American Grindhouse

2010
Directed By Elijah Drenner


SYNOPSIS

Robert Forster narrates this documentary tracing the history of exploitation films from the early days of film, to it's eventual death at the hands of porn, and it's influence on modern movies.

MY THOUGHTS

A great intro to the much-maligned and practically forgotten genre of exploitation films.

Exploitation films got their name because they had some content (usually sex and/or violence) that could be exploited to get people into theater seats. These cheaply made movies would find their audience in grimy, dingy, open all day/night theaters called grindhouses.

American Grindhouse covers the gamut of the subgenres of these films from titillating films of the silent era... to drug and prostitution films of the 1930's... to the monster, juvenile delinquent, nudist, burlesque, and teen beach movies of the 1950s... to the drug and biker films of the 60's... to the blaxploitation, Nazisploitation, extreme gore, women in prison films in the 1970's.

These films were mostly made far from Hollywood... yet many were able to influence Hollywood in a big way. The documentary is told in a very entertaining and fast paced way using dozens of clips of both the indie films and their Hollywood spawn.

American Grindhouse primarily uses exploitation film fans (and mainstream directors) John Landis and Joe Dante for interviews. They and the other interviewees (mostly filmmakers of these 'classics') all have a strong passion for these movies that are far from artistic masterpieces. They know they're not discussing high art and have a lot of fun. No snobbish film critics pop up with long-winded diatribes to slow the whole thing down.

One of the film's few flaws was to completely forget Roger Corman, the king of B-movies of the 50's, 60s, and 70's. They show a few posters of his films, but since he is still very much alive, his insight could have been fascinating. It's a glaring omission.

If you already consider yourself to be an expert on grindhouse films, you probably won't learn much new here.... but American Grindhouse serves as an excellent Exploitation 101 course for the newbie.

My Son, My Son What Have Ye Done

2009
Directed By Werner Herzog


SYNOPSIS

A mentally unstable man (Michael Shannon) murders his mother. Through a series of flashbacks we find out the strange circumstances that drive him to kill.

MY THOUGHTS

Pretentious bullshit.

My Son, My Son What Have Ye Done was produced by David Lynch and the film features many of the hallmarks of his directoral career (extreme oddball characters, use of music, etc.) I couldn't help but to think of Lynch's latest film as director, Inland Empire. Both films are overly ridiculous and obtuse. They are very pale copies of David Lynch's earlier films, or quality films for that matter. Film can be overly artsy and still be good, if they have something to say. My Son and Inland Empire do not.

Director Werner Herzog is a unique talent and it is painful to see him try and ape another's style and utterly fail to make a decent film.

In the lead, Michael Shannon is completely awful. He creates a completely unsympathetic character who never once seems to be connected to reality or the people around him. He plays the role so over the top (or completely flat) that I found myself laughing unintentionally at his performance, drawing me out of the film.

The film features some excellent character actors to fill out the main cast but all are wasted. William Dafoe, Chloe Sevigny, Brad Dourif, and Udo Kier are given little to do but react. It's hard to empathize with them either since we learn basically nothing about them and they do nothing. I'm guessing the actors all signed up for the film just to work with Herzog.

As a fan of both Herzog and Lynch, I found the film to be nearly unwatchable.

Batman: Under The Red Hood

2010 - Warner Animation
Directed By Brandon Vietti


SYNOPSIS

5 years after The Joker (John Di Maggio) killed his second Robin, Batman (Bruce Greenwood) must contend with a new menace in Gotham City, The Red Hood (Jensen Ackles.) This new vigilante astounds Batman with his fight moves, and the Caped Crusader quickly determines it is Jason Todd, his second Robin, somehow back from the dead. Now Batman must discover how he is still alive and how (and if) he should stop his old partner.

MY THOUGHTS

DC Comics and Warner Animation have put an outstanding series of direct-to-DVD films, and this is probably the best of the lot yet.

Like the others, this is based on actual story from the comics, and they remain faithful to the characters in the comic books, which are often tweaked and altered for feature films.
One of the strengths of the film's story is that it didn't waste any time with a dull Bruce Wayne subplot. It is ALL Batman all the time.
But on the other hand the big drawback to Red Hood is it's short run time. The film clocks in at only 1 hour and 15 minutes. It could have been longer but that probably would have been added Wayne-filler and ruined the taught pace of the story. So it's a strength and a drawback at the same time.

Fanboys would probably chide the film for not casting Kevin Conroy (Batman) and Mark Hamill (Joker) because of their long involvement with the 1990s Batman animated series and the many offshoots of that show... but Greenwood and DiMaggio are excellent. The rest of the cast is also strong. Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing, Jason Isaacs as Ra's Al Ghul, and Jensen Ackles as the Red Hood round out the major players.

The film is a visual delight. The high-quality (2-D) animation rivals any theatrical release. That is where the DC series triumphs over Marvel's similar line of direct-to-disc series (which look like 1990's TV animation.)

The staging of the fight scenes are cleverly done and look more realistic than the average animated fare. 'Red Hood' also offers a more realistic and less stylish Gotham City than the Batman animated series, much like the Gotham of the recent live-action Christopher Nolan films compared with the earlier Burton/Schumacher series.


The film is an excellent addition to any comic book geek's collection, as long as they are old enough. The story is very dark and not for children.

The Good Heart

2009
Directed By Dagur Kari


SYNOPSIS

After his 5th heart attack, cantankerous Jacques (Brian Cox) is rushed to the hospital. He meets a young homeless man Lucas (Paul Dano) recovering from a suicide attempt. When recovered, Jacques takes the young man under his wing to potentially take over his dive bar should he die. Jacques tries to instill his rough-around-the-edges ways in Lucas, but his lessons aren't a perfect match for the kind-souled young man.

MY THOUGHTS

The Good Heart brought Brian Cox and Paul Dano back together. It was the first time they worked together since Dano's debut in 2001's L.I.E. They showed a strong chemistry in the earlier film and it carries over to this one. It's The Good Heart's major strength.

The well-shot bleak cinematography is balanced by an occasionally wickedly hilarious script but the film has more faults than strengths.

The story is improbable. Why would this old man, who dislikes and distrusts everyone, would take Lucas (who he barely even knows) under his wing?

Why is Lucas homeless? This is never fully explained. He seems like an intelligent, level-headed,  and 'good hearted' guy (sorry) and not a typical homeless man. "Because I want to be" is not a decent excuse. No reason is given for his suicide attempt. You could guess it stems from the homelessness... but if he chose to be homeless, he would be happy. Ugggh!


The love story between Lucas and the French girl is underdeveloped and seems forced, just to create tension between Jacques and Lucas.

The film's end is very unsatisfying and ruins much of the good aspects of the story, but I will not give it away, if you choose to take this bleak journey.

Hannah And Her Sisters

1986
Directed By Woody Allen



SYNOPSIS

Hannah's (Mia Farrow) marriage is in bad shape because her husband (Michael Caine) has fallen in love with her sister (Barbara Hershey.) Meanwhile, Hannah's hypochondriac ex-husband (Woody Allen) falls for her sister (Diane Wiest) and she must deal with her aging parents (Lloyd Nolan + Maureen O'Sullivan.)

MY THOUGHTS

One of Woody Allen's greatest triumphs.

The film is remarkably similar to Allen's other films during the 1980's and early 90's. Most of his films feature large ensemble casts and deal with romantic relationships in a sophisticated manner that can shift from incredibly funny to dead serious from scene to scene. 'Hannah' is no different, except the (Oscar-winning) screenplay is a bit sharper and the performances reflect this. Everything from the New York setting, to the jazz score, to even the font used in the credits sync with his other films during the era... except the film is better.


One of the highlights of the 80's and 90's (and later) Allen films is the great casts he could assemble because everyone wanted to work with him. Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest both won Best Supporting Oscars for their roles. The rest of the cast are lines with familiar faces including Max von Sydow, Julie Kavner, Sam Waterston, Carrie Fisher, John Turturro, and in a teeny-tiny role, Julia Louis Dreyfuss.

Hannah And Her Sisters is Woody Allen at the top of his game as a director and writer, and it is one of his finest films, along with Annie Hall and Manhattan. If you have never seen a Woody Allen film, this is an excellent place to start.

The Beast With 1,000,000 Eyes

1955
Directed By David Kramarsky



SYNOPSIS

A family of three lives at a remote farm in the wilderness, along with a farmhand. Following a piercing noise, the mute farmhand and all the wild and domesticated animals begin to attack the humans. The family begins to suspect the noise wasn't an airplane... and could quite possibly be something from another world.

MY THOUGHTS

As a lover of so bad they're good sci-fi and horror cheese from the 1950's... I can definitely say The Beast With 1,000,000 Eyes is flat out horrible.... and not in a good way.

I wonder if Alfred Hitchcock possibly saw this film and it inspired him to make a nature-gone-mad film properly a few years later. What separated his The Birds from the rest of the flock of horror films... was that it never explained why the fowl attacked. Any explanation would be ridiculous. That's all too evident here. An alien lands and has the ability to 'see through the eyes' of lesser beings and control them. Why? I don't know. If the (two-eyed) alien explained why he did this during the film's climax... my brain had already atrophied and I missed it. His explanation of that would raise the ridiculousness to new heights.

'Beast' is a very low budget affair with a brief run-time, cheap special effects (even for the time) and less than stellar performances. It's the sort of film that should have ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. But the films that aired on MST3K were more-often-than-not fun to watch. Beast With 1,000,000 Eyes is not.

Afterschool

2008
Directed By Antonio Campos


SYNOPSIS

Rob (Ezra Miller) is an unhappy loner at a prep school. He joins an extracurricular video club and one of his assignments is to get video of the school's hallways. While doing so, he captures the overdose deaths of popular twin girls. He then gets assigned to make a video to memorialize the beloved girls.

MY THOUGHTS

A unique look at the life of the modern teen.

Despite it's uniqueness, Aftershool in many ways is reminiscent of Gus Van Sant's 2003 film Elephant. The film's use of uncomfortably overlong shots convey the authentic unease of the high school years matches the earlier film. The natural performances filled with many dialogue-free passages and dark subject matter also ape Elephant. Despite the similarities, the two films are very different beasts.

One thing Elephant was lacking was one central performance to unify it together. Ezra Miller shines with his sensitive and complex portrayal of Rob. He perfectly captures the angst and alienation of the teen years without cliche.

The only thing Rob can connect to is YouTube-type videos. The film makes a definite and valid comment how the internet (from porn to violent videos) is disconnecting us all from communicating directly with each other.

Afterschool could easily be called 'boring' or 'dull' by the average film-goer. Its style may be oft-putting for some, but its realism makes for a compelling film. Thankfully, we still have filmmakers who try to make something against the norm.