Movie #48 Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

I checked my records and saw that I have reviewed 7 documentary's so far in this project.  Not too bad if I do say so myself.  That is roughly 14% of the films I have seen have been non-fiction.  I also have 2 more doc's on my Netflix queue ready to ship within the next month I'm sure.  This review is for a straight to DVD release called Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices.

Where do I even start?  This movie is not good.  It is 100 times the worst doc I have seen so far and probably the worst film I have reviewed.  I'm not going to blog about the nature of documentary's.  I have done that already.  I am not going to blog about attempting to impose your opinions through a visual medium like film because I have already covered this ground.  So instead I will just complain about all the things that I hated about this movie.

It relies too heavily on found footage.  There are hundreds of clips of local new broadcasts reporting on Wal-Mart.  It comes off as lazy.  The film tries to argue both sides of an issue.  For example:  It starts by complaining that Wal-Mart moves into town and pushes small "mom and pop" stores out because they can't compete with the cut rate prices.  It then states that Wal-Mart receives tax breaks and incentives.  Both are true and both make this megalith a villain in the movie.  But then the films complains that the small shop owners don't get the tax breaks.  So what is the problem?  If the tax breaks are the issue, then why argue that the little shops should receive and split that money? 

The film complains that many workers don't work full time and therefore are not provided benefits.  Then it complains that those who do work full time pay too much for lousy benefits.  The question you have to ask then is "why would you want to work there"?  Then it goes further to say that there are people that work far too many hours.  So they complain about not enough hours, and too many hours.  Also if Wal-Mart wasn't in town, do you think the little "mom and pop" stores would be providing a better health plan?  Do you think the corner hardware store has dental? 

The films claims that Walmart takes jobs away from communities.  Then it goes on to talk about how many hundreds of thousands of workers are miss-treated.  That is hundreds of thousands of workers.  How many of them would be employed by small town boutiques? 

Then it marches out some Chinese people to complain about the working conditions in China.  I can't prove it, but I think the film makers just found some stock footage of Chinese workers talking and imposed a poorly written American translation over it.  I have connections to China, and she told me that the working conditions everywhere there are as bad if not worse that what was presented in the film.  Again, the film makers want to complain about the cheap labor, but if Americans made these products, and sold them in small shops, I would expect you could pay upwards of 6-7 times what you do now for these goods.

Towards the end it makes note of all the crime in Wal-Mart parking lots.  It blames Wal-Mart for this.  They complained that they didn't have cameras so Wal-Mart added cameras.  Then they complained that there is no one watching them 24/7.  Tell me one company that does scan their security cameras around the clock.  Then it goes as far as to suggest that a rent-a-cop in a golf cart would drop the crime rate in Wal-Mart parking lots to ZERO PERCENT.  No crime.  It is absurd.  Wouldn't that just put the rent-a-cop in danger.  It is not like Sam Walton is hiding out in his parking lot waiting to beat and kidnap you.

The movie is soaked with Christian and American imagery as well as flat out propaganda.  The big bad wolf coming to town to LITERALLY rape your daughters in their parking lots.  I can't decide which side of the political fence this film is on.  At times it seems extremely Right wing.  Ingrained with a bible toting, flag waving, conservative vibe that would make Sarah Palin proud to be a real American.  But then when it is faced with the ugly underbelly of Capitalism that conservatism promotes, it turns into a Marxist, commie, "share the wealth" love fest that would make Al Gore cry. 

One part I liked is when it highlight two communities that rallied to keep Wal-Mart out of their towns.  One of them was Ingelwood, CA.  The woman who lead the protest takes the camera crew out to an abandon lot wrapped in chain link fence.  She is very proud that this litter filled, drug dealer heaven didn't get a Wal-Mart.  Thank God.  Because we all know that the last thing Inglewood needs is another 200 decent paying jobs for people with a GED or worse.

The film has no focus.  There is no true north.  It doesn't say "this is right and this is wrong and Wal-Mart is wrong".  When it tries to it never backs it up with any proof.  It turns to local access TV report shows to do the heavy lifting.   I guess that is the real problem with the movie.  It comes off as if it were directed by someone with an axe to grind.  You can make a documentary intended to get your beliefs, opinions and prejudices broadcast to the masses.  But if you just want to bitch about something stick to blogging.

I went in to this movie on the side of anti-Wal-Mart.  This was so poorly constructed, and it attempted to be so manipulative that it actually made me change my mind.  I am pro Wal-Mart now.  I give this movie a .5/5 stars.  My lowest rating ever.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiSmlmXp-aU

Movie #47 Unstoppable

Every once in a while it is good to shut the ole brain down for a bit and enjoy some stupid, fun nonsense.  That is why I could not wait to go see the new Tony Scott film Unstoppable.  It is a movie about an unmanned train movie at 70 miles an hour through several small towns in Pennsylvania.  Did I mention that is is pulling 5 cars of high explosives?  Did I mention that it is barreling towards a train full of school children?  And so forth and so on.

One preconceived notion about film nerds like myself is that we only like weighty, dramatic dramas.  Just because I go out of my way to see re-releases of Sam Fuller films, or because I have several Criterion Collection films in my DVD catalog, just because I enjoy films not in my native tongue or structurally challenging films doesn't mean that I don't know how to relax and have a good time with a puff piece like this.

It is the argument popcorn movie fans use anytime a critic bashes a superhero movie, or a spoof film, or another generic horror movie.  They accuse us of over thinking.  They say we can have fun.  They say not everything has to mean something.  The tell us basically to sit back and be entertained by whatever stupidity flickers on screen in front of us.  I will not abide that.  My retort is that I love "fun" movies as long as they are well made.  And as a cinephile I have seen them.  Why can't a movie entertain and make you think.  Why can't a movie make you feel something as well as satisfy your primal instincts?

The answer is they can.  I see them all the time.   Review #42 and #43 are perfect examples.  Young Frankenstein and Shaun of the Dead are funny, smart, well constructed movies.  Ironman 2 and The Grown Ups aren't.  They are lazy cash grabs that appeal to the lowest common denominator of society.  Take a movie like Scott Pilgrim vs the World (review coming).  Did it achieve everything it set out to?  Probably not, but I admire it's director for even trying.  It took risks and some of them flopped, but many of them succeded.  Take the latest installment of the Harry Potter series (a franchise where I have strongly liked some of the films).  It was made for fans of the book and that is all.  The producers knew that as long as they stood true to the book they would make a gajillion dollars.  They clearly didn't care at all about the average movie go'er.  That film was boring.  I don't care that in the book event A sets up situation B.  I shouldn't have to read the Cliff Notes to enjoy a film.  A movie is a movie is a movie.

This review hasn't really been about Unstoppable if you couldn't tell.  What really is there to say?  The films is kinetic, fast pace, the camera doesn't stop moving the entire time.  The film stars Denzel Washington and Chris Pine.  As veteran and rookie train men respectably.  They of course harass and iterate each other, but when it is time to get down to business they find a way to put aside their differences and in the long run find  a common respect for each other.  Blah blah blah.  I feel like the movies promo guy.  This film is cliche after cliche.

But none the less I found myself wrapped up in it.  Not quite as much as the mouth breathers sitting beside me, but is has enough action to keep you interested if not invested.  I give this film a 2.5/5 stars.  If you need a place to get out of the rain from, you could do worse than a theater showing Unstoppable.  Check out the link below for the trailer.  Also check out how many times the train runs into stuff.  Ha ha.  Great fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM-0Ywc7wNY

Movie #46 Day of the Jackal

One of my favorite parts about being a cinephile is catching references or homages to films that other people might not.  Have you ever seen an episode of The Simpsons where there is a line of dialogue or a particular frame that is totally lifted off a different film?  You know the rush you get of explaining that to you buddy of significant other?  That brief moment where you get gloat that you know something that they don't that fleeting thought that you are smarter than they are.  I love that feeling.

I had that feeling about 1,000 times during my viewing of The Day of the Jackal.  Released in 1973 and directed by Fred Zinnerman (who also directed From Here to Eternity, High Noon and A Man for All Seasons) "Jackal" is the story of a French group of terrorist or self proclaimed patroits who disprove of giving Algeria their independence.  There plan is to assisinate the French president.  Better yet have a foreigner do it since all of their attempts have been foiled so far.  The man they hire has the code name "Jackal". 

At this point we are taken on a two hour long procedural of the up's and downs of the life of a professional assassin.  This film takes it time, but in a beautiful way.  There are long stretches of  time where there is no speaking on screen.  It develops characters through action and reaction.  It spends time on segments that today's Hollywood films would either skip over or try to summarize in a montage.  This is the type of film that the Hayes Code would have never allowed because you kind of get an idea of how to kill the president.  Or at least you think you do.

Another reason this film works is because the law chasing the Jackal is just as sufficient and intelligent as the Jackal himself.  I have long said that the reason so many comic book movies don't work is because the villians are just characterizations.  There is no way that "The Sandman" is going to beat Spiderman.  The penguin didn't stand a chance against batman.  Now contrast that to The Joker in The Dark Knight.  I really thought that the Joker could defeat Batman in that movie.  In The Day of the Jackal that assassin has a several day lead on the law.  They have to play catch up and they do.  They then start putting the heat on him.  He then becomes a rat in a trap.  He is no longer thriving.  At this point he is less James Bond and more Jason Borune. 

The Jackal is played by Edward Fox.  A talent that I was unaware of before this film.  If this had been set in America I can easily see this role being offered to Steve McQueen.  I want to point out the detective who has been tracking the Jackal.  Michael Lonsdale is the actor.  I was really amazed with his performance.  Most of the other character have smaller parts and are only there to move the plot forward.  There are a few female roles in this film and they are all filled with beautiful actresses.

This is a 70's movie in every since, and I mean that as a compliment.  This year I saw a film called The American.  It did it's damnest to emulate this film as best it could.  However it couldn't generate the mood and feeling Jackal does.   There were a surge of these films in the early 70's.  A product of Watergate and other government conspiracies I guess.  While there is a lot of company for films like this, I think this one stands above all the others.  I instantly added this to my DVD to Purchase list.

I could go on singing the praises of this film, but as usual I am way behind on my reviews.  I usually tell you what I though of a film and leave it to my readers to see if they want to check it out.  This is the rare exception where I am urging you to see this if you haven't and if you have see it again.  And a third option is buy it for me for christmas on DVD and come over and I'll have a Day of the Jackal party.  We can have some pop corn and a couple of cold ones and try to figure out how we would kill the president.  Just kidding internet police.  I give Day of the Jackal a 5/5 star rating and place it high up amoung the films of the 70's.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6xMnTPEzPo 

Movie #45 The Brothers Bloom

There is a film maker a lot of people haven't heard of.  His name is Rian Johnson.  He has two features to his name.  The first is called Brick.  It was a critical darling including this critic.  It was a very atmospheric noir thriller set in a modern day high school.  What really sets this film apart is the dialogue.  It is a mix of current teen slang mixed with 40's gumshoe movie speak.  The other identificating factor is Johnson style and the way he puts his vision onto screen.  Brick is also the film that in my opinion re-launched Joesph Gordon Levitt's career.  Who has a very brief cameo in the film.

But that is a review for another day.  This review is about his sophomore project The Brothers Bloom.  It is the story of globe trotting con artist brothers attempting their final con (of course).  The Brother Bloom are played by Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo.  Their non English speaking third part is Bang Bang.  An Asian explosive expert played by Rinko Kikuchi.  Their final mark is Penelope played by Rachel Weisz. 

This is a globe trotting movie for sure.  They visit Montenegro, Prague, Mexico, Romania and a slew of other places.  Johnson's camera work can best be described as playful in this movie.  It is adventurous and bold and can at times be a little silly.  There are moments where I have had to watch a few times to even catch what he was going for.  I am glad that I did, but perhaps a slightly better film maker could have conveyed his message a little clearer.  I'd like to note that the 3 con artists in the movie are all very well played.  This is the movie where I first developed my minor man-crush on Mark Ruffalo.  I will say that Weisz kind of wore a little thin on me.  She was adequate, but I don't think she was the right choice for the role.  Keano Reeves and play the dumbest guy in the room.  She can't.

Do you know how hard it is to make a con artist film now a days?  The views of movies are so climatically smart.  Movies like The Sting, Paper Moon and House of Games have put the audience in the know.  Everyone is ion on the con.  Once you revile that it is a con movie the viewers immediately go on the defensive.  No one wants to be con'ed.  Every plot point from then on is questioned.  "Is this for real or part of the con", "what is this characters motives" and "who benefits from this situation" all become question that the viewers ask themselves.   

So how do you get around that?  There is the double cross but that is a dangerous technique.  If you don't provide the audience with the clues to put it together they will feel cheated at the end.  This practice was used wonderfully in The Usual Suspects.  I know the ending and I am still surprised when the final twist happens.  There is the red herring but here again with such a knowledgeable contingency it is becoming harder and harder to pull this off.  So what film makers do is they add con's on to con's on to con's.  The problem here is you run the risk of confusing the audience leaving them again unsatisfied. 

So how do you get around this?  What Mr. Johnson did was make a con movie that wasn't about the con.  I can't spoil anything here or I would defeat the purpose of the review which is to get you to take an interest in this movie.  What Johnson does is he wraps you up in a cocoon of romance, intrigue, travel, beauty, exotic characters and danger.  At times you forget that you are watching a con movie all together.

Then towards the end when the Persian rug is pulled out from under your feet you are left satisfied.  Then when it is reveled that there is a second rug under the first rug and that gets yanked out from under you, knocking you on you ass, you feel enlightened.  Light you have experienced something that you rarely do.  You were outsmarted by a movie.  

There is a line in the film that I think perfectly sums up the entire movie.  While looking at some distorted photos taken from the marks pinhole camera Bloom says "It's the lie that tells the truth".  My girlfriend had never even heard of this movie and she really enjoyed it.  I give The Brothers Bloom a solid 4/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBuPI4m4pO8

Movie #44 Stagecoach

John Wayne never told a lie.  At least not on screen he didn't.  I know there is a stigma that goes along with John Wayne movies.  It's the limping, chawing, shotgun at his side, "little missy" characterization that is associated with Wayne.  And for good reason.  A lot of his films used variations on the same character and he was happy to fill that role.  But let's not forget about the actor inside these characters.  According to IMDB Wayne has 173 roles in movies and TV.  Many of which took place when there were only a hand full of actors working.  Wayne didn't write the scripts.  He just filled the characters he played with honesty and integrity.  That is what I mean when I say he never told a line on screen.  And lets not forget about the breakout roles.  His roles in movies like Red River, Rio Bravo, The Searchers, The Green Berets and True Grit just to name a few are roles that will be remembered as long as there are movie lovers.  This review is about 1939's Stagecoach.

To call Stagecoach a "John Wayne film" is an abomination.  It is 100% a John Ford film.  He is the director.  He is the master.  Today's movies and movie makers would still be trying to perfect the zoom and the tracking shot if Ford hadn't done it 70 years ago.  I know old movies scare some people off.  So do westerns and black and white movies.  I don't care.  If you love movies, you should love this one.

The story is pretty simple. A stagecoach filled with a variety of different people is heading to the next town when they get word of a Indian posse that could attack them.  This is loosly the plot of 60 percent of today's road trip and traveling conflict movies.

What impressed me the most with this movie was the movement of the camera.  Something that Ford was not particually know for.  There are some shots that were 30 ahead of their time.  Including one where they must have had to dig a 20 foot hole in the desert dirt in order to have a stagecoach and horses pass over the camera.  There are pans and zooms that perfect highlight the actors in them and that bring us (the audience ) right into the picture. 

I am a fan of the late 90's movie Tombstone. I think Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday was a once in a lifetime character played to perfection.  After seeing Stagecoach I found his inspiration.  John Carradine as Hatifield had to be the inspration for Holiday.  Tombstone directly owes A LOT to Stagecoach.  I'm sure a lot of other films do as well.

I really enjoyed this movie.  It moved at a brisk pace.  The story was engaging, the acting was good for the period, the action was classic Hollywood.  John Ford wasn't a genius, he was a master and this film is evidence of that.  I give Stagecoach a 4/5 stars.  Check out the link below for an early trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBuPI4m4pO8

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