French horror import High Tension opens today and for about a hour the movie is one of the better horror flicks to come along in recent times. And then it ruins itself with one of the worst last acts in horror, no, movie history. It's a textbook example of how to retroactively destroy your film.
Still, director Alexandre Aja has a great style and when the movie works it works very well. After a little set-up the film is pretty much relentless suspense and horror, with some extreme gore and an appealing lead actress in Cecile de France. It will be very interesting to see Aja's English language debut, a remake of Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes.
Horror fans will have to check this one out (considering most of the crap they have to make do with even half a good movie is worth seeing) but people who hate scary movies can rest easily about passing on this one. They're not missing much.
(The uncut, international version of High Tension that I saw was slightly different from the R-rated, partially dubbed version Lions Gate is releasing in theaters today. Apparently slight adjustments were made to the storyline to justify the dubbing, otherwise it's the same narratively. The ludicrous and unforgivable last act remains.)
Friday, June 10, 2005
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Dancing kids and damaged teens
With all my recent posts about television I've fallen behind on writing about the movies I've seen lately. So far the major Hollywood releases this summer have been pretty dull but the next few weeks look a little brighter. However, that doesn't mean there's nothing of interest in release right now, you just have to look a little harder to find it.
A couple weeks ago I saw two very different films, both worthy in their own ways. One is a highly accessible, broad appeal picture while the other is artistically stunning but deals with subject matter that will scare more people away than invite them in.
The mass appeal film is Mad Hot Ballroom, a documentary about ballroom dance programs at New York City public schools. Although there is definitely truth to Christian Science Monitor film critic David Sterritt's charge that the movie plays like a "cuteness exploitation flick" it's pretty hard to resist the doc's modest charms.
Ballroom has received numerous comparisons to 2003's phenomenal spelling bee doc Spellbound but Ballroom isn't as mad hot as all that. It's a pretty shallow exploration of the dance program which hints at the economic and living conditions of the eleven-year-old kids who are participating in the program but prefers to focus on the cute, outrageous or unexpectedly mature things those kids say.
It works on its own terms because the kids are genuinely endearing and the looming dance competition provides a narrative focus, and keeps the film moving at an appropriate pace. It may make hardcore doc aficionados cringe but Mad Hot Ballroom is an enjoyable and satisfying film.
No one would ever accuse Mysterious Skin of being a "cute" movie but it's something much more than that. It just might be one of this year's best (it's certainly one of the very best so far).
The controversial topic at the center of the film is child molestation, but it's not handled in a way that I've ever seen on screen before. This is not an issue movie. It doesn't sugarcoat, moralize or devolve into melodrama. It's a sensitive, thoughtful creation that never feels exploitive but also doesn't shy away from the darker elements of the topic at hand. There are definitely scenes that are shocking, disturbing and repulsive but there are also moments of real beauty, sadness and humor. The movie is an astonishing, and entirely unexpected, step forward in the career of cult writer/director/producer/editor Gregg Araki.
Mysterious Skin tells the story of two teenagers living separate lives in the same small town who are clearly connected to each other although they never seem to cross paths. One is gay, the other is (presumably) straight. One is promiscuous to a dangerous degree, the other is completely repressed sexually. One has fond memories of a sexual relationship he had at a very young age with a much older baseball coach, the other suffers from blackouts and lost time (he believes he was abducted by aliens, the audience suspects otherwise). About the only thing the two teens have in common is they are desperately in need of help (even if one of them doesn't quite know it), and it becomes clear that they can only find that help from each other.
Araki's previous work has been relegated, deservedly, to very small cult followings. Films like The Doom Generation and Nowhere were filled with campy overacting and an in-your-face nihilistic attitude. It's not necessary to see those films to appreciate his work here, but it makes it all the more surprising.
This is his first film based on a pre-existing work, in this case a novel by Scott Heim, and that might have made all the difference. Araki's faithfulness to the material might be responsible for the strongly developed characters, believable situations and overall humanity that was previously missing in his work.
As much as a step forward as this is for Araki the film is also an incredible showcase for a breakthrough performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Best known as the wisecracking alien teen Tommy on Third Rock from the Sun, Gordon-Levitt fully comes into his own here as a true leading man, at least in the indie world. The role requires an extremely delicate mix of sexuality, rebelliousness and vulnerability. Gordon-Levitt meets every challenge expertly and, most importantly, his character never feels more like a symbol than a real damaged person.
The rest of the cast is equally fine, including Brady Corbet as the awkward yin to Gordon-Levitt's confident yang, Michelle Trachtenberg doing the indie-movie departure quite well, Jeff Licon as the fourth key teen character, Elisabeth Shue and Lisa Long making the most of their "mom" roles, reliably kooky Mary Lynn Rajskub as an alleged UFO abductee and Bill Sage in the challenging role of the baseball coach.
A movie like Mysterious Skin is very tricky. It's likely to make many viewers uncomfortable, but this isn't lowbrow shock cinema. It's a movie that greatly rewards the emotional investment of the audience. And that's all too rare.
A couple weeks ago I saw two very different films, both worthy in their own ways. One is a highly accessible, broad appeal picture while the other is artistically stunning but deals with subject matter that will scare more people away than invite them in.
The mass appeal film is Mad Hot Ballroom, a documentary about ballroom dance programs at New York City public schools. Although there is definitely truth to Christian Science Monitor film critic David Sterritt's charge that the movie plays like a "cuteness exploitation flick" it's pretty hard to resist the doc's modest charms.
Ballroom has received numerous comparisons to 2003's phenomenal spelling bee doc Spellbound but Ballroom isn't as mad hot as all that. It's a pretty shallow exploration of the dance program which hints at the economic and living conditions of the eleven-year-old kids who are participating in the program but prefers to focus on the cute, outrageous or unexpectedly mature things those kids say.
It works on its own terms because the kids are genuinely endearing and the looming dance competition provides a narrative focus, and keeps the film moving at an appropriate pace. It may make hardcore doc aficionados cringe but Mad Hot Ballroom is an enjoyable and satisfying film.
No one would ever accuse Mysterious Skin of being a "cute" movie but it's something much more than that. It just might be one of this year's best (it's certainly one of the very best so far).
The controversial topic at the center of the film is child molestation, but it's not handled in a way that I've ever seen on screen before. This is not an issue movie. It doesn't sugarcoat, moralize or devolve into melodrama. It's a sensitive, thoughtful creation that never feels exploitive but also doesn't shy away from the darker elements of the topic at hand. There are definitely scenes that are shocking, disturbing and repulsive but there are also moments of real beauty, sadness and humor. The movie is an astonishing, and entirely unexpected, step forward in the career of cult writer/director/producer/editor Gregg Araki.
Mysterious Skin tells the story of two teenagers living separate lives in the same small town who are clearly connected to each other although they never seem to cross paths. One is gay, the other is (presumably) straight. One is promiscuous to a dangerous degree, the other is completely repressed sexually. One has fond memories of a sexual relationship he had at a very young age with a much older baseball coach, the other suffers from blackouts and lost time (he believes he was abducted by aliens, the audience suspects otherwise). About the only thing the two teens have in common is they are desperately in need of help (even if one of them doesn't quite know it), and it becomes clear that they can only find that help from each other.
Araki's previous work has been relegated, deservedly, to very small cult followings. Films like The Doom Generation and Nowhere were filled with campy overacting and an in-your-face nihilistic attitude. It's not necessary to see those films to appreciate his work here, but it makes it all the more surprising.
This is his first film based on a pre-existing work, in this case a novel by Scott Heim, and that might have made all the difference. Araki's faithfulness to the material might be responsible for the strongly developed characters, believable situations and overall humanity that was previously missing in his work.
As much as a step forward as this is for Araki the film is also an incredible showcase for a breakthrough performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Best known as the wisecracking alien teen Tommy on Third Rock from the Sun, Gordon-Levitt fully comes into his own here as a true leading man, at least in the indie world. The role requires an extremely delicate mix of sexuality, rebelliousness and vulnerability. Gordon-Levitt meets every challenge expertly and, most importantly, his character never feels more like a symbol than a real damaged person.
The rest of the cast is equally fine, including Brady Corbet as the awkward yin to Gordon-Levitt's confident yang, Michelle Trachtenberg doing the indie-movie departure quite well, Jeff Licon as the fourth key teen character, Elisabeth Shue and Lisa Long making the most of their "mom" roles, reliably kooky Mary Lynn Rajskub as an alleged UFO abductee and Bill Sage in the challenging role of the baseball coach.
A movie like Mysterious Skin is very tricky. It's likely to make many viewers uncomfortable, but this isn't lowbrow shock cinema. It's a movie that greatly rewards the emotional investment of the audience. And that's all too rare.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Reality TV with a purpose? Say it isn't so!
My unhealthy interest in TV game shows led me somewhat hesitantly to another new summer reality series. But ABC's The Scholar turned out to be a little different from the norm.
Ten high school seniors compete for a "full ride" to the college of their choice. The competitions involve a series of interviews with college admissions professionals, team-oriented tasks that test leadership skills and trivia challenges (last night's "19th and 20th Century Literature" challenge felt ridiculously easy).
Each week one person secures a slot in the finals and is guaranteed at least $50,000 in scholarship money. Five students will make it to the final showdown while the other five will leave with at least $20,000 in scholarship money. Basically everyone's a winner.
The contestants don't have to eat bugs, attempt to sing or pretend they're looking for their soulmates. And none of the judges mock or belittle them.
So, uh, what the hell is this doing on network TV right?
I guess it's part of the "feel good" movement in reality TV (although I think Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is the only bona fide success in that genre). The Scholar does have a few Real World elements, the kids all live together during the competition and in the first episode there was already groundwork laid for potential relationships and feuds (Real World producer Jonathan Murray is also a producer here), but this is still one of the nerdiest reality shows I've ever seen. And that's what makes it unusually charming.
Despite the noble intentions last night's ratings, somewhat predictably, were not so hot. It was up against Fear Factor and Hell's Kitchen after all (although everything was beat by reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond and Two and a Half Men). It's hard to make noise in the bottom-feeding world of reality TV when your gimmick is giving away scholarship money to smart kids.
Ten high school seniors compete for a "full ride" to the college of their choice. The competitions involve a series of interviews with college admissions professionals, team-oriented tasks that test leadership skills and trivia challenges (last night's "19th and 20th Century Literature" challenge felt ridiculously easy).
Each week one person secures a slot in the finals and is guaranteed at least $50,000 in scholarship money. Five students will make it to the final showdown while the other five will leave with at least $20,000 in scholarship money. Basically everyone's a winner.
The contestants don't have to eat bugs, attempt to sing or pretend they're looking for their soulmates. And none of the judges mock or belittle them.
So, uh, what the hell is this doing on network TV right?
I guess it's part of the "feel good" movement in reality TV (although I think Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is the only bona fide success in that genre). The Scholar does have a few Real World elements, the kids all live together during the competition and in the first episode there was already groundwork laid for potential relationships and feuds (Real World producer Jonathan Murray is also a producer here), but this is still one of the nerdiest reality shows I've ever seen. And that's what makes it unusually charming.
Despite the noble intentions last night's ratings, somewhat predictably, were not so hot. It was up against Fear Factor and Hell's Kitchen after all (although everything was beat by reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond and Two and a Half Men). It's hard to make noise in the bottom-feeding world of reality TV when your gimmick is giving away scholarship money to smart kids.
Friday, June 03, 2005
NBC's Hit Me Baby One More Time, which I posted about yesterday, turned out to be pretty awful and more suited for desperate cable channels than network television (even a desperate network like NBC). Watching washed up musical acts perform actually isn't much fun, it's just kind of sad.
The one exception was hip hop group Arrested Development. They were the only act to give an energetic, comfortable performance on stage (on both their original hit Tennessee and their cover of Los Lonely Boys' grating Grammy nominated song Heaven, which was better than the original). Considering they were the only ones who seemed like they should still be recording today it wasn't much of a surprise to see them win the evening's "competition."
The same sense of desperation and resulting viewer discomfort is mined for laughs in HBO's new reality/sit-com parody The Comeback, and the results are very mixed.
The brainchild of Friends star Lisa Kudrow and Sex and the City showrunner Michael Patrick King, The Comeback presents "raw footage" from a network television reality show that follows a minor 90s sit-com star (played by Kudrow) as she returns to the world of TV comedy. It's a scripted show about the making of an unscripted show about an actress starring on a scripted show, if that makes any sense.
Kudrow is worth watching but, after seeing the first two episodes, it's not entirely clear if the same thing can be said for the show. The series is already racking up mostly negative notices from TV critics (including the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times and TV Guide) ahead of its Sunday night premiere.
Pretty much everyone points out that HBO already has too many inside Hollywood shows, which they do (The Comeback is paired with Hollywood sleazeball comedy Entourage, an often grating series which some critics inexplicably insist is "charming"). And how can your Average Joe Viewer possibly relate to jokes about upfronts and agents, the Zone diets and veteran sit-com director James Burrows playing himself?
But HBO doesn't program for mass audiences, they program shows that are creatively and/or artistically interesting, and The Comeback fits that bill just fine.
The show's main problem isn't that it's too inside Hollywood, it's that it's too singularly focused on Kudrow's shallow, desperate, insecure main character. That works for at least one episode, primarily because Kudrow is an uncommonly gifted comedic performer, but by the second episode the series begins to feel a bit too narrow. There's a fairly large ensemble cast, but everyone takes a back seat to the star. For the show to work it's going to have to allow the supporting characters some room to grow. Even Larry David doesn't try to carry Curb Your Enthusiasm on his own.
But it will be interesting to see how The Comeback progresses. It's possible that over the course of a season Kudrow and King will wind up telling a reasonably compelling complete story. Following their respective successes with Friends and Sex and the City, they both could've done pretty much whatever they wanted to. And they came up with a very quirky, alternative show that clearly aims to stretch them both artistically.
Even if the show winds up a failure, it will be a noble one.
The one exception was hip hop group Arrested Development. They were the only act to give an energetic, comfortable performance on stage (on both their original hit Tennessee and their cover of Los Lonely Boys' grating Grammy nominated song Heaven, which was better than the original). Considering they were the only ones who seemed like they should still be recording today it wasn't much of a surprise to see them win the evening's "competition."
The same sense of desperation and resulting viewer discomfort is mined for laughs in HBO's new reality/sit-com parody The Comeback, and the results are very mixed.
The brainchild of Friends star Lisa Kudrow and Sex and the City showrunner Michael Patrick King, The Comeback presents "raw footage" from a network television reality show that follows a minor 90s sit-com star (played by Kudrow) as she returns to the world of TV comedy. It's a scripted show about the making of an unscripted show about an actress starring on a scripted show, if that makes any sense.
Kudrow is worth watching but, after seeing the first two episodes, it's not entirely clear if the same thing can be said for the show. The series is already racking up mostly negative notices from TV critics (including the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times and TV Guide) ahead of its Sunday night premiere.
Pretty much everyone points out that HBO already has too many inside Hollywood shows, which they do (The Comeback is paired with Hollywood sleazeball comedy Entourage, an often grating series which some critics inexplicably insist is "charming"). And how can your Average Joe Viewer possibly relate to jokes about upfronts and agents, the Zone diets and veteran sit-com director James Burrows playing himself?
But HBO doesn't program for mass audiences, they program shows that are creatively and/or artistically interesting, and The Comeback fits that bill just fine.
The show's main problem isn't that it's too inside Hollywood, it's that it's too singularly focused on Kudrow's shallow, desperate, insecure main character. That works for at least one episode, primarily because Kudrow is an uncommonly gifted comedic performer, but by the second episode the series begins to feel a bit too narrow. There's a fairly large ensemble cast, but everyone takes a back seat to the star. For the show to work it's going to have to allow the supporting characters some room to grow. Even Larry David doesn't try to carry Curb Your Enthusiasm on his own.
But it will be interesting to see how The Comeback progresses. It's possible that over the course of a season Kudrow and King will wind up telling a reasonably compelling complete story. Following their respective successes with Friends and Sex and the City, they both could've done pretty much whatever they wanted to. And they came up with a very quirky, alternative show that clearly aims to stretch them both artistically.
Even if the show winds up a failure, it will be a noble one.
Top Tens from people who make movies
U.K. newspaper The Independent's online edition has posted an assortment of movie top 10s by an eclectic group of film directors. The lists are taken from Halliwell's Top 1000 and the intro to the lists, by Halliwell's author John Walker, devotes an oddly large amount of space to criticizing Quentin Tarantino's selections.
At any rate the lists are interesting to look at for a glimpse at influences on and personal taste of a handful of major filmmakers.
At any rate the lists are interesting to look at for a glimpse at influences on and personal taste of a handful of major filmmakers.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Developments
Deadwood star/future Emmy winner Ian McShane is joining Woody Allen's next project. Like all Allen films the details are vague but this one will again be shot in London and again star Scarlett Johansson, just like his most recent film, Match Point, which received universal rave reviews (something very rare for Allen these days) at Cannes and was just acquired by DreamWorks for a U.S. release later this year. Unlike Match Point though Allen is supposedly taking an on camera role in this one.
X-Men 3 has no director even though it's due to begin production this summer. Matthew Vaughn (whose directorial debut Layer Cake is in theaters now) dropped out, supposedly for "family reasons" but I'm sure there's more to it than that. The rumored options for his replacement do not look promising.
X-Men 3 has no director even though it's due to begin production this summer. Matthew Vaughn (whose directorial debut Layer Cake is in theaters now) dropped out, supposedly for "family reasons" but I'm sure there's more to it than that. The rumored options for his replacement do not look promising.
Where have you gone Flock of Seagulls?
There's a lot of new reality shows premiering over the summer but one of the two that I'm most interested in debuts tonight.
Hit Me Baby One More Time aired in the U.K. just a few months ago but now it's invading the U.S. courtesy of that bastion of good taste known as NBC (warning: clicking on that link brings up audio of Loverboy's "Working for the Weekend").
The very VH1-friendly concept pits former one hit wonders against each other in a battle of the bands. They perform current songs, people vote (I think it's people in the studio audience and not the TV viewing audience, lame) and then the winner donates money to charity. It's always so cute that they make the competitors donate to charity on these celebrity competition shows. We all know washed up celebs could use the money as much as most of the people who wind up on Survivor.
Anyway, here's a preview of tonight's show. If it doesn't get you interested then nothing will (and you're no doubt better off for that).
Hit Me Baby One More Time aired in the U.K. just a few months ago but now it's invading the U.S. courtesy of that bastion of good taste known as NBC (warning: clicking on that link brings up audio of Loverboy's "Working for the Weekend").
The very VH1-friendly concept pits former one hit wonders against each other in a battle of the bands. They perform current songs, people vote (I think it's people in the studio audience and not the TV viewing audience, lame) and then the winner donates money to charity. It's always so cute that they make the competitors donate to charity on these celebrity competition shows. We all know washed up celebs could use the money as much as most of the people who wind up on Survivor.
Anyway, here's a preview of tonight's show. If it doesn't get you interested then nothing will (and you're no doubt better off for that).
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Season Finales: Gilmore Girls
27 seconds.
It's not a very long time but it's enough to have caused me to hold back on posting this for two weeks. When The WB originally aired the season finale of Gilmore Girls the episode ran 27 seconds into the 9 o'clock hour. That decision was unannounced prior to airtime and consequently wreaked havoc on DVRs and VCRs everywhere, leaving some very angry fans.
What happened in those 27 seconds might have been a mystery if not for WB promos that promised a marriage proposal. But who proposed to who?
The specifics of that proposal had been spoiled for me by the time I saw it play out during WB's quickly scheduled rebroadcast last night but it was still worth the wait.
Much has been written about the creative resurgence of Gilmore this season, and happily the show also managed an impressive ratings boost (up 17% in total viewers and 24% in the 18-49 demo) making it the WB's second highest rated show for the season. It's extremely rare for a series to deliver one of its finest seasons in its fifth year but Gilmore did just that (I think this season stands with the first as the series' overall best).
So anyway, two weeks late, but yes Gilmore Girls finished off one of its very best seasons with one of the season's very best episodes.
Lorelai and Luke finally became a couple this season and wrapping the year up with a proposal was the perfect finish. It couldn't have happened in a better way.
Even if that meant that Rory had to act in a ludicrously un-Rory-like manner and decide to drop out of Yale because her boyfriend's powerful father told her she doesn't have what it takes to become a journalist - her lifelong dream.
I appreciate that the writers (and by writers I mean primarily Amy Sherman-Palladino, clearly the voice of this show) enjoy testing Rory's limits, throwing obstacles in her path to see how she'll react, complicating her relationships (especially with her mother) and allowing her to grown up in a messy, believable way. Losing her virginity to her married ex-boyfriend in last season's finale was a perfect way of doing all that. Forcing her to quit Yale for what seems like short term dramatic impact is not. I'm very curious to see where exactly they're going with this.
But I'm glad, and somewhat surprised, that after five seasons I can have such a strong reaction to a character's decision on a TV show. For all its cutesy quirks the reason Gilmore Girls works is because of the strong central characters it has developed over the years.
With its WB-size-appropriate audience the show has remained something of a cult phenomenon and not everyone has had the chance to discover its exceptional qualities. But it's quite unlike anything else currently on the air. It's funny, it's witty, it's smart and it loves its characters so much it's impossible not to love them back. Even when the decisions they make are really stupid.
Finale Grade: A
Season Grade: A-
It's not a very long time but it's enough to have caused me to hold back on posting this for two weeks. When The WB originally aired the season finale of Gilmore Girls the episode ran 27 seconds into the 9 o'clock hour. That decision was unannounced prior to airtime and consequently wreaked havoc on DVRs and VCRs everywhere, leaving some very angry fans.
What happened in those 27 seconds might have been a mystery if not for WB promos that promised a marriage proposal. But who proposed to who?
The specifics of that proposal had been spoiled for me by the time I saw it play out during WB's quickly scheduled rebroadcast last night but it was still worth the wait.
Much has been written about the creative resurgence of Gilmore this season, and happily the show also managed an impressive ratings boost (up 17% in total viewers and 24% in the 18-49 demo) making it the WB's second highest rated show for the season. It's extremely rare for a series to deliver one of its finest seasons in its fifth year but Gilmore did just that (I think this season stands with the first as the series' overall best).
So anyway, two weeks late, but yes Gilmore Girls finished off one of its very best seasons with one of the season's very best episodes.
Lorelai and Luke finally became a couple this season and wrapping the year up with a proposal was the perfect finish. It couldn't have happened in a better way.
Even if that meant that Rory had to act in a ludicrously un-Rory-like manner and decide to drop out of Yale because her boyfriend's powerful father told her she doesn't have what it takes to become a journalist - her lifelong dream.
I appreciate that the writers (and by writers I mean primarily Amy Sherman-Palladino, clearly the voice of this show) enjoy testing Rory's limits, throwing obstacles in her path to see how she'll react, complicating her relationships (especially with her mother) and allowing her to grown up in a messy, believable way. Losing her virginity to her married ex-boyfriend in last season's finale was a perfect way of doing all that. Forcing her to quit Yale for what seems like short term dramatic impact is not. I'm very curious to see where exactly they're going with this.
But I'm glad, and somewhat surprised, that after five seasons I can have such a strong reaction to a character's decision on a TV show. For all its cutesy quirks the reason Gilmore Girls works is because of the strong central characters it has developed over the years.
With its WB-size-appropriate audience the show has remained something of a cult phenomenon and not everyone has had the chance to discover its exceptional qualities. But it's quite unlike anything else currently on the air. It's funny, it's witty, it's smart and it loves its characters so much it's impossible not to love them back. Even when the decisions they make are really stupid.
Finale Grade: A
Season Grade: A-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)