The List

"It's on The List"

I say these words often, and usually when I do, you can hear the capital letters. The List is sometimes a source of much frustration. The List is often a source of great joy. The List is also neverending.

This List I refer to is something I'd wager you have as well. I'm fairly certain of this, because I've seen that same weary look in other movie bloggers' eyes when they say those same four words back to me. Since I don't think I can draw this out anymore, and if you haven't figured it out by now, The List I refer to is the list that we all have...typed out somewhere on your computer I'd wager...of "Movies To See".

I got two good ones scratched off mine this weekend in DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE KILLER. That's two down, a few hundred to go. I'm aware that I could whittle it down in a hurry if I ever really wanted to...however, I'd wager that would involve me giving up all other pass times, and an unhealthy chunk of the outside world.

Today though I find myself thinking about parts of The List - specifically parts that I want to scratch off soon. There's a reason why I'm thinking about this today, a reason which I'll get further into tomorrow. But for now, I need your help.

What movies should I be sure are on my list?

Suggest me a few if you don't mind. Perhaps ones that took you a few years to finally see, but blew your mind when you did. Perhaps something foreign or classic...something not quite on the new release wall. Perhaps something independent...or even *gasp* a documentary!

Lemme hear those suggestions people, and come on back tomorrow to find out why I'm asking.

Back to Basics - DOUBLE INDEMNITY

During a recent movie blogger meet-up, Bob and I were talking about what we haven't seen. I feigned an expression of shock on some of Bob's never-seens, but having already mentioned a few of mine, Bob had the ultimate comeback.

"Well yeah Hatter, I might not have seen those.....but you still haven't seen Barbara Stanwyck command a staircase in DOUBLE INDEMNITY".

Much as it pains me to admit this sometimes, Bob was right. My cinematic life wasn't nearly complete with this Wilder classic missing. However, thanks to the 1001 Series, I have filled that hole in my soul. My thoughts on the film after the jump.

If I had one wish, it would be to write something that is even one quarter as clever as DOUBLE INDEMNITY.

Let's face facts, even if I wrote every single day for the rest of my life, what are the odds that someone would spend their Saturday night reading what I have done? No, my enlightenment and entertainment courtesy of Cain, Chandler, and Wilder isn't likely to be passed on to someone reading these paltry babblings.

I mean it - I would give my right arm to think up something as twistedly poetic as "How could I have known that murder could smell like honeysuckles?".

Indeed it is the writing that makes much of this movie work, after all - how many murder films would have the stones to begin with the protagonist confessing to a murder? It's a brilliant touch since it takes the pressure off "whodunnit", and in a rare move pushes our questioning brains toward "howdunnit", "whydunnit", and "whodhedunnitto". The movie is even aware enough to put meaning behind the usual dry, sombre, over-dubbed narration. By having Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) tell the story to a dictaphone, the usually cliche'd narration has meaning and context.

The crux of the narrative is nothing original - amidst a shady affair, a man and woman conspire to commit fraud and murder. What DOUBLE INDEMNITY seems hellbent on telling us, is that fraud and murder are easy - Getting away with it is the hard part. To prove its point, the movie hands us more than one moment where our eyes widen thinking our antiheroes are about to be discovered...and reminds us that sometimes an entire plan can hinge on the ability to start a car.

In a way, I feel bad for Neff, since it seems apparent very early on that Phyllis (Stanwyck) is playing him like a flute. She has her routine down pat, playing an even mix of shrinking violet, unwitting seductress, and kept woman. She measures her every word and gesture, and before he knows it can have even the most upstanding man considering doing something tremendously stupid.

But let's face facts guys - when we consider the stupidest things we've ever done, doesn't the prospect of a woman's attention factor into it an awful lot?

The thing is though, the atrocities of DOUBLE INDEMNITY could be pinned on Phyllis, but it doesn't take much persuasion for Neff to go along with the plan. What's worse is the way he takes the broad strokes of scam, and with detached calculation ups the ante for the least risk and most reward. This isn't a crime of passion - it's cold and methodical.

Phyllis might have wanted to burn it all down...but Neff is the one telling her where to throw the match.

In a dark story like this, we can only hope that we as the audience have someone to stand up for us - to champion what is right, as opposed to what is easy. It's possible that such a part was never played better than Edward G. Robinson as Barton Keyes. His talents as an investigator make his primary goal in life something worth believing in: the truth. He pushes those below him to search harder for the truth, and doesn't back down when he thinks those above him are ignoring it.

This penchant for fact would be enough for most characters, but Keyes is given many of the best lines which makes him an icon of dry wit. Who else would entice someone to accept a drink by pointing out that the Martini will come with two olives? Further, who can assign such character to a stranger's name? ("Margie! I bet she drinks from the bottle!")

In a lot of ways, I do need to thank Bob for reminding me of how badly I needed to see this film. This film had me...From the first haunting image of a silhouette crutching towards the camera as the opening credits roll, to the poetic final shot of a cigarette being lit. This is a story about people thinking that they have cast their rotten lots in life aside, only to discover that they have drawn themselves a much worse one.

But Hatter, Is It List-Worthy?... Without a doubt. This movie is an example of story, direction, and acting all coming together and defying convention. By throwing out the playbook, Wilder has taken the onus off putting the puzzle together, and has instead allowed us the time to sit back and understand just how complicated the individual pieces are.

Take Me Out To The Ballgame

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 5 - 28 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

Are you ready for more film festival coverage???!!!

No...wait...don't leave...where are you going?

The next big event coming up on The Dark of The Matinee is a Toronto happening I've had my eye on for a while, and will finally be able to be a part of.

Mid June in Toronto is all about North By Northeast, a music festival that makes this city a concert Mecca for a week. Some of the bands taking part this summer include Iggy and The Stooges, De La Soul, Mudhoney, Buck 65, Sloan, and 645 (!) others. And lucky me; along with the concert series, the festival also has a very cool film programme centred around music movies.

So in beginning June 13th, watch for coverage of some very cool music-related films... and who knows, I might even talk about a movie you stand a chance of seeing this time.

In the meantime, for your reading fulfillment I give you...

Some of you thanked me for seeing SHREK FOREVER AFTER so that you didn't have to. Allow me, in turn, to thank Joel for seeing MACGRUBER so that I don't have to!

An indie film I have my eye on is PLEASE GIVE with Oliver Platt and Catherine Keener. Alex the Film Forager has seen it, and says it's pretty good!

Yojimbo, going back to the summer that irreversibly changed movie-going.

Our Movie Mobster Heather has been counting down the best movie villains. Yesterday she arrived at the home stretch.

One movie I was sorry to miss at TIFF when I sat it out last autumn was AGORA. Reviews for it are starting to surface - like The Audient's - and it seems it's pretty good!

One last Toronto touch for the week, Mike at You Talking to Me has a pretty good piece on Toronto's newest cinema haven, The Toronto Underground Cinema.

Enjoy!

Room for Squares (Free Movies at Dundas Square)

As I continue to wait for a summer movie to dazzle me, at least I can take solace in the fact that I can see some assured fun times on a big screen in Toronto this summer. Unfortunately, they are primarily fun times I've already seen, but they still make for a good night out never the less.

Dundas Square is a little patch of our city that looks like something out of BLADE RUNNER, and every summer they show free movies outside once a week (including, apropriately enough, BLADE RUNNER two summers ago). Sometimes you see things you've never seen on a big screen before, sometimes you have to laugh as things like streetcars and fire engines distract your concentration, and sometimes you even get rained on. Still - lots of fun.

This year they're calling it the "Safecracker Series". Here's what's on deck, and there's a few I'm already circling on the calender...

THE HOT ROCK - July 6th, 8:30pm
A FISH CALLED WANDA - July 15th, 8:30pm
OUT OF SIGHT - July 20th, 8:30pm
THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR Double Feature - July 27th
('68 Original 6:30: '99 Remake 9pm)
OCEAN'S 11 Double Feature - August 3rd
('60 Original 6:30, '01 Remake 9pm)
CATCH ME IF YOU CAN - August 10th, 8:30pm
INSIDE MAN - August 17th, 8:30pm
THE BANK JOB - August 24th, 8:30pm
THE ITALIAN JOB Double Feature
('69 Original 6:30: '03 Remake 9pm)

Wicked and Weird (SUPER 8 Trailer)

Note: I've fixed the embedded audio for Episode 13 of The Matineecast. You can now give it a listen two posts back, or in the sidebar. I'm working on fixing the iTunes feed - Stay tuned.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - thank goodness Wednesdays are trailer day here on TDOTM. makes the morning after blogger pub night much more manageable! At least this week, we stumbled on to a potential creedo for this blog:

"The Dark of The Matinee - Now with just a whisper of horse shit."

I know many of you have seen this already, but given that one of J.J. Abrams' properties wrapped up this past weekend, it seemed like a fitting time to look forward to a future one. (Is it summer 2011 yet?)

Review: SHREK FOREVER AFTER * *

When a storybook character is having a midlife crisis, it's safe to say that we should just close the storybook and move on.

SHREK FOREVER AFTER (also mercifully known as SHREK: THE FINAL CHAPTER) begins by introducing us to Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn). This little imp is known for duping unsuspecting patrons into sucker deals, and has his eye on getting control of Far Far Away. He had King Harold and Queen Lillian (John Cleese and Julie Andrews) all primed and ready to swindle, when Shrek found Princess Fiona, and...well...y'know.

That was the start of things for Shrek and Fiona (Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz), who went on to ass add three little bundles of joy to their brood, and like many new families soon find themselves in a rut of feeding, changing, play dates, and time spent with the same old friends. It's enough to drive an ogre crazy, and it ultimately does. Shrek throws a temper tantrum during his triplets birthday party and storms off like an ogre.

It's around here that Rumpelstiltskin catches up with him and offers him one of his too-good-to-be-true deals. Shrek can go back to being an intimidating care-free ogre for a day. In exchange, 'Stiltskin will take a random day from Shrek's childhood. Doesn't sound so bad, does it?

Bad news for our smelly green hero - 'Stiltskin took the day he was born. Thus, his deal with Harold and Lillian came to pass, swindeling them out of their kingdom. Likewise Shrek and Fiona aren't married, he has no children, ogres are hunted within the kingdom, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) lives a life of servitude, Puss (Antonio Banderas) is fat and lazy...essentially it's Bedford Falls with an imp playing Mr. Potter.

Shrek can undo it all, but he has a day to do so, otherwise...well...y'know.

More than one person has told me that it was all the pop culture references in the first Shrek movie that made it work so well. I've never bought that. I've always believed the fact that SHREK was based on a great story was what made that first film work so well. In many ways, it felt like the fairy tale that The Brothers Grimm forgot. A clever one that felt fresh in the face of all the animated sweetness we'd been handed for so many years.

Now, by this fourth entry in the series, we've all learned what happens when clever becomes complacent. It's bad enough that much of the winks and nods are ones we've already seen, but now they've all been grafted on to that same "what if?" story that we've seen far too many times. Even with that in mind, I still wanted to enjoy this Shrek offering a lot...but sadly the amount of times I laugh per film has been dwindling as the series has gone on. Now I'm only snickering at throwaway lines (Donkey to Gingerbread Man: "What you talkin' 'bout cracker?").

There is never a moment in SHREK FOREVER AFTER that you think things might not work out. Every new road block these characters encounter seems to come with instructions tacked to them on how they can be overcome. Yes Far Far Away is still bright and beautiful, and yes it's fun to hear the flute sample from The Beastie Boys' "Sure Shot" worked into a fairy tale...but that wasn't what made the first chapter work, and it certainly isn't enough any more.

Then there's the continuing love affair with 3-D. While I loved what Dreamworks did with HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, there wasn't a single detail of SHREK FOREVER AFTER I felt merited a 3-D experience. Thus, I opted for a 2-D screening. While I can see a moment or two where the 3-D might have been nifty, there wasn't a moment I thought I was missing out. Memo to Hollywood: We're over the novelty, you officially have to try harder. Don't believe me? Look at the opening weekend box office for this film.

Indeed, watching Shrek work through his midlife crisis is about as entertaining as listening to Big Bird consider mutual funds, or sit patiently while Goofy gets his biopsy results. Stilskin might have been a fun character on his own, and Puss seems to own every line he is given, but ten years on I have officially grown bored of anything and everything that happens in Shrek's swamp.

Sorry Shrek my man. Next time try buying yourself a sportscar...might make for a more entertaining movie.

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on SHREK FOREVER AFTER.

Midnight Radio: The Matineecast Episode 13

For this episode of the Lammy-nominated Matineecast, we return to Merry Ol...and irony rears its ugly head.

When you get to the part of this episode where I respond to Hot Docs feedback, please know that I had no clue a Lammy nomination for said coverage was coming. I mean it - I really wasn't trying to bitch about people's lack of enthusiasm, but I fear it'll come across that way. Let me annotate my reaction to the reaction by saying - I thank you all for the honest feedback. Keep it coming!

You'll also notice a bit of a format switch starting with this episode. I've resisted the temptation for six months or so, but I figure if someone as big as Kevin Smith can get away with this, so can I.

(Take bets on how long it takes me to get a cease and desist notice now)

I give you the Carl Crawford episode



Here's what's in store in episode thirteen...

Runtime
64 minutes, 36 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. My brief introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Q & A with this episode's guest, Andy Hart of Fandango Groovers movie blog. (1:50)
3. COME TALK TO ME - Listener feedback on Hatter's Hot Docs coverage (8:27)
4. WHAT'S GOIN' ON - The return of Cameron Crowe, Kauffman moonlights, and a more mainstream batch of award nominees. (12:49)
5. THE NEW SLANG - Review and reaction of ROBIN HOOD (20:30)
6. BEST OF YOU - Andy & Hatter count down their five favorite summer movies (36:04)

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!

Back to Basics - THE GENERAL

This past week, I participated in a blog-a-thon about what I consider my best post. For a moment or two, I paused on a piece I did about films once drubbed that are now considered classics. In the article, I mention CITIZEN KANE, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION.

Had I waited a few more months to write it, I could well have added Buster Keaton'e THE GENERAL to the list. As it is, it's the next essential film up in the 1001 Series. My full thoughts on it after the jump.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that man of you aren't exactly aficionados of silent film. In that case it stands to reason that you might not have ever seen THE GENERAL...perhaps never even heard of it. It's the brainchild of one of the greatest legends in Hollywood: Buster Keaton, a silent-era comedian like no other.

In this film, which he also directed and edited, Keaton plays Johnny Gray. Johnnie is a locomotive engineer who loves two things in life above everything else - his darling fiancee Annabelle Lee, and his train, "The General". While back home in Georgia calling on his fiancee, The American Civil War commences. While Johnny dearly wants to fight and make his beloved proud of him, he is turned away at the enlistment office. The Confederacy finds him far more valuable as an engineer - they just choose not to tell him.

With no excuse for not putting on a uniform, he is branded a coward, and deemed unworthy of Annabelle.

However, the war finds him anyway, as his train gets hijacked by Union spies. A gaggle of Confederates give chase, but only Johnny seems determined to reclaim his stolen train - and though he doesn't even know it yet, his darling Annabelle.

What makes Buster Keaton such a unique comedian, is the manner in which his comedy stems from struggling with objects. His own locomotive isn't always co-operative with him in this story, but his dilemmas are often more basic than that. Here is a character who first can't get a cannon to fire properly, only to eventually have it armed to the teeth and pointed right back at him.

Sometimes his fight with objects is far more sublime, such as the moment he has emptied the contents of a sack of boots on to the ground to use it in disguising Annabelle. You can't help but laugh when he realizes he's missing his own boot and must now find a needle in a stack of needles. Such struggles are charming, witty, and original. They allow for Keaton to express himself via physical comedy without crossing over into Three-Stooges-like slapstick.

Keaton was blessed with one of the most expressive faces in history, and he uses it to great effect to convey exasperation, determination, sadness, and best of all nervousness. Such is the case when he's trying to rally a battalion of soldiers who get picked off one at a time by an unseen sniper. Keaton has gone to great lengths to make us laugh in this movie, but he can also entertain us with a hesitant glance at the last soldier standing.

Strangely though, as I aluded to in my intro, this film flopped when it was released in 1927. Critics thought it too dramatic to be a comedy, and too funny to be a drama. At first this shocked me to read, and then I remembered that people also chided The Beatles for The White Album when it was released. Perhaps fans of the silent era weren't ready for something so epic - after all, it would be another few years before Chaplin would follow with silent epics like CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES.

Or perhaps they just "didn't get it".

Nowadays, I fear mainstream audiences can't appreciate a nuanced gem like THE GENERAL. Leaving the dialogue out and zeroing in on physical humour might just be too much to ask in this ADD-riddled era. Little do they know that actors from Rowan Atkinson to Johnny Depp owe a lot to Keaton and his immense physical expressiveness. And seldom was Keaton's talent in better fighting form than it was in THE GENERAL.

But Hatter, Is It List-Worthy?... Absolutely. Quite simply, this is one of the touchstones in cinema history. It would influence GONE WITH THE WIND and BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, all while being sometimes sad, often brave, and always funny. It's a film like few others, and while it's a little hard to track down these days, is worth every bit of effort.

Relax

Today, I Feel Like This...

What I See (My Best Post Blog-a-Thon)

He Shot Cyrus is hosting a blog-a-thon this weekend entitled "My Best Post". It was actually kinda tough to decide what I wanted to submit after looking through nearly three years of posts...and not because they were all so stellar!

In the end, I chose a piece that I wrote as a guest spot on another site...mostly because it finally gave me an excuse to post it here...

**********

When and how did this happen?

One moment, I’m watching movie after movie and soaking each one in for all it’s worth. The movies I watched furthered my amusement and cultured my opinion – sometimes all at once. But then I had to go and do something to screw that blissful existence up. The days of watching for watching’s sake were gone, and the days of near compulsion had begun. The seismic shift that set this tremor of geekdom off was seemingly innocent: one day, I started a movie blog.

It all started innocently enough. I was bored of blogging of my day-to-day life, and thought I might get more of a creative spark – and likewise the potential for a wider audience – if I focused my writings on a particular passion. Movie watching seemed the natural fit, since beyond listening to music it was the only thing I did excessively (sidebar: what would life have turned into if I’d started a music blog instead?).

So with a clean slate and a new url, I began to chronicle my own cinemania, and for a while everything was just fine. Then after a year or so, I started to notice a slight change in how I watched movies and what I watched. I was no longer just watching for watching’s sake. Any new movie I saw was seen through the eyes of a studious wannabe critic. I’d ponder star ratings mid-film, burn quotes into my memory for soundbiting purposes, and even began (horrors!)…taking notes!

That was bad enough, but it all got worse during the 2008 Toronto International Film Festival. This is the time of year that I’m actually on vacation – yes, I take time away from work to watch movies nonstop. In ’08, this experience went from being nothing but fun, to actually becoming work. It wasn’t enough to watch three or four screenings a day, I started filling in the remaining free hours of the day writing about what I’d just seen.

The shift in my attitude was probably best exemplified the night I returned to my apartment at midnight, knowing full well I had to wake up at six a.m. the next morning. I thought to myself “I could write about one of the movies I’ve seen today, or I can hit the hay now and get a solid six hours sleep”. To paraphrase INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE: I chose.....poorly.

Am I now writing about the movies I watch, or am I watching movies in order to write about them? Have I become completely incapable of turning my analytical attitude off and quite simply be entertained by a movie I’ve never watched before. My nerdy movie obsession seemed bad enough with the fact that the “To See” list is literally never-ending. Soaking all of these titles in with half my brain focused on what I’m going to say about it later damn near takes that obsession and turns it into full on lunacy.

Now indeed, I realize, that the easy answer is to just “stop writing”. Believe me, this fact isn’t lost on me, and was actually underlined by a recent conversation with a pro blogger who reminded me that while I might not get paid to do what I do, I have the luxury of quite simply deciding not to do it. Unfortunately I fear that I can’t go back; that even if I was blocked from every port of access to the Internet, I could never again watch a movie “just for fun”. I’ll always be making mental notes just in case the movie comes up in conversation and someone asks me “what did you think?”

Sometimes, I think back to the first movie I saw. I remember being that wide-eyed five year old kid sitting next to his granddad and watching Pinocchio valiantly try to escape from Monstro the Whale in his tiny boat. I wonder if that kid would even recognize the hit-count junkie of a grown-up he’d turn into.

But before the shame can truly take over, I remind myself of one simple fact. That I’m writing about something I truly love. I’m doing it even though nobody is paying me to do it…I’m a champion of positivity in a very cynical community…and that I’ve met a lot of really great people, and had some truly exciting opportunities because of it.

So indeed, I might be past the point of just being able to “watch a movie”. I might have fed the figurative mogwai after midnight and now there’s no changing him back. But if that change affords that Monstro-fearing kid the opportunity to express his cinematic thoughts on a limitless scale…then indeed the Gizmo I once was is gone for good – I’m Stripe now, and watching movies just got a lot more interesting because of it.

Take a look at other fine entries in this Blog-a-Thon over at He Shot Cyrus.

Everybody's Talkin' 5 - 21 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

Dear LAMB Members...

Six Lammy Nominations (?)
Thanks.
A Million.

Sincerely,
Hatter.

For your reading fulfillment, I give you...

The Flick Chick, who has seen THE TROTSKY - a flick I'm really looking forward to seeing soon.

CS, who I'll be meeting by this time next week, wonders what happened to Val Kilmer?

Blake's back! After a few months of sporadic posting, one of my favorite bloggers got his groove back. Check out this post where he bemoans suburban movies.

In the wake of ROBIN HOOD, Fandango takes a look at historical accuracy at the movies.

Perhaps its apropos that Simon watched former Palme D'Or winner ELEPHANT this week, given that The Cannes Film Festival is wrapping up this weekend.

Speaking of intelligent film, He Shot Cyrus is in the midst of chronicling a month of foreign film watching.

Enjoy!

Review: EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP * * * 1/2

the debate of what is and is not "art" has been raging for centuries. In this century, the question sometimes centres on artists who forsake brush and canvas for spray paint and public wall. Now, we have a doc that tells their story.

Or perhaps, a doc that is just another chapter in their story...

In the opening moments of EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP, Banksy - silhouetted and voice disguised - informs us that this isn't a film about him. The reason is because he found the man who came wanting to make a film about him so much more interesting, that he decided to turn the tables and make this film about his would-be filmmaker. But more on that in a bit.

This doc begins by looking at the street art scene and how it took off just after the turn of the millennium. We watch as artists like Banksy, Invader and Shepard Fairey go cloak-and-dagger through the shadows of Paris, London and Los Angeles. In an instant of daredevil creativity, they can turn something as commonplace as an overpass into an original, often momentary, piece of art. To call what they do graffiti is an insult - there is a lot of forethought and imagination that goes into their splashes of brilliance.

Following a step behind all of these visionaries is Thierry Guetta; Invader's cousin and a man who might as well have a camcorder welded to his hand. He gets drawn into the scene by first documenting the work of these artists - including the ever elusive Banksy who takes him on as a wingman/protege/biographer franken-weirdo.

Guetta, who looks like the love child of Peter Lorre and Eugene Hutz, first tries to assemble the hours of film he's shot as a documentary. This "film" comes off as an ADD nightmare, giving Banksy and his contemporaries the first hint that while Guetta is a nice guy and films everything around him, he hasn't the foggiest clue what he's doing.

With the film in dry-dock, Guetta turns his eye towards joining these artists he's spent years chronicling. He dubs himself Mr. Brainwash, and looking to specifically follow in Banksy's footsteps, makes a meteoric jump and becomes the toast of the L.A. art scene. Again though, we're left to wonder whether he has the foggiest clue what he's doing.

What makes this film such a provocative experience, is the question it leaves us with. Namely, "Is Mr. Brainwash for real?"

If what we see in this film is complete truth, than what we witness is the art world going haywire for a talent that has no more skill than I do. I mean I'm not bad, but I'm not that good - and evidently, neither is Mr. Brainwash. His pieces have no meaning, no technique, no cohesive statement. As his circus of a debut approaches, he's an artist obsessed with stoking his own legend...and not an artist obsessed with earning legendary status.

Quite simply, he's a hack without a single original idea. He can create pretty pictures, but they are nowhere near as exciting, inventive, or iconic as his contemporaries. His work sells, and his celebrity is granted, but it all comes from an obscene and undeserved amount of hype granted to him by the L.A. art scene.

But what if what we see in this film is the exposition of a hoax? We seldom see Mr. Brainwash creating any images, and nothing we do see him create seems all that exceptional. Hell, some of what we watch him create displays some rather bad technique. Is it possible, that Mr. Brainwash isn't even the true talent behind these pieces...and that he has been conjured up to see how much hype the art world will buy?

Rumours suggest that every piece of work credited to Mr. Brainwash are in fact low quality works by Banksy himself designed to prove some sort of point. If that's the case, then while I still find this film amazingly enjoyable, we can't really call it a documentary, can we? It's no more a documentary than THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT...but it is still quite an amazing feat by everyone involved to sell the legend.

Thus I'm left unsure of my reaction to the film's subject matter. All I can say for certain is that this film itself plays like an installation. Of course, with any great piece of art, the question of meaning and motivation has multiple answers. That's what makes EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP so good, and so much fun. It's a film about the art, and about the artists, but it is above all a work of art itself.

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP.

Lost Together

This is a movie blog, but allow me a moment to talk TV.

This week, one of my favorite shows is ending, so perhaps it's natural that as I consider what I want to do for its ending...that I reflect back on its beginning. It actually began without me as a fan.

Lady Hatter had heard good things about it, and started tuning in. I was convinced that it would be some sort of Gilligan's Island/X Files hybrid and refused.

I spent an episode or two with headphones on.
Then I ditched the headphones, but read on the other side of the room.
Then I read from the loveseat - closer to the TV.
Then, after an episode or ten, I'd stopped reading altogether and had my eyes fixed on the TV.

She told me it was a good show, and while I hate to say this sort of thing so publicly...Honey, you were right.

Of course, me being me, I still had to nitpick, and I started echoing something Stephen King wrote that summer, that the very best thing the show could do was end quickly. Well lo and behold if I didn't get my wish halfway through season three, and as is to be expected, the show is all the better for spending so much time and effort working towards a natural conclusion.

Speaking of that conclusion, if you gave up on the show somewhere along the way, do yourself a favour - resist the urge to tune into this weekend's finale. Too much has happened. You won't enjoy it, and you might not get it. You've been warned.

It's not perfect television (almost nothing is), it has its detractors, and Lord knows it spawned a few dozen unworthy imitators. But it was ambitious, philosophical, and knew precisely how to keep me coming back for more.

I won't begin to offer up opinions on its ups and downs, nor will I offer any details on just what I think on the direction this story is taking in its final chapter. I just wanted to take occasion to say goodbye to a TV show that has entertained the living shot out of me for six years.

Thanks a million LOST - I'm gonna miss ya.

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts on LOST.

Plans (THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU Trailer)

Posting a trailer today feels a little weird. It comes not long after my mentioning on The LAMBcast that I'm not a big fan of trailers. It also follows a filmgoing experience where the entire final act of the film was given to me in the trailer. Then again, I haven't posted a trailer for a fictional film in more than a month...so in a way, I'm due.

Does anyone else get the hunch that this movie is either going to be spot-on, or way wide? here's me hoping for the former...and also me suddenly getting a hankering for season four of Mad Men...

Back to Basics - AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Come away, o human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand...

- W.B. Yeats

That poem, mentioned more than once in Steven Spielberg's AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, cuts to the heart of a cautionary fable that has aged amazingly well. My thoughts on this collaboration - the next film in the 1001 Series -after the jump.

At the time of its release, AI was a much-ballyhooed moment in cinematic history. It was a collaboration between two masters of filmmaking that couldn't possibly have more different styles. Here we would see a Stanley Kubrick story directed by Steven Spielberg. On the surface, this seemed like an odd pairing. As a co-worker of mine used to put it "Stanley lives in the dark - Steven just likes to play there".

Sadly this team effort is not without questions, as Kubrick unfortunately passed away before the project went ahead. Thus understanding exactly where Kubrick's ideas end and Spielberg's begin is foggy at best, and might even contribute to what doesn't work with this film (more on that later). That said, it is amazing to see touchstones of two geniuses in the same film. Only in AI can we get silhouettes against the moon and the chin-down-eyes-up glares.

At the turn of the millennium, man's technological advances seemed to be working faster than our moral compass. We were so busy figuring out whether or not we could, that we never took a moment to figure out whether or not we should. Like Mary Shelley told us a century ago, we might be capable of creating life...but when creators start turning their backs on those they create, it leaves a void of indiscriminate love that no being is wired to handle.

that's what makes AI hold up so well: its underlying thesis, which is probably best summed up by Jude Law's character Gigolo Joe:

"She loves what you do for her, as my customers love what it is I do for them. But she does not love you David, she cannot love you. You are neither flesh, nor blood...You were designed and built specific, like the rest of us. And you are alone now only because they tired of you, or replaced you with a younger model, or were displeased with something you said, or broke. They made us too smart, too quick, and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us. That's why they hate us"

David (Haley Joel Osment) is momentarily able to make his parents very happy, but they have a deep sadness present in them with their human son critically ill. As Yeats tells us, it's that type of human sadness that we can never understand. What's worse, is how that sadness can turn to fear...and ultimately hate as we watch in the Flesh Fair sequence.

While people might have a right to feel threatened by machines created to curb over-population, it's unfortunate they haven't taken a moment to think about just how human these beings actually are. Through his journey, David becomes capable of feeling panic, sadness, fear, and ultimately depression. That's pretty damned human for a machine, wouldn't you say? In some ways it can be said that Monica (Frances O'Connor) understands this, since her heartbreak is palpable when she ultimately sends David away.

For its deep-seeded eeriness and its underlying question of human moral responsibility alone, this movie is a gem.

But then, there's the ending...or should I say endings...

**If you've never seen the movie, at this point you might want to skip down to my conclusion**

This is where that Spielberg/Kubrick divide comes up more than anywhere else. I've never seen the original script, but I find it difficult to believe that the ending we're given is the ending Kubrick had in mind all along. What's worse is that there are three other points at which the film can end, and any of them would make for a better movie.

The film could have ended with a despondent David pitching himself off the skyscraper, and drowning in the sea below. He'd just learned the harsh human lesson that he wasn't that unique, and that what he wanted most wasn't possible. Why not close with the harsh reminder of what happens when we don't teach and protect our own offspring?

Or, the film could have ended with David sitting in the Helipod staring and praying intently to the Blue Fairy. It would have been an sadly ambiguous masterstroke, and befitting his own determination. Or the film even could have ended with the humanoid mecca (not aliens as they are often criticized to be), sitting David down and telling him how valuable he is. They have a Blue Fairy entity explain to him that he is their only link to humanity, and they want him to be completely happy. Awesome! Pretty sure that's the first time he feels such importance. Close on the sad note that he can't be with his mother, but how much he'll be cared for from now on!

But no - we go one scene too far, and come up with the weakest conclusion of the four. A happily ever after moment that overshadows much of the theology we've endured, and drowns out the melancholy coda a concerto like this should end with. Given his track record through the decade, it's my estimation that this mis-handled ending was Spielberg's idea, and unfortunately Kubrick wasn't around to pull him back from the ledge of happily-ever-after.

But Hatter, Is It List-Worthy?... "Essential", no. "Worth Watching", yes. "Worth Watching Again", most certainly. On its release, the film was shredded by mass audiences who either didn't get it, or were expecting something more. But as often is the case with movies, they might have been too quick to judge. Nearly ten years later, it stands as a surreal and heartbreaking reminder of what humanity is capable of.

Review: ROBIN HOOD * * 1/2

For the second time in a week I bought a ticket for a film, with chatter of bad buzz ringing in my ear. At least this time, it wasn't an entire week's worth of bad buzz. At least this time around, the chatter wasn't based on comparing a sequel to its original.

I think what might have people down about ROBIN HOOD isn't that it lets them down, so much as it comes from the fact that the story we're told isn't the story we thought we'd get.

Our story begins in the late 12th Century. Richard the Lionheart is in the final throes of his crusades, when he gets killed in battle. As the battle continues to rage, four infantrymen break free from the stockade and make a break for home. The group is led by an archer named Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe). As they try to flee for home, they come across the king's guard getting ambushed by traitorous knight Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong).

Thinking quick, Robin and his men disguise themselves as the fallen knights, knowing it will ease their passage home. Amongst the guard is Robert Loxley who with his dying breath, begs Robin to take news of his demise to his father in Nottingham. He likewise entrusts Robin his sword, asking he return it to its rightful place in his father's hand.

Successfully passing as knights, the men return to England, and hand over the crown of the fallen king to the queen mother. The crown is swiftly passed to Prince John, the next in line, who very quickly shows his hand at being strict where it comes to his subjects paying their due taxes. He likewise appoints Sir Godfrey to go about collecting what he's due, unwittingly empowering Godfrey to hasten a French invasion.

Robin meanwhile is off to Nottinghma where he meets Lord Loxley (Max Von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law Marion (Cate Blanchett). Upon learning of Loxley's death, they both convince Longstride to take his place, in order to avoid having their property taken by the crown. Longstride agrees, and somehow, an entire town accepts him as Loxley...even though they look nothing alike.


Sheriff of Nottingham? Peripheral character. Outlaw? Not so much. Astounding feats of Archery? Once in a while. Mis-marketed film? You betcha.

The production of ROBIN HOOD was plagued with indecision, and that indecision has led to much dissatisfaction with the film. What we have here is an origin story...but you'd never know that from the bold title, nor from any of the high energy marketing. At one point in the film I thought to myself "Geez, it feels like we've been setting up Robin's back story for a while". Then I looked at my watch and realized the film had forty minutes left to wrap things up.

Had this film been billed as ROBIN HOOD: SECRET ORIGIN, reaction to it might have been a bit more favourable. As it stands, it contradicts every legend of Nottingham ever told: From Errol Flynn to animated foxes, no movie has ever put the man in tights into this particular narrative. That said, this isn't a bad movie, it just won't be what audiences are expecting.

Russel Crowe does a serviceable job, even if he doesn't have much chance to rob from the rich and give to the poor. His accent is indeed slightly muddled, but I'll give him points for attempting one (take note Kevin). In some ways, he is playing 'Maximus-with-a-Bow'...but he doesn't hold the film back and is as good as he needs to be. Nobody in the cast is really given much to work with, but of everybody Mark Strong seems to most understand what he's there to do.

Strong is the dastardly villain in this story, and its a role he's perfected well in the last eighteen months. After him, Oscar Isaac has his moments, but doesn't have a clear enough part to dig in to. He's slimy, weaselly, and cowardly...but is never needed to be one of these traits for any longer than two minutes at a time.

Since ROBIN HOOD is Ridley Scott's film, I tried to consider where it would fit within his spectrum of films, and sadly it isn't as good as GLADIATOR or KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (the latter was hardly a hit with audiences of critics). For me much of the reason comes down to never tapping into the determination of either of those films. Both of them were stories centred around one man trying to rise to a challenge. ROBIN HOOD spends so much time with Longstride trying to take Loxley's place in many ways, that by the time occasion comes for him to rise, we've stopped caring.

I enjoyed what I saw in ROBIN HOOD - bad marketing, and strange story be damned - but I don't know who else will. Those looking for Russell Crowe to kick ass and take names would be better served renting GLADIATOR. Those looking for the legend of an archer and his band of merry men would be better served renting Errol Flynn's 1938 classic. If you're looking for a decent tale of medieval life, and a notion of where the whole legend begins, give this movie a look.

Oh - and if you want mullets, no accents, and Canadian power balladry...well, you know what to do...

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on ROBIN HOOD.

Elsewhere: Guest Bloggin' on Movie Mobsters

The prolific run at The Dark of The Matinee continues! This time out, I'm happy to have come together with a mittful of bloggers I dig to talk genre - and the genre was gangster films.

So do take a second and click over to Movie Mobsters (how apropos!) for a look at gangster movies with myself, M.Carter, Kai Parker, Heather and Fandango.

London Calling

Today, I Feel Like This...

Review: IRON MAN 2 * * *

Just saw it last night!
Shut up - it was a busy week.

We begin where we left off, with Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) revealing to the world that yes, he is Iron Man. While he tells this secret to a few dozen cameras and microphones, he raises the ire of a Russian named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke). Vanko's father worked with Stark's father in designing the arc reactor that keeps Stark alive and powers the Iron Man suit. Vanko is bitter about what became of his father, and swears out revenge on Stark.

Meanwhile back in America, Stark is doing everything he can to keep the American government at bay. As one might expect, there are many high ranking officials that want to have the Iron Man design under the American millitary's control. Hell, they've even tried to copycat the design through their top weapons contractor, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). No dice though - Hammer can't get a working prototype, and Stark won't turn over his work.

When he isn't being evasive with bureaucrats, Stark is trying to get a handle on his well-being. While he does all he can to hide it from people close to him like James Rhodes and Pepper Potts (Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow), the arc reactor is slowly poisoning him, and if he can't come up with an alternative power source, his days could be numbered.

Let's start with the obvious - no, IRON MAN 2 is not as good as the original. Part of that comes with expectations, part of that comes with the film's place in this new vintage of Marvel films. However, while the film is a slight step back from the original - that doesn't make it a bad film. Much to the contrary, the entire storyline of Tony Stark trying to protect his intellectual property from the grabby hands of the American government is a good one. Let's face facts, the notion of a hero like Iron Man is appealing...but if such a thing was reality, wouldn't we all want our government to have some measure of control over such technology?

If your answer is "no", then give this film a look - around halfway home Tony Stark will give you cause to change your mind.

What holds this film back most of all is a detail that for now is unavoidable, and that is the fact that Stark/Iron Man is yet to go up against a villain who is nearly as interesting as he is, and certainly not one as complexed. Justin Hammer is a worthy foe, but Sam Rockwell plays him (admittedly well) as a slimy weasel. Meanwhile Whiplash/Vanko has interesting facets, but this film can't decide whether he should be a bloodthirsty killing machine, or a stoic evil genius. While I'm on the subject, why was Vanko styled to look like he should be playing bass in Iron Maiden?

Indeed the film is flawed, but those flaws do not hold it back from being an interesting and enjoyable film. Tony Stark is given a lot to deal with this time out, and evolves as he tries to understand it all. He begins the film with the same amount of bravado we remember, but really does descend to a dark place before he can understand his place in the Stark legacy, and his role as a champion. His inability to communicate with anyone is what holds him back the most...but there's no way he's the first millionaire brat to have that problem.

While IRON MAN 2 feels strangely paced at times, it's only because the film wants to touch a lot of topics before the credits roll. Re-establishing the power structure at Stark Industries, keeping the Iron Man technology out of government hands, Tony's potential role within the Avengers squad, and Stark's own mortality all come into play before the credits roll. That's a lot to cram into a summer blockbuster!

Sometime these themes come at the cost of action sequences, but I promise you, when the action does kick start it makes up for lost time. The Monaco Grand Prix sequence alone is better than most of the set pieces in the first film, even with much of its details well known through trailers. Jon Favreau shows quite an adept hand for action, since even in the climactic battle, the action is exciting without turning into sensory overload. Speaking of Favreau's direction, he also deserves props for taking so many characters and finding the right mix (no small feat - see the X-MEN films).

What makes IRON MAN 2 work best of all is the way it plays on Vankos theory that if you make God bleed, then people will stop believing in him. Being a hero is one thing...but every hero can fall. What sets contenders apart from pretenders is the manner in which they pick themselves up off the matte and get back into the fight. Two summers ago, we watched Tony Stark take the title. This film is a necessary in the legend of Iron Man, to see what happens when this idol is knocked off his pedestal and how he goes about reclaiming his place as a hero.

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on IRON MAN 2.

Everybody's Talkin' 5 - 13 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

Yep - it's official...I'm the only person in the world who hasn't seen IRON MAN 2 yet.

That leads me to believe that I haven't thought today's post through properly. You see, on the one hand, I'm putting up "Everybody's Talkin" today so that when I see I:2 tonight, I can write about it for tomorrow's post. However, I think I might have overlooked the fact that when I do post about it tomorrow, precious few of you will be interested in what I have to say since everybody's already had their say.

Conundrum.

Then again, with all my non-fiction shenanigans, it's been two full weeks since my last E-T post, so perhaps me jumping the gun isn't so bad. It'll help me get back into the swing of the community aspect of this blog. So if you do happen to be interested in what I have to say about Tony Stark & Co. drop by tomorrow morning.

For now though, for your reading fulfillment I give you...

From a commenting perspective, I find Yojimbo's blog wickedly entertaining. Looks like I'll have more commenting fodder soon since he's a Speilberg Fan.

Now that I've seen one of last year's biggest foreign films, I'm deeply curious about the other two. Castor has seen one of them - UN PROPHETE - and has posted his review.

My bbf Univarn questions the nature of over and underrated.

Mike over at You Talkin' To Me is hosting a series right now. While I could participate in it, I must say that I think it's a great idea. He has corralled a circle of bloggers to write about awesome movies that spawned unfortunate copycats. So far, he's had some wicked submissions.

Meanwhile, Kai at The List is hosting a zombie symposium of sorts. Join the debate.

Oh, and it looks like after a few nail-biting rounds, Fletch's Dudes & Ladies of The 80's Tournament has its champions. Check out which dude and dudette won!

Enjoy!

Review: THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES * * * *

Sometimes I wonder whether a person can truly change. I've always believed that people can change to an extent, but were somehow always tethered in some way. After years of trying to understand this hypothesis, it figures it would take a movie to illustrate what I couldn't ever seem to put a finger on.

As THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES puts it:

"A man can change anything. His face, his home, his family, his girlfriend, his religion, his God. But there's one thing he can't change. He can't change his passion..."

The mystery of THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES revolves around the rape and murder of Lilliana Colotto in 1974. The case is given to Benjamin Esposito, who has a very small team backing him up. He has an unimpressive and constantly drunk partner named Pablo. He also has an illuminating and intelligent department chief named Irene.

When he investigates the crime, he begins with her widowed husband Ricardo. While the man is deeply shaken by the news that the woman he loved so dearly is gone, he is nothing but helpful and forthcoming. Lilliana was his whole world, and he opens up their whole life to Esposito in the hopes that justice can be served. One of the resources he provides Esposito - Lilliana's photos - provides a vital clue, and sends the detective looking for an old acquaintance named Isidoro Gomez.

Before he can track the man down, the case would appear to be closed. Two men are brought in, and have signed full confessions admitting to the crime. However Esposito doesn't buy it. He taps into his rapport with Irene to reopen the closed case, and goes on a search for Gomez who he's convinced is the true perpetrator.

As the story continues to jump back and forth between 1974, and a reflective Esposito reflecting back on it in 1999, the painful truth comes to light...if ever so slowly.

At the core of this film, is the lengths we will go to protect a truth we don't want others to know. Watching Esposito search that little bit longer for the right words anytime Irene is around, we can tell that he loves her. Hell, a blind man can tell that he loves her. But for some reason, he can't ever seem to tell her - possibly afraid of being that honest with someone who could level him with the wrong answer.

A darker secret is the rivalry between Ricardo and Isidoro. Isidoro is ultimately betrayed by a seemingly innocent look he gave Liliana as a photo was being taken. He doesn't dare reveal the truth, at first for fear of rejection, then later for fear of violent repercussion. But like Esposito, Isidoro betrays himself. This is bad news for him, give Ricardo's secret desire for vengeance. Trying to keep a secret love hidden is one thing, but just what is hiding inside a man who randomly waits in train stations at the off-chance of meeting his wife's accused killer?

The construction of this movie is what makes it work so well. While it is a rather dark tale, there's a lot of love present in the narrative to hold on to. Sadly, even some of the most gruesome decisions are driven by love...misguided as it can sometimes be. Director Juan José Campanella has presented some very real and caring relationships, and shown us the lengths we will go for them. This film knows what it means to sacrifice for love...to avenge love...even to search for the words to express and reciprocate love.

Many eyebrows were raised when THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES took home the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar this year. While I have not seen the two films presumed to be frontrunners, what I can tell you about this film executes when it matters. It delivers on the grand scale, as is the case with a glorious shot that brings us into a packed football stadium. It also executes in the details, as evidenced by Irene's choice of words when a particular truth is revealed to her in the late going.

Indeed, as the film reminds us, it is our passions that define us...for better and for worse. It's passion that can bring us to the people who can be a moral compass. It's passion that can give us an avenue to express ourselves to the world. And sadly, it's passion that can cause us to make our biggest mistakes. There's no help for it - it's who we are, and like it or not, they're our passions. We're stuck with them.

What did you think? Feel free to leave comments with any thoughts or reactions on THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES.

Chatanooga Choo-Choo (Guest Blogger GRAVY TRAIN Review)

Susie Q has returned! She arrives just in time to give your faithful narrator a much-needed day off from writing. I'm actually honoured to have the Q'd One (or "Cute One" - see what I did there) guest blogging for me today. Reason being is that she is the first published author to contribute to The Dark of The Matinee.

Sue was at the premiere of GRAVY TRAIN last week while I was neck-deep in docs, and has been nice enough to provide us her reaction. Take a look at it after the jump, won't you?

GRAVYTRAIN (Alliance) is a delightful 70's-style romp through the madcap adventures of small town cop Charles "Chuck" Gravytrain (Tim Doiron), as he and his new big city partner, Miss Uma Booma (April Mullen), follow the clues and try to crack the case of elusive serial killer, Jimmy Fish Eyes, in this crime comedy offering from the creators of the recent Canadian cult hit, Rock, Paper, Scissors: The Way of the Tosser.

When young Charles Gravytrain's police detective father falls victim to The Fish, the boy vows revenge, and grows up believing in the values printed on the badge forever pinned to his chest: Truth and Justice. Much to his chagrin, he suddenly finds himself saddled with an unwanted new partner in foxy Booma but, as the bodies start piling up around town, the pair soon begin to realize that they can really only trust in and rely on one another, so long as the crafty killer is still on the loose, and seek to spot the clues they need to crack the case whenever and wherever they possibly can.

Enter the citizens of Gypsy Creek, the amiable yet eccentric fictional town in which the story is set - filled to bursting with one quirky character after another, and none of whom have ever remotely even thought of leaving the 1970's behind. From nosey bartender, Full Serve (played to laughable, lisping perfection by Tim Meadows), to Mayor-with-feelings Chester Chubbins (Colin Mochrie, who appears to be relishing his role in absolutely every scene), to the musically-inclined homeless bar denizen Ewan McCauley (Alan Frew, in his ingeniously funny film debut), all the way to whore house proprietor and absurd portrait artist, Madame Harriette Handlescock (played to the hilt by the divine Jennifer Dale), Gypsy Creek is not lacking in the character department. But in the town's police department, Chuck and Uma find little to no support in their quest to catch The Fish, even from their superior, Sgt. Leroy Fatts (Alan C. Peterson, in a role where he hilariously delivers far too much insight into his inner workings, so to speak), and the desk-preferring cop, Lance Dancaster (played with geeky glee by Kyle Schmid).

With the town and their own department against them, Chuck and Uma turn to the only person they can find who might lead them - in a very roundabout way - to the truth: the 'avant-garde' and (possibly accidental) snuff filmmaker, Hansel Suppledick. Played by versatile actor Ryan Tilley (in a performance completely different from the one he gave in Tosser), the sardine-and-mousse-loving Hansel becomes the centre to which all roads lead for Chuck and Uma and, latching onto this notion, he quickly makes Chuck an offer he can't refuse, even at the expense of his budding affection for, and trust in, his new partner. As Chuck reluctantly agrees to star in a film about his own life (leading to the GRAVYTRAIN tagline, "Half Cop. Half Actor. All Action!"), his dogged pursuit of Truth and Justice begins to get bogged down in secrets, lies, and an ingeniously hilarious night with peyote that rivals that of the Young Guns film, and he has to struggle to keep his eye on the prize, and find the answer to the question he's been seeking his whole life: Where's The Fish?

Written by Tim Doiron (who sometimes appears to channel Jim Carrey in his comedic...flexibility, let's call it), GRAVYTRAIN is full of memorable and unique one-liners that will have you laughing out loud so often, you'll have to see the movie at least twice to make sure you got it all. Partnering again with the film's director April Mullen (who seriously must roll out of bed looking that great, and yet isn't afraid to dirty herself up for comedy's sake, which only serves to make her characters all the more enjoyable to watch), the filmmakers and stars are once again hitting the road and pounding the pavement to promote their film, and will continue doing endless press and post-screening Q&A's, while tirelessly handing out flyers and posters to help get the word out. It's a very hands-on approach to film promotion, and for this pair it seems to be working. From Tosser's successful debut to GRAVYTRAIN's opening night red carpet event at Toronto's Yonge/Dundas AMC theatre (where the movie was held over for a second fantastic week before moving on to other cities), Doiron and Mullen are no strangers to dressing in costume and putting themselves on the front lines, over and over, in an effort to spread the word.

So throw on your detective hat (or fasten some raw bacon to your forehead), grab a tin of sardines, and get on board the GravyTrain...we've got a Fish to catch - and it's gonna be WANGO, BABY!!!

Tell Me 'Bout It

Betcha thought I was going back to one post a day, didn't ya? Shortly, though I do still have a glut of movies to see/write about.

For now, I'm thinking about the next episode of The Matineecast..."Matineecast Classic" as it were...no loud cafes...no film directors...no doc-talk. Thus, it's the return of my feedback segment Come Talk to Me. Here's this episode's question-

What did you think of my film festival coverage?

Be honest - good or bad...whether it had you insatiably waiting for the next tidbit or amazingly disinterested since you didn't see and have never heard of these titles. Leave me a comment and provide me some ammo for this weekend's episode!

Back to Life

Admit it - you expected to tune in to this space today and see a still frame of some worn-out movie character under the caption "Today, I Feel Like This". But nay - despite being so movie'd out that my eyes actually hurt the night before last, this mad tea party isn't even close to slowing down. Much the opposite in fact. Right this moment there are three features I really want to catch in theatres - with two more arriving this Friday!

Here's the thing though, I for one am not looking forward to the next three-plus months. I dare say that this could be one long and boring summer at the movies. Half of the slate to come between now and Labour Day feels like junk food...and not even the junk food I usually crave. While I'll readily admit that I'll be there opening night for Scott Pilgrim, Robin Hood, and even the A-Team, there aren't many popcorn flicks beyond those that get my dander up.

And before you mention it, INCEPTION is my whole world between now and July. So help me if it sucks.

So I could sit here and bemoan the state of the multiplex. I could bring up how badly we need a good summer after the steaming bowl of suck that was much of last summer. I could even pine for the warm days of 2008 when many of the blockbusters actually seemed to have half a brain in their head!

But nay, I won't be that guy. I intend to take these movie geek lemons and make geektastic lemonade.

Here's the plan gang - I'm gonna work a little harder and chase down the smaller films I usually miss. I already have my eye on flicks like THE TROTSKY (pictured above), and the much ballyhoo'd EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP. I want more of those. I intend to snare this summer's ONCE...this summer's IN THE LOOP...this summer's MAN ON WIRE. Hell, while I'm at it I might pay for those and theatre-jump to something dumb like PRINCE OF PERSIA just to be able to tell y'all just how bad it is!

So that's the plan. Whaddaya think?

Hot Docs Reaction Wrap: LADIES IN BLUE, SHADOW PLAY and THE CANAL STREET MADAM

Alright...let's wrap up this crazy caper. Short opinions about the last three docs I saw, and musings on the festival in general are after the jump.

Not to phone this in or anything, but at this point I'm slightly gassed. furthermore, these were three docs I saw that I found "OK", and didn't really have much to rant or rave about when it all came down the line.

LADIES IN BLUE was an amusing doc, but didn't seem to have much of a point. It was a look at the very dedicated fans of Quebec crooner Michel Louvain (somewhat of a French Canadian version of Wayne Newton). He's a gracious guy, and very engaging when it comes to his fans...thus the women who love him feel a genuine closeness to him. Thing is, while his fans are nice enough, I'm not sure what this film was trying to say about them. Pick any popular musician - odds are you'll find fans like these. Furthermore, the most interesting woman they talk to only seems to have a passing interest in Louvain.

Overall amusing, but underwhelming.

THE CANAL STREET MADAM is the story of Jeanette Maier, the woman whose moniker this film is named after. After being busted for running a brothel, she is valiantly trying to live a life of meaning, keep her family together, and make a difference for sex workers everywhere. She is a strong and multifaceted woman, and quite high in moral character...y'know, for a madam. My only problem with this film is a negligible one, and that is the fact that it seems to come back to the same few shots of home video footage too many times. That aside, it's a well-told story, and one that will have you wondering what you would do if you were in her shoes.

Give it a look if you have a chance.

SHADOW PLAY was one of my bigger disappointments. Anton Corbijn is a professional hero of mine, and though I don't take nearly as many photos as I used to, when I did I often wanted to be him. While I found the movie rather amusing, that only happened because I'm a fan of the man and of the famous people he photographs. His work is not incorporated in any inventive manner, there is precious little glimpse at his technique, and the (many) cuts back to his experiences on the set of CONTROL are in no way insightful.

I had fun 'cause I'm a fan, but sadly I can't recommend this movie.

And so it goes! Not sure what y'all thought of my zillion and one posts over the last eleven days, but from this side of the keyboard, I can tell you that I couldn't have asked for a better experience for my first kick at being an accredited member of the media.

I got to talk to some very gracious and encouraging directors. I became friends with some very talented bloggers. And by the time it was all over, I watched twenty-two kick-ass films in eleven days. I realize that many of these movies might not play your local theatre, but that doesn't mean that you can't keep an eye out for them. Keep in mind that avenues like Netflix, You Tube, and DVD are the best friends of many documentary directors.

Thanks again for reading.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled movie blog...

Hot Docs Reaction: THE OATH

It's difficult to articulate my thoughts on THE OATH. I know it moved me...I know it's an important doc...it's just a little difficult to express why.

For starters, the doc is about two men: Salim Hamdan and Nasser al-Bahri (aka Abu Jandal). Both men were involved in al Qaeda, the latter was even the personal bodyguard of Osama bin Laden from 1997 to 2000. After 9/11 both men are on the FBI's radar. al-Bahri, already in prison as of 9/11, is questioned, released, and finds work as a cab driver in Yemen. Hamdan, by far the less involved of the two, is tossed into Guantanamo indefinitely.

The crux of the movie is listening to al-Bahri talk. We watch him try to raise his young son, we listen to him talk with would-be jihadis, and even get his take on al-Qaeda's current tactics. Through it all, is the undercurrent of his oath. He took a loyalty oath to bin Laden and al Qaeda, swearing to fight for the cause and never question its leadership. So how much of what he's saying conveys his true feelings, and how much of what he's saying is out of duty to this oath he once took. For that matter, is he even still bound by the oath?

This doc is rather heavy, and paints a portrait of a man conflicted. A man who was tearful upon learning that men he knew flew airplanes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people...yet a man who can't come out and say that he's on the wrong side. He feels for Hamdan, his brother-in-law detained without charge rather illegally. Sadly, for a man who was much lower down the al-Qaeda food chain, we get the sense from his letters that Hamdan believes in the organizations cause much deeper than al-Bahri. Maybe moreso now than when he was first arrested.

It's difficult to watch al-Bahri's inner struggle through THE OATH, but compelling for certain. This doc is already getting a lot of attention, and I'm certain that we haven't heard the last of it yet.

Hot Docs Reaction: JOAN RIVERS - A PIECE OF WORK

I've long believed that one sign of a good documentary is if it can draw in those who sit down not caring much about the subject matter. For me, JOAN RIVERS - A PIECE OF WORK is certainly an example of a doc where I don't much care for the subject. And yet, the successful doc that it is, it drew me in and told me an amazing story about a woman who is one of a kind.

This doc takes place during a very trying time for Joan. When it opens, she has dropped down towards the 'E List'. She's having trouble getting her calls returned, having trouble booking gigs, and having to work tremendously hard to keep afloat. Not that she's afraid of that. Actually one thing that the doc illustrates is just how hard Joan does work, and that she's actually quite proud of working hard. At 75, she isn't content to show up at places and collect an appearance fee. She'd much rather be cashing in by being funny.

Joan's funny side is actually something I regret to say I'd forgotten. The film is spotted with many moments of her stand-up routine, where she reminds the audience how razor-shrap she is. These are welcome moments of levity, since much of the rest of the film has Joan being very critical of herself, of where her career has gone, and on the punchline she has become. It's amazing to listen to Kathy Griffin talk of how much she owes to Joan, and yet is getting denied the sort of gigs Griffin gets easily.

This doc was worth watching for the level of honesty. It gives us a different side of this brash personality, and gave me a new respect for her and what she's all about. To say this surprised me given how little I can usually stand Joan would be putting it mildly.

Midnight Radio: Life in Technicolor part v

And then there were none.

The fifth and final Hot Docs podcast is coming up, this time with some very good friends flanking me post-screening.

Friday night was all about SHADOWPLAY at The Bloor Cinema, and likewise it was about remembering that while seeing all these film festival screenings are fun, it becomes infinitely more fun when my friends come to join me.

One last time, here's how it all shook down...



Here's what's in store in part five...

Runtime
22 minutes, 58 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. My brief introduction
2. TALK - My conversation with Cheshire Cat and Lady Cheshire about the film SHADOWPLAY (1:16)
3. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Cheshire heckles from the peanut gallery as his wife takes centre stage for five quesions (13:47)

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!

Hot Docs Reaction: TEENAGE PAPARAZZO

"Hi my name is Adrian and I'm a celebrity...at least I play one on TV."

There have been a lot of films at Hot Docs that I've loved a lot more than TEENAGE PAPARAZZO. There have been a lot that I've disliked a lot more than it as well. Very few however, have left me so perplexed as to what I actually think of the finished film though. Perhaps in that respect, it's a good thing I'm only writing knee-jerk reactions, and not full-on reviews.

TEENAGE PAPARAZZO is directed by actor Adrian Grenier. The fact that it examines celebrity fascination is amusingly self-aware given Adrian's usual TV role as a flashy hollywood star. The focus of the film is a kid named Austin Visschedyk - a fourteen-year-old boy who zips around Hollywood making crazy amounts of money as a full-fledged member of the paparazzi. The story begins with Grenier getting his photo taken by Visschedyk, which leads to a curiosity about who this kid is and what he's trying to achieve.

The film has more than a few intriguing points - not the least of which is how the paparazzi are amazingly reluctant to have the camera turned on themselves. Austin's mother plays a big part, since we naturally wonder what sort of parent allows their child to stay out unsupervised until 2am on a Wednesday. Perhaps most interesting though, is the way Austin changes through the course of the film, as Grenier's project becomes known, and Austin becomes a celebrity in his own right.

Unfortunately, the film is riddled with flaws. For starters, while the main storyline does warrant a look at our fascination with fame, the film focuses on that psychology a little too long for my liking. Likewise, I think that Grenier might have been better served leaving out the interviews he does with his Entourage castmates. For me, that shook me out of the doc and put me in the "Vinny Chase makes a movie" mindset.

Through the doc, Grenier speaks with many famous faces like Paris Hilton, Alec Baldwin (who fires off the best quote of the night), Matt Damon, Eva Longoria, and Jaleel White (yup - Urkel himself). They all have great things to say, and some of them even seem to understand the entire fame game quite reasonably. Again though, there are too many distractions, including the production itself, which leans this film closer to TV special than it does documentary film.

So yes, TEENAGE PAPARAZZO leaves me perplexed. I can't completely recommend it, but I can't write it off either. While unfocused, Grenier has found a very interesting story, and told it in a very entertaining way. At the very least, it leaves me interested in seeing what he decides to film next.

Official site for TEENAGE PAPARAZZO

TEENAGE PAPARAZZO plays again Saturday May 8th - 9pm at The Bloor Cinema

Midnight Radio: Life in Technicolor part iv

I'd really like to be recording episode five of this series right now as opposed to posting episode four, but something tells me I've been unwittingly stood up. Oh well, I'm just a small fry - can't get that offended.

Saw TEENAGE PAPARAZZO last night. While it wasn't quite perfect, it certainly did entertain. Once the screening at the stunning Koerner Hall was over, I rallied up with another blogger...a blogger who has been zipping about the festival by bike...a blogger who can be spotted by the pink milk crate on the back of her ride...

Here's how it all shook down...

Life in Technicolor: Part iv

Mad Hatter's Podcast

Here's what's in store in part three...

Runtime
18 minutes, 10 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. My brief introduction
2. TALK - My conversation with Annie the Hotdocker from Pink Milkcrate (1:19)
3. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Annie takes a stab at the customary survey. (12:24)

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!