Day 240: A Single Shot

"Most problems, John, aren't as bad as they seem... Thing is, you got to deal with 'em before people get backed into corners."

Hot on the heels of one of the best performances of his career in The Way, Way Back, Sam Rockwell is back in a film that couldn't be more dissimilar, the moody Southern gothic tale A Single Shot. Director David M. Rosenthal (Janie Jones) takes a page out of the David Gordon Green playbook by casting Rockwell as a dubious Southern man harboring dark secrets and trying to stay one step ahead of the law and the lawless. Heavily indebted to films like Green's Snow Angels, as well as A Simple Plan, No Country For Old Men & especially Winter's Bone, A Single Shot attempts to distinguish itself in a seemingly indistinguishable genre. 

Lonely hunter John Moon (Rockwell) lives alone in a trailer in the mountains of a non-descript part of the Southern United States. One morning while stalking a deer, John accidentally shoots and kills a young woman. Upon discovering her belongings, he finds among them a satchel full of cash, which he scurries off with, leaving the body behind. In an attempt to reconnect with his estranged wife (Kelly Reilly) and young son, he gives her $4000, but suspicions begin to arise as to how he came into that much money, and it isn't long before a stranger shows up in town (Jason Isaacs), whom John recognizes from a picture he found among the dead woman's possessions. 

John begins a descent into panic as mysterious notes begin finding their way into his home, and he becomes leery of just about everyone in town, from an old friend (Jeffrey Wright) to a bewigged lawyer (William H Macy) John hired to help with his legal troubles surrounding his impending divorce. In a small town where everyone seems to know everyone else and their business, John can't help but feel like a man alone, and staying one step ahead of trouble begins to become too much of a challenge for John.    

The inherent problem with A Single Shot is that it can't help but feel derivative of the films I mentioned in the first paragraph. Virtually every other "guy finds a ton of money belonging to a dead person & trouble ensues" film has explored the various outcomes of such a plot and they never end well for the finder. The film can't help but feel like it's moving towards an inevitable conclusion at a snail's pace because that's exactly what it's doing. Adding in the element of danger towards the people he cares about adds a modicum of suspense, but it is then inexplicably jettisoned in the blink of an eye. With nothing even remotely original to say or show the audience, the film can't help but feel like an interminable slog through familiar territory.

The film's climax, when it finally comes, is also as bleak and unsettling as any I've seen. The film attempts to emulate the climactic scene in the boat in Winter's Bone, but just continues to come across as a pale imitator. In fact, most of the film, from the design elements to the cinematography, seems to be attempting to redo Winter's Bone, and it just feels like a fool's errand. By the time the final scene comes, what should be an eerie parallel to the first scene ends up feeling like a half-hearted attempt to tie everything together in the most obvious way imaginable. It's a shame too, because the film has some nice moments in it that could've made this final moment all the more haunting.

Thankfully the film has some pretty great performances from an array of fantastic actors, all of whom make the film slightly more watchable than it has any right to be. Macy proves how much he can do with very little (though he really lets the wig do all the acting for him, particularly in his final scene) and Isaacs shows just how underused he is as an actor, even in this film. Wright, as well, brings a ton of life to his two scenes, both of which highlight what a truly underrated actor he is, even in a minuscule role. 

The film belongs to Rockwell, however, who manages to create a fully formed character, despite being given very little to work with beyond a series of stereotypical backwoods traits. Rockwell is never dragged down to the level of the second rate material he was given, and its only in retrospect that you realize how good he was in spite of the nonsense he was being forced to do and say. He has a number of really good scenes, particularly the scene when he attempts to bring the money to his estranged wife and is confronted by an unexpected childcare situation. That he can manage to acquit himself of this film almost entirely is a testament to just how phenomenal of an actor he is, and how chameleonic he can be in any given film.

A Single Shot is not a total wash, mainly thanks to its actors. I only wish this cast had been assembled in something more deserving of their time and talents. The film does manage to capture the dirt and grime and unsavory elements of deep backwoods life, but it just can't help but feel pat when that's been done before with equal verisimilitude. If the film had brought something new and original to the table, with this cast, it might have made for a hell of a film. Instead, it can only look and feel like the squandered opportunity it truly is, which is the saddest indictment of all. 

The film is currently in a very limited theatrical release but is available OnDemand and streaming on iTunes.

GO Rating: 2.5/5

[Photos via RottenTomatoes]

Day 239: Blue Caprice

"What are we gonna do with you, huh?"

Anyone going into the film Blue Caprice with at least a cursory knowledge of the film's subject matter will get shivers down their spine when the character John (Isaiah Washington) utters that phrase to his newly found "son" Lee (Tequan Richmond) early in the film. The film is an at least partially fictionalized account of the series of events that brought together the two men who carried out the sniper attacks that crippled Maryland and Virginia for nearly a month in late 2002. The film is a haunting portrait of madness and the lengths that people will go to in order to prove themselves to one another or the world at large.

Opening in Antigua, Blue Caprice wisely starts off by showing us a seamier side of a place that most Westerners consider to be paradise. Abandoned by his mother, 16 year-old Lee wanders the streets and beaches until he attracts the attention of John, a man vacationing with his three young children. There are hints that John may have brought his children there against their mother's wishes, and so John & Lee are portrayed as men in desperate need of one another. Returning to the states five months later, John has fully Americanized Lee and has begun to call him son.

After a short stay with a woman who eventually kicks them out, John & Lee end up in the home of Ray (Tim Blake Nelson) & Jamie (Joey Lauren Adams). Ray is an old friend of John's who quickly shares his habit of shooting guns in the woods with Lee. Finding the kid to be a natural, John begins to craft a plan to cause panic in the lives of people who, in his estimation are living ignorantly in this world they think is safe. After a series of random violent acts, John purchases the titular automobile and begins modifying it for the next phase in their plan, one which would cause unparalleled panic in the area around our nation's capitol.

First and foremost, the film is anchored by two powerhouse performances from Washington & Richmond. They manage to convincingly portray these characters without seeking to infuse them with empathy. Washington, in particular, has an uncanny ability to turn moments in which you begin to feel some sympathy for him into opportunities to show the true madness lurking just beneath the surface of this man. The script by R.F.I. Porto is full of moments like these that immediately undercut all attempts to make the audience feel any sort of connection to these characters. Late in the film when John looks at Lee and says "I've created a monster," it's brilliant both for its placement at that particular moment and for Washington's delivery which oozes with sick, paternal pride.

First time director Alexandre Moors almost completely resists the urge to ladle on the heavy handed metaphors. Only a third act rainstorm as the two set out across the country feels a bit on the nose, but otherwise the film is as even handed and assured a directorial debut as any I've seen lately. The film is wise to keep the time period ever present in the audience's mind, particularly its use of television news coverage of the war in Afghanistan and an early scene where Lee watches soldiers recruiting people outside a local center. The way the film uses the actual 911 calls and news footage of the shootings both early and late in the film is appropriately unsettling and raises the film's urgency in a significant way.

I really can't say enough good things about Washington's performance here. As an actor, he's no stranger to controversy and the fallout it can cause, and he channels a lot of that pent up aggression into his character and creates a chilling portrait of evil. I sincerely hope he is not entirely overlooked come the end of the year awards season. Richmond is his equal in every sense of the word, staying lock-step with his surrogate father, and going on probably the more interesting journey from a neglected kid to a remorseless killing machine. Their performances compliment each other in all the right ways.

The rest of the cast is very good, if almost wholly underused. Nelson is great at playing backwoods hillbillies with a questionable moral compass, and I mean that in the best way possible. He plays a subtle variation on his character from the underrated and under-seen 2003 film Wonderland, and his character adds true richness to this world. Adams is also very good in her handful of scenes as is Cassandra Freeman as the woman who kicks Lee & John out of her house early in the film. Leo Fitzpatrick, best known for his role as Telly in Kids, also has a great scene as a weapons dealer.

Blue Caprice is a spare and haunting film that will linger with you long after it's over. If I have any complaint to lodge against it, it's that the film is a bit lethargic in its first two acts and then a shade heavy handed in the third, but those are minor complaints. I imagine the film will play just as good at home as it does in a theater, so if it doesn't come to a theater near you this summer, be sure to seek it out when it hits video. It's worth it just for the two lead performances alone, and I sincerely hope it leads to more work for Washington. He is an actor with serious talent and not a shred of vanity, and I can only hope that roles this good begin to come his way on a regular basis.

GO Rating: 4/5

[Photos via RottenTomatoes]

Geek Spotlight: The Resurgence of Matthew McConaughey

A little over a year ago, I, like many of you, had more or less written off Matthew McConaughey. His career started with a bang when he appeared as townie David Wooderson in Richard Linklater's Dazed & Confused, a role for which he would come to be identified for a number of years. Much like the other actor who got his first big break in an ensemble piece, Sean Penn, McConaughey seemed to want to differentiate himself, and in 1996 & 1997, he appeared in two of the headier summer blockbusters to come down the pike, A Time to Kill & Contact. McConaughey didn't appear content to wallow in the typical action fare, and even his appearance in the vastly overrated Amistad all but confirmed as much. He wanted to be viewed as an actor and not a movie star. 

Then something strange happened. In 2001, he starred with Jennifer Lopez in the forgettable, but hugely successful romantic comedy The Wedding Planner. Although he would appear in some decent films over the next ten years (Frailty, Tropic Thunder & We Are Marshall), he was mostly gaining notoriety for appearing in a never ending series of interchangeable romantic comedies: How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Failure to Launch, Fool's Gold, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, etc. They were only notable for featuring posters in which McConaughey demonstrated the inability to stand up on his own...

McConaughey looked as if he was headed for obscurity. Even his attempt to launch a franchise, Sahara, is now mostly remembered for the nonsensical legal battle that raged for years after the film flopped. He made some direct to video disasters like TipToes & Surfer, Dude that attracted attention solely based on how awful they were. He was also gaining attention in the press for his nude bongo playing antics & seemed to be a joke to other celebrities, mainly due to his frequent shirtlessness.

Then in 2011, he made a small film called The Lincoln Lawyer that gained a modicum of attention based on the fact that it wasn't a rom-com and wasn't flat out terrible. This seemed to signal to some that McConaughey may have been trying to break out of the vicious cycle that had consumed him for the better part of a decade. 

For me, it was 2012's Bernie that first made me take notice of the fact that McConaughey might be coming back. Working once again with Dazed director Linklater, McConaughey ditched all pretenses of vanity and went for broke in a small but memorable role, finally showing that he was content just do work on good films again, no matter how big the role. It was a bold move for McConaughey, and one that he would double down on when he worked with William Friedkin on the film adaptation of Tracy Letts' Killer Joe. Here again, McConaughey wasn't hampered by his desire to always be the good guy, and played a downright despicable human being. It's a great performance in a very good film.

Later that summer, he was the stand-out in one of my favorite films of last year, Magic Mike. What made his performance here so revelatory for me is that he was very clearly playing with his image. He brought all of the things to the forefront of his performance that he had become known for (the bongo playing, the shirtlessness, the seemingly good guy with ulterior motives) and utilized them in a way I didn't think he was capable. His charisma was finally being put to proper use, and it elevated the entire film around him.

He finished off 2012 with The Paperboy, one of the worst films of last year, but one in which McConaughey, for the first time in a long time, managed to acquit himself of nicely. Thankfully he was surrounded by the scenery chewing antics of John Cusack & Nicole Kidman, and his performance as a quietly closeted homosexual in the deep south of the 1960s managed to be one of the only things worth talking about in that awful, awful film. It was the last sign we needed to know he was back... He had managed to be the best thing about a terrible film. 

McConaughey started 2013 off with a bang, appearing in easily the best film of the first half of the year, Mud. Here he shows depth and emotion, and pulls off the kind of suspicious character that most movie stars can't play. I find it interesting that later this summer, Matt Damon would attempt a similar feat of dubiousness with Elysium, and end up getting shown up by his former punchline. Damon is the kind of actor that you just know is going to do the right thing in the end, but McConaughey manages to plant doubt in the audience as to whether or not he really is the good guy he purports to be. He also showed he had a great sense of humor by appearing in Butch Walker's music video Synthesizers, reprising his role as David Wooderson.

The rest of his year is also shaping up nicely, with a supporting role in Martin Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street & the lead role in Dallas Buyer's Club, a role for which he dropped down to a gaunt and sickly-looking 100 pounds. It smells a bit like Oscar-baiting to me, but I'm also okay with it, because I do think he deserves recognition for managing to put together a run of films since The Lincoln Lawyer that rivals the best run of any actor over a three year period. He also managed to land the lead in Christopher Nolan's upcoming film Interstellar, which will likely follow in the footsteps of Inception as a critical and commercial success.

Those of us who had written McConaughey off as recently as two years ago should now eat our words; He is the serious and seriously talented actor we all suspected he might be, and with his detour into rom-com hell hopefully over, he can continue to work on great films both big budgeted and small. I  happily admit how wrong I was about him, and I actively look forward to whatever he does next... as long as Kate Hudson isn't involved.

Photos via 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Day 238: The Family

"Just trust me, okay? There's gonna be a line out the door like this place was a whorehouse."

Since his first big breakout feature in America, Leon (The Professional), director Luc Besson has proven to be a much more prolific producer than director. When it was announced that he was directing his first English language film since 1999's The Messenger, expectations were high, despite the fact that most of his features as a director have been underwhelming. However, The Family looked promising, with a trio pedigreed actors in the leads and Martin Scorsese aboard as an executive producer. Could it buck the trend? Read on to find out...

Giovanni Manzoni (Robert DeNiro) is a former mafioso who is in witness protection in France along with his wife Maggie (Michelle Pfieffer), daughter Belle (Dianna Agron) & son Warren (John D'Leo). His family seems to cause trouble no matter where they go, and the film opens with them being relocated to Normandy after a disastrous stay in the south of France. It isn't long before they're starting trouble in their new home, much to the chagrin of Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones) the agent assigned to their case.

Now dubbed the Blake family, dad sets about torturing and maiming anyone who he feels is disrespecting him, mom is an equally loose cannon, Belle finds creative ways to deal with lecherous French teenage boys & Warren runs the school in a similar manner to a junior mafioso himself. After a comically absurd series of events, the incarcerated Don Luchese (Stan Carp) gets wind of their new location and dispatches his hitmen to take care of this family once and for all. 

The most pressing issue with The Family is that it has a serious identity crisis. Is it a comedy with unnecessarily serious moments? Is it a drama with jarringly tone deaf attempts at comedy? Is it an action film? A gangster film? A fish out of water, strangers in a strange land tale? It appears to be attempting all of these things at once. Utilizing DeNiro in this type of role seems like a stroke of genius on the surface, but the film seems to want him to be both his character from Goodfellas and Meet the Parents all at the same time. It's a convoluted mess of a film that played like a raucous comedy to half the audience at my screening, which was unsettling at best, to be honest.

The film's "comedy" comes almost exclusively from violent scenarios. Are we supposed to think it's funny that mom blows up a grocery store because the clerks were rude? Should we chuckle at dad's violent fantasies where he holds men's heads to a charcoal grill after he thinks they're condescending towards him? In fact, it's almost hard to believe this film was directed by a Frenchman, because all of these acts of violence, save the final fifteen minutes, happen as a result of ugly Americans clashing with rude French citizens. If it is a comedy, it's one of the most violent & mean spirited ones I have ever seen.

The film is also awash with muddled references, such as when DeNiro's character is asked to attend and lead a debate on the Frank Sinatra/Dean Martin film Some Came Running, but a last minute issue with the print forces the audience in attendance to watch Goodfellas instead. So we're left to imagine a world where we, the audience, are watching Robert DeNiro the actor watching a film with Robert DeNiro the actor in it... It's too muddled and confusing for me to handle. It's not too far off from The Expendables films where the characters call one another by names of other characters that the actors have played in other films. It's far too confusing to actually generate laughs. 

As for the performances, they're all fine, if derivative of other performances they've already given. DeNiro takes a little from column A (Goodfellas) and a little from column B (Meet the Parents) and ends up with a performance that's no better or worse than we've come to expect from him in the years since 1997, his last truly great year as an actor. Pfeiffer is enjoyable, playing a variation on her role in Married to the Mob, but she's always fun to watch. Tommy Lee Jones has a corner on the curmudgeon market at this point, so there's no point in even naming the other, identical roles he's played before. D'Leo was probably my favorite of the bunch, playing a great variation on the son who takes up his father's business. 

The script, by Besson and Michael Caleo, based on the novel Malavita by Tonino Benacquista, is the weakest element of the film by far. Besson's direction is snappy and sometimes clever, but the script is such a muddled mess of self-reference, it's virtually impossible to nail down what kind of film it wants to be. I haven't read the source material, but something tells me it all went wrong in the adaptation. It seems like a case of the filmmakers pulling off the casting coup of getting DeNiro involved, and then tailoring the script around him, and ending up with a jumbled mess of nonsense. I refuse to believe this is the best possible version of this story, because the premise has legs. 

As if I haven't made it abundantly clear by now, The Family is a mess of a film. Fans of the gangster films and tv shows of the 90s and early 2000s will find things here and there to chuckle at, including an appearance by Vincent "Big Pussy" Pastore, but more than anything, you'll likely find yourself disappointed by all the squandered potential on display. Besson still has style to spare as a director, and the actors turn in workmanlike performances, but it's all in service of a ham fisted, half baked script with serious identity issues, which ultimately makes it a huge miss.

Go Rating: 2/5

[Images via BoxOfficeMojo]

Summer 2013: The Worst Summer in Recent Memory?

Summer is typically that time of year when moviegoers like to shut their brains off and watch aliens & dinosaurs team up to make the White House go 'splode. This particular summer was one of the worst in recent memory, and I will get into the many reasons why, but I will also compare it to the other "worst summer" I can recall, and why that may bode well for the coming fall & winter films.

Summer began with Iron Man 3, which I was disappointed with, but in retrospect, turned out to be one of the better films of the summer. At the very least it tried something different, and placed a good deal of emphasis on dialogue & character, something that other big budget affairs would summarily ignore. Then came The Great Gatsby, which was similarly disappointing if for no other reason than it failed to live up to the promise of its first half. A week later, summer went right in the tank for me with Star Trek: Into Darkness, a film that still makes me very angry when I think about it, and the season never really rebounded.

Leave it to the films I had the lowest expectations for to be the four best studio films I saw this summer: Pacific Rim, The Heat, Now You See Me & Turbo. Those four seemed, on the surface, to be rehashed run of the mill nonsense, but ended up surprising me in ways I didn't think possible. On the other hand, you had films I wanted to see like Man of Steel, which ended up taking a stupid story and cramming as much headache inducing action into the final forty minutes as the human brain could handle before it revolted entirely.

Other films I was looking forward to such as Despicable Me 2, Only God Forgives & Elysium ended up disappointing as well (one more than the others, for sure), but it just went to show that it almost wasn't worth looking forward to any films this summer as they were sure to disappoint in the end. It's no surprise films like Lee Daniels' The Butler & We're The Millers have become late summer successes because, despite their varying degrees of mediocrity, at least they tried something different.

So whose fault is it in the end; Mine for expecting too much, or the studios for not delivering? I guess it's partially my fault for thinking that the big studios gave a shit about filmgoers and tried to deliver good films, but I find it hard to blame myself for a movie not being good. It's why I steered clear of White House Down, The Lone Ranger, World War Z & Fast & Furious 6... I just didn't care enough to spend money on films that were obviously products. At least Man of Steel had the decency to confine its rampant IHOP & Sears product placement to the film itself to at least fool me into forking over my money first.

All of this leads me to recall the summer movie season that was wrapping up fifteen years ago. The summer of 1998 brought us some world class stinkers: Godzilla, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Doctor Dolittle, The Horse Whisperer, Hope Floats, Snake Eyes, The Negotiator, The Avengers, Disturbing Behavior, Six Days Seven Nights & 54 to name but a few. There were some decent films: There's Something About Mary, The X-Files Movie, Mulan, The Truman Show, The Mask of Zorro; And even four of the best films that year were released that summer: Buffalo 66, Out of Sight, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas & Saving Private Ryan. But for the most part, that summer was flat-out awful. But something strange happened between Labor Day & New Year's... A glut of fantastic films were released, including, but not limited to: Life is Beautiful, Shakespeare in Love, Velvet Goldmine, Little Voice, Rushmore, Waking Ned Devine, Pleasantville, The Thin Red Line, A Simple Plan, Gods & Monsters, American History X, & Apt Pupil.

Looking ahead to this year's fall & winter slate, I see some films that have the potential to rival that year's fantastic finish, and hopefully we can look back at 2013 as an overall great year, much the way we now view 1998 (a year I may go so far as to say is the best of that decade). The point of all this is, I suppose, not to judge a year until it's over. After a disappointing spring that yielded a few decent films, only one of which, Mud, is likely to end up on my year end best list, I was ready for a promising summer. Thankfully a handful of indies (The Way, Way Back, Fruitvale Station, Much Ado About Nothing, Blue Jasmine, The World's End) ended up redeeming the summer to an extent, but of the big budget blockbusters, I really only enjoyed two films that made any money: Now You See Me & The Heat. The others that I enjoyed such as Pacific Rim, Turbo, & R.I.P.D. all flopped.

The moral of all this, I suppose, is that there is a time to announce 2013's place in history, but that time is not now. It was a disappointing summer, to be sure, but the year's not over yet, and that's the most exciting prospect of all...

Day 237: Gymkata

**Note: This was written as a part of my Forgotten Films column over at PopulationGO.com**

"You gotta remember, they will skin you if you're not real good. You gotta outsmart 'em! You gotta out-quick 'em! Now push it!"

When I set out to create the Forgotten Films column, I had three criteria for which I would consider spotlighting a particular film: It was more than ten years old, it was by and large not really talked about anymore, and it was well worth your time to seek it out. I must unfortunately bend two of those rules to bring you today's film, 1985's gymnastics/martial arts hybrid action epic Gymkata. First off, it's in the ether lately as Earwolf's podcast "How Did This Get Made" featured the film on their most recent episode, and Red Letter Media also spotlighted the film on their latest edition of "Best of the Worst."

The more important rule I'm bending, however, is the one about whether or not a film is worth your time. I must say this: If you are a lover of bad movies, there is no film more worth your time than Gymkata (and even better, it's streaming for free on youtube). If you're not a bad movie lover though, I would encourage you to read on and find out more about this masterpiece of miscalculation, and discover for yourself if it's truly worth your time...

The most interesting thing about Gymkata, and the one you should keep in the back of your mind while watching the film, is that it is directed by Robert Clouse, the man behind arguably the two greatest Bruce Lee films, Enter the Dragon & Game of Death. This film effectively ended his career, consigning him to a life of directing straight to video films starring Cynthia Rothrock before his death in 1997. It's also worth noting that the film is actually based on a book titled "The Terrible Game" by Dan Tyler Moore, which, as far as I could tell, featured no gymnastics.

So what is Gymkata, you ask? It's the story of a US gymnast named Jonathan Cabot (real life gymnast Kurt Thomas) who is recruited by the US government to travel to the small Eastern European nation of Parmistan. The US wants to install part of its Star Wars missile defense system in the mountains of Parmistan, but the current leader's regime is under siege, threatening to unravel the entire plan. Since Cabot is told that "direct military action is out of style," and that if one man were to go to Parmistan, enter a competition called "The Game," and survive, he is allowed "his life and one request." 

Time is of the essence since "a lot of other people want that one request," so Cabot must train and train hard to survive the game. The Princess of Parmistan (Tetchie Agbayani) is in charge of Cabot's training, and I don't need to tell you it won't be long before these two are falling in love, least of all because the plot dictates it. After a laughable training montage, Cabot heads to Parmistan to compete in "The Game," and his life is saved several times by the fortuitous appearance of various pieces of gymnastic equipment such as a horizontal bar or pommel horse. 

The leader of Parmistan looks, as wisely observed by both Jay Bauman of RLM & Jason Mantzoukas of HDTGM, exactly like Mel Brooks. How does this account, then, for his obviously Asian looking daughter? A line of dialogue attempts to explain this away, but it's yet another example of either careless or rushed production decisions in a film teeming with them.  Take for example the sudden appearance of a horizontal bar in an alleyway leads to a gymnastics display/kicking the bad guys in the face sequence (complete with conveniently chalked hands for our hero). Is this tongue in cheek or were the filmmakers attempting to place a gymnast in a "realistic" action scenario? It hurts my brain trying to even rationalize the latter. 

One can only assume that this film was fast tracked into production due to the gymnastics craze presumably brought on by the1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, but like all things, that flame was extinguished by the time the film hit theaters the following May. I would have to suspend my disbelief to the breaking point to think that these filmmakers were trying to ignite a new dimension in martial arts films, so I can only guess that they were hoping to cling to the Olympics' coattails for a scosh longer. It's the only plausible explanation for this film's existence.

One of the things that I'm surprised no one talks about in regard to this film is just how awful the score is, composed by Alfi Kabiljo. It sounds like a parody of the scores of Lalo Schifrin (Planet of the Apes, Mission: Impossible) or even Gerald Fried's legendary score to the Star Trek Original Series episode "Amok Time." It's so woefully derivative that it can't help but make you laugh every single time it begins blaring over the action. 

Other ludicrous things that happen in the film include Cabot's telling his government liaison that he's headed to "Karabal, on the Caspian Sea," only to have that appear, verbatim, as a title card over the next sequence. I can't tell if they knew how ridiculous this all was because of subtle things like that, but somehow I surmise it's just wishful thinking.

Bad movie connoisseurs, such as myself, love to think that certain filmmakers were forward thinking enough to understand how ridiculous certain film premises were, but as many many failed attempts in recent years have shown, it's virtually impossible to set out to create a bad movie. The Tommy Wiseaus & James Nguyens of this world can only succeed in creating such legendarily bad films as The Room & Birdemic because they set out to create just the opposite. The truly enjoyable bad movies of this world were attempts by people to make something good, or at the very least, entertaining. 

Gymkata is as entertaining as bad movies get. It's a time capsule film to be sure (Kurt Thomas' mullet all but ensures that), but it will be adored by generations of bad movie lovers to come. It's sad that the martial arts/gymnastics hybrid action film was both birthed and died here, but watching this film, one can dream of a world where that was the dominant sub-genre of the waning years of the Reagan administration. And who knows, maybe some wizened (or Wiseau'd) filmmaker will take another crack at it... It's got myriad possibilities. 

[Photos via Cracked]

Day 236: Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

"Yes! Genesis! How can you be deaf with ears like that?"

There is a wisdom as old as time that says "There is no such thing as a good odd-numbered Star Trek movie." While we could get bogged down in arguing minutiae, I would rectify that statement and say that there is no great odd-numbered Trek film, but there are at least two good ones, and the best of the odd-numbered Treks is arguably Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. 

Forming the middle portion of a trilogy with Wrath of Khan and The Voyage Home, Search for Spock picks up immediately after the events of Khan, with the Enterprise crew still mourning the loss of their former Captain Spock (Leonard Nimoy). Upon returning to space dock, the crew is given a commendation and extended shore leave (except poor Scotty, who has to report to the new Excelsior engine room to help with their transwarp drive). The crew is resigned to the fact that the Enterprise, being over twenty years old, is going to be decommissioned, but a visit from Spock's father Sarek (Mark Lenard) leads Kirk (William Shatner) to believe that while Spock's body may be dead, his consciousness is alive in someone else... Dr. McCoy (DeForest Kelley).

Kirk and a skeleton crew (Scotty, Sulu, Chekov & Bones) set out in the Enterprise to return to the Genesis planet and retrieve Spock's body, in hopes of returning it to Vulcan. What they have yet to find out, however, is that Lt. Saavik (Robin Curtis) & Kirk's son David Marcus (the unfortunately named Merritt Butrick) have discovered, on Genesis, that Spock has been reborn as a child. Further complications arise when a Klingon ship, commanded by Kruge (Christopher Lloyd) gets wind of the failed Genesis project and travels there in hopes of stealing the technology for the Klingons.

Okay, we need to get this out of the way immediately; The Search for Spock is not a very good film, even by Star Trek standards. It suffers from horrendous budget restrictions which first time director Nimoy couldn't shoot around as well as his predecessor, Nicholas Meyer. A lot of the recycled sets & costumes look terrible, and really distract on the 2009 blu-ray high def transfer. It's likewise hindered by being sandwiched between arguably the two best Star Trek films ever made, and can't help but feel like a trifle compared to the other two. It's got more substance than I remember it having, but the stakes are relatively low from beginning to end, and the sense of danger imposed by Khan in the previous film is just not met by the Klingons in this film.

All that being said, the film is actually much better than I remember it being, if for no other reason than the script is actually surprisingly well written. The dialogue and interplay, particularly between the Enterprise crew is as good as it's been in any of the films, and the humor throughout (much of it by, or at the expense of, Bones) is pretty reliably funny. The two truly emotional moments in the film (Kirk learning of the death of David & Spock's recognition of Kirk at the end) still land incredibly well and make up for some of the more ridiculous acting choices made by the other actors throughout the entire film.

William Shatner, the actor, was never better than he was in these three films. His moment I mentioned a moment ago, learning of the death of his only son, is very powerful and as good as he's ever been on screen. He also appears to be having a good deal of fun in this film, which is odd considering he was unhappy at having to be directed by his co-star (all of which led to Shatner taking the helm of arguably the worst Star Trek film not directed by JJ Abrams, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier). The rest of the crew is good as well, of course all resigned to one or two bits (one of the few lessons Abrams & his writers wrongly incorporated from the original films). 

Lloyd is also nowhere near as bad as I remember him to be. His casting is ridiculous, to be sure, but he's not quite as bad in actuality as I seemed to have thought he was. Curtis, taking over the role of Saavik from Kirstie Alley, though, doesn't fare as well. Granted she's not given much to do, but her line readings are spotty at best and she's not terribly convincing as a Vulcan. Beyond some ridiculous stunt work in the final fight between Kruge & Kirk on the dying Genesis planet, there's really not much else bad I can say about the film. 

Star Trek III is a fairly lightweight effort in the Trek canon, but it still manages to have far more good moments than bad, and is ultimately a genuinely enjoyable entry in the series. It has its flaws, to be sure, and they are numerous, but it still manages to be solidly entertaining and never insulting in the way some of the other odd numbered Trek films were. It can't help but pale in comparison to the two films bookending it, but I wholeheartedly recommend checking it out, particularly if it's been a while since you've seen it. It holds up much better than you might remember. 

[Photos via TrekCore]

Top 5: Most Woefully Miscast Actors

Throughout the history of film, there have been so many perfectly cast actors in films, it's hard to forget that sometimes, directors just plain get it wrong. Many directors pride themselves in taking risks while casting, and while some of those risks pay off huge dividends (Heath Ledger as the Joker), some just fall flat. Today I'll be looking at the five most egregious examples of miscasting in a film. There were a few I omitted, such as Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels, because I find it hard to imagine that anyone would've been good in that role the way it was written, but these are the five biggest casting oversights in film, and as a bonus, I've included suitable replacements for all five...

5. John Cusack as Richard Nixon in Lee Daniels' The Butler (dir. Lee Daniels, 2013)



2013 has been a year full of terribly miscast actors, from James Franco & Mila Kunis in Oz The Great & Powerful to Tobey Maguire in The Great Gatsby, but one small role in Lee Daniels' The Butler almost single handedly derailed the entire film: John Cusack as Richard Nixon. Cusack just worked with director Daniels on his last film, The Paperboy, in which he was equally miscast as a feral, illiterate, murderous sex maniac, but casting him as one of the least popular Presidents in American history, and one to whom he bears no resemblance (even with a ludicrous fake nose) makes zero sense. Nixon is all shifty eyed paranoia and horrible interpersonal skills, and from Cusack's first appearance on screen (back when he was VP to Eisenhower) one can tell that the stunt casting didn't pay off. It doesn't help that Frank Langella gave us the definitive on screen Nixon just four years ago in Frost/Nixon, but casting a magnetic and lovable actor with zero edge like Cusack was just dumb.

Suitable Replacement: Joaquin Phoenix

He probably wouldn't have done the film, but Phoenix has all the edge and borderline craziness required for the role, and would've looked a whole lot more like Tricky Dick than Lloyd Dobler.

4. Sofia Coppola as Mary Corleone in The Godfather Part III (dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1990)



A last minute replacement for an ailing Winona Ryder, Sofia Coppola's "performance" as Mary, the only daughter of mafia boss Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part III, is easily the weakest part of an already flawed film. She had no acting experience prior to her role in the film, and needless to say none after (though she did cameo, as a child, in the first two Godfather films). Her final scene when spoilers she is killed on the steps of  the Palermo Opera House instead of her father, has little to no dramatic impact because she has failed to make any impression on the audience up until that point. Thankfully Coppola has gone on to much more success as a writer/director, even winning an Oscar for the screenplay to her second film, Lost in Translation. Otherwise she'd likely be a footnote in film history as the woman who ruined The Godfather trilogy (that's a bit harsh, maybe not ruined but certainly tarnished).

Suitable Replacement: Juliette Lewis

Having just played Audrey Griswold in Christmas Vacation the year before, Lewis would have been a much better fit for the role. She proved her acting prowess just a year later with an Oscar nomination for Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear remake.

3. Harvey Keitel as Judas in The Last Temptation of Christ (dir. Martin Scorsese, 1988)



It should come as no surprise that one of the most controversial movies of all time would have one of the most controversial casting decisions ever. And no, I'm not talking about casting Willem Dafoe as Jesus. Dafoe actually managed to create a very human, incredibly relatable Christ on film. It was Harvey Keitel as his counterpart Judas, that was horrendously miscast. Put aside the orange man perm for a minute and just listen to Keitel "Brooklyn" his way through Judea. Scorsese was attempting to put the language of the street in the mouths of the commoners, and while this works for some of the actors in the film, such as Vic Argo as Simon Peter, the sheer size of Keitel's role makes the choice disastrous. While Keitel is an excellent actor (given the right role and provided he keep his pants on), he just flounders in this film.

Suitable Replacement: John Turturro

Having just worked with Scorsese two years earlier on Color of Money, John Turturro is the kind of actor a role like this was made for. Full of equal parts ego and doubt, Turturro would have gotten to the humanity of Judas without distracting the audience with a ridiculous accent.

2. Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker in Bram Stoker's Dracula (dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)



It doesn't help matters when the bulk of your scenes are played opposite one of the greatest actors alive (Gary Oldman), but Keanu Reeves was truly pitiful in Bram Stoker's Dracula. An obvious attempt by director Francis Ford Coppola to add some sex appeal to his overtly sexual adaptation of the seminal horror novel, Reeves is about as bad as it gets in the realm of poor casting choices. I may lose some credibility here, but I happen to think that Reeves is a good actor when he's cast correctly. In films like My Own Private Idaho, The Matrix, Bill & Ted and especially Point Break, Reeves showed that he is well suited to a particular kind of character (usually one of enormous ego and little brains), but to cast him as a 19th century British banker who falls under the seductive spell of Count Dracula (Oldman) was just mind numbingly misguided. Did I mention he's supposed to be British?

Suitable Replacement: Ben Chaplin
 
Six years younger than Reeves, Chaplin was starring in British television series before he got his big break in 1993's The Remains of the Day, so he likely wasn't on Coppola's radar in 92, but Chaplin has a similar look, is infinitely more talented, and is actually British.

1. Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's (dir. Blake Edwards, 1961)



The absolute pinnacle of woefully misguided casting has got to be Mickey Rooney as Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn)'s upstairs neighbor, Mr. Yunioshi. Examples of racially insensitive casting abound in the early days of cinema (John Wayne as Genghis Khan, Chuck Conners as Geronimo) but casting former child actor Rooney as a "comic relief" stereotypical Asian man is about as low as it got in that period. When charges of "yellowface" were leveled against last year's Cloud Atlas, I wanted to show all of those people Breakfast at Tiffany's to show them what a truly awful piece of stunt casting could do to a film. The more immediate problem is that Rooney's performance ruins what is otherwise a masterpiece of early 60s comedy and one that turned Hepburn into a fashion icon for the ages. Thankfully he's often glossed over in conversations about the film, but his performance is impossible to ignore and turns even the most ardent supporter of the film into an apologist in an instant.

Suitable Replacement: Mako


Admittedly, the character would have been offensively stereotypical, even with a Japanese actor in the role, but at the very least, Edwards should have tried to cast an Asian actor. With a career dating back to the mid-50s, character actor Mako would have been a great choice, perhaps because he had an innate ability to infuse his characters with a wonderful humanity. At the very least, he wouldn't have been so terribly offensive to an entire culture.

[Photos via 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]

Day 235: Elysium

"They will hunt you to the edge of the earth for this..."

Coming off of one of the most auspicious debut films of all time, District 9, director Neill Blomkamp proved that he was a director worth believing all of the hype that surrounded him. His name was first floated by Peter Jackson to direct the film version of the video game Halo, but when that project failed to take off, Blomkamp seemed to take all of his pre-production designs & ideas and pour them into his latest film Elysium. The big question now seemed to be, could Elysium stand on its own, free from the hype caused by District 9? Read on to find out...

Sometime in the late 21st century, the upper class citizens of Earth decided to abandon the planet to live on an advanced space station called Elysium. There they could live their lavish lifestyles free from the worries that come with being surrounded by the poor and criminal elements of Earth-bound society. Meanwhile on Earth, two orphaned children, Max & Frey, dream of one day traveling to Elysium, where, rumor has it, all disease has been eradicated, and people can live in utopia. Fast forward to 2154 where adult Max (Matt Damon) has become a criminal struggling to survive in an unfair world. He's reunited with Frey (Alice Braga) after an encounter with police bots leaves him with a broken arm, and she is disappointed to see him not living up to his potential. 

After an accident at the plant where Max works leaves him with radiation poisoning that will kill him in five days, Max decides to make one last ditch attempt to get to Elysium and get healed. He turns to his old criminal boss Spider (Wagner Moura) to help him, and Spider gets Max to agree to what amounts to a suicide mission. When word of the plot reaches Delacourt (Jodie Foster), the woman in charge of security on Elysium, she awakens a ruthless sleeper agent on Earth named Kruger (Sharlto Copley) to put an end to the plot and restore order.

The biggest and most immediate problem I had with Elysium is that it tries to do entirely too much for one film. Virtually every scene feels rushed to get to the next one so that they can cram the entire plot into 109 minutes. As a result, the film can't help but feel half baked and under-realized. Don't get me wrong, I would rather have a film that is smart and has something to say but falls short over a film that tries to achieve nothing and succeeds, but I wish they had jettisoned some of the side stories in this film and just focused things more on Max and his goal to get to Elysium.

The main side plot that ultimately served no purpose was the one involving Jodie Foster's character and her attempt to overthrow the government on Elysium. Early in the third act, this plot becomes wholly irrelevant and makes me wonder why they included it in the first place. Was it to give Foster something to do in the early scenes? Her character proved to be completely unnecessary and ultimately bogged down the whole film.

I was also bothered, to a lesser extent, by the heavy-handedness of the message behind the film. I understand the need for social commentary in a science fiction film, but this one felt a bit obvious in its messaging. It's not hard to sympathize with the sick & infirm, particularly when they are living in third class squalor, so many of the slow motion shots of crippled children felt gratuitous. I also felt almost no emotional connection to Max. Since his character is so late to the party on wanting to do the right thing, his "redemption" ended up feeling a bit hollow. I wanted the final moments of the film to be resonant and emotional, and they just weren't, ultimately leaving me a bit blah about the whole film.

If it sounds like I'm being too harsh on the film, believe me when I say there was a lot to admire here. First and foremost, this is some of the best cgi I've seen in a film. The effects work was top notch and Blomkamp's aesthetic as a director works well to mask some of the more dodgy cgi moments. There was a bit too much "shaky cam" nonsense, but it never felt unjustified and I was always able follow what was happening, there just seems to be an impulse in directors that when they focus their cameras on Matt Damon in an action sequence, they need to shake the camera as well. I also loved the lived-in feel of the world. Everything felt old and broken down, and it all worked extremely well for the story they were telling.

The parts of the story that worked best for me involved the character of Kruger. He was as cold-blooded and heartless a villain as I've ever seen in a film, and Copley's performance elevates every scene he's in. He is one of the most fascinating actors working today and I hope he continues to strive for this sort of excellence. The rest of the cast is fair to middling. Damon always manages to acquit himself of even the most mediocre material, and he can't help but infuse this character with his trademark charm. I also liked the choice that Foster made to sort of homogenize her accent and have it just be a blend of several upper class accents that fit whomever she was talking to or manipulating at a given moment, but my issues with her character extended far beyond her accent.  

Overall, I can't fully recommend Elysium, except for maybe die hard science fiction fans. While it's incredible to look at and the effects work is top notch, I can't help but feel that its reach exceeded its grasp, and it tried to do entirely too much for one film. It's better than most of the summer action nonsense that pervades movie theaters at this time of year, but in a way, it almost feels like more of a cheat since its message ended up being so heavy handed and muddled that it couldn't help but feel manipulative. I really wanted to love this film, and I still look forward whatever Blomkamp does next, I just hope he moves away from poverty porn and explores new territory.   

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 234: The World's End

"I still think nothing suggested in the past ten minutes beats smashy, smashy egg people."

Like many Americans, I was late to the party on the comedic trio of director Edgar Wright & actors Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. When their 2004 film Shaun of the Dead opened here in the late summer of that year, I wrote it off as just another mindless genre spoof, but when I finally caught up to the film later that year, I saw just how wrong I had been. I devoured their first collaboration together, the Channel 4 series Spaced and absolutely adored their 2007 film Hot Fuzz, and the six year wait since that film has seen them all move off in disparate directions, but their reunion was one I was beyond eager for, The World's End. So is it a worthy successor to their previous comedic masterpieces? Read on to find out...



Opening with a flashback to 1990, The World's End tells the story of five friends from high school who have now moved off in different directions, but their de facto leader Gary King (Pegg) is determined to reunite the gang and complete a legendary pub crawl, the golden mile, in their hometown. Gary is in a state of suspended adolescence, but won't flag in his determination to get his much more mature friends Steve (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan) & Andy (Frost) to complete this conquest with him. The other four reluctantly agree and head back home, more to placate their old friend than to look for any sense of accomplishment.

The golden mile consists of drinking a pint in each of twelve pubs, culminating in the last pub in town, The World's End. Things are somewhat complicated by the return of Oliver's sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), whom both Gary & Steve had unrequited feelings for in high school, but something more sinister is afoot in their hometown. The first signs of it are in the "Starbucking" of all the pubs, and how everything in town appears to have homogenized, but as the night goes along, the friends uncover a plot that may or may not spell the end of humanity as they know it.



Just as anyone who may have expected Hot Fuzz to be another Shaun of the Dead, so too will audiences be surprised to see that these three have changed gears once again and gone off in another new and surprising direction. As anyone who's seen a commercial or read an article about the film will know, this film is actually a subversion of the science fiction film, just as Shaun was to horror and Hot Fuzz to action. I'll be avoiding major spoilers in my review, but I don't know that this is a film where your enjoyment of  it would be hindered by knowing what is going on in town. I had no clue, but the plot developments are not the real surprise here. That would be the way that the script manages to be a lively and constantly hilarious dig at the conformity of society, in particular British society. That should come as no surprise to any fans of their work as their other films have essentially the same theme, but here their commentary is as blistering as it has ever been.

What makes the film truly great, however, is that it never stops being a brilliantly constructed comedy. There are running gags, payoffs for every setup, and hilarious jokes all the way through. The action set pieces are fantastic as well, which should come as no surprise to fans of Wright as a director. Ever since the unspeakably clever fight scene in The Winchester in Shaun set to Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now," his immeasurable talent behind the camera has been evident, but it's not a stretch for me to say that he has grown into one of the most reliably distinguished directors working today. The way he uses repetition and momentum in his camera work sets him apart from virtually everyone else working in comedy.



Both Pegg & Frost truly shine when working with Wright, and it's no surprise that both of their performances here are superb. Gary is wholly different from Pegg's other roles in Wright's films, and that makes him a joy to watch on screen. His character is thoroughly unlikable, but you can't help but root for him to achieve his dream of finishing the crawl, and his late film argument with Andy beautifully explains why we root for him. Frost is equally outstanding, playing his most buttoned-down role yet, and when he unleashes his rage in the film's second half, he's a wonder to behold.

The other three members of the "Five Musketeers" are also great, with Freeman having a corner on the "fussy and overly cautious" gent routine and Consadine is also very good, landing lots of great moments with Pegg. Marsan was another stand-out for me, playing a meek pushover, something I rather enjoyed seeing him do since he normally plays the heavy. Harry Potter fans should delight at seeing David Bradley, who played Filch in the Potter films, in a small role, and a bizarre extended cameo (that imdb has somehow not spoiled) was also funny, if a little strange.



All in all, The World's End works so well because these are men who understand genre filmmaking and how to truly spoof the conventions of a given style. They never lose sight of the fact that they have, first and foremost, set out to entertain an audience, and everything in their films is in service of that ideal. While I'd be hard pressed to say that this will usurp Hot Fuzz as my favorite film of theirs, it is a fantastically well-made film, full of great jokes and a bizarre third act that will lose some people, but seems designed to only work well for true believers in what they are doing in the first place.

If you're a fan of their work, I don't need to convince you to go see The World's End, but if you're on the fence about it, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It's funny, clever and insane, and what more could you want from a summer comedy?

GO Rating: 4/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]