Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

Anytime a director makes an attempt to recreate a classic on film, whether the original is a book or movie, many moviegoers and critics always seem to take a harsh stance against the effort. I certainly believe this premise to be the case with Spike Jonze's new film, "Where the Wild Things Are." Jonze has always had a flair for the strange, most notably, his direction of the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's "Being John Malchovich" and "Adaptation," his involvement with the bawdy, slapstick troupe Jackass, or his wacky music videos which initially brought him into the spotlight. This time, Jonze has attmepted his hand at screenwriting in "Where the Wild Things Are," and has brought his very visual and vivid imagination to the big screen.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is very popular childrens book that was written by Maurice Sendak in 1963. It tells the story of a poorly-behaved boy named Max, who is sent to bed one evening without supper. In anger, Max creates a world of his own and travels to the land of the "wild things," (a mishmash of silly monsters) where he is made king of their rambuncious realm. The book is very short (takes about 1-2 minutes to read) and is illustrated with wonderous and detailed pictures by the author himself. I mention the length of the book, not as a means of criticism to the author, but instead, to help you understand how much artistic liberty was granted to Jonze, and fellow screenwriter Dave Eggers, to fill a 101 minute run time.
I thought that the acting in "Where the Wild Things Are" was terrific. The main character, played by relative newcomer, Max Records was very believable in his role as the chaotic and malcontent Max. At only 12 years-old, Records took one of the most recognizable roles in children's literature and delivered a performance worthy of actors twice his age. What was most impressive is there was no drop off or awkwardness in his performance between the world of the real and imaginary; his interactions with both the actors and the puppets were very consistent. Catherine Keener, one of Jonze's regulars ("Being John Malchovich," "Adaptation"), appeared as the responsible and worn down single parent who sacrifices much of her own happiness for her children. Her role is an intergal part of building the story, since it is her attempt at making herself happy, having a date over, that ultimately causes Max's retreet. Keener is able to tell the family's story with her acting; there is no scene which discusses or flashes back on the family's past. What may go unnoticed and unappreciated by many moviegoers, is a sign of great acting on Ms. Keener's part.
Another important aspect of the film was Spike Jonze use, or should I say lack of use, of computer generated ("CG") characters and scenery. Though some "CG" was used to manipulate the expressions of the "wild things," most of the magic of the film can be attributed to Jonze's insistance on using muppets and his employment of the Jim Henson Company to create the beastly costumes. Not one detail was omitted from Mr. Sedak's book and each character looks strikingly similar to the way it looks in the children's classic. With each monster comes specific physical traits, and with these traits varying forms of movements and motions. While watching the film, I felt as if each movement was natural, no less the result of great effort through tedious trial and error.
The biggest complaint that I have heard about this film is that it isn't a children's movie. And I say to that argument, what characteristics define a "children's movie?" What people mean to suggest is that the problem they have with the film is that the age requirement for the book and that of the movie do not match up (i.e. the book is more age appropriate for younger kids, while the movie requires a slightly older crowd). I don't discount the fact that this film is a bit darker than most and addresses subjects that might not be comfortable to discuss with children of a younger age. However, it seems to me that many of the "children's films" made today are no more made for children than they are for adults. With almost any, if not every Pixar film, there are references that only adults pick up on. I seem to recall the line from the 2006 Pixar hit Cars, (Mater to Lightening McQueen) "Oh, man, you get to work with Bessie! I'd give my left two lug nuts for somethin' like 'at." If your biggest complaint is that the world isn't a happy ending with cars hooking up and riding off into the sunset, rainbows, or unicorns, then maybe a reality check is in order.
Though the film can seem strange at moments, this unease is merely Jonze's attempt to parallel the problems facing Max's family in the real world with the issues that face the creatures in realm of the "wild things." In order to cope, Max has take on the role of his mother ("King of the Wild Things") in an attempt to control the chaos. When his methods fail, Max senses that some things are beyond his capacity to control. Only then, does he understand his mother's plight and the frustration and fear he has unintentionally caused her. Though "Where the Wild Things Are" is may initially appear more abrasive than other "children's movies," the message is one of love and hope in a world where things aren't always so easy.


3.5 out of 4

Trick r' Treat (2008): released STV (2009)

"Trick r' Treat," by first-time director Michael Dougherty, is comprised of five interwoven stories that occur on Halloween in the same small, Ohio town (many in the same neighborhood). A couple finds out what happens when they blow out a jack o' lantern before midnight, a high school principal has a secret life as a serial killer, a college virgin searches for the "right guy," a group of teens pay homage to the town's legendary Halloween massacre, and a hermit is visited by a special trick or treater.
I was initially drawn to this film through a random Facebook thread and immediately hit YouTube to see if I could find a trailer. After watching the trailer (which I must say, was very intriguing) I did a bit of research to see when the film would hit theaters. Little did I know, I had stumbled upon a movie, which was already heralded as a "cult classic" before it had even hit the big screen. Not only that, it has never and will never be advertised on your local marquee, for this little ditty was released straight-to-video.
For a while, I thought I had been had, bamboozled by random Facebook advertising. However, the more I looked into it, I discovered that the film had been in a constant struggle with unfortunate releasing delays and had ultimately been driven directly to video. One might think that keeping this film out of theaters might have had a distinctly negative impact on it, but a steadfast amount of people anticipating its release, created quite a beneficial stir via the Internet. I was all set for the release date and even made sure my NetFlix queue was set to view a copy of this film as soon as possible.
Much of "Trick r' Treat's" buzz was due to the casting of Anna Paquin and the recent success of HBO's "True Blood" series. Since she began filming "Trick r' Treat" in 2008, before "True Blood" hit the scene in 2009, Paquin's appearance in and the delay in the former film's release, grabbed the attention of many would-be viewers. Though touted as the film's star, Paquin is in the film as much as any of the main characters in each of the five stories and seems to only receive this billing due to her recent popularity. Instead, the film's main character is a child-sized, violent protectorate of Halloween known merely as "Sam." Adorned with a cinched, burlap sack over his head and a small orange jumpsuit that looks more like pajamas, the supernatural Sam (super creepy) makes sure the everyone in the small Ohio town obeys three basic rules on Halloween: (1) wear a costume, (2) give out candy, and (3) never extinguish a jack-o-lantern before Halloween is over.
With most films, I try not to buy into the initial hype, but with "Trick r' Treat," I took the bait hook, line, and sinker. I'm kind of a sucker for a good horror flick and have been greatly disappointed over the past few years with the new fad of torture films (see, or better yet, don't see "Hostile," "Saw," etc.) and lackluster remakes. The fact that the film was based on a very praised graphic novel and had an intense trailer (*see it below*) didn't lighten my interest either. RottenTomatoes.com, which I typically find very accurate, had given the film a 100% (almost unheard of) rating based on 13 reviews. With all of these factors in mind, my expectations were overflowing and I was over-hyped (maybe a little too) to see this film. My feeling of anticipation was recently personified in my taking of the NetFlix mailer immediately from my mail drop and placing the DVD directly into my player.
Though there are many horror films out there, few actually pay homage to the holiday, Halloween. While John Carpenter's famous series uses the holiday as a backdrop for the exploits of Michael Myers, his films don't quite measure up to the extent to which "Trick r' Treat" uses it. Probably the most appealing part of this film is the setting; it is beautifully shot and the atmosphere of the small town really embraces the carnival-esque environmeant of Halloween night. All of the props, especially the jack-o-lanterns, are spectacular and most of the costumes are very creative and right on target (especially the masks of the school bus massacre children, creepiest paper mache ever *kudos*). The film is very creative and also does a great job of incorporating Halloween urban legends, traditions, and even potential holiday dangers. For example, razorblade-filled candy is an essential piece of little Sam's arsenal of weaponry.
Though I found the film very creative, I had issues with the dialogue. Man was it cheesy! I realize that many horror films are campy, but few campy films can ever be taken seriously as truly great horror flicks (not a lot of silly lines in "Halloween" or the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"). What ends up happening, and what happened for me while watching "Trick r' Treat," was that the poor dialogue derailed my fear. When you chuckle or shake your head over the unbelievability of what you've just heard, it's tough to get back into the frame of mind of being afraid. Most of the suspenseful moments were predictable, and I never found myself really emotionally affected by the film. With that said, I didn't find the acting bad at all; I only felt that it was hindered in spots by bad writing. The film also has a "Pulp Fiction-like" mash-up of chronology, which I was extremely impressed by and felt worked very well.
Maybe my expectations were too high for this film going into it, I can admit that. When I am most ambitious about seeing a movie, I tend to be more critical about every detail. My enjoyment of a film can still go either way, but more times than not, I am going to be disappointed. Having said this, "Trick r' Treat" is a good film and is an enjoyable Halloween film; however, it lacks substance (only an hour and 20 minute run time) and an ability to suspend one's disbelief fully. I would say it's worth a watch and could be added as a worthy supplement to anyone's traditional Halloween viewing line-up.

3 out of 4

Twilight (2008)

Last Saturday night, after losing a bet to my wife, I reluctantly hopped in the car to take my wife to a screening of "Twilight." I admit that I have never read the books and that my major draw back to this film is the blood curdling and eardrum shattering screams (squeals) emitted by female teenagers and tweenagers across the nation in support of this effort. Hell, I didn't even know what it was until the week it came out and I saw some of the cast on "The Today Show" (insert those ravenous squeals here). I ate my Coco Pebbles and stared at my daughter playing in the floor and pondered the shite she might be into when she grows up. Sure, I had seen some silly flair and advertisements to the right of my profile on Facebook, but never bothered, or even cared to dive into Wikipedia. On that faithful morning, while watching "The Today Show," I realized that I wasn't tuned into what the kids were listening to, but instead of panicking, I breathed a wondrous sigh of relief.
Going into a film with a negative attitude is never a good way to be fair about a film (especially when the tweenagers behind you are discussing the relevance of every scene to the book). It was clear from the onset that "Twilight" had a specific audience (as do the books), but I thought the director, Catherine Hardwicke, made an effort to keep the film entertaining for everyone. I was especially impressed with Hardwicke's attention to color--or maybe more appropriately, her lack thereof; most of the Pacific Northwest scenery and costumes were drab and earth-toned helped to capture to mood of the film and create an unsettling and apposite atmosphere. "Twilight" reminded me a lot of Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" in that when bright colors were used, there was usually some significance and reasoning behind the choice. For example, Bella's red truck stands out in contrast from the other students' cars in the parking lot; at first, the truck signifies her awkwardness and standing out at her new school and later becomes the signifier of her discovery of Edward's identity.
The casting for the film wasn't bad, it seemed that characters fit well into their roles and the absence of any greatly recognizable actors/actresses gave the film a more sincere and independent appeal. Due to the film's popularity and evident upcoming sequels, there are already rumors of stars Dakota Fanning and Drew Barrymore signing on. Though these actresses are not traditionally associated with Hollywood blockbusters, pulling them in may have adverse effects on the series.
While I thought the plot of "Twilight" was decent, what I had the biggest problems with in the film were the same that my wife (who has read the book) also had. Some of the more supernatural scenes, the teleporting, tree climbing, and sparkling vampires, were a bit much and made the film seem a bit silly in places. There were also a few distinct holes in the plot, one of the more noticeable moments being the baseball game. Though I thought the scene was a bit awkward on its own, I was confused at how the tracker, James was not able to pick up on Bella's scent until he and his fellow vampires were about to leave (though he could track her scent from Washington to Arizona). Though my wife was able to offer up an explanation of how the scene was addressed in the book, this scene and others proved that there was a great lack of character development regarding the Cullen family.
Though "Twilight" was slightly out of range for my typical movie going experience, I did find the film at best interesting and well paced.

2 out of 4

Doubt (2008)

As a warm-up to Oscar night, the wife and I went out to the theater to see the heavily acting nominated film, "Doubt" (Meryl Streep - Best Actress, Philip Seymour Hoffman - Best Actor in a Supporting Role, and Amy Adams and Viola Davis - Best Actress in a Supporting Role). Surprisingly, we were the only ones in the audience for the showing, and as I began watching the film, I began to wonder why.
The film revolves around a solid, yet too tightly wound plot in which Father Flynn (Hoffman), a Catholic priest is accused of showing too much attention to a young, African- American student. Sister Aloysius (Streep) is a stern and old-fashioned disciplinarian who is quick to become suspicious of Flynn's motives and presses him to confess without sufficient proof. The film teeter-totters on Flynn's pleas of innocence and Aloysius' constant pressure to seek out the truth. Sister James (Adams), whose assuredness is tested by both parties, acts as the film's fulcrum and it is her innocence and inexperience, which ultimately preys upon the audience's own indecisiveness.
Though the plot of the film is a little thin, "Doubt" is very well acted and unsuspectingly deceitful. The nominated actresses capture the true essence of each of their characters and bring out the very best in this film. Streep's extremely stern, yet loving nature, Adams' innocence and worldly ignorance, and Davis' reluctance and unconditional love, all act as catalysts, which first draw in the viewer and keep the film interesting throughout. Though nominated for an Oscar, I felt that Hoffman's performance was a bit lackluster; a nomination for "Synecdoche, New York" would have seemed much more appropriate. In all, "Doubt" was a fairly entertaining "actors film" -- worth a rent, but not the price of admission.

2.5 out of 4

The Dead Zone (1983)

After my recent enjoyment of "Dead Ringers," I decided to keep trucking through the Cronenberg filmography and pick up a copy of "The Dead Zone." Though I think Stephen King is probably one of the best storytellers of our generation, I have often been unimpressed (except for "Stand By Me," based on his novella "The Body") with the film adaptations of his novels (i.e. "Sleepwalkers," "Cujo," "Carrie," "It," etc.) and have always felt that they never quite translate well onto the big screen. After reading a short summary of the film, and more importantly, discovering that Christopher Walken was the lead, I decided to give the movie a try. I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed with the film and, though Cronenberg did not write or adapt the script, it stands out as one of his best efforts.
Like most of King's stories, "The Dead Zone" takes place in upper New England around the town of Castle Rock. Christopher Walken plays the Everyman, Johnny Smith, a schoolteacher who after an unfortunate car accident, goes into a 5-year coma and discovers that he has developed psychic abilities. Able to predict the future and avert tragedy, Smith reluctantly offers to use his newfound ability for the good of others though his body negatively suffers the effects of each prediction. When he learns that a local politician will eventually have a damaging impact upon the fate of Mankind, Smith knows that he must stop him at all costs.
"The Dead Zone" is a film that not only benefits from being a successful novel and great adapted screenplay, but also tremendous acting. Christopher Walken is brilliantly cast in the film and successfully combines the strange with the everyday. Even before his accident, Johnny Smith is portrayed as an eccentric individual who seems to enjoy the strange (Poe's "The Raven") and has a preponderant attitude toward adolescence (i.e. a love of theme parks and a great connection with children). Though the accident does little to change his nature, the 5-year coma forces him to grow up and face the reality that a great portion of his life and intended livelihood has passed. Christopher Walken's flair for the strange helps to breathe Johnny Smith to life in a way that no other actor could have. Along with Walken, the supporting cast, including Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, and the wily Martin Sheen, help to reinforce King's claim as the master of modern suspense and make "The Dead Zone" among one of the top films of the early 1980's.

3.5 out of 4

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

I was initially a little reluctant to see "Be Kind Rewind" after Gondry's 2006 disappointment, "The Science of Sleep." Having been a fan of Michel Gondry's work for years, "Eternal Sunshine," and several of his early music videos, I finally decided that the artistry of Gondry films typically outweighs anything negative about them. Though I felt the plot of "Science" was heavily flawed, there were moments in the film of sheer beauty and exquisite design.
Upon entering the theater, I had little idea of what to expect out of this film. I was a bit unsure about the casting of Jack Black, Mos Def, and Danny Glover, and thought that Gondry had maybe given in to a pop culture comedy as a means of "bouncing back." The trailers all seemed to genuinely creative and funny, so I decided to give the film a try.
"Be Kind Rewind" follows Jack Black and Mos Def, two young guys who work in a VHS rental store for the aging Danny Glover. When Black's character accidentally erases all of the tapes, they have to recreate the movies themselves to help the store and their aging friend survive.
I was amazed not only by the plot of "Rewind," but also the way Gondry wielded his own influence over the film. By tactically putting well-known actors in his film, Gondry was able to draw in a diverse crowd of viewers into the box office--those who enjoyed the comical antics of Jack Black and those who followed Gondry's often thought-provoking work. I think that the film worked well on both levels, while there were moments of comedy between the leads Black and Mos Def, other scenes, especially the "Sweded films" (you'll just have to see it understand this term) were funny, yet full of artistic integrity, as Gondry used urban junk to help recreate costumes and settings for the films.
The ending, which I will not give away, was very thought provoking and really had a heavy impact on me when I left the theater. It was the kind of feeling that stuck around with me for days and something inside of me would not let it go. I can't say that I have never been emotionally impacted by a film, but "Rewind" touched me in a way that no other film has to date; it's a definite must see.

3.75 out of 4

Friday the 13th (2009)

On Friday night, I went to a screening of the new "Friday the 13th" film on opening night. As I expected, the theater was packed with a mix of teenagers and older fans of the earlier series. When the cleaning crew came out, we jockeyed our way into position to assure that we would have adequate seats and waited several minutes for the feature to begin.
The best way to describe "Friday the 13th" and many of the horror remakes for that matter, is that it is an "it is what it is" film. With a film like this, you already know what you are getting into: your typical 80's slasher film, complete with copious amounts of gore, poor dialogue, and superfluous female nudity. If these are the things that entertain you, then yes, you'll probably agree that the new version stands true to its predecessors.
Other than the plot, I did find the camera work the most enjoyable part of the film. Though many of the scenes with the teenagers were typical conversational shots, some of the establishing shots on the lake, several underwater scenes, and the interior shots of the cabins were well done. I can only imagine the difficulty in remaking a popular cult series: being able to reproduce something satisfactory to followers, as well as making something fresh that displays your artistic design and interpretation. I think these two distinct ideologies are most notably present in the teaser and the trailer for "Friday the 13th." You'll notice that the former is better put together and has an aesthetic appeal that the trailer lacks. The trailer (which was released later) focuses more on the group of teenagers and gives the film a more popular appeal; it assures the potential viewer that the new version will follow the same plot line and archetypes of the old series.
While I thought director Marcus Dispel did a nice job of overhauling the series (after disastrous films set in New York and space...yes, space) by bringing it back to Crystal Lake, I was a bit annoyed by the lack of his producer's candor. Not only did Criterion Collection golden boy, Micheal Bay have the audacity to run his trailer for the new "Transformers" movie before the feature, but also "Friday the 13th" continued his previously gratuitous exploitation of product placement (*see "Transformers"). Though I never expected that this film would be Oscar material, I was definitely put off by certain not-so subtle attempts at subliminal advertising. Overall, there were some very "creative" slasher death sequences, but more so, the film never breaks away from convention--it ultimately is what it is.

1.5 of 4 stars