Nov 26: Big Fish

"A son tries to learn more about his dying father by reliving stories and myths he told about his life."

Directed by: Tim Burton, Rated: PG-13, 125 minutes

Tim Burton and I have a love-hate relationship. His earlier work I adore but his more recent films are absolute travesties. He's an incredibly talented filmmaker that's spiraled into awful. However, before his downfall, Burton delivered to us, in my opinion, his masterpiece with Big Fish. The film is a collection of tall tales that have twisted visions of reality and fit Burton's style and perspective brilliantly. Featuring larger than life characters, creatures, and situations, it's Burton's swan song of brilliance, incorporating everything he had become known for with dashes of added emotion. It's also worth noting that Burton's long time collaborator, Danny Elfman, also delivers one of his greatest scores to accompany the film.

Elfman even earned an Oscar nomination for the score, which is well deserved. 

In a Burton film lacking completely of Johnny Depp (that's a plus), Ewan McGregor, Billy Crudup, and Albert Finney shine. Crudup plays Will Bloom, a man that's become disconnected with his father, Ed (Finney), because of the constant larger than life stories he tells about himself, some seemingly exaggerated well past believability. Will feels his father has been lying to him his entire life with these stories, and as Ed lies on his death bed, Will feels obligated to figure out what's fact and what's fiction. In the retelling of the stories, we flashback to Ed's younger days (where he's played by McGregor) and see how he got to where he is now, how he meets the love of his life, Sanda (played by Jessica Lange and Allison Lohman), and his encounters with rather unique individuals throughout Alabama and the south.

Including a giant played by the late Matthew McGrory. Rest in peace, big fella. 

Big Fish is a beautifully colorful film that creates a fantasy world rooted in reality. With energetic and extraordinary embellishes, we see Burton burrowing into his comfort zone of the rather unusual and bizarre. However, unlike most of his films, he's pulled back to the real world more than often, and the blend of both worlds gives the film a greater strength. It's relatable and magical, something that's hard to find in a movie of this particular persuasion, and tells a story that inspires your imagination. Along with the magical qualities, Big Fish's other strengths are the performances. All three men at the core of the film are exceptional, and McGregor proves again that he's more than a likable face and is indeed a leading man and suave, gentle hero. Crudup also delivers a terrific performance as the man looking to find truth about the man he's called his dad for so long. He reminds us that he is just as talented as the rest of the cast and that deserves to be in more than what his career as ended up with. And, of course, the star of the film is the legendary Albert Finney. He's the "grandpa" we all would love to have and the over-the-top stories that come out of his mouth are never questioned, but believed immediately because of who he is.

You don't question Daddy Warbucks. 

Driven by incredible visuals and powerful performances, Big Fish is a film you cannot miss. It's Burton's final masterpiece before he loses himself along the way and he puts everything he has into it. It's just enough of his style for familiarity purposes, but focuses much more on the relationship between a father and his son than anything else. It's heart-warming and tests any ideas you have about how fully you can live life and that holding any grudges or regrets will only weigh down upon you and ruin any relationships you have. Big Fish is a tale of coming to terms with what you at first believe to be impossible and helps you realize that even if the truth may seem stretched a bit at first, there really is magic all around us.

The Good:

a focus on genuinely good storytelling, with visual beauty only strengthening it

The Better:
great performances from the entire cast, with even the smallest of roles added something special to the movie
The Best:

Tim Burton showing that he can make a movie that's not as weird as his usual outings and is much more effective

Overall: 9.0/10

Discussion Question:

Do you have any relatives that tell tall tales that are a little too hard to believe?

Trailer:

Also, as a reminder, make sure to check out The Shoes They Wear Blogathon, focusing on biopics of all varieties, even including, yes, Big Fish.

Oct 27: Final Destination 2

"When Kimberly has a violent premonition of a highway pileup she blocks the freeway, keeping a few others meant to die, safe...Or are they? The survivors mysteriously start dying and it's up to Kimberly to stop it before she's next."

Directed by: David R. Ellis, Rated: R, 90 minutes

The Final Destination movies have left a rather sour taste lately, with each of the newer films being more ridiculous than the last. However, the first two installments are quality flicks that have the most entertaining of deaths and a much higher production value. Final Destination 2 also has one of the best and thus, most scary traffic accidents I have ever seen and starts the film off with an epic bang. To this day I cannot drive behind a truck carrying logs without thinking it's only going to be the catalyst of some roadside tragedy. So, in that aspect the film is successful and leaves you a little worried about an occasional day-to-day event.

If anything, the FD films make you think of the absolute worst case scenarios in every situation. 

Taking place one year after the events of the first film, Final Destination 2 follows Kimberly (A.J Cook) a young co-ed who's on her way to Cancun with her friends. Before pulling onto the highway, Kim experiences a premonition of a horrible traffic accident that kills dozens, including herself and her friends. She snaps out of this vision just in time and blocks off the entrance so none of the people she saw die could get onto the freeway. Everyone thinks she's crazy but then the accident actually occurs, freaking out herself and those around her. Soon after the close call, the people that Kim "saved" begun dying under unusual circumstances (pretty much Mouse Trap with death) and she realizes that death is coming back to finish the job that Kim stopped it from completing. 

A bitch to set up with only a brief moment of satisfaction. 

Final Destination 2 suffers from rather lackluster acting and bits of dialogue that make you laugh, but the actual death sequences are pretty damn good. Many of them are unexpected and following the trademark of the series, you're led to believe that certain people will die a particular way, only to be shocked by the actual method of death-ucution. Some of them are incredibly creative and you can't help but laugh at the imagination behind such things and the fact you're finding people getting decapitated, squashed, speared, or stabbed so...satisfying. If anything, the films makes you feel like a horrible human being but when you have those moments of bad dialogue and piss-poor acting, you're easily reminded of the campy-ness of the entire situation. 

Crossed-eye physic death visions? Check.

Final Destination 2 is a great follow-up to the original film (that's great in its own right). Unfortunately, the series took an immediate downturn after this film and has never looked back. With imaginative scares that are somewhat realistic (as opposed to the stupid over-the-top CGI deaths of the sequels), Final Destination is both suspenseful and funny. It's a movie that keeps you guessing even if you're a pro of the genre. It's what makes the film worthwhile and worth your time. I'd recommend sitting down and watching the first two Final Desitnations but never even blinking at the thought of watching the sequels. Have you not seen any of the films but have only heard bad things of the more recent entries, go back and watch the first two and see that the franchise is not entirely awful. Horrible things have good beginnings? 

The Good:

unexpected deaths that make you yell in excitement/disgust/surprise at the screen

The Bad:

pretty bad acting all around, even though a few of the actors are pretty likable on their own

The Ugly:

a script that never tries hard enough to be good and instead of leaning more towards campy and awful, it dances around the category of bleh

6.3/10

Discussion Question:
Do the Final Destination films deserve a spot in the "Horror Hall of Fame" or are they forgettable thrillers that are just a series of death sequences that are grotesquely entertaining?

Trailer:

July 10: Swimming Pool

"A British mystery author visits her publisher's home in the South of France, where her interaction with his unusual daughter sets off some touchy dynamics."

Directed by: François Ozon, Rated: NC-17, 102 minutes

Swimming Pool is a slow burning film that never fully delivers. It's an erotic thriller that focuses way too much on the nudity, almost in an attempt to distract you from the plot. Very little actually goes on, story-wise, and a lot of what's happening leaves you somewhat puzzled. You think, "What's the point to all of this?". And while it's certainly not confusing, it's incredibly mundane. Swimming Pool is a fine example of something that could have been great, if only a few things had been tweaked the slightest. Instead of being some artful masterpiece, it instead becomes an art-house wannabe that tries way too hard to be profound with as little of effort as possible. 

Get it? It's lazy. Like this dude, thus the picture. 

Swimming Pool tells the story of a writer named Sarah (Charlotte Rampling) who has a case of writer's block. Her publisher sends her to France, where she can stay at one of his quiet little homes and focus on her new book. While there, Sarah runs into Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), her publisher's daughter who's staying at the house as well. Julie is the young, sexy party girl who brings home a different guy every night and walks around naked most of the time. Her "outgoing" personality rubs Sarah the wrong way and the two's cohabitation becomes a toll on the writer. Sarah's not particularly fond of Julie's lifestyle, as she's quite the stuck up snob who, I can only assume, sees sex as merely a means of reproduction, not pleasure. The two woman are polar opposites, but of course, as the film progresses, they begin to bond in the most unusual of ways. Sarah sees how troubled the girl really is and she nosily attempts to discover the root of all of Julie's problems. Although the first part of the film makes you curious about the two women and the dynamic between them, the second half fails to deliver any answers to questions raised and really leaves you wondering what just happened. The two characters are both certainly interesting, but the way they come together just doesn't make sense. While there is no indication of how much time passes at the home (I can assume it's not too long) the fact two completely different people bond so well, so quickly, feels more like weak storytelling than anything else. 

Fifty-One Shades of Gray 

Swimming Pool is not all bad, however. The two leading ladies both give great performances and are completely believable in their respective roles. Rampling pulls of the hoity toity Sarah incredibly well and you really think she's some self-righteous b**ch. She's never all that likable, but her slow metamorphosis is intriguing to watch. Sagnier is perfect as Julie, a character a little too comfortable with her sexuality and uses it to mask a vulnerable and hurt woman. Also, seeing her naked for most of the movie isn't a bad thing. I guess, speaking of which, the visuals are also very good. Director François Ozon captures the beauty of a quiet little French town and the villa in which the film takes place. Swimming Pool is vibrant and contrasts well with the rather plain storytelling. Each scene is setup like a work of art, with every shot featuring Julie being a pose for a painting. Although this looks good for the most part, there are some scenes that don't need the "art effect" attached and actually make the film come off as rather pretentious. 

I guess everything now and days is "deserving" of such frilly, artsy effects.

In the end, I'd suggest skipping Swimming Pool. While it's nowhere near terrible, it simply isn't a satisfying film. The ending is incredibly weak and leaves too much up to interpretation, as though the writers wanted it to remain ambiguous enough to seem intelligible, without having to commit to any specific conclusion. Had the script been stronger (ironic when the film's about a bestselling writer), Swimming Pool could certainly be considered a little gem of European cinema. Luckily, Swimming Pool is saved from the depths of the awful and unwatchable by the two lead performances. But, even then it still leaves you wading in the shallow end, never letting you get too deeply invested in what is going on. 

The Good:

solid performances by the two leading women who encompass their characters completely

The Bad:

lack of a solid voice in the narrative, never knowing where to go or how to wrap things up

The Ugly:

realizing that the movie is much more artsy-drama than it is award-drama and that a lot of what's happening on screen is merely staged to look good and not actually be good

Overall: 5.5/10

Trailer:

Re-watch? No thanks

Buy? Never

May 14: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

"In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, Sci-Fi and adventure characters team up on a secret mission."

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has an incredible premise. A secret task force of famous literary characters team up in an alternate reality to save the world from falling into absolute war and chaos (while lacking any sort of developed villain). Throw in Sir Sean Connery as their leader and you'd think this film would certainly be a masterpiece of awesome. However, LXG fails in almost every aspect and is even the reason the great Connery retired from acting. Yes, a film is so bad it turned James Bond himself into a grumpy old man who wanted nothing more to do with movies. That's power of the utmost terrible kind. 

The man who hasn't aged in 15 years hasn't made a movie in nine. 

It's ironic that a film based on so many great characters in literature suffers from a disgustingly bad script. Each line of dialogue is laughable, especially everything Connery says (even his accent can't change that). There is so much packed inside a short movie and trying to give every character equal screen time and development makes the whole thing a mess. I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 2003 and loving it. Sure, back then I was immature and very naive as to what makes a movie good, but even then I can't forgive myself. Yes, LXG has its own odd charm and some moments of entertainment, but it's really hard to forgive its flaws. Even the special effects I thought were so great back in the day, let me down with this new viewing. 

Mr. Hyde is like if The Hulk and Rosie O'Donnell had a love child (with steroids). 

The cast features Allan Quatermain, Mina Harker (Dracula), Dr. Jekyl, The Invisible Man, Captain Nemo, Ishmael, Dorian Gray, Tom Sawyer, and many other references. The idea sounds amazing and it's even based off of a graphic novel by the legendary Allan Moore (who hated the film). With so much awesome and terrific source material, there really should be no excuse for LXG. It's simply a perfect example of bad directing and screenwriting, and how even great ideas can fall into the pits of awful when in the hands of the wrong people. Here's hoping for a reboot made The Avengers style. 

The Good:

an original, genius premise 

The Bad:

the poor execution of something that amazing

The Ugly:

the fact a 110 minute film made Connery retire from acting and also insulted one of the greatest graphic novelists of all time

Overall: 3.8/10

Trailer:

April 12: Matchstick Men

"A phobic con artist and his protégé are on the verge of pulling off a lucrative swindle when the former's teenage daughter arrives unexpectedly."

   We all know Nicolas Cage hasn't picked the best roles in his career. But, even then, throughout all of the shit, there hides a couple of diamonds. Matchstick Men is one of those gems and Cage is at his best in it. He plays Roy, a conman  whose life changes when his daughter, whom he's never met, arrives. Roy has a horrible case of OCD, constantly twitching and grunting like he's possessed by a little demon that can't stand dirt on the carpet. Cage is amazing in the role, as he's pretty much Roy in all of his other movies. Mr. Cage certainly may struggle carrying an action movie, but it's in the dramatic roles where he shines and Matchstick Men is one of his better career decisions. 

G-Force being the greatest movie he's made. 

   Now, most con artist movies focus on the heists and all of the tricks being pulled off. Matchstick Men, however, focuses more on the characters than their jobs and the con work plays second fiddle to the story and the acting. When Roy's daughter (Alison Lohman) comes into the picture, she slowly helps him unwind and the two bond. All the scenes that Cage and Lohman share are great to watch and the two have terrific chemistry as father and daughter. Sam Rockwell plays Frank, Roy's partner. He, as always, kicks the role out of the park (he really needs to be in everything). 

Yes, Sam, you do rock...well. (bada bing!)

  Overall, Matchstick Men is definitely worth the watch. Cage is at home in the role of Roy and the supporting cast works wonders around him. With a terrific soundtrack featuring Frank Sinatra, along with the direction of Ridley Scott, I highly recommend Matchstick Men. It's always nice to see Cage in a role that he actually fits (Adapation, The Family Man, Lord of War) and this film is a reminder that he can actually act. Oh, and he's pretty amazing. Go watch this movie when you want to forget the bad. 

The Good:

superb cast

The Bad:

everything else is just kind of bland

The Ugly:

realizing that Nic Cage has probably given up on dramatic roles

Overall: 7.6/10

Best Quote:

Roy: "Look, Doc, I spent last Tuesday watching fibers on my carpet. And the whole time I was watching my carpet, I was worrying that I, I might vomit. And the whole time, I was thinking, "I'm a grown man. I should know what goes on my head." And the more I thought about it... the more I realized that I should just blow my brains out and end it all. But then I thought, well, if I thought more about blowing my brains out... I start worrying about what that was going to do to my goddamn carpet."

Trailer:

March 16: Touching the Void

"The true story of two climbers and their perilous journey up the west face of Siula Grande in the Peruvian Andes in 1985."

  Touching the Void is a documentary that tells the story of one man's struggle to not only survive the harsh climate of the Siula Grande, one of the tallest peaks in Peru, but to descend the mountain with a broken leg and absolutely no food or water. The documentary uses a combination of reenactments and interviews with Joe Simpson, the man who survived, and Simon Yates, his companion climber who chose to go on without Joe after he thought he was dead. You know right off the bat that Joe does indeed survive, but his harrowing and gripping tale is still as suspenseful and dramatic as if you didn't know the outcome. 

Just like knowing he survives because someone had to host the Oscars. 

   Touching the Void is filmed exceptionally well, capturing the beauty and the terror of the Peruvian Andes. The reenactments are not your average "I Know Who Killed Me" kind of dramatizations and the actors, makeup, and effects are just as good as any big budget movie. The film keeps your attention for its entire 106 minutes and you're sucked into Joe's story of survival. The reenactments have very little dialogue, so the majority of the film's "script" is from the narration of Joe and Simon explaining their journey. Through this, the film gives a very personal insight into the mind of a man on the brink of death and his reflections on his life. A man's spiral into helplessness and a madness of isolation are on display, and the further the story chugs along, the more lost you become in the reenactments, as they almost merge into the reality. 

   Overall, Touching the Void is quite amazing. It effortlessly blends two genres into one, creating a new genre of storytelling that is so genuine and emotional. It's a film that makes you think about life and if you, yourself, would have what it takes to survive at the brink of death. The soundtrack is just as haunting and beautiful as the film and the film leaves you breathless, in a state of self reflection. Filmed with reverence of the men's survival, and the peak and nature, itself, Touching the Void puts you in a trance and lures you in to share their courageous story. 

The Good:

the perfect combination of factual storytelling and fictional reenactments 

The Better:

as opposed to a simple presentation of the events that unfolded, the film captures the audience and makes us relate to the survivors

The Best:

beautiful camerawork that shows the beauty of nature while reminding us of its many dangers

Overall: 8.7/10

Trailer: