Nov 29: A Cat in Paris

"In Paris, a cat who lives a secret life as a cat burglar's aide must come to the rescue of Zoe, the little girl he lives with, after she falls into a gangster's clutches."

Directed by: Jean-Loup Felicioli and Alain Gagnol, Rated: PG, 70 minutes

Last year, A Cat in Paris was nominated for an Oscar for Best Animated Feature of the Year. While it's competition wasn't the greatest of films, the movie definitely was able to stand on its own amid the mix as a little French flick with stellar hand-drawn animation and a jazzy score that makes you move. It's visually engaging and really makes you appreciate its style, but the film does get a bit boring after a bit. Luckily, the visuals keep things interesting and leave you more overwhelmed with nostalgia than anything else.

It's pretty... pretty. 

Zoe, a little girl in Paris, hasn't said a word since her father died at the hands of the gangster Victor Costa. Her mother, Jeanne (Marcia Gay Harden) is a cop who's obsessed with getting her vengeance for her husband's death but also has to deal with a cat burglar, Nico, who's stealing precious jewels and artifacts all around the city. Zoe's cat, Dino, seems to be the only joy in the little girl's life at the time and he continually brings her home little treats (dead lizards, diamond bracelets). Little does Zoe know, Dino is actually an accomplice to the burglar, helping him get through alarms and warning him when someone is near. After Zoe is kidnapped by Costa, Dino finds a way to get Nico to help save her, and must figure out a way to get the aid of Jeanne as well, even though he's one of her prime targets.

It plays out a lot like a children's book you'd find in the corner of the kids section at the library. 

A Cat in Paris' animation style is beautiful. Hand drawn with paint and ink, you're left in awe thinking you're watching something from the days of the past. The movement and color is both vibrant and full of energy and the music that accompanies it gives the movie a feeling of being cool. The jazz music that dances with the visuals only adds to the mood and you're left with a laid back, easy-listening vibe. It's certainly the biggest strength for the film and you really could watch it all day. The movie is certainly for kids (with only a couple of moments for adults) and the style reminds of you something you'd watch on PBS growing up. It's sophisticated on its own level and is a valuable piece of cinema that calls back to the past.

Nico moves like a dancer in the dark, stretching and swimming through the rooftops at night. 

Even though A Cat in Paris has moments that leave you a bit bored, the visuals are a masterpiece of its own kind. I would definitely recommend watching the movie for the animation alone and if you're a fan of anything of the past or the classic in the genre, you're in for a treat. Beautiful on levels you haven't seen for years, A Cat in Paris is the perfect remedy to the countless 3D CGI animated movies that litter the theaters these days. It's a work of art that needs to be watched, and even if you get bored, it is only 71 minutes. But I think then, even after it's over, you'll know that you've watched something special. 

The Good:

incredible animation, hand-drawn and painted that leaves you all sorts of amazed

The Bad:

moments of the story drag on a bit and leave you a little bored

The Ugly:

wondering why there are not more movies like this made these days and if old style animation is really dead

Overall: 7.5/10

Discussion Question: 

What recent movies remind of you animation styles of the past? Is the art dead or just buried in the ground, sleeping for awhile?

Trailer:

Nov 28: The Company Men

"The story centers on a year in the life of three men trying to survive a round of corporate downsizing at a major company - and how that affects them, their families, and their communities."

Directed by: John Wells, Rated: R, 104 minutes

2007 saw Ben Affleck become relevant again with his directorial debut in Gone Baby Gone. Seemingly re-energized  Affleck jumped back into the acting game after a few years on "leave" and found that his talent in that department started to catch up with his directing ability. To be honest, I never really gave up on the man but I can understand why a lot of people did. He's an acquired taste and you tend to either love him or hate him. Well, throughout all of his emergence as one of the best American directors, a little film called The Company Men he stars in flew under the radar. It's even more surprising given its subject matter- the US economy collapse and the results of the recession, in the corporate world and at home.

He even gets to keep his Bawston accent. 

The Company Men follows the stories of three men. Bobby Walker (Affleck) is a senior salesman at the GTX Corporation. He's damn good at his job and makes $200K a year. He has a beautiful home, a gorgeous wife (Rosemarie DeWitt), and a really nice car. He has settled in his life and is more than sitting large and comfortable. Unfortunately  GTX runs into financial problems because of the recession and Walker is let go, completely out of nowhere. Bobby flails and loses any comforts he had, never thinking something like that could ever happen to him. Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones) is another bigshot at GTX and his close friends with the CEO, James (Craig T. Nelson). He's a fighter for all the workers let go and we see him working to contain the downsizing, knowing the employees are more than just people who show up to work every day. Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) started off on the factory floor of GTX and worked his way up over thirty years. His job is his life and he has set up an even nicer home for his wife and daughter. He never complains and works his ass off, so hearing the news that he too has been let go pushes him to the brink, unraveling the man faster than you could imagine.

The film also stars Maria "I Always Get Naked" Bello. And yes, she does. 

The Company Men is a movie all about the performances. All three men in the lead roles are amazing, each fitting their respective part perfectly. It's easy to believe Affleck is the over-confident businessman who has it all and it's even easier to picture Tommy Lee Jones as the man at the top, rugged, worn, and wiser than you think. Chris Cooper is exceptional as Phil and you feel so bad for him as the man who's worked so hard to get royally f**ked in the end. However, at first glance, you would think that these characters shouldn't be cared about, as they really are high and tight, near millionaires who have made money off of the losses and pains of other people. But, I guess that's the strength of the film because it never villainizes these characters. Even if they're "better than us", they're still human and the movie really focuses on the real struggles they face. Losing your job and even your home effects everyone and is equally embarrassing across every economic class.

This sucks, no matter who you are. 

I would definitely recommend The Company Men. It's a movie that's relevant to what's been going on in the country the last few years and gives us at look at how those on the top (who we're supposed to hate) are struggling to get by as well. It's extremely well acted and gives the film an unexpected level of talent and credibility. Written and directed by TV vet John Wells (The West Wing and ER), it's a smart very serious drama showered with bits of humor that make it all that much easier to swallow. While the lives of those focused on in the film are far from what any of us are used to, their struggles are still relatable and their pain is still hard to watch. Even then though, it's worth your time. 

The Good:

terrific performances from the entire cast, from the three main leads to each supporting character

The Bad:

being reminded that getting fired has absolutely no positive aspects to it and that family may be important, but money really, really helps

The Ugly:

seeing that everyone was hit hard by the recession, except the very, very, very, very top of big companies that keep spending all of the money, taking bonuses, raising new buildings, and going on vacations 

Overall: 7.7/10

Discussion Question:

If someone makes millions of dollars a year, lives large, but then loses his/her job, should we feel sorry for them? 

Trailer:

Guest Review- The Constant Gardener

"As some of you may know, I have a handful of writers jumping on board with me as phase 2 of The Cinematic Katzenjammer rolls out this week. In slowly introducing all of the writers, I always wanted to infuse some of their own reviews in the site, to give you a taste of what is to come. Here's Michael's review of The Constant Gardener."

Greetings movie lovers. On the solemn word of writer Ries Murphy - who is a good friend of mine - Nick Powell has generously agreed to let me graffiti his beautiful website with my review. He may not know this constitutes my first blog post ever, and as such, the dawning of a new age. Somewhere a giant block of obsidian has appeared and neanderthals are tossing bones in a rapture of evolution. Let’s hope there’s less strife this time.

Welcome to the digital age.

You know you’re watching a John le Carre mystery whenever you can hear the clock ticking on the mantelpiece. For those of you who aren't familiar with John le Carre, he wrote some of the most iconic British espionage literature of the past fifty years, which has, in turn, inspired some of the longest winded film titles of the past few decades. He wrote the novels that later became the movies Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. Both movies are excellent. However, as much as I admire John le Carre and Fernando Meirelles, who also directed City of God, I had little interest in seeing this movie when I first saw the previews. It sounds awful to say it, but I will. I thought, “Oh great, another Oscar winning film about Africa.” I think a lot of people had a similar reaction, or at the very least, tossed this movie aside into the giant box of Oscar winning and foreign movies that people told them they should see. One day. After Hot Tub Time Machine.
I don’t think this reaction is a mistake and so I’ll meekly climb my soap box now. Most movies that take place in Africa run into either Scylla or Charybdis. Either they’re too timid to approach the reality of the country, and instead paint a fantasy (remember Tip of the Spear?). Or, even more obnoxiously, they lean on the problems of the country in hopes of squeezing out another Oscar before our concern packs its bags for some other third world. I was a little hesitant at first to watch The Constant Gardener because I feared that underwhelming feeling you sometimes get when an Oscar winning movie passes you by. Just as you can expect someone to tell you that you should watch it, you can count on someone to tell you why you didn't get it. The bottom line is that I wasn't willing to sacrifice my respect for either Meirelles or John le Carre.
Let me tell you now, if you ever shunted this movie aside on the suspicion that the Oscars were won before the filming, and that the reviews afterwards wore false smiles, I understand your indifference. Regardless, give this movie a second chance, despite how too-good it looks. Meirelles made a serious movie. The Constant Gardener takes a long, unblinking look at the dangerous political marriages between Africa, state aid, and humanitarianism and the resulting atrocities. It makes no shoddy claims or definitive answers and except about people.

I’ll warn you. If you take a good look at this film, it might cut you

Little did Justin know that the begonias were watching him.

Now, that being said, take my recommendation with a grain of salt. John le Carre is not for everyone and what I like about him others might detest. I remember once watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy with someone who hadn't ever seen a le Carre movie. At the end I was completely transported, biting my nails; if someone on screen had dropped a tea cup I would have probably passed out. Only after the movie finished did I realize that the person I’d watched it with was dead asleep. If you’re looking for an action thriller, this probably isn't your movie. Unlike his contemporary, Ian Fleming, le Carre’s characters take their mysteries and thrills one step at a time, usually only after playing a rousing game of chess, or perhaps re-potting the begonias and sipping on a cup of earl gray. Compared to Fleming’s sheer sided, diamond compression of manhood, le Carre’s protagonists tend to look as wilted as boiled spinach. Ironically, I watched this film just after the momentous Skyfall and there were times when I caught myself expecting the main character, Justin, to break some one’s shin, or start a bike chase and instead, he got his ass kicked.

The Constant Gardener is my kind of mystery though. I find myself biting my nails when a character mutters, and holding my breath while Justin re-pots his goddamn begonias before taking tea. The tension of the movie revolves around the relationship between Justin and Tessa. Most of the time, in fact, the scenes between them are charged with more tension than when Justin is in dire peril.

This is the heart of the movie.

This formula only worked because I cared about the characters so much. I empathized with Justin - modestly able, mostly distracted, and completely thunderstruck that he had such an awesome wife. While I felt like Justin, I fell in love with Tessa, who was written so we fall in love with her. Ralph Fiennes (again in Skyfall) does a brilliant job of playing Justin by what he fails to say, and his subdued, somewhat timid reactions. Rachel Weisz, passionate, altruistic, manages to be both ambiguous and highly charming, inspiring our loyalty and trust even as we doubt her, which isn't that surprising after seeing her performance in The Fountain. I felt like Justin. I wanted to believe in the goodness of my wife. The movie by contrasting this love story with the horrors of the scheming pharmaceutical companies, had the arguably realistic effect of making worthwhile love seem an anomaly. As much as we want to believe her, how can we trust Tessa?

The Constant Gardener trades in subtleties. No questions have a single answer. The violence sinks in more deeply when its off screen and has a quality to it as final and helpless as the landscape itself. Africa is wide and desolate and red, full of persisting life, but when the violence passes you’re only left wondering as to why it happened in the first place. It unsettled me when I noticed the absence of “why” in the film, especially when there is so much death to explain. One scene will haunt me for a long time. Raiders swoop down on an isolated village. The whole thing unfolds as if rehearsed. People run and the raiders pursue, women die, children are rounded up. A man stands staring at his grass hut, now a ball of flame. The logic of the film had entered me at some point and I knew what would happen next, off screen, when the credits rolled and I left to go eat lunch. The villagers will rebuild. The grass huts will go up again and be burned away. Victories and losses in that land are written in sand. But just as the violence cannot not be explained or remedied, neither can the love. Both come from a place as wide and inexplicable as Africa.

A bleak and beautiful land.

“Some very nasty things live under rocks. Especially in foreign gardens.”

Indeed they do. Bravo.

The Good: Terrific performances by Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes in a subtle, thinking man’s thriller with deep questions.
The Bad: 
Some of the answers to those questions. Anyone planning to join the Peace Corps should not watch this movie.
The Beautiful: 
The movie pays attention to Africa as a pressing dilemma rather than a backdrop for a thriller. It’s a heavy punching movie with a lot to say about the dilemma’s of a torn country.

My score: 9.2/10

Nov 14: The Campaign

"In order to gain influence over their North Carolina district, two CEOs seize an opportunity to oust long-term congressman Cam Brady by putting up a rival candidate. Their man: naive Marty Huggins, director of the local Tourism Center."

Directed by: Jay Roach, Rated: R, 85 minutes

This year has been ridiculous when it comes to politics. From the most expensive campaign in history to Southern states threatening to secede, it's been a crazy few months. Riding on this wave of unnecessary, The Campaign, a political spoof comedy, attempts to poke even more fun at the situation. Pitting Will Ferrell against Zach Galifianakis sounds like a great idea, but unfortunately the film never really takes off and suffers from the "saw-it-in-the-trailer-so-it's-not-as-funny-anymore" effect.

Believe it or not, baby punching actually gets old. 

Cam Brady (Ferrell) is a four-term congressman from Hammond, NC. He's a womanizing jerk off who lies, cheats, and does whatever he can to maintain his office. In his own words, he's a great politician but a horrible congressman. Enter Mary Huggins (Galifianakis), a simple man obsessed with his little town who also happens to be the son of Raymond Huggins, a successful campaign manager. When the Motch Brothers (Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow) decide to back Huggins for congressman, in hopes of manipulating him, Brady goes into defensive mode to keep his office while facing off against the very incapable Huggins. What ensues are campaigns of the two men that are full of the worst things concerning politics (scandals, lying, baby punching, etc) and their continued attempts to outdo the other to win the election.

 Two pugs don't make a right. 

As I mentioned, The Campaign loses a lot of its jokes to the advertisements and trailers littered everywhere before its release. Every scene that would be funny is nothing new and the majority of the film feels like it's something you've seen before. You can tell while these scenes were used in the advertising, because they really are the most interesting parts of the movie. Everything else is just boring and drags on, and by the end of the film, both men have very little going for them and prove to be pretty awful human beings. Even the somewhat likable Huggins becomes too annoying to really cheer for and the end result leads to more frustration than anything else. Any attempt to be a true spoof of the political environment gets thrown out of the door because of the shear over-the-top ridiculousness of The Campaign. What starts out as a smart idea simply catapults itself into stupidity and loses any excitement or creativity about twenty minutes into the movie. I can't quite call this a big shame as I wasn't expecting much for the film but a part of me was enthusiastic about the possibility of something as fun as say, Anchorman or Step Brothers.

If only there was more room for activities...

I like to think of myself as a patient man but Will Ferrell and Zach Galifanakis continue to test me over and over. Both funny men have amazing talent and can make me laugh like no one else, but their continued recycling of the same characters, voices, and even jokes is getting tiresome. The Campaign is no exception and while it's not as stupid as all of Adam Sandler's messy turds, it really lacks any focus or heart and loses itself along the way. It's not that it tries too hard as much as it seems that the film was kind of a dud right off the bat. It's simply too uninspired and really not that funny to call an instant classic and it's hardly quotable like all of Ferrell's other films. The Campaign is something that can easily be missed and forgotten and I would not recommend checking it out. However, if you do have a strong curiosity to take a peek, it's not as bad as a lot of other stuff that's out there now.

The Good:

very few moments that warrant a chuckle and a rather interesting buildup to the story

The Bad:

that same buildup almost immediately falters and you're left bored, not entertained, and very frustrated

The Ugly:

wondering if Ferrell and Galifanakis will ever find their feet again and produce quality comedies that are both fresh and funny

Overall: 5.0/10

Discussion Question:

Are you surprised there are not more political movies out there? Or is that genre too uninteresting and familiar to be funny anymore?

Trailer:

Nov 13: Confessions of a Superhero

"Chronicles the lives of four mortal men and women who work as characters on the sidewalks of Hollywood Boulevard."

Directed by: Matthew Ogens, Rated: R, 92 minutes

I really don't know why I have been on a documentary run lately. Maybe it's my unofficial way of tying in my blogathon for November- The Shoes They Wear Blogathon, dealing with biopics (both fictional and based in reality), or maybe it's my simple curiosity. Either way, Confessions of a Superhero, the latest documentary on my agenda, helps fulfill that curiosity and gives a little peek into who many people call "psychos"- street performers. The documentary doesn't focus on the street musicians or sideshows, but on those walking up and down Hollywood Boulevard dressed as superheroes.

With great power comes... great publicity? 

Confessions of a Superhero focuses on four individuals. Christopher Davis is known around the country as THE Superman impersonator, looking a lot like the late Christopher Reeve and completely putting himself into the character. Davis is obsessed with Superman and not only dresses like him every day, but knows every bit of trivia concerning the character and collecting as much memorabilia as possible. Maximus Allen is a George Clooney lookalike that dresses up as Batman every day. He's a man with a shadowy past and an even worse temper, and does the superhero gig as a side job as he focuses on his martial arts skills, hoping to be a security guard (as well as an actor). Jennifer Wenger is a small town girl from Tennessee who, just like every young woman, dreams of making it big in Hollywood. She takes on the persona of Wonder Woman, showing off just enough skin to be sexy but never like a whore. She's innocent and also struggling, with her personal life (her shotgun marriage is messy) and her own self image. Joe McQueen is the Hulk. Putting up with stifling heat every day (the inside of his suit can reach 130 degrees), McQueen is genuinely confident in his ability. He's incredibly hard working and even when he was homeless for  four years, he never gave up on an audition. All four of these individuals are desperate to make it big, as is everyone in Hollywood.

Believe it or not, it takes a lot more than being rich and getting f**ked on camera to be a "celebrity". 

Confessions of a Superhero never seeks out to insult these people. However, each character is rather eccentric and "extra" unique, and while they don't make themselves look like fools, you're left questioning their sanity a bit, especially that of Davis. Davis fully believes he is the son of Sandy Davis, a Tony and Oscar winning actress. He's constantly in character and costume, and his obsession with the Man of Steel borders on delusional. He's a good man at heart and his intentions are good, but he seems to have lost a bit of his mind through his adventure in the cape. Maximus Allen, however, isn't as delusional. He's a man that did bad things in the past (enforcer for the mob) and it haunts him. He loses his temper far too quickly and can become very violent. It's a shame too because he seems like a genuinely stand up guy and the moments he reveals his past show that he's more troubled than you would imagine. Wenger's story isn't as emotional as the other two, as she really had it all growing up. Beautiful and sweet, she had everything, from prom queen title to all the attention. However, she's still cute enough that you want to see her succeed, even if thousands of other girls are exactly like her pursuing the same dream. Last comes McQueen. Confessions of a Superhero doesn't focus on him as much as you'd like, because his story really is the most "rags to somewhat riches" tale, and the hardships he has had to overcome are greater than anything we've faced. He's a shining hope in this somber story, as no matter what he's suffered through, he shows great optimism and you only pray that he'll catch a break.

HULK SMASH SAD STORY!

Confessions of a Superhero is a prime example of solid storytelling that's intertwined with great looks into these people's lives. As I mentioned, it never is out to insult its subjects, but give us a better understanding of these people we'd normally dismiss as crazy. The documentary does a decent job at sharing the screen time between the four heroes, but does tend to lean in favor of Davis as Superman. He's not necessarily unlikable, but there's something about him that throws you off, and you wonder if he needs to seek some help or if just needs to continue looking for his spot in the world. The movie is sad at times, but has a single strand of optimism that's strung through it, leaving you somewhat satisfied at its conclusion. While I am far from a fan of dressing up (even for Halloween), the effort these individuals put into their 'work' is admirable. Confessions of a Superhero has its flaws (as do the heroes) but it's still a pretty good documentary that tells the tale of Hollywood Boulevard's most recognizable, recognizable characters.

The Good:

hearing stories that are more than just "young talent seeking big break" and helps unravel the complicated and unpredictable parts about looking for fame

The Bad:

a little too much focus on Superman, while the other characters have slightly more interesting stories

The Ugly:

wondering how many people are out in Los Angeles, doing God knows what for a dollar

Overall: 7.0/10

Discussion Question:

Would you have the energy or the drive to stand outside all day, in costume, to make a living? 

Trailer:

Guest Review: The Comedy

The Comedy is quite possibly the single most unfunny film I have ever seen. When I first saw the trailer for it a few weeks ago I was fascinated and somewhat intrigued, though I knew that it would be a harrowing experience to sit through. I was lucky in the sense that I was completely unfamiliar with Tim and Eric or LCD Soundsystem going into this film, so my perceptions of them didn't exist to be ruined. I didn't enjoy this movie on any level. This isn't to say, however, that I disliked it or didn't appreciate it. In the end, I can completely understand why people hate this movie. It just so happens that I do not.

Savage, intelligent, overbearing, cruel, irreverent...these are the words I’d pick when it comes to The Comedy. The opening sequences are horrifying, grating, disgusting, and nauseating. The creators aren't stupid. They want us to feel these things. They’re like kids with a magnifying glass popping ants on a hot summer day. The problem is – we’re the ants. Going into this film without knowing that beforehand will result in...an unpleasant experience, involving drinking Tabasco sauce being blown up from the inside out.

My sense of political correctness in this film.

The film is aimless. It’s a wandering narrative that follows an over-privileged white guy from Williamsburg, Brooklyn as he tromps around New York City, trying to aggravate people into making him feel something. Sounds odd, doesn't it? Sounds like Borat attempting to be something intelligent. Well, yes and no. It’s got the same “He’s not gonna...he didn't just...yes, yes he did” factor as Borat or Jackass, but instead of aiming to make us laugh, The Comedy aims to horrify us. It aims to shake us, to strike us, and demands our attention. The film is literally so angry that it’s seething. It’s foaming at the mouth.

Watching this film, I was aware of something happening. At first I couldn't put my finger on it – and maybe I still haven’t put my finger on it at all, and I’m seeing fool’s gold in the river – but I knew it was there. It lurked just behind the scenes, just behind the utter abandonment of any sensical plot or story. It leered at me, and at that image made the information click. What I was witnessing was something genius. I was witnessing the unformed essence of all humor.

Let’s rewind a moment here. I've written a few times that the root of all humor is sadness, violence or cruelty. If I am correct about that, then what The Comedy really is is a pseudo-documentary about the unformed stuff that eventually gets turned into humor. It’s like the crude oil of all things funny – it’s the pain, the anger, the indifference, the cruelty and the...well, the disgusting goo that powers comedy.

To comment on the normal qualities that make up a film would probably be impossible and futile when it comes to The Comedy. The movie has no plot, the acting is less about acting and more about portraying particularly disgruntled “selves”. There is a character arc...sort of…but in the end we don’t particularly know where these characters begin, let alone where they end, so how are we supposed to gauge what happens in between?

I know something important happened in this movie. I KNOW it.

I don’t have all the answers. I doubt I have any, actually. I am almost as baffled by this film as most of the people were who wrote the reviews that I read. I don’t quite know what happened except that this film didn't like me, and it didn't really like anyone else, either. As a result, most people didn't like it right back, but they at least appreciated the intelligence that went into it. I fall in with this group, I think – I appreciate this film and I found something important in it. I’m not quite sure what exactly I did find, but I know it was something. Like a gift wrapped in flypaper, this film gives me something that could be great, but I’m too offended and disgusted to open it up. For now, I’ll leave it on the shelf. Maybe later, I’ll come back and open it up. With scissors. Or a sword.

The Bottom Line: Abrasive, unpleasant, ugly and offensive, this film is worth a view. It makes unpleasant points, often about itself, but offers a real gift in terms of quality and photography.

Overall: 7.9/10

Guest Review: Chasing Mavericks

So young Daniel of Daniel's Film Reviews has written up a guest review of Chasing Mavericks. Be sure to check out his site and leave some feedback, as he's continually looking for advice and of course, readers. 

Chasing Mavericks

Release Date: October 26, 2012

Director: Michael Apted & Curtis Hanson

Stars: Jonny Weston, Gerard Butler, Elisabeth Shue

Runtime: 120 min

Tagline: Legends Start Somewhere

Chasing Mavericks brings the audience knowledge of the life story of Jay Moriarity. The year is 1994, and the location is Santa Cruz, California. 15-year old Jay Moriarity has always loved surfing, and has idolized local legend Frosty Hesson since childhood. When Jay hitches a ride on the roof of Frosty's van, he finds out that the myth of the Mavericks surf break, one of the biggest waves on Earth, is very real. He gets it in his aspiring stubborn head that he must ride this wave, and Frosty offers to teach him to survive it.

A lot of the content in C.M. is material that you've probably seen about ten times before, and the story feels simply between average and a bit above average. It's just that unfortunately average true underdog story, who just wants to beat the odds and come out a winner, with just a little determination and heart. Despite its average story , it still does offer an enjoyable experience and a story that someone could easily like a lot, or even love.

The true story is pretty nice, and it's all about following one's dreams and just aspire to become something, or some such bogus bullsh*t. If you do know Jay's story and everything before you see it, it isn't necessary to check this one out. Unless you're really curious, but if you know beforehand, it may not be as enjoyable. It also might be a rewarding experience for you if you went in knowing as little about his story as possible, and go in without many expectations at all. It's just some really nice scenery and a fairly average tale.

Jay knows what it is like to be independent, as he has grown up (for the most part) without his father, and his mother works a lot. He finds a fatherly figure within Frosty, and it really is nice to watch their relationship grow over the course of the feature. Jay also learns great lessons of how to observe, and lessons of fear from Frosty. The chemistry created between the two is great. Also, the chemistry created between Jay and Kim is too, great. At times, the relationship between Jay and his best friend Blond, feels, oddly enough, awkward.

The beginning with Jay younger and Kim younger and Frosty younger, almost makes it feel like a whole different plot. That goes on for about fifteen minutes, but then it jumps ahead seven years to 1994, where the majority of the film is set. I didn't like how that was done.

The acting is good, and the main performers bring good chops to the table. I haven't seen a lot of Jonny Weston or Leven Rambin. Well, I've seen Rambin in her small role in The Hunger Games, but that's about it. There is also some incredible scenery and fine cinematography offered.

As far as surfing films go, this one was great. I've never been a huge fan of surfing, but I did enjoy this more than Soul Surfer. In that one, they really just chewed (really feasted) the scenery. Speaking of S.S., the success of that probably inspired Fox to make a surfing flick, for young Moriarity, for the 2012 Fall season.

The great thing about Jay and Frosty's relationship is that it doesn't feel like a teacher-student relationship, but a true friendship.

The climactic surf sequence is fairly quickly paced, but others just drag on; and at times the relationships that build on the land are greater than those draining surf sequences.

SMALL SPOILER ALERT. 

This isn't a large spoiler because it doesn't spoil a key element of the film, so read with much risk.

Somehow, the fact that the Mavericks is real is leaked, and citizens around the area come, right during the final surf sequence when Jay wants to ride the huge wave that's coming. Some watch, and some amateur surfers want to try out the waves. Even some boats go out. For me, I hate how the filmmakers execute this. It really takes a number on my attention, because Jay is supposed to be the focal point, but at times I'm really distracted by all those boats in the water. It's mostly bothersome to me because the filmmakers really don't have to follow the story by the letter. They should have just left out the boats, then I'd be content.

END OF SMALL SPOILER ALERT.

There isn't a lot of humor offered, but the few jokes are pretty funny. There's some poignancy here and there, but most of it can be pretty inspiring.

Gerard Butler (he also is executive producer), Jonny Weston, Elisabeth Shue, Abigail Spencer, Leven Rambin, Devin Crittenden and Taylor Handley star.

Sometimes, Chasing Mavericks feels just a bit too average. There's some nice humor cinematography, and great scenery. Sometimes some scenes drag on, but the better scenes certainly outweigh those poor ones. It's worth checking out if you want to check out a nice inspirational story, but that's about the only big thing that makes C.M. stand out so vibrantly.

70/100

Oct 28: The City of Lost Children

"A scientist in a surrealist society kidnaps children to steal their dreams, hoping that they slow his aging process."

Directed by: Marc Caro & Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Rated: PG-13, 112 minutes

The City of Lost Children is a dark fairy tale from the mind of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the man behind Amelie and Delicatessen. Starring Ron Perlman, Lost Children tells the story of a brute named One and his journey through a dystopian junk-filled city in search of his little brother. On the streets of the city, One encounters a bunch of orphans, all working under the evil Octopus, a Siamese-twin duo that send the urchins out to find all sorts of treasures. However, it's not as simple as pick-pocketing or taking something when someone's not looking and many of the children are kidnapped by Krank (Daniel Emilfork), a scientist who steals their dreams in order to feel emotion. One of the orphan girls, Miette (Judith Vittet) teams up with One and together they agree to help save the kids that were kidnapped and stop the scientist.

Daniel Emilfork plays Krank as both a desperate and tyrannical individual... and it's all sorts of fun. 

The City of Lost Children is a very creative film. Set in a world that looks well past it's prime, a beauty can be found in the effects and sets. Jean-Pierre Jeunet and co-director Marc Caro have an incredible imagination and take a rather "cheap" looking movie to great heights. With practical effects and all sorts of gadgets, the city and its characters come to life in a twisted yet charming way. Ron Perlman is a massive man in his own right by the duo-directors use all sorts of angles and tricks to accentuate his stature and make him appear to be a giant ape of a man in a crowd of children. The Octopus is played by two different actresses but their limbs weave in and out giving the illusion that the person is actually one being with four arms and three legs. The scientist's lab is full of all sorts of gadgets and machines, and the quasi-steampunk style brings each object to life. As for the visual effects, Krank also has clones that work for him (played wonderfully by Dominque Pinon) and their bumbling and bumping into each other look flawless. As opposed to the usual effect you get when you have one man playing multiple roles, these clones appear to be played by six different individuals. Towards the end of the movie there is a quick aging process that happens in a dream and how well it is done leaves you baffled. It looks flawless and you're wondering how it was done. 

More Pinon is a great, great thing. 

As for the story, the first thirty minutes or so feel like forever as the buildup to the heart of it all is rather tedious. Many subplots and characters are involved and you are left a little confused as to where it is all going. However, once the story finds its focus and you realize that it's more about One and Miette's relationship. A giant man who speaks very little and a girl that's more adventurous than anything else prove to be a great combination and as the two grow closer, your heart gets all fuzzy. They share a handful of scenes that focus on their connection and as it grows deeper, you fear they will be torn apart, or something worse. Recognition must be given to the two actors, as without Perlman or Vittet, The City of Lost Children would be much more forgetable. Perlman went into production knowing absolutely no French and yet his lines (although few) are delivered perfectly. As he's limited to what he can express with words, so much of what he says is with his eyes and facial expressions. The film reminds us that Perlman is indeed an exceptional actor and is much more than a brute with a smile. The young Vittet is adorable as Miette and her ability to connect with Perlman is heart-warming. She's much braver than her age allows and proves to be the perfect accomplice to such a large, quiet man.

Perfect.

The City of Lost Children is worth every bit of your time. Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro continue their relationship that started with Delicatessen and create a worthy successor. If you are familiar with either of the men's work, you'll find much more to appreciate in the film and if you're a newcomer to either of them, you'll discover a magical imagination that spills out across multiple movies. The City of Lost Children proves that with a bit of creativity, a decent budget, and great direction, you can go to all sorts of places that you never thought possible. The film is something that can be watched multiple times with new discoveries found each viewing. There's plenty to love and plenty to enjoy and I would highly recommend it. 

The Good:

seeing what two talented men can do with a stretched budget and witnessing the power of great imaginations

The Better:

a film that never feels as cheap as you first assume, with terrific special effects that only heighten the magic

The Best:

a duo of core performances that give the movie a hell of a lot of heart and so much to root for

8.5/10

Discussion Question:

Should filmmakers continue to reuse the same style and techniques throughout their filmographies or is it better when someone experiments and branches out away from the familiar?

Trailer:

Oct 22: The Crazies

"About the inhabitants of a small Iowa town suddenly plagued by insanity and then death after a mysterious toxin contaminates their water supply."

Directed by: Breck Eisner, Rated: R, 101 minutes

The Crazies is a severely underrated horror movie. It's full of plenty of scares, packed with even creepier situations, and poses many questions as to what should happen under a violent epidemic. Yes, there are parts in the film that don't make sense (when it comes to the army and such), but as an overall movie it's very compelling, very bloody, and very fun. It blends all sorts of sub-genres of horror into a great little flick that really needs more attention.

Zombie, disease, epidemic, thriller, action, horror. It's everything.

David (Timothy Olyphant) is the sheriff of Ogden Marsh, a small town in Iowa. He's the stereotypical little town hero, knowing everyone by name and keeping the quaint little Main Street town quiet and safe. At a baseball game, David notices a man walking onto the field with a shotgun, seemingly ready to kill the little-leaguers or anyone else that gets in his way. He's distraught and looks a little "off" but David believes it to just be alcohol that's gotten the best of him. After the man pulls the gun on the sheriff  David puts him down and panic slowly rises in Ogden Marsh. Soon, more people become more violent, burning houses down and killing each other, even hunting others down as though it's a game. David discovers that something has tainted their water supply, and that a virus has taken over the populous, turning people into quasi-rage zombies, driven by anger and the lust for blood. As the army arrives, David, his wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell), and his deputy, Russell (Joe Anderson) must find a safe haven and escape the "quarantining" the military puts into place as well as the locals that have become mad, seeking to kill anyone in their way. 

Who knew death by pitchfork could be so suspenseful? 

Timothy Olyphant has been an actor I've followed for years and will watch and genuinely love anything he's done. From Deadwood to Justified, the man is really the closest to a modern day cowboy than any other actor, and his grit, humor, and lengthy figure add much to The Crazies, as well as anything else he's in. He's incredibly likable and an immediate hero and seeing him in trouble makes you worried. He's not the kind of guy you want to see killed on screen so seeing him in dangerous makes you panic, even if its just the slightest. Joe Anderson is also a terrific little actor who's fallen into supporting role after supporting role, but taking each of them to places that make him much more memorable than most other actors. The combination between these two leads takes The Crazies to places much higher than most horror movies these days. Along with the acting, the directing is also solid, and Breck Eisner produces a film that's both gritty and bloody and captures the isolation of this small town and the almost hopeless situation the characters find themselves in. 

I cannot fathom why this man is not a bigger star? Seriously people, give this man all of your attention. 

The Crazies is not as much about the pop-out scares as much as it is about the uncomfortable feeling it makes you feel, leaving you uneasy and paranoid. The characters at the center of the film are all strong and very smart, thus incredibly easy to stand behind. You don't want harm to come upon them and when (and if) it does, you worry with them. The movie has a constant sense of dread and you really can't anticipate what will happen next or if anyone is actually safe. It's worth noting that this movie is actually a remake, but just like Dawn of the Dead, it builds on its predecessor, injecting a more modern "juice" and having a fresh take on the subject. I would highly recommend The Crazies. It might make you wonder how far you'd go to save yourself and if you have the balls to cut down your neighbor when they come chasing after you with all sorts of insanity behind their eyes. 

The Good:

smart script (minus a few plot points), plenty of scares, great characters, and even better acting 

The Bad:

the ending has so many holes in it, you can't help but complain... a little

The Ugly:

a semi-realistic look at the paranoia of an epidemic and the lengths the military may go to keep the majority of the country's population safe

7.8/10

Trailer: