when the highest a movie can achieve is a tinge above mediocrity

FLASH OF GENIUS is a biopic about of a man named Dr. Robert Kearns, the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. the movie stars greg kinnear in the titular role and he does it with style and substance. in fact, kinnear may be one of the most charming and likeable actors today and his presence takes a film to new highs. this movie is mostly about patent law and a court case to determine if ford stole his inventions. that being said, its not going to be a thrill a minute exciting rush of awesomeness. john grisham it ain't.

flash of genius is ok but it had the potential to be so much worse. a world where every story deserves a movie sounds intriguing but unfortunately, that would result in a lot of boring films being thrust out. while the story of bob kearns is interesting, it isnt the most fascinating subject matter. kinnear is the real hero of this movie. he sells his role and plays it with conviction and heart. it is thanks to him that the movie is the greatest it can possibly be.

i watched this with moderate interest with occasional folding of laundry and lazy web surfing and by the time the film ended, i was sorta glad i watched this flick. i also realized that there was nothing i would improve upon. the highest aspiration for what this can be was attained; a decent, sometimes dull, vaguely unmemorable film. so congrats to all involved for making a passable film about something that for all intents and purposes should have been dull beyond words.

im sorry but this movie isnt for you.

i am (attempting) writing to an audience of mostly cinephiles; hard core movie fans who view movie watching as something other than a way to pass the time. ive discussed here in the past about movies as entertainment vs movies as fun vs movies as experiences. movies, like life experiences, may not always be good or fun, but sometimes, one profits from them anyway. is anyone going to walk away of Schindler's List saying, 'DUDE! THAT AWWWWE-SOME! the explosions were fuckin fantastic! and those naked chicks!" i hope not. or if they do i hope im around to blog about it after. regardless, it was a movie that was meant to be experienced in all of its gory, graphic, and sad detail. no, a movie like this is not meant to be fun.

with a somber, well publicized film about the holocaust, its easy to know that if you like movies for a bit of good times, you may want to give ole Schindler's List a miss. With other movies, its not as clear. This morning, i was listening to the OPIE AND ANTHONY show who were looking at a list of the top 50 best movies of the aught's from the I HEART CHAOS blog. on that list were the usual suspects (amelie, downfall, lord of the rings, beautiful mind) but there were odd and contraversial choices as any good list has -- namely, the twilight samurai (which i have yet to see!), southland tales, and SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK.

while i definitely question the inclusion of southland tales, synecdoche was the one that O&A particularly beat up on. they never heard of it and one of their callers called it 'shit' and 'boring.' i really wanted to call and tell them this wasnt a movie made for mass consumption and they shouldnt even try to comprehend it. this was not a movie made either for them or a majority of their listening audience. snooty? yes of course. true? i think so.

synecdoche, if you havent seen it, was a very challenging film to watch by any stretch. it was almost 3 hours long and begins with complicated premise: theater director gets a grant and builds a scale replica of new york in a warehouse in order to put on a play about his life. so, we are already into the realm of conceptual art which is hard enough for anyone to follow. then, as the story wears on and the play becomes part of his life, replicas of new york are being built inside the warehouse as the story of his life develops in real time. so, at any given moment, there are numerous actors playing the director, stars, publicists and then actors are hired to play the actors and so on. more models are being built and the play of his life merges with his actual life. the ending is sad, beautiful, poignant, and a little bit tragic as the warehouse play goes on continually for decades.

this isnt exactly transformers. synecdoche is a midfuck of a film about obsession, self delusion, and subtle captures the stages of life in a literal and figurative sense. to put it simply, this was not a movie made for the masses; much like how bride wars, matthew mcconnaughey movies, and tyler perry things werent made for me.

so, unless you enjoy hearing yourself complain or take to the internet to do so, before launching into a diatribe about a movie you hated and think if you were really the target audience. and THAT is why i am never going to write anything about high school musical. that shit scares me. the acting is like silent movies with talking

cinema subversive

movies tell a story and try to get their point across in an efficient and timely manner. we watch them to learn, feel, or experience an emotion felt by the onscreen forces. some films are more powerful than others and go to extremes to get their message through with varying degrees of success. i am going to compare 2 movies that cannot be any more different: EDEN LAKE (2007), another entry into the ever expanding torture porn genre though this one is english so a warm welcome to the UK into the fray! the other film is ONE FOOT IN HEAVEN (1941), a religious melodrama starring fredric march. neither of these films are terribly remarkable or memorable but each have an interesting brand of subversion worth analyzing in light detail.

EDIT: torture porn refers to a genre of film that combines torture and horror in such a gory detail that it could be called porngraphy. the prime example of this type of film is eli roth's hostel.

eden lake concerns an attractive young english couple who go to place called 'eden lake' (come on, there is no way a place named eden lake but be anything other than horriffic. there is no screamville or terror lake FFS?) for a weekend of romance and an attempted marriage proposal. through a series of wacky mishaps, they end up on the shitlist of a local gang of teenagers led by a total lunatic. what follows is violence, capture, torture, escape, torture, blood, etc. what separated this from other attractive couples in trouble movies that came before it? well, if you saw funny games not much but if you didnt...

::SPOILERS::

the guy (oh btw michael fassbender plays him) dies at the hands of the kids and the girl (didnt catch her name) tries to escape and ends up accidently in the house of the kids parents who at that point didnt know what their chitlins were up to. one of the kids dies and the parents take revenge on the girl after the kids make up a story. like funny games, there is no payoff and retribution for any of the characters. evil wins and that is the end of it. there isnt a glossy victory and justice is not served. and for that reason, the film is intentionally unsatisfying. also like funny games, the director suggests that the audience is watching to see people getting tortured, maimed, but eventually win against the bad guys. by making the ending so bleak, he is saying, 'you wanted torture. well, here is an implausible but unsatisfying ending ya sick fucks'

why subversive? because its giving the viewer an anti-torture porn movie in the shade of torture porn. get it? its a statement against violence that uses violence and takes away any glamour associated with the genre. pretty young girls are killed by ugly foul mouthed teens who get away with it. sub-v-sive? i think so.

the other film, ONE FOOT IN HEAVEN is subversive and obvious in nature. this is a big giant screaming film that smacks you in the smack and begs you to join the christian faith. plot is simple: a doctor to be is touched by the hand of god, leaves practice, and becomes a minister all in the course of an afternoon. his new wife of course joins him without a peep (ahhh olde time housewives). what follows is one hour and fifty minutes of how awesome christians are. the husband and wife never have quarrels or even interesting discussions like nick and nora in the thin man movies. this movies paints the christian religion as a be all and end all problem solver. the only person in town who doesnt go to church is the dentist who is an atheist but is quickly turned around by a miraculous sentence. i understand at the time it was made that people needed religion to turn to when the war loomed on the horizon though this was made before pearl harbor but i would have expected more from director irving rapper who did the outstanding now, voyager (with bette davis). this is a film that could have treated with dignity and respect (fred niblo's ben hur from 1925 did a great job!) perhaps they could have showed religion as something more than the ultimate placater. this is a film without conflict which is a shame. my father in law who is a minister thought this was ridiculous as well

why am i making such a big deal out of this movie and why did i even watch it in the first place? it was the new york times top 1000 films of all time and there is absolutely no reason this should be on there. however, i watched and noted it for its subversive material and got a blog entry out of it so there ya go. seriously, at this point the only reason im still on the new york times best of 1000 is to finish in its ridiculous mediocrity.

can nick and nora's infinite playlist be officially declared THE hipster film of the 00's?

as an unapologetically indie hipster originally from NYC, it is no shock that i love NICK AND NORA'S INFINIET PLAYLIST. after watching it a second time, i only have more appreciation for this wonderful little gem of a film. perhaps its the NYC oriented soundtrack of vampire weekend, the national, bishop allen (granted, they took their name from a street in central square in cambridge, mass), and we are scientists, whose song afterhours so well permeates the feel of the film. perhaps its a great, subtle (of course) but also sometimes heartfelt and dramatic performance from michael cera and a suprisingly heartfeltkat dennings! OR its the supporting cast and numerous cameos from andy samberg, john cho, and seth myers. yes. its all of these things and of course, the seemingly endless number of new york indie landmarks. this is the new york city of my youth with the bowery, mcarren park pool, crash mansion, and a quick shot of katz's for those who enjoy the jew food (me...even though there are way better delis and katz is definetely now more touristy than anything else).

this film will always be intrinsically linked to the time and era. after all, michael cera, skinny jeans, and hoodies are pretty much standard issue indie fashion now. its for all these reasons, this film should be considered the benchmark for late 00's. much like how john hughes films captured the essence of loner/geek culture of the 80s, nick and nora does so for the geeks now.

im really suprised that this film hasnt really found much of an audience yet because it really is such a sweet fim. i think in due time nick and nora will develop a legacy. people need some time to latch on to the essence. stylistically, the film is shot a little darkly and in soft colors which is not unaccessible. the camerawork is almost a bit cameron crowe-like and even maintains the naviety and the innocence of his films. given that crowe's films take a while to find their niche, it follows that nick and nora need a couple years to win over more fans.

until then, ill enjoy the tweedom of it and kat dennings little erratic head bobbing when michael cera asks if its her dad's studio...

btw, where's fluffy isnt a real band. so all you stupid faux indie jerkfaces claiming that you love them...i know its a lie.

Tell Every One. THIS MOVIE ROCKS

as a diligent and dedicated filmie, its a yearly tradition to see all the critically hailed films of the previous year. and since i have no connections in the movie business and have a full time job unrelated to film, this is usually completed some 3 years after the year in question. since lately i have been watching things that have been collecting dust on my netflix instant queue (ill get to you eventually in the bedroom), i finally saw the french thriller TELL NO ONE.

since you people apparently like it when i describe the plot and not just link IMDB, the film is a murder/mystery. basically, man's wife is murdered. 8 years later, man receives mysterious message from supposedly dead wife. meanwhile, bodies are discovered on his property and husband becomes a murder suspect. cue intrigue, suspense, and twists.

i was all ready to review this movie but the following link was sent to me:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kitten_Huffing

this articles details kitten huffing and while completely made up, it is making me laugh a hell of a lot and i am finding it very distracting to continue writing.

ok, we shall press onwards.

tell no one won a crapload of cesar awards and is all ready to remade into a medicore american film.

so, why was it so great? first off, the soundtrack was brilliant and consisted of mostly american R&B songs from the 60s save for one important U2 song. it really sets the mood and the ambiance beautifully. second, the flashbacks were perfectly orchestrated and despite flipping time periods a few times, all remains easy to follow and completely succinct. third, the genuine love story between the two leads was fantastic. in short, it was a perfectly executed and realized mystery thriller action film a la Taken.

why do i bother with horror films?

i know im going to be disappointed. i am consistently heartbroken by everything in american horror films. the giant plot holes, the horrible acting, the anti-scares, and the overall mehdome associated with it. i didnt know that MIRRORS was based on a K-horror film. if i did, i never would have watched it in the first place as i have no strict no remakes policy.

this lump of crap was directed by alexandre aja, who did haute tension, a movie i couldnt stand and the 2006 remake of the hills have eyes, the only film that was bad enough to give me a migraine.

what was wrong with this? besides keifer sutherland's interesting take on 'acting'...

horror film set up the scares. we all know when something scary is going to happen. what i like about asian films is that they dont do it as much. something spooky and creepy will happen and you will be like, 'holy crap! that was scary! whoa!' american films will go, 'ok...here it comes...this is going to be freaky...wait for it...BAM! oh yeah. bet youre pretty scared now!' by the end, no one is shocked and im just a little dead inside.

also, in asian cinema, the ghosts are usually just misunderstood beings crying out and they get turned into crazy blood machines in american versions. in mirrors, said machine is a schitzophrenic girl who communicates through mirrors and other stuff happens. bleh.

yeah, i DVRd this and even a brief nude scene from amy smart couldnt make this not a total waste of time.