Brave

Excellence can be a dangerous endeavor; potentially fatal when attained. Whenever a studio or band or artist of any kind achieves true excellence and can demonstrate the ability to persist in that excellence, they by extension raise the bar by which they're measured. Persist in excellence long enough and the bar may exceed even their own abilities. That's certainly not to disparage the pursuit of excellence; quite the contrary.

Pixar is a perfect example of this, in my estimation. Time after the time that studio has released animated films so spectacular it seemed impossible they could top themselves with their next title. And time and time again they did...until Cars 2, that is. So where does Brave, the latest release from the aforementioned animation powerhouse, fall in relation to Pixar's unique reputation?

The story follows a fiery-headed - both figuratively and literally - Scottish princess named Merida (voiced by Kelly MacDonald). The beginning of the film is almost unbearably familiar thematically: princess has to conform to tradition and choose a suitor, princess is too independent and strong-willed to submit to precedent, princess rebels while secondary characters gasp in shock and disgust. It's basically everything the trailers make it out to be for the first 30 minutes or so. But then, the film takes a clever and surprisingly innovative turn when Merida encounters a witch. After soliciting a potion from the witch to "change her fate," Merida finds the consequences of her actions may lead to a more disastrous end than she could have possibly imagined - setting in motion the rest of the film's adventure.

THE PROS

Scotland's countryside is world-renown for its beauty and grandeur. Conventional wisdom says that set pieces and scenery aren't nearly as important in an animated film as the characters themselves, and Pixar takes their usual revisionist approach to said conventional wisdom. The Scotland of Brave is breathtakingly beautiful. Having never personally visited and only seen glimpses in film and photograph, I found myself actively scanning the landscape around the characters out of sheer wonder. The animation team behind Brave must have spent countless hours researching Scotland's topography and the result is nothing short of stunning; vivid greens in the forest, stones visibly and beautifully weathered by time, vast expanses of crystal clear lakes and rivers.

Pixar's reputation with subtlety also remains delightfully intact, as the characters of the film exude changes in emotion that are almost barely visible onscreen - but powerfully resonant emotionally. And, also true to form, Pixar casts voice actors like it ain't no thang. Billy Connolly as the powerful but jovial King Fergus is as genuine as he is humorous, and Emma Thompson's turn as the perpetually formal Queen Elinor is equally appropriate. Kelly MacDonald imbues each of Merida's lines with a kind of brash sincerity that reflects everything about the character through her voice alone; never mind the pitch-perfect Pixar animation.

As I touched on before, I had some initial reservations about Brave. I have nothing against strong female characters or displays of independence and youthful rebellion. But if we've seen that once, we've seen that a million times and I feared that Pixar was hedging their bets with more tried-and-true plot devices rather risking further innovation. I'm glad to say my suspicions were largely unfounded and that while Brave certainly has a few notes of those cliches woven into the narrative, it ultimately transcends those rather tiresome plot devices in favor of a heartfelt story about the importance of strong familial bonds - namely between a mother and daughter.

THE CONS

Brave is a good movie, a really good movie. But not a great movie, in the sense that Monsters, Inc., Toy Story (and its sequels), and Up, are great movies. Perhaps this is merely my own cynicism talking, but Pixar has hollowed out a reputation for itself that almost defies the possible. And to give credit where credit is due, Pixar's track record is so littered with awards and truly timeless films that if they shut down operation now and never made another film they would still be - in my estimation - arguably the greatest film studio of all time. So when I say Brave is a good movie but not a great one, that's largely because of just how monumentally spectacular Pixar is as a studio. Their films have jaded me. So Brave felt like a worthy contender from a rival animation studio, rather than a continuance of the pitch-perfectionism that preceded it; Cars 2 notwithstanding.

Some of the action scenes and moments felt a little...manic. I realize it's meant to be a kids movie with lots of slapstick and silliness, and that didn't bother me too much. But every once in awhile it felt like the silliness of the action veered into the uncomfortably absurd; character bouncing up and down a little too wildly as they ran away, hyper-fast cuts between punches and strikes, wild-eyed hysteria rampant in a brawl that lasted just a bit too long. What might one day be dubbed in academia the "Pop-Tart Commercial Effect" or "Post Looney Tunes Syndrome." Not a true deterrent, just a minor gripe.

THE VERDICT

As I said before, Brave is a really really good movie, if not a Pixar-great movie. There's a measure of magic that's gone into previous Pixar films that I just felt was missing here. That's not to say the story doesn't involve magic (it does), but walking out of most Pixar films I've often felt transformed in a sense. And as I write this, I can hear the cascade of dissenting comments. "Your expectations are too high!" shouts the nameless disagree-er in my head. Fair enough, inner monologue. But I've come to have my expectations met and exceeded so often from Pixar films that I've lost my ability to not have incredibly high expectations for Pixar films.

Brave is still head and shoulders above your average Dreamworks Animation title, no question. And I was truly delighted to see that they didn't just opt to do a Scottish version of The Little Mermaid. But it's more decidedly a kids' movie than previous entries in Pixar's filmography. Remember the first five minutes of Up? In those moments Up tackled issues like infertility and death in the most heart-wrenching yet tender scene I can think of. Profoundly adult material made simple and gentle for little eyes and ears; it was utterly brilliant. Brave still addresses important issues like family and sacrifice, but it's not quite as profoundly moving as Up. Or the final moments of Monsters, Inc. ("Kitty!"). Or the scene where all the toys link hands in a final gesture of solidarity as they accept the inevitability...OF THEIR DEATH. I mean, Toy Story 3 was intense! Brave comes admirably close to those qualities but misses by just a teeny-tiny bit.

So ultimately Brave isn't quite on par with other Pixar films, in my humble opinion. But it's definitely a solid recovery from the less-than-impressive Cars 2. Maybe my relationship with Pixar has just finally graduated from the honeymoon phase, but since the honeymoon lasted so long I'm resistant to the changes I need to make in order to keep this thing alive.

But ya know what? I think we can make it work.

Whitechapel - "Whitechapel"

I've noticed that a lot of bands tend to resist genre labels. At first I thought it was due to some pretentious desire to be unique, or to be somehow "undefinable." But as I've gotten older I've come to realize that it's probably because most bands get pigeonholed way too early by their fans into a specific genre, and any experimentation they do outside of that genre is usually met with a less-than-ecstatic fan response. And that's not on the band really, that has more to do with people's resistance to change. Personally, I love slapping genre labels on bands, specifically because I like to see how they can bend those rules or mix elements of this subgenre with that subgenre, etc. Genre labels are part of what I find fun about listening to different kinds of music. But as I've mentioned time and time again on this blog, when it comes to subgenres in metal, a lot of metalheads behave as if they've just heard the summons of war. Mistake a metalcore band for a deathcore band and pay the iron price. Compare Black Veil Brides (who totally sucks by the way) to As I Lay Dying (who is totally awesome) and prepare to have your head mounted above the gates. Misunderstand the difference between melodic death metal and technical death metal...hell hath no fury.

....Hence....

My hesitation to call Whitechapel a deathcore band right out of the gates, for a couple of reasons. First, I'd say few would object to calling Whitechapel's early work deathcore. In fact, that album really set the bar for a lot of other deathcore bands in my estimation - so what if it's more death- than -core? But through their discography they've grown to reach beyond the simple definitions of deathcore; possibly to the point that it's not entirely accurate to label them as such as any more. And this is where our story begins...

THE PROS

Most bands prefer to do the whole self-titled album thing pretty early on in their discography. Whitechapel went the opposite route and decided that their fourth studio album, released on June 19th, would be titled Whitechapel. I kept up with the pre-release buzz around the album via their website and Facebook page so my hopes were pretty high for the album after I heard "Hate Creation" and "I, Dementia" and I am quite pleased - as usual - to say that the album lived up to and exceeded all my expectations.

This little silver disc with a buzz saw emblazoned on its display side begins with a subdued piano melody on the track "Make it Bleed." Instantly I was intrigued, because I was expecting the ear-splitting explosion of 7-string guitars and crashing cymbals. That moment was to come, but not before the track made it clear that this album isn't out to fit into the mold set for it. About a minute or so later the familiar collision of soundwave with eardrum burst forth and we were back in familiar territory again.

In keeping with their deathcore roots, Phil Bozeman's vocals are aggressive and animalistic as ever. Bozeman is definitely one of the most consistent and recognizable voices in the deathcore scene in my estimation and he brings his signature vitriol - in force - to this album.

"I, Dementia" is one of my favorite tracks from "Whitechapel." In place of blast beats and chaos is a very controlled but ferocious pacing. The song lumbers along like a great beast in slow motion, leaving a trail of carnage in its wake. Another part of what makes extreme metal fun to listen to for me are more violent lyrics. "Faces" takes that signature violence to the political arena with phrases like "If you dare step on this pedestal and promise us change, we'll change the features on your face....we will not live in one nation under hypocrisy."

Part of Whitechapel's evolution involves slowly incorporating more groove-like elements into their music. This was most pronounced on a good majority of their second-most recent album New Era of Corruption or in tracks like "Possession" from This is Exile. That evolution continues to feature prominently on Whitechapel and I was all the more enamored with the album because of it; check out "The Night Remains" for a great example of what I'm talking about. Also featured more heavily on this album are a lot of harmonic minor/melodic minor/North African modalities in the leads and solos.

THE CONS

I honestly can't think of any, personally.

THE VERDICT

A part of me thinks that this album might continue to polarize their fan base, but I see that as a good thing. I know a good deal of their "fans" were not pleased with their Recorrupted EP; 3 remixes, and an acoustic cover of "End of Flesh"??? *dramatic flourish* What IS death metal coming to??? But personally I love a band that has the balls to experiment with their own sound. And where most metal bands will issue a statement (a gesture I respect) in an attempt to quell the rising butthurt, Whitechapel hasn't really seen the need to. I know they have a great respect for their fans, but in the end they do what they want and I respect them all the more as musicians for it.

So where the piano motif that both opens and closes the album (I'm a sucker for symmetry) might drive some listeners to violent keyboard-pounding, comment-posting, and poor grammar-spewing - I found it absolutely delicious. Don't get me wrong, this album is still heavy and brutal and in your face and violent and everything one would expect from a band of Whitechapel's caliber. But it's also not afraid to eschew those things occasionally in favor of some light experimentation and Whitechapel is all the stronger for it.

Prometheus

It's finally here. After languishing in production hell since shortly after the release of Alien: Resurrection, the long-awaited "Alien prequel" is finally in theaters. Now, Prometheus isn't a prequel to Alien technically, but it's what finally became of all the talk of another installment in the Alien franchise that 20th Century Fox began tinkering on back in 2002 - those less-than-satisfying AvP films notwithstanding. You've probably seen the trailers, the posters, or heard someone somewhere explaining how they think it is an Alien prequel for some time now - so what's the scoop?

The plot follows the usual suspects of a sci-fi thriller (scientists, engineers, geologists, etc.) to a world far beyond the reaches of our solar system. Two intrepid archaeologists (played by Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green) discover a common pictogram amongst several ancient cultures separated by centuries. Believing the pictograms to be a representation of a pre-human race of extra-terrestrials, they set off in pursuit of the planet from which they believe the beings originated.

THE PROS:

Prometheus is most definitely a return to form for Ridley Scott. After the pretty disastrous Robin Hood, I was glad to see him returning to familiar narrative and stylistic territory. One of the great accomplishments of the original Alien was how innovative *everything* in that film was; from the genre combinations, to the production design and the special effects. Scott made the crew of the Nostromo out to be real people who sat around a table on their spacecraft like regular people would, in an age where most sci-fi films planted characters in ridiculously unpractical costumes and set pieces for the sake of futurism. As audiences have grown more sophisticated, creating realistic and compelling science fiction has become an increasing challenge and Prometheus very wisely scores points for making the technology of the film practical and accessible. The protagonist's "street clothes" don't look terribly different from present day garb, the touch screen and graphic interfaces aboard the ship look new but realistic; a plausible extrapolation of modern-day technology 60 some-odd years from now. There were also some delightful visual nods to 2001: A Space Odyssey early on in the film.

Performances all around were pretty solid, namely from Michael Fassbender's David (the android) and Noomi Rapace as the optimistic but ultimately inaccurate archaeologist. Charlize Theron plays the icy representative of the Weyland Corp. aboard the ship. While ultimately a somewhat unnecessary character, Theron manages to keep herself at least somewhat relevant by playing the character with an unnerving gravitas. From the moment we meet her - staring up into the camera doing pushups while stringy clumps of her hair obscure her face - we know she's hiding something insidious. And again, while ultimately she doesn't play as integral a role as we're led to believe, everything about the way she's presented visually (standing somewhat in the shadows most of the time, dressed in almost classic supervillain-type clothing) communicates that something's up, and I enjoy watching a director who knows how to tell the audience something without words.

The visual effects, as you might expect, are fantastic. There's actually a pleasant amount of live puppetry for a film that could have relied solely on CGI, and the blend between the two is flawless. Also there's a tasteful amount of gore and gristle, but it's not nearly as high as any of the Alien films. Prometheus isn't strictly sci-fi horror in the way that the original Alien is, it's really more akin to a sci-fi thriller; but that's not to disparage it. There's still an appropriate amount of dread built over the course of the film's first act, and much of the film's design is still firmly in the hands of H.R. Giger and his deliciously twisted Freudian muse. There aren't facehuggers and chestbursters in this film per se, but there enough nods to those tropes - or as Scott himself put it: "strands of Alien's DNA" - to satisfy fans of the Alien franchise such as myself.

THE CONS

The first negative thing to be said of seeing Prometheus in 3D has nothing to do with Prometheus itself. It has to do with a completely context-less scene from an - apparently - upcoming film by Ang Lee called Life of Pi. In that clip, an Indian boy spars with a tiger on a boat in the middle of the ocean while flying fish whizz around them. It's not really a trailer per se, it plays after the actual trailers and right when the lights go down - so when you're expecting the movie itself to start. It was basically an annoying meme (in this case, Slowpoke) sprung to life in the theater barging in and shouting "Hey guys, we can make things look like they're coming out of the screen! It's called 3D!" Whatever vestigial respect I had for Ang Lee as filmmaker evaporated the moment he became the Prometheus Party Pooper; I didn't invite Ang Lee to the Prometheus Party, and if he had asked to come I would have said no. Why can't you just advertise your film like everyone else, Ang Lee? Why do you insist on acting like you're special, Ang Lee? Go away, Ang Lee.

Now, I'm not sure why Ridley Scott had Idris Elba (who played the ship's pilot) speak with an American 'redneck' accent. The rest of the crew largely sported accents from the UK, and Elba is an English actor. At one point two character jokingly flip each other off with two fingers, UK-style. So it would have made perfect sense to just let him speak the way he already does, because his "Southern" accent didn't really work.

There are one or two plot holes left unaddressed. They're not integral the heart of the story, but leaving the theater I found myself wondering "Wait...why did such-n-such happen?" But again they're not really important enough to derail the whole operation - and I suspect a BluRay release with deleted scenes or an extended cut will clear it right up anyway. So it wasn't too big of a distraction for me.

THE VERDICT

I really enjoyed Prometheus. I've been looking forward to it for a while and I was glad to see it meet my expectations, and in a few places even exceed them. Scott manages to strike the perfect balance between the existing Alien material and a completely new mythos set in the same universe. There are very discernible "strands of Alien's DNA" here, but all of them serve to aid the story rather than simply keep winking back at the audience. More importantly, Prometheus is a completely self-possessed piece that doesn't bind itself with genre labels. There are a few scares, but the film doesn't seek to just be another entry in the "sci-fi horror" genre.

The film definitely asks more questions than it answers, which I found a bit disappointing, because it asked some fascinating questions. During a previous interview, Scott and his collaborators said they wanted to make a film that could easily lead to a sequel but could stand on its own if a sequel never got greenlit. That can be an incredibly tall order to fill; wrapping up in a satisfactory fashion while still leaving enough loose ends to tie-in to another film. I won't say Prometheus totally failed in this endeavor, but I think focusing on the film as a stand-alone exercise with no sequel potential would have been a wiser approach. The ending isn't totally unsatifactory (and admittedly the last shot had me tingling with fanboy excitement), but Prometheus stops shy of truly profound in favor of sequel-savvy.

Having said that, though, I really just enjoyed the hell out of this movie. Where it was good it was expertly crafted and where it was weak it wasn't distractingly weak. Here's hoping Ridley lives long enough to make a Prometheus sequel that really does answer all its own questions! But for now, I'm glad to add another to my list of "Worth The Waits."

Snow White and the Huntsman

Hollywood has a hankering for reboots these days. It seems that every day a new adaptation of a classic legend or fairy tale is being announced or released, and Snow White is the flavor of the week. Mirror, Mirror - profoundly visual director Tarsem Singh's adaptation of the classic story - saw release little more than two months ago. And now, after much trailer-hype, Snow White and the Huntsman is in theaters.

The pre-release buzz around this film centered largely on two things: 1) how friggin' cool the trailer made it look and 2) snarky jokes about Kristen Stewart. I had pretty high hopes for this piece going in, though my optimism was still largely cautious: I've been burned by bad trailers before. But fortunately the film met almost every expectation I had and managed to overcome some pretty glaring flaws by its conclusion.

THE PROS

First off, even if you haven't seen this movie yet, you probably know more about it than you might think. Snow White and the Huntsman is a perfect example of the perfect ad campaign. The trailers give you a glimpse of exactly what the film is like. Many of the iconic and stunning imagery in the film already appears in the trailer, but it's none the worse for wear. I can think of plenty of movies that have had trailers that made them look terrible, only to find the opposite is true and vice versa. Or in the case of Watchmen, the trailers and tv spots didn't really clue you in to what the story was like or anything about the film other than the production design. Snow White and the Huntsman, however, is truthfully and beautifully represented by its ad campaign thus far.

Which brings me right to the next point: the production design. The costumes, the sets, the visual effects in this film; they're just magnificent. I've always been a big fan of fantasy and sword-n-sorcery type films, so this movie was right up my alley from the get-go. But rather than just rehashing tried and true formulas, there's a respect here for innovative design that belongs uniquely to this film. The world of Sanctuary (the part of the forest that the faeries rule over) was lush and beautiful; filled with one-eyed mushrooms and turtles covered in moss and other colorful plant life. It was a world full of vibrance and fervor and the camera delicately captured the glint of sunlight angling down through the tortuous branches above. Conversely the Dark Forest is grey and ashen; branches blackened and twisted in threatening positions. The castle from which the evil queen reigns is imposing and grand, but hints of its former glory shine through even the darkest of lighting techniques.

Another element of the film that I thought was delightfully crafted was where the film crossed over the existing Snow White legend, and more importantly the original Disney version. For example, remember the diaper-soiling terror of the Dark Forest in Disney's animated classic? Snow White crashes through branch and bush desperately trying to escape the Hellmouth that's opened just before her, as demons pour out shrieking obscenities and cursing the world above...maybe I'm remembering that wrong. Either way, it was a pretty freaky sequence for a kids movie, no? Snow White and the Huntsman takes another spin on that sequence, implying that the Dark Forest is filled with mushrooms that emit a hallucinogenic powder, thus inducing the nightmarish imagery we associate with the Dark Forest. And who knows, maybe Walt's team was on shrooms when they made that sequence anyway. But it was nice to see the film acknowledging its roots in fun and innovative ways.

Finally, the film hinges well on Kristen Stewart's performance. She gets a lot of crap for being a wooden actress, and I'm not going to claim she's lively and colorful. But one of her worst performances happens to be the biggest credit in her filmography, so her real skill as an actress is overshadowed by Twilight. Feel free to message me for the full rant on why Kristen Stewart is amazing, but the short of it is that the version of herself that she plays in Snow White and the Huntsman is perfect for this adaptation. She evinces sorrow and world-weariness with the subtlest of facial expressions, while behind her eyes seems a well of wisdom and grace. AND, she nails her accent beautifully.

THE CONS

The script itself leaves a good deal to be desired. It's adequate, but hardly admirable. A handful of lines feel forced, and the actors try their best to imbue them with as much sincerity as they can muster. But more than once I felt the audience stifle a snicker as a line that's clearly meant to be serious or profound just fell a bit flat.

Now I love Chris Hemsworth, the guy's a beast and a fine actor in his own right. But his Scottish accent left a bit to be desired. Maybe he should have just stuck with the Thor-voice. He tries, and he comes admirably close; but almost every line has a word or two that don't sound quite right and I found that distracting. Moreover at one point he starts a sentence with "Hey" and concludes it with "...ok?" which felt completely out of place amidst the rest of the film's "medieval" dialogue.

THE VERDICT

I can see why Snow White and the Huntsman is currently languishing in the mid-40s on Rotten Tomatoes, and I don't even disagree with the general consensus. But personally I found the movie's shortcomings were greatly outweighed by its strengths. Much like Tron: Legacy, the film is inherently flawed in a number of ways but manages to make up for said flaws with a solid dose of impressive and innovative visual effects. If you're among the throngs hellbent on poking fun at K-Stew's lack of acting prowess, you may find further challenge to your claims in this film.

This movie isn't likely to win any major awards or go down in history as a milestone of cultural achievement, but it's a well-crafted fantasy film with some spectacular mise en scene. It's a standalone film of course, but I found myself wanting to see more of the world of the film; almost itching for a sequel. I wanted to explore the history of these characters here and those symbols in that shot. It's a visually rich experience without being obsessive and the film is all the stronger for it. Moreover the film as a whole has a strong grasp of subtlety. The "love triangle" that sort of blossoms amongst Snow White, the Huntsman, and the Prince is tastefully understated; it was only after the credits rolled that it occurred to me that K-Stew was, yet again, caught in between two suitors. But without spoiling anything, I was very impressed with how delicately the entire situation was handled, and fortunately without the overuse of cliche.

I whole-heartedly recommend this movie if you're looking for a fun fantasy film with a little darkness to it. For an adaptation of existing works, it's strikingly original and just a lot of fun to look at as a cinematic spectacle.

The Devil's Carnival

First things first; I'm going to shake up the format of this particular blog entry. Instead of my trusty "PROS/CONS/VERDICT" standby, I'm just going to lay out what the experience of attending The Devil's Carnival was like as best I can and let you draw your own conclusions. This is partially because my usual model isn't quite suited to conveying what The Devil's Carnival is totally like, and partially for the sake of keeping things fresh.

But first, a brief preface for those of you who don't know what The Devil's Carnival is:

I really can't say it better than creators Darren Lynn Bousman (director of Saw II-IV, Repo! The Genetic Opera, and a few lesser-known miscellaneous horror movies) and Terrance Zdunich (co-creator of Repo! in addition to portraying Lucifer in The Devil's Carnival and The Graverobber in Repo!) did in a previous interview, The Devil's Carnival is "a cross between Tales from the Crypt and the anti-f*cking Glee." Well said, gents! When the two collaborated on one of my personal favorites, the post-apocalyptic goth opera Repo! The Genetic Opera a few years ago, distributing studio Lionsgate didn't feel the piece was up to a wide release and gave it a very limited engagement; something like 6 or 7 screens nationwide. Instead of whining about "the Man," Terrance and Darren took it upon themselves to promote the film with a nationwide road tour; tagging in cast and crew members from the film to sign autographs and chat with fans along the way. The tour was a great success, and spawned two more. When the dynamic duo was unable to get Lionsgate (who now owns Repo!, unfortunately) to greenlight a sequel, they fell back to another project: The Devil's Carnival. Seeking to "create an experience you can't download" and bring back "what makes going to the movies fun," the two scraped and scrounged and put together the budget they needed to fund the project on their own. Bypassing the studio system completely, the two took The Devil's Carnival on the road - much like Repo! before it - with members of the cast and crew along for the ride.

I had the good fortune of grabbing tickets for a last-minute encore presentation in Los Angeles - a stop that coincided with my vacation in the Sunshine State nicely.

I went to The Devil's Carnival with my good buddy Andy, a fellow cinephile. He and I are something of a Mark-and-Jeremy from the British sitcom "Peep Show," with (hopefully) a bit less anti-social tendencies...and with American accents, sometimes.

We arrived early enough to be at basically the front of the line, while the next hour or so saw the gaggle of attendees stretch so far down the street behind us I couldn't exactly see where it ended. We were surrounded by a veritable treasure trove of "alternative lifestyle" folk; from post-ops (I think), pre-ops, (I'm sure), goths, attendees in costume as various Carnival characters, and then basically us: the two white guys in regular clothes at the front of the line. Some might have found the spread a bit too counter-culture, but personally I enjoy the company of those society labels 'freaks' or 'outcasts.' Their presence proves that not every subculture has been bastardized by hipsters and people obsessed with how meta everything is. Standing in line, there was no grand sense of pretense and for me personally, that put everything right on track for a great time.

I noticed Mika Boorem milling around the door, though I didn't remember her name at the time. I saw her for a moment and thought "That face looks like a 10 to 12-years-older version of a face in my memory" and after a couple of minutes sleuthing film credits on my phone pinned down her identity. For those who don't quite remember, she played the elder daughter in Mel Gibson's The Patriot and a young Charlize Theron in Mighty Joe Young - among other things...hence the gap in my memory as to what she looked like. Fairly inconsequential for the rest of the attendees, as I didn't notice anyone else noticing her. But for me it raised the bar a bit - seeing celebrities not directly attached to the project show up.

A little closer to the lifting of the curtain, Darren walked by, looking like the charming homeless version of J.J. Abrams that he does. Even with the anticipation mounting, you could sense that everyone there - from Darren himself to the gorgeous ticket-girl(s) - was on equal footing. We were all there to support an "underground" film, part of a dark little family stitched together for a few hours in North Hollywood; no one more important than the other.

Finally the line started slinking into the theater, and as Andy and I took our seats, I noticed Emilie Autumn immediately in the row in front of us - chatting with her Bloody Crumpet compadre Captain Maggot. Both of them Devil's Carnival cast members, they were just getting ready for the show and all that good stuff right in front of us - within arm's length. It took a few minutes for the rest of the attendees to file in and find seats, during which Andy and I joked back and forth about the implications of going to something called The Devil's Carnival on any given Sunday, and on Mother's Day no less.

The lights dimmed a bit and the focus was directed to the front of the theater, in which a brief "sideshow" was being performed. Namely, a woman was performing "The Human Blockhead" which involved her hammering and powertool-ing a nail and a screw into her head, respectively. Typical sideshow carnival stuff - accompanied by a girl in a creepy clown getup playing a gleeful carnie tune on a piano. The sideshow concluded, and a brief behind-the-scenes featurette of Repo! began, complete with sing-along! Being the pretentious film goer I am, I cursed the words for dancing at the bottom of the screen because I wanted to impress everyone within earshot with how well I knew the lyrics to this song. My gestures were futile, as I knew they would be, as the whole theater was singing along anyway, and I further cursed not having the opportunity to join the Repo! Road Tour back when it was making the rounds.

The Repo! featurette ended, and The Devil's Carnival began. It's technically a short film, clocking in at almost exactly 60 minutes. The movie follows 3 people down to Hell where they re-enact tableaus of Aesop's Fables - with the implication being that the lessons taught in the fable relate to the follies that led them to Hell in the first place. For example, a girl (Briana Evigan) who clearly spent her life in pursuit of jewelry and fineries finds herself playing the role of the dog in "The Dog and Her Reflection." True to the "anti-f*cking Glee" nature of the film, each tale is overlaid with a song or songs that further elucidate the moral of the story.

The music was LOUD. I mean...whew. It became genuinely difficult to enjoy the film (for me) with a deafening soundtrack, and I generally like deafening soundtracks. Carnie music isn't exactly my cup of tea though - a brisk staccato pace carried mostly by brass instruments and drums. Think Danny Elfman's music played twice as fast, twice as menacing, and competing with a jet engine for audibility. The lyrics (when I could catch them) were very well-crafted and poetic, and the music itself isn't entirely unsavory; but played at that level didn't wholly endear me to the genre.

The film concluded, while not on a cliffhanger per se, but definitely with the implication that this is just the beginning. Actually, it was less an implication and more of a mantra. During the Q&A that followed (which was preceded by a brief costume contest) Terrance and Darren explained - among other things - that what they're trying to do with The Devil's Carnival is "build a brand." They've already written Episode 2 and essentially had it on hold pending how well the road tour did. All indications during the show were that the road tour has been successful enough to warrant production on the next installment and to hear the two of them talk about it - like the fanboys that they are - it sounds like that's on the top of their To-Do List.

The Q&A wrapped up and fans swarmed the gathering of cast and crew down at the front of the theater. Tactfully - I thought - I decided to hang back and hit them up on their way out of the theater and into the lobby, which is where I assumed they would take pictures, sign autographs, and generally schmooze. Ultimately, they kind of scattered on their own individually, but I did manage to shake hands with and chat briefly with Terrance. I can confirm for any fangirls reading this that he is absolutely as charming and down-to-earth as you'd expect. And that voice that had you all swooning in your black boots and corsets? It's totally how he talks in real life. I swooned a little bit. As I touched on briefly before, Terrance confirmed what I feared: there will be no Repo! sequel. Since Lionsgate owns Repo!, Terrance said that The Devil's Carnival "is our Repo! sequel." Admittedly, I was a little distraught. But the news is tempered by the fact that Terrance and Darren haven't come close to giving up what they do.

I also briefly managed to snag Alexa Vega before she was whisked away by one of the ticket girls. If you ever get a chance to chat with that young woman, I highly recommend you do so. Yes, she's attractive. But she's also as cool a chick as you're likely to meet - and very down-to-earth. Like "I-walked-up-just-to-say-I-had-a-great-time-and-she-asked-and-remembered-my-name" down-to-earth. And while I'm bragging on the internet, I also got a hug from her in parting; and not some half-ass side hug either.

As a whole, Terrance and Darren and their cohorts have done exactly what they set out to do: create an experience you can't download and more importantly, one you wouldn't want to even if you could. The Devil's Carnival was like a thin 3-hour slice of being at a film festival. The Q&A's, the presence of cast and crew, and just the sheer high of feeling as though you're on the creative cutting edge; it all adds up to a brilliantly unique experience. The film itself was not my favorite, in all honesty. It's not bad, it's just not my particular cup of tea, and had I just seen the film at home on my computer one afternoon I probably wouldn't have been all that jazzed about the project. But take the movie on the road, bring everyone you made it with along for the ride, and make a point to engage the fanbase at a grassroots level - I'm there. It's precisely the kind of "business model" that I think could make a drastic difference in the way films are made and shown. Terrance and Darren aren't sitting somewhere whining about piracy and how it's destroying their craft, and on the flipside they're not eating out of the corporate trough while damning The Man. Instead, they're getting out there and making sacrifices and doing what they love - without trying to make millions of dollars in the rat race of fame. And I was proud to be a part of that tour and supporting them in their efforts.

I'll be at one or more of the stops along the way when episode 2 comes down the pike, and I can't recommend more highly that you do the same. Even if a 60-minute musical about postmodern examples of Aesop's Fables isn't the kind of movie you normally go for, do it anyway. Go for the potential education on independent filmmaking. Go for the costumes. Go for the celebrity appearances. Go for the sheer non-mainstreamness of it all! It's wicked fun.

The Redbox Report - May 7, 2012

It's that time again, ladies and gents. I picked out a few titles from the local Redbox kiosk right outside the H-E-B I frequent and have compiled some brief critiques as follows:

WE BOUGHT A ZOO

I'm not usually one to be sucked in by smarmy stories or pure sentimentality, but when I am it's usually because Cameron Crowe directed. Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous; every one of these movies I went into skeptical and came out a believer. We Bought a Zoo is no exception. The story is practically right there in the title. Based on the true story of widower Benjamin Mee (portrayed by Matt Damon) and his family, the film follows the story of a family that rolled the dice on a new house with one caveat: it's a zoo. Home to several exotic animals and their caretakers - the Mee's find themselves on a challenging adventure as they learn the family lessons that come with spontaneous zoo ownership. The supporting cast is wonderfully arranged, and Scarlett Johansson looks like a real human being in this film; as opposed to the almost unrealistic specimen of feminine beauty the camera normally seems obsessed with creating. Maggie Elizabeth Jones, who plays the 7-year old Rosie Mee, practically steals every scene she's in adding yet another layer to the heartfelt sentimentality this film is all about. If my tone betrays a measure of resentment, that's somewhat by design. I didn't want to like this movie as much as I did, because I could feel my heartstrings being tugged at like a fishing line with Jaws himself on the other end. Heartfelt performances, a story about a wife and mother lost to disease, and cute little furry animals all over the place would have been enough to illicit a few tears. But the icing on the cake is Jonsi's (and a few actual Sigur Ros songs) typically soul-shattering music - "gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh." I was in tears practically from the start of the film to the end, and while I say that with a modicum of bitterness and resentment, at the end of the day the movie is truly uplifting. To say the sentimentality of this film is sticky-sweet would be an understatement, but I did greatly enjoy We Bought a Zoo and its soundtrack. If you're in the mood for the kind of feel-good movie that will make you want to stand up and cheer at the finale - you can't do much better than this one.

THE DESCENDANTS

Dramedies can be a tough sell. It takes a writer with a truly deft creative hand to properly balance poignant drama with comedic material and often, the balance shifts precariously when the drama grows ever darker. The Descendants is a great example of how to maintain that balance. George Clooney plays Matt King, a man whose wife has been in a deep coma for several weeks after a boating accident. It's made clear that his marriage was hardly sterling even before the accident, and that's reflected in the misbehavior of his two daughters. When given the news that his wife will not recover from the coma and that her will stipulates she must be removed from life support, Matt begins the difficult task of informing close friends and family. In so doing, he stumbles upon the unsettling news that his wife was cheating on him. And narrative hijinks ensue. I say that somewhat flippantly, of course, but The Descendants approaches its material with appropriate reverence. The key in balancing a kind of dark humor with such a dark story in this film basically boils down to running two stories parallel to each other. In one, Matt labors to bring harmony back into his family as they prepare to bid his wife farewell. In the other, Matt takes his family on a bit of a getaway to find the man with whom she was being unfaithful. Of course both subjects are very heavy, but there's more room to explore some self-deprecation and biting one-liners in the latter. Consequently the film balances out quite well. Clooney is his usual charming self but mixes in a little self-doubt for effect. Shailene Woodley (of The Secret Life of the American Teenager fame) plays his oldest daughter Alex, and apparently she's been holding out on us. To watch her ABC Family show, you'd hardly know she was capable of a performance as nuanced and moving as a veteran actor like Clooney, but in The Descendants she shines. It's hard to call this film a pure comedy, because it's humor is rather subtle. Moments like watching George Clooney sprinting down the street in loafers aren't particularly funny without context. And with context, they can be a tad morbid. But in the case of The Descendants, there's as much gravity as levity and it serves to give the film a very genuine and "real-life" feel. I can't say I was overly charmed by the youngest sister's portrayal as a total brat, but fortunately she's not the centerpiece of the film. There's a lot of language in this one, but I've never found that to be a deterrent personally. Overall, The Descendants sets a very somber tone without being melodramatic and brilliantly maintains that tone through to the end. It's a bit of a tear-jerker, but it's not depressing - at least it wasn't for me.

THE RUM DIARY

Johnny Depp is at it again, playing Hunter S. Thompson...but not exactly Hunter S. Thompson. It's little secret that Thompson's works are semi-autobiographical - though he routinely changed names and reworked details for the sake of the story. What Raoul Duke is to Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Paul Kemp is to Hunter S. Thompson in The Rum Diary. Given that Depp has played both roles, and was a close personal friend of Hunter's, I felt there was a measure of spiritual symmetry to it. The story follows alcoholic writer Paul Kemp to Puerto Rico where he takes on a writing job at a doomed local newspaper. The country itself is embroiled in political discontent, and Kemp is struggling to find his own voice as a writer. He unwittingly becomes entangled with a group of rather shady businessmen, led by the charismatic Hal Sanderson (Aaron Eckhert). Simultaneously he falls for Sanderson's bombshell of a girlfriend (played by Amber Heard, who bears an uncanny resemblance to a young Sharon Stone in this film), further deepening his mounting dilemmas. It would be a bit generous to call The Rum Diary a comedy, but unfair to call it a drama as well. It exists somewhere in between, but not nearly enough of either to be called a true dramedy or even black comedy. My expectations for the film weren't particularly high, which may be part of why I found it pretty entertaining. Johnny Depp is always a pleasure to watch, and his supporting cast is more than up to the task of fleshing out the world around him. What I felt this film was missing though was Thompson's lyricism. Terry Gilliam's take on Fear and Loathing really plumbed the depths of drug-induced psychosis; that film is just crazy. But by combining voice-over with an already verbose portrayal courtesy of Depp, Thompson's presence in the film is much more palpable. The Rum Diary makes a few passes at Thompson's presence but they don't seem as sincere. There are one or two voice-overs and a smattering of very Thompson-esque dialogue, but not nearly as much as I was hoping for. Having said that, the film is about Kemp finding his voice as a writer, so it's possible such absence was by design. Either way, The Rum Diary is another delightful turn from Depp, and an entertaining film in its own right. It's a bit overlong and it certainly rambles in its search for the meat of its story. But as a fan of Thompson's work, I enjoyed this film for what it was.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL

It's an iconic American motif; that receding fuse snaking around opening credits and "preview clips" of what's to come while that instantly recognizable tune makes its way in. If you don't have it stuck in your head now you're probably not from around here. But even if you weren't old enough to enjoy the television series, Tom Cruise has been starring in Mission Impossible movies since 1996. And in a rare turn of events, each succeeding film in the series has been more and more positively reviewed. That puts Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in the unlikely but pleasantly surprising place of being the fourth film in a series with the highest critical response (maintaining a 90%+ rating on Rotten Tomatoes since release) and it's quite deserving. After a recent operation in the Kremlin is blown by a rogue nuclear terrorist, the entire IMF is disavowed by the government - there's no support, no extraction, it's just Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and a team of three other agents. The team discovers that the agent who blew their cover is Kurt Hendricks, a man who believes he can usher in the next stage of human evolution by unleashing nuclear war on the planet; classic arch villain material. Tasked with stopping a madman and clearing their own names while being pursued by other government agents convinced they're terrorists, the 4 agents punch, shoot, swing, crash cars, and otherwise *every-action-movie-verb* their way through a movie that's pure energy and pure fun. I'm not a huge fan of Tom Cruise personally, but there's no doubt that he knows how to do action movies. Brad Bird's direction (and Michael Giacchino's score) put me in mind of The Incredibles throughout much of the film but that wasn't a bad thing at all. Ghost Protocol isn't the kind of family fare that The Incredibles is, but both films revel in the sheer bliss of fast-paced action scenes and cool gadgets. The film stands well on its own, but it certainly doesn't hurt to catch up on the previous movies in the series just to be up to speed from the get go. But after seeing this one, I'm greatly looking forward to the next Mission Impossible movie.

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

John le Carre wrote Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in 1974. In 1979, it was adapted to a BBC miniseries and was largely well-received. Its most recent treatment is the 2011 film adaptation starring Gary Oldman as George Smiley. Having not read the book and not seen the miniseries, I really knew very little about this film other than the fact that Oldman was nominated for an Oscar and - to hear some tell it - cheated out of it when Jean Dujardin won instead. The film follows a group of British Intelligence officers on the hunt for a mole in their midst. Smiley becomes something of a lead investigator in the mole hunt, carefully weaving his way in and around his colleagues. It's a marvelous performance from Oldman, but I don't know that I've ever been so clueless about what's going on in a film in my life. Having finished it, I'm still largely unclear on certain character's motivations and just what everyone was doing the whole time. Everyone in the ensemble cast plays their role wonderfully, and the dialogue is well-crafted and usually succinct. But the film sacrificed some much-needed exposition for brevity's sake and the film suffers for it. In light of all the positive critical attention the film received I feel a bit dimwitted, admittedly. But the film jumps around chronologically without any indication of how or when; there are no "2 years later" titles, the makeup for the characters isn't really changed to imply their being younger or older, and the editing isn't conducive to remembering who is who. I know characters can't go around with big signs on their foreheads so we remember their names, but I can hardly recall a single character's name; voice overs interrupt conversations, characters are addressed by code names, first names, and last names (but rarely with consistency), and there's a myriad of them to begin with. Apparently Mr. le Carre voiced concerns that the book was too large to be condensed into a single film, and I think I agree with him. Had I read the book or seen the mini-series, I probably wouldn't have been so confused by the film. But it's incredibly hard to follow, and I was bent on focus. It's not a bad film, per se. But because there are too many characters to keep up with, and the chronology of the film is inscrutable, when the big reveal occurs at the climax and we discover who the mole is I was overwhelmed by a sense of ambivalence. Nothing felt like it was at stake, apart from the fact that contextually this is international espionage, and nothing felt profoundly won or defeated. Without sufficient time to develop relationships between the characters, I couldn't shake a feeling of complete disinterest. I wanted to like this film because I don't usually like being in the critical minority. The film is marvelously acted and filmed with expert care; shot composition is textbook perfection. But unless you're familiar with whatever it was in the books and mini-series that made this piece such a triumph, I doubt you'll Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy worth the effort.

The Avengers

The movie needs little introduction. You don't have to be a comic book fanboy/girl to know that the hype around the latest in Marvel's movie adaptations has a great deal to live up to. But given the fact that The Avengers went on to break the box office record for biggest opening weekend (dethroning Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2) in all likelihood if you're reading this you've already seen the film and know that every moment spent waiting for it has been completely worth it. At the risk of being completely redundant, though, I'll go ahead and give it the Other R2D2 Blog treatment.

THE PROS:

First off: Joss Whedon. I barely even need to elaborate here. Yes, he's developed something of a cult of personality but he's every bit deserving of it. C'mon, Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog...any one of those titles serves to prove Whedon's creative prowess, not to mention the myriad of other writing, creating, directing, and producing credits behind him. His signature style is clearly visible on The Avengers, and it's just what the doctor ordered. Whedon knows how to balance character development and action to pitch perfection and it's no more obvious than in this film. If Marvel knows what's good for them, Whedon will hopefully helm everything Marvel makes from now on forever and ever.

Hyperbole aside, The Avengers may be the best Marvel film to date and that's largely due to Whedon's skill as writer and director. I was admittedly skeptical about the film leading up to its release. Marvel had done a wonderful job of giving each of their characters a movie that fit them perfectly; Iron Man and Iron Man 2 sported a high-octane, rock-n-roll vibe that reflected Tony Stark's playboy persona. Thor practiced a vaguely Shakespearean motif courtesy of director Kenneth Branagh that allowed the "elevated" English the Asgardians spoke seem less out-of-place. Captain America wisely pulled off a very meta-plot that incorporated the character's rather cheesy origin as a propaganda poster boy. And we don't talk about The Incredible Hulk because, ya know, Edward Norton. So naturally I wondered if The Avengers would have enough room for all its characters without becoming too bulky and awkward. And in the end I was blown away by how deftly the film handled it's rather tall order; each character's stories and journeys were given space to develop without getting in each other's way.

The cinematography even reflected this in places, specifically during combat scenes. There's a brilliant shot in the climactic battle scene where each of the heroes is fighting the oncoming Chitauri hordes in their own way: Hawkeye and Black Widow use precision marksmanship and martial arts, Thor calls down lightning with his hammer, Captain America's shield acts as both defensive and offensive weapon, Iron Man zips in and out of aerial combat, and Hulk of course just smashes the crap out of everything. It's a single shot that lasts for (what felt like) a few minutes, swooping in and around the heroes like a friggin' roller coaster. But it wasn't annoyingly jarring or out of focus; no Bourne-like shaky-cam in sight. It was high energy without being disorienting and distracting. It was just thrilling. And as much can be said for the rest of the film.

True to Whedon form, the film is also loaded with laughs. Not only is Tony Stark's (more like Tony Snark!) rapier wit in perfect form, there's a veritable treasure trove of one-liners and sight gags. In as much as this film is an action movie, it's a comedy. And from where I was sitting, that was a very good thing.

And what of the visual effects? We hardly hear anything about visual effects any more because we've all become so used to photorealistic CGI; I'll be the first to admit a measure of jadedness when it comes to visual effects these days. Despite that, The Avengers manages to be chock full of grade-A VFX and yet not burdened by them. I found myself truly impressed with the CGI in this film in a way I don't remember being impressed since first seeing Gollum on screen.

THE CONS:

Thankfully, there really isn't much I found to take issue with. Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark is my favorite character - and growing up Iron Man was one of my favorite superheroes. So there's a part of me that wanted more of him in the film. But the film is already pretty long at almost two and a half hours and giving Stark more screen time would have cut into the screen time of the other heroes, destroying the balance The Avengers maintained so well. So that one hardly counts as a con, really. Just a personal gripe. And a minor one at that.

THE VERDICT:

The Avengers is every bit deserving of the critical and financial praise its receiving. Cramming 6 superheroes (4 of whom have already carved out narrative territory for themselves in their own films) into one film and giving them enough room to be themselves without tripping over each other was a monumental task. But if there was one director who knew and loved these characters enough to do them justice individually and together it was Joss Whedon; and he's accomplished another monumental creative feat.

True, this movie is pure comic book fare. But that's exactly what it's supposed to be and it's a prime example of the fact that visual effects don't have to snuff out character development - cinematic spectacle and quality writing can still operate in harmony. And when they do, the result is a movie going experience as satisfying as The Avengers.