Out of the Furnace

Blogs are a pain in the ass. It's like, you have all these ideas and you want to tell them to someone, but no one listens, and having a diary is so last century. So you turn to the internet. You write and write everything you have to say and suddenly all of your thoughts are pouring out of you. And then, before you know it, somehow, you just run out of stuff to say and either move on to newer -- and usually lazier forms of social media -- or get a fucking hobby in the real world.

That seems to be what happened with Mark and I, and this movie blog, unfortunately; we just lost interest in analyzing movies and hurrying back here to share our thoughts with anonymous web surfers. The fact is, a year ago, we were both in situations where sitting around watching and discussing movies was a priority. But things have changed since then. Now we sit around and watch movies, but don't have hours to spend peeling each one apart in our casual, sarcastic style.

Hence, we are going to attempt to implement a new formula to our general reviews: short, concise recommendations and criticisms. That being said, I do intend to continue my Future Film Flashback series. There just haven't been any direct reboots in a while; not since RoboCop. I certainly wasn't going to rewatch the original Transformers, just because Trans4mers was technically a 'soft reboot'. Nor did I feel that any Planet of the Apes movie would be appropriate preparation for Dawn. So get off my ass about that. Besides, more and more movies are being turned into television series these days (see: Fargo, Constantine, Scream, and even 12 fucking Monkeys).

Anyways, that concludes my excuse-laden introduction. Now let me get to this movie I just watched: Out of the Furnace.

I always like it when relatively high-profile actors take on unusual roles. This film boasts an impressive roster of familiar faces, including (if you can't read the poster above) Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Casey Affleck, and Willem Dafoe. Bale, of course, has a pretty solid resume of diverse roles, and yet I always go into a movie expecting him to be Batman. Here, he drops the 'troubled tough guy/action hero' persona, and gives the most subdued and restrained performance I have ever seen him in. Meanwhile, Harrelson provides his familiar brand of psychotic tobacco-chewer (always entertaining, but not particularly original), and Affleck mopes around as usual. At the end of the day, the casting is perfect and the acting is surprisingly satisfying.

All that being said, this film doesn't have too much else going for it. From the very beginning, the entire plot is relatively predictable, because we have seen it before. Bale and Affleck are brothers; Bale is a responsible son and boyfriend with a solid work ethic, and his brother is a gambling veteran with PTSD. Both have relatively shitty lives and deal with their problems in different ways, culminating in Affleck getting into trouble and Bale having to come to his aid. It reminded me a lot of Shotgun Stories, another indie film about brotherhood in rural America, starring Michael Shannon (Mark and I reviewed it here).

I would definitely recommend this film if you are into great performances with a solid but simple plot. You may find the slow buildup to the relatively quiet conclusion less than satisfying, but really, we pretty much know how things are going to end once they get rolling. If anything, watch the movie for the uncharacteristically calm and reserved Bale. I would even go so far as to call his performance inspirational, especially in such a bleak film.

And by the way, it is on Netflix.

The Hunt

The Oscars: the most televised opportunity for rich and beautiful people to get together and remind each other how rich and beautiful they are. To celebrate this enlightening cultural spectacle, Mark and I have put together a series in which we watch and review Academy Award nominees before the actual ceremony. Of course, because we never get these things done in time, it is officially a one-part series. And this is going to be the first and only entry.

The movie is entitled The Hunt. It is nominated for Best Foreign Film. Yes, it is a foreign film, so you'll have to do some subtitle reading. I suppose you could find a dubbed version, you lazy bastard. Oh, and it's on Netflix. 

Mark:  So this was one of the most emotionally draining movies I’ve seen in a while.  Most films with this caliber of tension at some point use violence for shock value. And while this movie does, at times, give us a glimpse of overt violence, it really does a consistent job of holding back. In a way, this makes the movie all the more harrowing, as we never get the visceral release that the characters seem to be plummeting toward.  We are presented with a painfully realistic look at how people can turn on each other in the blink of an eye. 

Dylan: I wouldn’t necessarily say that everyone turns to violence. Not at first, at least. I was more swept up by 1) how something this serious could steamroll out of proportion, and 2) how everyone is willing, even eager, to believe the worst. 

(So let me give some background. Lucas is a kindergarten teacher. He is estranged from his wife and son, but he has a tight-knit group of friends, and a budding relationship with a coworker. When a student, Klara -- the daughter of Lucas’ best friend and, herself, a companion to Lucas -- who is having troubles at home, basically does little more than use the words 'Lucas' and ‘penis’ in the same sentence, everything goes to shit. Of course Lucas is innocent, but not only does the innocent white lie, told out of misdirected anger and frustration, spiral out of proportion to the point where Lucas is accused of molesting the entire class, but his coworkers, his close friends, and the entire town turn against him as if he were a hideous beast.)

What makes this film so discomforting is, as you mentioned, the realism. Pedophiles and child molesters are generally considered among the worst level of offenders. Just those words stir up certain feelings, along the same lines as 'terrorism' and 'cancer'. You don't think twice about whether or not an accused or convicted sex offender is guilty; you automatically commit to despising that person, whether or not he/she actually committed the crime. We sympathize with the distraught townspeople, looking for someone to crucify in their rage, but obviously we are heartbroken by Lucas’ troubles, knowing that he did not do any of the things he is accused of.

Mark:  The movie sort of flows more like a documentary.  I say this because the film has very little flash or flair in how scenes are shot, and for this kind of story, that really helps to bring us closer to the characters.  The camera plays the passive role, documenting what happens in Lucas’ life as the world turns against him.  It all begins gradually, with people turning on him one by one. And even when he tries to defend himself, they completely shut him out.  You’re right, the real disturbing part is how we are all capable of this.  But something really refreshing came from how the film portrayed Lucas.  He doesn’t engage in the moments of violence; he doesn’t let it disrupt his life.  When the police ask him to come to the station, he doesn’t fight it, he goes, because he knows he’s innocent and doing anything but will only hurt him.  And this makes him even more engaging of a character.  Not to mention that Mads Mikkelsen does a phenomenal job as Lucas.

Dylan: Right. For the first half of the movie, Lucas isn’t even sure what he’s being accused of. First his boss tells him not to come into work for a few days off because of an incident with a child. And yes, I love how the character Lucas deals with it so complacently, relying on the the legal system to do its job. I have to say, the suspense in this movie is nail-biting. Again, because we can relate with the townspeople, we can sense that Lucas’ life is in danger. I want to discuss the end, but I really want to avoid spoilers. Mikkelson’s general silence throughout the film -- both his docility and his literal lack of speech -- are what really build the tension until it’s unbearable. Most characters he plays are quiet and menacing -- emoting mostly with his face and eyes -- but in this case, it's more vulnerable and restrained. 

Mark: For the whole movie, or rather when things begin to spiral out of control, you expect Lucas to explode.  To just go off on everyone.  It’s really what we’ve kinda come to expect in characters who get accused of something.  And part of the tension is watching and waiting for it.  There are moments where I thought we’d see it from him.  One in particular, which I won’t say because, you know, spoilers and such, showed how much control he has of his own emotions.  But then in the next scene, we see him and see really, what all of this is doing to to him.  Still he keeps his composure; he retains his dignity.  But it’s written all over his face and in his quiet responses.  And it’s probably one of the best and most painful scenes in the movie. 

And while we can speak for pages on how great Mads' performance is (and, really, this was some Oscar-caliber stuff), I just want to relay that the rest of the cast is just as good.  Each character has such personality that it creates a vibrant town, which makes it all so much more poignant when it all turns dark.

Dylan: By the way, loyal reader, as I mentioned above, this is a foreign film. Mads, who is probably more known for his roles in Casino Royale, King Arthur, and the television series Hannibal, apparently emotes even more impressively in his native tongue, Danish. The supporting cast is entirely unknown, at least from our perspective. And I agree, they make a very believable community, from the concerned parents, to the other teachers, to Lucas’ best friend, Klara’s father. The movie is fantastically well written, and is just a great exploration of truth vs. perception, the darkness in human nature, and the way a society functions. It’s also incredibly human, and shows how friends and family will break lifelong bonds and relationships to take sides over something like this.

Mark: You’re right, this is an amazingly well-written film, from the dialogue between well-acted characters to the frighteningly believable concept.  I highly recommend The Hunt; just go in knowing you’re not going to come out with a smile. But know you’re in for a tense, well-acted drama that will hold you from the first scene to the very last, and even in that very last scene, you’ll learn something more about who we are as a society.

Dylan: I believe this is an example of a what they call a 'Frankenstein story'. You know, with the misunderstood dude, perceived as a monster, and chased around by people with pitchforks, yada yada, something with Van Helsing, Aaron Eckhart, and the Wolfman singing Puttin’ on the Ritz with Abbott and Costello and so forth. All that to say, you definitely want to see this movie and feel bad about yourself.

Mark:  Yea, that about sums it up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So here at Back Row Critics, i.e. my living room, we try to present some titles you are unlikely to have picked out yourself. We want to expand your cinematic perspective, and also watch some entertaining movies while we're at it. Sometimes we do a good job of it and sometimes we just goof off and watch movies like Equilibrium. This movie, The Hunt, is great on so many levels. You'll enjoy it and then you'll get to tell your friends about how you watched a foreign film and they'll be impressed. It's almost as impressive as reading a book. 

The Iceman

In the first season of Dexter, back when the show was good, the villain, who allegedly transported his victims in a refrigerated van, became known as the Ice Truck Killer. He would drain their blood and cut them up into pieces and then put them out on display for the police to find. Most people probably do not realize that the show -- at least in its early years -- including this unforgettable foe, are based on true events. The origin story of the Ice Truck Killer is, in fact, a serial killer known as The Iceman.

Okay, I'm just fucking with you. The show Dexter and the movie The Iceman are not, to my knowledge, in any way related. And the former is certainly not based on true events. I just can't resist an opportunity to point out how Dexter was once a great show and then stopped being one. But I guess we're here to talk about movies. So here's The Iceman...

Dylan: I watch Boardwalk Empire. And I think I’m not alone in saying that Michael Shannon’s character has quite a lot of crazy brewing just below the surface. He doesn’t get a lot of screen time, but whenever he shows up, my fingers are crossed that he'll snap and kill everyone. The fact that he is usually held back, on a show filled with lunatics mass murdering each other only fuels the anticipation. But that's a discussion for another time. Well, as far as I can tell, this movie, The Iceman, is explosive release of that same character's insanity (granted, about forty/fifty years in the future). Shannon has an intensity in all of his projects, but this is the first time he goes full-on sociopath from beginning to end.

Mark: Which I found kinda refreshing.  This movie starts with him playing the gentleman as he courts his future wife.  It plays it slow, letting us see, or at least what I thought at the time, The Iceman before he snaps or whatever.  And then two scenes later the blood starts flowing.  There is no build-up, no origin of this killer.  He just was.  So we are dropped into his life and watch as he sinks deeper and deeper into his life of a sociopathic hitman.  But while I say this is good, it also leaves us groundless.  Time flies in this film; years go by, but only occasionally is the date given as a reference point.  I understand this was a long period of his life, but it felt disjointed.  Things flew by, and while moments were entertaining, I got lost a bit in the shuffle of it.

Dylan: Yea totally. I enjoyed Shannon’s crazy face (which is his normal visage), as I always do. But the rest of the movie was severely lacking. Only one scene with Shannon’s character, Richard, and his brother really attempts to divulge some of the history and childhood events that spawned his homicidal tendencies. And it comes halfway through the movie. Aside from that, we gather everything we can, basically, from the way he literally looks at the general public vs. the way he looks at his wife and kids. I also thought that the mafiosos and their storyline was only partially developed. There was Roy and Leo, and some problem between them. But it was barely fleshed out enough to understand how it played into Richard’s life. Especially since, as you mentioned, two decades went by, and it was unclear who was being killed and who Richard was killing people for. Also, since we didn’t mention this: the movie is about a notorious mob (freelance) hitman.

Mark: While watching this, all I could feel is that this story should have been told as a mini-series, so that the time jumps would feel less jolting, and the characters would benefit from more growth and depth.  Everyone, really even Richard, feels like just a caricature.  Richard is brooding and brimming with rage, and that’s it.  Roy, played by a Ray Liotta who seems like he’s sleepwalking through this, is just your run-of-the-mill mafia boss.  I love me some Michael Shannon, but somewhere along the line of the movie’s production, someone told him that his stoic face is really good, and he stuck with.  The only two characters I found myself being really interested in were Josh Rosenthal and Mr. Freezy; Josh because he is played by a David Schwimmer hoping you won’t recognize him.  And Mr. Freezy because Chris Evans hams it up and knocks it out of the park.

Dylan: The reason I brought up Boardwalk is because there is a whole TV series there to flesh out the normal side of Shannon’s character and the events that send him over the edge. And yea, all we get here is a caricature. And that goes for Liotta, too. When did they decide he was the go-to mafia boss character? Goodfellas was great, but even in that, he was just an Irish coke fiend. I agree that Chris Evans was good. It’s great to see him in different roles. He’s like a male Scarlet Johannson (the rockin’ bod); you know he’s in stuff other than The Avengers, but you haven’t really seen much of it. But in this film, he is another character that suffers from two-dimensionality. It would have been more interesting to see how Mr. Freezy’s flavor of craziness differed from Richard’s, and how the two of them work together and try to understand each other. But instead he is introduced, has a few lines here and there, and then leaves.

Mark: But at least for Mr. Freezy, I felt some life being pumped into the film.  They may have been only a few lines, but they had energy.  And you can also see that Chris Evans was still rocking the Captain America physique.  It actually made his character more ridiculous, but in a good way.  But he highlights the biggest flaw in the movie: it’s very shallow.  The story is focused solely on telling you the history of Richard Kuklinski, but nothing more.  Like, it hits on major moments in his life, jumping from one to the next, never letting you sit and watch him develop.  All the changes happen in the time jumps, we just get to see the next stage in the evolution of the Iceman.  Not to say that the life of the Iceman wasn’t interesting, but I wanted something more personal, cause with things just flying by, pivitol moments that change the course of his life just feel like bulletpoints.

Dylan: True. It was just sort of handed to us that his killings were picking up publicity and that there was a killer known as the Iceman when we saw a newspaper headline. There was no indication of the severity of organized crime in that area and at that time. Maybe we were just supposed to know. I don’t know. The movie was entertaining. But it was missing a lot of substance.

And I meant to comment on what you said about David Schwimmer’s role. How can we picture that mope as anything other than the whiney, neurotic Ross from Friends? Here he is a drug dealer/mob enforcer? Yea right. That was kind of lame. And I was really hoping Richard would murder him. Spoiler alert: he doesn’t.

Mark: Which is why I found him so unintentionally hilarious.  And I realize we’re talking heavy on the acting and characters, but really, that’s all there is to this.  As for things like direction or score, I found them to be fine.  Well, actually, a bunch of scenes seemed to have a weird filter that made everything one uniformed color.  I swear there was a scene where Richard is with his family and everything is a shade of orange.  It was so bizarre.  And the music sounded like the same musical cue for the Joker in The Dark Knight.  It worked, but felt like it was aping another, obviously better film.

Dylan:  Overall, I’d say it was very...average, in most respects. Nothing special in any particular department. It’s literally Michael Shannon releasing some of the rage he’s been building up in his other TV/film roles. No character has any sort of arc or growth throughout the hour and a half. So, while it was watchable and somewhat enjoyable, I’m not sure I would recommend it. Really nothing remarkable here.

Mark: We both only really watched this because we have a fascination bordering on obsession with Michael Shannon.  But yeah, unless you really want to know some key points in the life of The Iceman -- a supposedly notorious hit man I had never even heard of up to this point -- I can’t really recommend this for any other reason.  Nothing stands out that sets it above any other film.  Though, does any other film have a scene of Michael Shannon attempting to dance with his arms in the air like he just don’t care?  Not that I can think of.

Dylan: Thank you for reminding me of that! Greatest scene ever! Yes, I forgot about the Michael Shannon at the club scene. I have to say, that alone makes the film at least a little bit watchable. Anyways, yea, I guess I expected some fascinating character study mixed with historical drama. But Shannon already flaunted his slightly off acting chops in Take Shelter. It’s not like he owes me anything.

Mark:  Yeah, I guess that’s one thing this movie did for me: make me want to rewatch Take Shelter, a much better movie.  Which incidentally made me look up the director of Take Shelter and I found out he’s making another movie with Michael Shannon.  So we have something to look forward to.

Dylan: Yea, and I also have to watch Mud, if I can ever get my hands on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It slipped my mind at the time, but I would also like to add that James Franco's role in this film is completely overstated. I see on the film poster he has the third credit, when in fact he spent possibly the least amount of time in the film of any character. There may have even been a corpse in a freezer that got more screen time then Franco. So if you're considering seeing this movie because it has his name at the time, don't bother. 

And that's all we got. 

Night Watch

Okay then. After a brief separation due to irreconcilable differences, my partner and I have, well, reconciled our differences and have thus returned the only way we know how: by talking about a movie.

In an attempted return to form, we chose a underrated foreign movie from Netflix. The film is called Night Watch. Apparently it was pretty popular in its home country, Russia, but is relatively unknown in these parts. That's where we come in. Naturally it caught our collective attention.

Dylan: Wow. It has been a while since I’ve had to preface my thoughts with my own name. At long last, we managed to synchronize a movie viewing. It’s only been, what, four months or so? Anyways, we’re getting back in the game with certainly an interesting choice. Someone back in college told me to see this movie and, out of greater than normal dislike for that person, I promptly disregarded the idea. But a late, lonely night and a Netflix account can really work wonders on changing a guy's mind. So I gave it a shot and here we are.

Where do I begin? First off, it is a foreign film. And, like our other foreign-language selections -- The Host, The Raid, Troll Hunter among them -- it’s got fantasy, action, and just an excellent level of weirdness that I really enjoyed, and that I can’t really compare to anything else I’ve seen. The only comparison it brings to mind is the novel American Gods by Neil Gaiman. Or maybe...Constantine? I don’t know. The idea is that, since the dawn of time or whatever, good and evil (angels and demons, essentially) have been at war. Special beings, known as Others, are basically humans with supernatural abilities; with the discovery of their powers they have to choose whether they will fight for the Light or the Darkness. Throw in a curse that could bring around the end of the world, and all of this is the background for a pretty fast-paced and bizarre story about shape-shifters, vampires, and some other crazy shit that, if I describe anymore, will come off as lame and overdone, when it is actually quite original.

Mark: You make a good comparison with Constantine, cause it is basically about The Others trying to maintain the balance between them and keeping the Truce from being broken. But instead of having a third party Keanu Reeves-type to mediate, both good and evil work to keep each other in line. I like how there's no generalized duality to represent the sides; no Harry Potter/Voldemort or Frodo Baggins/Sauron representing the ideal good and evil. In fact, the protagonist in this case is pretty jaded; he tried to use dark magic to abort his unborn son in the first scene after all. 

I also like that, when it comes down to if a new Other is going to be good or evil, it’s their decision. It’s something that, really, you don’t see in movies.  And so, all this sets the scene for a moment during a routine job to stop a vampire in which our lead Anton sees a future that could unravel the world.  And I love that while it’s a dark story with blood and violence, somehow it keeps it all from getting bogged down and depressing.  Crazy camera angles, cool action, and interesting fantasy elements keep it moving at a quick pace, for the most part.

Dylan: I think one of its greatest attributes is that it keeps you on your toes, tonally. You’re right about the gore/violence; there were some unexpectedly bloody scenes, but they weren’t used for shock and awe. And the camera angles -- the cinematography in general -- was very cool. It was a bit jumpy at times, but was never distracting. And the almost palpable darkness reminded me of the sets of The Crow, but much less cartoonish and more realistic (most of it was, in fact, Moscow, I assume). Even the subtitles were designed to add some effect, as if the movie was filmed in Russian, but with the foresight that it would be dubbed/subtitled in English. The way certain words faded into blood drops and what not. The greatest part is that I didn’t even notice it at first because it flowed so well with the film.

Mark: Yea, I first noticed a character moved in front of the subtitles and when she moved back, they had changed.  It’s an interesting and creative use of what's on the screen; they’re used to emphasize different emotions and it works well.  And I would say The Crow is a good comparison as well, since things are so stylized, from the buildings to the fighting to even how they transition from scene to scene.  Nothing becomes stagnant.  Though, sometimes I was caught up in the action or the way something was shot on screen, and completely missed the subtitles, which is funny since I just said they’re integrated with the action of the scene.  But hey, I get distracted by stuff easily.

Dylan: I also want to speak to the interesting mythology of the movie. It’s hard to explain the uniqueness of it, in my opinion, especially because it’s very traditional. Yes, it’s Light versus Darkness. But the human element was so neatly intertwined, and, like you said, there is no exotic predestined conclusion, no good for goodness' sake hero whose fate it is to defeat the evil for evil's sake villain. You pick your own destiny and then you fight on that side. But the lines are blurred. Anton, who fights for the Light, is neighbors with Kostya, a vampire. They get along, knowing full well that someday they may be called to fight each other. I don’t know how to put it into words, but the history of it was impressively believable. 

Mark:  The more I think about it, the more I see this connecting to Underworld.  Two factions, forever in a state of tension, but while they are in the open, they don’t make their presence known. Instead of warring, they’re just trying to keep the peace.  And then, without wishing to spoil anything, the ending pulls a fast one after setting you up for something completely different.  Yeah, it’s to set up the sequel, but knowing that, it works well to bring the two main plots together in the end  And in the end, I was really pleased with how it turned out.

Dylan: And you know, I actually wanted to talk about the ending. I enjoyed this moving very much but the ending was sort of anticlimactic and raised a number of questions. As it turns out, this movie -- in the very Western style of moviemaking -- was made with the intention of being the first of a trilogy (I probably should have picked that up; it's written right on the cover). So not only is the end somewhat open-ended, there isn’t much resolution for any character. And we’re definitely left wondering what to expect. On the one hand, the apocalypse is avoided, but at what cost? As far as I know, the sequel exists and is also available on Netflix. But the third hasn't been filmed yet. So we could watch the second, but chances are we’d still end up without a solid conclusion.

Mark: Yeah that’s always the problem when creating movies intended to be trilogies or sequels, you never know if you’re gonna be able to make the rest.  Unless you’re Disney of course.  But with this film, being that it’s less known, the regular moviegoer probably wouldn’t go in knowing there’s a sequel, so the openness of the ending makes it feel like we’ve lost out on closure.  And they leave it hanging really at a pivotal moment for Anton, though that’s what cliffhangers tend to do.  But I liked how it came together in the ending, and I won’t lie, it makes me interested to see where it goes in the second.  And it makes me want to look up if there even is a third coming, cause that would really suck if we watch the next and never get the conclusion.

Dylan:  I just looked up the director (and writer and producer) Timur Bekmambetov, and I think I see what the problem is. His more recent credits include Wanted and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, so I suspect he, like other great directors, has been sucked into the vortex of American filmmaking. And so I fear a threequel, as it were, may be doomed to the back of his mind for awhile. Especially since he’s currently working on Wanted 2.

Mark: Yeah, I thought his name looked familiar.  So if anything, it will be a long while until the third film comes out, if it does at all.  Which is a shame, because I also read that these films did very well in Russia, so he’s leaving what seems to be a hit at home for mediocre films in the states. Such is Hollywood.

Dylan: I’m sure the paycheck is bigger, and that speaks for itself. Anyways, that’s enough cynicism for me. Anything else to say?

Mark: Well I found out that Konstantin Khabenskiy, who plays Anton, was actually in Wanted.  He played the Exterminator, who was the guy with the exploding rats.  Fact.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Needless so say, we recommend Night Watch. I actually regret waiting so long to give it a shot. Maybe I'll reconsider my friendship with the person who originally recommended it. Maybe everything I thought about that kid was just a misunderstanding. Maybe...nah, fuck it. He's an asshole.

I can't say if we'll be able to get back on track with these dual reviews, given our difficult schedules. Hopefully this entry is so profoundly enlightening that it holds everyone over until the next time.

Riddick

Well it certainly has been a while since I’ve done anything for this blog.  I must seem like such a lazy person, but those tweets won’t write themselves!  But seriously, I’ve found the time to bang out a review/recap/overview for, obviously, a film that came out a long while ago.  Cause I wouldn’t do anything relevent now, would I?  But instead, I’ll be doing some writing for a film that came out a while ago, but came out on DVD just a week or so ago, so let’s say it’s a DVD review and leave it at that, yeah?  So enough useless prattle, let’s get on with the show.  Review.  Recap.  Whatever.

So I guess you can see me as an odd sort of person, since sci-fi like that of Elysium and District 9 didn’t do much for me, but then anything related to the Riddick universe of stories gets me going like nobodies business.  The first film in the series, (if you can call it a series, it’s more like a hodgepodge of random entertainment across different media that somehow create an overarching story), Pitch Black, shived it’s way into my heart with it’s sharpened sense of story structure.  In so much that the story was our “hero”, the infamous criminal Richard B. Riddick, is stranded on an alien planet with a group of travelers just at the time when shit hits the planetary fan.

And then Riddick kills some things, saves some people, says some badass one liners, and then survives.  But the draw was the character, in that he was someone who embodied the idea of anti-hero very well, but still invoked some level of interest as he shows that under all the gruff and violence, he’s still “human”.  He’s not, but he’s damn close.  And then there was Chronicles of Riddick, and we won’t talk about the story, cause no one needs to go through that trainwreck again.  But what it excelled at was creating this lived in and complex universe. It just lost itself in it’s own ideas.  And after that debacle, I was sure Riddick would never find itself again.

But then there are a few absolute truths in this world, and "Vin Diesel will making something out of nothing" is one of them.  And through sheer will, I’m assuming robbery, and hope, he brought into this world Riddick.  And it’s exactly what you want from this franchise. Nothing more, nothing less.  

Riddick takes us back to the concept of Pitch Black, which at first feels like it’s just copying from the past, but rather it’s expanding on the concept that brought Dick Riddick to the people.  The story begins after Riddick has spent some time as Lord Marshal of the Necromongers (long story) but he feels himself fading from what he once was: a killer, a free man.  And he also wants to find his home, Furya, and see from where he came from and where he can go from here.  But as with most stories of a ruler hated by his subjects, he is betrayed, and left for dead on an alien planet.  Cue the Pitch Black comparisons.  But no, this is where things take a drastic, but brilliant turn.

It’s here the movie begins the first of three really distinct and unique acts.  The first act has Riddick existing alone, though he does have an alien dog he saved from a sandstorm.  This dog, for all intents and purposes it is, acts as the emotional core since Riddick, for all his gruff and sass, has no emotions.  And this part of the movie is also mostly silent, since Riddick has little to say to his dog and there is no one else around.  And we get to watch a man who thrives in the elements, well, thrive.  He makes weapons, shelter, finds food, surveys the land, and adapts.  And even with the relatively low budget the world looks well realized.  There are obvious places where sets and CG overlap, but it doesn’t take much away from the overall experience.  You get drawn into Riddick's attempt to make, really, a home in a place that lets him be himself. But the main comparison to Pitch Black is that like the aliens that come out in the darkness then, now we have aliens that come out when it’s wet, and a big ass storm is making its way across the land.  So Riddick and pooch have got to move on and get off this planet.  And thus we move into the second act, where things get very talky.

To leave, Riddick must reveal himself, and to do that he activates a beacon.  And in come the mercs.  And in comes the dialogue.  And for the most part, it’s fairly entertaining, with witty back and forths between the two sets of mercs laying claim to the bounty on Riddick’s head. One half is a ragtag team of, in my opinion, the more entertaining killers, and the other is the group of well trained, well armed, and well trained mercs.  So obviously they don't get along. And here is where we watch Riddick essentially fuck with them, trying to get them to either kill each other, or if not that, then by his hand.  And we watch Riddick be the badass we remember, effortlessly killing mercs from the darkness, and it’s rather fun to watch.

And it should be noted that the performance of David Bautista, the MMA fighter turned actor who has the role of Drax the Destroyer in Guardians of the Galaxy, has shown me that he’s much more capable of an actor than I ever thought.

All this back and forth leads to Riddick having to create a scenario in which they’ll need him as much as he needs them.  So, he steals the power nodes to the ships.  And thus we are lead in the third act, full of obvious betrayals, alien attacks, and a whole lot more blood.  And I would write more, but it’s basically that.  The dialogue turns less jokey and more serious, and things get a shit ton darker. There's some diving into character’s pasts as they relate to past stories, an insane amount of aliens, some moments of terrible CG and some moments that are quite stellar.  And then an ending that hopes for a sequel.  And so do I.

In the end, this is the kinda sci-fi film that needs to happen more often.  One that lives and breaths in an interesting universe, but doesn’t try to become an allegory for our time and preach to us.  No, just a film that aims to entertain and amuse us.  Remember when films did that?  Weird times, but that was the aim of Riddick, to bring him back to us with all the blood, action, and story we remember and love.  And hopefully we get to see more.  So rent this, buy this, watch this.  Give it a chance.  If for no other reason than helping an original story get a wider audience.

The Wolverine

As I have been repeating for the past couple of months, the movies this summer were generally underwhelming. But in my boredom lately, I rented and watched two blockbuster summer films that I suspected would be worth my time, but perhaps not my money: The Wolverine and World War Z.

Unfortunately, this blog lacks a section for movies that are no longer in theaters, not underrated, and not necessarily bad. Then again, now that I think about it, I can tag this post with as many labels as I want, so what the hell, I'll just use a combination of categories.

First up: The Wolverine, Hugh Jackman's sixth -- but apparently far from last -- portrayal of the adamantium-clawed mutant.

I was planning on seeing this film in theaters when it came out. And then...I didn't.

Anyway, the convenient thing about watching a high-profile movie months after its release is the opportunity for a clean slate; having put the summer movie season behind me, I literally had no expectations going into this film. I'm learning that the key to enjoying a comic book movie is to not take it too seriously. I'm not sure when I started expecting every superhero to match Nolan's Batman, but I think it was around the same every studio and filmmaker tried to convince me that I should.

The Wolverine is a reminder that these movies are meant to be fun. Hugh Jackman -- who apparently never ages and seems to be in better shape than ever -- loves playing the ferocious but lovable Wolverine. He manages to expertly balance the character's intensity with his aggressive good humor (he's had plenty of practice) to the point where he is always exciting to watch. And in a film willing to hold back on the overly fantastical to focus more on one man's inner struggle, Jackman is really given room to explore the role in ways that somehow seem new, even after half a dozen appearances on the big screen. On top of that, the action is rarely over-the-top or gratuitous (for the genre), which sets this film apart from other 2013 tentpoles.

Overall, this movie is worth a viewing. If you are an avid fan of the X-Men films, I think The Wolverine, along with X-Men: First Class, mark a new era for the franchise(s) and hopefully herald a revival to the genre. As usual, I'm not saying this movie is flawless; but it is an immense improvement upon it's predecessor X-Men Origins: Wolverine and an indication that a full-length film can focus on a single mutant and not get boring.

Oh, and this movie cranks up the level of gore and mature language very effectively. I do not believe either of these things make a good movie, but the fact is you don't realize how silly a ruthless, foul-mouthed killing machine with razor claws is without some spraying blood and a few 'fuck yous' until you get just that. Hopefully future iterations of the character will have a similar level of violence.

Elysium

Reviewer: Mad Mark

So I will be the first to admit, I am not a huge fan of most of District 9.  Now hold on, put down that pitchfork and napalm, there were a bunch of things throughout that movie I liked about it.  How seamlessly he blended the fiction with reality through story and CG, as well as the stellar first and second acts.  I really enjoyed the documentary style of the beginning, and I was still engaged when Wickus was on the run.  But when people started exploding and it kinda lost itself in the violence, I was lost.  So all this rambling sums up my interest in Elysium: interested but very wary.  From what I’d seen, Elysium was more action and excitement, so I was conflicted about it.  But still I found myself in the theater.  So I hoped this would have that action, but blended better with the politics and story.

Oh how hopelessly naive of me.

Man, the next Wii is intense.

First off let me say that this is by no means a bad movie.  There is a lot here, much like District 9 for me, that was done right.  And then there were a lot of places where it misstepped and cracked it’s skull open.  And then exploded.  I guess, on the highest level, this story was incredibly predictable and straightforward.  Things happened obviously without skipping a beat.  Things happened conveniently for Max (Matt Damon) throughout the movie.  Not always good, what with the whole lethal blast of radiation after we watch as his life as an ex-con trying to go straight proves difficult in an unforgiving world, but still, everything lead into each other without any turn.  And any pretense for a “twist” was shown and obviously set up a few scenes prior.  But what of the political messages and social commentary, cry the voices in my head?  They’re there.  Right there, on the surface for all to see.  And that’s where they stay.  Oh so the 1% sit in space while the 99% survive in squalor, forced to look up at what life could be, fully knowing that they’ll never reach it?  Yep, don’t expect it any deeper than that.  Headlines from recent newspapers are lifted and given a sci-fi tune up and then thrown in.  Medicare?  Machines that heal literally anything, but only the 1% can use them.  Why?  Cause the 1% are dicks, as it seems on Elysium.  Immigration laws?  Jodi Foster blows illegals out of the sky if they try to make it to Elysium, but then this is seen as a tad, shall we say, brutal.

Speaking of Jodi Foster, that was one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen from her.  It was bland and uninterested from the word go.  And she puts on an accent that can’t be placed, and while you can use the logic defying statement of “it’s the future”, no one else has it.  She’s a cardboard cutout; no depth or complexity.  That really goes for everyone.  Damon gives Max some emotional depth, but he gets to concerned or angry and flips between the two.  Sharlto Copley returns as Kruger, the psychotic agent of Foster’s Minister of Defense, who plays evil like it’s the only song on the jukebox and it’s free song night.  He’s entertaining to start, with his wild abandon style of murdering, but soon it just becomes grating, since there’s nothing else he can do.  And there are moments when there seems to be something else to him, but then he kills that and keeps killing and shouting and killing.  And let me bring up the love interest/plot progressor Frey (a bland Alice Braga).  There, I brought her up, which is about what they did with her in the movie.  I honestly forgot she was in the movie for stretches because she felt so irrelevant until she was used to move Max along.  There are a plethora of side characters, but each is as forgettable as the last, so lets not waste anymore of your time.

And then there was the violence.  I have no problem with violence, as long as it serves a purpose.  Wanton violence does nothing but diminish the impact of the story and this movie reveled in it’s violence.  Or to be more specific, reveled in the explosions.  Honestly, Neill Blomkamp is the artsy, more refined clone of Michael Bay.  Now before anyone thinks I’m giving Michael Bay some praise or something, let me explain.  Almost every death happens via some variation of explosion.  Almost always, as well, in slow motion.  Making us really watch as the futuristic tech does it’s thing and then explode.  And of course the violence is on the level of Drive, in that Neill pulls no punches.  When one characters face blows off, we watch it break into bloody pieces.  And then later watch the medicare machines rebuild it, healing that elevated case of tension, much to my chagrin.  It’s only to look again at the violence and carnage.  And the final climactic fight between Max and Kruger?  It’s an over edited mess; I couldn’t make heads or tails as to who was hitting who until we stopped to show them standing apart before diving back at each other.  And guess how it ends?  If you can’t, go see this movie.  At least you’ll be surprised.

And then it ends as predictably, as explained earlier in the third act.  Just with some emotional baggage that feels weightless when we realize how little was given to the building of the relationship between Max and Frey.  Oh there were flashbacks as them as kids, but not nearly enough to make me care about the choices he was making for her.  And then we end.  And here I am now, mouthing off like a know a damn about this.  But in my opinion, as this is all it is, the movie was good.  It has a lot of faults, some very glaring and others just subtle ones the bugged throughout.  But it was still an absolutely gorgeous film with some stunning set pieces.  This was a technically brilliant film.  It’s just a shame that the story and acting can’t even reach that same height.

Sonatine

So it’s taken me awhile to get back into doing solo reviews.  It’s not my fault, it’s HBOGO’s and Netflix’s fault.  Here I am, trying to get back into The Wire so Dylan will stop sending me death threats, and I “accidently” start The Walking Dead.  And then I noticed Rome and you can’t say no to that.  Ever.  So needless to say, the threats haven’t stopped.  But coming out of my zombie and oddly British Roman haze, I realized I had to do something.

So thought you might like a review on something new.  Well I thought about that and then I noticed that that Kitano film sitting in my que on Netflix, and it looked so lonely.  So for now, I’m continuing my incredibly slow moving campaign of reviewing his films.  My first one, Outrage, was one of his recent films, so now I’m going all the way back to the pre-enlightened age of 1993 to bring you one of his earliest and successful films.

Netfilx: I already answered this

Viewer: Maniac McMark

Greatest. Tagline. Ever.

So, much like Outrage, Kitano brings us into the life of an aged Yakuza who has been living this life for quite a while.  And quite successfully, as we hear from his bosses.  And yet, that is the biggest problem.  Not for the film, but for the story.  Aniki Murakawa, Kitano’s character, has been doing so well controlling his clan and his territory, that it’s become the jewel of the Yakuza.  And the big boss wants it for himself.  But you can’t just off one of your best men, oh no, that would cause too many problems.  So obviously the sensible thing to do is send him and his men to deal with the rising tensions between two smaller clans, The Nakamatsu and Anan, in Okinawa.  But unlike most gangster films, Murakawa doesn’t just agree and walk blindly into an obvious trap.  He’s too old for this shit and knows right off the bat that this is probably a plot to kill him.  But without evidence, though not without trying to get some, he has to go with his men.  And against type again, things go swimmingly for him and his men.

Are you kidding?  Of course not.  And after a slow start, we see the violence that Kitano is famous for; quick, brutal and joyless.  No build up, no musical cue that things are about to go sideways, just a sudden burst of bullets and blood.  Unlike most films, the violence in his films is never glorified, it looks as painful as it would be in real life.

Though, in a way I always find strange with his films, no one moves when the bullets let fly.  Apparently this is no time for dramatics or diving into cover, this isn’t John Woo film.  No, they stand stock still with stoic faces, firing until one side is dead.  it’s just so strange from what we’re used to in films, what with no action but shooting and absolutely no joy to be had in the moment for us or them.  I always find his stark depiction of the yakuza life refreshing from most crime films.  And in this film, after the violence blows over, we’re left with only a handful of members, and surprisingly a lot of time left.  And this is when things become interesting, in a very bizarre kind of way.

As Murakawa and his men wait in hiding for the violence to subside, we watch as they become more at ease with everything.  They’re at the seaside, they’re playing games, Murakawa is playing tricks on people, and everything feels fine.  It’s like were made to see that these are men of violence, but only violent when they have to be.  Other than that, they are no different from you or me.  Kitano is trying to show us this, but it’s such a sudden left turn from what the movie had been, that it takes awhile to get used to it.  I won’t say it wasn’t fun watching the two younger guys play “shoot the can off my head with live rounds” and throw friendly insults at each other, but the films comes to a crawl during these parts.  Basically it’s a time for the older characters to share some wisdom, usually through incredibly weird and tense ways.  And yet, as we get used to this seemingly out of place second act, the violence comes roaring back, and as the third act comes to a close, we’ve witnessed more violence and bloodshed than you’d ever think would happen in this.

It’s a subversive Yakuza film; it’s not here to satiate your need for violence, but it gives you that violence anyway but a lesson along for the ride.  That these are all people, with thoughts and personalities.  And sometimes circumstances arise that force us to be violent, for “justice” or self preservation.  It’s not for everyone, what with the whole suddenly turning into a trip to the beach with the yakuza family in the middle.  And it is slow, lingering on shots of character just standing and staring.  It looks beautiful, which helps to make those scenes bearable.  It’s the story of an old man of violence and wisdom whose organization, that he’s given so much too, now sees him doing more for them dead than alive.  And he completely disagrees.  He just might get distracted by fun in the sun before getting around to them though.

Troll Hunter

Every once in a while it's important to watch a foreign film. We have ventured across the proverbial cinematic seas before, with The Host and Outrage (and technically a selection from the United Kingdom. This time we head to Norway. Much like The Host, Troll Hunter (2010) is sort of a low-budget-by-Hollywood-standards monster flick that stands out among the rest for its ability to make the very best of what it has. As with The Host, a unique story, decent acting, pretty exciting and interesting monsters, and a gorgeous backdrop make this film not only stand out in its home country, but also gives most American monster movies a run for their money.

Netflix: Yea, baby, yea!
Picker: Distant future...the year 2000

Mark: I thought I’d start by saying that this was much better with the whole handheld camera concept than End of Watch.  While End of Watch was able to do more -- since apparently everyone had a camera, and they placed cameras everywhere somehow -- this one sticks to the single, believable, camera throughout.  And it sits on the line between believable amateur and professional.  And for that, I was glad.  It never really became too impossible to figure out what was going on.  Well, most of the time.

Dylan: Yea, so this is an example of the now-overused ‘found footage’ cliche. And in the beginning we get the text that’s like “yea, this footage was sent to a news agency, but the people you see have never been found. We’re not sure if it’s real, yada yada.” Usually that means we’re dealing with a horror movie. But I wouldn’t really classify this as a horror, even though it does get pretty dark and maybe even a little scary at times. And the first time we get a night scene, you figure it’s going to be like the Blair Witch Project or something, where three inept college students are stumbling around in the woods, and the camera is all over the place, and you never see anything at all. But this movie is the complete opposite. There is the shaky cam effect inherent to this style of filming, but it really isn’t that distracting. And in fact you get to see the trolls pretty early on, often in full view and lighting. So the movie really doesn’t hold back or tease you too much with revealing the monsters. In fact, the real anticipation comes from learning that there are several different types of trolls, and as the movie progresses you get a glimpse at each species and what makes it unique. But we can talk about that more when we get to the story.

Mark: Ok, looks like we’re doing a little role reversal here, cause I found this movie to be a tad bit on the boring side.  I opened myself up to it, and found some of it to be really interesting, but on the whole, I never really got drawn in and wanted to see where we were going with Hans and the film crew.  I agree, that I was interested in seeing the trolls, but for me, it was never as interesting as listening to Hans explain a lot of the mythos of what we (as well as the film crew) believe about trolls versus what he knows.  As well as the government agency working to keep it all hidden from the public.  I found that much more engaging than the scenes with the trolls.  Albeit, the last part of the movie got my attention.

Dylan: I agree that the slower points were often more interesting. They really created a sort of believable world of trolls. For example, the scene where the veterinarian is explaining why they either turn to stone or explode when touched by sunlight. It was, in my opinion, a pretty well-crafted story. And very original. I mean we have hundreds of movies about werewolves and vampires. And garlic and crosses and silver and stakes...we all know how to fight vampires. But here you have a completely new story that is just as grounded in ancient fantasy and mythology, but hasn't been looked at through a real-world lens. 

What really impresses me about it is how the countryside is used perfectly to create this world. Maybe this is just because I love Norway and really really want to visit someday. But the landscape and the geographic features are all used so well. The natural boulders that (we're told) the different trolls throw at each other, the abandoned mine, the power lines running through miles of bare snowy hills (which are part of an electric fence), the acres of downed trees (which were caused by stampeding trolls). I’m not Norwegian, but I feel like the setting in the movie really says a lot about the real place, and is maybe an indication of how the mythology of trolls got started to begin with.

Mark: I completely agree, it does a great job making a real place feel much more like it comes from a fairy tale.  Blending the real with the fiction.  This is what I meant by saying the camerawork felt professional even though it’s by, for the movie, an amatuer.  The shots of them on the ferry and across the water are the mountains with low moving clouds, or the village nestled among the mountains, it does a great job giving a sense of place.  And the snowy tundra at the end was really good, and while the CGI didn’t always work for me -- granted this budget wasn’t exactly huge -- there were moments when it blended together amazingly.

And one of the things I did like was when the mythos that Hans was saying overlapped with what we think we know.  The trolls obviously look much more grotesque than what the college kids think, but they still do things they’ve -- and we’ve -- been told in stories.  My favorite was when Hans was tying sheep to a bridge, and for a second I didn’t really get all that interested, but then it clicked, that trolls live under bridges.  Or at least I knew that from stories.  And suddenly it got interesting because of that blending of their rewriting of trolls and what is already known.  They did a good job recreating trolls and the mythology without dumbing it down or making it contrived.

Dylan: It’s both humorous and interesting to see how the fantasy is melded with the ‘reality’ in this film’s universe. On the one hand, there is the legend that trolls can smell Christian blood. So Hans asks the film crew right away “none of you believe in God or Jesus, right?” And then there is a scene in the beginning where they spy Hans tossing a tire under a bridge, and at first it doesn’t make sense, but later on we realize that it’s because trolls go under bridges and like to gnaw on rubber, and this is Hans’ way of keeping track of their movement. So it’s a balance of the sort-of ridiculous and the kind of scientific.

My favorite scene is when the head of the TSS is bickering with the Polish paint crew in English about the species of bear that they brought as a decoy for the newspapers. Apparently they brought a bear from Russia, and the poor TSS guy was going to have to explain to the public how a Russian bear made it to Norway and killed a couple of tourists.

Mark: That was a good scene.  And I liked when the Russian guy spoke with the film crew, and he was trying to explain why he does what he does for the TSS, but his broken English, which he was speaking for some reason, kept him from making any sense.  But he was damn happy to be talking.  But this scene highlighted to me how much darker the rest of the movie is.  It has to be in some parts, but it could have used much more levity from time to time to balance it out.  At least I thought so.  But then again, as things get darker and darker, you get a better sense of how this operation is run, and why it has to be run the way it is.  If the ending title cards are to be believed.

Dylan: Even without those, things go downhill pretty steadily in the second half. More than you would expect. Especially since, as I said earlier, it’s not really a horror movie. But I wouldn’t really hold it against the film. In fact, as in the case with Thomas’ (the leader of the film crew) health, and that tire thing I mentioned before, I enjoyed how things from the beginning that we may not have put much thought into, came back into the story later on in the film.

Mark: Yeah, you forget about that injury, as after it happens, it never really is brought up again.  But when it is, suddenly things become just a tad bit more dire.  And what I liked about the injury, is that it wasn’t some made-up troll-based illness.  It’s something normal, or rather, real.  So suddenly the fantasy gets a little bit more realistic when the trolls can be affected by real illnesses.

But on the characters, I guess since this was playing out as more of a “blair witch” kind of story, in so much that there isn’t a story except that they’re following Hans around, none of them had much development.  And while that’s not always a bad thing, I just didn’t get attached to them much.  So I didn’t care what happened to them.  Well, maybe for Hans, but that’s cause you really get the sense, even as he tells us, that he’s been doing this for a long time and he’s kinda disgruntled.  And you feel for the guy.

Dylan: While I agree that the film crew is kind of boring, I would argue that, as the title suggests, the movie is about Hans, the Troll Hunter. And if you think about it, his character is pretty interesting. He’s a seasoned Troll Hunter. At first he tells the film crew to leave him alone, but his disappointment with the handling of trolls leads him to take these people along, to show the world what’s really going on. The scene where he puts on the Iron Man suit just to get close enough to a troll to get a blood sample really speaks to his character. He gets tossed bodily across the bridge and probably knocked unconscious, but then he gets up, follows the troll down to the stream and finishes the job. He doesn’t seem to have any family or obligations. His only job is secret and kind of shitty, but he does it anyway, sort of to protect the entire country and the world from the truth.

And I’m not saying all that to contradict you. In fact, in was on this, my third viewing, that I really took in the setting and the characters more than ever before.

Mark: You’re right, it is very much the story of Hans.  It’s just that since the college kids are with him the whole time, I feel like very little is ever brought up or established about them.  Maybe a few things when the plot calls for it, but nothing in conversation.  Which is how we learned more about Hans.  And this was a small film, so it had limited time to tell it’s story and focused on only what it wanted to without losing itself in too much, and I applaud it for that.  But a little something for the kids would have given more to the tension.

Also, while I did like the scene with the Iron Man suit, and how it showed his character, it was difficult for me to fully appreciate it cause I was laughing too hard from when he got hit.  Not only did I not understand why he whistled at it when he successfully snuck behind it, but the CGI of him getting hit was funny.  I’m a terrible person.

But a scene for me when the CGI was just something next to brilliant was with the massive troll at the end.  Specifically when they were driving underneath it, getting closer.  the snow being kicked up by the troll, creating this whiteout around them, as the tail swishes by, and the camera keeps trying to stay focused.  It all came together great right then.

Dylan:  You can tell that the effects team had a great eye for detail, just not the budget of an American special effects company. It was a similar situation with The Host. At certain times you could tell what they were going for, but it just came off as laughable. But for me, 90% of the CGI was effective. It could have been much, much worse; surely you're familiar with the Megashark titles on Syfy.

Overall, I think this movie might be kind of hit or miss for most people. I really like it because I’m into weird, unique foreign films that aren’t dramas. And I think for a film from a country that isn’t exactly renowned for their filmmaking, this is a very solid picture. The acting is decent, the story is pretty great, and the CGI and camerawork is beyond acceptable. Best of all, you get an hour and a half of beautiful rainy Norwegian landscapes.

Mark: Whoa, whoa, the Megashark titles are in a league of their own.  Nothing can be compared to them.  But speaking on this, I think what got me was that it took more time than I had ever thought setting up the mythology of both Hans as the Troll Hunter and the Trolls themselves.  So much of the first half of the film was showing us the truth behind it all, and then as we understand more, we get to see more and things begin to escalate.  And if you go in knowing that, you’ll apprecaite more of the film.  You’ll appreciate the original story that the filmmakers are trying to create, as well as some really stunning shots of Norway.  I agree that this movie does such a good job showing you the almost fairy tale-like scenery that I want to go there.  You can tell that the filmmakers put their hearts into this, showing and telling us so much.  So I say give it a shot, just knowing that you need to be ready for a lot of slow build up.

And it hurts me knowing that there is already an American remake in the works.

Dylan: Damn. Really? Is it going to take place in America? That is so awful.

Mark: Yeah, as far as I know it is.  The rights were snagged by Chris Columbus.

Dylan: Ah, the guy who discovered America...and then made the first two (and shittiest, debatably) Harry Potter movies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fun fact of the day: the Norwegian word for 'troll' is...'troll'! What the hell did you think it would be? The creatures first appeared in Norse mythology as early as the 9th century. The word we use in English is therefore derived from the Norwegian, and not the other way around. Fools.

And that's a rap. Our next film is sort of a secret for now. Which should really be that exciting, since we have been neglecting to tease films for the past few reviews now. But we think you'll enjoy it. It's a pretty big deal. All I can say is that some people would go so far as to say that it defines a generation. And no, I'm not talking about anything by John Hughes.