Foster on Film – Page 50 – The Film Criticism of Matthew M. Foster

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Oct 052003

With the machines attacking Zion, Captain Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith) and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), must rush back to the city with the last functional EMP weapon. Neo (Keanu Reeves), and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) head for the machine city where Neo will discover his destiny. And the Agent Smith clones have taken over The Matrix.

The Wachowskis brothers (writers, directors, and producers of the series) need a class on symbolism. You see, a symbol should be symbolic, not literal. Sounds pretty simple, and obvious, but the brothers missed it. They are constantly confusing symbols with what they reflect, thus Neo, a symbolic Jesus, has powers because he is Jesus. The final answer to why Neo can perform miracles outside of The Matrix is that he’s an avatar of God (or a god). But I thought he was a metaphor for an avatar of…no, wait, that way lies madness.
The upshot is that in 1999, The Matrix left two unanswered questions, and in 2003 those questions have been answered by making the symbols into the actual religious figures. What a waste.

But the mistaken use of symbols is broader. Almost everything in The Matrix Revolutions represents not only one thing, but several, often contradictory things. There is no clear message because there is no single interpretation. If anything can mean everything, then it all means nothing. However, it does make for a replayable game—pin the religious icons on the film entities. It works best with Eastern religions, but I’m more familiar with Christianity than Hinduism, and besides, any religion works. Let’s try a round.

Neo is Christ
The Oracle is God
Zion is Heaven
The Architect is Satan
The Machine City is Hell
Morpheus is John The Baptist.
Trinity is Mary (take your pick)
Agent Smith is the Antichrist
The Matrix is Earth

This one works well, particularly if you’re a conservative Christian and go with the idea that God is good. Neo is the savior (it’s hard to miss the crucifixion, though for symbolic fun, Trinity has a crucifixion scene too), and he sees fire in the Machine City. You can’t beat the symmetry of Agent Smith being Neo’s opposite. And the Oracle not only is the one who sends Neo to free the world, but she also made The Matrix, partly anyway (because the Architect’s versions kept failing). Still, the analogy isn’t tight in all areas. The Architect is more of a God-like figure, and he’s the ultimate in order. So, let’s spin the wheel again, this time taking a more cynical look at Christianity:

Neo is the Antichrist
The Oracle is Satan
Zion is Hell
The Architect is God
The Machine City is Heaven
The Train Station is Purgatory
Morpheus is The False Prophet
Trinity is …well, no one all that much
Agent Smith is Christ
The Matrix is Earth

Hey, that works even better, as long as you don’t mind making God and Christ the bad guys—kinda. The Oracle is an angel (I mean program) that fell to Earth (I mean the Matrix) because she is a fan of freedom (Satanists should be happy with this version). Neo, while having no freedom of his own, is here to stop Christ from causing Armageddon (which is part of God’s master plan—read your Bible), and allow people to continue having a choice, at least on Earth. And Zion sure looks like Hell to me.

That not your favorite? Just mix and match (keeping in mind that Neo’s name is an anagram of One). Smith could be Satan, or perhaps a new fallen angel like Gabriel in The Prophecy. We already had a Lucifer (named Cypher) in the first film, but he makes for a better Judas anyway. We can make Zion into Eden, and let The Matrix be Hell. Or better still, The Matrix can be purgatory (with all those no-longer-useful programs just waiting—and isn’t the Merovingian’s club called Hel?

Enough with Christianity; try another religion. How about Zarathustrianism? According to its teachings, all of the universe is Ahura Mazda, but he’s split into Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu (The Architect and The Oracle). There is Heaven, Hell, Armageddon, and a Messiah, which should be pretty easy to fill in. And the whole basis of the religion is the choices you make. You see, nothing is real. It’s all an illusion, which if you can overcome, you can “return to the source.”

Don’t like that one. Choose another.

The problem isn’t that you can squeeze multiple basic religious systems onto the framework of the film, but rather that The Wachowskis brothers just mindlessly took pieces of every faith they’d heard of and tossed them together. When Neo could be equally Christ, the Antichrist, and the avatar of Vishnu, what is it all supposed to mean? Not much. It’s just a game for first year religious studies majors.

The Matrix Revolutions is certainly a sister film to Reloaded (they were filmed consecutively). Around the metaphors, there is lots of dialog I wish I’d never heard, and a couple of spectacular action sequences. I’m slightly partial to Revolutions over Reloaded as I’m more of a Zulu fan (the inspiration for the never-ending battle of Zion) than a The French Connection car chase guy. That’s the only real reason to like one over the other. It’s just your preference for how you want your smash-and-bash effects served up.

Unfortunately, all drama is removed from the action scenes. I didn’t care about any of these characters, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who claimed they were emotionally moved by the fate of Neo and Trinity. Or anybody in Zion. Some people die; some people live; some relationships work out. None of it matters. But it is really pretty. Really, really pretty.

Like its predecessor, I recommend this for viewing at a theater (but try for a cheaper matinee), as it looks so good on the big screen. Better would be a home viewing if you owned a nine foot screen, as then you could go get a drink, read the mail, or chat, whenever there was dialog.

Cyberpunk, Reviews Tagged with: Three Reels

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Oct 052003

Neo (Keanu Reeves), Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) continue to fight the machines. Now, with the machines staging a final assault on Zion, the last human city, Neo visits The Oracle (Gloria Foster) and learns he must return to “the source” to end the war. To do so, he will have to deal with rogue programs in The Matrix, and fight off a growing army of Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) clones.

I suppose I should be kinder to The Matrix Reloaded. How many sequels—much less episodes in an ongoing series of films—are watchable? Think for a moment on Highlander II: The Quickening, or Hellraiser 5 and 6. If The Matrix didn’t exist, I’d probably be able to take Reloaded, dump the double-speak, and enjoy it as a wham-bam thank you ma’am extravaganza of bullets, cars, and martial arts, all done with Vogue style. But The Matrix does exist, and this is a poor shadow. Sure, Reloaded has style, but it’s all style from The Matrix (and no style stays fresh for four years). What’s good in this movie is just more of the same from the first. There’s nothing original. But as a sequel, I shouldn’t expect originality. However, sense would have been nice.

The Matrix was a breathtaking science fiction action film that changed the genre (changed several genres actually). A nearly perfect blend of concepts, drama, flash, and action, The Matrix left two questions unanswered: What allows The Oracle to know things outside of The Matrix, and what in the real world makes Neo a messiah in The Matrix? All a sequel needed to do was answer those metaphysical questions. Another layer of reality would have done the trick nicely. But Reloaded answers nothing. It is an empty bridge between the first and third installments in the franchise, empty except for the noise. Some of that noise is pretty good, with a nice beat you can dance to. Some is tedious. Most of it goes on too long, and in the end, it is just noise.

The film is essentially two long fight sequences with some religious babbling in between. I can’t deny that they are spectacular sequences. In the first, Neo fights an army of Agent Smiths, and while the CGI effects are occasionally too noticeable, it’s a top notch action scene, taking Hong Kong martial arts and raising the bar out of reach for everyone else. But for all the coolness of the fight, this is professional wrestling. There’s no drama. In The Matrix, the fights had tension and moved the story along. Here, it’s all about the cool movements. (If the concern had been for the story, than Agent Smith would never have been brought back. But I admit that I’m glad he’s around again, even if it strips the original film of one of its finest moments. Smith is a cool villain, and if he’s now a cartoon of his previous self, at least he’s a cool cartoon.) The second is a twenty minute plus orgy of combat that starts as two hand-to-hand fights, and ends in a fifteen minute freeway chase. Again, it looks great. But it goes on too long. I can only see so many cars crash before it all starts looking the same.

Between the fights, there is talking. Lots and lots of talking, and little of it makes sense or is of any interest. Morpheus, a mysterious wise man with a religious obsession in the first film, has become a full blown fanatic, gibbering about The One when almost any other topic would be preferable. He gives long-winded, and completely vacuous speeches on what he believes (Steve Martin had a routine where he stated what he believed, and it included, in the middle of the ethical and metaphysical statements, the line “I believe that robots are stealing my luggage”; Morpheus’s speeches have less content). Several times, he could argue his position by pointing out that Zion has no way of holding off the machines, so a radical approach is necessary, but instead, he goes on and on about The One.

We’re saved from a bit of empty chatter by the Zion rave. Those nutty dancing kids (who are almost all the same age) meet up in a big cave to get their groove on, while Neo and Trinity go at it in a more intimate way. While difficult to believe this is where they have dances, I like the Zionite hipsters getting down. It is somewhere between a music video and a rum advertisement, but it looks good. (Don’t knock the party as it is now the theme of the series; in The Matrix, the objective was to free the human race, but now, it is to make sure these people retain their rave space.) Others have complained that Reeves and Moss appear less like a couple in the throes of ecstasy, and more like they just want a nap, but I have to wonder what these people wanted to see. Backward cowgirl with Moss yelling giddyup?

I could detail all the drab dialog and meaningless or ridiculous moments (there’s a scene with a kiss that made me wonder if the writing/directing/producing Wachowski brothers had lost contact with the human race), but it would just make me tired. But I can’t dismiss The Matrix Reloaded because the effects are so good. It’s fun the way an amusement park is fun. I’m not looking for meaning or a coherent explanation when I ride a rollercoaster. It’s not art, but it has a “wow” factor.

Followed by The Matrix Revolutions.

Cyberpunk, Reviews Tagged with: Three Reels

Timeline (2003)

Oct 042003

When an archaeological team discovers a note from Professor E.A. Johnston (Billy Connolly), written six hundred years earlier, they demand answers from Robert Doniger (David Thewlis), the CEO of the company backing their dig. Doniger informs them that he has accidentally discovered time travel and the professor is now trapped in the past. He agrees to send the professor’s son, Chris Johnston (Paul Walker), four of the archaeologists, including Kate Ericson (Frances O’Connor) and André Marek (Gerard Butler), security officer Frank Gordon (Neal McDonough) and two marines, back in time to attempt a rescue.

Timeline is three movies in one—a corporate thriller, a costume action picture, and a science fiction time travel film. It fails in each. As the novel was written by Michael Crichton, who loves to fill his books with scientific and historical knowledge not absolutely necessary for the story, I expected Timeline to be a fourth type of movie, an “edutainment” instructional flick, but it isn’t. There is nothing to be learned about life in the fourteenth century. Trying to learn something while watching would mean you had engaged your brain, and that’s the last thing you want to do, as this dim-witted film would make your neurons panic and run to hide somewhere in your ears.

Let me take each film type separately.

The corporate thriller aspect is easiest to cast aside. It seems that the dig is being sponsored by ITC. Since it is a corporation, it must be evil and must be chaired by a sneaky, money-grubbing megalomaniac, because that’s what all corporations are like in Hollywood films. So, Robert Doniger is a bad guy. That’s set up quickly. His aim is to hush up any bad publicity. What could there be bad publicity about? Well, they lost a guy in the past. But, in a series of glances and vague comments, we find out there is so much more. “Thank God,” I thought, “these corporate secrets will explain why anyone, ever, would send this group of untrained and uncontrolled people through time.” So, what are the great secrets? Yes I’m going to give them away, and no they aren’t spoilers as the film tosses out the answers just as unceremoniously. It turns out that there is a second guy trapped in the past, a guy that is given almost no back story, and ends up having so little effect on the plot that he could have been written out with no more than five minutes work. But there is more. There is the big secret. Ready? Going through time, multiple times, can mess up your genetic code, or maybe it’s your cells, it’s not really clear. Anyway, you die. Oooooh. Now that’s a problem…except…it isn’t. It turns out to be completely irrelevant to the story and our characters. After a guy dies in the desert in the first scene of the film, no one ever again is affected by this genetic/cellular problem. I was hoping they’d tell me why the guy was in the desert too, but like so many things in Timeline, it was left hanging.

For most of its too long running time, Timeline is an action film. Our heroes, without a thought in their heads (much like you while watching), run a lot, often through tunnels, woods, and over roofs. They also enjoy jumping fences and trotting down corridors. They seldom pick up weapons, but when they do, they are more proficient than soldiers of the time. Now, in good action movies, the action is directly connected to the plot, and puts characters we care about in danger. In Timeline, once the running starts, there is no plot. It is just scenes of frenetic motion, tied together with more scenes of frenetic motion, and lots of dialog along the lines of “Come on,” “We need to run,” “Faster, they’re coming,” and of course, “Run!”

As for caring about these characters, I was just hoping they’d die quickly. André Marek isn’t a drain on the film, mainly because Gerard Butler (from Dracula 2000 and Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life) gives a bit of life to him, but the others are irritating with the actors just going through the motions. Billy Connolly will never be mistaken for an archeology professor, certainly not in this film. Frances O’Connor is attractive, but doesn’t appear to be paying attention. She plays a smart girl. We know she’s smart because we’re told at the beginning that she’s interested in archeology. That’s it. That’s her character development. Then there is Chris Johnston. He’s the dumb guy. He’s there because American’s aren’t supposed to like or identify with those egghead types. He’s a regular Joe who ain’t got no time for that schoolhousing. (What frightens me is the Hollywood machine might be right. Do American’s dislike smart people? What does that say about our culture?) Johnston is portrayed by Paul “Fast & Furious” Walker, who is a handsome man. The phrase I’m looking for is “pretty boy.” Great, he’s pretty. Girls like to look at him. Great. Then can’t he make a calendar? Sell 8x10s? Do some modeling work? All of these things would let folks gape at his attractive features, and keep him out of the movies.

A costume action piece also needs a big battle, and once again Timeline disappoints, although it is still the best scene in the film. The trebuchet (a type of catapult) tossing fireballs doesn’t look bad, but overall, combat resembles a performance by your average SCA or Renaissance Faire attendees. Groups of actors dressed as soldiers (as I never for a moment accepted them as 14th century men-at-arms) shuffle together one way or another, with not enough direction for them to know where they are going or who they are fighting. They aren’t stressed, or angry, or caught up in the battle, but just appear to be extras who were told to move “that way” and are waiting to pick up their checks. It doesn’t help that in the more exciting (used as a relative term and is not meant to imply that any of this is exciting) parts of the battle don’t include any of the main characters.

That only leaves us with the time travel story. Here is where they could have said something interesting about the nature of time travel, why you have certain rules, and deal with time paradoxes. None of that happens. They also could have made interesting comparisons between our time and the past, but as Timeline takes the action route, historical changes and the whole “fish out of water” route are ignored.

Time travel is explained as the accidental discovery of a wormhole that leads to just one spot in the past. OK, they don’t want to explain the science because time travel doesn’t really exist; I can work with that. I have a harder time with the gateway being held open by little markers that each time traveler carries, and that only function for six hours. Why do they only work for six hours? No reason. We also find out you can only move through time if you are in a big open field. What? This is also given no explanation, but is there so that the “heroes” don’t pop back as soon as they find the professor (since he’s in a small room). If you are going to stick arbitrary scientific laws in your film to help your plot along, try and make them less obviously added for that purpose.

ITC has a rule that no one can take modern items into the past to avoid altering it. Sounds fairly reasonable, except they have no problem killing people, squishing bugs, chatting with everyone they see, stealing and breaking things, and overall doing tons of things more likely to change the course of history. If they are going to do all those things, why not take a few weapons so they can at least be in charge of the situation?

You’d also think that ITC would have put some thought into who to send through time, but apparently, they decide this by whoever whines the most. Professor Johnston gets to go because he bugged the boss until Doniger broke down, told him everything, and sent him back. Johnson’s son, who has no skills of any kind, also gets to time travel simply because he’s annoying. The other archaeologists are chosen because they “know the past, so will be able to find the professor, who could be anywhere.” Highly doubtful, and it doesn’t matter because all they do is march directly to the only big building, and there the professor is. Wouldn’t it make a bit more sense to send through ITC personnel who have gone through combat training, can speak both English and French fluently (and have at least a nodding acquaintance with the fact the languages have changed), and have been instructed on how time travel works?

Finally, what about time paradoxes? What is the result of going back in time? Well, nothing. There are no paradoxes. The end. That’s it. No more explanation.

Timeline doesn’t thrill with its corporate thriller plot, is dull as an action picture, and ignores all aspects of time travel. But fear not Michael Crichton fans, you’ll have plenty more opportunities to see his work on the big screen. I’m sure they will start filming his laundry list next week. Everything else he’s written has already been optioned.

Reviews, Time Travel Tagged with: One Reel

Willard (2003)

Oct 042003

Willard (Crispin Glover), an anti-social loser, finds relief from his bleak life by training rats, numbered in the thousands, to do whatever he commands. But his lack of personality, along with a relationship triangle between Willard and the rats Socrates and Ben, leads to tragedy.

A horror film completely devoid of horror, Willard has many amusing moments, mostly supplied by the manic Crispin Glover. But as a bizarre character study of Glover-filled weirdness, it goes on far too long. I like a few moments of Glover’s mental instability as much as the next person (and can’t help wondering what this guy must be like outside of films—does he sweat, shake, hyperventilate, stare with sunken eyes, and yell with erratic pauses when he is picking up his dry cleaning?), but that’s good for about ten minutes; then I want something more. Willard’s “more” is a lot of rats in a vengeance story. A lot of cute rats. These guys aren’t scary so much as fuzzy—a sea of fluff. They look very soft. “Oh no, they’re going to cuddle me!” I’m might have felt differently if these balls of plush carried out some of that vengeance, but it’s over an hour before they attack. Maybe, just maybe, if you are making a horror film about rats devouring people, you should put in some scenes of rats devouring people. Just a thought.

Willard’s greatest problem is its confusion on who is sympathetic and who is heroic. Willard Stiles needs to be a sympathetic character, and he is, for a time. He’s a man whose been dealt a poor hand and lacks the strength and understanding to kick over the table; in that context, his relationship with the rat Socrates is interesting. But Willard isn’t the hero; he’s a traitorous ingrate and my empathy for him is long gone before the film ends. Socrates is a sympathetic character, but he isn’t the hero either. His ability to judge character is fatally flawed (fatal for him). The hero is Ben. He has all the characteristics that would impress if he were human. Yet in myriad ways, director Glen Morgan works to make the audience dislike Ben and side with Willard. Of course Ben’s a humongous rat, but if you can’t get over that, this film isn’t for you anyway. If this remake had stuck with the original film’s ending, with its theme that all sins can be forgiven except turning on those you claim to love and care for, then the 100-minute ride with Willard might have been worth it, but instead, the filmmakers went for a serial killer/open-for-sequels conclusion that striped the film of any meaning. Well, Ben, while the filmmakers didn’t like you, you my friend will see, you’ve got a friend in me.

Animals, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Beyond Re-Animator (2003)

Oct 022003

In this second sequel to Re-Animator, Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs), in jail since the last film, is still secretly carrying out his research. He believes he has found a way to return reason to the corpses he re-animates. When a new prison doctor (Jason Barry) brings some of West’s old reagent into the prison, it’s time to start bringing the dead to life.

Quick Review: I can’t help wondering what the charge was against West. I doubt that there is a law on the books against making zombies.

This lackluster sequel is still better than most horror films. Jeffrey Combs is excellent a third time but most everything else is a shadow. Jason Barry’s Dr. Howard Phillips, West’s new assistant, is a non-entity. The new villain, an evil Warden, feels like he belongs in a Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon. There is nothing special to be seen, nothing to shock. Some of the zombies look great, but great looking zombies aren’t enough to stand with Re-Animator. Jeffrey Combs is enough for it to stand with, and above, most zombie pictures.

Back to Mad ScientistsBack to Zombies

Mad Scientists, Mad Scientists, Reviews, Zombies Tagged with: Three Reels

Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood (2003)

Oct 022003

This sixth installment of the Leprechaun franchise has a group of poor twenty-somethings from “tha Hood” finding the Leprechaun’s gold under a building site. They spend the gold and try to work out their relationships while the Leprechaun (Warwick Davis) kills anyone between him and his coins.

Quick Review: Six Leprechaun movies. I never thought when I saw the first that there would be five sequels. I have to admit, that in the Slasher sub-genre, I’m partial to this series, more than it deserves (hey, I like Leprechauns). The killer has personality and humor and being played by Warwick Davis is a huge plus. Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood is an uninspired entry, with the Leprechaun devoid of any powers other than invulnerability. The gore quotient is low, the victims uninteresting (although there is a touch of character development), and there’s a half hour before the green guy even pops up (after a brief prolog). When he does show up, it is just to stalk the “thieves” and kill them, and smoke a bit of pot. That makes it a pretty average Slasher with a better than average monster.

Holiday Films, Reviews, Slashers Tagged with: Two Reels

Attack of the Virgin Mummies (2003)

Oct 022003

The three, young, beautiful daughters of the pharaoh (Hanna Harper, Nikki Love, and Violet Blue—as Ada Mae Johnson) are murdered and the killer is mummified. In modern times, they are all awakened, and the girls become dancers at a strip club. Unwrapped, they are the only ones who can stop the still bandaged mummy.

If your goal as a filmmaker is to film some beautiful girls naked, and you’ve decided to toss in a mummy, couldn’t you come up with a better reason for them to be in the buff than being strippers? Hey, strippers are great. Strip clubs are wonderful places and I’m thrilled to be living at a time in history when they are plentiful. But they don’t need to be in every “softcore” film.
Not that the reason for nudity is the biggest problem with Attack of the Virgin Mummies, or even the seventh biggest, but it is a good illustration of the lack of imagination at work. More damning is the lack of skill and talent, the cinematography that has much in common with a home movie, the insufficient lighting, the shoddy sets, and the complete lack of even sub par acting. But I can chalk those up to a producer and a pair of directors being clueless on how to make a film. Most people are clueless on how to make a film. But any fourteen-year-old boy, fantasizing at night, can come up with a better concept then “the pretty girls become strippers.”

It’s no surprise that there is no horror element to this feature, nor is there any suspense. There is an out-of-shape guy in some hastily piled on strips of cloth who walks in a jerky fashion, if that is what you’re looking for. By now, anyone interested in a monster movie should have decided to skip this one. For softcore fans, there isn’t much here either. Sure, the girls are pretty, and naked, but any Playboy video can give you that along with a crew that has a vague idea on what to do with the camera. No matter what you like and what you are looking for, you won’t find it here. Move along.

Mummies, Reviews Tagged with: Toxic

The Silvergleam Whistle (2003)

Sep 302003

Directed & Written by: Mike Williamson. Produced by: Terry Dougas, Michael Feifer. 25 min

Think of a campfire horror tale. A really, really good one. The type you heard as a child, huddled closely with two or three friends on a cool October night. The kind that frightened you in all the ways that are good to be frightened. Now, put it on 35mm film, with beautiful cinematography, FX beyond anything you’ve seen in a short film, and a score by Richard Band, and you have The Silvergleam Whistle.

As it starts, you can almost hear a friend, or your father, or a scout leader, leaning into the red glow, and speaking low so that his voice is almost lost in the crackling of burning wood, saying: “A mother (Deborah Flora) and her two children (Tierra Abbott, Trevor Robertson) stop one night at an empty, out of the way inn.” Of course no one does say it; you see it. They meet the manager (Patricia McCormack, who played the evil child in both the stage and screen adaptations of The Bad Seed in the 1950s), a pleasant but unhealthy-looking woman who gives them some rooms on the cheap. When asked about a picture of a man, she picks up the banner of campfire spooky-story teller (OK, so it’s not much of a title), and recites the at-first sad, and then creepy story of how her son died forty years ago. The train he ran was struck by lightning, killing all on board, but when the authorities came back in the morning, the entire train was missing. Naturally, it’s time for the children to go to sleep, and just as naturally, they hear the far off whistle of a train.

Damn, that’s good stuff, and crafted so excellently it should have you listening for a train in the distance. It’s a joy to look at, with rich colors, crisp lines, and deep shadows. The sound is as expertly done, and heightens the fear factor with sudden booming crashes. The acting is also first rate from everyone involved, but McCormack is particularly impressive.

Every element falls into place, creating an effective and enjoyable shiver-fest that should be Mike Williamson’s ticket to Hollywood. So gather round the fire. It’s time for a little story.

Best Modern Shorts, Reviews

Never eveN “Nie Solo Sein” (2003)

Sep 302003

Directed/Written by: Jan Schomburg Produced by: Corinna C. Poetter

This critique contains spoilers – if you have not seen the film yet, go to the Best Shorts page.

The Park City 2005 Festival season was an exercise in mediocrity. Whether it was the grandmaster Sun Dance or the supposedly edgy Slamdance, “average” was the watchword. A majority of the films were well made, but had no reason to be made. So it was with the kind of elation I have been reserving for finding a stripper at a Baptist chorus concert that I watched Never eveN, an unusual work from Germany.

The world of Never eveN runs in reverse. People grow young, items spring from garbage cans into their hands, and they ride their bicycles backwards down the road. Relationships start as the calm love of two old souls and then get wilder until at their sexual peak, the two people never see each other again. The story follows Max, a normal man who wakes up one day to find himself living his life forward. His immediate problem: he’s thirsty. He can’t use a faucet because water shoots from the drain up; where would he put the glass? He can’t buy a drink as bottles are taken empty and then filled with each sip. It isn’t that I couldn’t come up with an answer for Max’s problem, or for any of the myriad problems he might run into, but that I had never thought of those dilemmas before. That made this new, and for a film critic, exciting. The plot is simple although the events are complex.

Jan Schomburg shoots this fantasy with a little more color, a little more contrast, than reality, which sets it aside enough to make it believable as its own world. Jakob Hüfner makes a completely sympathetic Max. The only other character of note is Max’s girlfriend, played by Sandra Borgmann. She is there to be charming and desirable and in that she succeeds, even with her limited screen time. What is surprising is how romantic this piece is.

While the find of Slamdance, I can’t say that the screening room helped the experience. With a low placed screen and a flat floor, it was difficult to see the subtitles around the heads of those in front of me. But Never eveN works even if the occasional phrase is left un-translated. Schomburg has said, “I wanted to make a film that feels good and that entertains and makes people laugh in an intelligent way.” He succeeded.

Best Modern Shorts, Reviews

The Day After Tomorrow (2003)

Sep 042003

Global warming leads to giant destructive storms and a sudden climate shift that freezes a substantial portion of the Northern Hemisphere. Climatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) fights his way through the blizzard to rescue his son (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is having his own battles in an icy New York city.

L.A. is destroyed by multiple, gigantic tornadoes. New York is submerged and then frozen. And it looks really cool. This is as good as FX gets. If you like destruction, this is the place. Buy the DVD and just run the tidal wave hitting the Statue of Liberty over and over.

There’s a plot that goes with the destruction, most of it pretty silly. Why does Jack Hall walk to New York in the middle of the storm when doing so will not help his son? Why does the government let the only scientist who knows what’s going on leave with his entire staff? Why do the survivors insist on staying in a large library instead of moving to any of hundreds of nearby building that would be easier to keep warm? Why do they keep burning books instead of furniture? The story is filled with typical catastrophe-film clichés, and is just good enough not to distract from the cool look of a ship drifting down the flooded streets of New York. The stranded-teens plotline is engaging and if the ‘Jack Hall and his young-cancer-victim-saving wife’ story is less interesting, there’s always another copter crashing. The pseudo-science sounds better than I had expected, and while no one can seriously claim the events in this film could happen, it does make an environmental/political point through exaggeration, particularly when the Dick Cheney look-alike ignores science in favor of partisan politics.

Disaster, Reviews, Science Fiction Tagged with: Three Reels

Kibakichi (2003)

Aug 302003

Kibakichi (Ryuuji Harada), a yokai (beastman-demon) samurai, stumbles upon a village of yokai who masquerade as humans and feed off yakuza and other criminals who enter their gambling den. The residents have made a deal with some local humans: if they help the humans take over their clan, they will be given land where they can live in peace. Kibakichi, who is well aware of the treachery of humans, warns that it will all end in tragedy, but no one listens. It’s clear that before the credits role, Kibakichi is going to have to display his wolf qualities and that people are going to die—a lot of people.

Until Kibakichi, I was unaware that there were any lone samurai werewolf movies based on the plight of the American Indians and following the style of spaghetti westerns. Well, now I know one, and I have a suspicion that it isn’t a sub-genre that’s going to take off. No one who isn’t excited about this movie by my over-long one sentence description is going to feel differently after watching it.

Borrowing heavily from Clive Barker’s Nightbreed and The Power Rangers, Kibakichi follows the title character as he chops up some bounty hunters, and then gets a drink and goes gambling. For about a half hour, that’s about it. It doesn’t even matter what language the film is in (my first viewing was in Japanese, but English is an option if you buy the DVD) since there isn’t enough dialog to make a difference. What you do have is some very slow drinking. It’s a bit hypnotic. If you love spaghetti westerns but were always annoyed that the long silent patches weren’t long and silent enough, you’ll be in heaven. Eventually there are some killings by spider-women, and the movie chooses a plot. From then on, its the good monster villagers verses the evil humans, with the monsters believing that they can deal with the humans, and Kibakichi and the viewer knowing otherwise.

The local samurai are an odd lot who have the good graces to speak and move at a reasonable pace. They take their fashion advice from Neo of The Matrix, wearing long, black leather, goth coats that should be all the rage at your next virtual reality party. When not fighting with swords, they use civil-war era gatling guns and WWII era grenades. I would question the likelihood of these armaments existing side-by-side, but after seeing giant turtle men and ghostly skull heads that appear to travel on strings, that seems to be nitpicking.

As you might gather, this is all pretty silly stuff, but it’s done well, and, for any twelve-year-old, it has charm. It also has a brief tit-shot to go with the kid’s stuff, so those twelve-year-old boys should be all set. If you’re out of your early teens, how much you will enjoy this depends on your interest in watching two stoic guys not moving. Kibakichi and the leader of the village yokai both watched Clint Eastwood as the Man with No Name and decided he was too flamboyant. They do their best to out-cool Eastwood by rarely moving, speaking in a monotone, uttering only short, clipped sentences, and glaring. Combined with the comically excessive geysers of blood that erupt whenever someone is injured, and the makeup, which varies between reasonable Hollywood to horrendous Godzilla-type guy in a suit, it’s a rip-roaring goofy action pic. Everyone onscreen takes it in deadly earnest, but you won’t.

Back to Fantasy

Fantasy, Foreign Language, Reviews, Werewolves Tagged with: Three Reels

Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S. (2003)

Apr 182003

A direct sequel to Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla (and the only film in the “millennium series” to carry any continuity) Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S. (also known as Godzilla vs. Mothra vs. Mechagodzilla: Tokyo S.O.S.) starts with an injured Godzilla somewhere in the ocean and a damaged Mechagodzilla in the shop. As politicians fret, the twin fairies from numerous previous Mothra movies show up to point out that Mechagodzilla is blasphemous as he was made from the bones of the dead and if they don’t cut it out, Mothra will declare war on humanity. If the bones are laid to rest, Mothra will step in and fight Godzilla.

QUICK REVIEW: The Job of the humans in a Godzilla film is to fill time (monster rampages are way too expensive to continue for 90 minutes), and to do so in a way that doesn’t run the whole thing into the ground. The humans here do not do their job. Every moment with them is excruciating, be it the drab government officials, the annoying child, the pointlessly angry pilot, or the robot-fixated mechanic. The last is the worst as his character makes so little sense and takes up so much screen time.

The suit-mation combat is well done, and I would rank it with the very best if it was a bit less derivative. Every Godzilla fan has seen the dying moth/baby grubs bit and knows exactly how it will play out. If you’ve skipped the previous Mothra films, then S.O.S. will entertain, but you are better off first checking out one of those.

Foreign Language, Godzilla, Reviews Tagged with: Two & 1/2 Reels

1 2 … 48 49 50 51 52 … 133 134