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

Guest Review: Lincoln

When it comes to the 12:25 showing of Lincoln that I watched earlier today, I could rattle off a little grocery list of flaws about it, and maybe I still will a little bit later on. I could call it Oscar-Bait, roll my eyes and cross my arms. I could even claim that Daniel Day-Lewis isn’t human, and therefore should be disqualified from earning the Oscar for best actor this coming winter. Instead, I’ll go ahead and say this. Lincoln, directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Daniel Day-Lewis, is the best movie I have seen all year.

I should establish something up front here. I was one of the disgruntled masses that saw the trailer for this movie and a huge exclamation point sprouted up over my head. I don’t know what it was about the trailer that bugged me. Maybe it was the cuts to black every half second, maybe it was the schizophrenic soundtrack that changed tone every time the scene changed. I don’t know. I think I was afraid of this movie being something like War Horse, and I’m pleased to say that it was anything but.

This is not acting. This is channeling.

Lincoln is a film about a country nearly as foreign to us in our contemporary situation as it was and is to a lot of other nationalities. Watching this movie as an American (and indeed, as an American currently serving in the armed forces) was nothing short of a revelation. It pitched itself as Oscar-Bait, which was a pretty dumb thing to do since it’s anything but. This film is an important one, and we know this by the time ten minutes of it have rolled around.

I think the biggest problem with this film is the trailer. You read that right. The trailer undersold this film. It seemed like a trailer for a different movie altogether - though if you asked me to figure exactly what kind of film the trailer was for, I'm not exactly sure. A cheesy one. Lincoln, on the other hand, felt more like a Broadway or West End play captured on film. Maybe that's because some of the lead actors (Daniel Day-Lewis and Jared Harris) are from the UK. Who knows.

I could write pages about Daniel Day-Lewis and his performance as America’s most beloved president. Instead, however, I’ll go ahead and relegate myself to saying this – watching this film, I felt like I was sitting in a room with Abraham Lincoln. I don’t know what crazy things Lewis did to prepare for this role, and frankly I don’t particularly care to know, because that would dispel at least part of the illusion. All I know is that his portrayal of Lincoln is something I was lucky to see. This Lincoln is kind, warm, comforting, polite, soft spoken, and perhaps most surprisingly – very, very funny.

Thank you. All of you.

I think part of what makes Lincoln the film that it is can be traced to the performances offered up by its wonderful cast. I usually hate films with ensemble casts, since most of the time they seem to mute each other out. (See The Thin Red Line for an example of this too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen syndrome.) Lincoln somehow manages to dodge this plague, bringing in some of our finest thespians in roles that seem tailored to them. Tommy Lee Jones is at the absolute top of his game here, providing the audience with a figure we at once love and are wary of. Sally Field is wonderful (though sometimes seems a little strained) as Mrs. Lincoln, and Jared Harris is a walking embodiment of Ulysses Grant. Some have complained about his accent. I didn't notice.

I'm the one with the hair.

I was able to speak with some of my fellow audience members after this film let out and as a result got to canvas their reactions. Interestingly, we were all surprised by the same thing – this film is mostly talking, without much “happening” in the way of 21st Century Hollywood. I think a lot of people might find issue with this lack of action, but I found it refreshing. I was nice to see a film that relied purely on its writing, its photography and its acting to imbue it with a sense of importance. It was nice to see a period piece about an American icon that was so grounded in reality that when it did touch on the extraordinary circumstances surrounding him, the times felt real.

I’m no history buff, but I’ve done a fair bit of research in Abraham Lincoln, and while I cannot speak for the history professors at Columbia University, I can speak for myself – I thought this film did a great job of portraying Washington as it was in Lincoln’s day...and indeed, how it still is, in some ways. This look at government is beautiful because it shows us the humanity behind it, but also reminds us that government can and should work for the people – no matter how difficult the road to success can sometimes be.

That this film arrives at a time of such political discord is, I think, important. Movies like Lincoln are more than just your run of the mill popcorn fare. They are messages, a call to arms from another time, reminders that we, the American people (though young) have it in us both the capacity and the obligation to be strong. So much unhappiness today can be resolved by remembering our common identity – something I feel a lot of us have forgotten about. If you like history, if you adore film, if you love great actors performing tremendous roles – go see this movie. I for one will be returning to see it again, if only to spend time with that greatest of American heroes for just a couple hours more.

The Bottom Line: Poignant, important, relevant and fueled by a once-in-a-lifetime performance by Daniel Day Lewis (unless, of course, you’re Daniel Day Lewis and performances like this come around once every three years or so), Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is worth every caricature-graced penny.

Oscar Possibilities:
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis
Best Picture

Overall Rating: 9.8/10

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

Guest Review: The Master

"A striking portrait of drifters and seekers in post World War II America, Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master unfolds the journey of a Naval veteran (Joaquin Phoenix) who arrives home from war unsettled and uncertain of his future - until he is tantalized by The Cause and its charismatic leader (Philip Seymour Hoffman)."

Directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson, Rated: R, 137 minutes

When I first saw the trailer for Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master, I was as confused as I was mesmerized. Those two words – confused and mesmerized – more or less summarize my final reactions to this film, which garnered a fair bit of buzz for being, you guessed it – confusing and mesmerizing. Ultimately, I don’t know that the film is worth the performances of its two leads, but if I were in charge of an acting class, school or camp, I would make this film required viewing for those performances alone.

Yes. They're that good.

The Master is the kind of movie that does what it wants, and to hell with the rest of us. At times that approach really works and at others it really, really doesn't  Unfortunately, there's more of the latter going on in this film. I was a little biased going into this movie, as I’m a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson’s works, namely his recent tour de force There Will Be Blood, wherein Daniel Day Lewis’ portrayal of Daniel Plainview earned him an Oscar for Best Actor and a place in the “Holy F*cking Sh*t That Was Acting” Hall of Fame. Anderson has a way of drawing character from actors in a way that's nearly unrivaled among other directors. It helps that he has the ability to make any scene intensely threatening, no matter how well lit or seemingly innocuous.

The Master does this a lot.

To ask me what the movie is about is, first of all, an immensely difficult question to answer, and second of all, kind of a pointless one. The power of this film lies entirely in the performances by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix. I've heard early buzz about Daniel Day Lewis’ act in the upcoming Spielberg biopic Lincoln, so I’ll withhold early judgment on that for now, but barring that performance (which, seeing as it’s Daniel Day Lewis, will no doubt be spectacular) I've yet to see anything else this year that can hold a candle to the character Phoenix has brought to life here.

How to rave enough about Joaquin Phoenix's performance without wasting time…first, I think half the reason his portrayal of Freddie Quell is so compelling is because he himself is more than a little crazy. So I suppose the case could be made that the character of Freddie Quell is less a creation and more a “I’m being myself on screen” sort of situation, but I honestly can’t chalk it up to that. Sure, Phoenix has been a little kooky as of late, but nothing like this. Freddie Quell is a simian, erratic, frightening individual – as prone to explosions of violence as he is to anything else.

"I will rip out your teeth."

On top of that, you've got Philip Seymour Hoffman in absolute top form, portraying a character named Lancaster Dodd. Dodd is based on the controversial Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard. I've always been a fan of Hoffman – the first role he was in that absolutely blew me away was actually Mission Impossible III. He was also wonderful in Synechdoche, New York, Capote and Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, though if pressed I’d say my favorite role of his would be that of Gust in Charlie Wilson’s War. I name the movies in an effort to highlight the man’s versatility. He’s one of our best living actors, and in The Master he really shines.

"I know I left my ability to do bad acting out here somewhere."

Also of note is a startling performance by Amy Adams as Lancaster Dodd’s cold, distant wife. I think in some capacity her character is the heartbeat of this film. She is beautiful, inaccessible, unforgiving, cold and loyal to an idea we never feel privy to. She is a walking embodiment of the film itself - transfixing, condescending and utterly convinced of what she has to say even if we, the hapless viewers, never quite figure out what that is. She shows off her ability to really act in this film, throwing us off kilter by showing us a very different side of the Amy Adams we think we know by putting on an extraordinarily mature – indeed, sometimes disturbing – performance. If you have any images of innocent-Amy you want to preserve, steer clear of this film.   

This isn't Amy Adams. This is her doppelganger (and friends) watching The Master.

So why am I not raving about this movie? Well, because it’s kind of a mess. I’m sure director Paul Thomas Anderson had a reasoning for laying the film out the way he did, but reason or not, the result leaves the audience more confused than compelled, and not for the right reasons. The chronology is often confusing, certain elements of the film feel unnecessarily obscure, namely why the film exists at all. Come film’s end, I had no idea what the movie was actually trying to tell me. I don’t think I’m a particularly unintelligent film-goer, I like high minded flicks as much as the next person, but The Master never offered much in the way of actual narrative. It had no real resolution (or indeed, problem to be resolved) and in the end had way more nudity than could ever be necessary.

The soundtrack, too, was utterly forgettable, as were most of the scenes in the middle and in the end. I found myself glancing at my watch on more than one occasion while watching this flick (something few artists want to hear) and that pained me. Like I said, I’m an enormous fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, but this just wasn't his best work. It was even more disappointing because it was built around such truly astonishing performances. It felt like there should have been more meat around the bone. A lot more meat. There never was, however, and in the end I walked away feeling like I knew less about the film than I did when I went in. While clearly in the same vein as There Will Be Blood, this film just didn't rise up to the standard.

Still drinkin' the Milkshake.

Ultimately, The Master is worth a look to see the performances of its two leads (and indeed, its quiet, ever-present Amy Adams) but should be approached with the knowledge that it will probably leave you feeling unfulfilled. It’s rare that I tell people to go see a movie that is disjointed, nonsensical and frustrating – but this is one of those movies. See it for the performances, hate it for its ambiguities, and wait with baited breath to see if Joaquin Phoenix gets the Oscar he probably should have won for his haunting portrayal of Commodus in Gladiator.

Better late than never.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Go for the performances. Sit in awe. Get confused. Watch the Avengers to restore balance to the Cinematic Force.

OSCAR POSSIBILITIES:

Best Actor - Joaquin Phoenix

Best Supporting Actor - Philip Seymour Hoffman

Best Supporting Actress - Amy Adams

Overall Score:  8/10

 

Guest Review: Battleship

Hey, guys. Justin from Today I Watched a Movie here. I'm taking Nick's blog over for the day and renaming it The Cinematic Katzen-Jamiroquai reviewing a film that he said he wasn't going to review (but ended up doing anyway!)*

*editor note- while I may end up reviewing it myself, I may not have the patience of Justin

**editor note note- The Cinematic Katzen-Jamiroquai is a terrific idea

In an attempt to keep things fresh, I'm not going to be emulating Nick's style or using the same format I normally do reviews in on my own site. This review is going to be stream-of-consciousness style! Don't know what that is? Basically, I'm going to write down whatever movie-related thoughts come into my head as the movie plays, noting the times before each comment.

Here we go with Battleship!

1:10 - Ahhh! What is that awful screeching? I already know I'm going to be bored if they started out with a text prologue.

2:12 - We really are living in the future if they can set up a story like this in the not-too-distant past.

2:26 - Is that Dr. Doom's snotty assistant from Fantastic Four? Why is he giving such heavy-handed foreshadowing?

3:14 - Hey! It's John Carter!

3:29 - Wow, are you sure that's the take you want to go with, new guy? I mean, they probably could have reshot it if you asked.

6:27 - This is bringing back so many memories! My favorite part of playing Battleship as a kid was when you send your ships out to find a chicken burrito.

6:53 - PRODUCT PLACEMENT! Oh, sorry. I forgot this isn't my blog.

8:31 - Thank goodness there's ice in that tub, amirite?

9:31 - Almost ten minutes in, and now they show the boats.

10:40 - Ahhh! What is that awful screeching? Oh wait, that's just Rihanna.

10:54 - I spoke too soon about the boats. Apparently now I'm watching Foosball: The Movie.

15:12 - "I don't know who you are, but I will find you, and I will sink your battleship."

18:49 - Are Rihanna and the big doofus going to stay in the background commenting on everything for the whole film?

21:44 - "What is wrong with you?"…a line uttered by Liam Neeson fans the world over when it was announced he'd appear in this film.

23:16 - The boats are back! The boats are back!

28:25 - Every time I think they boats are back, they cut to something that isn't boats.

41:06 - Almost an hour into the movie, the main plot starts. I didn't comment any more until now because nothing worth noting happened.

42:06 - Just get some submarines and go under the barrier, you guys!

42:58 - Yay! The Transformers are here! They'll save the day for sure!

44:36 - Ahhh! What is that awful screeching? Rihanna must have left one of her songs playing.

44:58 - You're really using that "I didn't sign up for this" line, movie?

46:24 - The alien ships are shooting Battleship pegs at the boats. Hopefully this is not the only reference to the game in this film.

53:04 - I'm hoping the Comedy Relief Yelling Twins will meet a swift demise right about now.

53:54 - Samus, no! Those aren't Metroids!

54:36 - Battleship, ladies and gentlemen. The movie featuring scene after scene of sports being played on dry land.

55:02 - Ahhh! What is that awful screeching? It sounds like a bunch of kids screaming.

55:55 - Every time there's a destruction scene involving roads in a movie, they're required by law to show at least one kid, silently staring in awe as it happens.

1:00:48 - At certain angles, Taylor Kitsch looks a lot like that bald kid from X-Men 3.

1:01:13 - Yeah, thanks for pointing, doofus. I'm sure Cap'n Serious here can tell there's a Halo cosplayer on the floor.

1:02:43 - "Your motivation in this scene, Rihanna, is to provide us with a couple of voiceover lines for the trailer. Think you can handle that?"

1:09:51 - Meanwhile, back on Plot Convenience Hiking Trail…

1:12:11 - Man, those are some laid back horses. Aliens running around, cars blowing up, and they're just chillin', chewin' some grass.

1:16:12 - I almost forgot Liam Neeson was in this movie.

1:16:58 - Waaaaaait. Didn't the aliens destroy the satellite when they landed on Earth earlier in the movie?

1:21:07 - Okay, here we go. Second reference to the actual game.

1:25:09 - Third reference. Those aliens are totally cheating, though. You can't move your ships after you start playing!

1:32:20 - If they insisted on letting Rihanna be in this, the nice thing to do would be to not give her any lines.

1:41:04 - These WWII veterans are making Rihanna's acting skills look bad…She was doing just fine with that on her own, guys!

1:42:29 - What is with this song? I read once that the best movie soundtrack is the one you don't notice. DOESN'T APPLY HERE, APPARENTLY.

2:00:42 - And we end this awful, bloated mess of a movie as the most misused song in the history of misused songs gets played over the credits.

2:09:36 - I was letting the credits play in the background while I edited this review a bit, and wouldn't you know it? There's an after-credits scene. Watch it if you enjoy seeing Scottish boys beating space debris with a stick.

Trailer:

Guest Review: The Black Dahlia

So Ries Murphy, a Marine in the United States Military took some time out of his "Fight of the Good Fight" to write another review for The Cinematic Katzenjammer (He wrote a review of The Frighteners in August and one for The Trip in July)

I recently had the unusual and unfortunate experience of watching Brian De Palma’s take on the James Ellroy novel, The Black Dahlia, within forty eight hours of finishing the novel itself. For a few reasons, this review will be a little longer than others, and perhaps a little more serious than this site is used to. I think I do this partly because the subject matter is very real (Elizabeth Short aka The Dahlia was very much a real woman and was very much murdered in a very real-world Los Angeles) I usually like to write spoiler-free reviews, as I find nothing grates on me more than not being able to read a review of a film because it gives away what happens over the course of the movie. That’s especially pertinent, I think, when it comes to a noir film. I mean, come on. That would be like if someone told me the end of Chinatown. I’d probably slap them until they told me something else.

That’s how the hard-boiled did it in the 40’s. 

But here’s the skinny on it - The Black Dahlia is so fundamentally different between the two mediums in question here that spoilers are kind of necessary to explain my complaints. Bear in mind that two seconds worth of research into the real life murder of Elizabeth Short will reveal her mystery to be unsolved, so any and all “twists” I reveal from this fiction are just that - fiction. Some rogue part of me picked up the book wondering how Ellroy would tackle one of the most infamous unsolved murders this side of Jack the Ripper. That rogue part of me was not only satisfied by novel’s end, but horrified, mesmerized and also slightly obsessed. Then came the film junkie side. He wanted to see how De Palma tackled the book and fit it into a movie. The result, I’m afraid, was anything but memorable, and I think I know why.

The Black Dahlia stars Josh Hartnett, and Aaron Eckhart as 1940’s LAPD cops Bucky Bleichert and Lee Blanchard. Also noteworthy are the sultry Scarlett Johansson as Kay Lake and the ever marvelous Hilary Swank as the enigmatic Madeleine Inscott. These leading cast, I feel, are the strongest points of the film - Eckhart’s Lee Blanchard in particular was spot on the money. Even though we’ve seen Eckhart go to the dark side before as Two-Face in The Dark Knight, his transformation as portrayed here is no less upsetting or surprising. I honestly believe Eckhart is one of our most underrated actors, one who can portray surprising versatility, especially when displaying a fall from grace. It’s unfortunate that two of his most memorable performances so far were either overshadowed by a once-in-a-lifetime performance by Heath Ledger or a not-so-impressive-film by De Palma. Either way, kudos to Eckhart for bringing Lee Blanchard to the silver screen in a way that I feel stuck close by what Ellroy brought to life.

Harvey Dent’s grandfather, circa 1947. Obsession and consequent insanity must run in the family.

To understand the discrepancy between The Black Dahlia and The Black Dahlia, first you must have a basic understanding of...you guessed it...the Black Dahlia. In 1947, a woman was pushing a stroller along the side of a Los Angeles road when she came across the remains of a young woman. The remains were grossly mutilated - the woman was cut in half, her reproductive organs and other vitals removed. There wasn’t a drop of blood left in her body, nor was there any to be found at the crime scene or around the two halves of her torso. Her legs and neck were broken, and her head was virtually crushed by some blunt force trauma. What we remember most, however, about the Dahlia is the infamous Glasgow Smile - the fact that someone had cut her face from ear to ear in a leering grin. (For those playing the home game, Christopher Nolan’s Joker from The Dark Knight had the scars of a Glasgow Smile.)

Yeah. Some seriously cheerful sh*t. 

There’s something so indescribably horrifying about murders like this - they appear at random, are never solved, and are so insanely brutal that we cannot even comprehend what would drive someone to commit such atrocities. It makes it worse that it’s real, and that reality lends itself to a certain sort of fear. It’s a kind of fear that isn’t contained by the edge of the screen. It’s not like Alien, where you can go home and comfort yourself that some Space-Jockey-Face-Sucker isn’t going to jump out of your air conditioning vents or splash up out of your toilet while you’re dropping some logs.
 

Have fun imagining that one, kids.

James Ellroy understands this fear - he understands not only the fear but the madness that produces the fear. He gets it, and the book is horrifying.

The movie, on the other hand, is anything but.

For one thing, we see a single glimpse of the Dahlia herself in the last scene of the film. This can be worked in one of three ways - either the suspense builds itself up to the point that we can’t handle it anymore, or we just stop caring what she looks like because we’ve moved on with the picture, or the third option is that when the big reveal finally comes, it’s wildly anticlimactic because we’ve spent the whole movie waiting for it. What De Palma did fell victim to that third slot, plus it lost points for being wildly inaccurate. If you’re going to reveal to us what the Dahlia’s face looked like, show it to us the way it really was. The real version is terrifying enough. You don’t need to stylize a murder that actually happened.

Another upsetting trait of the film is that the Dahlia is pushed largely into the background to make room for other story-lines that happen closer to the front. Okay, I’ll buy it. The book had a lot of sub-plots, so why not follow them, right? The movie seemed able to handle this for the first half of the film - it stuck close enough to the book that I was jazzing along, mildly impressed with how De Palma was converting the text to film form. Of course there were abbreviations here and there, and he took liberties with the monologue. All of that would be okay - if the movie addressed the actual Dahlia storyline for more than a total of twenty minutes, and if it didn’t cut out half (and boy, do I mean half) the book.

I know what the naysayers (to the naysayer) would reply. “You can’t compare the book to the movie!” Well, yes, I can. The movie was uninteresting, and the reason why it was uninteresting was because it went from character development to happy resolution in a total of about thirty minutes. The reason the book worked was because it took you on a roller coaster from hell through the grungy underbelly of 1940’s LA. Where was that in this film? We see one soft-core porn film, some lesbians making out at a bar and that is about it. I’ll give you a hint: that is nothing to what we read in the book. Some are crying, “The book, the book, shut up about the book!” Absolutely not. This was like seeing a really terrible remake of a great movie. A remake so bad, in fact, that the new filmmakers thought it would be alright to cut out literally half of the storyline and change the ending, as well as four enormous plot points in the middle.

The genre-defining novel’s award-winning plot really tied the room together, man.

The result is a film that should frighten, but just barely amuses. Gone is the macabre fascination that transforms into obsession that comes with the Dahlia. Gone is the horror of her murder. Gone is the police corruption that is explored in enormous depth in the book. (For example: Two side police-style characters are introduced for a single line in the film. Both of the were integral to Bleichert’s investigation into the Dahlia murder in huge neon twist fashion. As in, one of the cops was getting laid by the Dahlia before she was murdered. That would be in the movie, right? Nope.)

Gone is an entire storyline about Bleichert’s partner, Blanchard, going missing. (In the book, Bleichert goes on an acid-trip-esque journey south of the border into Mexico to find his lost partner. Instead he finds the origins of the phrase “dive bar,” a lot of Tijuana drama and Blanchard’s body buried on a beach after about 150 pages of not knowing where he is or what happened to him. He then has to buy out local police and survive being followed by the local law. Compare this to the movie, wherein Blanchard is missing for about ten minutes before falling to his death and having his head exploded on a fountain after getting tackled over a balcony during a shootout.) All I can think of is Eddie Izzard’s monologue on what happens when studios get hold of a good independent film and decide to remake it American style. 

Prophet. Madman. Executive transvestite.

Last but not least, gone are the women. The two women of the tale, Kay Lake and Madeleine Inscott, form the two warring factions for Bleichert’s attention throughout the book. Kay Lake is tough as nails, smart and beautiful. Madeleine is a particularly vulgar and seductive prostitute who makes her money by luring in servicemen off the street. Hilary Swank’s portrayal of Madeleine is a sympathetic, almost lovable character, and Scarlett’s Kay Lake is a sweetheart who’s been through some vague ringer. Kay Lake is anything but a sweetheart in the book. She’s tough, she’s kind of ruthless, and she’s awesome. She lays down the law on Bleichert on more than one occasion, and she becomes the character the reader turns to for strength. Again, not so in the film. Kay Lake is more eye candy and inconsequential filler sensuality than anything else.

As if to tie a bow on everything, The Black Dahlia has a happy f*cking ending. I won’t spoil anything in to much detail here, but let’s be succinct - the book does not have a happy ending. The message the film leaves you with is hopeful, while the message the book leaves you with is...bleak. All in all, this movie was incredibly disappointing to me. I loved The Untouchables and I loved the book. You’d think the film wouldn’t be so explosively bad on my scorecard. Alas, however, it really was. Hopefully I can be rich enough someday that I can convince another director to remake this book the right way. David Fincher, anyone?

The Bottom Line: Read the book. (And no. I don’t say this every time.)

Overall Score: 3.5/10 

Trailer:

Want to write your own review or article for The Cinematic Katzenjammer? Email me here with an idea!

Guest Review- The Frighteners

So Ries Murphy, a Marine in the United States Military took some time out of his "Fight of the Good Fight" to write another review for The Cinematic Katzenjammer (He wrote a review for The Trip back in July). I forgot to post this along with ParaNorman as the two films share a similar plot, but better late than never right? 

The Frighteners is a strange movie. I liked it more than this review will properly convey, but I’m reluctant to say it was a good movie and find myself instead more willing to say that it wasted an hour and a half of a boring afternoon quite efficiently. It was a popcorn movie without the popcorn, but maybe that’s got less to do with the film and more to do with my diet. Like my questions surrounding some of the film’s more gaping plot points, I guess that one will have to go unanswered.

The film follows around one Frank Bannister, played by the always-awesome Michael J. Fox, who has quite the interesting job. He and a trio of ragtag, somewhat stereotypical spooks, go around town bringing mayhem and madness down upon whatever unwitting soul Bannister may have issues with. The best part is, he charges these people for his services as an exorcist and thus manages to live the highlife in an old yellow beater powered by ectoplasm and a house he never quite finished that drips rainwater into overflowing buckets set on the concrete floor.

The plot thickens once the Grim Reaper shows up and starts killing people, and I think this is where the film finds its feet the most. The Reaper sequences are undeniable and...well, frightening. Not so much in the “BOO” factor, but more in the idea of it. The Reaper kills indiscriminately, crushing people’s hearts in their chests, ripping the faces off ghosts and killing them for good, cutting favorite characters in half, and pressing out from underneath wallpaper like an overgrown cockroach from the “War of the Coprophages” episode from The X-Files. 

Now, let me just say that from the opening credits scene I realized two things - the first being that this film’s special effects were going to seriously underwhelm me, and the second being that the tone of the film would never quite find a rhythm that was consistently awesome. Before the naysayers and the feel gooders make some comment about the film being made in 1996 and the tone of the film being its best qualities...no. Here’s why.

The Frighteners is actually directed by Peter Jackson, the same guy who turned the special effects world on its head and then sent it spinning with The Lord of the Rings franchise, and was produced by Robert Zemeckis, the same guy who’s been the driving force behind a laundry list of films that were visually arresting, if not much else. (I’m skipping Forrest Gump with that one.) James Cameron’s The Abyss and John Carpenter’s The Thing were released 10 and 17 years earlier, respectively, and both had special effects that left The Frighteners in the dust. The Frighteners is yet another example that lackluster CG does not age well, especially when pitched against films that do use it effectively, like Jurassic Park. 

1993.

The overall tone of the film ranges from the cartoony and the comedic to the surprisingly dark and disturbing. Make no mistake, the funny moments are funny and the scary moments are scary, but unlike Drew Goddard’s recent The Cabin in the Woods, or Ron Underwood’s 1993 cult classic Tremors, the thematic siblings don’t mix very well here. Instead what we’re left with is Casper meets Silent Hill, with Michael J. Fox in the middle acting brilliantly, somehow managing to shine like the star that he is.

Still, the film has some great parts - namely, the chemistry between Bannister’s sidekick ghosts, the undeniable menace of the hooded Reaper which terrorizes the town, the eerie soundtrack done perfectly by the great Danny Elfman, and the twist that we sort of see coming. The story is interesting, involving a haunted hospital and haunted house, a seriously messed up FBI agent who can’t figure out if he wants to be comic relief or a serious villain, and some surprisingly tender moments. So well done there.

All in all, I’d say The Frighteners is worth a look if you like Michael J. Fox, if you like ghost stories, and if you’ve got an hour and a half you want to kill. It’s a fun ride that has more plot holes than a hunk of swiss, but in the end you feel like you saw something you’ll remember. Go for the ghosts, stay for the Fox, and bring some popcorn. Unless you’re like me. Then bring a pack of playing cards to neurotically shuffle while you watch.

THE BOTTOM LINE: You’ve seen worse. And it’s got Michael J. Fox in it!

Overall Score: 7/10

Want to write for The Cinematic Katzenjammer? Have a review you want showcased or an original article you want the "World" to see? Email me Here with what you got!