As much as respect his writing, I often find myself at odds with Roger Ebert’s opinions on film. He’s hopelessly out-of-touch with the horror genre, and his recent slam of Kick-Ass was predictably squeamish in a those-kids-today! kinda way. However, although he makes some silly assertions with his slam of the current 3-D craze for Newsweek, he also makes some very valid points worth further discussion.

In the piece, called Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too) he makes a nine-point list of complaints. The first five are actually pretty minor. His first two points claim that 3-D is both a Waste of a Dimension, and that It Adds Nothing to the Experience. While this may be true of some films (he cites Fargo, Casablanca and Precious as examples), especially ones, um, not made for the format, it works just fine for many films. Ever see Friday the 13^th Part III, House of Wax Monster Vs. Aliens or, uh, what’s that movie called… um… oh yeah: Avatar? All them make excellent use of 3-D to enhance the experience.

Point three informs us that “It Can Be a Distraction.” Well, yes it can, that’s THE WHOLE POINT! More specifically, he talks about how it brings both background and foreground into focus and thereby “it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.” In some cases, sure, but can’t it also offer directors a new tool in which to guide our focus, as well?

For point four, It Can Create Nausea and Headaches, Ebert cites a report that says about fifteen percent of people experience headache and eye strain while watching 3-D. Yup, that’s a bummer, but that leaves 85 percent who don’t suffer. And of those fifteen, how many are getting eye strain from not wearing their prescription glasses? A bigger problem with 3-D is the specific format (there have been many throughout the decades) when it’s isn’t properly projected and causes eye strain because things go out of sync. Not a problem with the latest technologies, though.

Point five: Have You Noticed That 3-D Seems a Little Dim? Again, if it was too dim, audiences wouldn’t go.

With his sixth point, There’s Money to Made in Selling Digital Projectors, Ebert starts getting at the real problems. Basically, exhibitors are being strong-armed by companies to upgrade and get rid of their analogue projectors. This is not simply bullying, but it also skews the market and means that if theatres get rid of film projectors, they can’t show older films on film, which is a vital experience. I’m going film nerd here, but there’s nothing quite like the organic look of film – the way the grain moves, the little imperfections, the faint sound of the projector running, etc. Mostly, though, it’s an unfair business practice.

Point seven really kills me: Theatres Slap on $5 to $7.50 for 3-D. I recently went to see The Clash of the Titans remake and everyone I was with voted on upsizing the theatrical experience to see it in 3-D, simply because the assumption is that this is the absolute best, pimped, out, par excellence way to view a movie. However, the 3-D in that film is poor (sometimes the wrong part of the shot was brought into the foreground – really annoying) and unnecessary, especially considering it wasn’t shot as a 3-D movie. I really, really hate the 3-D afterthought, where 2-D movies are artificially reworked to gouge the consumer (just one example is the upcoming Green Hornet film, which has been pushed back for a 3-D retrofit). At the very least there should be a warning notice at the box office. “Warning: $5 of Your Purchase is Going Towards Fake-Ass 3-D! This is not as pimp as you think it is! Consider buying a bag of M&Ms instead.”

Ebert notes that James Cameron is going to be reengineering Titanic for a 3-D release. This is where I agree that it adds nothing. This is a human drama film about a real life disaster – so go see it again to marvel at how realistic the iceberg appears! More importantly, no one should be subjected to the soul-punchingly awful Celine Dion music or cheeseball dramatics of that film in 2-D, much less 3-D.

Ebert’s ninth and final point has a ridiculously long title, so I won’t bother reprinting it, but basically he notes that every time Hollywood feels threatened, it turns to 3-D. True. When movies started showing on television, the first 3-D craze began; when VCRs boomed, there was another wave; and now with affordable, giant home theatre systems, once again 3-D is in vogue. Because the 3-D is bigger (IMAX screens, for example), theoretically better, and cheaper to produce and exhibit, it’ll boom harder and last longer, but it’ll definitely die out, as consumers get gouged, bored and sick of the glasses.

Perhaps Ebert’s most important point is this: “I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy.” It’s true that the animated kiddie movies, gimmick films and other big visual genre stuff is increasingly the focus, and that sucks. I’m all for fun but, like the average viewer, I really don’t want my options limited to the sparkly stuff (and on that note, please no f**king 3-D Twilight!).At the end of the day, film is storyteller’s medium, and 3-D films will have to offer both style and substance.

Unlike Ebert, I don’t hate 3-D, but see it as a tool that needs to be used appropriately and sparingly, so it remains a draw. As he notes, Werner Herzog is doing a 3-D film about cave paintings in order to place viewers inside the caves, to get a more accurate sense of the space, not to simply produce eye-candy for the sake of eye candy (The Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland, etc.). I see a future in 3D here, but also in the popcorn movies that really utilize the format for thrills, such as the upcoming Piranha remake. (Stuff underwater always looks great in 3-D because it more naturally represents the way it’s suspended.) I can’t wait to see a school of blood-thirsty Piranhas swim towards me, and yeah, hopefully that will make up what is most likely gonna contain a lot of teen movie cheese.

I guess, unlike, Ebert, when it comes to 3-D, I’ve got more of a – pun intended – wait and see attitude.

 

-Dave Alexander

Hoo-ah! Al Pacino turns 70 today. While that’s a lot of black hair dye and yelling, it’s also a lot of memorable films about New York City – most of them the tourist bureau’s worst nightmare.

Woody Allen may portray the Big Apple as this sort of quirky, iconic haven for intellectuals, but many of the films of Al Pacino have portrayed the place as concrete crap-hole. In fact, before I visited the city for the first time, about a decade ago, before 9/11 redefined it, the New York City in my mind was a scary place largely shaped by his films.

Go back to the early years of his career for some of the most caustic classics. Pacino played a desperate junkie in The Panic in Needle Park (1971), ruthless rising crime boss Michael Corleone in The Godfather (1972), a whistle-blower cop drowning in police corruption in Serpico (1973), a more powerful, more evil Corleone in The Godfather II and an ill-fated bank robber in A Dog Day Afternoon (1975). But probably the nastiest is the William Friedkin-directed Cruising (1980), one of Pacino’s lesser-known films, but I’d say his harshest. In it he plays an undercover cop chasing a serial killer who’s brutally slaying and dismembering gay men in NYC. It’s an ugly movie, with a particularly brutal, unflattering portrayal of gay culture in the city.

In general, that was the era of rotten Big Apple movies (e.g. The French Connection, When a Stranger Calls or The Talking of Pelham 123), but Pacino has continued to give us the NYC grit throughout his career. In 1989’s A Sea of Love, again he plays a cop chasing a serial killer; The Godfather III (1990) continued the unforgiving crime saga throughout the decades; David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) showed us that even life for gainfully employed real estate agents is a daily grind of foul-mouthed misery; Carlito’s Way (1993) proved that even if you’re a reformed gangster who just wants to start over, away from NYC, the city will inevitably crush you; and City Hall (1996), makes it clear that even the mayor’s office is a pit of corruption – and where can you go from there?

Easy, you make The Devil’s Advocate (1997), in which Satan himself (Pacino, operatically yelling his way through the role) lives in New York and is pulling the strings! You literally can’t make the city any more evil than that. However, just to cover his bases, Pacino made People I Know in 2002, where he’s a strung-out P.R. man in a world of superficial degenerates, and then he went back to the murder well in 2008 for Righteous Kill, about veteran cops chasing a serial killer.

While he can’t lay claim to a career as the city’s biggest booster, the actor embodies New York itself in a lot of ways. There’s that craggy, weathered face, those angry eyes and that booming voice. He often plays in-your-face, larger-than-life eccentrics constantly on the verge of snapping. (Just check out one of these Pacino soundboards for proof.) It seems very classic New Yawk to me.

So congratulations on your 70^th birthday, Al Pacino – may you have many more years of yelling and making New York City look like a venomous crime magnet. HOO-AH!!!

 

-Dave Alexander

There are two types of people in this world: those who love Napoleon Dynamite and those who hate it. The film is so idiosyncratic in its low-culture geeksploitation aesthetic that it polarizes: it’s either total nonsense or comic brilliance. I’m in the latter camp – I love the movie’s thrift store, purposely dated universe full of misfits and weirdos. Married director/writer team Jared and Jerusha Hess construct outlandish worlds that you won’t see anywhere else. (Even if you can’t stand their films, you could still pick them out of a crowd.)

After the unexpected success of Napoleon Dynamite, which earned $46 million on a $400 000 budget, the Hess’ were courted by Hollywood and made the so-so Nacho Libre, a 2006 Mexican wrestling comedy starring Jack Black. Something was lost in the polish, and Black’s over-the-top performance worked against the garish sensibilities of the filmmakers – too many loud colours. That said, the 35 million dollar movie made nearly $100 million worldwide.

The Hess’ stepped back for their latest film, the $10 million Gentlemen Broncos, which has name actors but not stars. Michael Angarano (Lords of Dogtown, 24) plays Benjamin a teenaged, aspiring sci-fi writer from a poor single parent family; his mom, played by the almost always hilarious Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, Best in Show), is a wannabe fashion designer with absolutely hideous taste. Benjamin, attends a writing camp where he submits his story to famous but creatively dry sci-fi pulp writer Ronald Chevalier (Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords), who in turn steals it. Meanwhile some local filmmakers buy the rights to Benjamin’s story and mount a no-budget version of the tale, which is called Yeast Lords. The main narrative is interwoven with scenes from Yeast Lords, in which Sam Rockwell plays long-haired hero Bronco, who’s on a quest to recover his stolen gonads from the Yeast Lord and his cycloptic minions. Like Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, both Benjamin and Bronco are misfit underdogs with big goals and few resources.

Initial reviews of Gentlemen Broncos were so poor that Fox yanked its theatrical roll-out and it flopped hard, making barely a tenth of its budget back. It was dumped on DVD in March and reviews at Rotten Tomatoes have it sitting currently at a pathetic sixteen percent All that negative promise kept me away from it for a while, but I’ve been curious – could it really be that bad?

No, not at all. Before I get into why, it’s interesting to note that although critics gave the film a sixteen percent rating overall, users rated it 67 percent. Similarly, the IMDb has it ranked at 5.6 out of 10. Maybe the Hess’ have such a loyal fanbase that their defenders inflated the film’s worth, but I’m going to argue that Gentlemen Broncos was unfairly panned.

This was the Hess’ first non-PG film, due to its sometimes crude humour. We’re not talking Farrelly Brothers, but it does have the whole missing testicles bit, plus some boobie lasers and a barf-mouthed kiss. Overall Gentlemen Broncos is a markedly less sweet than its predecessors and, as many critics pointed out, more juvenile. It is indeed, however, there’s also some very clever pulp sci-fi novel parody that alone is worth a watch. The Hess’ really go to town on the ridiculous concepts, goofy gadgetry, dated styles and cliché naming conventions of pulp sci-fi. There’s even a hilarious scene where Ronald explains all the suffixes you can add to your character names to make them “futuristic.” The sight of cyclopses with bowl cuts driving motorized tank-like chairs around is my personal favourite visual. The sequences are a lovable swipe at all the clunkiness of films such as Logan’s Run and those ‘70s-era sci-fi novels you find at garage sales. The opening credits of the movie are presented on sci-fi pulp covers and it’s brilliant.

My biggest problem with Gentlemen Broncos is the lack of character development. Some critics have pointed out that film seems to mainly poke fun at its characters without making them likable enough to root for them. Coolidge’s character, for example, comes off as a perma-loser who embarrasses her son, despite a late-in-the-game attempt to make her heroic. And there’s a sort-of love interest for Benjamin with an unusual girl that isn’t explored too much. The DVD has both deleted scenes and on-set footage that suggest there was a lot more story shot that ended up in the film, so perhaps something got lost. Regardless, Clement’s character is brilliant; from his dated ‘70s hair and vest to his dry, dickish ego tripping, he’s a fantastic villain. He steals the show with the sad sack fake regal air that defines his character, and is another big reason to check out the film.

Lastly, I really appreciate that the Hesses err on the side of originality. There’s nothing out there remotely like Gentlemen Broncos. Their window into hermetic dorksville communities recalls The Coen Brothers, while the colorful, retro aesthetic makes for a kind of low-budget Wes Anderson. Like those filmmakers, even when the Hesses aren’t at the top of their game, they always offer something intriguing and unusual – and some big, if not always consistent, laughs. (Seriously, the Cyclops gags are priceless.)

The big question is if whether or not they’ll be able to build enough of a fanbase to occasionally alienate the mainstream while still finding regular funding. Perhaps only the Yeast Lords know the answer.

 

-Dave Alexander

Sometimes life imitates art, and sometimes art imitates The Simpsons. And I’m using the word “art” here in the broadest sense of the word when it comes to Bulletproof, the 1988 attempt to make Gary Busey an action star. Of course, since Bulletproof came out before The Simpsons began its run, it’s more accurate to say that The Simpsons is parodying stuff exactly Bulletproof when it makes fun of ‘80s action movies through the Schwarzeneggar-like character of McBain. Appropriately, Busey’s character here is named McBain!

If, like me, you’re a fan of the so-bad-it’s-explosively-good action movie, Bulletproof should shoot to the top of your list. Paul Corupe, over at Canuxploitation.com (an awesome website dedicated to Canadian exploitation flicks), got wind of this one and tracked down a copy so some of us movie geeks could watch it last night. Well, thank you from the dregs of our hearts, Paul, this is the kind of high-calibre junk that made our trigger fingers itchy and caused moustaches to suddenly grow on our chests.

Here are ten reasons why:

 

1) Busey!

The giant-toothed, crazy-eyed, not-quite-Nick Nolte actor is absolutely ludicrous as the tight jean-clad, ultra-violent, rule-breakin’ cop. This is more than just a failed turn at putting a character actor in a lead role, it’s a completely over-the-top punch in the face of macho posturing. He shoots first and asks questions later, plucks bullets out of his flesh and takes on an entire army by himself. Oh, but he’s got a soft side too – in one of the most hilarious flashbacks ever put on film, we see Busey “playing” (faking it poorly) saxophone on the beach. Behind every gargantuan set of choppers is the soul of poet…

 

2) Plot

The story is ripped right out of the ‘80s network television playbook: a cowboy cop with a storied past is forced by the military to travel to Mexico to retrieve a super-tank that a coalition of ethnic bad guys have stolen, in the process taking a bunch of soldiers hostage, including the cop’s ex-girlfriend. It’s a stunning amalgamation of old plots from Stephen J. Cannell shows that makes logic run screaming into traffic.

 

3) Bad Guys

In some sort of weird one-upmanship move, the bad guys are a coalition of Nicaraguans, Mexicans, “A-rabs” – all of whom we learn are in cahoots with the Russians! It’s the most meatheaded concoction of whatever countrymen the U.S. were demonizing at the time. In a stunningly hilarious display of ignorance, there are a bunch of derogatory religious references made about Allah directed to the Nicaraguan general, who is outraged. Nicaragua is a predominantly Christian nation, so clearly the screenwriters did their homework.

 

4) Evil

It’s not just the identities of the bad guys in Bulletproof that’ll make you laugh, it’s how relentlessly evil they are. Every time they hurt someone, kill someone, think about hurting or killing someone, they smirk and laugh devilishly, as if in a silent film. They rape one of the heroes, attempt to burn down a church full of nuns and even use their heavy artillery to shoot some birds – dicks!. They also say things such as “I just wish we had somebody good to shoot at, that’s all – ha ha ha!” THESE GUYS ARE REALLY, REALLY BAD! GET IT?

 

5) Character Actors

There’s nothing like a roster of recognizable character actors to bring more life to the party, and Bulletproof’s got some of the best. Henry Silva plays the aforementioned scumbag Nicaraguan general, William Smith is the Russian military bigwig (wearing a massive winter hat in the hot Mexican weather no less),  L.Q. Jones is an American Sergeant and even Danny Trejo shows up with short hair, a suit and bazooka. Ka-pow!

 

6) Love Interest

Darlanne Fluegel (doesn’t that just roll off the tongue?) is McBain’s tough-as-nails army girl love interest. Fluegel has played in all kinds of cinematic and televisual cheese, including opposite Stallone in Lock-Up and guesting on loads of terrible T.V. action series. Her character is two-dimensionally belligerent until she’s raped, and then shows her feminine side. In a flashback we also see her running through the surf towards McBain, attracted by the mating song of his saxophone. Ugh…

 

7) Dialogue

There’s some jaw-droppingly hilarious dialogue in Bulletproof, with my fave being, “You may be bulletproof, but you’re not love-proof!” That said, what the film is most known for is the attempt to give McBain a Dirty Harry-style catchphrase, in this case – are you ready for it? – “butthorn”!?! Yup, one of the four people with a writing credit (including sleazemeister Fred Olen Ray) on this thing decided that “butthorn” was going to be McBain’s calling card. Legend has it that if you say “butthorn” three times in the mirror, Gary Busey will appear and steal your prescription drugs.

 

8) Gimmick

Because the title of the film is Bulletproof, it just wouldn’t be right if the hero didn’t have some sort of literal bulletproof thing going on. McBain’s thing is that he’s always getting shot, but never seriously. He’s so tough that he lies to a paramedic and the police chief, pretending that he’s fine, just so he can go home, remove the bullet himself and put it in a jar with a pile of other ones. We learn that he’s been shot 39 times! BLAM! Whoops, make that 40 by the time the film is over.

 

9) Super Vehicle

It wouldn’t be an ‘80s action flick without some kind of super vehicle or weapon, and here we get both: a supertank called “Thunder Blast.” Sure, on the outside it looks like a regular tank with a bunch of really cheap looking white cardboard affixed to it, but inside, its got a whole bunch of blinking lights, keypads, monitors, swivel chairs, BMX handles as a steering wheel and – I’m not joking – a coffee machine that pops out of the wall when you hit a button. Not silly enough? Well then, how about the fact that it’s also got a self-destruct remote control, rendering it a giant bomb!

 

10) Giant Spool

I could’ve called this section “stunts” but among the standard-issue jumping from explosions and fight scenes, only one sequence stands out for it’s absolute absurdity. The bad guys tie McBain to a giant wooden spool and prepare to shoot him. His gal drops a grenade beside it, which sends it rolling about 100 feet. The sight of Busey, and then a Busey dummy, going round ‘n’ round is too funny. It gets even funnier when the dozens of bad guys decide that they can’t possibly give chase, despite the fact that the thing slowly rolls literally 100 feet away. Like I said, it’s something you’d see happen on The Simpsons.

 

Of course, you really need to witness all of this yourself. The DVD is available used for cheap on Amazon, and you can catch a highlight reel of the film here.

 

Just remember: no one is Buseyproof!

 

-Dave Alexander

Master thespian Sam Worthington shot to fame starring in Terminator Salvation, and then became a Hollywood A-lister in Avatar. In his latest film, Clash of the Titans, he stars as the reluctant hero Perseus, who must go against the gods themselves.

In order to better understand the actor's craft, it's time to take the Sam Worthington Master Thespian Facial Recognition Test (TM), in which you look at a picture of Sam Worthington in Clash of the Titans and try to guess what's happening in that particular scene by studying the emotion on his face.

Are you ready? Let's get started!

 1. Perseus has just...

A) Defeated Medusa after she killed all of his warrior companions.

B) Been set on fire by Zeus but doesn't realize it yet.

C) Devoured some bad figs and is trying desperately not to soil his man-skirt. 

 

2. Perseus is...

A) Confronting the terrifying Fates.

B) Discovering that some kids vandalized his horse.

C) Simmering with rage because he set his Roman marshmallow on fire.

 

3) Perseus is looking...

A. Desperately for a way to slay Medusa without meeting her deadly gaze.

B. Up to the Gods and asking them to send forth some soap.

C. For a really cool place to hang the championship wrestling belts that are slung over his shoulders.

4. Perseus will never...

A) Accept Zeus' offer to live among the gods.

B) Forgive himself for leaving the house without a walking stick.

C) Win at hide-and-seek if he doesn't turn around.

 

5. Perseus is wondering...

A) How he can ride a majestic winged-horse.

B) If he should have eaten those mushrooms.

C) If anyone saw him slip in Pegasus poop.

6. Perseus can't...

A) Rest until the witches tell him how to defeat the Kraken.

B) Take another second of these old ladies complaining about why their grandchildren never come to visit.

C) Believe he bought all those stupid stories about the three lonely sisters on the mountain – what a bunch of minotaur crap!

[Answers: 1:C, 2:C, 3:B, 4:B, 5:C, 6:B]

Scoring:

0-1 = Clearing you're not picking up on the nuances of Sam Worthington's performances. Keep trying.

2-3 = You're starting to understand the depth of those almost unchanging Sam Worthington facial expressions. Just a little bit further.

4-5 = Congratulations, you have succeeded at the Sam Worthington Master Thespian Facial Recognition Test (TM)! This means that when you watch a Sam Worthington movie, you can tell when his character is bored, non-plussed, sedate, or any other feelings in his extensive emotional range.

*This test courtesy of the people who brought you the Ben Affleck Charisma-meter(TM)

-Dave Alexander

If any film deserves an anniversary special edition, it’s my favourite doc, Dark Days, which turns ten this year. It’s one of those films that’ll blow your mind the first time you see it because the subject matter is so fascinating. It’s about the “Freedom Tunnel” in New York that sheltered hundreds, possibly thousands, of homeless people who built shanties, hooked up power, even had running water at one time – all underground.

The secret subterranean community is presented through the lives of about a dozen of the squatters who reside – some had been there for over a decade – amongst the garbage and rats. There’s Dee, a junkie whose kids died, who moves in with Ralph (a former junkie who lost everything) when another homeless person burns her shack down. There’s also Tommy, who ran away from home when he was sixteen because his father abused him; he collects cans during the day so he has money to feed his dogs, who live in a pen in the tunnel. And there’s Greg, who laments the fact that he got “too comfortable” living in the tunnel, where he doesn’t have to pay rent or utilities, and wasted five years of his life there. These are just a few of the inhabitants who eventually face eviction when Amtrak decides to clear the tunnel, but I won’t say more because one of the joys of the film is experiencing the story unfold.

Writer/director/producer Marc Singer, a Brit living in New York, befriended the people featured in the movie and, without filmmaking experience, decided to make Dark Days to raise money for them. With a free 16mm camera rental, donated black and white film and makeshift lights (his subjects were also often his crew), he chronicles their stories. What makes the whole thing so compelling is that he obviously earned their complete trust because they open up to him about some intensely personal things. I’ve never seen anything that puts such a stark human face on the frustrations, dangers and constant struggles of being homeless.

The unavoidably spooky cinematography and amazing soundtrack by DJ Shadow, age really well and give the doc an extra emotional punch, not to mention a very unique otherworldly feel. It’s a very intense watch, to say the least.

Even if you caught the film in the theatres, the DVD is a must because it’s got some fantastic extras, including the history of the tunnel, a whack of bonus scenes (some of which showcase the Freedom Tunnel residents joking around – the film is far from just doom ‘n’ gloom) and a follow up that explains what happened to the people in the doc after it was shot.

And that’s why I wish there was a tenth anniversary edition that checked in on some of the people featured in Dark Days to see how they made out. I’m dying to know where life led them.

Singer has only this work on his IMDb credits, but according to Wikipedia, he shot some short, educational films about underwater caverns, and spent two years training with Marines for a film project that apparently has fallen through. Hopefully he’s not having own dark days, because the guy is a helluva talent.

 

-Dave Alexander

Since my recent trip to see the King Tut exhibit at the Art Gallery of Ontario, it was it was only natural that I follow up that expedition with one to the Bloor Cinema to see a screening of Raiders of the Lost Ark this past weekend. After all, I’ve been, ahem, jonesing for some more archeological action, and it doesn’t get better than the adventures of Indiana.

While it’s still one of the greatest action-adventure movies, and each time I watch it I’m impressed all over again by the pre-CGI special effects and stunt work, there also things that bug me about it more and more.

The first, and something that plagues the entire series, is the portrayal of foreigners, who are either loyal servant-types or grubby thugs and cutthroats. (Nazis notwithstanding, they clearly earned their bad rep.) If they’re not fawning over Jones, such as the marketplace crowd that for no reason hides his truck from the Nazis, they’re scary “jungle people” trying to kill him, rough hewn Nepali toughs attacking him in a bar or Egyptian assassins. Nothing wrong with having bad guys of many stripes, but there’s not much variety outside of these stereotypes. Considering the film was made in 1981, it’s of its time, I guess, and at least it’s not outright racist, like Temple of Doom, which could win a Worst Asian Stereotype Award for the Short Round character. (“Dawk-tah Jones, Dawk-tah Jones!”)

Secondly, while watching Raiders this time around, I realized that Indiana Jones is a guy who visits foreign countries to steal priceless artifacts, which he sells for profit. What a dick. And, he does this while abandoning his teaching post. “See ya later, class, I’m off to the jungle to pilfer someone else’s history! Um, you all get a B.” Even worse, as the end credits show us, all of these riches of history apparently get put in crates and stored in a giant warehouse where no one can study them. Our hero sells out to hoarders –at least when he’s not actually destroying history itself, which brings me to my last bone of contention: the discovery of the Ark.

The scene where Indy finally locates the Ark is unbelievably stupid for several reasons. We’re supposed to believe that he starts his own archeological dig in the middle of the Nazi dig and doesn’t get caught for the better part of a day? How outrageously careless of the military, especially considering he’s standing on the top of a ridge with his trademark hat on. Then, once Jones’ digging crew discovers the roof of the temple, they lift a slab off the temple’s roof (was it an ancient skylight?), which hisses and pressure-releases gas, like they were opening a can of pop. If this temple was airtight, how did all those snakes get in there? How do they breathe?  What do they eat?

It gets sillier, as once inside, Jones and his sidekick Sallah (John Rhys-Davies), without help, lift a massive stone lid, which would probably require a crane to budge, and smash it on the ground. Shortly after this, Jones destroys one of the giant statues in the temple to break open a wall and make his escape. Fair enough, you gotta do what you gotta do to survive, but soon he singlehandedly pushes a massive stone block out of a window to make his escape. Why didn’t he just punch his way into the temple, like some sort of Kool-Aid Man in a leather jacket? “Ark of the Covenant – oh yeah!”

Oh, and I nearly forgot the dozens of mummified bodies that crowd Marion and seems to scream at her. Still totally scary, but who the hell are they, and why did they die just standing around like that? Did they expire en masse while in the middle of a game of Musical Chairs and then just got sealed in the temple?

Of course, this is a fun popcorn movie inspired by the old Republic Serials, so logic isn’t priority, but this particular scene is one head-scratcher after another.

Now, despite all that nit-picky grumbling, seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark on the big screen is an experience everyone should have, and I don’t regret going to see it again for a second. I also noticed that there were some dads at the screening who seemed to be taking their kids for the first time, and they loved it. That’s what’s important.

Ah, the curse of growing up.

 

-Dave Alexander

Cursed, Cop Out, Disaster Movie, Failure to Launch, Shallow Hal – usually when a film’s title could act as its review, it’s a bad sign. Not in the case of Kick-Ass. A geek movie (specifically superhero, in this case) has to have a lot balls to launch with a title made for baiting critics, comic shop nerds and internet trolls, and this one’s got the muscle to back up the hustle.

If you’re familiar at all with Kick-Ass, which has building a buzz since its well-received panel at last year’s San Diego Comic Con, you know that it’s a very comic book-y film on the surface – brightly coloured costumes, over-the-top violence, cartoon characterizations of good and evil, etc. It’s not, as many assume, technically based on the Kick-Ass comic book, but, in an unusual move, the script and the comic book story were written at the same time (the rights to the story were sold before the first issue was published), which goes to show you the power of superhero films. Mark Millar (whose lengthy resume includes Wanted, which also recently given the film treatment) penned the comic, while British TV host Jane Goldman (a mother of three, I suspect she brought much to the parent and teen elements of the flick) and producer/director Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake) scripted the tale.

It stars Aaron Johnson as Dave Lizewski, an awkward, comic book-lovin’, high school loser who one day decides to become a superhero. He modifies a diving suit, arms himself with a baton, dubs himself “Kick Ass” and hits the streets, where he’s immediately stabbed and hit by a car. His broken body is filled with metal plates and he’s suffered nerve damage that allows him to take a beating without really feeling it, which is the most awkwardly plotted part of the film, as he goes from being near-dead to back to school in what seems like a week – never mind the medical costs he’d have to pay! Although the film is chock full of Toronto skylines and landmarks (there’s even a scene shot in the lobby of the theatre I saw the sneak peek of it in tonight, which was satisfyingly weird), it’s set in New York City.

Undaunted, Kick Ass resumes his crime fighting, and when a heroic altercation between him and three thugs is caught on cell phone cameras and uploaded to YouTube, it becomes a smash hit. Soon, he’s got his own website, where he answers pleas for help from the public. At the same time, he hilariously tries to win over the girl of his dreams (who thinks he’s gay), keep his identity secret annnnnnd not get killed. The latter almost happens when he tangles with some serious bad guys, but he’s saved by masked eleven-year-old Hit Girl and her Batman-like dad, Big Daddy – a genuine, well practiced, well-armed superhero team that actually knows what its doing.

Kick-Ass boasts an excellent supporting cast. Chloe Moretz, who has a massive resume for a child actor, is Hit Girl, while Nicholas Cage further redeems himself as her pop, and gets the biggest laughs, when he’s giving her matching butterfly knives for her birthday, quizzing her on weaponry or shooting her in the chest to get her used to a Kevlar vest. Add to that Christopher Mintz-Plasse – who one day soon may be known as more than just the kid who plays McLovin in Superbad – as a rich kid superhero named Red Mist, and you’ve got a cast made for superhero shenanigans.

Although there’s plenty of comedy in the film, it’s actually much darker than expected. Even the cartoon violence pushes boundaries, especially since the most brutal stabbings, shootings and maimings are carried out by a foul-mouthed pre-teen (she even drops the C-word!!! Apparently there was pressure to make the characters older, but the filmmakers stuck to their guns, and the result is already angering parent groups (is there anything that makes a child want to see a movie more than parental outrage?).

And that’s what I love about it. Yeah, there are some narrative flaws (e.g the love interest angle doesn’t really add much), but filmmakers, such as the Kick-Ass team, are starting to acknowledge, as the superhero subgenre evolves, that adults like superheroes too and will watch edgier superhero movies, even if they aren’t serious meditations, such as Unbreakable or Watchmen.

I’m not exactly sure if Kick-Ass (out April 16) works because of its strange mix of realism (the beatings and teenage obsession with social networking) and classic comic book fantasy (the costumes, that fake-looking blood), or in spite of it because it’s simply full of original characters, very well-directed actions sequences and spandex-busting laughs. When you have a blast watching it, does it really matter?

 

-Dave Alexander