Hey, everyone. “Moriarty” here.
It’s been a very quick first quarter of the year for me. I can’t believe we’re almost four months in. When you’re expecting a child, everything becomes about getting to that due date, and the rest of the calendar is sort of irrelevant. But now that Allen’s been born, I’m able to refocus myself on what’s out, what’s been out, and what’s still coming soon, and what I realized is...
... I sort of fucked up the beginning of 2008, all things considered.
I mean, I’ve written quite a bit this year, but even so... I’ve been lax. Slack. Preoccupied. John Lennon’s particular definition of life has been in full effect for me this year, and it’s been a potent reminder of just how easy it is to let myself get overwhelmed when I’m writing a script.
I’ve really enjoyed using the IMDb’s “My Movies” function to keep track of what I’ve been watching. It was invaluable last year when I was putting together my end-of-the-year list, and this year, I decided to keep a list of everything I see, whether new or vintage. My overall 2008 movie list takes into account multiple viewings and anything I see on DVD or in the theater. So far, I’ve seen 28 new films in 2008, which you’ll find listed separately here.
And most of those, I have yet to review. Since some of them are limited releases that are rolling out slowly, I thought what I’d do today is just catch up on some shorter reviews, and get myself revved up for some real writing next week. It’s a way of giving the year so far (and myself) a report card.
I’m not going to do it all in one article, though, because if I try to do that, it’ll give me an excuse not to publish for days and days. Instead, I’ll break it up into blocks, and I’ll mix in reviews for upcoming titles as well.
SEMI-PRO
Will Ferrell sports comedies have probably reached the end of their box-office effectiveness, and that’s not as much Will Ferrell’s fault as it is an inherent weakness to the genre itself. I groused yesterday a bit about films that involve card playing, and the same is true about the sports film. Our attractions to sports and our attractions to games of chance are all the same thing... this desire to watch something unpredictable play out. And the sports film in particular is practically fossilized. You really only have two variations on the underdog theme: either the underdogs come from behind and are able to pull off a miraculous-but-thematically-symbolic win, or they lose, but they learn that it’s how you play, and they grow because of this important life-lesson. The films that stand out in the genre stand out because they manage to make us invest in particular characters, so we overlook the fact that we know the rhythms of the genre inside-out. The original version of THE BAD NEWS BEARS. SLAP STICK. HOOSIERS. RUDY. Films that like work and endure because even though we have a good idea how they’ll play out, they still deliver every bit of entertainment and heart.
SEMI-PRO tries. I think Scot Armstrong must have had NORTH DALLAS FORTY or SEMI-TOUGH in mind when he wrote this, and at first glance, the story of the American Basketball Association in the ‘70s would seem to be a perfect fit for that type of movie. Hell, I’m shocked it took this long for someone to realize that it might be worth making a film about the ABA. They were always the poorer cousin to the NBA, but as a kid, I far preferred watching the ABA because it seemed like the people playing in that league and promoting it were having genuine fun. Ridiculous fun. It seemed at the time like the ABA was indie and the NBA was corporate. I remember when the ABA folded up and went away. It was a real heartbreak. SEMI-PRO takes place at that moment, as Jackie Moon (Ferrell), owner and power-forward for the Flint Michigan Tropics, has to face the end of that era.
There are moments in the film that I liked a lot, and there’s an easy charm to the chemistry between Ferrell, Woody Harrelson, Andre Benjamin, and the rest of the actors playing the Tropics. But there are some undercooked subplots, like the one involving Maura Tierney, and it feels to me like one of those movies where development notes gradually homogenized whatever eccentric character the film might have had. I have to wonder if part of that is Kent Alterman’s doing. He directed the film, and he’s one of many New Line executives who tried his hand at it after years of giving people development notes. I have a theory that a certain amount of time giving notes on the studio level wears down your ability to create anything genuine or to allow any rough edges into your work. Every time an original voice sneaks through the studio system, it’s an accident, and Alterman was one of the guys manning that gate for years. There are all sorts of little problems with the film, and I think the most disappointing part of it is the way it almost works. For some reason, that always frustrates me more than a film that fails outright.
THE SIGNAL
I admire the ambition behind THE SIGNAL, and I think it’s a decent picture. It’s also wildly uneven, and that’s probably a given when you’re dealing with three directors and writers, each of them responsible for their own segment of a triptych like this.
The premise is simple: one day, a strange electronic signal appears on all the TV and audio broadcast frequencies in the world, causing 99% of all people to go completely batshit violent. That other 1% has to survive in this strange new world, and the efforts of a few individuals are the focus of the film. David Bruckner, Dan Bush, and Jacob Gentry all wrote the film, and then each of them directed one of the three segments of the movie. Like I said... it’s ambitious. And there are moments throughout the entire film that really connect, where the premise pays off in interesting and unexpected ways. But like much of what is called horror today, there’s a reluctance to commit that undermines some of those good intentions, a tendency towards the comic that diffused the tension that the film builds, and the end result is sort of schizo, which might be the natural result of this particular working process.
Each of the film’s “transmissions” interconnects with characters that appear in each and an overall story that unfolds, but they each approach the material in different ways. The main story is about Ben and Mya, a young couple having an affair. Mya’s husband Lewis (AJ Bowen) is a thuggish asshole, making their affair dangerous enough before the signal makes everyone crazy. When Lewis is infected with the madness and the couple is separated, the stakes go up dramatically, and both Ben and Mya try to make their way through the insanity to reunite and get the hell out of town. There’s not much more to it, and in the end, the separate “transmissions” don’t really do much to comment on one another or offer us genuinely different experiences. The film wouldn’t be substantially different if it was all one story, so breaking it apart and having each guy direct a third ends up playing as more gimmick than anything.
And I know this is a nitpick, but I really truly hated the first four minutes of this, or however long it takes to cut from the shabby, ugly, confusingly bad beginning to the “real” film. It’s an idea that doesn’t work, and the footage is so badly done and so off-putting that for a moment I thought “There is no way I’m sitting here through a feature film of this.” I strongly considered bolting for the door. If you do see the film, rest assured... the opening is not the movie. I think the idea of what they were trying to do in that moment is fine, but the execution very nearly kept me from even seeing the rest of the film.
Even having said all this... THE SIGNAL is worth seeing if you’re a fan of the genre. I think its best moments play like early Cronenberg. Nobody stages a micro-budget Apocalypse like he used to, and Bruckner, Bush, and Gentry manage to build to a genuine sense of sorrow. I saw a movie the other day, a verrrry low-budge piece of horror dreck, and the thing that really ruined it was just how blatant the theft from EVIL DEAD was in every moment. It just became sort of exhausting and dull because it had nothing to say... nothing to add. Yes, I like EVIL DEAD. Yes, I like George Romero. Yes, those movies were really exciting when I discovered them. But just sharing that love is not, in my opinion, reason enough to make a movie in this genre. Bruckner, Bush, and Gentry deserve credit for taking these ideas seriously enough that the genre expands. Maybe just a little bit... but enough.
U2-3D
Finally, I feel like an idiot for not writing this one up earlier. I saw this film three times, and each of those three times, I found myself absolutely exhilarated by it. I hesitate in recommending it to people though for the simple reason that I hate having conversations with U2 with people who hate U2. And there are a lot of people who really, truly hate U2.
And that’s fine. I get it. Bono walks that line between self-parody and cool and pompous and that’s part of why I really enjoy watching him. But I’ve been a U2 fan for a quarter-century or so, and part of the reason for that is because of their live show. It’s an experience I’ve had several times, and each time, it’s been different, and each time, it’s been great. I saw them for the first time on the Unforgettable Fire tour, and the most recent time I saw them was for HOW TO DISMANTLE AN ATOMIC BOMB. I’m sure I’ll see them live again in the future.
But I doubt anything will ever play for me the same way this concert film does. I like a lot of concert films. I think there’s something fun and challenging for a filmmaker to try and capture and preserve the particular character of a concert. The drama of it. The subtext. All the little tensions and thrills and the blessed mistakes. I’m always interested to see how they handle the audience. How much do they show? How little? I’m seeing SHINE A LIGHT later today, and I’m genuinely excited about it. But a concert film is one thing. This... this is something else. This is something new.
I know just as many people who hate 3D as people who hate U2, so maybe this combination was meant to be. When I talk right now about mo-cap or 3D, two filmmaking tools that are pushing theatrical entertainment in some really remarkable directions, the people who are irritated by these things get really vocal really fast. It’s gotten to the point where I’ll gently test the waters conversationally before I’ll just jump in and start talking about how excited I am by what I’m hearing about AVATAR or A CHRISTMAS CAROL or the TINTIN films. If you get me talking about 3D in general, right now it’s going to be U2-3D that I point to as THE example of why this process is going to be change the way we watch things theatrically.
This film was shot at a 90,000 seat venue in Argentina for the most part (there are several shows combined here, which makes sense when you’re shooting something this technically demanding), and in a typical concert film, the goal would be to make you feel like you had the best seat in the venue. With the 3D, though, you actually have a better seat than the best seat in the house. The thing that has always made me love U2 performances is the intimacy of the best moments, no matter how big the venue. Here, you get a view of the action that is unlike any view anyone could ever have of a U2 show, as you race in to be onstage with the band, then out into the crowd, then above, from a god’s-eye view, all in a matter of edits. And at all times, you feel like you’re surrounded. It’s dizzying, and it’s also sort of euphoric. The setlist, though, is oddly truncated. That’s my one real complaint... this isn’t a whole show at all. An entire U2 show in this format, with all the songs that were part of the show on this tour, would be spectacular, and I hope that they have more stuff that they could one day reincorporate into the movie.
I’ve got to go finish something before I head to bed, and tomorrow, I’ll be working on more of these catch-up and early-review pieces.
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
|
