Burn After Reading

Title: Burn After Reading
Director: Joel & Ethan Coen
Cast: George Clooney, John Malkovich, Brad Pitt
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.
Date of Review: October 9, 2008

As I’ve grown older and become more knowledgeable about both myself and the world around me, I’ve come to be more appreciative of the Coen Brothers’ filmography, which deals almost exclusively with characters of below-average intelligence. It’s nice to see a couple of American storytellers who are simultaneously patriotic and cynical regarding their government and the so-called “average joe” of the American South. They have a great sense of humor when it comes to their country’s shortcomings, which is refreshing when considered among all the overly melodramatic, “my country, ‘tis of thee” fare that’s been churned out since 9/11 (though it’s always been prevalent in western [aka American] cinema). Burn After Reading is like a culmination of all their previous works, from the quirky romantic comedy of Raising Arizona to the ambiguous nihilism of No Country For Old Men. But while it feels like their whole career has led up to this film, the mixture of so many different themes, tones and textures is schizophrenic. The film is uneven at best, with its biggest problem being that it just isn’t that funny.

Brad Pitt provides the greatest laughs in the film, with an immature energy and total disregard for self-seriousness. That is not to say that the other characters populating the film are “serious” (with George Clooney playing a neurotic, sex-addicted paranoiac, and Frances McDormand a plastic surgery obsessed gym worker scouring the online dating scene), but Pitt’s character is the most consistent because he is also the most one-note - he’s an idiot. Yes, all the other characters occupy different levels of stupidity, but it is Pitt who is the same person at the beginning and end of the story. When we are introduced to Clooney’s character at a dinner party, his eccentricities make him a near social cripple, unable to talk of anything other than his odd medical conditions. Later, we find he is paranoid beyond reason, secretive and incapable of relating to anyone (and, of course, a sex-addict). He is also having an affair with Tilda Swinton’s character - a powerful, successful and judgmental ice queen who loathes her own husband (John Malkovich) for his socially awkward, loser persona. Interesting characters, but their traits and motives don’t all add up. If Swinton hates her husband for his being an unlikable worm, why would she have an affair with an even more detestable snake like Clooney?

Ignoring the narrative inconsistencies, Burn After Reading is more depressing and disturbing than it is funny or clever. Brad Pitt, while stupid beyond comprehension, is the only character whose motivations are not entirely self-centered, and this leaves him arguably worse-off than anyone else in the story. That his loyalty to a friend leaves him where it does is pretty saddening to say the least. The whole film is quite saddening, though. John Malkovich plays the central character, a man so bitter after being downgraded from his job in the US government, that he has decided to write a memoir exposing many secrets and lies he has come into contact with. But by the end of the film, we come to see that his character wrongly assumed that his information made him “important”, and that he actually posed no threat at all. Now, if a man like that - who did have access to some pretty sensitive material - is looked at so lightly, that must mean that someone like, say, me, a lowly writer, must mean absolutely nothing in the world.

A stretch for sure, but this is what I left the theatre thinking. Any laughs I had with Brad Pitt’s hilarious attempts to intimidate John Malkovich, or George Clooney’s ability to “fit a run in” were lost by the depressing end, where the problems created by these stupid people are solved in a stupid way by even more stupid people occupying high positions in the government. Yes, the majority of American citizens are rather unintelligent, and yes, I realize that the government is corrupt and sneaky. This is not new ground to be covered, nor is it new ground to be spoofed. So what’s the point? To make a zany comedy? Just to have us laugh at how ridiculous this all is? That’s fine, but why then leave it all on such a dreary note? Why remind us of how insignificant our lives are, and how easily we could just be wiped from existence without anyone batting an eye? This ultimatum to the film is depressing, and negates any laughs to have come before.

I must digress and mention that John Malkovich and the Coen Brothers are a match made in heaven. Why they haven’t worked together before now is beyond me, but I hope they work together again, because Malkovich’s dry humor and sometimes self-serious delivery bordering on parody work perfectly with the Coens’ witty dialogue.

Burn After Reading isn’t a bad movie by any means, it’s just too down-trodden for its own good. The gut-busting laughs die off about halfway through, and the depressing end leaves a bad taste in the mouth which cancels out any goodness to have come before it. The performances are strong, the Coens prove once again to be some of the most reliable writers of dialogue in Hollywood, and it’s all shot simply yet effectively. But for a comedy, it’s just not that funny, and if laughs don’t count in the critiquing of a comedy, then I guess I’m misunderstanding this whole “film critic” thing.

6.5 / 10

The Last Winter

Title: The Last Winter
Director: Larry Fessenden
Cast: Ron Perlman, Connie Britton, James LeGros
Year: 2006
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: August 1, 2008

Imagine if Mother Earth had had enough. We’ve destroyed the rain forests, mined and drilled the surface of our planet into a pock-marked horror, we’ve polluted and corrupted both the land and the animals with our waste and filth. What if Nature put its foot down and said “enough”, and refused to let us tamper with the one last secret that it holds? No, this is not The Happening, but it is an equally preachy horror tale, trying to warn us of our erring ways and remind us how much power nature really has over us. Directed by Larry Fessenden, The Last Winter is a deliberately paced psychological horror film, which slowly burns with an impending dread which climaxes with some spooky supernatural occurrences. In his 2001 feature, Wendigo, Fessenden gave us an almost fairy-tale like story, with an ominous beast in the woods who may or may not be a presence of evil. With this follow-up, Fessenden once again obscures the exact meaning and motive of this supernatural beast - is it really evil? Sure, it kills people, but is it not doing this in self-defense? It’s a film filled with questions, many completely unanswered, and that’s what makes it so exciting.

Set amidst the inhumanly cold and harsh climate of Northern Alaska, the story follows a team working for an oil company who wants to tap into a possible oil reserve in this region. Through a slightly intrusive bit of exposition at the beginning of the movie, we learn that this site had been drilled many, many years ago, but the strange occurrences kept the findings from being shared with the world. The original valve remains to this day, and is protected by a giant white crate, and its presence immediately evokes the same terror as the Monolith of 2001: A Space Odyssey. One of the crew begins to obsess over this giant white box out in the snow, and as the team gets closer and closer to being able to open the box, it becomes more apparent that, well, maybe they shouldn’t.

Environmentalism is, of course, the first thing that this movie has to teach, and it gets a little much at times. The overall narrative is enough to communicate the message that we’ve screwed up the planet and it’s probably not too happy about it, but random montages of bubbling oil, tankers capsizing in the ocean, and brutal forest fires really drive the point home. It wouldn’t have been surprising to read the name “Al Gore” in the producing credits of this film. But the environmental implications are not all that this film has to offer. Much like Wendigo, there are layers upon layers of subtext here, and it can all be interpreted in very different ways, making for some potentially great discussion. By looking at the events of the film through different lenses, it can take on entirely new meanings.

One of the most interesting ideas in the film is a battle of spirituality and science. Are there things in the universe (or in our own world) that we are not meant to know? When we learn of the previous expedition to drill for oil - which left the original valve - it is never clear what the expedition really did find, due to the mystery in which the story is enshrouded. They went searching for oil, but is that what they found? And if it is not oil under the cold ground and snow, what is it? While nature is protecting itself from our destructive influence, could it also be protecting one of its own secrets? What would it mean for us to open that valve, and let loose whatever it is that’s under there?

The film is immaculately shot. Fessenden has no qualms with sustaining a shot to emphasize the stark, haunting imagery within. And much of the film does have a barren, cold feeling - it fits both the setting and the mood, making these characters feel alone and desperate, completely cut off from the outside world. While many films have been set in these sub-zero climates, it’s rare that they really evoke a shiveringly cold feeling in the viewer. Shots of wind blowing violently through the snow, stirring up the surface powder and covering the characters in layers of icy cold really bring this feeling to the forefront. This is another area where Fessenden’s cinematic earnestness shines through. He is willing to keep the pace slow yet constantly moving forward, so the fear in the characters doesn’t seem rushed and the impending doom feels real and unexpected. It’s something that’s rarely seen in big budget theatrical releases, which is probably one of the reasons why we don’t see Fessenden’s name floating around AMC’s.

This is not The Thing. There is a “being”, yes, but this is not a gore-ridden, effects-driven fright fest. Its political ambitions may be a little too in-your-face, but The Last Winter is mostly effective with its theatrics, and the writing and characters have greatly improved since Fessenden’s last effort. With a strong cast (including Ron Perlman, and Connie Britton of “Spin City” fame) the scares feel authentic and the characters real, and these are two of the most important and, coincidentally, widely ignored areas of modern horror cinema.

8 / 10

The Dark Knight

Title: The Dark Knight
Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Date of Review: July 18, 2008

There is a scene near the beginning of The Dark Knight where a deal is going down between a couple of Gotham’s gang lords (one of them being a great little cameo performance from a returning character). Suddenly, Batman shows up, his silhouette visible in the shadows. "Too bad there’s only one of you!" one of the criminals shouts. Then, another Batman shows up, wielding an automatic weapon. Then the Batmobile makes a grand entrance, and out comes another Batman to join the fight. Three Batmans fighting each other, and the other criminals stand there, clueless and unsure of who to fire at first. This is a great reflection of one of the strongest themes in the film - when life is a desperate struggle, and everything seems to point to total anarchy, it can become near impossible to tell who is the hero, and who is the villain.

Christopher Nolan returns to helm the second Batman film in the franchise reboot which began with 2005's Batman Begins, and for all intents and purposes, he blew expectations out of the water. The Dark Knight is not just your typical superhero film with a clear-cut vision of good-vs-evil. It stretches the boundaries of summer blockbuster cinema, including the writing and sensibilities of a conscientious indie film, with the action, effects and gusto of an event film. It’s not very often that we are treated to a summer "popcorn movie" that haunts us and makes us think about how we really define the idea of a "hero". Like The Prestige and Memento before it, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have made a story with many layers to dissect, and constant undertones of "what would you do in this situation?". Instead of preaching to us what the right answer is, they let us think for ourselves, and question our own morals.

While Heath Ledger has been receiving monumental accolades for his turn as The Joker (and deservedly so, his performance is primal and iconic), it’s sad that this has overshadowed Aaron Eckhart’s performance as Harvey Dent. Dent is really the main character of the film, with Batman, The Joker, and Rachel Dawes surrounding him and either supporting or attempting to destroy him. Batman has spent the past years trying to rid Gotham of its criminal element through violence and methods outside the law. But when Harvey Dent manages to arrest and detain more than 500 of Gotham’s criminals in one massive bust, Batman sees this as a sign. "The dawn is coming", Dent proclaims in a press conference, and it certainly seems so. He is Gotham’s White Knight - he can be the hero to the city, and the symbol of justice and goodness that Batman has tried to be. And so along comes The Joker, whose mission is to rid Gotham of this hope, and to show them that, when you take away the written rules, everyone becomes a savage criminal.

Wally Pfister returns to work the cinematography on The Dark Knight, and like Batman Begins and The Prestige, this is a beautiful looking film. While Batman Begins used a lot of amber lighting, and had a slight feeling of artificiality from its being filmed largely in a warehouse (mimicking the style of Blade Runner), The Dark Knight has a strong sense of verticality in the city, with looming skyscrapers constantly overhead. The film looks cold and stark, with many large, empty white rooms, and a near constant ice-blue tint on the outdoor images. The world is a cold, dark place looking for its "White Knight", and the cinematography itself mimics this battle between light and dark.

And it’s no surprise that Christian Bale returns to the role with both grace and intensity, giving us the definitive live-action Batman. He actually plays three very distinct roles - the Bruce Wayne that the public sees (an arrogant, womanizing socialite, not unlike Patrick Bateman), the Bruce Wayne that only Rachel and Alfred know (introspective, and torn between his loyalty to Gotham and his love for Ms. Dawes), and Batman, the feral avenger of the night. Returning with Bale are all of the principle cast members from Batman Begins (except for Katie Holmes, who has been replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is much more believable as an intelligent, successful assistant D.A.). And everyone feels more comfortable in their roles, which is surely due in part to Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s wonderful screenplay. The dialogue is intelligent and natural, and The Joker is funny in sick, horrible ways. The Nolan brothers even succeed in ironing out the lumpy one-liners which occasionally rattled Batman Begins. Oh, the one-liners are still there, but they feel less childish, and more like the characters being clever, rather than something completely out of character and cheesy ("I gotta get me one of those", anyone?)

The Dark Knight is not without its flaws, though -like every other film in history, it is not perfect. A few questionable effects choices during the action sequences are a bit out-of-place with the rest of the film’s overtly serious tone. One such instance occurs right after the flipping of the 18-wheeler that was shown in the trailers, and as Batman rides away from the wreck on his motorcycle, he somehow rides halfway up a wall and spins back around to land, facing the other direction. It happens with inhumanly speed, and feels like it is something meant to cater towards a younger audience. It’s particularly out of place in this film, as much of the action is very tactical and precise, similar to the action which would be found in a film by Michael Mann (which is no surprise, since his film Heat was sited by Christopher Nolan as being the main inspiration for both the visual style and overall tone of this film).

Also, there is little-to-no character development. The film begins with a brilliant bank robbery, and runs on all four cylinders for the rest of its 150 minute runtime. While seeing Batman Begins is not necessarily a prerequisite for enjoying The Dark Knight, an understanding of the character and his relationships with Lucius Fox, Lt. Gordon, Rachel Dawes and Alfred is something that’s good to have before going in. It wouldn’t be impossible to understand - throughout the film, we come to see that Fox supplies Wayne with his gadgets, Dawes is a love interest, Gordon is a reluctant believer, and Alfred is a paternal advisor - but it may be jarring for the first 45 minutes or so, as the film jumps right into the story.

Commendation must be given to the Nolans for their handling of the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character. No real background is given regarding Dent’s previous experiences and life, but through a strong script and a near show-stealing performance from Eckhart, we really feel that Dent is a character we have known for years. While I was enrolled in a college Script Writing program, one of the greatest lessons that was drilled into our heads was "show, don’t tell". SHOW the audience how a character has come to be the way they are, through dialogue and their handling of the situations in the story, do not TELL the audience with lazy exposition. The Nolans do this perfectly with the Dent character, giving us all we need to know about him, and we feel that he is a fully rounded character through his many run ins with gangsters, Batman, and The Joker himself.

To say that The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date is an understatement. It is simply one of the best films to come out in the new millennium, regardless of budget, target audience, or the time of year in which it was released. This isn’t just a great summer movie, nor is it just a great superhero movie - it is a brilliant piece of fiction put on film. It is already being compared to The Godfather and Heat as one of the best contemporary crime dramas to come out of America, and that’s not hyperbole. The Dark Knight delivers in all areas, and if this is the last we see of Batman on the big screen, it will not have left fans wanting.

10 / 10

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Title: Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
Cast: Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some language.
Date of Review: July 14, 2008

One of the hardest parts of writing a good story (whether it be prose, screenplay, or one of the many other mediums) is keeping a consistent tone. The feel of the movie has to have a natural flow, so that any deviation from that (comic relief, or a good scare) doesn’t seem out of place. This means the writer - and in this case, filmmaker - must have a good sense of timing. Like the ignoramus who cracks a "dead baby" joke in the middle of a maternity ward, a misplaced quip can ruin the mood completely. This is the biggest problem in Hellboy II: The Golden Army - it doesn’t know what it is. Like the big red hero himself, the film is so unsure of its own purpose that some scenes leave you scratching your head, wondering why, exactly, it was necessary to include such a thing.

"Visual spectacle" seems to have been the number one goal on the mind of Guillermo Del Toro with this film, which is really too bad considering the beautiful stories he has told over the years (including the original Hellboy, with its surprisingly touching love story). The love story between Hellboy and Liz Sherman is continued here, but mostly for comedic effect. Abe Sapien also finds love in this entry, but again, most of it is just used for comedy. These scenes tie together the various action set pieces, each of which try to outdo the last, and each is big and loud enough to have been the climactic scene in its own movie. The best one occurs around the middle of the film, where Hellboy does battle with a "forest god" - this enormous, pale green monster emerges from a under a busy New York street and begins to wreak havoc. As news and police helicopters arrive and begin to scan over the beast with their search lights, it brings back memories of Cloverfield, and its infamously strange monster. And as the "forest god" lumbers around the city block, it covers anything it touches (or bleeds on) with beautiful outgrowths of flowers and bushes. It’s one of the film’s many beautiful yet hollow sights.

And there are just too many of these beautiful sights with nothing to back them up. We see oodles of monsters throughout the course of the film, each one a visual delight unto itself. One scene involves Hellboy and Abe Sapien venturing to "The Troll Market", a safe place for monsters located under the Brooklyn Bridge. This scene is somewhere between the Star Wars cantina, and a Jim Henson movie, as all of these monsters engage in commerce, each of them looking like something lifted right out of the pages of (surprise!) a comic book. Like the rest of the movie, it’s a visual treat...but so what? They go there looking for Princess Nuala, an Elven Princess, and we seem to be building up to a great mystery - how will they find her? Coincidentally, this just happens to be the exact same time that the Princess is sneaking around the market, looking as suspicious as possible. So, of course, it doesn’t end up being much of a challenge for our heroes to find her.

This is just lazy writing, and the film is plagued with it. The opening scene shows Hellboy as a small boy (and if there was ever a bad child performance, it’s here) being told a bedtime story about the Golden Army, Prince Nuada, and lots of other stuff that explains everything you need to know before going into the movie. Stylistically, it’s pretty neat the way that they had Hellboy’s imagining of the story in his head appear as an animated film for us to see. But it also foreshadows the painful level of exposition which occurs throughout the entire movie. Every monster introduced in the film is given a convenient "explanation" before they come on screen, then when they leave the screen you can be guaranteed you’ll never see them again. The "Angel of Death" character is truly a sight to behold, but its presence is a deus ex machina in its purest form. Hellboy, Liz and Abe are searching for help, a no-legged troll just happens to wander by and offer to bring them to someone who can help, he brings them to the Angel of Death who then helps them and (literally) vanishes into thin air. It’s not satisfying from a narrative point of view, and it’s a great representation of the huge differences between this film and the first one, released in 2004.

The first Hellboy had heart and soul, and Hellboy himself was a character we rooted for. He was well-rounded and interesting, and his internal struggle to discover whether he really is a demon, or if his human upbringing made him good was a great story. The sequel just doesn’t have this depth, and despite its many attempts to have heart, it fails. Scenes used to inject humanity into the characters are very funny, but they don’t really make them feel any fuller. In one scene, Hellboy and Abe sit together, drinking beer and singing along to Barry Manilow, both frustrated with how women can be so hard to understand. Scenes like this try to give the film the same heart that the first one had, but like the action scenes, they jump in and out without much to back them up, so watching Hellboy and Abe get drunk together may be funny, but it doesn’t give us the emotional connection we need.

The whole movie is just all over the place. Juggling between romantic comedy, horror, fantasy, action and drama, it never really finds what it really is. Some scenes are magical, and feel like a Jim Henson movie for the new millennium. Other scenes feel more like the Guillermo Del Toro we knew from Blade II, with fast-paced action and even some frightening visuals. Then other scenes, such as the very final shot of Hellboy’s confused face coupled with happy-go-lucky frolicking music feel satirical in their sense of humor. It’s all very confusing to take in, and it just doesn’t blend together all that well.

Perhaps another viewing is in order, and knowing what to expect will help smooth over the bumps and see the film as an entirely different beast from the first. But its differences are jarring, and while it is visually similar to the first - using the same colour palette and beautiful amber lighting - Hellboy II: The Golden Army feels more experimental than anything. It wouldn’t be surprising to read that Guillermo Del Toro was inspired by Spider-Man 3’s departure from its predecessors, and while this isn’t the colossal train wreck that Raimi’s threequel was, it proves that gorgeous visuals alone do not a good film make.

6 / 10

The Machine Girl

Title: The Machine Girl
Director: Noboru Iguchi
Cast: Asami, Ryôsuke Kawamura, Kentaro Kishi
Year: 2008
MPAA: Not Rated
Date of Review: July 9, 2008

A lot of the charm in the "grindhouse" films of the 1970s came from how earnest a lot of them were, even with their sleazy subject matter and often shocking content. It wasn’t just the script, but the technical quality of the filmmaking - Super 8 cameras and bad special effects added to that whole aura, giving these films their personality. This is an area where Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez really missed the mark with Grindhouse. Despite their best efforts to make the film look grainy and worn, the script sound ham-fisted and the effects look sub par, it all felt so intentional and precise that it became artificial. It still looked and felt like a big-budget studio feature. If they had really wanted to capture the authentic feel of ‘70s exploitation films, they should have employed the same tools and constraints as those maverick filmmakers of 30 years ago. In this way, The Machine Girl is more successful in recreating this era of shock cinema. It uses its low budget and borderline bad taste to its advantage, creating a cartoonish revenge saga with some of the most ridiculous gore since Riki-Oh.

A woman vomitting out her intestines into a bowl of soup. A man forced to eat sushi topped with his own severed fingers. And, of course, the titular Japanese school girl with a machine gun for an arm. These are just a few of the "simpler" sights to be seen in The Machine Girl, a movie so outrageous that the only thing genuinely shocking about it is how funny it can be. Like Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive, humor is found through a mixture of slapstick and extreme gore. And while some scenes contain torture and mutilation, the 10-foot blood sprays accompanied by the occasional puff of air from the wound remind us that this is fake blood spraying from a hose, not an artery. If a "Looney Tunes" episode contained gore, that’s the tone you could expect here. Nothing is serious, and even the over-the-top attempts at emotional content are funny because of how aware the film is of its own ridiculousness.

Like Versus, another gonzo gorefest from Japan, The Machine Girl doesn’t have anything to offer other than its supreme level of entertainment. The story is not much deeper than the title suggests - a young girl avenges the death of her brother (and the loss of her own arm) at the hands of the yakuza, by having a machine gun built that fits perfectly on her stump. Insanity ensues. She fights the aforementioned yakuza, as well as a trio of ninjas dressed in red jogging suits, throwing hundreds of ninja-stars every time they leap, flip, or move in any way. She encounters the yakuza’s mistress, who is armed with a "drill bra" - no further explanation is warranted, you have to see the movie to believe some of the stuff that happens here. Suffice to say, it’s never boring. Even when it falls into lulls of attempted emotion and dramatic tension, it’s all done so tongue-in-cheek that its "so bad it’s good" badge is worn with pride.

It’s not without its problems, though. While the make-up effects used to create the gore are hardly what one would call "realistic", they have a tangibility not found in CGI. So during the few instances when CGI is employed - and it is truly awful - it really brings the experience to a halt. Also, the humor tends to go a little overboard at times. Perhaps it’s just personal taste, but a visual gag where "bad guys" are torn to pieces by machine gun fire is leagues away from making jokes about rape and necrophilia. Maybe this could be a little message about our times, and how violent content is so readily accepted while anything sexual is frowned upon, but it seems unlikely that that is the case, given the context of these jokes.

It would be interesting to find out what Tarantino thinks of The Machine Girl, because it is such a different take on a modern-day grindhouse experience. Instead of the constant winks at the audience which Tarantino and Rodriguez gave us, The Machine Girl tries to provide us with a more authentic experience without the "wink wink, nudge nudge". It actually feels a lot more like the trailers between the two films in Grindhouse - which also captured not only the look but the feel of this era of cinema much better than the films they appeared between - and if you’ve been eagerly waiting for Machete to come to theatres, The Machine Girl may hold you off for a while.

7.5 / 10

Wanted

Title: Wanted
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Cast: James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated R for strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality.
Date of Review: July 1, 2008

Pure male fantasy can be fun. Any man who says he wouldn’t want to give up his day-job to become a millionaire superhero would be lying. That dream of being a total badass who is practically invincible, admired by his peers, and always gets the girl is something that’s ingrained into our consciousness as the very definition of a “man”. To feel that your presence is wanted somewhere - that you are the only one who can do something that is going to change the world, and everyone that you look up to will love you for it. And so, with the aptly named Wanted, a story is told that’s part Fight Club, part The Matrix, and completely ridiculous.

A ridiculous movie can be fun, as long as the ridiculous-to-self serious ratio is kept in check. Mario Bava’s Danger: Diabolik! is possibly one of the most ridiculous movies ever made - the hero actually utters the classic line “This suit is so strong, I could swim through the center of the sun!” - but it never forgets what it is. Wanted on the other hand has a near schizophrenic mix of self-satirizing action (such as a hitman running so fast through an office building that all the papers in the offices are blown into a frenzy from his speed), and dialogue delivered so seriously that it seems the writers and filmmakers actually took these ideas seriously. The “Loom of Fate”, weaving cotton into a plain white cloth, which, when looked at under a magnifying glass, has a series of misweaves that can be read as binary code for the names of people who need to be killed in order to restore balance to the world? WHAT? Morgan Freeman delivers his expository lines with such serious demeanor that it leaves one to wonder how he can do work like this and Dreamcatcher, then turn around and say Batman Begins was the first movie he ever did strictly for the money.

Wanted’s ruminations on the “anti-establishment” mindset and conspiracy theories make Laurence Fishburne’s philosophical rants in The Matrix feel subtle. As Morgan Freeman talks about the history of “The Fraternity” and their quest to keep balance in the world by executing anyone that “The Loom of Fate” sees as being an evil-doer, it’s hard to keep a straight face. It’s even harder when we are shown the members of “The Fraternity”, consisting of Angelina Jolie, rapper Common, and a fat guy with a Cuban accent worthy of “Al Pacino’s Stamp of Approval”. These actors ham it up with an intense desire to look and sound as cool as possible. Again, things would be different if they had embraced the inherent ridiculousness of the story and its action, but every twist the movie throws - and there are plenty - just makes things more convoluted and stupid, resulting in one leaving the theatre feeling like a gunplay soap opera was shown, rather than an action movie.

The action is impressive at the beginning of the movie, as we see a few people get shot in the head in super-slow motion, focusing on the journey of the bullet through their brains, then backwards through the air and back into the gun that shot it. But the film quickly becomes a one-trick pony, as this technique is used repeatedly in every action sequence throughout the movie. Imagine if “bullet-time” had been used during every violent encounter in The Matrix, then it wouldn’t have seemed nearly as amazing when Neo did his pivotal bullet-dodge on the rooftop. Such is the problem with Wanted - it’s so overdone to start off with, that by the end when we see James McAvoy in action - a regular “prodigal son” whose power exceeds everyone else’s combined - it doesn’t seem too impressive. Everything the film has to offer is covered in the first half hour.

Is this really what we’ve come to? Does it really take this kind of posing, slow-motion and inhumanly fast editing to entertain us? Having recently watched Heat, the assault rifle fight in the middle of a crowded L.A. street is easily one of the best, most intense action sequences in American cinema, and not one superhuman assassin is present. That unreality can be fun, but it can also go too far and take us out of the experience - particularly when there’s an abundance of poor CGI, something Wanted suffers from greatly.

Is it entertaining? At times. In the same way that Crank was entertaining, but it doesn’t know it. Wanted thinks it is The Matrix, as if it is redefining what makes an exciting action sequence, and giving us this “bullet-cam” technique which could be the next big thing in American action cinema. I certainly hope not, because the world was given enough of it in this one film alone. Poor, nerdy Wesley Gibson’s journey from computer-jockey to gun-toting badass is a shallow one, and completely unbeweavable.

4 / 10

Wendigo

Title: Wendigo
Director: Larry Fessenden
Cast: Jake Weber, Patricia Clarkson, Erik Per Sullivan
Year: 2001
MPAA: Rated R for a strong sex scene, language and violent images.
Date of Review: May 29, 2008


***HEAVY SPOILERS AHEAD***

It’s hard to explain the feeling of joy someone like myself derives from seeing genre cinema treated with respect. Over the past few years this has been happening more and more in the world of big-budget blockbusters, but I still find that the real “gold” is found in the smaller films. You know, like that one you’ve passed by a million times at the video store - it’s got a rating of 6-something on IMDb, it has good critical reviews and a nifty cover, but you just can’t muster up the courage to take a chance with it. Or maybe you needed to see Cloverfield just one more time, for the seventh time. This was me with Larry Fessenden’s Wendigo - a movie I had heard equally good and bad things about, and had been curious about for years, yet I never got around to watching it. Until last night. And I smacked myself on the head for not having seen it before.

Telling several different stories at once, this supernatural horror fable centres on a family of three who go to a cottage in snow-covered upstate New York and are simultaneously hunted by a psychotic hillbilly, and haunted by the Native American spirit known as the “wendigo”. This all happens amidst problems in the family structure - George, the father (played by Jake Weber) is having trouble connecting with his son and really being a part of the boy’s life, and Kim (played by Patricia Clarkson) sees this and is beginning to resent George for it. Their son, Miles (Erik Per Sullivan), is the only one who is truly aware of the supernatural occurrences around the cottage, which seem to be created (or exasperated) by his possession of a small wendigo figure he received from a mysterious Native man at a local corner store. As all of these conflicts converge, many different layers can be pealed back, in a film that has a lot to say about myths, human nature, and the way the world works.

Fessenden has said that many of his films (especially this one) deal with how myths and legends come to be. Their purpose is simple - to explain the unexplainable. To give comfort and a sense of familiarity to situations that are extraordinary, or too horrible to see truth in. Wendigo does this, with the young boy’s fantasies about the wendigo spirit being his own way of dealing with events which will eventually lead to the death of his father. In a very powerful final shot, Miles is seen clenching the wendigo idol so hard that his hand is bleeding - he has come to believe in this story (told to him by the aforementioned mysterious Native) so strongly that he has passed the point of being able to accept reality. But how much of it was imagined by Miles, and how much of it involved real, supernatural forces working on the side of nature?

In an ingenious twist, Fessenden leads us to believe that the wendigo is a creature of evil (or at least, of great destructive power). The story that the Native tells to young Miles makes the wendigo out to be an unforgiving monster, which devours everything it encounters and has immense power. But after George is shot by a (possibly) stray bullet while sledding with Miles, he is found on the doorstep of the cottage, and cannot remember how he got there. “It was like a wind carried me here” he says, reminding us of the Native’s story of how the wendigo would often manifest itself in the form of a strong wind. We then see the father from the point of view of the young boy, lying there on the ground helpless and hurt, with the wendigo beast towering over him. It is not a stance of hostility, though, but rather of comfort and shelter - the wendigo did its best to save the man’s life.

Here we see the carrying out of the film’s sense of justice - George was shot by the psycho hillbilly, Otis (played by John Speredakos), and since saving the man’s life was beyond the wendigo’s power, it uses its greater power of destruction to seek vengeance for this wrongdoing. This ties into the theme we are shown at the very beginning of the film, before any mention of the supernatural is made - that of man vs. man. That is, the “civilized” city man, versus the “uncivilized” country man. The very beginning incident of the family car hitting a buck, leading to a conflict between the family and the local hunters who wanted the buck’s antlers, could be a film unto itself. The city man, who has never had to fend for himself in the country, has presumably never shot a gun or done any hunting of any kind, feels threatened by the archetypal country man, whose simple existence is much “manlier” (plus, he’s got a big gun). This also deepens the film’s justice theme, as the country man has committed the greatest universal crime - murder - and the wendigo must even the playing field, regardless of the fact that the wrongdoer is the one who lives closest to the land.


Wendigo gives us a lot to think about, and it’s too bad that it does have some problems. Casting a child actor is risky - more often than not, they just aren’t good. And when one is found who is good, they become so overused that they are annoying regardless of their talent. Erik Per Sullivan just wasn’t convincing as the son, and many of the frightening moments (such as a late night when Miles is sitting in bed and imagines a little girl coming out of his closet) he looks as if he is on the verge of laughter. Similarly, some of the family dynamics are a little grating. While it can be seen in their one-on-one scenes together, the supposed tension between George and Miles is missing completely when the whole family is together, and their happy, playful nature is almost “Brady Bunch”-esque in its believability.

It’s certainly not perfect, but Wendigo provides genuine thought, and looks at both spiritual and physical planes of our existence on this Earth. As Fessenden also says in the interview on the DVD, with all of our scientific knowledge and incredible advances in technology, we still don’t really have any idea how our world works. We have theories based on facts, but facts change with time and scrupulous analysis. The idea that a force like the wendigo could be out there pursuing natural justice is an interesting one. Just the fact that this film has left me with this much to ponder makes it one of the more worthwhile viewing experiences I have had in the last while, and is a great addition to the “indie horror gems” shelf that I am constantly adding to.

8 / 10