Thứ Bảy, 31 tháng 8, 2013

SUMMER OF BLOOD: BE THERE OR BE SQUARE

There's much to say about Cube, a 1997 sci-fi horror film and philosophically-laden mindfuck by director Vincenzo Natali, but before I get into any of that, a word of praise. Because this, this is how you do a low-budget movie. Only enough resources to build one cube-shaped room? Then build that cube-shaped room as best as you possibly can, make it as simple but strange-looking as you dare, and use colored gels to change the color of it. Bingo, you have an infinite-number of cube-shaped rooms, and you never need to show more than three 14-foot square panels on camera at any one moment. Of course, the problem there is coming up with a scenario that needs an infinite number of cube-shaped rooms...

What Natali and co-writers André Bijelic and Graeme Manson came up with is a sleek, simple affair, heavy on abstraction in the fashion of a Twilight Zone episode (indeed, specific Twilight Zone episodes occasionally flitted across my mind as I was watching). Not immediately. The opening scene is a fairly tepid bit of structural cliché, as a bald man whose name, if you hang around for the credits, is given as Alderson (Julian Richings), wakes up in a bright white room where every plane is covered in a 3' by 3' grid of squares full of inexplicable, vaguely circuit-looking designs, each face with a heavy metal hatch in the middle. Alderson goes through one of these hatches, into an identical room, save that it is peach-colored; as he gawks, a mesh of razor wire sweeps quickly down from the ceiling, cutting through him cleanly and turning him into a pile of, well, cubes. I call this a cliché not because of its content (on the contrary; also, I hate Resident Evil even more now that I know that it's one halfway decent moment of gory terror was a rip-off), but because nothing here ever remotely informs the rest of the plot; it's just a way to quickly establish that the cube rooms are full of deadly evil, and also to provide an early boost of queasy-making violence in a film where hardly any actual gore shows up. It's every slasher film opening scene of the '80s, and Cube is far too interesting to require such a junky gesture.

We return to the white room - or another white room? - for the film to assemble its actual cast. First up is the bloody hand of a man emerging from a red room below the white room (I said there was a hatch in every plane of the room, don't forget), and this turns out to be Quentin (Maurice Dean Wint), as we first learn from his drab jumpsuit, blank except for a name on the left breast. Such jumpsuits will be a convenient way for Quentin to meet the rest of his fellow prisoners, as they stumble into his white room: middle-aged woman Holloway (Nicky Guadagni), wizened old man Rennes (Wayne Robson), thirtyish man Worth (David Hewlett), young woman Leaven (Nicole de Boer, making her second Summer of Blood appearance in a row, after headlining Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil). Eventually, after this band maneuvers through the maze, losing one person to an acid bath in the face in the process, they'll meet one more lost soul: Kazan (Andrew Miller), a mentally challenged man.

Attempting to synopsise what happens from that point on would be frivolous: what passes for plot Cube is the scene in which the five travelers attempt to determine which direction they need to go next, frequently kicking off some very, very good thriller setpieces in which there may be a trap, or there very definitely is a trap, and it has to be gotten through. Meanwhile, Leaven uses her considerable mathematical skill to attempt to puzzle out the serial numbers inside every hatch, twice concluding that she's figured out how to map the great complex of cubes that they're all tunneling through, and twice being wrong. As sleeplessness, hunger, and fear gnaw at the prisoners - a word that applies even if the film never comes closer to explicitly calling this a prison than in the cutesy-poo names of the characters - they drift inexorably from unresolved conversations about how and why and at whose hand they've ended up here, into unresolved fights about which among them is the worst, stupidest, most useless person.

And the thing is, you can't make that sound interesting - "for 90 minutes, people move through largely identical cubic rooms that want to kill them". But it is interesting, mainly, and here's where the Twilight Zone comparison is useful. See, even with the very limited information we get about the characters throughout the movie (mostly just their occupation, if that - "unspecified developmental disorder" is the entirety of what we learn about Kazan), or perhaps because it's so limited, the cast ends up filling somewhat allegorical roles: the Teacher, the Authoritarian, the Intellect, the Survivalist. And Cube, in finest Rod Serling fashion, plays out as a series of conundrums in which the audience is invited to think about how these different types, that is to say, these different worldviews and moral codes, interact with each other in a patently allegorical environment: a monstrous Building Project Run Amok, ordered by no-one to serve no purpose, a mechanical hell of faceless modernity. The audience is invited, at various times, to agree with different people: sometimes Quentin seems to be the only reasonable man in the face of wishy-washy morons, but then he turns out to be a thug and bully. Holloway alternates between laughably paranoid and totally justified almost every scene. Leaven is sometimes clever, sometimes dangerously myopic. You can take this all as allegory, or (as I prefer to do, with my general mistrust of allegory and symbolism) simply as a bunch of very different personalities butting heads in a situation where that is the absolute worst thing to do, and shake your head in dismay at human nature.

The most complex and interesting of the characters is Worth, suicidally depressed at first, totally without hope always. He frustratedly describes his life as "I work in an office building, doing office building stuff", a line that comes back in a haunting way about halfway through the film (HALFWAY THROUGH FILM SPOILER), when we learn that his job included designing the cubic outer shell housing the very complex where he now finds himself. It's where the allegory shines brightest, with the prototypical modern job in an information economy - sitting behind a desk, doing nothing that holds up to much description - an instrument of an identity-free bureaucracy that exists only to cause pointless suffering. One does not expect a low-budget genre hybrid to end up embodying, even accidentally, Hannah Arendt's idea of the banality of evil, but this is exactly what Cube ends up doing.

There are two different ways in which the film could said to fall flat: the one that doesn't interest me much is its conceptual failures. This is, again, a Twilight Zone-style study of human archetypes in a metaphorical setting, even if it has heavy sci-fi and horror and thriller trappings, and any hope that its mysteries will prove soluble (or even that it merely offers up much in the way of meat to speculate on) end up totally thwarted. Similarly, the question, "how does the Cube even work?" is beyond the filmmakers' interests at all. This is a parable, not a realist narrative, and there are always going to be those for whom that kind of thing is going to end up being too frustrating.

Cube also suffers from failures of execution, and this I will not wave away. Basically, the acting here is not very good: only the wide-eyed de Boer is acutely bad throughout, and Guadagni frequently oversells her lines like an eager community theater actor, while the men are mostly just flat and boring. Wint, I concede, is mostly good right up to the scene where he officially jumps from "rational but mean" to "outright psycho", and the actor takes that as a cue to ham it up. Allegory or not, there's no reason for the human characters to seem so bland and caricatured as these performers make them.

And allegory or not, there's some dopey writing that needn't be there: most appallingly, a third act Resurrected Killer moment that the film would be vastly improved without, it being not just a cliché whose time had long since expired in '97, but a cliché for an entirely different kind of story in the first place. What actually bothered me more, though, was the way that supposed math genius Leaven had to sweat over determining prime numbers, having not apparently learned the easy trick that any even number is divisible by 2, and any number ending in 5 is divisible by 5, so you don't actually have to spent half a minute factoring them. Strictly a nitpick, but it's always the little details that are just flat-out wrong that really break the illusion of a film's reality, even when that reality is this surreal.

On the other hand, look at all the things that the film gets right! If for nothing but the crackling tension of a scene where the party has to sneak through a blue room where even the tiniest sound fills the entire space with razor-sharp spines, Natali's handling of mood and pace would leave Cube one of the tightest horror-thrillers of the late '90s, which isn't actually a compliment when you stop and think about late '90s horror-thrillers, but I meant for it to come off like one (the one time that everything goes to hell: a montage in which the characters blast through a whole chain of rooms safely, with the images, editing, and sound design conspiring to make everything seem utterly stupid). And while that is a great scene, it is not the only great scene, maybe not even the best scene: a chase scene that has to tarry while Leaven laboriously determines which door is the safe route out, and the casually startling second death are both right up near the top as well. More generally, the director also manages to make the lengthy "can we, like, please talk about ethical philosphy?" scenes play onscreen far better than I can possibly imagine that they did on the page, though nothing at all can make the really hefty one about 35 minutes in feel like anything but an exercise in late-night dorm room bull session monologuing.

Most impressively of all, Natali and his great team of cinematographer Derek Rogers, editor John Sanders, and production designer Jasna Stefanovic did a simply killer job of presenting the endless, repetitive cube rooms in such a way that completely disguises the cheap, stagebound nature of the affair. When one slows down to consider the amount of energy and planning that had to go into setting up shots and piecing them together and focusing on just the right bits of the walls to make sure that scenes would flow right, and transition from one to the other properly, Cube can only be regarded as a titanic masterpiece of resource management. That's just about the least sexy thing you could ever praise a filmmaker for doing, but making the movie this seamless required tremendous skill and attention, and at the level of pure craftsmanship, Cube is among the most genuinely impressive low-budget films that I have ever seen.

Body Count: 6, which you will note is a healthy percentage of the 7-person cast.

SEPTEMBER 2013 MOVIE PREVIEW

Is it safe to come out? Is the Summer of Endless Mediocrity over?

Yes, and what that says about the prestige season to come, I won't guess (and it wouldn't be fair to do so, regardless). Still, this isn't prestige season; it's Dumping Month #2, and what THAT means after this summer, I am terrified to think...

6.9.2013

Only one wide release, and boy, is it random: Riddick, the third film (fourth, counting a lengthy cartoon) in a franchise that has lied dormant for nine years, and went out on such a confounding, unliked note last time. The good news is that the horror/thriller-heavy trailer promises that this will be more of a Pitch Black than a Chronicles of Riddick, though seeing Vin Diesel in anything not involving car-based heists will certainly be a weird chance of pace, at this point.


13.9.2013

Two wide releases that I'm looking forward to all month, and wouldn't they just have to open on the same day: The Family is pretty straightforward, talented actors who don't get too much to do having broad action-comic fun. I'm a little dubious about where Luc Besson enters the picture, but he's not a talentless man.

The much bigger question mark is Insidious: Chapter 2. The ads are solid, for a haunted house picture, and after The Conjuring, I'm certainly good for whatever James Wan sends my way; but Insidious had such a terrible ending, after such a good first hour. So the question is: does the sequel pick up right where the last one ended, quality-wise, or will they be able to reboot a bit until the inevitable third-act implosion?


20.9.2013

If there remains anybody who is the target for 3-D dance movies, I have an awful feeling that I'm it; and I am, in fact, not un-excited for Battle of the Year, which crossbreeds "3-D dance movie" with "inspirational sports drama". And that is not a genre for which I am the target audience, but it does to keep an open mind.

The year's first big awards season prestige picture! It's called Prisoners, it's about a kidnapping, and it has waaaaaaay too impressively pedigreed a cast for that to be all she wrote. Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Terence Howard, Melissa Leo, Maria Bello, Paul Dano - okay, I'm no Paul Dano fanboy, but that's a lot of firepower for a thriller. The hope is that this means it's brainy; the fear is that this means it's leaden and po-faced

In limited release for its first week, Ron Howard has a Formula One racing biopic, which is just strange, right? I don't even know if I'm looking forward to Rush, but it's surely an unpredictable marriage of filmmaker and content, the kind that can't help but pique your interest.


27.9.2013

In addition to Rush widening, we have here a pair of very different niche market romantic comedies: for hipsters and dudes, Joseph Gorden Levitt's directorial debut comes along, the porn addict comedy Don Jon, while for the vast sum of humanity collective lumped together as "not the white people", there's Baggage Claim, with Paula Patton. And Paula Patton is really all I needed to hear.

The biggest release of them all, and almost certainly of the month, shall be Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, the sequel to a film I was never remotely interested in seeing, and now kind of have to. Yay people crapping out animation because they know families will pay for it no matter what!

Thứ Sáu, 30 tháng 8, 2013

AIN'T THEM BODIES DEAD

Nearly two years of hype since the film's 2011 Toronto International Film Festival has promised that You're Next was a brilliant dark horror-comedy. I will allow the possibility that I'm dumb as fuck, but not one single moment came across to me as comic. The best case scenario is that director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett were playing the "don't you get it? It's so stupid and bad! On purpose!" card, but that's not being funny, that's being a pair of assholes. It also negates the other part of the hype, that You're Next is an intense and unsparing indie horror film; but if a film is deliberately bad, with flat characters spouting regrettable dialogue and wandering through clichés, it's probably not also a good version of the exact genre it's apparently making fun of.

Reader, I will be blunt: I acutely disliked this movie. It is a home invasion thriller released in the same summer as the conceptually dire The Purge that very nearly succeeds in making The Purge look good in comparison; really, the only thing You're Next gets right that The Purge gets wrong is that Wingard's film boasts a lead performance by Australian actor Sharni Vinson as its Final Girl that is absolutely the best possible iteration of that stock character that this scenario could ever in a hundred years have produced. In a just world, Vinson (whose biggest film, by a massive degree, has been Step Up 3D) will, with this film's release, end up on the radar of casting directors, who will pluck her from the world of crappy low-fi indies and make a great star of her. But the world where Vinson ends up wildly imbalancing You're Next by giving an actual, great performance amongst such an assortment of graceless microbudget indie celebrities (no fewer than four members of a cast of 16 souls are directors) is not a just one.

The film opens with a scene that, for a good while, seems to be just one of those "fuck it, let's start with a murder" gestures that plague slasher films: a gorgeous young woman without any shirt on and a pudgy man with poor facial hair grooming skills (men with questionably grooming paired with women they don't deserve is a pervasive quality of You're Next, though the unexamined sexism of these new indie horror movies is pretty well-established at this point) have just wrapped up a bout of sex that he evidently enjoys more than she did - the opening shot is accompanied by sound design that's deliberately muddying the noise of orgasm with the noise of violent pain - when they are caught out by a man in a fox mask (Lane Hughes), who kills the woman and uses her blood to paint "you're next on the window when the man wanders in unawares. Quicker than you can say "shock cut", we find ourselves in the company of Erin (Vinson), and her boyfriend Crispian (AJ Bowen), traveling to the deep country to visit his defense contractor dad (Rob Moran) - the political implications are raised just long enough to be completely ignored - and homemaker mom (Barbara Crampton, the film's requisite '80s horror movie star) on the event of the their 35th anniversary.

It's quite a full house that they're headed to, in fact, by the time the anniversary starts up, Crispian's siblings Drake (important indie director Joe Swanberg), Aimee (important indie director Amy Seimetz), and Felix (Nicholas Tucci), and their respective significant others Kelly (Margaret Laney, hiding under the name Sarah Myers), Tariq (important indie horror director Ti West), and Zee (Wendy Glenn) will all have shown up, to fail almost immediately at the simple task of not having a screaming match when they're all gathered around the dinner table, and befitting the preponderance of "mumbly human dramas" veterans in the cast, it's not that much of a surprise that this ends up being very much the best-played, most cleverly played scene in the film).

Dinner is abruptly interrupted when Tariq notices movement, and, hoping to get the hell away from the fighting going on, heads to the window to see closer. For his troubles, he ends up with a crossbow bolt to the brain, and the nine remaining attendees of this officially unsuccessful dinner party are dumbstruck into terror by the fox mask man and his colleagues, one wearing a lamb mask (L.C. Holt), one wearing a tiger mask (You're Next writer and important indie producer Simon Barrett).

You're Next continues in a familiar mode from here on out: you might even say, a conspicuously familiar mode: bodies pile up at a truly amazing clip, as people do the absolute dumbest things you could possibly do in their place. While it may well be that Windgard and Barrett are deliberately making a stupid film to poke fun at other stupid films, there comes a point where the difference between bad-on-purpose and just-plain-bad is wholly academic; the point remains that we have a home invasion slasher movie that is full of idiotic behavior by poorly-conceived characters given atrocious lines of dialogue to say, embodied by an almost uniformly terrible cast (Moran is the worst, in a tight race; despite my intense antipathy for Swanberg as a human being, I have to concede that his smug dick portrayal of Drake - a smug dick name if ever I head one - is maybe the second-best piece of acting in the film. Though the gap between 1st and 2nd is larger than the gap between 2nd and last, in this place).

Wingard's aesthetic - either because he doesn't respect the material, or because he's just not that talented (his later work on the tedious anthology film V/H/S suggests a strong possibility it's the latter) - tends to make the action far less enjoyable than it ought to be, as the film fails to differentiate tonally between any pair of scenes once the action starts, and the bodies start to pile up like firewood, mechanistically and dully. Let us say that I am grateful that You're Next kills off its cast at such a speedy pace mostly because it picks up an inertia that the sausage-making approach Wingard takes to his second act sorely needs. Meanwhile, the director and his crew employ that bog-standard low-fi thing that American independent films tend to wallow in, as though being ugly and rough were a source of pride rather than a limitation (though at least You're Next has really great sound recording, my customary bête noire in these things), and while this lends the film a grubby authenticity - and the ubiquitous handheld camera does serve, in places, to make things seem hectic and terrifying - the guttural crudeness of the filmmaking really isn't a substitute for atmosphere, mood, or any kind of visual appeal to speak of. Griminess is become it's own cliché at this point.

By the time the movie devolves into its protracted Final Girl sequence, spiked by one twist that the movie more or less expects us to get ahead of, and one that it apparently doesn't, though a genre-savvy viewer shouldn't have too hard of a time predicting it, it's so divorced from character continuity or story logic that the amount of low-key observational energy that went into establishing the characters in the first act seems even more wasted than it did when it was happening. It's a film about terrible things happening to deeply uninteresting people, making absolutely no claims on the viewer's emotions or engagement, only our ability to feel superior. There are clearly people who love this kind of thing, to judge from the film's warm word of mouth, and I do not blame them - to paraphrase Roger Ebert, I love horror films too much to want anybody to have a bad time at one. But I also love them too much to stand the rank cynicism of You're Next, a film hellbent on being everything but good, sincere horror. Pass.

3/10

Thứ Năm, 29 tháng 8, 2013

TIM AT TFE: BETWEEN THE CRACKS

This week's essay: on the cusp of the big awards season push, a look ahead to the little movies that aren't likely to be big hits or Oscar players, but which I am very much looking forward to anyway.

YOU'VE GOT RED ON YOU

If only by a small margin, Hot Fuzz probably has the stronger reputation; The World's End is more sophisticated in all sorts of storytelling and filmmaking ways. But from where I stand, the very first feature made by director Edgar Wright, with stars Simon Pegg (who co-wrote with Wright) and Nick Frost, after the three of them moved on from their brilliant sitcom Spaced, is absolutely the best. Shaun of the Dead isn't merely the pinnacle of Wright and Pegg's series of homages to and parodies of somewhat idiotic fanboy genres, it is quite possibly the funniest and most creative comedies of the 2000s, with enough of a pointed study of character that it's more than just a collection of some of the best and most ridiculous jokes in a generation. Though, it that was all, I suspect I'd still have very nearly the same opinion. Funny trumps a hell of a lot, after all, and Shaun of the Dead doesn't ease up on the funny for even a minute.

The film sold itself as "A romantic comedy. With zombies", which is just about right, and puts them in the correct order. For this is not primarily the story of an everyman squaring off against the cannibalistic hordes of the undead, it's about an everyman trying to grow up fast enough to win back his girlfriend, and the cannibalistic hordes &c are the means by which he is able to do so (much in the same way that the nine-years later World's End isn't about an alien invasion, but about how that invasion is a catalyst for adult men to revisit who they were as teenagers; though The World's End is a great deal more forward about it). The protagonist, Shaun (Pegg), is a twentysomething Londoner who could be described, neither maliciously nor inaccurately, as a fuckup: he's got a dead-end job selling electronics, his best friend is a self-absorbed part-time drug-dealer and manchild named Ed (Frost), and in the film's opening moments, he's dumped by his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) after forgetting their anniversary, in what is presented very clearly as less an impulse of "I'm so pissed at you that I'm going to leave you out of the clear blue sky" than "I have given you every conceivably opportunity to right yourself, and I'm tired of waiting".

The very next day, a zombie outbreak occurs, and Shaun immediately starts to not notice a damn thing. In fact, it's not until after he and Ed end up fighting back a pair of monsters in their backyard that he figures out what's going on, and the two men make immediate plans to go save Shaun's mum Barbara (Penelope Wilton) from her soon-to-zombified husband Philip (Bill Nighy), rescue Liz, and hole up in their favorite pub, the Winchester. From here on out, events proceed as they do in pretty much every zombie movie since George A. Romero invented the modern iteration of the subgenre with Night of the Living Dead in 1968: running back and forth madly, living people dying because they make stupid, easily-avoidable mistakes, balletic fight scenes set to Queen songs.

On the surface, the easy thing to admire about Shaun of the Dead is how well the filmmakers know their audience; the only thing that Wright has made with a clearer program of fan-serving injokes is the "Don't" trailer from Grindhouse. The major difference between that and Shaun (or even between Shaun and Wright's sole Pegg-free project, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) is that Shaun isn't just throwing out bones to fans (though there are plenty - "We're coming to get you, Barbara!" is the most overt shout-out, but there are a seemingly unlimited number of references to classic zombie films). It manages something so tricky that I can't swear to have ever seen it outside of this movie: writing jlines that are inside-baseball references, but also jokes in their own right, and additionally sincere character moments.. When, for example, a flustered Shaun yells "Dont' say the zed-word!", it's a great moment that helps develop who Shaun is (someone who tries, and is frequently successful, to ignore what's right in front of him), while working as a funny counterpoint to the moment in which it occurs (terminology is his concern right now?), and finally, it winks at the zombie fandom who know that the word "zombie" is almost never spoken in Romero's filmography, and that two years prior to Shaun, Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later was released on the wings of the director insisting that we should not deign to refer to it as a "zombie film", thank you so much. Incidentally, though I think it would be incorrect to suggest that Pegg and Wright dislike 28 Days Later, they sure do love poking fun it, both in their script and in the iconography their film nabs from it.

The thing is, it would still be a great film and greater comedy totally divorced from its value as a parody, or as a sincere zombie film (and the great thing is that, like Hot Fuzz, it is both a terrific parody and a terrific example of what it's parodying at one and the same moment). Wright is a fantastic director of comedy, is the thing, and Chris Dickens, even more importantly is a great editor of comedy, and Shaun of the Dead is one of the best examples in modern cinema of how judicious cutting can extract every last bit of humor from a moment: I am especially thinking of a sequence where Shaun and Ed try to come up with a plan to save everybody and find someplace save to hole up, where the increasingly fast editing is the joke, after a fashion (it also happens to be my single favorite scene in Wright's entire career, for what it's worth). The "humor through rhythmic edits" thing is perhaps the defining element of Wright's later films (of which only Hot Fuzz was also edited by Dickens, and it's not coincidentally the director's funniest movie), and it came into being pretty fully formed right here.

What pushes Shaun of the Dead over the edge, though, is not its cleverness, nor its technical mastery of humor, but that it marries these things to genuinely likable, interesting characters - not so complex as the population of The World's End, but frankly more fun to spend time with, and that's what makes the movie special: it is a sweet hyper-violent comedy about zombies. Shaun is a tit, but he's our tit, and watching him figure out what his priorities are and should be makes the film an emotionally rewarding experience unlike literally any other zombie film I can name. And the fact that the film's overriding message is that sometimes, we actually do need to become better people to make relationships work, instead of just expecting our charming personality to make people love us, put this miles and miles ahead of almost any other romcom of the 21st Century for sheer pragmatic honesty. It's a great movie, and if it has a speckling of flaws (I think that it exhausts itself and stops, rather than "ends"; and the initial conceit that modern urban life makes all of us act so much like zombies that it's hard to tell the difference is frustratingly undeveloped), so do most things. But great comedies, great horror genre stories, and great coming-of-age tales are three of the rarest things in contemporary cinema, and that Shaun of the Dead is all three at once makes it among the most valuable British films in modern memory.

Thứ Tư, 28 tháng 8, 2013

NOT WITH A WHIMPER, BUT A BANG

First, let's clear out the brush: The World's End, the third genre pastiche about English male behavior by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, just isn't as funny as Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz. Even granting the deeply personal nature of what makes us laugh, I can't really imagine anybody thinking that claim is way off-base, though they might well disagree with it. Honestly, for lengthy stretches, it's not even evident that it's trying to be as funny as those films are; it's still enough to end up as the funniest thing I've seen in 2013 to this point, and barring something that unexpectedly turns out to be a massive gutbuster, it will remain that way by the time 2013 closes. But Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are, simply put, two of the funniest movies of the 2000s. That's a massive legacy to live up to, and it's not really shameful that The World's End doesn't.

The good news, on the flipside, is that The World's End is by a sizable degree the most complex and densest of the three movies, with so many delicate touches flashing flashing between the more obvious gestures of a script that has more going on thematically right there on the surface than the other two movies put together. Taken as a whole, the collection of movies called, more out of affection than descriptive accuracy, the "Cornetto Trilogy", dramatise the way that layabout males with affection for genre films - the trilogy's target audience, not to be blunt about it - are confronted with their own more-or-less immaturity and compelled to do something about it (or not); it's just that The World's End is so much more alert about this theme, grappling with it in an active, probing manner. Ultimately, the first two movies are both primarily genre comedies, into which a great deal of thoughtful observation about male behavior makes its way; this movie is a study of male behavior that uses genre film mechanics as one of its tools for attacking the topic. Which is perhaps why The World's End, unlike the first two, isn't really a parody of its genre; it's actually a very sincere alien body snatcher movie that happens to be funny rather than thrilling.

The way that the scenario is used as a metaphor for the message is apparent from even the most glancing description: many long years after his teenage heyday in 1990, Gary King (Pegg) hasn't progressed at all beyond his most hedonistic impulses, and so he decides to gather all his friends from that glorious time back for one last attempt at the epic 12-pub crawl that they failed to complete all those years ago. Problem is, none of those friends - care salesman Peter Page (Eddie Marsan), contractor Steven Prince (Paddy Considine), real estate agent Oliver Chamberlain (Martin Freeman), and especially Andy Knightley (Nick Frost, the reliable co-lead of all these films), a businessman so serious that the exact nature of his business is never spelled out - want anything to do with the selfish fuck-up that Gary has remained for more than 20 years, only coming along for his marathon bout of arrested development because he guilt trips them into it.

Once in their punishingly anonymous hometown of Newton Haven - a blank little British nowhere famous for having the first roundabout in the UK (the first of a great many things in the film that are metaphors if you want them to be, quaint details if you don't) - the five men discover the expected mixture of everything having changed and everything remaining the same, in the way that leads one to feel awfully unsettled about returning to a long-abandoned place, but the film's clever little generic switch (which comes a long way into the story, but since it shows up heavily in the ads, I take it to be fair game spoiler-wise) is that most of the city has been replaced by artificial bodies that do not take kindly to being called robots, the forefront of an alien invasion force that claims to want to make humankind better - but doesn't the monstrous, humanity-destroying alien hivemind always claim that?

When the whole thing is in motion for an hour and three quarters, it twists in directions that can barely be described, eventually ending up with the idea that maybe, steadfast immaturity isn't a terrible thing that only a dreadful prick would seek out; a piss-take of conventional character arcs that may or may not be serious (Wright's directorial career is filled with examples of men finding the right balance between growing up and maintaining their indulgent boyishness), but either way fits right into the sarcastic, biting edge that The World's End has to such great quantity. It is, at times, a genuinely melancholy film, leavening its immaculately-timed jokes with serious observations about how one can remain enthusiastic and have fun in the face of an increasingly homogenous world - one of the film's best jokes is at the expense of the "Starbucking" of small businesses, and one of its most piercing is about the constant plugged-in modern world and what that means for individual humans - with even Gary's shallow hedonism going deeper than just alcoholism and a fear of responsibility.

That this is funny at all speaks well of Wright's excellent handling of tone; but this is a truly marvelous collaborative effort. The cast is ludicrously strong, at almost every level (Rosamund Pike puts in a small but film-defining performance as a woman with a perpetual "are you fucking kidding me?" stare; Pierce Brosnan has a richly stentorian cameo, joining fellow ex-Bond Timothy Dalton in the series; the many tiny parts filled by non-famous actors are all perfect. And of course, the Big Five are all pretty terrific characters actors, enough so that it's impossible to pick a best in show, though Frost, at least, is doing the best work of his career by a landslide, playing an irritable straight man in various shades of righteous anger), and whether it's grounding the fantasy in some genuinely hard-hitting character detail, or simply playing the comedy perfectly, the film benefits immensely from every single person onscreen. Paul Machliss's editing is tight as a drum, including one scene set to the Doors' cover of "Alabama Song" that is a flawless gem showcasing how music, cutting, and physical performance can create comedy where absolutely none exists naturally (and for that matter, the soundtrack of pop songs, tied to Gary's solipsistic personal history, is one of the best put together for a film in years, adding energy and a sense of context).

Stunningly complex filmmaking all around, with a script to match, so dense that it's impossible to catch most of what's going on in one viewing - just picking out the way that the names of the 12 pubs in Gary's beloved crawl reflect the development of the story would take a viewing all to itself. It is smart, savvy, and too clever for words; maybe even too clever for its own good. It's easy to wish that this was all a bit breezier and more energetic, along the lines of its predecessors, which managed to be, in their way, nearly as deep without being anywhere near this much work to puzzle out. It's worth it, though: the film is rich and it is funny as hell, and that's a good combination from any angle. Could it be richer? funnier? Sure, I guess, but it's still the most inventive, humane comedy in ages, probably the best-directed action film of the summer, and easily the most intelligent science-fiction story in a year lousy with the damn things. It's not a masterpiece like Wright's earliest films, but it's still pretty great in its own right, serious without being solemn, merciless without being cruel, and the best excoriation of and tribute to men burying themselves that you could ever hope to see.

8/10

BEST SHOT: BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID

The penultimate episode in 2013 of Hit Me with Your Best Shot at the Film Experience visits the 1969 buddy Western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, a film for which I have particularly intense, maybe even blinding affection - I would never go so far as to call it the "best" movie of '69, but it's absolutely my favorite, by a mile. Which makes it easier to pick a favorite shot (I know it mostly by heart) and also daunting (there are so many great images, courtesy of an especially on-his-game Conrad L. Hall). The hardest part of all is that the shot that leaps to mind first and absolutely dominates my feelings about the film, is as I expect it is for a great many people, is the very last shot, not least because of how openly the movie demands that we react that way to its closing moments. Calling it a lazy selection would be ridiculously underselling things; it's not "lazy", so much as it is "sitting on the couch doing nothing until Jerry Springer pays to airlift you out of your house". So that shot was off the table.

The obvious place to go next would be to one of Hall's many excellent shots of people against the landscape of the American west, but there were too many to select just one. Even limiting myself to the "who are those guys?" chase sequence left it too open. Time for tactic #3, too look for a nice storytelling shot. Which, I'm happy to say, doubles as a breathtakingly beautiful frame, too, though that was mostly not the reason I picked it.

It's the second shot of the movie's second part, after the Paul Newman and Robert Redford's titular outlaws, along with Katherine Ross's feminine third wheel, arrive in Bolivia - at which point I should mention that if you haven't seen the movie, none of this probably makes any damn sense, and also you really ought to try and see the movie sooner rather than later. It is the quintessential Western for people who don't like Westerns, and also for people who do like Westerns but are okay with them being a little less serious and mythic - and in one of the film's less-forced cheeky touches, the most "exotic" location in the film ends up being far less exoticised than all the various California, Colorado, and Utah locations playing a dreamy, Romantic ideal of the Dying West.

The Bolivia sequence is, in essence, the realistic slap in the face that punctures the various legends perpetuated by the first half: of a wide-open American West, populated by charming gentleman-bandits whose lawbreaking is all in the spirit of comic good fun. The back half of the film is increasingly less charming, with violence and misery weighing down ever more on the characters as their freewheeling ways become increasingly untenable, and it starts right here, as the film's central trio disembarks a train in what the Sundance Kid bitterly suggests is "the garden spot of the whole country", a dismal little rundown station with dried-up prairie and scraggly animals as far as the eye can see.

So about that Best Shot: it's the very instant that the movie's bubble pops, with Butch and Sundance taking stock of their situation and realising that they've made a mistake; the shot, with its aching emptiness, stresses the embryonic sense of despair, and the way that the three characters are positioned, looking into three different empty spaces, emphasises their disconnection. We could push a point and say that they're on three different planes along the Z-axis, but that's not really true; it's a three-tier shot all right, but the train is the third, with Newman and Ross lumped together at the middle - but even this is suggestive, for the receding train is, itself, a sign of their being dropped into the very same nowhere in particular that will eventually kill them.

But even though the framing is basically telling us to be hopeless, it's handsome and painterly and the moving version of the same image actually plays as comic - Redford's body language in particular is tense with a sardonic quip that's right about to burst in the next shot. Because this is, after all, a largely lighthearted, playful movie, and even if it is ultimately about the passing of an era and the death of two men, it's never a drag about it. It's just so pretty! How can that much pretty ever be completely hopeless?

Thứ Ba, 27 tháng 8, 2013

DIARY OF A MAD WHITE WOMAN

I do not know that Woody Allen has ever made a movie that is so much about its central performance, to the exclusion of every other concern, as Blue Jasmine; the most recent film of his monumentally prolific career that even comes close is Another Woman, a quarter of a century old. This isn't meant as praise or criticism, merely an observation of what makes Blue Jasmine such a shocking outlier in the director's career, at a point where we'd assume that he would be content to recycle themes and tonalities over and over again, mostly because he's spent much of the last several years doing precisely that.

As just about everybody has already pointed out, the film is essentially a Bernie Madoff-themed gloss on A Streetcar Named Desire, making this the first time that any Allen film has seriously acknowledged the fact that the 21st Century has happened. The title is a reference to Jasmine (Cate Blanchett), whose plush life as a New York socialite and hostess has been devastated by the arrest of her husband Hal (Alec Baldwin, the sole Allen veteran in the cast), who built his massive wealth out of fraud and shady money-juggling. With every tether holding her life in place snapped, Jasmine has nowhere to go but to San Francisco, there to live with Ginger (Sally Hawkins), her sister - both girls, we are told, were adopted by their parents - in circumstances awfully far removed from anything Jasmine has experienced throughout her adult life. Though given the out-of-control cost of living in San Francisco, the alleged unmitigated squalor in which Ginger lives on a grocery store bagger's salary is as unbelievable and out-of-touch as any of the director's attempts to depict the life of the ragged poor. I mean, it's a multi-bedroom apartment in a relatively clean neighborhood safe enough for a clueless woman to wander about, obviously lost; that's like, $2500 a month in San Francisco dollars.

A thoroughly digusted Jasmine makes it her immediate task to constantly berate Ginger for all the terrible things in her life, primarily her choice in men: low-rent ex-husband Augie (Andrew Dice Clay), low-rent mechanic boyfriend Chili (Bobby Canavale), marginally less low-rent audio technician Al (Louis C.K.). Though really, it's a free-for-all with Jasmine, and no element of limited-budget blue collar life is too innocuous for her to spout off about it with withering, superior rage. In the meantime, everything under the sun is apt to trigger a flashback to the life she'd used to live with Hal, before he went to prison and she had a nervous breakdown, from which she has clearly never quite recovered, and over the course of the film's frazzling 98 minutes, we see in punishing detail how a fragile psyche can break, repeatedly, under too much stress born of loathing - loathing for everything and everyone around oneself, but self-loathing as well, as Jasmine seems at times aware that her aggressive, lying behavior is certainly not making things any better in her daily life.

This is Cate Blanchett's movie, and that's all there is to it. Other people give fine, even great performances: Hawkins in particular is excellent as a desperately cheery mess, easily the best thing she's done since her penetrating small performance in An Education, four years ago. And the men in the cast are all perfectly satisfactory, even though the script never quite manages to give any of them a really solid reason for being there in the first place.

Still, the focus is first and always on Blanchett's portrayal of Jasmine, so it's not merely good luck but absolutely pivotal that she's so fucking wonderful in the role: at a glance, I suppose it's the best performance of her cinematic career, though I'd need to revisit some of her '90s work before I was willing to swear to that in a court of law. It's the best imaginable marriage of performer and character: Blanchett's greatest liability since forever has been a certain brittleness and theatricality, a feeling that she's never inhabiting a role so much as wearing it like pancake makeup, projecting feelings rather than feeling them. All of which is ideally suited to a woman with a fixed, intense desire to be understood as the sum of her surface qualities: inner life is not something Jasmine has much use for, and her carefully manicured way of speaking in a nowhere-in-particular posh accent, and her constant, menacing "fuck you" way of looking at other people are poses that Blanchett adopts wonderfully. So too does she managed to navigate the open sores in Jasmine's personality, the moments when the role requires her to shift reactions and emotions (real or put-on) in just a brief handful of frames, and the terrifying moments where she simply turns off, going perfectly blank on the breath of a single syllable. It's a virtuoso performance, and to be fair, the movie and director absolutely hand it to her; but just because Blanchett doesn't have to work to dominate and show off, that doesn't mean that it's not a magnificent display of skill. Jasmine is a cruel, unlikable figure, pathetic without being sympathetic, and anything less than a perfect performance would leave Blue Jasmine totally acrid and unwatchable; Blanchett prevents that from happening, and it's breathtaking and brilliant to watch.

But again, the performance is the film, and while the whole thing counts, by default, as "good" Woody Allen (coming hot on the heels of the confounding To Rome with Love, this is not such a huge achievement), it's besotted with problems. There are thematic problems: having identified the wife of his made-up Madoff analogue as a bitter woman who cannot feel genuine love, Allen thereupon runs out of ideas what to say with her; and the less said on his inability to conceive of poverty, the better. There are structural problems: the flashbacks are weirdly schematic; and there are massive dead-ends, most notably a bit with Michael Stuhlbarg as Jasmine's rapey employer, a sequence that serves no purpose but to demonstrate that Allen has heard of sexual harassment, but he's never really thought about it. There are crushing aesthetic problems: shot by the talented Javier Aguirresarobe, Blue Jasmine is nonetheless a shitty-looking movie, one of the ugliest that the director has ever graced us with, and he is not at all inclined to make films notable for their visuals, employing instead a hands-off style designed largely to give the actors space to breathe. That works as well in Blue Jasmine as it must, though any movie that makes San Francisco looks this low-rent (even if it fits how the protagonist thinks of it) is doing something inexplicably wrong.

Basically, the film makes a hell of an impact, and Blanchett burns up the screen in her depiction of a fragmenting psychology: but it's not really making any keen observations about that psychology. Arguably, that doesn't matter, and the blistering power of the acting is justification in and of itself. But everything else is awfully shallow, the dark comic tone wanders in and out until the final act where it finally blinks out, the movie has nothing interesting to say about the malfeasance of the rich, and it hardly tells any story at all, let alone an interesting one. It's entirely worth seeing for Blanchett and Hawkins, but a return to form for a spotty filmmaker, it ain't.

7/10

Thứ Hai, 26 tháng 8, 2013

BLOCKBUSTER HISTORY: URBAN FANTASY

Every week this summer, we'll be taking an historical tour of the Hollywood blockbuster by examining an older film that is in some way a spiritual precursor to one of the weekend's wide releases. This week: if we're being classy about it, overt Twilight knock-off The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones could be more generously thought of as a new entry in that most modern of fantasy subgenres, in which mythological beasts interact with the glass and steel canyons of the big city. Happily, it is not hard for the bulk of such films to be better at it than The Mortal Instruments.

The word "fanboy" is almost invariably used A) disparagingly, B) in reference to audience members who rabidly consume stories in various genres of movies and comic books, and get profoundly angry at anybody who doesn't love their favored corner of the nerdosphere as much as they do. But this is not the only way to be a fanboy. In fact, a filmmaker can, himself, also be a fanboy (or "herself" a "fangirl", but I do not believe this has ever yet happened), and this, I find, is generally better than when a viewer is a fanboy; for a fanboy-director is likelier to be sincere and enthusiastic and respectful, while a fanboy-viewer is typically going to be a shouty, small-minded artistic totalitarian.

Of all the directors we could potentially call fanboys, surely the best one at it is Guillermo Del Toro - a man who in 2013 got to spend $200 million to make his giant robot toys fight his giant monster toys, under the name Pacific Rim, after all. But even that feature-length love letter to Godzilla is not, perhaps, the most overt work of fanservice in del Toro's career: for that honor, I would point to his 2004 adaptation of Mike Mignola's comic series Hellboy, a labor of love that the director (who also served as screenwriter) had been nursing along for years, passing up several surefire blockbusters to finally bring it to completion. It was not a flawless delivery of the director's precious baby - the script manages to be simultaneously overly-descriptive and helplessly opaque - but the one thing it would be quite impossible to claim is that the filmmaker's love of his subject isn't apparent throughout every lovingly-crafted frame. It is one of the most individualised and personally-stamped of all the films of the great superhero boom of the 2000s (which, increasingly, looks to be a different thing than the immediately continuous superhero boom of the 2010s), and if it doesn't end up feeling quite as much of a del Toro film as its sequel, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, it does feel much more like a Hellboy movie, and it is filled with a sense of gee-whiz joy that its follow-up, for all its flashier style and more baroque scenario, doesn't reach.

Which is not to say that Hellboy doesn't have flashy style or baroque plotting; in fact, those are perhaps the two things that most dominate. Plot-wise, the mash-up of several different Mignola stories plays very much like a Lovecraftian gloss on Men in Black, with an oddball investigatory agency based in New York squaring off against a tentacled cosmic evil, sprinkled with a healthy dollop of Nazi occultism, because after all, everything improves when you throw some Nazis at it.* It opens in the '40s with U.S. soldiers interrupting a plot by the immortal Russian mystic Rasputin (Karel Roden), clockwork cyborg Nazi assassin Kroenen (Ladislav Beran), and Aryan she-wolf Ilsa Haupstein (Bridget Hodson) to open a portal to a hell dimension filled with unspeakably evil beings, with only an infant demon making it through. 60 years later, that demon has grown - slowly - into a cynical but good-hearted lug named, with misplaced affection, Hellboy (Ron Perlman, ideally cast and wonderfully surly), who works as part of the government's Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense, under the kindly eye of his adopted father, occult researcher Broom Bruttenholm (John Hurt).

That gets us out of the prologue and into the first act, and it's here that Hellboy gets a little messy in the writing. "Strained" might be a better word for. It's trying to cover a little bit too much territory in too compact a space, presenting an introduction to the characters (done through a bland origin-ish story involving new BPRD agent John Myers, played by Rupert Evans), while also playing as something like a procedural, showing what the team does in the course of their regular days, while also expanding on the Nazi villainy of the prologue, helpfully aided by three ageless Nazi villains. It frankly seems like it wants to be both itself and its own sequel, simultaneously, and this is not least of the reasons that the most straightforward The Golden Army is the better film. Though it's also what gives Hellboy it's personality, as there's a boyish sense of overreach that feels very different, and more satisfying, than mere shoddy screenwriting.

But it's really not the writing that drives the movie, and only slightly more its characters (who are, in the main, appealling and off-kilter without being annoyingly kooky). It's the design and the way that design is captured by del Toro's irreplaceable cinematographer Guillermo Navarro, who uses a hugely satisfying visual palette that's heavy on mood lighting and color balance that favors cool shades of blue, grey, and brown, all the better for the bright red Hellboy to pop right off the screen. It's a film that draws most of its power from combining a heightened but recognisable version of the real world (a depiction of New York that looks about as much like a comic book come to life with its graphic qualities intact as any city in any comics-derived film of the '00s) with stupendously elaborate and fanciful design, mostly of Hellboy himself, but also of fellow Bureau monster Abe Sapien (Doug Jones; David Hyde Pierce provided the voice, but refused onscreen credit when he watched the film and realised how fully Jones's acting did all the work of creating the character), and the otherworldly Kroenen, in both his implacable mask-wearing and hideous animate corpse editions.

In fact, Hellboy is so effective at marrying its fantasy action with stylised urban settings that in the final chunk of the movie, taking place in the only overtly fantastic locations of the whole film, it looses quite a bit of energy; it definitely doesn't help that the broad, comic-book style action choreography increasingly degrades into something very typical and CGI-addled: Hellboy was not a very costly film, and its digital effects have not aged well, making it gratifying that del Toro made certain to create so much of the effects through practical means (something he has generally done throughout his career, culminating in the bestiary of his very next feature, Pan's Labyrinth). So much of Hellboy is a breezy, imaginative treat, that it's a genuine disappointment when it turns into just another damn comic book movie.

Still, even at its worst, the film is suffused with a spirit of wide-eyed amazement at its own fantasies, with plenty of spooky-fun creatures that work as black comedy and as campfire story in equal measure. And Perlman's Hellboy is one of the truly great comic hero performances of all time, with the actor managing to be shockingly expressive under a deadening amount of latex. It's nowhere near del Toro's finest achievement, either as a story or as a work of visual imagination, but there's at least a possibility that it's his most untroubled and fun work, meant only to delight and awe, and largely successful in both aims.

(NB: There is a director's cut, more than ten minutes longer than the theatrical, and though I am sometimes agnostic on these issues, there's no contest: it's an improvement across-the-board, clarifying plot details and making the sketchy characters quite a bit more real and lived-in).

Thứ Bảy, 24 tháng 8, 2013

SUMMER OF BLOOD: WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW?

This is nitpicky, but I have to get it off my chest: 1992's Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil is not about prom (which annoys me), but it does take place on prom night, and the main characters are making a specific choice not to be at prom, so it can rightly be considered a plot point. Also, one character idly mentions that the main location is his parents' summer home, but nobody needs to worry, because they're never around much in the summer. Which is, after all, roughly when prom tends to fall, maybe just a week or two before it officially begins.

And still, Deliver Us from Evil clearly, unambiguously shows that at the time the film is taking place, there is snow on the ground. Also, there's a snowstorm in one scene, and a line about getting snowed in at night. I mean, I know Canada is cold, but that's just fucking daft.

As reasons go for deciding to hate a movie with all the force of ones's rage, that's an awfully petty one, but maybe if Deliver Us from Evil wasn't such a mildewy little smear of a late slasher film, I wouldn't be driven to be petty towards it. As it is, the film is junk, and unlike the earlier Prom Night pictures, it's not even junk that has some compensating element of off-kilter weirdness or historical interest. It is, for one thing, the most purely, generically structured movie of the tetralogy: in the past, a crazy killer hacks apart some teens and is captured by the authorities, while in the present, he's accidentally freed and goes straight for his own stomping grounds, where he watches a few horny teens screw around before killing them one by one, until just the virginal girl is left to fend off his viciousness. All that separates Deliver Us from Evil from dozens of virtually identical movies is that the killer is quite a bit more coherently conceived than most of them; his stated motivations and his observable behavior actually line up pretty well, and he has a clearly defined personality that is consistent throughout the movie and is nothing at all like the taciturn man-mountains who traditionally hulked around looking for a chance to put a garden tool through a teenager's skull in the slasher film as it existed before 1996.

Also, his "theme", if you will, is particularly unusual: our killer is a religious zealot, and screenwriter Richard Beattie is careful to liven his script up with religious references both trivial but resonant (characters using "god" in dialogue more than usual), and non-trivial and deeply significant (as when the two female leads have a debate about what one should or should not mention in the confessional). It would be asking far too much of a horror film with a IV in the title that it should actually do anything important and complex with all this religiosity, but I admire the film for having more ambition than just running generic teens through a generic scenario, stopping to let them doff their clothes along the way.

Okay, so that's exactly what ends up happening, but the window dressing is particularly unique and challenging. That ought to count for something or other.

The film opens on the same prom night at Hamilton High School in 1957 that opened Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, though neither that film nor Prom Night III: The Last Kiss are otherwise mentioned in this wholly detached sequel, not even the broad idea of "the time the prom queen burned to death in the gym". Instead, we arrive to find the insatiable horndogs Lisa (Krista Bulmer) and Brad (Phil Morrison) escaping prom as quickly as possible - he came stage, she has to ditch her date - to start screwing in Brad's car. They don't get very far at all before being interrupted by menacing Gregorian chants on the soundtrack, which accompany the arrival of Father Jonas (James Carver). We've already met this deranged padre in the film's opening scene, where he feverishly prayed for guidance in ridding the world of all the sluts and whores; plainly not a fellow to forgive a bit of teenaged lust, and he uses his giant, blade-edged crucifix to kill them both with a minimum of pussyfooting around (I was all excited to talk about how Fr. Jonas "crucifucks" people up, but he doesn't use it again until virtually the end of the film, so there's really no opportunity for it). Then he blows up their car.

One can't keep one's deranged religious psychosis hidden when it's accompanied by such splashy actions, and Jonas is apprehended by church authorities and spirited away from his residence at St. Basil Seminary, to be hidden in the basement of St. George Church. And that's where we find him in the frosty summer of 1991, forgotten by all but the caretakers assigned by the higher-ups to keep him safe and sedated. We also meet here recent seminary graduate Fr. Colin (Brock Simpson, officially making it four-for-four as different characters in all the Prom Nights), who thinks that he's about to go to Khartoum for missionary work, but has been selected for a very different goal: he is to replace Fr. Jaeger (Ken McGregor), aged and ill, as the man in charge of keeping Jonas locked away from the world. He accepts this charge i n the spirit of gravity and solemnity with which it was given to him, and Jonas remains locked away for the rest of Colin's long life. The end.

No, so of course the very first thing Colin does is to dick around with the very clear rules laid out for him, and in the blink of an eye, Jonas has killed the young priest and fled to the remains of St. Basil. And thus does a movie that absolutely looks for a full half-hour like it's going to be some kind of strange-as-hell religious horror thriller that has a teenage plot crudely grafted on to facilitate a prom night connection finds its footing and turns into a paint-by-numbers slasher movie with a prom night plot crudely grafted onto its teen sex scenes. Basically, we have Mark (J.H. Wyman), who hasn't yet slept with his not-quite-ready girlfriend Meagan (Nicole de Boer), to the frustration of his pervy, voyeuristic younger brother Jonathan (Fab Filippo); their friends are Jeff (Alle Ghadban) and his very ready girlfriend Laura (Joy Tanner), who spends all her waking days leering at Meagan with a look of beatific joy the likes of which most of us will never feel, the kind of look you can only wear when you were created by a screenwriter and given the only personality trait, "adores having sex more than everything else put together". Eschewing Hamilton High's prom night, they trundle off to Mark's family summer home, an isolated manor that, a few decades ago, was a seminary. One St. Basil, to be exact.

The rest of the movie is the rest of the movie, and while the opening third of Deliver Us from Evil promises to be awful in ways that are at least unusual and unexpected, the last hour is awful in ways that are fully expected, with sex scenes choreographed to show the maximum amount of male and female butt serving as the only punctuation in a languid, aimless collection of scenes of the four teens poking around the house, waiting for the plot to arrive. It undoubtedly got lost in the snow, never expecting such freak weather in May.

In truth, by the standards of a 1992 slasher film, Deliver Us from Evil is terrifyingly functional and effective; but those are very low standards, and if we're to harbor and intellectual dignity at all, we need to set our sights a little higher. And there is no height that this film can rise to: it's crap, and not just crap, but boring crap, with only a four-person compliment of Spam in a Cabin to fill the middle section, and the two men in that equation so utterly interchangeable that by the third scene we have with these characters, we can predict every move they will ever make, so spending time with them is an imagination-starved grind. Plus, Meagan is such a powerfully obvious Final Girl - the film goes miles out of its way to establish what filthy sex-having sluts the other three are - that anything not involving her feels like outright filler.

And the generally putrid acting doesn't make these people any easier to like: only Tanner makes an impression, and I am almost positive it's a bad one, given the static, saucer-eyed, shark-toothed approach she takes to every single interaction in every single scene, as though the actress made the choice "orgasm addict", and let that be the only thing she brought to any moment. That and acidic sarcasm, though the two are harder to mix than you might suppose. Even given all this, she's the only actor I especially cared for; de Boer is thin gruel, and the boys make absolutely no impression at all.

All the film has going for it - the only thing at all - is Carver's weird, screaming performance as the crazy Jonas,and even he is let down by director Clay Borris and cinematographer Rick Wincenty, who rely on too little variation in shots (lot of close-ups, but this was direct-to-video, so it makes sense) and have a tendency to overlight everything but the very blackest scenes, which they underlight. Otherwise, it's the most routine slasher film you could possibly imagine, and while that is pretty impressive for its time frame - most '92 slashers were far too dreadful to be merely "routine" - the film's complete lack of affect makes it neither a satisfying series finale nor a watchable film in its own right. This is just useless, anonymous piffle: lazy storytelling and flat, functional filmmaking, not even interesting enough to suggest that it's for fans of the genre only. This is for nobody, and it is unworthy of the august, if inconsistent, brand name that it besmirches.

Body Count: 9? But it could be 8. The de rigueur twist ending makes it a little hard to tell for certain. Either way, I am not counting the offscreen death by natural causes of an elderly priest who we previously had seen alive.

Reviews in this series
Prom Night (Lynch, 1980)
Hello, Mary Lou: Prom Night II (Pittman, 1987)
Prom Night III: The Last Kiss (Oliver & Simpson, 1990)
Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil (Borris, 1992)
Prom Night (McCormick, 2008)

Thứ Sáu, 23 tháng 8, 2013

BEACH PARTIES: STUFF AND NONSENSE

How to Stuff a Wild Bikini is a film of lasts: the last of the American International beach party movies directed by the series' animating spirit, William Asher; the last starring Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello, no longer resembling teenagers even to the minute degree they did in the earliest films of the run, but still standing in for a certain sense of lingering post-Kennedy youthful idealism and innocence. The one thing it conspicuously isn't the last of, is that it's not the last AIP beach movie, for James H. Nicholson and Samuel Z. Arkoff were too good at scraping money off the bottom of a barrel to let their great cash cow die off just because everybody involved in making it had moved on to better things.

It's also the fifth of the damn things to come out in just a 23-month span, sixth if we count the Asher- and Avalon-free spin-off Pajama Party, and it's not remotely surprising that a long-delayed fatigue kicked in, and hard. Perhaps it's the case that Asher and his co-writer Leo Townsend had used up all their best ideas on Beach Blanket Bingo, which came out earlier in 1965 and represents by nearly universal acclaim the highest peak of the beach movie cycle, both at AIP and among their many competitors. Certainly, How to Stuff a Wild Bikini isn't remotely at the level of that movie, which it openly pillages it for ideas - not in the way that all of the beach party films recycle narrative conceits and basically re-tell the original Beach Party of 1963, either. That's just following formula; the whole fun lies in seeing how the new movie will bend itself around to do interesting new things while working out the exact same conflicts and narrative beats. That's traditional. No, what's going on in Wild Bikini is that it's copy sequences and gags directly from its immediate predecessor, and even having the characters call attention to it in one scene; it's as clear a sign of creative exhaustion as you could want from a movie that's plainly run out of gas even without such metatextual evidence.

The action begins in the south Pacific, where Frankie (Frankie Avalon) is doing a stint in the Naval reserve. Petrified that his girlfriend Dee Dee (Annette Funicello) is having as much fun fooling around back in California as he is in Tahiti, he cuts a deal with local witch doctor Bwana (Buster Keaton) to spy on Dee Dee for him, which Bwana does by sending a magical pelican to wander around the beach, stalking her. In the meantime, he has his studiously unseen daughter (eventually played, in a genuinely fun cameo, by Elizabeth Montgomery, Asher's then-wife and star of Bewitched) create a magically perfect woman to drop in among the beach kids and distract all the boys from so much as looking at Dee Dee.

This backfires instantly, when the woman in question, Cassandra (Beverly Adams) immediately falls for Ricky (Dwayne Hickman), who finds her loose, wanton ways a turn-off, and instead decides to pursue the most visibly frigid woman on the beach. Who would, of course, be that same Dee Dee. As for who the hell Ricky is, he's been selected by adman J. Peachmont "Peachy" Keane (Mickey Rooney) as the new face of the All-American Teen Biker, what with the tides of history turning back towards motorcycles and away from surfing. A metanarrative that Wild Bikini deserves credit for bringing in, given that this is exactly what was happening in teen culture at that moment, and it would only be a couple of years before AIP was heavily investing in biker movies itself, abandoning the beach films cold after 1966.

The point is, Peachy needs a girl to go alongside his boy, and Cassandra is plainly it; but she's already become the object of affection of a real biker, albeit a supremely terrible one: Eric Von Zipper (Harvey Lembeck), who immediately decides to supplant Ricky as the new face of Teen Biking, urgently declaring himself the ideal boy next door, with the make-up artists doing their bit to make Lembeck look every inch of his 42 years, in case we missed the joke.

There is, in other words, a shitload of plot in Wild Bikini, and you will observe that not a huge amount of it centers around Dee Dee, and basically none around Frankie at all. In the latter case, this is supposedly because Avalon demanded too much money and was smacked down by a demotion to a cameo (and not even a cameo mentioned on the poster!), though it's at least as likely that he was simply too busy starring in Sergeant Deadhead and Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine for AIP around the same time, films dedicated to the project of finding ways to keep the beach movies alive in the face of a culture that was turning on the surfing fad that had birthed the beach movies in the first place. Funicello, meanwhile, was pregnant, necessitating costumes that were powerfully unsexy and not at all appropriate for beachwear, and perhaps as a direct result of her condition, she appeared to have aged five years in the months since Beach Blanket Bingo, and looked positively foolish cavorting with young adults who themselves were a touch on the old side to convincingly play teens.

No Annette & Frankie, then, and that takes with it most of the reason that any of the beach movies "work": they all have pleasures totally unrelated to the central couple, but the pretext, and the justification, is that tart relationship at the middle of all the movies, fun and flirty and laced with the threat of imminent sex. Take that away - and replace the likably dim Avalon with the painfully anodyne Hickman, who cannot remotely keep up with Funicello's acid-flecked line deliveries in their so-called banter - and you sacrifice all the dramatic spine of movies that, even at their best, had absolutely no dramatic spine to spare.

To replace them: nothing. Nothing but death rattles, far as the eye can see. Left to retread all his best moments from Beach Blanket Bingo, Lembeck is the worst he's been in any of the movies; Keaton, red-eyed and sagging and stuck with cartoon-inspired sight gags far beneath his talents, is just heartbreaking to watch; Rooney is saddled with the absolute worst dialogue of a movie that tortures the language far too much for jokes that don't work, and even though I cannot typically stand Rooney, I still find it tragic how much this movie wastes all of the talents he does have. The songs are grueling, insipid book numbers that have completely abandoned the last inch of surf rock for something perfectly anonymous and trivial; Asher's direction includes very little of the absurdist invention of his best work, relying instead on repetitive slapstick, which is totally fucking insane when you recall that this is the beach party movie with actual fucking magic in it. It should be a field day for cartoon physics, not just one gag played out four times where steam comes out of Buster Keaton's ears.

It is not a complete wash. The opening credits are fantastic: claymation done by Art Clokely, creator of The Gumby Show and Davey and Goliath, neither of which remotely prepare one for the abstract geometry and organic fluidity of of the titles and the shapes and half-formed bodies beneath them; it's closer to Jan Švankmajer than anything resembling American children's television. And Cassandra's titular wild bikini, before she inhabits it, is a floating effect drawn by former Disney animator and director Jack Kinney, who gives even the empty swimwear personality and sensuality in just a few well-made frames.

But boy, when you have to start name-dropping animators to explain why a beach party movie isn't an utter morass of boring, stupid jokes and junky sex humor, that alone tells us the crushing scale of the failure involved, y'know?

Reviews in this series
Beach Party (Asher, 1963)
Muscle Beach Party (Asher, 1964)
Bikini Beach (Asher, 1964)
Pajama Party (Weis, 1964)
Beach Blanket Bingo (Asher, 1965)
Ski Party (Rafkin, 1965)
How to Stuff a Wild Bikini (Asher, 1965)
The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini (Weis, 1966)

Thứ Năm, 22 tháng 8, 2013

SUMMER OF BLOOD: THE GIRLFRIEND FROM HELL

The horror genre was at, perhaps, its all-time low in the early 1990s, and in Canada just as in the U.S. that means it was time for direct-to-video shlock to muscle its way in. Thus we arrive at Prom Night III: The Last Kiss, which is as cheap and as horrendously acted as you'd ever want a DTV movie released in 1990 to be. Though as befit its country of origin, always anxious to do things just a little bit more oddly than the soulless Yanks with their cash-in approach to genre films, The Last Kiss is actually a damn sight weirder and more ambitious - though surely no more successful - than virtually anything else you're likely to encounter from the same year.

Before we get into that, let's start with the simple but, contextually, surprising fact that The Last Kiss, uniquely among Prom Night movies, is something like an actual sequel to one of the other films in the franchise. It doesn't in any way continue the story of Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II - and it's not remotely connected to the original 1980 Prom Night - but it makes specific reference to some of the events of that film, and the titular Mary Lou Maloney even returns, though she's now being played by one Courtney Taylor, who I can't rightly call a trade up or a trade down from Lisa Schrage, except in that she feels like a totally different character now. Given that she is a vengeance-driven poltergeist "character" is likely the wrong word to be using in the first place.

Anyway, it's an indefinite time after the Hamilton High School gym was destroyed on prom night, and the spirit of long-dead prom queen Mary Lou sent back to her hell dimension, which we get to see now in the film's opening scene, and boy, is it ever a loopy one. Basically, Hell in The Last Kiss is a place where manacled women in torn nylon stockings do aerobics for all eternity, and I didn't make up a goddamn word of that, I promise you. Mary Lou is having none of this, so she breaks her chains with a nail file and escapes to Hamilton High, where her first act is to use a spectral jukebox to electrocute janitor Jack (Terry Doyle), who was there the night in 1957 when she burned to death. I didn't make up a goddamn word of that, either.

I'm going to skip ahead a bit, and reveal that The Last Kiss is a comedy. A horror-comedy, nominally, but you know how these things go: either the balance is too much towards horror, and the jokes are all pitch-black and meanspirited, or the balance is too much towards comedy, and it basically becomes a farce with gross-out death scenes. The Last Kiss decides, very early, that it's going to be a comedy with a marginal amount of horror, and it never once looks back. This is to its benefit in at least one regard: the gore effects, which are laughably unpersuasive and overdetermined, work on at least some legitimate level when we're plainly not supposed to take any of them seriously, and so when a man is gutted and filled with banana split fixins, this is a "joke", and not just a terrible, terrible, ill-executed attempt at a cruelly comic slasher killing.

The flipside is that, if you're going to make your horror-comedy a straight-up comedy, you need to be absolutely certain that the comedy is funny. For bad horror, like most bad filmmaking, can have its own magnetism and charm; but bad comedy by definition doesn't, since you cannot laugh at bad comedy. The Last Kiss isn't, by any means, reprehensibly bad comedy, but it only has a few different ideas for jokes, and it recycles these endlessly until its final act comes along, the film essentially says "fuck it", and the surrealist absurdity starts in earnest. Which is a mode that works out a lot better the comedy does.

What happens after Mary Lou's resurrection is thus: she haunts about, looking for someone to latch onto, and find him in the form of Alex Grey (Tim Conlon). Considering that this is junk on two separate levels (insincere horror-comedy and bargain basement 1990s genre fair), it's genuinely astonishing how much effort The Last Kiss puts into building up Alex's character, positing him as torn between his best friend, the geek slacker Shane (David Stratton), and his girlfriend of precisely one year, Sarah (Cynthia Preston, going in those days as Cyndy). Neither Shane nor Sarah, it should be noted, get anything like Alex's depth of character: Shane is just a vaguely-defined "the male world that you are abandoning because of your love life", while Sarah, though given more traits, never emerges as anything but a nag, the dullest kind of stock character girlfriend, and all the more frustrating because the movie honestly expects that we're invested enough in her as a person that we'll buy it when she turns into the hero of the final sequence, or that we'll see it as tragic when she starts to lose Alex for reasons beyond her comprehension. She's just a space-filler, and not remotely up to the task of being a legitimate Other Woman to the vengeance ghost.

After Alex and Sarah have the latest of their frequent micro-fights, Alex goes to school to pick up some books, and there he meets - and sleeps with - Mary Lou's ghost, right on top of an American flag. The score, blaring forth with "The Star-Spangled Banner", takes this to be ironic in some way that the rest of the movie isn't kenning. This turns out to be the beginning of the end for Alex: he immediately starts to see and hear Mary Lou everywhere, quickly putting two and two together and coming up with "dead prom queen"; Mary Lou, for her part, is so anxious that her new fleshy boyfriend should survive and succeed that she begins to manipulate the world to improve his grades and sports career, killing anybody who stands too much in the way. Confused as to what else he can do, Alex buries the bodies and ask Mary Lou not to do it again. Rinse, repeat.

Alex, as I've said, is an unusually complex figure for a movie of this sort; Mary Lou, on the other hand, is not, and that proves fatal for any chance that The Last Kiss will work the way it wants to, since she is our designated Murderous Quipster Ghost, a veritable female Freddy Krueger without the idiosyncracies that make it vaguely tolerable when Freddy does his bloody stand-up routine. The more she spouts off lines that are plainly written as gags, but divorced from a credible personality or a performance that gives the illusion of personality, they all fall flat, and as the movie enters its damnably repetitious phase, where the same bickering between Alex and Mary Lou occurs three or four or hell, I don't know, 15 separate times, even the remotest goodwill that the movie's weirdness might have generated burns off, replaced by annoyance and boredom. In the meantime, comic business around the edges - notably an ironic intercom system straight out of M*A*S*H, or at least its community-theater equivalent - manages to also not be very funny, though at least it comes closer than Mary Lou's endless, arid bantering.

The Last Kiss falls into a chasm between being, on the one side, too frivolous and unserious about its content to be remotely compelling as a story in its own right, and being, on the other side, too labored and irritating to have the high spirit needed to justify being so damn frivolous. And it is a tedious film as a result. Oh! there is nothing as grating as wacky comedy that isn't landing - and comedy being so personal, I am not surprised that The Last Kiss enjoys as cult following. But it must be an awfully insular cult, to enjoy what directors Ron Oliver and Peter R. Simpson (the former wrote the screenplay) are doing in their non-scary, unfunny horror-comedy, in which absolutely nothing is credible but Alex and Conlon's charismatically clueless approach to playing him (imagine somebody with more heart than talent doing a Ferris Bueller impression; you are most of the way there), and that's simply not enough to keep the movie interesting or entertaining.

Until, that is, the finale: Alex and Mary Lou and Sarah in a chase scene through the film's rinky-dink iteration of Hell, no longer an aerobics class but a nightmare version of Hamilton High itself. The movie has always been distinctly off-kilter; but here, and only here, it becomes outright weird, and suddenly turns into something fascinating and mesmerising to watch. Characters we've seen die appear as sarcastic zombie versions of themselves, and the set design goes from shamefully trying to look plusher than it is to proudly turning the film's low budget into a strength, as it commits to look and feel like a haunted house put on by volunteers. And there's a flamethrower that literally just appears in the space of a cut. It's daft as hell, but at least it has the "wait, what am I looking at?" feeling that, presumably, the whole movie was meant to be playing with, and if that doesn't quite make it actually good, or actually interesting, at least it's compelling, and that's more than the rest of the movie can say. This is strange as all hell, but only the last 15 minutes are actually strange in a fun way; the rest is just tetchy zaniness and not even a little bit enjoyable, on any level.

Body Count: 7, not counting one mentioned in an offscreen joke, nor the spirits of the damned.

Reviews in this series
Prom Night (Lynch, 1980)
Hello, Mary Lou: Prom Night II (Pittman, 1987)
Prom Night III: The Last Kiss (Oliver & Simpson, 1990)
Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil (Borris, 1992)
Prom Night (McCormick, 2008)

TIM AT TFE: GHOSTS OF SUMMERS PAST

This week's essay: three recent summer movie seasons proving that 2013 wasn't as bad as all that.

GREAT MOMENTS WITH MR. GAINES

It would be a lie if I said that Lee Daniels' The Buter was "bad": it is good, or at least within good's wheelhouse. But it's certainly not good in the way that I, for one, was hoping for, and considering the (legally-mandated) possessive right there in the title, is is less of what history has conditioned us to expect from "A Lee Daniels Film" than anything that director has ever made. Lee Daniels' The Butler is in fact awfully generic, as a story and as a visual experience, and neither of these things have been true in any way of Daniel's squalid exercises in high-energy trash and tubthumping; the gloriously misguided Shadowboxer, the high-speed oscillations between grotty realism and overheated melodrama in Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire, and my personal favorite, the florid Southern exploitation film The Paperboy. Also, the fact that I just attached the description "personal favorite" to The Paperboy can be rightfully considered my full disclosure for the rest of the review.

Lee Daniels' The Butler is, basically, a film with its heart very clearly in the right place, and its imagination left behind in a locked root cellar - it is very much Civil Rights Edition Forrest Gump. Not quite so cloying as that, maybe, but as far as plot goes, it feels exactly like something you've seen before, and given the setting, the actors, and the filmmaker, there's no way that isn't disappointing.

The film tells the life story of Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker), a condensed, fictionalised figure who, after a fashion, stands in for all the African-American men who served as butlers at the White House in the post-war 20th Century; he also, after a fashion, stands in for the totality of the 20th Century African-American experience, which is one of the places that that the movie causes undue trouble for itself. The son of sharecroppers whose father was brutally killed by a savage, rapey white landowner in 1926, Cecil clambered his way up the domestic servitude ladder, eventually ending up with a wonderful wife, Gloria (Oprah Winfrey) and two sons in Washington, D.C., where he caught the attention of the White House, and hired onto that establishment's elite staff of servants, a role where he toiled through eight presidencies and the most turbulent decades in the entire history of black America. Because of the story it's telling, there's probably no way that Lee Daniels' The Butler could have ever been "elegant", but it surely didn't need to turn out as mechanically schematic as it did, with Cecil's elder son Louis (David Oyelowo), deeply opposed to his father's studied apoliticism, getting involved with activist politics and managing in the process to be present at just about every key moment of the civil rights movement from 1960 onwards from the reasonable (the lunch-counter sit-in at Greensboro, NC) to the fucking absurd (he was in the hotel room when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated), so it's actually he, not his father, who fills the Forrest Gump role, though Cecil is the one interacting with presidents. A mixture, then.

The film's need to play as a Greatest Hits of the civil rights movement inevitably makes the film clunk along from one scene to another, though in its defense, I must say that screenwriter Danny Strong does a better job of stitching moments together than Gump scribe Eric Roth does in any of his "one man's life throughout history" scripts. Not enough to make the film seem organic; Lee Daniels' The Butler sputters rather than flows, and while the film's various designers do a good job of using costume and setting to indicate the passage of time, the story's chronology is awfully murky in ways that do it no good. It's a real damn biopic, in the end, not so much a story as a collection of moments, failing to build up momentum as a narrative or as a message movie, though Daniels tries his very hardest to keep pushing the whole messy project in a contained direction, whose end point is "...and then there was the Obama presidency".

No doubt about, the film's themes are worthy of exploration, and given the paucity of films the stare history right in the face and attack the United States' history of racial oppression from the point of view of African-American storytellers, it is unquestionably a film of considered social and political value: I have no idea what the film imagines its target audience to be, but as a white person with a very dim opinion of how white people, as a class, deal with non-white people, I found the film's unapologetic tone of "fuck you, racist whites, you have done terrible things" to be an exciting contrast to the vast corpus of American films about racism, which are always a bit too self-congratulatory about how "we" (and we are always, oddly, pink-skinned in these settings) are better than those nasty backwards rednecks. But that doesn't make it a better work of drama, just a potent message picture. And who the hell goes out to the movies because they want a real rock-solid message picture? Nobody you'd want to talk to at a cocktail party, that's for sure.

Daniels's limited creative energy doesn't help: not only is it the most programmatic script he's ever worked with, his directing is muted and uninvolving, not ineffective so much as it is bland, and this makes the scripts problems rise to the fore, whereas the director of Precious and The Paperboy tended to make those scripts' flaws more invisible. Only twice does Daniels do something truly impressive and florid: once, in contrasting the execution of a White House state dinner with the lunch counter sit-ins, itself a schematic choice that the director (and editor Joe Klotz) manages to put over through the collision of graphic elements, giving it a visual energy that the film otherwise lacks, while a Ku Klux Klan attack a bit later is staged exactly like a horror movie, as cinematographer Andrew Dunn indulges in foggy chiaroscuro and the blocking feels much more "Jason Voorhees" than "racial suprecmacists" - the brashest part of the movie and the best, since it is the one that is most overt about how much it straight-up despises racism, without any handwringing or "let's see both sides" nonsense.

Still, two scenes in a 132-minute film is hardly anything, and what ends up making Lee Daniels' The Butler work at all - and even so, it only works by the barest margin - are the three main actors, Whitaker, Winfrey, and Oyelowo, all giving totally commanding, complex performances (and standing out magnificently from the cornucopia of distracting cameos, including a wordless Mariah Carey as Cecil's mentally unhinged mother, John Cusack as Richard Nixon, and James Marsden as a watered-down cartoon Boston accent sitting in the Oval Office while the real John Kennedy is off fucking movie stars), each in a slightly different register, but marshaled by their director - always great with actors - into a unified, tripartite whole. Winfrey, acting for the first time in 15 years (if we don't count voice work) gets the showiest and certainly the most fun role, finding the exact right note between physically performing her character's frustrations and sexual urges while vocally leaving off at a much lighter Sassy Black Woman level that never feels as clichéd as that stock type usually does; but even as great as her life-force is, and Oyelowo's tense, vibrating rage, it's Whitaker who gives the film its most complicated performance, as a man who tells us that he wears two faces, but doesn't realise himself that he has, in fact, three faces, and the struggle between implacable manservant to absent-minded whites, proud and conservative family man, and African-American male who has seen horrible things but is terrified of the upheaval that would come from challenging them, is played out entirely beneath the surface of Whitaker's endlessly mutable face. It is a rich performance, and a subtle one, and one that makes Cecil far more interesting than the script does; and that's in addition to Whitaker's extraordinary ability to handle both the requirements of playing a specific man and a Stand-In For a People.

By itself, Whitaker's performance is reason enough to be glad that Lee Daniels' The Butler exists, though not enough to be out-and-out enthusiastic about it. It's still an awfully sullen and hushed movie with a painfully modular approach to scene structure, and there is no crackle of energy, just subdued, respectful blandness. Lord knows there are worse Serious Message Pictures out there, and this one has the benefit of an especially worthy message, but it lacks spark. And spark is the one thing that every other Lee Daniels film has had most of all, so its absence here is particularly noticeable.

6/10