DIE HARD IS EASY. DIE HARD COMEDY IS HARD.

MacGruber

*

Review by Joel Frost

The general structure of a MacGruber skit on Saturday Night Live is this: A bomb is about to go off, and MacGruber must defuse it. His side-kick Vicki is there, handing him various things he needs to do the job, and letting him know just how much time he has left. There’s often another person in the room, usually the show’s host, and the discussion between MacGruber and that person winds up distracting MacGruber from defusing the bomb. So it blows up. That’s the gag. Week after week on SNL, often more than once a show, MacGruber, Vicki, and someone else are apparently blown to smithereens. It’s satisfying in a way, since MacGruber consistently shows himself to be a pompous simpleton with no particular actual talent for defusing explosives. Watching MacGruber get his comeuppance time and again is a central part of what makes the skit funny. It’s satisfying to watch a dummy fail because of his bravado and lack of ability to focus.

The general structure of “MacGruber”, the film is this: MacGruber comes out of retirement in order to settle the score with the man who killed his bride. In the process, he gets to save the world, prance about naked with a piece of celery sticking out of his ass, and also rip people’s throats out with his bare hands. It’s MacGruber like you’ve never seen him before: with an R rating and no pesky TV censors. It’s MacGruber without rules! As nasty as he wants to be! It’s better!

Except that it’s not. It’s dumb, lifeless and most importantly, not funny. In the process of moving a decent SNL skit to the big screen, the same thing that usually happens has happened again. They fucked it up.

How did they fuck it up, you ask? I could say that the beauty of the original skit was utterly ignored. I could postulate that the structure that made MacGruber work on SNL, entirely ignored in the movie, was at the heart of what made the skit funny. I could say that MacGruber, being a pompous blowhard, is best viewed for short periods and then blown sky high. If I were to spend time analyzing MacGruber, I’d probably speak of the skits as having a firm place in the history of a certain style of comedy… that they were each a joke of the same kind, like a knock-knock joke. I could point out how Will Forte’s general comedic vision has to do with repetition. He likes to do something absurd over and over. Pound a point home until it’s funny. There’s a kind of disbelief in laughing at Forte’s comedy. What the hell is he doing? Can you believe it? He’s genuinely insane! There is a nervous twinge in the best laughter that Will Forte causes. It could be said that he parodies insanity itself.

But really, why bother? “MacGruber”, the film, is so bad that it defies analysis. It tries to parody action films of the 1980’s. It fails. It tries to make MacGruber a quirky, crazy, yet loveable hero. It fails. It tries to be shockingly violent and gross for the purpose of humor. It fails. It seems clear that the idea with “MacGruber”, the film, was to try to put it so far over the top… to try to make the explosions bigger, the poop and dick jokes nastier, the gore spatteringlier… that it couldn’t be ignored. “MacGruber”, the film, is meant to shock and alarm in a way that MacGruber, the skit, never did. It fails. I can’t say if this is all WIll Forte’s fault or perhaps the fault of those around him. I’d like to think it’s the latter, of course, but it doesn’t matter anyway. The film is dismal.

Initially, I was pleased to hear the film had an R rating. That seemed to suggest it wouldn’t pander to a middle-of-the-road sensibility. Somehow, though, that’s exactly what it does. “MacGruber” is frat-boy crazy, meaning it’s not really crazy at all. There’s nothing tense or dangerous or provocative about it. The humor, if it can be called that, rests completely on the kinds of things that make 13-year-olds laugh, and perhaps that’s not giving 13-year-olds enough credit. I suspect that a MacGruber film that didn’t have the leeway that an R rating includes could actually have been funnier, as it tried to tiptoe around the kinds of things it shows. For some comedy, an R rating is liberating, as it unshackles the writers and performers. For others, it’s an excuse to dwell on toilet humor. In the case of “MacGruber”, there is actual toilet humor, as in a joke about a toilet and poop, along with the general style of toilet humor. A PG-13 rating would have allowed “MacGruber”’s target audience to actually see the film, and might have made it better for those of us who left that age, and an appreciation for tired shock comedy, in the past.

The film isn’t utterly devoid of laughs. The parody aspect works well once or twice: there’s a section that starts in the style of a typical 80’s sex scene, ala Top Gun, and quickly devolves into a stark angle on a sweaty, grunting, climaxing MacGruber. At a couple of other points, watching MacGruber desperately offer to perform fellatio isn’t entirely without humor. But even at its funniest moments, which can be counted on one hand, MacGruber’s sleaziness is unlikeable. Unfortunately, we don’t even get to see him blow up at the end. This movie attempts to mock action movie cliches, and in the process, winds up in the blast area of another one: “MacGruber” is a bomb.

Directed by: Jorma Taccone
Release Date: May 21, 2010
Run Time: 90 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Michaels-Goldwyn

OFFICIAL TRAILER

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 2

Robin Hood

**1/2

Review by Paul Preston

In the case of Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood”, the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

This is not the story of the swashbuckling outlaw that fights against King John for the poor people of Nottingham. Instead, this script plays out more like “X-Men: Origins – Robin Hood”, where the film ends with the merry archer we all know and love. The Robin Hood Scott and five-time collaborating star Russell Crowe create is so sober, so battle-weary, he’s tougher to love. That doesn’t mean that his story isn’t interesting or complicated enough to admire. It’s the kind of movie you’ll go back and forth on again and again like an ex-boyfriend you’re not sure if you should keep dating.

We’re thrust right in the middle of a huge, Ridley Scott-esque epic battle from the opening scene, as Robin is part of Richard the Lionheart’s army just returned from the Crusades. The mercurial Lionheart seems to take a liking to Robin, but he nevertheless throws him in the stockade for being harshly honest. But soon King Richard is slain, and Robin and his counterparts escape and happen upon another adventure, that of returning the King’s crown to the Queen. During this mission, they are also charged with returning the sword of a dying soldier to his father. The soldier’s name is Robert Loxley and soon Robin ends up assuming the dead man’s name and identity, and he falls for Loxley’s wife, Maid Marion.

So, there’s a lot going on, but don’t get all catty, ‘cause that’s really only the first half hour or so. I haven’t revealed too much. And if it feels like Robin Hood himself, the title character is a participant in a larger tapestry of a story, you’re right. “Robin Hood” is less about following the notorious outlaw as it is seeing how the events of the day built him up to finally taking a stand against the politics and politicians of the day.

Like “Wolverine”, “Revenge of the Sith” or other origin stories, you know how the film’s going to end, leaving the resulting films with a handful of drama, but no palpable sense of threatening danger.

Earlier this year I reviewed “Edge of Darkness” and admittedly couldn’t get enough Mel Gibson, despite his flawed personal life. Another Aussie who gets a lot of grief for his behavior is Russell Crowe, but he, as well, is pretty solid in nearly every film he’s in. It’s an odd bit of casting in that he’s perfect for this serious telling of the Robin Hood tale, but I can’t imagine he’d be that good if Ridley Scott were telling the tale of Robin vs. The Sheriff of Nottingham, as the glint in the eye and the wise quips would have to zip out of Crowe’s persona like an arrow out of Robin’s bow, and that would require more selling to get me to believe I’d see it (although his part in the GREAT movie “3:10 to Yuma” showed that cocky nature).

Guess what?!…Cate Blanchett is very good. She’s ALWAYS very good (except in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, which only has one good moment in the entire film, and she wasn’t in it), but there is one awkward kiss Robin and Marion share on a blood-soaked battlefield. She’s such a strong presence, everywhere else Blanchett succeeds, her strong point may not be “maid”. Although his screen time is brief, Danny Huston is memorable as Lionheart. Huston, also in “Edge of Darkness”, is getting to be a sure-thing casting bet, and I’m a big fan.

Speaking of sure-thing casting bets, “Robin Hood” gives Mark Strong another meaty villain role. After “Stardust” and “Sherlock Holmes”, he’s somehow succeeding at not seeming like the same guy in every villainous role, but frequently getting the nod when movies need a bad guy. The Merry Men are largely character actors really enjoying some time in a higher-profile role, especially Kevin Durand as Little John, who wears dumb beefcake well on his sleeve, while remaining likeable.

Production values are solid throughout, as you would expect in a Ridley Scott film. Lush cinematography and authentic re-creation of place and time fill the screen. The score by Marc Streitenfeld is good, providing a staccato accentuation to the fast-moving action. The editing was good, but it had to try and handle a re-occurring problem with the picture in that the battle scenes didn’t have enough variation. The battle at the castle and the battle at the village and the battle at the beach were all very similar, from staging to cutting to choreography, with only a few notable exceptions in each arena. The unfortunate effect of that move is that the scenes end up being only bludgeoning and less effective.

And so can be summed up the whole film, a lot of sound and fury signifying…..not exactly nothing, but less than what I desired. The real drive of Robin Hood and his life and loves were never delivered on as personal a level as I hoped. Again, he was swept up in a the greater expanse of a continent-wide power struggle between English factions and the French. I can’t imagine millions of moviegoers are going to get swept up in the continent-wide power struggles between English factions and the French.

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Release Date: May 14, 2010
Run Time: 140 Minutes
Country: USA/UK
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

OFFICIAL SELECTION

Ten ‘Til Noon

***1/2

Review by Justin Bowler

Hollywood films are rarely made by a small production team; rather, they are the product of a dozen producers, bowing to the whims of the major production company heads. Of course, their interests lie in the many ancillary aspects of the “film world”. Because these companies are so big, they worry about pleasing (or more importantly, not offending) every person on the planet. This is merely a business decision: the bigger the company (Sony), the larger the chance one of their other non-movie products (cell phones with pretty colors) would be marketed to someone (Jane Christian-woman) that would have nothing to do with an artistic film, no matter how good it was (District 9). But, that giant corporate production or distribution company (Universal) must water down (or strip completely) any major film (The Wolfman) so it no longer has anything interesting (let alone artistic) to it at all (Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Feces). Why can’t there be both (The Empire Strikes Back)? Well, those production companies (20th Century) are more concerned with hiring people who think like market-eers, instead of filmmakers (George Lucas).

Thank God that we have fantastic indie films that don’t have to cower to the whims of the Great and All-Powerful Oz-es of the film world (Michael Eisner). So, we can enjoy solid films (Ten ‘til Noon), made with skillful and unconventional storytelling (Ten ‘til Noon), like Scott Storm’s crime thriller Ten ‘til Noon (Ten ‘til Noon).

Though this film had a rough time on the festival circuit (see the documentary “Official Rejection” for further details), this movie has everything that true movie fans want: intrigue (violence), high production value (nudity), and excellent story telling (actual thought that is put into the script). Told in a nonlinear fashion about a series of events that all take place at the exact same time (11:50 am (ten minutes until noon)), this film keeps you engaged and wanting more at every given turn (though it’s acting is a little rough at times). I would compare it to a good episode of the series “Lost”, except this writer (Paul Osborne), understands how to write a third act (he actually answers the questions that he raises) (That’s right, I said it, J.J. Abrams doesn’t write 3rd acts, he just extends (repeats) acts 1 and 2 over and over (and over and over and over and over again)) (Look for more on that rant somewhere in future reviews).

I’m a fan of unconventional storytelling as long as it is done for a purpose (Pulp Fiction) and done well (Pulp Fiction). Scott Storm (director) and Paul Osborne (writer) achieve both. There are several traps in this script that a lesser team would have been caught in. (And by “lesser team”, I mean any aforementioned Hollywood big machine producer or market-eer.) For example, without giving anything away, if “Ten ‘til Noon” were a Hollywood film, the gay man would have been an over-the-top flamboyant stereotype and the kickass gun-for-hire wouldn’t have been a female. Additionally, the Hollywood machine almost never (Pulp Fiction being one of the exceptions, because it was laced with well known faces) allows this kind of unconventional movie making. Similar to Quentin Tarantino and Alfred Hitchcock, Storm and Osborne kill off major characters that, as an audience member, you have invested in and care about. Furthermore, like the Coen Bros, some of their important deaths occur off-screen.

The script is solid and so is the filmmaking. I would, however, love to see these two team up with a really talented, but well known, cast so the rest of the world could appreciate them as much as I do. Sadly, until that day, I’m afraid the Hollywood machine won’t let them in. This film is too unconventional for them, which is why it had so much trouble finding its way. (Once again, see the documentary “Official Rejection” for further details). But, stealing the cast members from any Coen Bros. or Quentin Tarantino film would yield some amazing results.

Even though I give this film high marks, it is not without folly. As I mentioned, two members of the very talented ensemble are not the caliber of the rest and overact a bit. Additionally, I’m not a fan of the last ten minutes of the film. Seemingly shot as an afterthought, in the middle of the credits a “denouement” takes place that I not only found unnecessary, but also done without the care and skill that the rest of the movie had. So, I recommend watching this fantastic film until the credits and then turn off your DVD player. Now, I only say this because the rest of the film was done so well that the bar is simply too high for the last scene. In a lesser movie the final scene would have been acceptable, but with the skillful storytelling exemplified in everything before the credits, the final scene just doesn’t seem to fit. But, overall, I say Definitely SEE IT! (And then see “Official Rejection”) (Then watch “Ten ‘til Noon” again).

I give it 3.5 stars.

“Ten ’til Noon” is available on Netflix.

Directed by: Scott Storm
Running Time: 83 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: R
Distributor: Shut Up & Shoot Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER
t>

IRON MAN LIVES AGAIN

Iron Man 2

***

Review by Paul Preston

“If you could make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him”
- Ivan Vanko, “Iron Man 2”

2008’s “Iron Man” was an astounding hit, both in that it seemed to have broad appeal for a superhero movie (maybe not such a rare thing since ‘08’s double success of “Iron Man” and “The Dark Knight”), and that it’s star, Robert Downey, Jr. hadn’t headlined a summer release EVER. “Iron Man 2” is essentially a revenge tale. Ivan Vanko, whose father developed important technology with Tony Stark’s father, but received none of the credit, is out to knock Stark off of his pedestal. It seems, based on intial reviews of “Iron Man 2”, that critics are out to knock the film down in Vanko-esque fashion.

Don’t believe the hype.

“Iron Man 2” is great entertainment, and a fitting continuation of the characters’ journey. There’s certainly no betrayal to the main character here, as Tony Stark’s egomaniacal, playboy mentality are flamboyantly intact at the beginning of the movie. Downey nails this again, and steps up to the more complicated matters his character faces this time out.

And this is where “Iron Man 2” succeeds as a good sequel. The stakes are raised across the board. Much like the very successful sequel “Spider-Man 2”, the main character’s ability to sustain his heroic intentions are put to the ultimate test early, and there are real consequences. Unlike the not-so-successful sequel “Batman and Robin”, “Iron Man 2” handily juggles an onslaught of new characters, including the great Sam Rockwell, perfectly balancing desperation and buffoonery as the anti-Stark, Justin Hammer. Hammer, always second to Stark in defense technology, is happy to back Danko’s revenge by tapping into his knowledge and drive. The plot, although complex, is relatively simple. It’s the revenge story, coupled with S.H.I.E.L.D. infiltrating Tony’s life to set up the groundwork for the formation of The Avengers. It sometimes unfolds a little slowly, but great casting saves those moments.

And the film makes no apologies for moving full steam ahead towards The Avengers. Marvel Comics is bankrolling its own movies, and they’ve got “Thor” AND “Captain America” coming out next year, followed by “The Avengers” and “Iron Man 3” coming after that. Comic geeks will be in heaven, everyone else will have to do some research to catch up on what’s coming. But hopefully, the films will make everything plainly clear in the formation of this superhero supergoup. Stick around through the end credits of “Iron Man 2” for more info.

Mickey Rourke is great as Vanko, the next step in a perfectly-orchestrated movie comeback. After the critical success of “The Wrestler”, he’s now going to get commercial success with “Iron Man 2”. Don Cheadle admirably steps into the role of Stark’s military buddy James Rhodes, but his plot is the most contrived. He objects to Tony’s self-destruction, and his way of protesting is a rather elaborate fight sequence that could’ve been something much more simple (Rhodey knows how to operate an Iron Man suit?). Rhodes’ loyalty to the military complicates his relationship with Tony enough without a special-effects-laden action scene.

That being said, director Jon Favreau, who very deftly handles the characters and dialogue here, as he did in the first film, has improved on his ability to build a good action climax. The Downey/Jeff Bridges finale was not the high-point of “Iron Man”, but here the fast-moving showdown between Iron Man and Iron Man-knockoffs is exciting and hi-tech fun.

“Iron Man 2” is released in glorious 2-D, another good sign that the filmmakers are confident in the material without the need for theatrical helping-up. This can’t be said in the confidence behind another potential M. Night Shyamalan debacle in “The Last Airbender”, NOW IN 3-D! I predict people will come out for the return of Tony Stark and it will still make more money this summer than any other theatrical release charging an extra $7 per ticket to take you to the third dimension.

Too me, summer has peaked too early. There isn’t another movie this big on the horizon all season. “Prince of Persia”? Girls won’t come out for that. “Sex and the City 2”? Guys won’t come out for that. Everybody will come out for “Iron Man 2”. And they won’t be disappointed.

Directed by: Jon Favreau
Release Date: May 7, 2010
Run Time: 124 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

NO MORE TAKING ORDERS

Green Zone

***1/2

Review by Paul Preston

What a shame that no one saw this movie! Universal did everything they could to get your ass in a theater seat, and you still didn’t do it, did you? From the star of “The Bourne Supremacy”! From the director of “The Bourne Ultimatum”! You saw both of those movies, didn’t you? So, why didn’t you see “Green Zone”? You missed one of the best movies of the year.

Director Paul Greengrass (“United 93”, “Bloody Sunday”) is one of those rare commodities in Hollywood. He’s never made a bad movie. Same can only be said of a few filmmakers – Pixar, Alexander Payne, Jason Reitman, for example. “Green Zone” continues Greengrass’ streak of making smart, dynamic action films that engage the brain and your adrenaline.

Perhaps “Green Zone” didn’t hit with audiences because it’s part of the great denial Americans have towards what’s actually happening in Iraq. “The Hurt Locker” had awards HEAPED on it, but it still wrapped up awards season as the least-seen Oscar winner in years. People just don’t want to know what’s happening over there in the war. And there’s certainly plenty of distracting entertainment out there for people like that. But “Green Zone” has wisely wrapped an informative story about the search for WMD in kinetic, hi-tech entertainment.

Matt Damon plays Roy Miller, a Chief Warrant Officer in Baghdad in charge of finding the stashes of weapons of mass destruction. So, right away I know that this isn’t going to be a feel-good movie. The filmmakers have established at the beginning that our hero will not accomplish his mission! There are no WMD. This part of the film made me angry. It’s frustrating as hell to see a depiction of our soldiers on a fruitless mission. The one thing that I’m told you can’t mess with is intel, and the belief that Iraq was harboring WMD is the result of people screwing with intel to suit their own war-mongering means.

We’ve seen this played out in movies like “W” or “Wag the Dog” (in which a war was created to cover up a sex scandal, as opposed to the more nefarious reasons of personal revenge and making money, which is more true to our current real-life situation in the middle east). What I haven’t seen is the direct effect on our soldiers, which “Green Zone” portrays. They’re lost, following pointless orders, dying on missions which serve little purpose and being mishandled and misdirected in many ways (and my personal view would add that we never needed an army to fight terrorists, we needed special ops. We’re not fighting an army. We need five Navy Seals to slip into a camp, take out the folks who plotted 9/11, then disappear into the fog, Jesse Ventura-style. But as “Green Zone” and THE NEWS have taught us, U.S. troops weren’t invading Iraq to fight terrorists, we were on a flawed mission of nation-building where we didn’t belong).

Miller goes rogue after learning that his mission is doomed, determined to expose the real reason Americans invaded Iraq. A tall order. Helping him is journalist Lawrie Dayne, played by the great Amy Ryan. Based on the lightweight, no-questions-asked coverage of the war by the media, journalists are a dying species of people to put your faith in. Helping more is the even greater Brendan Gleeson as Marty, a CIA operative who leaks the true nature of America’s presence in Iraq to Miller and gets the ball rolling. The eternally underappreciated Greg Kinnear is also great as White House stooge Clark Poundsgate. Gleeson squaring off with Kinnear is great to watch.

For reasons unkown, Greengrass is the only filmmaker in my book who gets a pass with the ‘shaky-cam’ action style. He does it ad nauseum, but I don’t seem to mind. I have a theory on why that might be. Perhaps the frantic pace of the filmmaking is in service of something greater than “I got nothin’, so let’s shake the shot around so people think we’ve got something”. Watch the god-awful “Another 48 Hrs.” or the popular, but shaky-for-no-reason “The Rock”, and you’ll see the camera goin’ crazy in scenes where it shouldn’t. This is overcompensation. When Greengrass does it, it’s part of a bigger picture that’s ramping up intensity or disorientation, and it gets a pass.

No surprise, Damon’s very good in this part. There may not be a more sure thing of a lead actor going today. And tech elements are fantastic, especially the you-are-there feel of the sets, putting the viewer in a country torn up by one needless war after another.

Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Release Date: March 12, 2010
Run Time: 115 Minutes
Country: France/Spain/USA/UK
Rated: R
Distributor: Universal Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER

AS IF PHISH FANS NEED ANOTHER ALTERED STATE TO ENHANCE THEIR CONCERT VIEWING…

Phish 3D

***

Review by Marc Berman

I will start off by saying that you absolutely need to be an avid Phish fan to get any enjoyment out of “Phish 3D”. As I am huge Phish fan, finding myself at shows whenever possible, I could not resist the opportunity of seeing them in 3D, especially since it is only in theaters for a single week.

Phish got back together in 2009 after a long 5 years of soul searching and drug arrests, and it seems like they intend to stay together for the long haul. Festival 8 took place on Halloween weekend at the Polo Grounds in Indio, California (known for the Coachella festival). They are essentially massive temporary cities of people that come to camp, party, smoke tons of weed, and listen to eight full sets of their favorite guys from Vermont. If you don’t know already, the band consists of Trey Anastasio (guitar, lead vocals), Mike Gordon (bass), Page Mcconnell (keys), and Jon Fishman (drums) who are four buddies that met while at the University of Vermont.

The film opens with the lively “AC/DC Bag”, which is a crown favorite and a logical choice to open up the film. You notice the 3D effects right away on Fishman’s Drum Kit and you get a real sense of the depth of the stage and how far the guys are actually standing from one another. I was more impressed with the 3D effects than I expected to be. The balloons and glowsticks in the crowd seemed like they were right in front of your face.

The next song was “Stealing Time from the Faulty Plan”, which is a track from the new album “Joy”, kind of a hypnotic tune that has grown on me since the release of the album. “Undermind” was the next selection which I thought was a strange choice to put in the film, but it was surprisingly good, certainly not a favorite of Phish fans. Next is the well known, “Tweezer” which went on for quite some time and went right into “Maze” which was one of my favorites of the film – great energy and lots of great 3D effects, including awesome visuals of these huge fire-breathing sculptures on the field. The final song of the first section of the film was “Mike Song”, which is obviously performed mainly by Mike and is another crowd favorite, a solid performance.

On 11/1, the band performed a full acoustic set at 12 noon and the next section highlighted this rare occurrence. “Back on the Train” happens to be a song that has been a favorite song of Trey’s solo career, which he often played acoustically when on the road with one of his many solo band incarnations. The Phish acoustic version was pretty much the same, always a tune I enjoy. The rest of the acoustic selections included “Strange Design”, “The Curtain With”, “Sleep Again”, “Train Song” and finally culminating with “Wilson”, which drove the afternoon crowd into a THC-rattled frenzy.

The only real behind-the-scenes footage (which I really wish there was more of) was a rehearsal of “Suzy Greenberg” with members from Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings, which consisted of a 3-piece horn section, Sharon Jones and another girl on backups. It was a very small glimpse, but very cool. It prepares the viewers for the final section of the film.

The Phish Halloween tradition is that they create a musical costume by covering an entire album by another artist. At Festival 8, there were a bunch of possible albums, but the final choice of “Exile on Main Street” by the Rolling Stones wasn’t revealed until the band hit the stage. “Loving Cup” is already a song that is in heavy rotation with the band and it always amazing, this version with the horns and the backup vocals was the best I have ever heard…totally amazing. “Happy” was next followed by “Shine a Light” which was amazing, and finally “Soul Survivor”, which was led by Fishman, who is not known for having the best voice, but it was OK.

The film wrapped up with a great version of “Suzy Greenberg”, which was a final chance for the film to have some of that Phish energy, and culminating in “Tweezer Reprise”, which is always the case when the band plays “Tweezer” at another point during the show.

This certainly wasn’t the best concert film I have ever seen, but seeing it in 3D was pretty savvy. I am pretty into Phish, so they really can’t do too much to wrong me, but this definitely had the potential to be a whole lot better. I think it fell short with song selections, I would have liked to have seen some more intense jams and things that Phish is known for, but overall I enjoyed it.

Directed by: Lawrence Jordan & Eli Tishberg
Release Date: April 30, 2010
Country: USA/UK
Distributor: AEG Live

OFFICIAL TRAILER

PAUL GOES TO THE LOS ANGELES UNITED FILM FESTIVAL

By Paul Preston

I recently attended the opening night of a film festival that seemed more interested in pleasing their audience with a good lineup than with glitz and hype.

The Los Angeles United Film Festival kicked of April 30th with a pair of features and three shorts, with Q&As and even some giveaways.

The Fest had a kickoff night on Thursday, but Friday yielded a well-put-together comedy and a documentary about film festivals:

And good news for the fest, when I arrived, there was a line:

First up was “Jeffie Was Here”, an uneven comedy, for sure. But it’s got plenty of funny stuff and good performances. Alan, a college professor and his wife travel across country to attend a funeral. To share expenses, they put an ad online for a third traveler. The guy they end up with is as odd as can be and has an agenda.

Alexis Raben plays the wife and she is SO easy to fall in love with. I appreciated the complications filmmaker Todd Edwards threw into the mix, but some of those situations made the husband very unlikeable. This was definitely on purpose and challenging, but in the end the only person I rooted for was Raben’s character. That being said, Jeffie, the unwanted traveler, has some very funny hippie songs and uncomfortable comic moments.

Many members of the cast (including “Heroes”‘ Christine Rose, who kills as Alan’s mother) were on hand for a Q&A:

Edwards also directed one of the shorts that played before “Jeffie Was Here”, a great music video by the band Hanson. It’s a terrific homage to the “Shake Your Tailfeather” scene from “The Blues Brothers”. That short can be seen in full at our page, THE LATEST.

Next up was “Official Rejection”, recently reviewed here on this site, so I won’t go into details about what the movie is about (except to say it’s a documentary about the film festival circuit, and it showcases how frustrating life on that circuit can be). This gave me a chance to ask some follow-up questions to director Paul Osborne.

I imagine that any immediate negative reaction to OFFICIAL REJECTION by some film festivals would be to avoid programming it. Have you gotten responses that have been more insane?
Other than the occasional angry phone call, I’m not aware of any other insane reactions. Now, that doesn’t mean there haven’t been violent outbursts, or incidents of programmers jumping up and down furiously on our screeners or something. It just means I haven’t been privy to it. Who knows what sort of demented, irked actions OFFICIAL REJECTION has inspired behind the scenes at certain festivals.

We got a shit screener of OFFICIAL REJECTION to review the film for our site. What gives?
Ugh, so sorry about that! DVD screeners are horribly unstable. It certainly wasn’t intentional, and we did rush to replace it.

This is true. But I imagine it feeds into one of the things working against the indie filmmaker. How unstable do you find screeners, and what else can be beyond your control that leads to your film’s demise when it comes to being considered for a festival?
DVD screeners are just generally sketchy, but their playability also depends largely on the quality of the programmer’s player. If it’s an older machine, the chances of DVD failure are really high. We had our DVDs burned with high-quality equipment at a proper dub house, so the fact that they freeze as often as they do is quite disturbing. In terms of other things that can bar you from festivals that are beyond your control, I’d say one of the biggest is the mood of the programmer. Those poor souls are plowing through hundreds of submissions, and the state of mind they’re in when they finally pop in your screener can really effect how your film is perceived. Especially, you know, if it’s the fiftieth one of the day and the damn DVD freezes two minutes in. That sucker’ll hit the trash can pretty damn fast.

One of the things I got from OFFICIAL REJECTION is that having a star in your film will get it noticed by programmers. If I have, like, Conrad Bain, is that enough?
Conrad Bain is a very particular celebrity, so I’d say it would depend on what he was doing. For example, if you have him adopting two young black orphans, and then he molests, murders, and eats them, you might be able to really trade in on his fame and get the attention of programmers. Incidentally, if you go for Conrad Bain, you should also get Conrad Janis, because the “two Conrads” are destined to be way bigger than the “two Coreys”.

In that vein, Best Live-Action Short at The Oscars this year went to the only short with a name actor in it (Vincent D’Onofrio). Are the Oscars following suit with the festivals, or vice versa?
I don’t think it’s news that the Oscars are politically influenced. And we’ve seen how the size of an Oscar campaign can influence who ultimately wins. Oscar campaigns cost money, celebrities have money. But the Oscars have never claimed to be about discovering new talent or giving a voice to alternative cinema, so their celebrity mongering is more on point with how they define themselves.

So, would you consider the LA United Film Festival “ballsy” for showing OFFICIAL REJECTION?
I would consider them super-cool for doing so, but I’m not sure how ballsy it is when you consider the context. Los Angeles United is run by filmmakers who program their festival based upon their taste and not because of celebrity content or studio favoritism . The content of our flick fits perfectly into their wheelhouse, so it makes sense for them to program OFFICIAL REJECTION. I have to say, I’ve been really impressed with them. It’s not “just another” film festival in Los Angeles. These guys are running the real deal.

After the screening, Osborne continued the same fever-pitch promotion he did with “Ten ‘Til Noon”, the subject film of “Official Rejection” by handing out one-sheets to the whole audience. He brought up his kids, Film Festival guru Chris Gore (who handed out T-shirts of his own) and filmmaker Blayne Weaver, also featured in “Official Rejection”.

Indies United, indeed.

The LA United Film Festival continues through May 6th at the Loz Feliz 3 Cinemas in L.A., 1822 Vermont Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90027. The closing night looks great at The Vista Theater in Silverlake: Screening of “The Shark is Still Working”, a documentary about the making of “Jaws”. “Jaws” screenwriter Carl Gottlieb will be on hand to receive an award.

The United Series of Film Festivals runs around the world in New York, London, Tulsa and other cities. For more info, go to their website.

MY BIG FAT GREEK DEBACLE

Clash of the Titans

*1/2

Review by Paul Preston

My new least favorite perspective:

“Well, it was fun. You know, you turn your brain off and it’s a good popcorn movie.”

Since when is THAT enough? Did I miss some memo that went out in the last twenty years that gave permission to artists to be “less challenging”? You know why that isn’t said about “Avatar”? ‘Cause “Avatar” is ABOUT something. It has something to say about humanity, the environment, friendship, self-worth and peace. But it also has the most kick-ass special effects in the history of the movies. That combination will only get you the most popular movie of all time.

“Clash of the Titans” is about nothing. It’s about being bloated and noisy and wasting the talents of many a good actor.

“Titans” is this year’s period-action-movie-entry into the spring box office sweepstakes. Many moons ago, “300” made a ga-zillion dollars in the springtime, normally a wasteland for money-making movie adventures. Since then, “10,000 B.C,” and “Watchmen” have attempted to recapture that magic. But only “300” was attempting something really new: an arresting visual style coupled with overflowing machismo and faithful recreation of visuals from the graphic novel brought people out. “Watchmen” was so faithful to its heady source material, wide audiences couldn’t connect. “Clash of the Titans” falls more into the “10,000 B.C.” category, a film that incorrectly thinks bigger is better.

I’m sure you know “Clash” is based on a 1981 film starring Harry Hamlin and Laurence Olivier. It concerns Zeus’ son Perseus and his quest to save Greece from The Kraken. The real stars of that film, however, were the classic stop-motion animation creatures of Ray Harryhausen. And even with the tens of millions of dollars spent in special effects by the update, the visual result mostly doesn’t compare. One impressive sequence in the new film is the action scene with giant scorpions. They look pretty damn real and are as intimidating as they need to be.

In sharp contrast is the Medusa sequence, which in the original was really scary! Here, it’s just OVERDONE. It may seem unfair to compare the two movies, but the “Clash” original and the remake comparison reveals what’s wrong with the idea of remakes and sometimes what’s wrong with big-budget moviemaking today. Medusa’s lair, in the original, was small and dark with few places to hide. In the remake, with their misguided idea of BIG, BIG, BIG, Medusa’s lair is huge! There is fire everywhere, it’s bright and has a GIANT LAVA PIT at the bottom. It’s way, way, way too much. In keeping it simple, the original has made a creepier sequence. Even Medusa’s big weapon, turning someone to stone with her stare, was more effective with a simple look and those sinister eyes. Now, she rushes their face, and with rubbery-CGI-precision, screams, sprays venom, shoots lights out of her eyes. It’s all too much.

That can be said of the whole film. It’s even too much to rush the 3D conversion on this and the many films they plan to convert in the next year. I saw it in 2D, ‘cause I was told the 3D was a little hack. I was told that you could see the 2D image behind a lot of the 3D effects. The worst part is, this hack process has been rewarded with $145 million in domestic box office. Theaters LOVE 3D ‘cause it gets people to the cinema as opposed to renting or downloading your favorite movie. But if they continue to treat it as a fast-food commodity, the popularity will fade and fade quickly. Thank god “Iron Man 2” isn’t in 3D…

Sam Worthington is a solid lead for any movie, but he shows his least amount of depth yet. He looks good and trudges through the movie as a true battle hero, but there’s no vulnerability, nothing to relate to as an audience. He showed more emotion as a cyber-creation in “Terminator: Salvation”. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes chew scenery as the gods Zeus and Hades, respectively, but maybe this looked cool thirty years ago, but now I gotta admit it was kind of goofy to see these grown men traipsing around Mount Olympus in goofy costumes.

Looking pretty good in the end is Mads Mikkelson, the villain from “Casino Royale”, practically unrecognizable as Draco, in charge of training Worthington’s Perseus. But soon they’re both involved in a dopey sword fight. You know, the kind where Draco is teaching Perseus, but the two basically swing with lethal force at each other to where one of them could die if there’s the slightest misstep. These guys aren’t supposed to kill each other, but they could at any moment. It’s the kind of scene you only get in a moronic movie. And the Kraken, as oft-repeated as “Release the Kraken” will no-doubt be for years to come, isn’t very effective. He barely gets to cause any havoc before he meets his fate.

Director Louis Leterrier, who I thought improved on the original when Universal decided to reboot “The Incredible Hulk”, doesn’t have that luck here. In retrospect, I should’ve noticed that Leterrier decided to reboot a lame movie in “Hulk”, with a skeptical CGI Hulk decided to “improve” in that by adding another Hulk-ish creature in The Abomination. So, he thought more was better then, and continues to think in that vein.

He’s wrong.

Directed by: Louis Leterrier
Release Date: April 2, 2010
Run Time: 106 Minutes
Country: USA/UK
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures

OFFICIAL TRAILER