The imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

courtesy of www.filmofilia.com

The second film in my “Tom Waits double feature” was Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.  This was a film that I had been anticipating because, not only was Tom Waits’ role huge, but I have a soft spot for carnivals and magic.  In those areas, this film surely delivered.  It was a wonderland for the eyes; however, before I get into that, onto the story!

Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is a former monk (of sorts) with the gift of wielding the imaginations of others, who made a bet with the devil [who goes by Mr. Nick (Tom Waits)] many centuries ago.  He won that bet, which granted him immortality.  However, centuries later, upon falling in love with a young woman, he made a deal with Mr. Nick, which resulted in him trading his first born child (who, at the age of 16, would belong to Mr. Nick) for youth.  Determined to keep his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), Dr. Parnassus makes another bet with Mr. Nick – the first to gather five souls, will be the winner of Valentina.  We watch as Dr. Parnassus and his crew of three take their traveling show across London with the hopes of gathering the souls he needs, before the day Valentina turns 16.

The juxtaposition of the modern day, real world with the world of the imagination works wonders, visually.  The film looked absolutely amazing and fantastic.  The traveling caravan in which Parnassus and crew lived and performed was also wondrous.  It appealed to the part of me that is fascinated with sideshow freaks, traveling carnivals of the 30′s, old world Eastern Europe, and gypsies.

This movie has been getting a lot of attention, mostly due to it being the last film in which Heath Ledger had a role (and filmed his last ever scene).  He was lovely and charming and funny as Tony, but for me, Tom Waits stole the show every time he was on screen.  At times, it seemed as if he was channeling his song The Black Rider, he was as cool as one could ever hope to be.  Verne Troyer was actually quite entertaining as Percy – the realistic slap in the face to Dr. Parnassus, and Andrew Garfield as Anton was cute.  Johnny Depp and Jude Law were fantastic as Heath Ledger’s “others” when Tony would travel into the Imaginarium; Colin Ferrell was a bit off, however.  Where Depp and Law are naturally funny and charismatic men, Ferrell seemed a bit forced in his attempting to be light and jovial.

The writing and direction seemed to be a bit jumbled at times.  It could have been that the story was made to be overly complicated, but it just seemed a bit off.  There were moments when the story dragged, moments when it seemed to be too speedy and incoherent.  But, overall, it was okay.

The original score did wonders in aiding the visuals.  This made this movie a feast for the senses.  In all, it wasn’t bad, but it also wasn’t great.  I would recommend seeing it, if for nothing other than the performance of Tom Waits.  The man was so cool, he would’ve charmed the soul from a nun.

The Princess and the Frog

Courtesy of www.nerdsociety.com

The second of my “double feature Christmas” was the latest Disney princess film, The Princess and the Frog.  Upon first hearing about this film, I was super excited that Disney was releasing a hand-drawn cartoon again.  Then, hearing that this film took place in Jazz Age New Orleans made me both excited and confused.

I thought this was a princess movie – how is that going to work? Leave it to Disney to find a way.

I’m also not going to lie – I was one of the ones who was excited that Disney was introducing its first black princess.  Initially, I couldn’t understand what the big deal was, nor why everyone was making it such.  Then, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to get excited about it.  Disney has now had princesses from all walks of life.

Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) is the heroine/main character of this film.  She plays a woman who dreams only of opening her own restaurant, and works extremely hard to do so – to the dismay of those surrounding her.  “I told you she wouldn’t come dancing” says one of her disappointed friends upon having the invitation turned down.  It seems that Tiana merely needs to learn to lighten up.

One day, around the time of Mardi Gras, a prince (Bruno Campos) named Naveen is coming to New Orleans, and everyone is up in arms about it.  Balls are being planned, a very rich friend of Tiana’s, Charlotte (Jennifer Cody), is planning to have him marry her.  We’re talking big deal.

Naturally, a villain also has his sights set on the prince.  This villain is named Dr. Facilier, or The Shadow Man (Keith David), and he oozes around the film like a mash-up of Jafar (Aladdin) and Scar (The Lion King).  He’s into his voodoo and black magic and devises a very devious plan which causes Prince Naveen, and ultimately Tiana, to become frogs.

In typical Disney fashion, there are talking/singing/dancing non-human creatures, hijinks, and songs galore.  The fairy godmother character is named Mama Odie (Jennifer Lewis) and she’s as fun as Grandmother Willow (Pocahontas).  It’s too bad that she’s not in the film for very long.

In all, this was a fun and cute film.  It was really nice to see Disney return to 2D animation.  The story was good and the characters were enjoyable.  Major points for setting!  What better place than the bayou, and what better time than the 20′s?

Coraline

Courtesy of pgteenspace.wordpress.com

This film belongs in a category that I call, “I really, really wanted to like it”.  I have been a huge fan of stop-motion animated films for my entire life (I grew up watching Wallace & Gromit, Creature Comforts, Vincent, etc.), and as such, I get really excited when I see that there are new stop-motion films made.

Coraline is an adaptation of the Neil Gaiman book (that, sadly, I have never read) of the same name.  It is about a little girl, named Coraline, who moves to a new town, and into a strange apartment complex – called the Pink Palace – with her workaholic parents.  After being repeatedly brushed aside and ignored by her parents, she explores and finds an alternate world which houses “Others” (versions of the inhabitants of the real world, but with buttons for eyes and different personalities).

Having not read the book, I cannot comment on how faithful this adaptation was, but I had a lot of issues with it.  For starters, while I realize that the story is told through the eyes of Coraline, the parents came off as overly harsh and neglectful.  It seemed as if whenever Coraline would even so much as speak to, or be in the same room as, one of her parents, she was immediately met with, “Go away, Coraline”.

There was also one scene that took place in the “Other world” that was really bothersome.  It involved a burlesque show put on by two of her female neighbors.  In a film that is geared, specifically towards children, I don’t exactly feel comfortable with a scene involving large breasts being exposed with only tiny seashells to cover the nipples.  I was pretty horrified to see that happen – even if it was only for a short while.

The film also took “creepy” to the extreme.  As a child, I personally would have been fine with it, but I was not like most children.  There is a boy (who I am hesitant to call Coraline’s friend – as she’s as mean to him as her parents are to her) whose “Other” has his mouth sewn shut, so as to prevent him from speaking, and ultimately irritating Coraline.  The villainous “Other Mother” was also quite terrifying when she went on her psycho tirades (think Jack Nicholson in The Shining).

The storyline was a bit much to follow, especially while taking in the scenery and characters.  In fact, in some spots, it seemed to get a little muddled.  This could be due to the waxing and waning pace that the film seemed to take.  It was never quite sure whether it wanted to be a slow-paced film, or a fast-paced one; some scenes seemed to drag while others flew by.  The film ended up being a bit messy.

With the above said, the best part of the film was just how visually stunning it was.  It was darkly vibrant and the attention to detail in the set design was impeccable.  The musical score (Bruno Coulais) was also well done – it’s nice to know that you can get great animated film scores from composers other than Danny Elfman.

In all, I am glad that I’ve seen this film, but it left much to be desired.

Monsturd

Courtesy of rockwitch.com

I was in the mood for shitty (no pun intended) movie that would render a chuckle or two.  Thank goodness for Netflix!  I saw this little gem on the instant watch list, and it just screamed at me.

In Butte County, California, an imprisoned serial killer manages to break free.  He seeks refuge in the sewer, while being chased by the police and FBI.  However, little do they know that a morally/ethically bankrupt scientist has polluted the sewer with man-eating, bacterial sludge.  The killer gets eaten alive by the sludge, and turns into a man-eating shit monster.

This movie is fun, and funny.  As a spoof, not only of those 1950′s horror/sci-fi films, but also the modern cop dramas on television, it does a good job of not leaving a single stone unturned.  Nothing is sacred in this film that is chock full of “toilet humor” (I’m on a roll tonight), gross-out gags, puns, and a soundtrack that is specially tailored for this film (that “Number 2″ song is darn catchy).  It is also full of the worst acting I have seen since Troll 2 (be still, my heart), terrible cinematography, and terrible… well, it’s all around terrible; with the exception of the shit-monster.  The monster is clearly where the budget of this film went, because it is a work of art – you can almost smell this poo coming off the screen when that thing is on.

I can appreciate a film that knows it’s bad, and just runs with it – which is exactly what this film did.  You could tell that everyone had a blast making it, and as such, I had a blast watching it; all the while, shaking my head in disbelief that someone actually thought of this storyline, and then created it.

This is the type of film that only a select type of person will enjoy.  If you are entertained by poop jokes, puns, and cheesy one-liners, this is the movie for you!  I also think that those who enjoy the films that Troma put out, you will probably enjoy this film.  It’s definitely not for the squeamish!

 

Zombieland

Courtesy of examiner.com

I was eagerly awaiting Zombieland, and actually had an opportunity to attend a free sneak peek of it – however, due to other circumstances, I completely forgot that it was happening, and had to wait until the opening weekend.

No matter, because it was definitely well worth the wait.

Zombieland is great fun.  Not too long (clocking in at 80 minutes), and pretty good action, it makes a great addition to the zombie franchise.  Jesse Eisenberg plays “Columbus”, a neurotic, very nervous 20+-year-old who teams up with “Tallahassee” (Woody Harrelson) – a bad-ass, zombie killing machine with an obsession with Twinkies.  In the hunt for a supply of Twinkies, the two get bamboozled by “Wichita” (Emma Stone) and her 12-year-old sister, “Little Rock” (Abigail Breslin).  The four eventually team up to become the ultimate zombie killing team.

“Columbus” narrates the film and gives us an explanation of how the U.S. became “Zombieland” (mad cow disease gone horribly, horribly wrong).  He also equips us with a list of rules that are periodically outlined in the film’s scenes.   One of the rules is to trust no one and “travel light” – hence referring to others as only the towns they’ve come from or are going to.

There are a few surprises in the film (one, for me, was very big and amazing – I will give away nothing), and they work quite well.  The greatest part of the film is just how funny it is.  I expected some humor (I mean, Woody Harrelson is great at that in every role that he plays), but it was great from every character.  And the gore (by now, you all know how I love the gore) is very well done and abundant.  You could tell that this was made by true zombie fans.

Definitely do not miss this one, you won’t be disappointed!

Mermaid in a Manhole

Courtesy of avistaz.com

Ever since my very first venture into the Japanese splatter film genre, I have been wanting to see this film.  Imagine my surprise when I went to a horror convention last week, and actually got to purchase my own copy!

I’ve had this film in my possession for about a week now, and today I finally got to sit down and watch it.  I was quite surprised by what I was to see.

The film’s cinematography is done in a way that induces thoughts of soap operas.  You know, that “overly polished, but attempting to look like real life” style.  It is quite a change from the typical “movie” style that the opening credits are done in.  I’ll have to give it another watch to see how I really feel about that.

The plot of Guinea Pig’s fourth installment, Mermaid in a Manhole, is that a lonely man, simply called The Artist, has recently lost his wife and is seeking inspiration for his paintings.  His secret place is a sewer which used to be a lush river, whose banks he used to hang out on during his childhood.  One day, his beloved pet/animal friend is dead and he frantically seeks to use it (I’m not sure what the animal was, by the way… it looked too big for a rat, but too mangy for much else) as artistic inspiration, when he encounters a mermaid.  He becomes enthralled and obsessed with said mermaid, and decides to take her home – you see, she has some sort of funky flesh-eating infection, and he believes he can cure it.  Also, by taking her home with him, he can just sit and paint her all day.

Mermaid in a Manhole is a very quiet film.  I mean that in a couple ways – first, while there is a lot of dialogue in parts, in most parts, there is silence with only the environmental sounds as the backdrop to the scenes.  It’s quite nice, and adds to the realism that the film was going for.  The cast is very small, which also aids to the quiet of the film.  In fact, you don’t really see more than those four characters until the end.

Now, with the above stated, I have to say that the amount of over-acting in this film is astounding.  Most of the over-acting comes from The Artist (Shigerui Saiki).   The man can overdo it with the best of them.  The nosy neighbor does her fair share, as well.  The Mermaid (Mari Somei) and The Artist appear to communicate telepathically – actually, The Mermaid appears to do all of her communicating telepathically and hams up her voice-overs just as well as the other two.  In fact, I think the only one who doesn’t ham it up in this is the boyfriend/husband/brother (their relationship is unclear) of the nosy neighbor – and this is possibly because he has so few lines.

Though Mermaid in a Manhole is included in the Japanese splatter library of film, it’s really not as gory or disgusting as you would think.  Sure, it’s not for the weak-stomached, what with its bleeding/worm spewing flesh eating mermaid virus, or the pus paint in seven colors.  But, I certainly have seen much worse.

If you want something that is extremely cheesy and fairly entertaining, with subtitles, I would recommend it.  It’s certainly not a bad film, but it definitely isn’t good.

9

Courtesy of midwaycinema9.com

I was eagerly anticipating 9 ever since I saw my very first trailer for it (thanks, Apple).  Post-apocalyptic stop-motion cartoons are things that don’t happen very often – and coupled with the cast of voice actors, I was sold.

The film was eerily beautiful, in a strange, desolate way.  And there were some sufficiently creepy moments (that doll’s head/snake-like creature, heebie jeebies for sure!).  My problem with the film was the story.

How many times do we have to get repeatedly let down by a movie that has all the perfect elements?

9 is a film about what happens when humans rely too much on their machinery, only to have the machinery be corrupted (“the machines lack humanity, so they are easily corrupted” as The Scientist (voiced by Alan Oppenheimer) tells us) when falling into the wrong hands.

In theory, 9 should have had a very strong story.  How many times have we seen technology built with the best intentions be used in the most inhumane way (hello, nuclear power!)?  However, the story was weak.

Clocking in at just 79 minutes, you feel that something is missing the entire time.  There is not too much build up between when 9 (voiced by Elijah Wood) comes to life, finds the others, and goes to rescue 2 (voiced by Martin Landau).  It seems that all the major action comes at once, and before you know it, the movie is over.

I heard a lot of, “That’s it?!” and found myself thinking the same.

To say that 9 was a let down would be a bit of an understatement.  To (writer/director) Shane Acker, I say better luck next time.

District 9

Courtesy of thecia.com

District 9 is the newest sci-fi movie to hit theatres thus far.  It is about a population of aliens that get stranded on Earth – specifically in Johannesburg, S. Africa, and the government agency that deals with them.

Although this film is a sci-fi suspense/thriller about aliens invading Earth, the manner in which it’s written is almost believable, and you wouldn’t think it so much of a stretch – at least, not from a humanistic perspective.

MNU (Multi National United), a government agency put into action to handle the alien situation sends one of its best agents (and by best, I mean naive), Wikus Van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) to handle the increasingly hostile situation between the citizens of Johannesburg – who want the aliens gone, and the citizens of District 9.  MNU’s plan is to ship the District 9 aliens off to a secluded camp-like area called District 10 – just outside of Nigeria.  Upon going into District 9 (with his camera crew and militia) to serve the aliens eviction notices, Wikus runs into trouble (naturally).

The film is shot in mockumentary style where we meet Wikus as he is preparing for his alien-eviction adventure and the people around him.  We watch as MNU schemes and plots its way through experimentation and arms confiscation; the citizens of Johannesburg exploit their new found alien neighbors; and the members of MNU attempt to explain and justify wrongs done by the corporation.  In the midst of all this, we meet the aliens – in particular, a father (Christopher Johnson) and his son who merely want to leave Earth and go back home.

This film was a good mish-mash of drama, action, comedy, sci-fi, and suspense all rolled into one.  Naturally, the film had its flaws, but it was well-scripted and well-acted, so it’s easy to forgive its flaws.  A good popcorn film, for sure.

Not for the weak-stomached who can’t handle people being blown up.

Julie & Julia

Courtesy of iwatchstuff.com

I saw this film today -as the third installment of my “Weekend of Three”.  I must admit that seeing the make-up of my fellow audience members started to make me a little bit nervous.  For me, the audience is as much a part of the movie-going experience as the movie itself.

The audience was comprised of 6 men (I counted) and a multitude of women – some of who were knitting.  My first thought was, “this better not be a romantic comedy in disguise”.

To my surprise (and relief), it was not.  It was (to sound very corny for a moment) a cute little “heartfelt” comedy about cooking, striving for greatness, and the battle to become a published author.

The characters were already married, so there was no need for a romance angle (thank god), so it just got straight into the story.  Now, I love Julia Child.  I love cooking shows.  I don’t know very much about the personal lives or histories of the people who do the cooking shows that I watch.  Nor do I care very much to know the personal stories of those people.  That said, this served as a nice little biopic into how Julia Child became the world famous professional chef that we all know and love.

Going into this film, I was a little bit confused about the plot.  Who is this “Julie” and why is she in a film about Julia Child if she has nothing at all to do with her life?  Well, I’ll tell you.

Julie Powell (Amy Adams) is a 29-going-on-30 New Yorker who is in the stage that all of us mid-to-late twenty somethings know very well – the “oh god, I’m turning 30″ stage.  She and her husband relocate to Queens from Brooklyn to be closer to his job, and she works as an insurance claims specialist for families who were directly affected by the September 11, 2001 tragedy in New York (this takes place in 2002).

Her friends are successful, professional business women who have personal assistants and access to way too much money.  Julie basically hates them.

With the aid of her husband, she gets this idea to start a blog in which she endeavors to cook every recipe in Julia Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” in a year.  After all, she enjoys cooking, and who doesn’t love good food?

So, this film parallels the life of Julie Powell and Julia Child (Meryl Streep).  We get to know 1940′s Julia Child who moves to France with her husband Paul (Stanley Tucci), an employee of the U.S. government.  We watch as Julia, bored with being a housewife, takes up cooking classes in an attempt to pass her time.

As the film unfolds, both the audience and Julie learn more and more about Julia’s life.  Julie through reading books with published letters that Julia and Paul wrote to their friends, as well as watching Julia’s old cooking shows (and that famed, memorable SNL sketch with Dan Akroyd playing Julia Child).

This was a good, very cute movie that didn’t try too hard to be anything other than just a good, very cute movie.  The characters were well-written, and the acting was great.

Don’t see it on an empty stomach.