Back to Basics - NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

A little while back, I opened my mailbox and discovered some zombies.

Perhaps I should explain.

Upon learning that I’d never seen any of George Romero’s zombie films, Kai Parker was nice enough to send me a dvd copy of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. The one caveat was that I had to write about it after I watched it. Well a deal’s a deal, so please take a look after the jump for my take on the granddaddy of all zombie movies.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD doesn’t hold any sort of title as the “first zombie film”. Yet for many enthusiasts, it is mentioned as the starting point. It re-invented the genre in a way, and made the undead less of a supernatural entity and more of a viral passing, flesh-eating mob. In many ways, it invented the genre…which would account for its status as the starting point.

What caught me the most off-guard, was how unexpectedly dark the film got in its final act. I’m not talking about violence or gore. I’m talking pure bleak hopelessness. The characters continually disagree on the best plan to survive, which is to be expected since they are facing a danger unique to all of them. But by the time the dust settles, every single survival plan is torn apart…along with the potential survivor planning it.

It’s like the Agatha Christie story Ten Little Indians, but with a platoon of walking dead scratching at the door.

Like the creatures themselves, this dark violence isn’t shocking, loud, or fast. In this film, the dark fate is slow, lumbering, omnipresent, and inescapable. Our heroes are doing all they can to survive, but the irony is “all they can” is confined to a running start. The saying goes that most of us want our death to be quick and painless – and if we had to choose one of the two, we almost all say “quick”. Unfortunately for our heroes, their fate is neither quick nor painless.

For me, what makes this film so effective and so frightening is simplicity. As I’ve worked on upping my horror IQ, I’ve discovered that the films that disturb me the most don’t rely very heavily on effects. The zombies in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD aren’t all that scary to look at. However, when you take these less-than-scary beings, film them in a gritty black and white, and have them continue to sway in the nighttime like strangers on the lawn, and things get scary in a hurry.

We would all like to believe that the difference between life and death isn’t as simple as “upstairs or downstairs?”. Unfortunately, in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD such simple decisions are the difference, and there’s no margin for error. You’d like to believe that faced with certain doom, you’d have the option to run as fast as you ever have. That these characters don’t have that option is terrifying.

The cherry on the zombie sundae that is NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is its exposure. Because of an early title change, the film holds no copyright. This means that it can be shown on TV without the station having to pay a penny. (A similar fate befell IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE for a while, but there is no eating of guts in that film). This opportunity for wide exposure has played a big part in the film’s rise to classic status, and arguably rescued it from the dusty depths of B-movie purgatory.

But Hatter, Is it List-Worthy?... You bet your bile duct it is. The trouble with classic horror is that as time passes, they lose their edge and flip from scary to hokey. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD remains every bit as dark, disturbing, and gruesome as it was when it was first released.

Movin' Out

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 10 - 29 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

To shamelessly swipe a phrase from my mates over at Row Three:

Talk amongst yourselves.

For your reading fulfillment, I give you...

Can you believe Anomalous Materials is only one year old? Lordy do they ever make my dog-and-pony show look second rate. Join the conversation about comedic performances getting overlooked come Oscar time.

Fandango's examination of the evolution of horror.

For more spookiness, Bob's your uncle.
(How have I known the guy two years and never used that line yet???)

Yojimbo breaks down a beautiful scene from one of my favorite foreign films.

As I've been trying to get everything done this week, I've felt a bit guilty for taking time to glance at a movie here and there. At least, according to The Kid in the Front Row, I'm not the only one.

The Reel Fanatic finds that he can't get his mind off Lisbeth Salander (can anyone?).

While I might not agree with him, Mike wonders if The Criterion Collection is getting too commercial.

Finally young Sasha the Final Girl has seen HOWL...at The Lightbox...without me.
Here's what she thought.

Enjoy!

What Child Is This?

So about one week ago, when I confessed my ignorance for most things horror, you fine folks suggested many titles for me to add to the syllabus. Interestingly, two titles came up more than any others: HALLOWEEN and ROSEMARY'S BABY. So I took the hint and grabbed them for some last bits of pre-move watching.

HALLOWEEN was exactly what I expected it to be (which is a good thing), but ROSEMARY'S BABY surprised me a great deal.

I knew the basic framework of the story, so coming in, I had certain preconceptions as to what I was about to see. What I got was far subtler, quieter, and a great deal more unnerving.

Perhaps I was thrown off by what I knew of the story, and what I expected to see. Knowing that the story was that of a Satan spawn, I expected the conception scene and birth scene that played like somebody's nightmare. Instead, the conception scene is far more macabre and disturbingly subdued. Polanski was far more confident to let the twisted collection of characters speak for themselves...with a bit of disjointed photography thrown in.

Think a filmmaker today would take this sort of tack?

What's more is that the truly twisted part of this story isn't even the hellspawn itself; it's the way everyone around young Miss Woodhouse seems to be dictating every last decision of her pregnancy. It seems like nowadays, everyone has advice for new mothers-to-be...but at least those mothers-to-be aren't forced to take the advice. Rosemary of course isn't so lucky.

Sure enough, they don't make 'em like this anymore. ROSEMARY'S BABY grabbed me with with its haunting patience, and its sharp execution. Equally impressive is the fact that the film raked in $33M back in 1968 - which would put it upwards of $200M in today's box office. That'd land it in the year's top ten, flanked by KARATE KID and HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON.

Can you imagine that many people flocking to see this on a big screen nowadays?

Parents Just Don't Understand (RABBIT HOLE Trailer)

I think that might take the award for most inappropriate use for song title/post title crossover.

Four years ago, I was lucky enough to meet director John Cameron Mitchell. This was hot on the heels of the little-seen SHORTBUS, and well after his breakthrough with HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH. I didn't get to tell him to his face, but I really love the man's approach to films...especially the way he captures how screwed up so many of us feel.

his next offering is RABBIT HOLE, starring Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart as some very mixed up parents trying to cope. It looks serious as cancer, but also rather beautiful. Check it out...

Elsewhere: Guest Podcasting on The Film Cynics

Today brings a bit of a rarity in that I'm promoting back-to-back bits of podcasting. After yesterday's post trumpeting my own bit of Matineecast nonsense, today is all about Steve and Brian at The Film Cynics (NOT pictured above).

These guys are hugely influential for me, and it's not just because they are my Canadian brethren - though that certainly helps. Nay it is because they are enthusiastic, fun, insightful, and to top it off an actual radio station pipes out their cinematic geekiness over the airwaves! Thus, it was with great pleasure that I accepted the invite to do a guest spot on their show this past weekend.

So please click here to listen to me babble without the safety net of post-editing, and deftly try to make sure I don't curse on broadcast radio.

Midnight Radio: The Matineecast Episode 23

I'd wager good money that with the amount of times I say the word "out" in this episode's top five segment, that my Canadian accent goes into hyperdrive.

Admittedly, this episode runs a little bit longer than what has become the norm for The Matineecast in recent weeks, but I was enjoying the conversation too much to whittle anymore of it down. Perhaps this is what happens when two podcasters used to hosting their own shows come together.

As it happens, this works out well since my guest took the week off from her own show this year. So if you're looking for a little Thuro fix, I've got ya covered.

Here's the Ryne Sandberg episode...



(Go here or to iTunes if the embedded player doesn't start)

Here's what's in store in episode twenty-three...

Runtime
74 minutes, 23 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. Introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Q & A with this episode's guest, Rachel Thuro from Rachel's Reel Reviews and The Reel Insight Podcast (2:25)
3. COME TALK TO ME - Hashing through the glut of emails about expectations. (10:53)
4. THE NEW SLANG - Review and reaction of LET ME IN (18:11)
5. THE BEST OF YOU - Rachel and I get Halloweeny and discuss the films that have given us the creeps. (35:39)

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

Enjoy!

Only a Few

This is gonna be short.

Yesterday I packed up the Hatter DVD Library in prep for the move to the new joint. Of course, there's no way I was going to survive a whole week without having any dvd's to watch, so I kept a select dozen aside. Mostly newer stuff...or dvd's I've bought recently but not watched yet. Your Grindhouses, your Thin Red Lines, your Prestiges. (Is 'Prestiges' a word?)

So I ask you dear friends:

If you were to pack up your whole collection right now, and leave just a small select few to get you through a week or two - which ones would make the cut?

I'm Bound to Pack It Up

Today, I Feel Like This...

Review: MONSTERS * * *

Many of us fear the unknown. Faced with the worst, we can sometimes muster up the courage to press on and endure. On the flip side, the infinite variables of the unforeseen have been known to make many of us lose copious amounts of sleep, and recoil with indecision.

This formula is the engine that drives MONSTERS. Less a film about large scary aliens, and more a story of the wake they leave behind.

The story begins with Andrew (Scoot McNairy). He is an American photojournalist in Mexico covering their response to a spread of alien lifeforms. They have created a quarantined 'Infected Zone' which has taken over the entire northern half of the nation. This area of extraterrestrial outbreak pushes right up against the American border, and has such a dangerous reputation, that safe passage across it costs $5000 USD per person.

Beyond the Infected Zone, in southern Mexico is Samantha (Whitney Able). Samantha's father is Andrew's employer, and Andrew has been tasked with getting the spritely Samantha back to America safely. The two of them get along well enough, but their connection is tested early when they miss their shot at a ferry that will safely get them home across the water.

Desperate, they opt to travel by land, buying passage on a truck that will drive them straight through the infected zone all the way to the American border. Unfortunately, travelling by truck is far more dangerous, and it doesn't take long for Samantha and Andrew to find themselves walking in the footprints of the monsters themselves, and trying to push on as the signs of destruction piles up.

The funny thing is by the time it's all said and done, MONSTERS feels like getting the wrong lunch order, but enjoying what's in the bag anyway.

MONSTERS teaches us that what's more unsettling than moments of mass destruction, is sifting through the rubble left behind. As our hearts race and our adrenaline spikes, we force ourselves to stand our ground to protect those we care about from the noises in the jungle. Finding the same inner strength is much tougher when walking through candlelight vigils, happening upon corpses, or approaching an ominously abandoned checkpoint.

The self preservation isn't there to push us. It's replaced by fearful reluctance that freezes us in place.

That its able to evoke such feelings shows that MONSTERS has done its homework. It has studied the greats of war, science fiction, and of course monster movies, and has lovingly borrowed from them all. Where the film is the most daring, is in the way it wants us to focus on the people running, and less on what they are running from. It's almost a given that we will be captivated by the monsters - this movie tries as hard as it can to make us equally captivated by Andrew and Samantha.

Andrew's place in all of this is especially pointed, since he is both caretaker and journalist. He's promised to get Samantha home in one piece, but on their journey, he witnesses so very much that the journalist in him knows he should be recording. But just as it's difficult to push on despite one's fears, it's likewise difficult to stop bearing witness and start reporting...even if bad news does pay better than bad news by a hefty margin.

While it shouldn't come as a surprise, there's an air of cheekiness to how little time we actually spend with the monsters. It's almost as if the filmmaker is a street performer passing around the hat just before doing that big final trick. It isn't a new trick, but it's still a good trick, since celestial lights under the waterline and disquieting cries coming from the jungle never fail to get us primed for an extraordinary experience. MONSTERS isn't interested in a quickie in the men's room. It's here for the slow seduction...and it ain't putting out until it's darned good and ready.

By keeping the emphasis on Samantha and Andrew's journey, MONSTERS lets us tap into the "what if?" factor. What if a neighbouring country was cut in half by a quarantined zone? What if a toxic danger was so prevalent that we had to use cartoons to teach children how to use gas masks? What if a country like America decided to build an imposing wall to seal off its borders? And what if we found ourselves with certain bedlam between ourselves and our homes. What does one sacrifice just to survive it...and how hard does one fight to get to where they want to be?

More than dazzling you with heady visuals, MONSTERS wants to tap into your brain and drop you into this freaky scenario. And by providing this uneasiness and countering it with moments of true solace and gentle connection, it makes it easy to give the film our money and walk away happy...even though we didn't get what we ordered.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to MONSTERS.

Everybody's Talkin' 10 - 21 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

It feels like it's a time of change all around me. I'm meeting new people...saying goodbye to old people...packing things up...watching one of my favorite sports wind down its season, and another of my favorite sports just begin.

I could have sworn that spring was he time for new beginnings, not autumn. I'm tired of all the changes and I still have so many things to sort through before this month is over! Oh well - at least I have you, faithful reader...and the thoughtful blogs that many of you keep.

For your reading fulfillment, I give you...

Y'all know how much of a booster I am of film festivals. Well Simon and Jo are taking in the London Film fest and have lots of coverage for you.

Hey - The Cynics are back! And with their return comes Steve weighing whether he wants to increase his dvd collection...or be a responsible parent.

Speaking of podcasts, I can't believe I've never mentioned that The Moxie is doing one as well! Seems as though she's countering my horror bender with a comedy exploration of her own.

Marya wonders if it's too early to start talking Oscar (for my money: yes, still just a bit too early).

Hot on the heels of my "I'm not a critic" declaration, Andrew takes a deeper look at critical risks.

And just in time for the week where rentals of horror films go through the roof - The Movie Mobsters have compiled a list of their ten freakiest scenes.

Edit: This day-of addition was too interesting to pass up. Take a look at Sebastian's thoughts having seen LET ME IN and LET THE RIGHT ONE IN in that order.

Enjoy!

Good Girl Gone Bad (THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET'S NEST Trailer)

Permit me to apologize in advance fellow bloggers - I haven't been reading your posts as much as I'd like. Real life is a tad hectic at the moment, and there will be no end to the insanity for about three weeks or so. Thus, while I hope to lob the odd comment here and there, it will be all I can muster to live the day to day and still offer up a post of my own until the first week of November.

During such insanity, I give thanks for Wednesdays. Primarily because as you might well know by now, Wednesday is a day I get to "Phone it in" in a way and share a trailer with y'all. So here's todays - a film I'm very much looking forward to...a film i'm told will hit my city in a mere ten days...and a film I hope kicks around until November since that'll be my first chance to see it.

Time for this dark trilogy to end...

Falling For the First Time (Talkin' THE BREAKFAST CLUB with The Movie Ness)

I had a conversation recently about the movies of my youth, and found myself wondering aloud how well they held up. My hypothesis was that the two teen comedies that likely still held up were FERRIS BEULLER'S DAY OFF and THE BREAKFAST CLUB.

So the challenge went forth - find a film literate peson who'd never seen these films, have them finally watch them, and see what they thought. (Sidebar: Part of me wants to do this with older classics too down the line).

The first volunteer was Vanessa from The Movie Ness, who dragged herself to school on a Saturday to serve detention with the Breakfast Club. Take a look at our conversation below.

Hatter: So, what did you think?

Ness: It's a fun movie and I guess the questions about life that its posing are still valid now but to be able to count it among your favourite movies, it will have to be seen by a younger person. If you showed this film to a 10-13 year old now, I think they'd still love it. I would've!

Hatter: So it holds up as a good film. That's good to know. It's more of a pop culture classic than a "classic film", so you're right - some of its appeal comes with thinking back to younger days. What still works about the movie?

Ness: The hairstyles! Jokes aside, I liked the dynamic between the characters. How these "enemies" become friends by being forced to spend time with each other and getting to know each other. I always like the idea of setting a whole movie in one room. It really highlights the actual story because there are no distractions.

For this particular film, it is absolutely essential. These kids are forced to spend time together against their own will. They would have never even spoken to one another if it was otherwise.

Hatter: That whole device of keeping things in one room brings the focus back to the script, which is what drew in so many people my age when we were younger. It felt like these kids were talking the way we talked. Does it still seem that way?

Ness: I could have probably identified with the characters when I was a child or teenager. Actually that's not exactly true. I don't think I ever had those kinds of conversations with anyone but I always thought that other kids must have had them. Maybe I was just never forced to spend a day with kids I originally didn't like

Hatter: Very few of us were. I'm sure I'm overlooking some of its shortcomings through my rose-coloured glasses. What doesn't work in the movie?

Ness: I did feel like the characters were too much of a cliché. The opening credits even state that they are all clichés. And I know that they say it, to prove the teacher wrong but they keep being clichés. I wasn't surprised to find out that they all had problems at home and that all of them were different to what they appear to be. I think that if they remade the movie today, it would be a bit more subtle. The end is a bit quick which was surprising. All the sudden kissing at the end, in front of the parents is a bit strange and out of context.

Hatter: It's over twenty years old, which can sometimes be death for this sort of movie. Does it feel dated?

Ness: Visually - yes, very! It is clearly made in the 80s and the style of cinematography, costumes and all that have changed considerably.

As for the plot, the story is told in a somewhat slower way. In modern films of a similar genre it seems like they dont take as much time. There is so much crying and laughing and dancing and just listening to music in this film which would have definitely be cut now.

I don't think the story itself is dated. Kids still have the same problems with their parents and trying to find boy/girlfriends and all that. I think kids grow up a lot faster now so maybe these kids in the film would have to be a bit younger in a 2010 version.

Hatter: Perhaps, but Hollywood still seems to cast actors that are too old to be high school students. Some things never change. Anything else about it not work for you?

Ness: The ending. It's foreseeable that some of the characters "end up together" but it was very sudden. All that drama and crying and then they walk out of the door holding hands and kissing. Right in front of the parents they dislike so much. I was thinking that those "horrible" parents would have said something. It is clear why the film makers did it. After the climax of revelations and all that crying there had to be the sense of freedom when they "burst" out the door into freedom. But it was way over the top

Hatter: Fair enough. But have you never wanted to be freeze-framed with your fist in the air as Simple Minds wail on the soundtrack?

Ness: That sentence is so 80's.

Hatter: Thanks, I try. Did hype enter into your reaction, because amongst our age group thsi film is more or less "Required Viewing"

Ness: I was pretty unaware of this film. I had heard the title before but it completely passed me by. So, no.

Hatter: Interesting. I had guessed that either you knew most of the story by now (and thus would have nothing to look forward to), or that you'd heard a lot of people our age rave about how much they loved it - making it a bit overhyped.

Ness: I grew up mostly in Europe and the film wasn't that popular there. We had a few amazing kids movies that you will probably never watch. I actually missed a lot of the "classic North American teenager movies". Watched Princess Bride for the first time a couple of months ago, and I absolutely loved The Neverending Story.

Hatter: So on a scale of 1 to 5?

Ness: Seeing it now as an adult...3.5 out of 5

Anything But the Truth

A few weeks ago, I reviewed NEVER LET ME GO - a film that seems to have slipped under the radar for audiences at large. One thing I found interesting in discussing the film further, was the way the conversation often came back to one particular plot point.

This brought a huge smile to my face when I listened to a recent episode of The Creative Screenwriting Podcast, in which screenwriter Alex Garland and novelist Kazuo Ishiguro discussed the story.

The plot point in particular is wickedly spoilerish, so I've hidden it below the jump. So if you've seen the film, or if you're just insatiably curious, click below and check out what the writers have to say.

The question at hand was, "When Tommy and Kathy discover that there's no way out of fulfilling their donations, why don't they just make a run for it?

The answer goes like so...

Alex Garland: "In almost all cinema - across genres - they always escape. Once you become aware of it, it becomes like someone eating popcorn behind you (you can't get it out of your head). It's like a hypnotic need between audiences and filmmakers working together, again and again. It's extraordinary how required it is by cinema.

In the real world, people don't escape. It's as simple as that. Some people do, brave people do, but a lot of people don't escape from their marriage, or their job. Whatever it is that is holding them down, and internally if they're honest with themselves they know it's wrong, but they'll stick with it. There seems to just be something very human about that.

I spoke with a doctor who works with cancer patients, and he said that you would think when a person is given a terminal diagnosis, that they'll want to go see the pyramids, and bungee jump, but he said they don't. they want their lives to continue as it was before for as long as it possibly can.

That struck me as being very true - I could feel the truth in it. I'm sure that it's not true across the board, I'm just saying it's a general truth. So it felt very important to me that this whole escape thing wasn't acknowledged."

Kazuo Ishiguro: "I suppose one answer is that i wasn't interested in a story about people who ran away. I'm fascinated by the extent that people don't run away. Perhaps we think people run away more than they do because we just get this repetition in stories. It's almost as if we have to keep telling ourselves that the human spirit demands escape or rebellion all the time. But the sad truth is that when you look through human history, it tells completely the reverse.

Slavery went on for centuries, and it didn't end because the slaves rebelled. The Holocaust didn't come to an end because The Jews rebelled and fought back: It ended because The Allies invaded occupied Europe. People are remarkably accepting of their fate.

I wouldn't want to say that (people running) is a lie perpetuated by cinema, but the accumulative effect of having story after story where we expect the spirit of escape to triumph I think is odd.

The other thing is, ultimately I wanted this to be a metaphor for human beings caught in the fact that they have a limited lifespan. We're mortal, and that is the case for every one of us. there's no escaping from that hand that's been dealt to every one of us. If we're lucky, we'll make it to 80 or 90 years. That's really what I wanted to address.

This story was supposed to be a concertina version of a natural human lifespan. How do you fit in love and friendship - what really matters - as time starts to run away and you realize you haven't really got very much longer."

Less Than You Think (or Why I'm Not a Critic)

Yesterday morning, Emma at The Film Geek posed an interesting question. She asked those of us who spend our time blogging about movies whether we consider ourselves film critics. After about ten seconds' worth of reflection, my answer was to say "No. No, I'm not."

There is the old saying that everyone's a critic, right? That it doesn't take much for someone looking at any type of work to offer up an opinion on what's wrong with that piece of work. Whether or not the opinion is astute is a different story. One particular film critic - known for his tendency to swim against the current - has bemoaned the fact that in the information age, criticism has fallen into the hands of uninformed fanboys who just want to tell you how much overhyped movies suck, and how awesome fetish property films are.

Much as I usually disagree with this critic, he's not exactly wrong on this point. However, that isn't why I don't see myself as a critic.

It's my belief that to fully understand, appreciate, and deconstruct any art form, you must be well read in the art form. If one wanted to be a writer, they should know Shakespeare back and forth. If somebody wanted to be a jazz pianist, they should be able to play Thelonious Monk. Such touchstones are the building blocks...and if you can't create the art, you only want to examine the art, you must likewise be as well versed.

This, my friends, is where I fall short.

I can argue for hours on why CARS is a better Pixar offering than people give it credit for. I could write pages on why P.T. Anderson could be the next Robert Altman. But I wouldn't know where to begin when discussing Frederico Felinni's body of work. Nor could I explain how BREATHLESS affected modern cinema. And while neither of these two details are essential to explaining why STEP UP 3-D is a waste of time, they are essential to insightful criticism.

My fascination with "The Essentials" is legend by now, but there is a reason why they are considered "essentials". Basically, before we can comment on where we are headed, we really need to look back on where we have been. In time, i might have studied the history deep enough to comment on the state of affairs, but for now I'm well short.

So no - I'm no critic. I am not be in a league with A.O. Scott or Peter Travers. They understand the medium far better than I do, and can articulate why elements of film do or don't work far better than I can on my best day. I'm a blogger to be sure, and a writer who strives to improve. I belong to a particular weight class of fighters, and have never deluded myself into thinking that I can step into the ring for a shot at the belt...and I'm OK with that.

With that in mind, this passion of mine doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon, and there is a stripe of pride running through me that is dedicated to getting better at it (one look at some of my earlier writings tells me that it's working).

So I will continue to expand my vocabulary...I will continue to watch as much as I can get my hands on. I will continue to hops that one day someone will pay me to do what I'm doing and up my legitimacy just that much more, and until then I will continue to carry my own equipment bag and file onto the bus with all the other bushleaguers.

I'm no critic - but that won't stop me from striving to be one.

Bringin' Down Dinner

Today, I Feel Like This...

Review: YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER * *

It often seems so simple. We made a wrong move somewhere - smiled or returned the smile of the wrong person. Now we're with them, whether they still make us happy or not. We're spoken for: unavailable to that girl in the window, or that tall dark stranger who could come knocking.

Where it gets tricky is when we ask ourselves, could that girl, or that tall dark stranger be the right person?

We begin with Alfie and Helena (Anthony Hopkins and Gemma Jones). After decades of wedded bliss, Alfie has seperated from Helena. He has a new zest for life and his younger days. He starts driving a flashy car, tries to get in better shape, and eventually attracts a young golddigger named Charmaine (Lucy Punch). Meanwhile, Helena is left completely out of sorts, and can only turn to a sham of a fortune teller for guidance.

Alfie and Helena's daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) isn't doing much better. She is in a tense marriage with Roy (Josh Brolin), a med student-turned author who can't seem to write anything that anybody wants to read. Their entire situation is worsened by the fact that both Sally and Roy are finding comfort outside of their marital bonds.

Sally is rather smitten with a gallery owner named Greg (Antonio Bandares), who just so happens to be her new boss. Meanwhile Roy is infatuated by a girl in a neighbouring building (Freida Pinto). While he only watches her from afar at first, there's nothing like struggling to write a bad novel to give one the courage to finally say hello across the courtyard.

Just about every character in YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER seems to have the same mindset. Almost to a man, they seem to believe that their lovelife is in a rut and that they need to make a change. They need someone else - anyone else. If they shake off the person that has held them back, then suddenly their every wish will come true and their life will be filled with meaning and love. Problem is, it seldom works that way.

It's a knee-jerk reaction. It's believing that just because someone spontaneous caused you sadness, that someone methodical will bring you great joy. This flawed logic is ultimately what holds the whole story back. Because everybody in the story seems to be selfishly subscribing to it, we have no voice of reason to identify with. Not Alfie, not Helena, not Dia, not Greg, not Sally, and certainly not Roy who is the surrogate Woody Allen in this film.

Roy believes that he is stuck trying to finish his book because he doesn't have the right muse. Well even when the woman who seems to be the right muse comes along, his book still doesn't turn out right, so what does that tell you? His actions symbolize a cold selfishness that hangs over much of the story. Grey clouds surround this supposed comedy by surrounding us with great romantic confusion, but denying us any ultimate romantic happiness.

Discussing the work of great directors can often be frustrating. There are many who believe that after a certain measure of success, a filmmaker is doomed to repeat themselves. There are others who can only ever compare a filmmaker's offerings to the very best they have ever offered. For me, filmmakers are like painters who offer us various phases of their vision. To this end, their films should be judged against everything else offered in the phase...not everything else ever offered.

As I reflect on YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER, I do not consider ANNIE HALL. I don't consider MANHATTAN. I do however, consider MATCH POINT, VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA, and THE SWEET & LOWDOWN. Unfortunately, when I think about Allen's recent body of work, I still find the film wanting. The multi-narrative feels disjointed, and none of the scenarios carry the sexiness or charm that Allen is capable of infusing into relationships.

The film isn't a complete disaster, and does offer a few laughs such as the psychic that reads fortunes using playing cards, Alfie waiting patiently for his Viagara to kick in, and the ultimate payoff of Roy's morally compramised decision. But far too often, its characters spend minute after minute complaining about what they don't want in life...and very little expressing what they do want.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER.

Everybody's Talkin' 10 - 14 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

As the days get shorter and the wind gets colder, I usually grow excited for the best films of the year. This year however, after a busy Spetember and early October, I seem to be stymied by three weeks where there isn't a whole lot coming that I want to see.

On the one hand, this isn't such bad news since there is a lot of classics coming to the Lightbox that I'd love to dig into instead (Yo Sasha - you in or what?). Furthermore, this also works out beautifully since Lady Hatter and I will be moving at the end of this month. Guess things find a way of working out for the best, eh?

So as I begin to pack up my dvd collection and mull over whether or not my dvd's and Lady Hatter's will finally integrate in the new place, I look to the rest of you for counsel and company. And like every other week that I've run this feature, y'all never let me down.

For your reading fulfillment, I give you...

This is a movie blog, but we lost a musical legend this week. The Kid in The Front Row eulogizes him splendidly.

Day before yesterday when I mentioned how lacking I was in the horror film department, one title that was mentioned quite often was ROSEMARY'S BABY. As if on cue - Joel has written a review on it.

As a Superman Aficionado, I've been humming and hawing over the news that Zack Snyder will be directing the next man of Tomorrow film. (Sidebar: The news that Zod is not in fact the villain is a welcome bit of news for me). Film Intel has a pretty good pro and con post on whether Snyder is in fact a good choice to direct this movie.

I'm kinda done ranting about 3-D, but Univarn still has a few interesting things to say.

Remember how much I dug CATFISH? Seems like Peter at Magic Lantern wasn't so enthused.

Oh, and it would seem as though Phil has started a movie night and decided to start everyone off with a classic I love that many of y'all don't like. (I'm happy to report that he and his guests dug it).

Enjoy!

Island of Souls (THE TEMPEST Trailer)

Just last week, in the aftermath of a Glee performance that evoked one of her films, I got to thinking about Julie Taymor.

I started thinking back to the fact that ACROSS THE UNIVERSE was one of the first films I wrote about on this site, and wondered how long her Broadway version of Spider-Man would keep her from directing another feature. Hollywood doesn't have all that many directors with her sort of imaginative vision you see, so having her sidelined by an oft-delayed project sucks particularly hard.

Well, it would seem as though the wait is over - and she's gone back to adapting Shakespeare...

Confession

Every episode of my podcast begins with a survey asking "What classic or essential haven't you seen?". Usually right around then I act all guffawed and incredulous when a guest tells me a 'Film Lit 101' title they haven't seen.

I've been asked on more than one occasion what my answer would be to this very question, and I think the best answer I've been able to come back with has been TRUE GRIT or something of the like. But as I've been seeing more and more orange and black around town, and skimming through the increasing amount of posts based on scary movies, I remembered something. I recalled that when it comes to essentials that I haven't seen, I was completely forgetting something:

I have a gigantic blind spot for horror films.

Want proof? Here are some of the scary movies I've never seen...

Any Friday the 13th chapter.
Any Nightmare on Elm Street after the first one.
Every George Romero film not titled NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (and even that only got its first play a month or so ago)
Any Halloween chapter
EVIL DEAD 1 & 2
Any Saw chapter
The original FRANKENSTEIN, WOLFMAN, MUMMY, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON
ROSEMARY'S BABY
THE EXORCIST
THE FLY
and the only time I've seen AMITYVILLE HORROR was the edited version on AMC

Why the gaping hole in my repertoire? Two reasons really. For starters, I'm not exactly surrounded by horror fans that prod me to see such things - though many of the Toronto Bloggers Circle are unabashed fans of genre cinema. Without someone acting guffawed and incredulous to me, these titles just get mixed into the list.

The other reason is much more simple - I'm a giant pussy. Edit: Me being a giant pussy is the reason THE EXORCIST is on this list. It freaks me out too badly. I've tried watching it - multiple times - but it just screws me up too badly. Mock me if you must.

So let this be my gift back to anyone I have ever affected with my "How the hell haven't you seen ___________ " diatribes. And let it also be a call...

When I do eventually endulge on a diet of horror, what should I be sure to add to the list?

Midnight Radio: The Matineecast Episode 22

It's Thanksgiving here in Canada, and lemme tell ya folks - there's no better part of married life than the knowledge that I'll be indulging in three separate turkey dinners this weekend.

There's been movies a-plenty this weekend, so indeed it's fitting that I take time away from the sweet potatoes and apple pie to talk cinema for an hour or so. So turn down the football game, pull up a chair, and join Sebastian and I at the dinner table, won't you?

Here's the Jim Palmer episode...



(Go here or to iTunes if the embedded player doesn't start)

Here's what's in store in episode twenty-two...

Runtime
59 minutes, 32 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. Introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Q & A with this episode's guest, Sebastian Gutierrez from Supermassive Black Hole (1:40)
3. COME TALK TO ME - No emails this week, so we discuss the particulars of expectations going into a film. (8:23)
4. THE NEW SLANG - Review and reaction of THE SOCIAL NETWORK (14:54)
5. THE BEST OF YOU - Sebastian and I honour this holiday by discussing five things we're thankful for. (30:15)

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

Enjoy!

Review: CATFISH * * *

While this post will be wickedly non-specific, I'll echo the company line.
If you haven't seen this film, don't read this. Just go see the film.
If you have seen it, or are just that much of a daredevil, read on.

CATFISH is the story of New York photographer Nev Schulman. One day he is mailed a painting based on one of his published photographs. The painting is done by an 8 year old girl in Michigan named Abby Pierce. So enamoured with the painting, Nev soon reaches out to the girl and her family. In short order he finds himself as a close Facebook friend with Abby, her mother Angela, and her older sister Megan.

More than anything, CATFISH wants to challenge our perceptions. In this information age that we live in, we feel we can relate to people based on what they put online. Not so hard to understand is it? I know I feel like good friends with several of my readers, even though I've never been face to face with them for a single moment. We find ourselves drawn to the projection: the ideal self that one puts forward.

On the one hand, that might seem like asking for trouble. However, recall that we have entered an era where people are dropping avatars and nicknames (well, most of y'all are anyway) and instead putting our entire lives online. Being drawn to the virtual personality is indeed still a dangerous game, but in an era where we seem to want to share everything short of our Social Security number, the danger has been sufficiently watered down.

That's not to say that the danger is gone completely. One could just fill their blog or Facebook profile with the slivers of joy they feel in their life, and all the while suppress a large amount of dark truth. There are things we don't like about ourselves that we hide from people we interact with day after day...why would one share those secrets with any person who clicked on our profile?

The hitch is that as we draw people to our virtual personas, there seems to come an unspoken trust with it. Say for instance that my Mad Hatter visage was a complete put-on. That I wasn't who I appear to be. Would you feel betrayed? Perhaps feel angry with me for misleading you, and perhaps with yourself for believing me? What then? Perhaps you'd be bent on digging deeper - on discovering just how deep this particular rabbit-hole goes.

We've all been there, found ourselves confronted with a lie and instinctually gone all Johnny-Law to get the truth. The question is, if we actually manage to get the truth - what then? What are we supposed to do with that? Will it make us sleep better somehow, holding tight to the self satisfaction that we showed the lie who was boss?

Many of us might enjoy thinking two moves ahead when it comes to personal relationships, but the fact is that sometimes we can take these self-entitled steps, and not find ourselves where we thought we'd be. Instead we find ourselves somewhere more dangerous. Somewhere sadder. Somewhere we just don't want to be.

CATFISH doesn't want to warn us about drowning in other people's lives so much as it wants us to examine our own. Are we becoming too open with strangers? What's the consequence of forsaking what's right outside our door for the personality in the profile? Could co-exisitng with something that isn't supposed to be there completely destroy our life, or could it in fact keep us sharp...and give us something we might not have been able to survive without?

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to CATFISH.

The Beginning of a New Adventure

Today, I Feel Like This...

Review: TAMARA DREWE * * 1/2

Ever look back on something and find yourself forgetting the bad things about it? It's not selective memory exactly, more like a focus on the bright side. It happens often...the way we choose to remember people, stories,...entire experiences really. The dodgy bits fade from consciousness, leaving in its place a tapestry of warm memories.

Every once in a while, that feeling applies itself to a movie.

TAMARA DREWE begins on a writers' retreat in the English countryside. The farm where writers come to work and be inspired is run by crime novelist Nicholas Hardiment (Roger Allam) and his loving wife Beth (Tamsin Greig). Working with them, is a strapping lad named Andy (Luke Evans) - a farm hand who just so happened to grow up on the estate next door.

That estate has long been owned by the Drewe family, however when the matriarch finally passes away, daughter Tamara (Gemma Arteton) returns to town to settle affairs. Unfortunately for many in the community, she arrives with all the grace and subtlety of a hurricane.

Drewe begins disrupting the natural order of things by enticing and tormenting both Nicholas and Andy. She then makes matters worse by inviting a rock drummer named Ben (Dominic Cooper) to live with her. And unbeknownst to her, she making matters worse by becoming something of a fixation for two teenage girls in town named Jody and Casey.

Before long people are falling in and out of love. People are causing mischief just because they can. And people in a seemingly wholesome community are lying to one another. A lot.

TAMARA DREWE is a spotty film. As an overall narrative it goes down some very predictable paths, and there is at least one character who seems more cartoon than human - and almost entirely unnecessary. It is at times too cutely constructed - I could have done with about seven less wipe cuts to memories of Tamara's younger days. Speaking of those younger days, the prosthetic nose they outfit Arteton with bordered on ludicrousness.

But strangely, when it's all over, those problems fade from memory. For starters, we get a wonderful focus on writing and what goes into it. As the film opens, we are treated to a bright mosaic of writers working; their thoughts swirling and flowing like wine on a Saturday night. later we get the cheeky counterpoint, when one writer compares writing to taking a shit. But of course, that moment is fleeting, and the story instead decides to focus on what being in love can do for a writer. It's a sweet notion, and helps take the emphasis off the film's shortcomings.

So on the one hand, we have a lot of creative energy with purpose, which then gets put to the test when Tamara and her restless energy storm back into town. Fittingly, when she first drives up, her car is blaring a song that declares "I don't know what's right and what's real anymore / I don't know how I'm meant to feel anymore".

Tamara is oblivious in many ways, and wickedly disruptive in not realizing just how oblivious she is. When she was younger, she was just like Jody and Casey. She was perpetually restless, and could only ever counter that by causing mischief - usually at the expense of the men in town. That's the problem with rural boredom; it's almost never solved with a crossword puzzle.

So in its sometimes cute, sometimes slight, but always genuine way, TAMARA DREWE begins to play a game of Mouse Trap. As it rolls the dice of class division and personal deceit, it slowly puts piece after piece on to the board. This small town becomes the game board...the characters become the chutes and scaffolding...the corners they've backed themselves into become boots and buckets. And right on cue, the film drops the marble and springs the trap.

Once the dust has cleared, and the metaphoric trap has been sprung, it's hard to stay preoccupied by cardboard characters or their silly decisions. It's like trying to stay mad at someone when they're making you laugh. The failings begin to fade, and those touchstones of eloquence and charm remain. Ultimately, the film moves from sloppy to rustic, and becomes more endearing.

TAMARA DREWE is like the girl who teased you mercilessly and ratted you out to your parents...but damned if she isn't still so darned cute, so there's no way you wouldn't stop and catch up.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to TAMARA DREWE.

Everybody's Talkin' 10 - 07 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

9 innings
104 pitches
28 batters
8 strikeouts
1 walk
0 hits

Wow.
Just...wow!!!


For your reading enjoyment, I give you...

The Flickering Myth - a blog I started following thanks to Simon Colmub - has put together a wonderful snapshot of music videos inspired by feature films.

New Papa Vance at The Audient and his missus had a bit of a rough go trying to balance being new parents and seeing THE SOCIAL NETWORK.

Look everyone - Nick has spiffed up the place!!

Mike at You Talkin' points us towards a term we should all start using - Monday Movies.

I'm still on the fence about seeing BURIED, but Fandango seems to think that it's worth a look.

Sebastian Gutierrez has started a series where he recounts lessons that the movies have taught him - this week he focused on action movie heroes.

Enjoy!

Get In The Ring (FIGHTER Trailer)

So last Friday, I was sitting in the multiplex flanked by Cheshire and Lady Hatter waiting for THE SOCIAL NETWORK to start. The lights went down, and I actually got a little worried about what we were about to see courtesy of a somewhat lacklustre trailer reel (I'm a believer that the quality of the trailers you get can often dictate the quality of the film you're about to watch).

At the end of the reel came this particular trailer. Now in all fairness, this is a film that I am very much looking forward to seeing...but you'd never know it best on this schloky clip...

1,000th Post - Another Day: ALMOST FAMOUS

This is my 1,000th post on The Dark of The Matinee.

In honour of such a swell occasion, I wanted to do something fun. As many of you know by now, I only write full-on reviews for films I watch in a theatre. My dvd coverage on the other hand tends to be noted in features like Doubleback or Back to Basics.

However, I thought it'd be fun to celebrate 1000 posts by zeroing in on a film that speaks to me quite a bit. A film that I love dearly and have identified with for a lot of reasons.

So whether you're reading this blog for the first time, or have been doing so all the way from the very first post, I thank you dearly for reading, and offer the conclusion of yesterday's discussions on favorites. After the jump, please take a peek at a review of my all-time favorite film - ALMOST FAMOUS.

Many moons ago, before I was the movie geek I was the music geek. I was the guy who always had a wallet of at least 12 cd's in his bag. I was the guy who always wore the doufy looking headphones. I knew the lyrics of most of the big hits, and could hum all the other ones. So it's no small surprise that at the height of this, just after my 22nd birthday, a movie that begins with the sound of a needle dropping into a spinning record would win my heart.

For the uninitiated, Cameron Crowe's ALMOST FAMOUS is a semi-autobiographical tale. In the film, fifteen-year-old William Miller (Patrick Fugit) catches a lucky bounce when Rolling Stone magazine offers him a chance to write for them. Miller is dispatched to cover an up-and-coming band named Stillwater on their 1973 American tour.

The movie is an endearing love letter to rock and roll, so it isn't difficult to understand why it became my favourite. But as I rewatched it for the umpteenth time to prep for this post, I was struck for the first time by a detail that keeps it on the top of my own Hot 200. Even though I am more than double William Miller's age, I can't help but connect to him and his struggles to become a critic.

Elvis Costello once said that writing about music was like dancing about architecture...but that doesn't mean that there aren't some pretty talented architectural dancers out there. Of course, the same applies to writing about movies too. Yes, like William, I am piggybacking on someone else's artistic expressions to make my own artistic expression. However, I believe there is a role for witnesses like William to play, and it goes beyond flying on borrowed wings.

I identify with William's outlook in ALMOST FAMOUS the same way that he identifies with Atticus Finch's honesty in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. William represents the precise middle ground between Penny Lane's adoring fandom, and Lester Bang's crusty cynicism. He wants to be an evangelist - to gather believers to the church of rock & roll. However, he won't be a false prophet. He'll spread the good news of a band like Stillwater, but only so far as they earn it.

This film explores the wonderful see-saw rhythm that takes place between young artists and young media. They need each other, feed off each other, and really can't exist without each other. William nestles into the corner of a dressing room thinking that he doesn't belong there, and I can certainly relate to the feeling that one has wandered into a whole other world. What William doesn't know, is that like many rising stars, Stillwater is equally nervous of him...trembling at the notion that he can point out just how cool they aren't.

Take all of that and set it to one of the greatest soundtracks of all time, and it's no wonder that a music, movie, and writing geek like myself considers this film his favourite. There's some small part of me that would love to be Lester Bangs' protege. To write with his honesty, but be a counterpoint to his pessimism. I do believe, as Bangs points out, that "the only currency in this bankrupt world, is the truth you share when you're uncool". Perhaps because as many of you well know, I'm pretty damned uncool myself.

But no matter how uncool I manage to be, I remain a believer in music. I dig music. I'm here because of the music. I measure my life in playlists, and will never forget where I was when a certain song came on. I try to tip-toe along the line between fan and critic, but hope that I will never lose the enthusiasm required to run behind a departing plane waving goodbye.

That attitude hasn't changed in the ten years since I first saw this film on a Friday night in September with my dear friend Amanda Lee. It's what continues to draw me to this film, and has put it on a shelf for me that no film has even come close to reaching. It reminds me, to paraphrase this wonderful script, about what it is to be a fan; to love some silly piece of music...some band...or indeed some film, so much that it hurts.

Rating: * * * *

Favorite

I got to thinking about favorite films - the films we christen as our favorites...how long ago or how recently we see these movies...and just what it takes for that title of "My Favorite Movie" to get unseeded.

Near as I can tell, the first film that I considered my favorite was THE WIZARD OF OZ back when I was seven years old. Admittedly, trying to isolate what it is about this film that appealed to seven year old me is difficult at best (I can barely remember what Lady Hatter asked me to bring home from the supermarket tonight). If I had to venture a guess though, it'd be the combination of the music and the fantasy of the whole thing.

Most of my earliest memories involve music - listening to radios, singing songs, trying to dance. It was my first love, so to see a movie that stopped every fifteen minutes or so to sing a song, it's a pretty safe bet that seven-year-old Hatter was enthralled. However in those years before I was raised on the songs of Michael Jackson and Van Halen, I was being told fairy tales...and as such, I spent much of my childhood gravitating towards some pretty fanciful stories. In hindsight I mighta held on to this one a little long, but it's a classic. Ain't no shame in it.

Around the time I turned 12, a friend loaned me a videotape that changed my mind about just how much i loved that film that took me over the rainbow. The flick was that bit of rah-rah-Americanism, TOP GUN. (Commence sidebar discussion about a Canadian pre-teen gravitating towards a story of rah-rah-Americanism).

Obviously the first factor to a film like this becoming my new favorite was growing up. Sure I loved my fairy tales as a kid, but I wasn't going to be a kid forever. The second thing that latched me to this movie was the fact that Pete "Maverick" Mitchell just seemed so cool. Cool was...well something I just wasn't. AT all (I'm still really not, but that's a whole other discussion).

The flick was quotable at a time where I started to enjoy quoting films. It had that music factor going for it again, and it sparked a nickname for me that sparked a switch from peer mockery to self deprecation. I also never noticed any such thing as homoeroticism at the time, so this one stayed my favorite for a good long while.

I started college in the autumn of 1997, and with that change came an awful lot of uncertainty. I wasn't sure my girlfriend was gonna stick with me, I wasn't sure about my whole school-work-home treadmill that I was running on, and in some ways I wasn't even sure that I was in school for the right thing.

Such uncertainty and nervousness, coupled with a budding talent for smartassery, drew me to GOOD WILL HUNTING. Like the change in favorites before it, it couldn't possibly have less in common with its predecessor...but I think that's part of how things become our new favorite. Sure we all have a type, but it's not in most people's nature to dump a smart homely person for another smart homely person. No - we mix it up...allow the pendulum to swing. Thus a big ticket blockbuster had to give way to something far less brash.

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I also dug the idea of a guy being much smarter than he seems. I still do as a matter of fact. The funny thing is, this film wouldn't hold on to that championship belt for long...

A mere seven months later, a new favorite was found.

The quiet if pedestrian indie gave way for something much louder, and in some way much more overt. By this stage in the game, I'd already started seeing film as a medium that could allow for more than just entertainment...but before this screening, I'd never actually been shaken up before. I can remember leaving this film and not saying a word to my brother who came to see it with me for easily half an hour.

It takes a lot for a film to rock me like that (still does), so even though it wasn't perfect and contained moments of blatant obviousness, it became the new favorite. Like every previous "new champion" it was radically different than what came before, though unlike every other "new champion" it wasn't one that spoke to me on some sort of personal level. It just moved me deeply, the way good filmmaking is supposed to...a mere six months after being previously so affected.

However, like its predecessor, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN wouldn't remain on the top of the heap for long...

(To Be Continued)

Review: THE SOCIAL NETWORK * * * 1/2

A glance at my Facebook page tells me that I have a couple hundred people listed as my friends. I can tell you without hesitation that I do not interact with this many people in my life. Not even close.

But there they all are...framed in little boxes, smiling back at me under a pale blue label that confirms them as "Friends". How did this virtual oxymoron happen?

Set in 2004, THE SOCIAL NETWORK is told by way of two separate legal depositions intercut with the events those depositions are discussing. At the centre of it all is Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), a Harvard student who creates a website one night. Its inspiration is one part anger, one part ambition, and three parts drunken restlessness. It proves to be a popular site - so popular in fact that it crashes Harvard's server.

The website was done for a lark, but it gets the attention at some members of a Harvard Final Club that he desperately wants to be a part of. The Final Clubs you see, come with a certain social status...something Zuckerberg can't seem to achieve on his own. When three members of The Final Club approach him to help them create their site, Zuckerberg gets hit with an even better idea. He comes up with a site that Harvard students will be able to interact with each other online, but still keep their privacy intact since it will all be by invitation only.

With his closest friends in tow, including Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) who puts up the money needed for R&D, Zuckerberg launches a site called "The Facebook". The whole thing becomes pretty popular, but raises the ire of the gang at The Final Club since they feel he ripped off the idea they tasked him with developing.

Zuckerberg continues to duck their ever-escalating threats, focusing instead on growing The Facebook into something bigger. As it expands to other schools, he gets the attention of Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). Parker likes the look of what they have, and agrees with Eduardo that there is money to be made with the project. However, he also understands that monetizing such a concept will have to be done delicately, lest all the fun get sucked out of it.

Three radically different personalities, the threat of legal action, a potentially world-changing idea. What could go wrong?

Everybody involved with this film has brought their A-Game. Eisenberg and Timberlake show us a side of themselves that we haven't seen yet, and Garfield continues an unforeseen run of great acting in a part that makes him this story's moral compass. While it can be overbearing at times, the entire story is made a tad more unsettling by an off-centre score by Trent Reznor, which compliments David Fincher's calculated direction perfectly. Fincher has taken a story that is little more than straight dialogue, given it a rhythm all its own, and turned what seemed on paper to be a pretty slight concept into a very captivating film.

One does have to wonder just how much of this story is true (The Erica Albrecht character for instance, was completely made up). That's the speedbump for this film on its drive to cinematic success: since we're talking about events that happened just six years ago, one has to wonder if filmmakers rushed this story in the race to tell it first. That aside, one has to admire the biggest irony of this entire story: a tool that is supposed to bring us together, allow us to have fun, and socially interact is created by a character who usually sits alone, never seems to be having any fun, and couldn't be more socially awkward.

When we spoke about the film, fellow blogger Sebastian Gutierrez zeroed in on a moment that encapsulates everything this story is about. A character sits alone in an empty room...makes a friend request on Facebook...and continually refreshes the page to see if the request is accepted. In reality, one has to wonder "what next?" Will he start sending messages to this person...rekindle a friendship...go out for a drink? Probably not. He is ceaselessly refreshing his browser to see if they will in fact be 'Facebook Friends' - a life he can keep tabs on, get an update at a glance, and maybe drop the odd comment on every once in a while. Just how social is that?

Thats what makes the story of THE SOCIAL NETWORK so interesting, is the fact that what these socially awkward/morally compromised college kids perhaps irreversibly changed our world because they were bored and looking for kicks one drunken Tuesday night. This tool that a huge percentage of the world uses gets tweaked to include a person's relationship status, because someone out there was too chicken-shit to walk up and actually ask another person about their relationship status. We have entered an age in which we all interact virtually, because a one guy who happened to have an idea wasn't that hot at interacting socially.

But it's not just him is it? So many of us these days have forsaken face time and picking up a phone in favour of communicating via text and sending brief instant messages. When Mark has his blow-out with Erica at the beginning of the film, he doesn't have the guts to tell her what he really thinks...but he has no qualms with publishing it for the whole wide world to read.

I don't want to sound like the old cotcher bitching about what technology has done to our lives (that'd actually seem pretty hypocritical), but after seeing a movie like THE SOCIAL NETWORK, one can't help but look at what these characters created...how it has affected our lives...and wonder if we are in fact better off?

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to THE SOCIAL NETWORK.

Ill Communication

Today, I Feel Like This...

("What we have here...")

Review: LET ME IN * * * 1/2

There's few feelings in life that hurt as badly as being bullied. It comes for no reason, it's seemingly omnipresent, and it can make just walking out the front door a task that requires the utmost courage. For those who are picked on, nothing in life is desired more than for it all to stop.

They want a protector. They dream of it...they pray for it...
They invite it.

LET ME IN takes place in New Mexico in the early 80's. Owen (Kodi Smit McPhee) is a 12-year old boy with no friends, and complacent parents. He is bullied mercilessly at school and only takes solace by imagining one day getting his revenge (not like he really stands a chance mind you). Owen lives in an unspectacular apartment complex, and one day in the dead of winter a pair of mysterious strangers movie into the apartment next door. They are a father (Richard Jenkins) and a curious girl about Owen's age named Abby (Chloe Moretz).

Owen continually runs into Abby all alone evenings at the apartment playground, and she seems to understand him far better than his absentee parents...and light years more than his abusive schoolmates. The two share a connection, one that keeps them coming back to the jungle gym night after night even though they don't really know much about each other.

With Owen, what you see is what you get, but with Abby it's much more. Owen doesn't understand why Abby doesn't so to his school, or why he never sees her around in the daytime at all. He has no clue that her "father" goes out night after night, and kills innocent victims for their blood, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake. And he doesn't know that Abby is much older than her 12-year-old frame suggests, since Abby is a vampire.

LET ME IN is a quietly vicious story of a timid friendship. Owen stands in for many of us who grew up as awkward loners. Kodi Smit McPhee embodies him perfectly - his wanting, his desperation, and especially his sadness. As the third act begins, Owen makes a frightened phone call to his father and asks a very direct question: "Is evil real?". It's one of the most frightened and honest moments you'll see in a movie, and McPhee deserves top marks for such a heartbreaking bit of acting.

Like Owen, many of us found ourselves with very few friends, the target of overcompensating bullies, and not understanding what it was about ourselves that screamed "bullseye". Like him, the best part of our day was when we got home and could escape into our own imagination and solitude. If only we too could meet someone like Abby. Someone with Chloe Moretz's wholesome smile. That person who could reach out to us with no agenda, and mean it.

Abby of course isn't all sugar and spice, and when the darkness inside of her is let loose the movie earns its bloody stripes. When Abby feeds, it's animalistic and frightening. LET ME IN isn't interested in playing up the romantic lore of a vampire while forsaking a vampire's monstrous nature, and the fact that all this carnage is caused by such a seemingly young person makes it all that much more unsettling.

And if that's not enough gruesomeness for you, there's also the fate of her protective handler and the fate of a victim that gets away to endure. Director Matt Reeves allows these moments to play: he doesn't use quick cutting techniques, and instead holds our heads with two hands and makes us watch.

The entire film is painted in gentle brushstrokes, which is what helps it succeed. It's patient, and isn't interested in revealing its hand too quickly. It's filled with quiet moments of unease, like when it instills in us the uncomfortable feeling of hearing a garbled argument through a wall that's just too thin. And as Abby and Owen walk further and further down the path of their vulnerable friendship, they are guided by a Michael Giacchino score that encapsulates everything they don't say perfectly.

While I'd like to leave it out, I suppose I can't post this review without answering the inevitable question: Is LET ME IN as good as LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, the Swedish film on which it is based. The answer is "no". Does that mean its a bad film and not worth seeing at all? The answer to that also is "no".

LET ME IN wants to tell this story in an ever-so-slightly different way, and that's not a bad thing. It has retained the original's haunting quality, its stillness, its tenderness, and its violence. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN was one of the best films the last decade had to offer, and just because this domestic take on it doesn't completely measure up, it also doesn't mean that the film fails..

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to LET ME IN.