Movie #43 Shaun of the Dead

I talk about being behind on my blogs and then I go missing for a week.  Sorry.  Life happens.  Death happens too.  And sometimes, as evidence by this review, it is harder to tell the difference between than you might think.  The review is Edgar Wright's 2004 zombie movie Shaun of the Dead.

This is one of my favorite films from that year.  Shaun is in a state of arrested development.  he can't commit to his girlfriend.  He has a no where job.  He is still living with a dead beat roommate.  He hates his step father.  And he spends all his available time a pub called the Winchester.  Sound like anyone you know?  My guess is that if you are between the ages of 28 and 36 it sounds like almost everyone you know.  But Shaun mundane life is about to change.

A wide spread plague and panic is about to overtake his little town as well all of England.  The dead are rising from their graves and devouring human flesh.  At first Shaun seems numb to this. All of his daily activities stay the same, but the surroundings have changed.  Shaun is so self absorbed that he doesn't realize it.  Once he is confronted with the imposing apocalypse he is forced to develop a plan to save his mum, girlfriend, and flatmate.  A slacker turned hero.

The team of Edgar Wright, Simon Peg (Shaun) and Nick Frost (Ed) were paired together for a hilarious BBC program called Spaced.  In Spaced they used every cinematic trick up their sleeves to parody pop culture elements from all mediums.  The same goes for Shaun of the Dead.  They do stick to zombie movie troupes more than anything else, but there are a few TV and video game references thrown in there as well.  The film succeeds because it parodies the zombie movies without spoofing them.  It is clear that there is a deep love and respect for the source material.

Everything about Shaun of the Dead is top notch.  The writing is sharp, witty and funny without being too precious.  The acting is great.  Everyone knew exactly what they were supposed to be doing.  Therefore the directing is great.  The camera is in the right place at the right time.  The edits match the action which is paced very well.  The soundtrack is out of this world accumulating to a zombie attack to Queen's Don't Stop Me Now.

This was Wrights first major film.  He has since done Hot Fuzz and this years Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (review soon to come).  I like zombie movies, but I am not a fanatic.  Mostly because very few of them are as good as this one.  I give Shaun of the Dead a 4.5/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhBGFqldAvk

Movie #42 Young Frankenstein

I am excited about my next two reviews.  They both are in the same genre.  That would be horror/spoof.  This review focus's on Young Frankenstein and the next will be Shaun of the Dead.  I watched both of these movies with my lovely girlfriend last weekend.  She is a fan of Evil Dead, so I thought she might enjoy these films.  I am glad to say that I was proven correct.

Young Frankenstein was made in 1974 and directed by Mel Brooks.  I think this movie might be under seen because the same year the same director released Blazing Saddles.  That films is thought by many to be his best.  I disagree.  I think Young Frankenstein is his crowning achievement.  It is my opinion that YF ages much better the BS.  It is still as fresh and relevant as it was over 35 years ago.

Young Frankenstein subject is a young professor who is lured to his great grandfathers castle in Transylvania (of course) where he studies the experiments his grandfather did in an attempt to reanimate dead tissue.  In other words he becomes the new Dr Frankenstein.  "Fronk-en-steen" as he pronounces it is played to perfection by Gene Wilder.  He is aided by I-gore (Marty Feldman), Inga the lab assisstant (the beautiful Terri Garr) and Cloris Leachman as Frau Blucher (cue a horses whinnie).  Peter Boyle plays the Frankenstein monster.

As most Mel Brooks movies go this is a spoof.  But instead of spoofing a particular film of series of films like most of todays spoof movies do, its polestar is Frankenstein films.  It takes cues from various of the Frankenstein movies and blends them seemlessly into one solid, well told story.  Much like Tarintino does with all his movies.  If you catch the homages then good for you.  If not, you are not hindered in any way.  You can still enjoy the story.

Gene Wilder is AMAZING in this movie!  His comedic timing has never been better.  He is the perfect blend of rationality and insanity.  Terri Garr is a beauty to behold as well as a great performance.  Madeline Kahn has a small role as the young Frankenstein's fiancee and she pretty much steals every frame she is in.  There is a small role for Kenneth Mars as Inspector Kemp that cracks me up every time I see it.

This film is filled with wonderful jokes and the set up's are perfect.  It is in black and white which I know turns some people off, but give it a chance and I bet it will pay off in a big way.  This is a 5/5 stars film for me.  Check out the link below for the trailer. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOPTriLG5cU

Movie #41 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

If you have never read any of my blogs before allow me to restate a common thread through out.  I don't read.  The only books I read are books about movies or movie makers.  On my coffee table right now is a book about the late 90's independent film movement.  On the back of my toilet is a book detailing the interview Francis Truffaut gave Alfred Hitchcock.  I do listen to audio books and podcasts when I drive, but most of them are about films too.  It is should come as no surprise when I say that I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books.  I joke that "if a book is good enough they will make a movie out of it". 

I have seen all the Harry Potter movies.  All the titles get mixed up in my head like a fantasy version of Bond titles.  I was secretly excited about the latest instalment of the HP franchise.  The trailer looked good and all my booky friends told me that the last book in the series was fantastic.  The movie prior to Deathly Hallows was a bit of a let down but mostly because I enjoyed the movie prior to that very much.  Prisoner of Askaban or something like that.

I made this a special night by taking my tween daughters and a friend of each of theirs to the nearest multiplex to see the show.  Before hand we went to a classic American diner for supper.  Once we arrived at the theater we had to wait in line.  Not for tickets (I foresaw this problem) but instead we had to wait for the prior showing to be over and the theater cleaned before we could enter.  Security was very tight.  You had to show your tickets before entering or exiting the theater.  By the time we found our seats, the 5 of us had to sit in 2 different rows because there weren't 5 consecutive open chairs.  We got there 45 minutes before showtime.  it was madness.

I couldn't believe the crowd.  The couple in front of me were so drunk I could smell the booze on their breath from behind them.  There were people there with babies.  Not small or little children, babies.  Not able to hold their heads up aged babies.  Now on to the review.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This movie moved at a snails pace.  I strongly disliked it!  It wasn't poorly made, it just seemed very grandiose and unnecessary.  I know that all the book nerds rip these films to pieces for either not putting something in the movie that is in the book, or trying to use a little creative license and add something new to enhance the film.  That is no excuse for just being flat out boring though.

This was the first of two films based on the final book in the series.  The run time on this film alone is over 150 minutes.  I know everyone says there was too much in the final book to make one film out of it, but I could have easily shaved 45 minutes off this film without losing a beat.

The Lord of the Rings movies were mocked in Kevin Smith's film Clerks 2.  The characters in that film said it was 9 hours of people walking.  That is true, but at least there was motion.  I guarantee this film has at least 30 solid minutes of characters sitting or standing in deep reflective thought.  There is no activity at all.  This movie doesn't have one single memorable battle.  The jokes in DH seem to be geared 100% towards the younger audience so they don't get board watching people brune, and postulate. 

Then the film tries so hard to tie all the past HP's in with it.  The exposition seems to serve no purpose other than to evoke a sense of nostalgia.  Gobblty gook is what DH devolves into.  It reminded me a lot of the video game "Zelda".  Harry needs to get the sword of perseverance in order to unlock the crystal thing-a-ma-jig.  Then and only then will Pinocchio's secret handshake along with the star of Bartholomew open the Arc of the Covenant.  If you enjoy my writing in this paragraph then I say rush out and see this film. 

The acting in the movie is decent.  Especially Emma Watson as Hermione Granger.   There are too many cameos or secondary characters in this film.  Most of whom either don't have any lines or the lines they do have are merely filler.  They just make for another "Best of Harry Potter love fest". 

The music didn't seem to bother me but for the life of me I can't remember any of it.  There was one scene where the legend of the Deathly Hallows is explained.  At this point in the films it switches to animation.  I was intrigued at first as the animated characters danced around the screen as Hermione narrates their activities, then it grew old and harder to clarify what was happening in the cartoon.

Another thing.  I am sick of films that plan to have a sequel not completing their first movie.  A movie should be a movie.  One part of a series of films like this has to stand on it's own.  The comparison of the other movies in the collection is inevitable, but each need to represent a full idea and concept.  They all need structure.  Intro, action, struggle, resolution, conclusion.  HP has the intro that drew me in.  It was a nod or homage to something I think, but I am not sure what that is.  The films totally skips the action.  It attempts to replace action with character.  The problem is the characters need to drive the story then.  Aimless gazing didn't do anything for me. The film is over-soaked with struggle.  More like strangle.  It bogs down with shot after shot of our leads narrowly escaping a mildly menacing villain or villains.   The resolution might very well be in all the nonsense it puts forward.  I forgot my Hogwarts to English dictionary at home so I was lost.  Finally there is no conclusion at all.  The final shot seems to come out of no where and all it does is set up the final movie.  Take Back to the Future 1 or 2.  Both films knew there would be sequels but they told a full and entire story.  That is what this movie is missing.

Good news is I had a great time escorting 4 lovely young ladies around.  Nest time I will take them to go see a better film.  I give Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows a 2/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EC2tmFVNNE

Standing in line for Harry Potter with 4 tween ladies.

Movie #40 A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop

I did a double feature this Monday afternoon.  I watched the previously reviewed Inside Job, then I went to screen #1 at the Keystone Landmark for this 2010 Chinese thriller based on the Coen Brothers first film Blood Simple. 

The film is directed by Yimou Zhang.  If that name is not fimilar it should be.  He is the director behind 2002's Hero, 2004's House of Flying Daggers and 2006's Curse of the Golden Flower.  These films are all in the vain of the first major Chinese movie to make a huge impact on American audiences Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  While I enjoy CTHD the most, all of these movies present a vision through eloquent design and execution behind the camera.  The Chinese acting style however doesn't always translate well.


As I was saying "A Woman..." follows the story of Blood Simple.  Like almost all Coen Bros films it is about a person that comes in contact with a bundle of money and get's a situation they don't have the skill set to get out of.  Only this time the story is set centuries ago in China.  The basic plot is an adulterous womans husband hires a man to kill his wife's suitor.  The hitman then turns on the husband.  The boyfriend is then drug into this triangle of deception, lies and murder. 

Blood Simple is a minimalist surreal noir.  "A Woman" doesn't really connect with it's more surreal moments.  The biggest issue I had with the film came from trying to make the connections between the two movies.  I feel like "A Woman" rushed scenes that it should have stayed with longer and lingered on scenes that didn't really add anything to the film. 

Like all recent Chinese films the costumes were magnificent.  The colors were brilliant yellows, greens and blues.  All this set dressing only made the backdrop even more desolate.  In Blood Simple it is the Texas deserts and small towns.  In this film it is calico stripped mountains and hills of China.  When the movie was over I was glad I had seen it, but I am in no hurry to rush out and catch it again like I was with CTHD.  I give this movie a 2.5/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMGBQDpfLnc

Movie #39 Inside Job

Back to back documentary reviews.  Inside Job is a new doc by director Charles Ferguson.  Its focus is the 2008 financial collapse of Wall Street.  It is a probing looking into the people, politics and institutions that not only foresaw and allowed this economic meltdown, they caused it.

I credit the film for not dumbing down its content or the issue or even the explanations.  The economic crisis can not be explained with simple metaphors.  The "it's like a fish bowl filled with bologna" type of reasoning or simplifications don't fit this problem.  I won't hesitate to say that a good deal of this film was over my head.  The downside of that is I did loose interest a little.  It was like sitting in a meeting listening to Japanese for two hours.  There I go with the witless metaphors. 

What struck me the hardest about the doc was that when you do boil things down there are about 50 people that can be directly held responsible for this catastrophe.  The CEO's and Board of Directors for the top 4-7 finical institutions all knew what was going on and continued to rake in BILLIONS of dollars personally until the bottom fell out.  Then what really struck me was that none of them have been held accountable.  Not only have they gotten off scott free, they were given millions of dollars in bonuses for they left the company.

I have a saying.  "The answer to your question, and every other question, is money".  When you boil things down every question or action made by mankind is a direct result of the longing for money or sex.  And as we all know (and the movie points this out as well) if you have enough money, you can get the sex.  I couldn't believe the balls on the men involved in this problem.  The director would nail them to the wall with facts and data.  He had all his sources (many of which are public record) in line and he would have these men over a barrel.  Then they would just basically tell him to F-off!  It is a "what are you going to do about it" type of mentality.  It was disgusting display of greed, power, and arrogance.



I give the movie props for staying completely A-political.  It rips every administration from Regan to Obama.  It claims that all of these teams have either knowingly participated in deregulating Wall Street to fatten their own pockets, or at least been stymied by the machine of collective campaign contributions by the lobbyists.     The movie is narrated by Matt Damon for extra credibility I guess?  Over all I enjoyed the film even though occasionally I felt like a freshman in a senior economics course.  I would give the film a 3/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2DRm5ES-uA

Movie #39 Burden of Dreams

It's Doc time.  Yet another documentary in my quest for 365 films a year.  This time it is a film that is directed by Les Blank.  The director of the film isn't as important as the director in the film.  Burden of Dreams is a doc that follows and chronicles of German director Werner Herzog's production of his film Fitzcarraldo.

Fitzacarraldo is a movie about a down and out rubber baron in the amazon jungle.  He dreams of bringing an opera house to his remote village.  In his attempts to fund this insane project he is trying to deliver rubber on the river at a cheap rate.  He has an idea to use the natives to help pull a three story massive steam boat over a mountain in order to shortcut the trade route.  The plan is to up root the boat from one branch of the river into another without going around.  As if pulling a boat of that size over a mountain isn't enough of a challenge, the boat will be dropped off at the preface of the most dangerous rapids the Amazon has to offer. 

Burden of Dream follows the brilliant / mad Herzog as his production is threatened by feuding governments, rival tribes, torrential down pours, cast and crew rebellions, and so forth.  It has been said that Herzog makes things unnecessarily difficult for his teams of  film makers.  He believes that the struggles will lead to a better picture.  This is the man that just last year shot a doc in Antarctica and has worked with Klaus Kinski on numerous times, including the title character of the films Fitzacarraldo.

Did I mention that there was no computer effects used in post?  Did I mention that they actually hired Amazonian natives to pull the freaking boat over the freaking mountain?  Well, that is all true.  Everything that could have gone wrong with the production pretty much did.  Diseases, budget problems, food/energy/facility shortages you name it.  But it all worked out and made a fantastic film.  I guess you could say it made for two fantastic films.

Burden of Dreams is a fantastically shot film considering the conditions.  The camera was right where it needed to be when it needed to be there.  Even if sometimes it wasn't in the perfect location.  Les Blank knows his subjects and he lets them tell the story.  His voice over is nice and not a distraction at all.  Over all I give Burden of Dreams a 3.5/5 stars.  I will say that you should watch Fitzacarraldo first.  You will have a better appreciation of the doc.  I would give Fitzcarraldo a 4.5/5.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMqjAnMn_RY