff, the man who has a crush on Selma, makes in regard to her sight. Each day after work he shows up to give Selma a ride home in the hopes of creating a bond where they can be together. She consistently refuses choosing to ride home on her bike instead. On the day she's fired she is out much earlier than usual and for the first time hoping Jeff is there to assist her, he isn't. It's earlier than usual for him to be there so she decides to walk home by the train tracks. She uses the tracks to find her way home since she cannot see well enough on her own. When Jeff shows up Selma is long gone. He runs to catch up with her on the track where they meet at a bridge. When the train starts heading their way Selma moves off to the side of the track, as does Jeff, but Selma still makes sure to mention to move to the side because the train is coming, not noticing that he has already moved. That and some behavior she is showing he says "You can't see, can you?" The subject matter of this song is how Selma has seen it all. It feels like this song is her internal monologue on how she's made peace with not being able to see any longer. In the song (in her head) Jeff asks about different sights and sounds of the world she is yet to see. Her reaction to all of them is a smaller comparison of the same thing or that she doesn't care about seeing what he mentions. It's around this time I realize the songs come into play when she is in the most stressful moments in her life. Here's a guy who is interested in her, and she is sorta interested in him but doesn't have the time for a boyfriend, who is confronting her about her sight so she escapes by singing about it in her head. What I took away from the song's lyrics was Selma making excuses. I believes she really does want to see all these things Jeff sang in the song, only she wanted to make it appear she didn't care as a way of dealing with the idea she won't see anymore inevitably. By the end of the song it cuts back to the train just passing by them with a lie about her sight. She claim she can see just fine. She isn't fooling anyone. It's very obvious to everyone around her how bad her sight has gotten.

Where the plot turns into an even more depressing direction is when all of Selma's saved up money is stolen by Bill. I knew this would be coming but it's sad to see what happens in the meantime. Selma may be naive but she isn't stupid. The first place she goes to is Bill to confront him about his crime. He promises she'll have it back in a month (An empty promise if you ask me. As far as I'm concerned he was never planning on giving it back). She takes it only to be threatened by a gun. Her resistance is strong but her emotions are not. She does all she can to walk away with the money. Only she is covered in tears on top of it. An accidental shot hits Bill and he finds himself on the ground begging Selma to shoot him. Bill hates his life and would rather be dead than out of money and admitting to his wife they're out of money. He went as far as stealing from a soon to be blind woman. He is now choosing death over admittance. When he was first introduced Bill felt like such a nice, level headed guy. His actions here make him to be a huge coward. He's a liar and a thief (But he only "lied about being a thief"). It's easy to see Selma doesn't want to kill, who would want to? Her bawling while shooting him blindly by covering her eyes and looking away, then to finish the job by taking Bill's safety deposit box and bashing his face in with it brought on such a sense of sadness. Here is a sad and desperate woman who was driven to kill to get the money she needs for her son. Again such a selfless act... only a selfless act with mixed emotions from those watching. Her next song following the murder is about her doing what she had to do. I realize she was out of options, or at least the options in clear sight but was murder really the way to go? Maybe in the midst of a stressful situations it can be an action that comes up to compromise the situation... but still. Even in a situation like that it must be easy to think that it could only make things worse. Here's Selma, who just killed Bill, who has been lying to his wife about the money and a few other things about Selma (claiming Selma is in love with him) so everyone and everything is against her. The saddest part is that there is no way out for her except to flee. Only that isn't an option either because she doesn't have the resources to do so. She has been placed in a situation where there's no way out for her. She has a way to save her son, but that's about it. So she convinces herself she did what she had to do considering the situation.

Following the murder Jeff comes to Selma. He takes her away from the murder scene eventually stopping at a particular location where Selma takes the rest of her journey by foot instructing Jeff not to follow her. She begins walking, eventually walking to the hospital where her son will get his surgery. She pays the doctor (Played by Udo Kier, I can't wait to review Flesh for Frankenstein, I love that movie) and walks back to Jeff. I had some confusion with this brief moment of the film. First, if Selma is so blind that she couldn't tell a man was in the same room as her (When Bill hid to see where she hides her money) and she needs to walk along the train tracks as a guide to get home how on earth did she find her way to the hospital on an open path without the crutch of a track that sticks out of the ground? It just seems odd that she could make it so far on her own. We've been set up with such horrible eye sight so I don't know how it all works out in the end. Also another thing I was wondering was the instructions Selma gave Jeff. She told him not to follow her but she never said or hinted at anything about having him there when she gets back. Was it at Jeff's own free will because of his feelings for her or did I miss something along the way? Regardless, once she gets back to Jeff's car he mentions how she can still make it to rehearsal. So they go to the rehearsal but word has traveled far enough to her director where if she shows up, he calls the cops. He does everything to keep her there waiting for them to show up by having her watch what they've been rehearsing. This is the only song where I don't feel it is based on the stress of the situation. It came off on the enjoyment of the situation. I guess it could be argued that Selma is stressed knowing the cops are on the way to arrest her so she's just enjoying the best of the situation. I don't feel she's smart enough. She's been so ignorant (but in such a sweet way, I love Selma's character) I believe she loses herself in the song and dance. If she were stressed about being taken away knowing the cops are on the way I feel she would have reacted in a different way. So here's another conflict in story. Selma doesn't seem to be the smartest egg in the batch, but if this is her intention to just enjoy some good song and dance before being arrested why wouldn't she do something even smarter than that? Why would she go straight to someone who knows her VERY well and everyone who knows Selma knows this about her. It's like seeing in a cartoon the sign that points "safety" one direction and "certain death" the other direction and the character chooses death. So either the song is initiated by the joy of the song and dance which would contradict when all the other songs come up or it would be out of stress knowing what's to happen conflicting with what I believe her mindset would go toward. Either way it felt like it was contradictory.

As expected Selma is put on trial (She sings and dances, there are twists and turns both literally and figuratively) and eventually found guilty of murder. She is given the chance to have another trial in order to avoid the death penalty, the only problem is the money to pay the lawyer hired to do so would be the money she saved up for her son's surgery. This she declines. The choices made during the trial scene and scenes that follow somewhat frustrated me because I felt like she was wasting so much away by keeping her soul pure and helping those around her. She lies about some key details at the trial so she wouldn't reveal the secret Bill told her despite the fact that he stole from her and forced her to murder him. She was still strong willed enough to keeping the secret. She could be fighting for her life so she doesn't widow her son but she doesn't. This and a few other details are hinted at what lead to her death sentence. I do wonder if she tried to tell everyone exactly what happened and the truth behind everything if it would go through. I doubt it would be believed that Bill had no more money or that he asked to kill her. There isn't any sort of evidence toward that. It would also be hard to convince that Selma didn't just try and steal Bill's money because she and Bill are the only ones who knew about her secret stash. Lastly there's no way to tell if her son really has this disease because it hasn't grown enough in his body to be considered evident enough. It doesn't help she cheated on her eye test early in the film either. Really makes me wonder if she did try fighting for her life if it would have helped. It could have made the story even more heartbreaking, or it could have made it more cliche, too.

Now the final scene. I... loved... this... final... scene. It is so heartbreaking. The most heartbreaking of all was the song she sang right before she was hanged. Much earlier in the film Selma talks about why she always left a musical before the last song. She could always tell when a musical would end which she did not like, ever. It made her sad. So she always would leave right before the musical was to end so that way it doesn't come to a conclusion and the musical lives on. The final song Selma sings (With a rope around her neck ready to be hung) is an a cappella reworked version of a song titled "New World," although man fans have given their own titled to it being, "The Next To Last Song." In the appropriate manner of the film Selma painfully (It sounds beautiful, trust me. I mean "end of your life" emotionally painful) sings the song almost to the finish when suddenly she drops down and is executed before finishing. Despite knowing her fate it still hit with great impact, just like the rest of the film.

I was eventually able to move beyond what I felt was poor camera work. What helped was Bjork herself. The songs were amazing and would re-watch this again for those alone. This is one of the better film experiences I've had in recent memory. I still liked some other LVT more (Mostly Dogville!) but this one will rank up there as one of the better films I've seen in my life. I can't wait to watch this one again. This is a truly special piece of cinema that needs to be noticed and remembered and passed down. It's very unlike most things you'll see. You can even say it's very foreign in nature. It doesn't play or act like an American film, which in this country helps a lot.

Review: American Movie

Version I Watched: VHS edition.

Starring: Mark Borchardt, Mike Schank, and Tom Schimmels.

History: Since this a documentary the film itself is it's history. The film was shot between September of 1995 and August of 1997. It was a huge hit at the 1999 Sundance Film Festival winning the grand jury prize. Since then it's gained quite the cult following, especially appreciated by one of my favorite internet personalities James Rolfe, whose videos features tons of references to it.

My Personal History: I got this on a whim my freshman year of college when a nearby Hollywood Video was purging their VHS tapes a next to nothing a piece. The first time I watched this I was a little disappointed by it mostly because I had heard so much hype about it from its cult following. I think I expected something better than I got so I didn't find it that great. I was for some reason attracted to it again and decided to give it another shot.

Review: I don't know how this film could be any more indie than indie is. Maybe Kevin Smith's Clerks would be about as indie as it gets or Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi... but this is pretty hardcore indie as well. It's indie because of the subject matter is indie. There was no major studio associated with this when it was produced and filmed. The film introduces this doc's "hero" Mark Borchardt with his love of storytelling and the "Great American Script" by talking about a radio show he did back in 1995 called The Creeps. He admits to how much of a loser he is at this point in his life. He's telling us how during the taping for The Creeps he was getting drunk and smoking dope, not paying attention to the actors or directing. It was his experience taping it that he realized he needed to take a different direction and to take his major project much more seriously. The film follows Mark as the independent filmmaker he is with a true, hardcore 90s indie kind of love for film. Everything he's made by the point of this film has been shorts on 8mm film and none of them have gone anywhere. The project he is working on during the filming of this documentary is initially his first feature length film Northwestern. He gets funding from his uncle, although he is very skeptical at first. He somehow talks him into loaning out the money for the project. He pulls everything together, gets his case, crew, etc ready to go. Things aren't quite going the way as he planned, though. Things aren't coming together and he just doesn't have enough money to fund the project. After these hiccups he decides to work on a horror themed short he started making a couple years earlier, Coven (which he pronounces with a long O sound). He believes if he can finish this short, sell enough copies of it, he can have enough money to fund Northwestern.

I don't know if it's the way he looks, the way he acts, the way he talks, or a combination of the three that kinda drives me crazy. Okay, I get it, he's a dedicated, hardworking independent filmmaker who is putting everything on the line to do what he loves. But, right off the bat he comes off as so pretentious. His main love of film is from horror but you still see coming out is a mindset not only an overall love for film but this apparent understanding of what film truly is, talking like he knows exactly what he's doing. I find that hard to believe. The moment that made me think about this was when he was setting up a concept shot before he decided to stop making Northwestern for the moment and to work on Coven. There's something slightly off if you ask me about a mid-western guy sporting a mullet, creeper stash, 80s glasses, and usually wearing a Green Bay Packers t-shirt using films like Manhattan and The Seventh Seal to make reference to the shots he's setting up. Between this and when he briefly talks about his ideals and religious beliefs it makes me feel like he thinks he's smarter than he really is. I don't say this entirely based on what he is saying I say this also based on what his friends and family are saying. He's a high school drop out and even those closest to him think he's better off just working in a factory because of his intelligence and determination level toward life. Going off to devote all his time to making movies on such a big risk isn't the best thing for him and where he is in life especially since he also has three kids. Kids he had out of wedlock and the woman he had them with refuses to marry him. Logically speaking he's not in the best position of his life. Even his own uncle who agreed to help fund the film does nothing about talk how he's not gonna get his money back. When Mark tells him how many copies of Coven he's gonna sell his uncle reacts with "That'll be the day." Absolutely no faith in his nephew. Honestly I cannot blame him. I still find it hard to believe he gave him any money in the first place.

What makes this film are the characters. These are very real people but they feel like they were written by the Coen Brothers while they were wasted one night back in the mid 90s. Mark lives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Being a WI native I was excited to see what kind of mid-west crap they pull. What they are more like isn't really the "Yah, you betcha" Scandihoovian type of mid-westerner. The people in this came off as the mid-west hicks. The type of personality, talk, actions closer to a stereotype that tends to come from the south. That's right, Alabama, we've got 'em, too. This wasn't an annoying aspect of the film. The people in this really are lovable losers. The only other lovable loser we get to know really well is Mark's buddy Mike who in the film's credit is simply known as "friend/musician."  I like to look at him as Mark's sidekick who is along for the ride. I though Mark was pretty dumb but Mike brings it to a whole new level. Mark will be going on and on about a scene or concept, he'll turn to Mike and say "You know what I mean?" to which Mike responds with "No" while ignorantly laughing like an idiot. It's really hilarious to see his reactions like this. He's delightfully unaware of so many things. I like a particular moment when they're ready to shoot a scene and he's taking the extra time to make sure the soda he brought with him isn't in the snow so it isn't frozen when they're finished shooting.

As would be expected this documentary follows scene by scene shooting the short film. There are a couple scene shoots in particular that seem to stick in my mind with the few viewings I've had with this film. The first is a scene that's pretty action packed. It involves shoving a man's head through a cupboard door. Apparently this is a scene that was shot previously so this is a re-shoot to make it better. The lucky actor who gets his head pummeled is dreading the re-shoot. The scene is also really intense, and since Mark is playing the part he is especially passionate. So when the shoot finally happens he is slamming his head pretty hard and despite having a slit in the wood to help it break it just isn't budging. So what does Mark do? Slams again and again like a maniac. It looks incredibly painful! After modifying it even further it still takes a couple slams before getting through. Here's the problem, the impact busts open the actors head! Bang, bang, slam, and blood everywhere. All over his face. He is laying there in pain as they continue to film. I'm pretty sure they even use actual footage from the accident in the overall film. It at least looks like it when there are finished scenes from Coven at the end of the film. He's hardcore and does what he needs to do to get the job done. There are far better methods of course. It's entirely by happenstance that it turned out that way it did. He's lucky? In a way it reminds me of the methods William Friedkin used during the filming of The Exorcist, although the major difference there was that it was intentional. I don't think Mark ever intended to split his actor's head open... I hope so.
The other scene that comes to mind is an audio recording to dub over a scene early in the film. Mark and Mike take Mark's uncle out to his car and record his lines. Early in the film (Coven, not the doc) Mark's character is running down the road and a car drives by with an old man (his uncle) and says, "It's all right, it's okay. You have something to live for. Jesus told me so." A line filled with so much DEEP MEANING and PURPOSE that it makes me want to PUKE! But I digress. The scene is set where Mark's uncle is sitting in the passenger seat of his car while Mark holds the mic and Mike assists in the recording. The recording is pretty funny to laugh at. Keep in mind how old his uncle is. He can barely talk as is in most scenes. So what makes this scene so funny is that his uncle can never remember his line, or say it all at once without saying uh between words. It starts out funny... but then it goes on for a couple of minutes in the doc with the takes ranking as high as the 30s-40s. It gets to be pretty painful by the end of the scene.

If this film was far more serious and only talked about the movie he was trying to make it wouldn't necessarily be bad, it would have just been driven by the wayside, lost in time. What makes this stand out is the humor in the quotes. Here's some examples that made me laugh without giving away too much:
-Mark: "Your AT&T Universal Card has arrived"? Oh God, Kick-fucking-ass, I got a Master Card. I don't believe it, man. Life is kinda cool sometimes.
--Mark: Do you think this is a little bit cathartic for you?
Mike: Uh, very cathartic, Mark.
Mark: Do you know what cathartic means?
Mike: No.
---Mark: I was called to the bathroom at the cemetery to take care of something. I walked in the bathroom, and in the middle toilet right there... somebody didn't shit in the toilet, somebody shat on the toilet. They shat on the wall, they shat on the floor. I had to clean it up, man, but before than, for about 10 to 15 seconds mn, I just stared at somebody's shit, man. To be totally honest with you, man, it was a really, really profound moment. Cuz I was thinkin', "I'm 30 years old, and in about 10 seconds I gotta start cleaning up somebody's shit, man."
----Uncle Bill: Do they smoke and have cigarettes in heaven? I don't think so... I don't think so.

If you're gonna see this for anything make it the dialogue and the characters. Given the right mindset and the love for indie film it can make you laugh.

Review: Look Around You

Version I Watched: Standard definition, region 2 import from the UK.

Starring: Peter Serafinowicz, James Serafinowicz, and Nigel Lambert

History: This series was created by Robert Popper (Hot Fuzz, The Timewaster Phone Calls, Bellamy's People) and Peter Serafinowicz (Shaun of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run, Couples Retreat). It premiered on BBC2 in 2002 with a second season following in 2005. The show premiered in early 2009 on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim lineup. In 2003 the first season was nominated for a BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) award.

My Personal History: I was referred to this show back in 2009 when it premiered on Adult Swim. I had only seen a couple episodes that way but found more of them on youtube. I eventually picked up the region 2 DVD after picking up a multi-region DVD player where I've watched it over and over again.

Review: Look Around You at it's most basic concept is a satire of classroom educational videos that were shown when your teacher needed to grab a quick smoke break and not deal with stupid questions. To be more specific the classroom videos made back in the 1970s which is probably when they were all made anyhow, at least a lot of the videos I watched in high school looked like they were. The creators have credited the 1970s program Experiment which aired on ITV Schools (Independent Television for Schools and Colleges). This series, or the first season at least, stuck visually to a style that reflects the video and audio technology of that same era. The intro has a short countdown clock that is also a parody of the countdown clock that would play before the ITV Schools programs. Their attention to detail with their parody is exceptional. First, here's a link to the countdown for reference, now here's a link to an episode of Experiment, and lastly here's a link to an episode of Look Around You. Even watching a minute or two of Experiment and then a minute of two of Look Around You it's easy to see the parody right off the bat. The intentional VHS grain of an aging video looks fantastic. How it presents the parody with a straight face makes it way funnier than if it was presenting it by trying to be funny. What makes it so hilarious is the unpredictable exaggerations or outcomes to experiments and statistics, which I'll example in specific episodes below. Lastly the use of the narrator is the sprinkle on top of this sweet, sweet sundae giving it that educational video feel.

As this is the first show I'm reviewing I've decided to start something I want to stick to in future TV show reviews. Below is the list of each of the episodes on the DVD and my mini review of the episode.

Maths: I think this or a later episode, Germs, is a great introduction to the series as well as one of the better episodes. It starts with a visual of two youths who appear to be spray painting graffiti. One is doing the crime while the other is looking for authority. While this is going on the narrator is saying, "Look around you. Just look around you. Have you worked out what we're looking for? Correct, the answer is..." which is how each episode begins. In this particular episode right at the end of that last quote we see the two kids running away and what they were spray painting was an equation. The narrator finished by saying, "Maths." As per usual each episode they then tell you where to find this subject in your copy book, grab a bottle full of whatever the topic is (that's right, a bottle of maths), and to make sure you're ready to complete the problems that are coming up. The silly, exaggerated comedy is ripe in this one. The first thing they touch on is "what's the largest number?" and they hit the streets asking the public. They then reveal the largest number is 45,000,000,000. But scientists are thinking there could be a larger number. 45,000,000,001? A lot of these jokes are hilarious in their execution because they're so well written and executed so well and straight. Even in the back of your mind you're thinking how it is a parody but it still feels like an educational video.
In each of these shorts there are three problems/experiments that are touched on. My favorite of this episode is a comparison of height. Jean is shorter than Brutus, but taller than Imhotep. Imhotep is taller than Jean but shorter than Lord Scotland. Lord Scotland is twice the height of Jean and Brutus combined but only 1/10 the height of Millsy. Millsy is a constant height of X-Y. If Jean stands exactly 1 nautical mile from Lord Scotland how tall is Imhotep? Wondering what the answer is? The answers revealed at the end of problems like this are fantastic because they're unpredictable. This problem's answer is "Imhotep is invisible." I like to compare the humor of this show to something of the humor of Monty Python or a Zucker/Abrahms film.
By the way, in this episode there's a brief moment where you can see Simon Pegg. This was just before Shaun of the Dead so it was more of a bit role than anything. Keep your eyes open for it. It's not terribly obvious and he's on screen for maybe three seconds at best.

Water: Not a bad follow up to Maths. The intro is an example of their more unpredictable humor. "Have you worked out what we're looking for?" I'm not sure, we're watching a woman bake a pie, what could this be about? Cut to a waterfall. Following up to that the episode makes sure to note that water is made up of the element H Twenty (Not H 2 0, H Twenty). What I liked about one of the experiments in this one was how it was handled visually as opposed to exactly what they were doing. It's an alternative way of utilizing their sense of humor, only as I just stated in a visual sense. The experiment was to see the reaction of protein and water. They heat a beaker to boiling and drop an egg in for a minute, two minutes, and three minutes. What made this funny was that they used the scientists hand to get it out instead of something that would make sense, like tongs. The first minute it's runny, the second egg and two minute run is getting thicker but not quite done, and lastly the last egg with the three minute run came out not to thick and not too runny. Add salt for flavor... and breakfast is served. Oh, so funny!

Germs: This is a great episode! It opens with a young boy walking through a park with his mother while he eats a donut. He accidentally drops the donut in the trash of a toppled over trash can. The kid wasn't done with the donut so he goes running back to the trash to get the donut back clearly against his mother's orders. I have worked out what we're looking for... germs. The first thing I learned in this episode was that germs come from Germany. Makes total sense, never thought about it before. This one only had two experiments instead of the usual three. The first one, which I enjoyed more, was a measurement of how fast germs can travel. After picking up a beaker full of dirty drain water they feed it to a local university student. After allowing the germs to go through his body they bring in one of his professors. The student is instructed to cough on his professor. Slowly then we see the professor becoming sicker and sicker topping his temperature off at just a pinch over 107 degrees! "Get well, professor."

Ghosts: This episode just didn't do it for me. I felt it was too disconnected from its original concept of creating silly parodies of educational videos. When they brought in ghosts into the equation (heh) it takes it a different direction that doesn't make sense. This is something that tends to happen when the supernatural is brought into something that never has the supernatural involved in any other way. The experiments were dull if not a bit annoying. Bringing the ghost in for experiments was way over acted especially for a show that is so straight forward in it's humor. Then the haunted lab where the scientist was attempting to work with a ghost and the ghost was temper-mental was the more annoying part. This is easily the episode I like the least.

Sulphur: Now we're back on track! This one is very similar in style and execution. Again it had a great introduction. We see a group of school children walking to school. Everything looks nice and merry, sweet and wholesome. Pan to the left to see some of the teachers smoking some cigarettes. Correct, sulphur. The joke I enjoyed the most in this one is in the experiment where they try and see if sulphur is attracted to magnets. They do an absurdly over exaggerated, overly elaborate execution of the experiment where they slowly move the magnet down to the clump of sulphur. It touches but no reaction is made to the outcome until it's at lease a couple inches away from it NOT lifting up the clump of sulphur. What I loved about this experiment was when they made fun of disposing of different items from scientific experiments for sterilization purposes. It starts with a cloth, then a pair of tongs, and eventually the entire set including the sulphur and the magnet, which is followed up by the scientist pulling out a gun and shooting an entire clip into the trash can.

Music: Somewhat like the Ghosts episode I felt this one didn't have quite the same vibe. It wasn't as much a jump away from the concept I feel the show is going for as Ghost but the short music video half way through the episode isn't helping. I do really like a couple of the jokes that went with the experiments. Such as how they used the DNA of Gilbert and Sullivan and how they used a machine that cost just under a thousand pounds (it had a price sticker of 999.99 1/2 pounds). Also I really liked the brief scene where they talk about the forbidden notes. They turn off the volume, play the notes, and the scientists ears start bleeding intensely. What this one felt like most of all was a full execution of one of the joke "on the next program" previews (that they never actually make) like how they were "going to cover" hitchhiking, flowers, or reggae. Funny as a passing joke... just not as a full episode.

Iron: Once again an episode that has the right idea going for it. And again it's very similar to the better episodes in this series. I only have one quick comment to make on it. My favorite joke this episode is a cheesy one. They have a big chunk of a pyramid shaped iron block attached to a 9 volt battery. They're using both AC and DC in this electrical experiment, because this is heavy metal.

The Brain: The sad part about this episode is I felt it stuck to the right concept and execution... it just didn't work for me in the end. I felt more bored by this episode than anything. Not a total disaster, of course, these are all good episodes in the end, only there are a few that don't make me laugh as much. A lot of the humor really fell flat for me. For only being an 8-9 minute short it really felt a lot longer. Some funny bits... but nothing great overall.

Bonus! Calcium: I bring special attention to this episode because it was actually the pilot episode and it's twice the length of a normal episode. Aside from the length the first thing you'd notice is the full countdown happens instead of a few seconds like in the rest of the shorts. This is a concept I'm glad they didn't stick with since it would get really old after two episodes. As with any pilot or early episode in any series the into is plenty longer. The show still has a very similar feel with only a slightly different execution. I don't have a whole lot to say about this episode that hasn't been said about the previous episodes. It's still very funny with a lot of the same types of jokes. It's easy to see how the rest of the series got it's start, knew what it wanted to do right away, and only made slight changes when they went beyond a pilot. I will say it was a smart decision to cut the length time in half, from 20 +/- minutes to 10+/- minutes. The reason this works better is because while this episode was still very funny it gets drawn out an old as the episode plays on. A "full length" episode just doesn't have that same impact. It gets to a point where it starts feeling more like an actual educational video instead of a comedy show. The dry, British humor isn't helping in that department.

I still love this series. It's hilarious and creative. The major downside to them is how it's one of those concepts that's great for a single short or a few shorts. Once it's extended into an entire series it loses it's impact by the later episodes. Of the 8 (plus the pilot) episodes I only didn't really like 3 of them. I don't feel it's too harsh but now that I think of it it's a third of the entire season. Those odds aren't the best. Could be worse I guess. I did see a little of season two which switched it up entirely. Instead of the 70s Experiment videos it was a parody of a more recent educational video series from the UK. It had a host, was twice the length every episode. The sad thing was that it didn't do it for me. I liked the original concept a lot more. Not to mention the original concept I grew tired of before the end of the first season so I can't imagine I would want another season of the same thing. A quick last comment is that the DVD has a reversible cover, something that's really cool that not many do anymore. It's alternate cover makes the DVD case look like the cover of the textbook in the show.

Review: Audition

Version I Watched: Standard definition DVD.

Starring: Ryo Ishibashi, Eihi Shiina, and Tetsu Sawaki

 

History: This film is an adaptation of a novel by the same name written by Ryu Murakami (Daijobu mai furendo, Tokyo Decadance, Nikkei supesharu kanburia kyuden), adapted to the screen by Daisuke Tengan (The Eel, September 11, 13 Assassins) and directed by Takashi Miike (Dead or Alive, Ichi the Killer, Three... Extremes). The film has made a strong cult following over the years. It's been considered quite controversial since day one for it's sadistic violence. So harsh that when it was presented at the 2000 Rotterdam Film Festival a furious woman walked up to the film's director telling him he's evil. On Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments famed directors such as Eli Roth and Rob Zombie admitted to cringing during it's more intense moments. Coming from those guys you know it's made an affect.

 

My Personal History: I first found out about this after diving deep into the Japanese horror film genre back in high school. I've only seen it a couple of times. I do plan on watching it tons times more because it's so great and creepy I couldn't imagine giving it up.

Review: If you've read this far you already know this is a harsh and intense film. This one is not for the faint of heart. Also before I continue I must point out my love for horror. It's one of one if not my favorite genres, despite having a reputation for being pretty terrible most of the times. When it gets it right, oh boy does it get it right! I personally believe one of the reasons many people don't like horror is because it makes them uncomfortable or they don't like getting scared. This is a shame that these people don't appreciate the exact purpose horror has. If you leave one feeling disgusted, terrified, afraid to go asleep, then it was a job well done. It is a niche audience, I agree. It's the same reason why I'm not all about wholesome, feelgood tales all the time. Just not interested. I do love the thrill of getting scared! Sometimes that scare comes from the simple graphic nature of the film. It could be the violence happening on screen. It could be the environment or tone of the films. All I know is if it's creeping me out, I am enjoying it.

 

Audition starts out on quite the downer note as is. Aoyama (Ryo Ishibashi) is at his wife's death bed. She dies only moments before their 10 year old son walks in with a get well soon gift. Fast forward seven years and Aoyama is still without a companion and his son has grown to be the teenager he is now. It has become apparent that he needs to remarry. He pulls together an audition for a movie that will never be made in order to meet women. Just like my last review, Last Chance Harvey, this is when the creep factor comes into play into this film. Here we're presented with the films antagonists that we're supposed to love and cheer for but we're given guys who do, realistically, totally creepy things to get their way to the plot. The major difference here is in Last Chance Harvey he was being really forward whereas here Aoyama is being deceptive. He knows the film will never  be made, so he lives a lie if he marries the woman he meets? Depending on your conscience that could be heavy in time. The auditions seem to go on forever. This is where he meets Asami, a woman he chose was the one before the auditions even began, based on what she wrote in her interview.

The creep factor of Aoyama is soon forgotten because this is when the creep of Asami begins. Asami is a really cute, shy, appearing to be introverted girl who has a love of ballet. She feels like such a sweet and quiet girl. Now, when Aoyama finally decides to call her after the audition here we see her sitting directly in front of her phone waiting for him to call. When she hears the ring she sadistically smiles. Not out of a girlish glee or feelings of a crush, she shows evil in her eyes. And wait a second... what's in that sack behind her? Is that thing moving?!

 

The films continues to move on a nice, steady pace keeping the creepy alive. "But Dane? When's the REALLY scare stuff gonna happen?" be patient now.

They continue to meet on dates. One thing that is made subtly clear is how everything about her life is conveniently unable to be researched. She works at a bar but Aoyama isn't allowed to stop by, she loves ballet but can no longer do it due to an injury, etc, etc. All seems awfully convenient that the only thing that can be known about her for sure is what she presents. Even that is skeptical. Her facade she shows in her beauty hides dark desires. Despite all these things Aoyama is very head over heels for Asami. He expresses his desires to propose to her during a weekend getaway he has planned. Propose! I am not 100% familiar with how Japanese culture differs from American culture but if I'm not mistaken they've only been dating what, a few days? Maybe a week or two? The film has not given the impression a lot of time has passed.

Things take a quick turn when Asami vanishes without a trace on the same trip he planned on proposing at. He can't find her, doesn't have many methods of getting in touch with her, and he doesn't know her address so he can't look for her at home. After doing some research on his crush Aoyama makes some disturbing discoveries. Such as the dance studio she claims she used to dance at is run down only occupied by a crippled man who seems to like to sit in the dark alone playing the piano. Things come to an even creepier tone with every scene that passes at this point. This is also when the exposition breaks off into a very different direction that I question a bit. Aoyama comes back home to have a drink. Suddenly he feels strange and what appears to be faints. One would assume he broke off into a dream sequence and this what it feels like. A lot is learned about Asami. For example we find out the burns on the inside of her leg revealed a little earlier in the film were a form of sexual abuse by what we're led to believe is her dance instructor, or something... honestly I'm not sure. It's never made fully clear. It's also revealed what's in the sack. Allow me to detail the scene we find out. Aoyama has been jumping from place to place through location and time. Eventually he winds up in Asami's home. The sack opens up and what comes out is a man with three missing fingers, a missing ear, and a missing tongue. Asami is behind Aoyama vomiting into a dog bowl. She takes it up to this disfigured man and he dives in like he hasn't eaten in weeks. Asami simply pets him like he's a pet. it's vulgar, graphic, and disgusting... and very effective.

 

The "dream" sequence goes through plenty more but I won't spoil it all for you. It lasts a good fifteen minutes with him waking up to the horror of the most iconic scene in the film. First a commentary. One of my thoughts that really causes a different perspective on the film is what's real and what isn't. Yes the ballet studio really did exist. I can believe she used to be a ballerina. We actually do see her burn marks on her leg outside of the dream sequence so it's easy to believe she got burned (DAAAAAYAM! YOU GOT BUUUURNED!) but by who? Was it really her teacher (Father, uncle, the janitor)? Also we know that Asami had something living within that sack. There were clues given that say it can be connected to a previous event with the missing pieces of their body. But my biggest beef with the exposition in the dream sequence is a lot of it involves things Aoyama was never present for. Not are these things taking place locations he's been. I get the scene when he introduces Asami to his deceased wife. That makes sense. And the sense of imagination can create a few of the other things. But when it comes down to it all a lot of these things weren't confirmed or denied in the real world forcing the audience to choose between whether it's all real, whether it's really bad exposition, or it's just an excuse to do something really messed up. None the less the scenes were great! I love obscure and out of this world elements coming into play. When I was trying to put the puzzle pieces together there were a few things that didn't fit.

 

Now for the part that's makes this one well known. It's on the box art of every edition you'll find or at least something from this scene. It's the scene when Asami tortures Aoyama. What was slipped in Aoyama's drink before he fainted paralyzed his body. It's a special kind of paralysis because he can't move but can still feel throughout his body. That way he can suffer through it all as Asami states. Her methods are slow. She starts with a hand full of needles. She places them delicately deeper and deeper into his body causing him pain. She smiles like a school girl playing hopscotch (or like, 4 square, that game is fun) audibly saying "deeper deeper deeper." What's weird is the way she says it is almost cute, causing a strange feeling in the audience's minds. She moves up to his eyes doing the same she did on his torso. Shoving the needles under a persons eyes looks immensely painful. Then comes the big one. She presents Aoyama with a long, sharp wire that can cut through meat and bone. Asami wraps it around his ankle, sits on his foot, and carves away enjoying it as much as a young girl loves playing with dolls. This is a scene that's believed to have taken inspiration from famous scenes in Misery and In the Realm of the Senses. I can see the resemblance. There is a bit of a difference between sawing off someone's foot as opposed to *SPOILERS* hobbling someone in the ankles or slowly sawing a man's penis off *SPOILERS END.* This scene is actually very brief in the film if you take a time to it. It takes it so slow it feels longer than it really is. This is a great example that divides what type of horror you're watching. If you're screaming and jumping around because you're "scared" it's not very scary. If you're sitting still, silent, unable to look away even though what you're watching you know will give you nightmares for months, that's scary.

 

This film gives out quite the creep, and when the time comes it's not afraid to bring the gross stuff, too. The film's director, Takashi Miike is far from afraid of doing lots of gore. He's made a ton of films which I haven't seen a lot of. I will be touching on his very violent, very insane Dead or Alive one of these days. My favorite of his so far. You feel the punches as they hit. Once Asami cuts off Aoyama's foot you feel yourself looking for your own foot because it feels like you just had your foot cut off. This one will stay with you whether you like it or not.

The only other real complaint I have with this is I was trying to figure out what her motive is. She had no personal connection to Aoyama before the audition. She had a tortured childhood so I can see how she would wind up pretty messed up. The only motive I was able to find was either connected to that or the "men are pigs" motive that a lot of women use as an excuse to kill or hurt men in films whether it's justified or not. Maybe she really is just so messed up she enjoys the thrill of torture. It would answer a lot of questions. Not as interesting as some solutions but way scarier. One of the scariest thoughts is someone doing something so horrible for fun. Someone give this girl a yoyo to play with. Then she could use it for good and become a cop!

Review: Last Chance Harvey

 

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Emma Thompson, and Kathy Baker

History: This film was both written and directed by Joel Hopkins (Jorge, Jump Tomorrow, Love Punch). The film was released on Christmas Day in 2008 to a very limited release, expanding shortly thereafter. Overall it made 32.5 million in the box office and I am unsure if this is considered a box office success or not because of my difficulty finding the official budget for the film. But the film felt like it could be made pretty cheap so I am going to assume it didn't need a huge budget. The casting choice of Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson was chosen because of their great work together in Stranger Than Fiction. Their desire to work together again brought them to this film.

My Personal History: This is my first viewing. I actually just picked this up the other day for $2 at a Blockbuster Video that is closing down. Other than that I was simply aware of it's existence but never knew what it was about.

Review: Well, this is my first blind dive review. As I stated a local Blockbuster Video is closing down (The one I used to work at in high school. Kinda sad) so the wife and I went on down there to pick up some cheap movies. The other three I'll list at the end of my review like I have in the past but this was one of the really cheap ones. For $2 we figured it seemed like it would be decent enough to justify a purchase. The way I see it, buying a movie for $2 isn't a lot different than renting a redbox movie for only $1 (or $1.20 I think it is now). The big difference is if you like it you get to keep it forever. If you don't like it then you didn't lose much.

The film centers around the lives of two people who clearly feel out of touch and alone in their life. Harvey (Dustin Hoffman) is a divorced man living far from any of his family. It's never made explicitly clear where exactly his family is living at the time this film took place. He does travel all the way over to England to attend his daughter's wedding, although it is repeated over and over "A long way to come for two Americans to be getting married" implying they live nowhere near there. His presence there is strange. Every scene he was in with anyone in his family it felt like he didn't belong there. It also felt like nobody wanted him there either. This made the scenes pre and during the wedding to be incredibly awkward, causing even myself to cringe in my seat from uncomfortableness.
Then there's Kate (Emma Thompson). Some chunks of her story are left to assumption as little details are given throughout the film. It is to my understanding that she is the type of woman whose life didn't quite go the way she hoped it would. This is hinted at the type of job she does. She is an attendant at an airport who asks people to take surveys regarding their travels. Can you image doing that 40 hours a week? I wouldn't be able to stand one hour of something like that. What a hellish job. She also keeps her anxious mother company with her father not around. Eventually in the story we find out her father ran off to France years ago. She is constantly being bothered by her mother who thinks her neighbor may be a serial killer because of "suspicious activity" and "an awful lot of grilling."

The two meet up entirely on happenstance at the airport bar. Kate is sitting down to a glass a wine over a book while Harvey drinks his troubles away from his horrible day. They make their first bonding moment by comparing their day. "Oh no, my day was far shittier." Then again if I lost my job due to missing my plane from horrible traffic on the way from having to skip out early on my daughter's wedding where she decided to have her step father giver her away over her actual father I would go to the bar, too. This is the tipping point of Harvey and Kate's relationship that truly is a movie romance to the T because romances like this aren't entirely realistic. I don't want to generalize especially since the woman I am now married to I met entirely on happenstance but let me explain.

Harvey and Kate enjoy lunch "next to each other" as they called it. They chat for a while and make their goodbyes. Harvey then runs into her on the train leaving the airport, and by running into her I mean he bolts it from four cars away just to get to see her again. This would be red flag number one of a serial killer tendency. Again at the train station you'd think they are saying their goodbyes again until she mentions she's heading to a writing class in which Harvey offers to walk her to the class, carry her books. Once again this comes off as bizarre since they just met and he is acting like a school boy being obsessive over the cute girl in the class. Lastly when they get to the class Harvey offers to wait for the class to finish. It's just all really bizarre how he is acting around this woman he met hours earlier. This is why this is a movie relationship. In a realistic sense Kate would be horrified by his behavior and is wondering if she should keep any and every drink covered by her hand in case he tries to date rape her and she wakes up naked in a ditch somewhere she's never been with a kidney missing. On top of that the ages of the actors themselves is roughly 22 years difference! It was elements like this that made it difficult to initially get into the story. There were so many things happening in this short chunk of time in the second act of the film that gave off a weird feeling.

Once I was able to get past that last paragraph their relationship does start to shine. Yes the actors ages are quite different (Hoffman was born in 1937, Thompson in '59), but they're do a great job! Let me say how much I like Dustin Hoffman. Like many other people I think he is a fantastic actor. I have been treated mostly to his more recent work like Stranger Than Fiction and I do remember seeing Rain Man years ago but it's his early, classic work I haven't seen a lot of. One of these days I'd love to see Tootsie because I hear nothing but great things. I did see Straw Dogs and he was EXCELLENT in that one! This film is no exception. Where some of the writing falls short Hoffman brings it back up to make it a better film that it may have been with someone else. As Harvey who has had a lot of trouble and pain in his life you can really see it. There is a scene part way through the film at his daughter's wedding reception where he gives a heartfelt speech about how despite having a split family his daughter was able to become an amazing and independent woman. It was killing him to give that speech knowing that many of the people in the room hated or were embarrassed by him. The pain was in his expression and it was truly convincing.
Emma Thompson on the other hand was someone who never stood out for me. I know I've seen her in a bunch of movies before such as the Harry Potter films or once again along with Dustin Hoffman in Stranger Than Fiction, but this may be the first time I really noticed her. It's easy to tell she is incredibly unhappy with her life being alone without love of a companion and constantly having her bored mother bothering her all the time. Once Kate and Harvey's relationship start to kick off it's easy to see why Harvey is so attracted to her. She is a delightfully cute woman whose personality gives her plenty of depth. She also comes off as a very modest woman. I cannot imagine her taking advantage of a man being attracted to her by using him to her advantage. When she convinces Harvey to go to his daughter's wedding and agrees to go with him he insists on buying her a dress. They go out to get one and she comes out with a simple yet superb black dress. Nothing too fancy but it makes her shine.

One thing that is noticeable as the film goes on is how predictable it gets. This is truly a romance film in the most traditional sense. You tend to see where it's going three steps ahead of the story telling you where it's going. I watched this with my wife and she accurately predicted a curve-ball before it even happened. So for a story like this, like any slasher film, it's not what happens but how it all plays out. At first I felt like this film had nothing that stood out in it aside from the really well done performances. I thought about it more and came to a realization, how mature the film handled itself. Content wise it wasn't strong even by PG-13 standards. What gave it the rating were some "shit"s and an excerpt from an old man's sex fantasy novel. What I wound up really liking is that they fell in love with each other based on how they truly found out how they felt for each other. There is not a single sex scene in this film and it really was enriched because of it. I felt like the film was really trying to communicate that two people can fall in love with each other from the far simpler things than the complicated tangle sex can cause.

With all that said it's hard to really recommend this film highly. It wasn't a bad film, certainly not. It just wasn't superb. I would suggest this to people who are interested in a good love story who isn't a fan of vulgarity in film. This film does not have a lot of vulgarity so it's helpful there. Otherwise I am sure fans of Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman would enjoy this film as well. It is sure worth a $2 purchase at a closing Blockbuster Video!

Review: Frequency

Version I Watched: Standard definition DVD.

Starring: Dennis Quaid, Jim Caviezel, and Shawn Doyle

History: An original screenplay written by Toby Emmerich (The Last Mimzy) and directed by Gregory Hoblit (Primal Fear, Hart's War, Fracture). This film was released on April 28th 2000 and was met with plenty of positive reviews with a few mixed. It was a box office success earning approximately 68 million, earning over triple it's original 22 million budget. It was originally going to be made in 1997 directed by Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, 12 Rounds). The starring role was going to be played by Sylvester Stallone (Rocky, First Blood, The Expendables) but his salary requirement was too high. Neither would be involved in the final product.

My Personal History: My family went to see this when it was first released. There are very few films throughout anyone's life I think they can recall seeing more times than they can remember. This is one of those films. We all loved it so much we had to get it on tape (good old VHS) as soon as it hit store shelves. Since then we've had viewing after viewing and continue to enjoy the hell out of it to this day.

Review: It needs to be understood that I am going to have a huge bias toward this because of my history with it. Many of it's flaws I wouldn't have noticed over ten years ago during my first viewings I do see now. It doesn't quite demote its quality because I still consider this to be one of the most underrated and overlooked films of the turn of the century.

The film's brief opening exposition gets things going quick and at a consistent rate. First we meet the star of the show, Frank (Dennis Quaid). He is a firefighter on a rescue mission down in the sewers. Some workers are stuck down there in a flooded area with exposure wiring threatening to electrocute them. In typical tension building done the way movies do it they get everyone out JUST in time followed up by Frank getting out by the skin of his teeth. Following him was an explosion of fire out of the manhole. I may be a bit harsh saying it was a pretty cheap looking effect considering this was made over a decade ago. But that's when I reference movies like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2. Not that it has to be at that level, but the effects in those movies were far better and they were made 7 and 9 years earlier. After the heroic rescue we meet Frank's family. It's a typical American family. Nice home, beautiful wife, a fun kid, and a love of baseball. It's a sweet and heartwarming image seeing the life they live. Fast forward thirty years to 1999. Frank's son John (Jim Caviezel) who we saw only moments earlier as a young boy is being walked out on by his current girlfriend. The American Dream image he lived with his family and his good friend Gordo playing baseball and learning to ride a bike are gone. He is now a down on his luck cop living a lonely life filled with failed relationships. He tends to spend a lot of time with his childhood friend Gordo (Noah Emmerich) and his mother Jules (Elizabeth Mitchell).

It doesn't take long for the plot to kick in which is reason number one why I like this move so much. It doesn't dilly dally around with punching us in the face with exposition for an eternity before things start up. One night Gordo and his son Gordy Jr (Played by a very young Michael Cera) are hanging out at John's house. George Michael... sorry... Gordy Jr stumbles across an old ham radio Frank used to use in the 60s. They reminisce about memories of the radio and Frank reciting lines like, "This is not a toy!" Eventually they decide to give it a try but doesn't work too well. After Gordo and Scott Pilgrim... sorry, sorry, Gordo Jr leave for the night John gives it another try. He gets a strange connection with an unknown man. They go back and forth about the ham radio itself and the world series. John talked about the games this unknown man is talking about was thirty years ago. They both are in different worlds but neither of them realize it. Before a real connection is made the line cuts. It turns out the person John was talking to was his father Frank thirty years earlier in 1969.

The time travel radio waves are being caused by an unusual series of northern lights showing up as south as where our new friends are, the Bronx. There isn't much of any science behind it. Which is fine. It's the same reason why I didn't want to see the typical, "Mr. President! There's a giant monster attacking New York City!" in Cloverfield. It didn't need that exposition especially since the concept of time travel is complex enough. Not to mention everything that is in the movie needs to be in the movie. Having a lengthy or even breaking away from the story to "explain" how this time travel frequency is happening would be silly. And to briefly tease the sentence before that, there are really no throwaway scenes. More on that in a bit.

John gets in touch with Frank again not much later. Things seem odd when a lot of familiar elements of John's childhood come up in conversation. John then recites to Frank (who he still doesn't know is Frank) his home address (John lives in his childhood house as an adult), who his family was and what they did, and then when Frank accidentally burns the desk and it shows up in the future John relays it over the radio to which Frank believes someone is creeping from outside the house. Just before the radio cuts out again John tells Frank how he dies. He tells him he is going to die the next day in a fire. "He went with his instincts. But only if he went the other way he would have made it!"

*****ALERT!*****
I am not going to give away everything in this review. I do want to talk about a lot of the changes to the past that happen because of this communication through time, though. So please read at your own discretion. Part of the fun of the movie is seeing how well it all unfolds and how the past will change with each alternate path taken.
*****SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT*****

John got Frank's attention because the next day the fire he said would happen did happen. While attempting to make a rescue in the fire Frank is about to go with his instincts but chooses to go the other way and find a different path. Safe to say he gets away. While this is happening, 30 years later John is at a bar having a drink with Gordo and Satch (Andre Braugher) celebrating Frank on the anniversary of his death. The moment, 30 years earlier, Frank decides to take a different path John is hit with a face full of new memories. He freaks out begging his friends to tell him how his dad died. "My dad didn't die in a fire?!" "No, John, cancer." In the matter of a few moments the last 30 years changed instantly. Nobody knows the difference besides John.... and kinda Frank.

After a heartfelt bonding sequence where it's finally understood that they really are communicating through time an investigation begins. A serial killer from Frank's time was never caught and John is investigating. They come up with a plan to try and stop the murders before they happen. This is also when we see the first sign of bad results coming from all the good that happens.

In time I have thought about the time travel concept they went with. To anyone with the most basic knowledge of time travel knows if anything is changed in the past it will change the future no matter how small the act may be. Frequency follows a "real time" time travel system. By this I mean everything that happens in the past that affects the future will affect the future the same date and time thirty years later. The films mostly follows this with some inconsistencies in how certain things are handled. An example of this is when Frank's death is replaced with Jules. As soon as John realizes he saved his father's life he calls his mom leaving a voicemail. You can clearly tell it is her voicemail. That night John falls asleep to a nightmare at a funeral. He calls his mom late in the night/early in the morning but a deli answers. This is the first clue that something is wrong. It's soon revealed she fell victim to the serial killer John is trying to catch. My immediate question is how does that compare to a few other things that happened? When Frank is initially "saved" John experiences 30 years of new memories of his dad being around but he doesn't remember his mom dying? And if all these changes already happened why did she have a voicemail around 10pm but by 4am it's a deli? Also if these changes don't have an affect on the future until they happen thirty years in the past then how come all these other memories came kicking in first? I also wonder about the details of where a person is on said day or what they wear or what they do, etc, etc, etc. When John and his buds met up at the bar they were there to celebrate Frank's life. Why would they be there if he didn't die in the fire? Did Frank die on the same day only years later of cancer? Why are they all sitting in the same seat? Same clothes? Same drinks? Why does the bar look the same? Why are all the same people (potentially) still there? If this were a consistent nit-pick on time travel consistency this review would be filled with them. It does feel like the changes that happen when they do are convenient for the time and situation.

The only other major "issue" I have with this film is the acting. Let's face it, it's not very well acted in a fair chunk of parts. Dennis Quaid is passable in most of his roles. Jim Caviezel really is a good actor but in this role his accent felt forced and unnatural. Then other parts felt like a cop drama like Law & Order.

The great thing about the acting is that they are convincing in their chemistry. Frank and John truly feel like a father and son. It's a very tender relationship. One of the reasons why I like this movie so much is because of their relationship. It's a great father son film for a father son pair to watch. It does make me think of my own daddy. After every viewing I feel I should give him a hug and remind him how much I love him and appreciate him for all he is and does for me.

This film is also really well written. As I stated earlier it doesn't have anything in it that doesn't need to be there. There are a couple things they could expand on but I digress. The best example I can use is a brief moment in character development. Early in the film Gordo talks about Yahoo and how he should have gotten on board when he did. During one of Frank and John's talks Gordo as a kid gets on the line. John calls himself Santa Claus and gives him a magic word. Yahoo. By the end of the film we see Gordo is filthy stinking rich! The only part I feel could have been expanded on is...
*****REAL SPOILER ALERT!*****
at the end when Frank comes into John's home saving him from the killer with a shotgun to the killer's chest. He conveniently shows up when Frank 30 years earlier shoots off the hand of the same killer who is also attacking in said same house the same night and same time. My question is that did Frank beat cancer when John told him that's how he would die? If so then where has Frank been since he gave up smoking so long ago and was alive all this time? It would have been nice to add a little bit to the giving up smoking element and maybe finding a slightly more creative way for Frank to show up in the present time.
*****SPOILERS END*****

I really do love this film. I love it so much. It is vastly entertaining with characters that you really do care about. Also it keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering what's coming up next. And while the time travel changes do raise a lot of questions if combed through with a fine tooth comb it really is still fun and interesting to see what changes do happen in the future. I do highly recommend this title. It was overlooked back when it came out and I can guarantee it is pretty underrated. Not to mention it has some really cool tricks when they take advantage of the changing of history as it happens.

Recent Addition to Collection: Burn After Reading

Review: The Cell

Version I Watched: Standard definition DVD.

Starring: Jennifer Lopez, Vince Vaughn, and Vincent D'Onofrio

History: An original story written by Mark Protosevich (Poseiden, I Am Legend, Thor) and directed by Tarsem Singh (The Fall, Immortals, Mirror Mirror). The film was released on August 18th 2000 and was met with mixed reviews by critics. The film was a box office success by earning 104 million at the box office, over triple the original budget of 33 million.

My Personal History: I saw this back in the summer of 2007 when it was recommended to me by a high school friend. I remember loving it so much at the time which brought me into it on this viewing with some raised expectations as I didn't remember a lot about it other than some key elements. All I remember was its style, how violent it was, that Jennifer Lopez actually did a really good job, and that I felt it was really underrated in response to the mixed reviews it received when first released.

Review: There are many different types of directors. Some have material the jump up and down in quality. Some are very consistent whether it's good or bad. Then there are some who peak early or take a while to gain their style and their films get progressively better. The Cell director, Tarsem Singh is one of those directors who falls into the more unique of these categories where they breakout in a great high note but then their follow ups don't quite live up to their early work. It reminds me a bit of Rob Zombie or M. Night Shamalamadingdong. Those two had a pretty good or great first film. Then their follow up was excellent! But each film they followed up with after that just didn't live up to par. In fact they kept getting worse. Tarsem Singh hasn't made enough to properly judge this way but as a lead in I have a mixed bag of feelings for all his films. Immortals was fun at parts but had a lot of room for improvement, The Fall was amazing despite the plot leaving something more to be desired, and I haven't seen Mirror Mirror but that's not quite my cup of tea of film. And The Cell... Well you'll find out...

The film opens not in the real world. Catherine (Jennifer Lopez) is riding through a desert on a horse in an elaborate dress reminiscent of bird feathers. She meets up with a young boy whom she has a close and personal relationship with, almost motherly. She asks him if they are going boating together. Suddenly an old, worn out ship appears next to them, which will not work. Then a small toy boat appears and Catherine tells him it'll work perfectly. Suddenly as she approaches the toy boat the young boy vanishes. An overwhelming sense of something is not right comes over the scene. Catherine presses the space between her thumb and forefinger and that's when she "wakes up." This is when the films reveals that the last scene took place, as I said, not in the real world. It took place in the young boy's mind. Catherine is this young boy's therapist. She uses a very advanced technology to reach him. Not through regular talk on a long couch but by actually going into his mind.

Starting the film in that world is a great setup giving its audience a preview of what's to come. Not only do the most important parts of the film take place outside the real world, but the best parts take place there, too.

The technology is really unique as is, or at least the design concept behind it. The participants are suspended in the air, on their backs, by thin wires. They are also dressed in a red suit that look as if they're made out of muscles. They enter the "mind world" by draping a cloth filled with circuitry over their face. Lastly, to exit the "mind world" the user uses an implant embedded into their hand, the spot between the forefinger and thumb as mentioned previously. This is a concept that I believe was created out of the visual feel of it rather than the tech reasoning. I say that mostly because it never goes very in depth how the tech works, nor is it absolutely necessary. There are still a few things that bugged me about it. I can see how the suit could be filled with pulses pushes onto the user giving a very real sense of where they are in the other person's mind. I must ask how the cloth works. Does it put the individual to sleep? Does it cause a hallucination of some kind to their vision? Also why is it the live body hardly moves at all except when they press the escape button? Suddenly their arm is way up in the air.

By the way, only one mind is entered at a time as expected. There is one host and visitor(s). Only the visitor(s) have the ability to exit upon command if they feel it is necessary.

After this particular session the boy's parents step in because they felt there's been little progress with their son's therapy using this unorthodox method to help with his schizophrenia. The clinic battles to continue the therapy and they are allowed 6 more months with him before they put him into a traditional hospital. Thank the Lord this isn't what the film is about primarily. Otherwise we'd be looking at another feel good movie about the battle for a young child's health filled with boring and predictable cliches. Instead what we get is a lot more sadistic.

Parallel to Catherine's story is one of a serial killer. Initially very little is known about the killer. He captures young women, drowns them, bleaches them so their bodies are nearly pure white, and then disposes of the body but not before getting off sexually in his own unique way. He suspends himself, face down from hooks he has embedded into his back. To put the wonderful finishing touches on things he has a haircut Anton Chigurh of No Country for Old Men would be proud of. Before the plot kicks in we see our wonderful antagonist, named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) claim two lives. One upon his introduction where we see his introduction and the second shortly thereafter. He claims his victim in a hidden underground basement underneath a deserted barn inside a giant tank.

The first on screen victim is found by FBI agent Peter (Vince Vaughn) down by a shallow river. The second victim is only briefly shown but never brought up again the rest of the film... not sure why... could have caused unnecessary repetition. After the body was found they get cracking on the case. It didn't take long before they find his home to bust him. An entire swat team is outside his home locked and loaded which felt a bit excessive since they're getting just one guy. It could have easily been half as many men to bring him in. It was pretty convenient that at the same time he is taking a bath so he is very defenseless. This is when it's presented to us that Carl has these very intense headaches which has given him an addiction to aspirin. Again, conveniently for the fuzz, Carl has run out of aspirin so his intense headaches hits harder than usual presented in a very demonic sense as if he is possessed. He stumbles about right before S.W.A.T. breaks in to apprehend him somehow missing him passed out on the floor when they first break in.

Carl's brain has been deeply penetrated with an extreme case of schizophrenia and has now essentially become a vegetable. Great! Got the bad guy! But wait... he has a victim that will die in less than two days unless they find out where she is...

This is when the film REALLY kicks into gear. The only way to find out where the latest victim is hidden is to go into Carl's mind. Catherine is the only person who can get in there to find out the answer.

The "mind world" as I have been calling it is where, as I've stated multiple times before, the film comes alive, it's the best parts, and they look great. The film's director Tarsem Singh is great at making his films look great if nothing else. Really this man should be a concept artists or a cinematographer. This is where he thrives.

Carl's mind is a twisted kingdom filled with his victims where as expected anything is possible. His victims are present in a bizarre S&M binding dolled up to feed his sexual desires. Carl is also represented in his mind as a King to his Kingdom. This makes perfect sense because who else but the owner of the mind would be the King? After a lot of difficulty Catherine is eventually succumb to Carl's power within his own mind where she enters a state believing what she is experiencing is real. Peter has to go in after her (Which gives even more proof how Inception is NOT as original as internet trolls lead you to believe) which eventually leads to the films thrilling conclusion.

Beneath the films main story is the theme of water and drowning. In many scenes are elements of both. At the most basic level we see Carl kill his victims from drowning. Most obvious. Carl is taking a bath immediately before passing out right before he is taken in. During Carl's full body baptism he went into a seizure and nearly drowned when he was a young boy (Not a baby). And he also drowned a small animal to save it from his abusive father. They do all come together in a consistent way but don't really add a lot to the film overall. If a different element was implemented it would have worked almost the same way minus how specific scenes are executed. Say fire. Carl could have burned his victims alive, could have been burned throughout parts of his body whether by his abusive father or a house fire of some kind, could have killed the small animal by burning it in a bon-fire, etc, etc, etc, and it could have turned out similar.

While on topic with his abusive father... Carl had a very abusive father physically and mentally. A common trope in serial killer stores. His father was the type to blow up at the smallest things, like accidentally breaking a dinner plate. That deserves a mouth full topped with a smack to the head. He constantly reminded Carl his mother walked out on them leaving him the belief she doesn't love him. She probably didn't and his father clearly doesn't so it's easy to see why he turned out the way he did. There is also a brief moment where we see Carl playing with dolls to which his butch father would OBVIOUSLY hate. Carl's father reacts by beating Carl with his belt screaming, "I didn't raise no faggot!" What's conflicting about elements of this presented for serial killer stores is it gives sympathy to the killer. How is that supposed to make the audience feel? The screenwriter may as well be saying, "He's just misunderstood. Don't blame him for the murders. Blame his father." While I do prefer mystery to the evils in film this was nice to add some depth to Carl. If it weren't for the revelations present in his mind he would just be a run of the mill serial killer who looks and acts creepy.

One thing I did like on a personality level was Catherine. She is a very sweet and soft spoken person who has a huge heart. I know some people who are very motherly even if they aren't actually mothers. She comes off as so reserved that in a moment when she smokes pot and swears it felt very out of character. She didn't come off as the type of person who would do either of those things. She does contribute to the conflicting feelings about the serial killer. In Carl's mind we're treated to three versions of Carl. The real world Carl, as I like to call it the "Demon" Carl (And in one scene he is presented as nearly the devil himself with horns made out of his hair), and childhood Carl. Catherine seems to feel the need to protect childhood Carl even though he is only a memory. I question exactly what it is she is trying to accomplish by protecting him the way she does.

The performances weren't anything terrible. It was mostly what would be expected either by these characters or actors. The only one that did stand out for me was Jennifer Lopez. It's partially because of the perception going into it knowing what I know about her. I know the first time I saw this back in 2007 I was hesitant because of who it starred. I had seen a couple of her movies so it didn't appeal to me in that element. It was recommended by the opinion of someone I trust so I went for it. So in the end it really is a case of getting more out of it than you'd expect. It isn't just that. I did get more than I expected. So it isn't just lowered expectations, then? No. J-Lo played the role really well. Very sweet, enduring, and very brave in character. The rest of the performances were fine. Vincent D'Onofrio played the creepy killer the way you'd expect. It was very textbook and didn't bring anything too special to the table. Then there's Vince Vaughn in one of his pre-comedic roles who still makes sure to sport his signature look where you'd think he just crapped his pants and is hoping nobody will notice the smell.

I didn't love this as much as I did on my first viewing. Being away from it for 5 years gave it a real first time feel. As cookie cut as some of the elements are it's still crazy entertaining. The mind diving sequences makes the audience wonder what could possibly happen next. So really this is a film I would still highly suggest. It's still very well put together and most of all very creative in its visuals. I can imagine there are many who could get turned off to some of the harsh violence and dark, dark imagery and elements... whateves. This is a great film.