The Third Row's European Vacation

Or: What's the Italian For 'A Man Walks Into a Talent Agent's Office and Says...'?

I'm gonna preface this review by explaining something about myself that some of you who know me in real life already know.

When it comes to warnings, I can be kind of an idiot.  By 'kind of' I mean, 9 times out of 10 when people tell me not to look at something, there's a voice inside me that goes "...you know you're gonna look, right?"

I would be utterly screwed if the Ark of the Covenant were presented to me.  This is the kind of curiosity that makes H.P. Lovecraft protagonists.

Further, it's this siren's call of morbid curiosity that lead to this entry.

This is one of those movies, we all encounter this at least once, where you learn about its reputation before you learn about the film itself.  Said reputation spurred me to look up the info on the movie...what I read left me unsettled and a touch disgusted...
...and realizing, much as I hated to admit it, that sooner or later, I would be watching this movie.

From the titles for this week's entry, some of you may already know what I'm talking about.  In which case, you may want to back away from the splash zone, cause this entry, we're taking a trip to a little town called Salò.

Trying to explain this film for anyone unfamiliar with it is...somewhat daunting, really, so let me try and boil this down as best I can.

In the beginning, we had Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini.  A well-respected director with a keen eye for shooting some very beautiful and acclaimed movies, most notably his 'trilogy of life' films that lead to this project.  Sometime after finishing Arabian Nights, he reportedly fell into a depression.  If there's one thing that you can count on when a director gets depressed, it's that the characters in his works WILL suffer for it.

In keeping with this, Pasolini shot for the big leagues with this, his final film, 'Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom.'

As the title suggests, the story is loosely adapted from the infamous work by the Marquis de Sade (which, in my idiotic sense of car crash draw, I will likely subject myself to some day.)  Transporting the story of human nature's tendencies toward's cruelty and moral relativism to 1940s Italy (fun fact: the Italians view the town of Salò in particular as a reminder of their time as a fascist state.)  Here, four men, still credited as libertines despite the time and setting change, all propose the ultimate orgy.  With the clout offered to them by their position and soldiers, they round up nine young men and nine young women.  They then inform them all that, for the next 120 days, they are at the mercy of these four men and their numerous attendants.  What follows is like a waking nightmare as the unfortunate youths are subjected to all manner of physical, mental, and sexual torture with intent to debase and dehumanize.

Now, with a premise like that, one would expect this film to be simply tasteless sleaze.  A cavalcade of violence and sex designed purely to shock, offend, and/or titilate.  Surprisingly, it isn't.  It's certainly shocking, don't get me wrong, and within the context of the film, their actions have no real purpose other than serving the twisted whims of the libertines. 

Despite this, the film feels neither exploitative nor titilating.  In fact, I'd say if you know anyone who feels titilated by this film, you might want to keep your distance from them.  Not to tell you who to see and not to see, but that right there's a warning sign if ever I've heard one.  The film handles its actions in a very straightforward manner, actually.  It never feels like it's trying to manipulate your emotions or play up an act excessively.  It plays itself out and lets the very horror of the act itself speak for it.

Also, outside of the context, the film's horrors certainly carry a message with them.  Rather than simply being 'because I felt like it' or shock for shock's sake, the brutality in this movie says a lot, both on its own and to its audiences about inhumanity and the dehumanizing effects of certain systems on people on several levels.  On the surface, there's the obvious theme of how fascism leads to those in power treating those beneath them as subhuman and casually abusing and discarding them at their whim.  On the next level up, Pasolini adds some of his own political touches to the film, lending the ideas of loss of humanity to how a capitalist system can destroy people on every level.  This was confirmed to a degree by Pasolini himself with regards to the now infamous 'Circle of Shit' section of the movie, where he confirmed the victims being made to eat feces was in part an extension of his own feelings towards consumer capitalism and junk food. 

While I definitely find both of the levels of this interpretation interesting, I honestly feel like they have a sense of missing the forest for the trees, as it were.  I mean, there's a definite universal idea behind this movie that goes beyond singular political alignments, and I think de Sade himself had intended.  To say this is just what one ideology does to people seems to simplify the fact that, as history has shown us, just about any political or ideological system can devolve to such a point to demonstrate a propensity for cruelty like this movie features, and in some cases, worse.

On that last note, it's interesting to note that, for as strong a reputation as this film has for its shocking and graphic content, from the sounds of things, the original text is actually MUCH worse.  By this, I mean on reading samplings of it, I can imagine de Sade thumbing through a copy of American Psycho and thinking "Oh, isn't this cute?"

In terms of how this holds up as a movie beyond its ideology and interpretations therein, I think this is a big part of what really helps separate this from just being written off as another shocker.  The film itself is shot with a great eye for its visuals.  Its soul-searing visuals.  ...OK, even outside of that, Pasolini gets some beautiful countryside shots, and in general some of the scenes that aren't dedicated to depravity and human debasement are pretty damn nice looking.  The acting likewise, is mostly pretty good, especially given how much of the cast weren't established professionals.  I mean, you have to admire a group of teens who are willing to be filmed in various stages of undress being made to do all sorts of horrible things.
...though on this note, it does help that, from the sounds of things, the actual filming was pretty loose. A lot of light goofing around and whatnot, with much of the real horror coming together in the editing room (so much so that, in a few scenes, you could still see a few of the 'victims' cracking up in the background.)  Despite that, it's still played well enough that you do feel pity for these innocents, as well as a degree of disgust/shock when some of them go from victim to attacker in the infamous 'Circle of Blood' finale.

The more I distance from the initial shock of the film, the more my opinion of it kind of seems to be a curious split.  On the one hand, I have to admit, I am glad that I saw it.  There are some very interesting ideas in the film, and while they sometimes DO get lost in the noise of the "OH GOD!" factor that comes from de Sade's contribution, the ones that do get through do leave an impression on you.  At the same time, while it was worth the watch, I'm not sure I can honestly say I'd be in a hurry to watch it again or own it.  Which is both a good thing and a bad thing in a way.  While I don't feel a burning desire to own it, there's a part of me that feels I won't actually need to, but rather that it's going to simply stay with me (for good or ill.)

One of those awkward moments where the experience isn't pleasant, but there is a certain reward to it afterward in a way.  To those who do own and rewatch it, I tip my nonexistent hat to you, for you have a higher constitution than I.  I also feel a sense of relief, some alarm, and admittedly, a touch of disappointment at realizing that we'll never know what the other two parts of the 'death' trilogy this was supposed to be a part of were.

On this final note, that is one other fascinating thing I have to say for this movie.  That reputation the film has gained has lent it a sort of unique mythos.  Between its intense and controversial subject matter, the circumstances that led to its being made, and Pasolini's unfortunate and somewhat mysterious murder after its completion that may or may not be a result of his final work, the film has gained a sort of strange mystique.  Even if you don't see it firsthand, the backstory around it still makes for a fascinating learning project if you feel curious enough to look into it.  Hell, if one felt so inclined, they could make a pretty damn interesting documentary just around the legacy around this film, which in some ways almost eclipses the movie itself.

...wow.  Made it.  Managed to discuss the film in a reasonable manner without numerous capitalized exclamations of shock at the things I've seen in that 1 hour 50+ minute span.  I'm torn between feeling rewarded by my sense of curiosity and desiring to throw it down a flight of stairs.

...I should probably do the latter, it'll just hurt me again later.

...and yes, I realize this makes two reviews in a row without screencaps.  In this case, it was a blend of a low number of work-safe images and the question of how many cheeky captions could I make for images for this without feeling like an absolute bastard?  Even I have limits, you know.

I promise, images will return with the next entry.

Because sometimes the strangest things you dig up are also some of the best

Well, it took several entries and half-reviews that also bordered into larger commentaries, but at last we're back with a full on film review here.

I have to admit, in finally getting a momentum going, I kind of wanted to make the first review back something that stood out.  Which made for tough goings in choosing one.  I found a couple of possibilities, some of which will likely turn up in weeks to follow.

Then I stumbled across this sucker almost entirely by accident.

Like many people who are familiar with his name, when I think of Katsuhiro Otomo, the first immediate thought is inevitably going to be his magnum opus Akira.  Between the two versions of that story, as well as other projects, the man's name is firmly entrenched in popular culture as, first and foremost, an anime director and manga writer.  Which was why, in researching some of his lesser known work before, I was surprised to find he's tried his hand at live-action film making a couple of times over the years.

...I also knew then and there we had a winner on something to start the reviews up with again.

Sadly, his first live-action attempt, 'Give Me My Gun, Give Me Freedom' still eludes me (if anyone out there knows how to find a copy of this, translation or no, I will be indebted to you for tipping me off.)  After some digging however, I was able to track down his second feature, done with regular collaborator (and also great director) Satoshi Kon, the comedy-horror movie 'World Apartment Horror.'

It's at this point I'd like to apologize now for the lack of screencaps on this entry.  The only version of this I could find was an old VHS rip, and that at a pretty small resolution.  Watchable, certainly, but for reference images, left a lot to be desired.  If people really want, I can see about editing some in later, but for now, just seemed like it'd be best to omit them for the moment.

(In an extension of the earlier offer, if anyone can help me find a better quality copy of this movie, I will likely be indebted to them.)

So with that, let's stop the previews and get to the feature, shall we?

The story here plays out as equal parts similar and different.  We've all heard about stories that sound, if only in parts, similar to this set-up: protagonist Ita (played by Hiroyuki Tanaka) is an up and coming member of the Yakuza.  His bosses have assigned him to clear out a local apartment for demolition after the last member they sent to the job, Iri, vanished under strange circumstances.  Upon arriving, Ita finds the Japanese tenants have all left, either from being bought off or scared off.  However, now he must contend with the numerous foreigners living on the second floor.  Faster than you can say 'I smell a sitcom,' the communications breakdowns fly and an increasingly agitated Ita becomes more and more desperate to make these guys leave.
...of course, further complicating matters is the ghost in the building that has targeted him and is believed to have driven his predecessor out of his mind.

It all sounds somewhat silly, and to be fair, some parts of it are meant to be (scenes such as Ita's threats being misunderstood by the tenants, leading some to respond to his calls of 'Yakuza' by taking his name to be 'Yaku-san') but overall, it still manages to carry itself fairly well.  The tenants all have their assorted roles they fill without feeling too much like archetypes.  Some of them start going that path (well-meaning Chinese student Chan for one) but as the movie goes on, they begin to move beyond their established molds.

The biggest challenge that seems to be presented to the cast, and one of the more jarring elements for the film comes as a result of the diversity featured therein - cast members switch languages around quite a bit, often in the same conversations.  Eventually you get into the pattern of it, though it does seem odd when the Japanese subtitles suddenly come onto the screen because a tenant has switched to Korean partway through a conversation.  Even further when they start working in English at times.  While I can't speak too definitively for their language skills with many of them, their English is handled relatively well.  Really, the cast largely survive the lingual shifts without it hampering their performances too much.  The only stumbling coming to mind being near the end of the film when Indian resident Kara, in a moment I can't say too much for for spoilage reasons, switches into English in the middle of explaining his actions. 

For a man fueled by revenge, his English lines don't seem to carry the same anger his Japanese do.

On this note, I have to give Otomo and Kon some pretty strong points for where they decided to take this story.  For what could have easily just been a very light comedy, the film still manages to say a couple of substantial things regarding the subject of race relations in Japan.

 It doesn't get too deep into them, naturally, as this isn't a film designed to really explore and debate them, but the fact is the movie doesn't try to just gloss over them.  The final third of the movie in particular brings the fact that these tenants aren't particularly welcomed with open arms elsewhere to the fore, as they are faced with the debate over whether to deal with the ghost inhabiting their apartment, or leave it to drive Ita mad and thus deal with the man who's been trying to force them out.  For a film that's predominantly a comedy to address these elements for more than just humor is actually a nice touch, especially handling it in a way that doesn't feel overwrought playing up the emotion.

For not having much experience with live-action projects under the belt, Otomo still manages to make a solid effort with this film.  The camera definitely gets more of a chance to move around and explore scenes than other Japanese films sometimes allow for, and the western roots the man has credited as inspiring his love of film can definitely be seen in the way some parts of this are shot. 

Longtime Otomo fans will, of course, also be pleased to see that, even though this lacks the big sci-fi settings he's known for, his penchant for the 'final act = all Hell breaks loose' idea still makes an appearance here, in a particularly memorable fashion involving, without giving too many elements away: ghostly posession, a welder-cum-witch doctor, and a confrontation between the tenants, the Yakuza, and Ita's predecessor, now quite out of his mind.

I'm not gonna say this is a career high for either of the two major players involved in making it happen.  It's a fun movie, sure, but it can get a bit dodgy at points, and the acting, as I said above, is hit or miss depending when in the movie you look.  Nevertheless, it's an interesting experiment for two people predominantly versed in animation and the freedoms it can provide in a story as well as a rather curious breed of movie in general.  Granted, Japan has combined horror and comedy before this (I will again pimp out Obayashi's 'House',) but the way the two are blended here, complete with the creators' working in a subtheme of race relations, manages to give the film enough of a unique voice on its own.  For the bumps in the road, it's still an interesting enough trip to take for something different, and worth the time should you be lucky enough to stumble across it somewhere in your travels.

Feels pretty good to be back into reviewing again.  Also, to be able to shine some light on a film that hasn't gotten a lot of love, really.

Hopefully will be doing these more often, including several had on backlog in the future.

Catch ya hopefully sooner rather than later

Seeking a Friend* (*For Possible End of the World. Inquire Within.)

Or: Marketing in Film and the Increased Problem With Misleading Advertising (...which sounds less interesting, but is more to the point.)

OK.  I promise we're going to get back to the older stuff soon, but this was one of those moments recently that really got me thinking on film in general.  As with most of those 'get to thinking' moments, once it burrowed its way in, it was only a matter of time before I finally just caved and wrote about it.

In this case, as the title suggests, it comes from recently watching the movie Seeking a Friend For the End of the World.

This isn't a review per se, though for the record, I have to say I did find the film worth seeing.  However, one of the things that I was struck by was just how, compared to how the film was marketed, it was a rather different beast of a movie.  Yes, there was some comedic parts to it, and those were entertaining (in particular a brief appearance by Patton Oswalt leads to probably the funniest scene in the movie.)  At the same time though, I was struck by just how much of the film was more understated and, as it went on, downright sad in terms of content.  I mean, yeah, the title lets you know how that yes, by the end of this movie the world will end.  But watching the ads, you get the sense of a much more light-hearted and goofy ride to that proverbial 'Great Gig in the Sky' than the film actually delivers.  Very little is said in the promotion for the fact Carrel's Dodge spends much of the first half of the movie bordering on a despondent depression, or the fact that, by the last half hour, the film has abandoned the joking road trip entirely and takes on a much sadder feel before getting to a fairly heartbreaking ending.  Now, granted, I'll accept that that makes for a much harder sell in a film, so that may be why people were hesitant to mention it within the ads.  At the same time though, it really sells the film short as a more disposable comedy than the finished product actually is.  As a result, those who do go in based on the strength of those ads are in for a pretty harsh trapdoor opening beneath them.

Unfortunately, by this point, the film has already been subjected to a painful opening weekend, coming in #10 at the box office.  While I hold some hope that word of mouth could help it regain some wind, the fact is that, in the eyes of the distributors, it's already dead.  Thanks to the general practice of abandoning a film if it fails to perform right out of the gate, it's safe to say this won't be getting any help from the ads any more...if one could say they helped in the first place.

In thinking back at how misleading the advertising on this film was, and subsequently how it probably did have a hand in the poor box office performance (being put up against Pixar for their opening weekend wasn't doing them any favors either,) I couldn't help but realize how much of a track record there has been in recent films for ads that leave you feeling like you're in for one sort of film, only to find yourself looking at a different film entirely.

Earlier this year also saw a different example of this at work, albeit with more success for the film in question.  After being trapped on studio shelves for two years, the movie Cabin in the Woods was finally released this spring with marketing emphasizing it as a creepy horror film that turns conventions on their ear (to a degree that some felt was spoiling elements of it.)
...what those ads didn't really mention was that, for as seriously as they tried to depict the proceedings, the actual film was less of a horror film, and more a surprisingly sharp black comedy that made light of a LOT of horror movie tropes as the basis for much of its humor.
It was in that light that the word of mouth about the movie spread (well...word of mouth and some strong buzz in fan circles, partly thanks to Joss Whedon's involvement,) and arguably actually did more for the film's success than the actual marketing did, going on to make a film that was something of a dark horse into one of the more successful films of this spring.

While looking at examples of this, another curious one, that others before me have pointed out, comes from the above mentioned Pixar release of this summer, Brave.

Now, I imagine some of you are probably going "...really?  How the Hell can you say a Pixar film is mismarketed?"

Well, here's the weird part - for an interesting experiment, and one I'm sure some of you may have already done since I know I'm not the first to point this out, look up the American trailer of the film compared to the Japanese trailer.

The former is much more focused on the comedic and character elements of the movie, with emphasis on the film's female lead and her desire to break out of her role within the medieval society.  The latter, meanwhile, brings up elements of plot completely omitted from the American version (such as the fact Merida makes a deal with a witch in her quest to change her fate) and, as some have described it, feels less like a light-hearted comedy and more like Pixar's version of a Studio Ghibli story.

 (If Blogger's formatting cuts off part of the video, click here)

Second verse, same as the first

I have to admit, while both of these look fairly worth the watch, the Japanese take is the one that really has me interested to see it.

Finally, and in another example of how advertising can hurt box office performances, let's travel back to approximately this past winter.  Before the Oscars really helped bring the film back into the limelight, Martin Scorsese's Hugo ushered its way into theaters with probably one of the most vague ad campaigns this side of the much less fortunate John Carter.  Unless one was already familiar with the novel the film was adapting, the ads told you almost nothing about what you were in for.  Looking back, all I remember of them was "Martin Scorsese directed, and there appears to be some sort of clockwork person...also Ben Kingsley."  Even what information I could find online was a mixed bag.  From talking to others, I certainly wasn't alone in this sentiment, and it showed in its performance.  For its budget and high profile director, the movie opened #5 at the box office, and only managed to climb up to #3 by virtue of word of mouth after the fact.  It did eventually manage to regain some steam thanks to said word of mouth and the eventual push by the Oscars, but it's hard to deny the cypher that was its initial marketing likely had a hand in its rather lackluster debut.

These are, of course, just a few examples, and far from isolated incidents (again, take a look at the equally vague advertising on John Carter, as well as their decision to shorten the title in fear of 'Mars' driving away viewers, and how that lead to one of the biggest flops in recent movie history.)  They can, however, be said to be indicative of a problem that seems to have increased in recent years, as it seems like the people in charge are either uncertain of how to advertise these films, if not unwilling to mention certain elements of them for fear it will turn off general interest.

Is it my place to tell these people how to do their jobs?  Not officially, no.  However, I will say, at this point, it might do for studios to re-evaluate the role marketing has in movies,and hopefully start taking it more seriously in the future.

Great Expectations - Separating the Slip-Ups From the Unforgivable Sins Since...

Or - I Throw My Hat In On the Mountain of Internet Chatter On Prometheus

For the record, while I can appreciate a good bit of fanservice
as much as the next guy...Ridley, you really should have known
playing up the ties to Alien was gonna bite you here.

So...it's technically a bit behind, but what the Hell?

There's been a lot of buzz on the web over the last two weeks about Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus.'  It's been a rather curious mix.  On the one hand, it's doing fairly well critically, sitting at a comfortable 73% on Rotten Tomatoes and having enjoyed a 2 week stay at the #2 spot at the box office, even this week only sliding down to 4th.

When you look on the web, however, it's a different story.  Just going on the internet's reviews, this movie would seem an absolute flop.  Sure, some people have liked it, but there has been a LOT of hate for this movie.  I mean genuine, venomous hatred.  Entire articles about putting one's finger in the plot holes and wiggling around to get more blood to come out of them.  People acting like this is one of the worst films to come out of Hollywood this summer (I'm going to guess this is partially because their survival instinct has allowed them to forget things like last week's 'That's My Boy' coming out.)

I'm going to start by saying, I'm not going to defend this...not entirely, anyway.  I'm not going to say the movie is perfect.  I do feel the story had some very good ideas at its core, but the execution DID leave a lot to be desired (sorry Lindelof, those stunts work well when you only need to keep people distracted for an hour a week.  It loses much of its allure when you only get one shot to keep people busy and you're still expected to have an explanation for why you kept them so busy.) 

I'd also like to mention on an aside, though this is only a partial slight against this movie and more a general complaint about the current industry in general, that Guy Pearce's makeup as old man Weyland was, for a film with this much attention paid to its visuals, downright awful.  It looked rather last minute and was definitely another strike against the film, albeit not one as damning as the script.  Plus, again, I can't say this one's so much exclusively a fault of this movie, as there has been a fair amount of terrible aging jobs in recent film these days.  Especially sad when films from decades earlier, using more basic makeup, can manage to add 30 or more years to an actor's face and be much more convincing for it.  Or, as others have asked, they could have simply cast an older actor from the get-go and leave Pearce to the viral videos.

But, like I said, that's an aside and not fully prevalent to my main point.

Despite these complaints, I do feel the hatred for this film is rather exaggerated.  To put it mildly.  I mean, from the way some of these people have declared it, you'd think the film had absolutely nothing of value to offer for it.  Which isn't the case.  Yes, the script was a mess of conveniences, awkwardly telegraphed symbolism and interesting, if half-formed ideas.  At the same time, the cast mostly still manage to make good work of what they're given, despite some receiving pretty underwhelming tools to work with (especially Fassbender, who even many of the most angry reviews can still manage to speak well for) and the visuals are some of the best I've seen in a film this year thus far.

At worst, I'd say it's still about a B- in terms of its quality.  The script is certainly a weak point, but it's not bad enough to sink the whole deal when the rest of the pieces mostly manage to carry themselves well.

So why the hate?  Why is it there are people that act like this movie was such an utter waste of their time, even as crappier films can and have been released this year.

Honestly, I think it's a large part the inevitable backlash that occurs from heightened expectation.

It's easy to forget a dismissable abortion like the above-mentioned TMB because no one had high hopes for it.  Sandler's career has been limping along for ages now and this is just another nail in its casket, albeit not as damning as Jack and Jill.  Prometheus, however, was something people legitimately wanted to be good.  As they had every reason to, mind you.  I'm not saying people are to blame for the fact that the movie is being hated.  Simply that a lot of the dislike for this seems to be more an exaggerated response.

People in general were expecting a lot of this film, both with regards to its relationship to Alien, and as the next big summer blockbuster after The Avengers.  Unfortunately for the crew here, with an opening act like that, they REALLY needed to bring an A-game on all fronts.  So when one of the team's star players underperformed with a script that expected its viewers to accept his 'build a lot of mysteries, answer none of them' style that managed to keep him working on TV well enough, people were quick to catch his failure.

This was a film that should have been better than what it was.  Does this necessarily make it a bad film?  Not particularly.  Nor does it make it a great one.  It's a pretty decent film that I'd argue is at least worth seeing in theaters to really get the most out of the visuals. 

Unfortunately, because people were expecting more of it (and again, that's not entirely their fault,) and thanks to the general 'love it or hate it' extremes that have become so prevalent on the web in the last decade or so, this in turn has translated to people calling it an unforgivable mess of a movie and acting like it has absolutely nothing of any value to give to a moviegoer.

Of course, part of this may also be a matter of timing.  We're still in the first weeks of release for a film that had spent a LOT of time building to a boil with viral marketing campaigns and general hype being played as far as the studios could get them to go.  The promotion was handled as such to work a good chunk of the web fanbase into a mild frenzy for this.  A risky game to play no matter who you are.  I mean, if you can please the people, great.  But if you're film stumbles, that crowd you've worked up won't hesitate to turn on you in an instant.

Consider, if you will, the infamous summer of 1999, for example.  Granted, the web wasn't quite as connected back then, so this didn't have quite the same levels, but the principle will remain the same here.
That summer saw the release of the much awaited, and hyped, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace.  We had a lot of hopes riding on that movie...and, despite bringing some serious star power, Lucas managed to completely underwhelm everyone.

At the time, admittedly somewhat understandably, the web was PISSED.  Episode I hate became a sport in some circles of the web (in some, it till is, but that's a matter for another discussion.)  You'd swear everyone who saw this movie got treated to a reel of George Lucas punching their parents and then violating their most beloved family pets before he wiped is buttocks with the money they'd just shelled out for tickets.  It angered people THAT much.

Flash forward to now.  Sure, some people still REALLY hate the movie...but for the most part, people have calmed down.  The general consensus is more that it was just a disappointment or a forgettably bad movie rather than something that would drive people to absolute hatred.

I suspect, given time, Prometheus will follow along similar lines.  It hasn't even been a month since its release, so a lot of the hype and subsequent disappointment are still pretty fresh in everyone's minds.  The further it gets from its initial public consciousness, the absolute "Fuck this movie!" mentality will likely cool to "Eh.  It was a letdown." or "It was OK.  Could have been better." or any number of iterations in between.

As it stands, I'm still marking the film as 'watchable, if flawed.'  I plan to give it a rewatch later down the line when the hype has died down to see if my opinion changes any now that I won't have it being constantly out there to effect me in any way, though I suspect I may still look at it with the same level of "Just OK."  That I currently see it as.

Unless Ridley Scott plans to replay his 'Kingdom of Heaven' hat trick and turn up a director's cut that SERIOUSLY reinvents the movie, anyway.  That will be a whole other matter to discuss when the time comes.  For now, I'm just going to leave it at not really worth the hype, but not really deserving of the contempt either.  A largely pretty good effort sadly hindered in one of its vital spots by two writers who, based off their resumes, were probably not the most experienced people for the job (between them only two other feature films had been written prior to this.  Of them one tanked horribly and the other was based on an existing piece of media, so he kind of had half the story structured for him.)

A shame, certainly, but not one to really get as angry as some people have over.

...interestingly on the note of Lindelof, no one seemed to mind the holes in his Star Trek reboot as badly.  Though it probably helps that expectations seemed to be generally lower for that movie.

Concerning Bath Salts, Zombies, and The Fine Art of Letting Things Go

OK.  I was telling myself I wouldn't write this.  I was telling myself once I go back to work, I'd actually start things off with a review.  Even picked out the movie and got the review started.

But sometimes, something comes along and you just have to comment on it.

I know I'm not alone on this one, and frankly, some people have already said this probably in better terms than I will.  At the same time, it's one of those statements where somehow, it's not enough to just point to someone else and go "What they said."  You just have to get it out there yourself.

And so it comes to this.

When the first news report came out of Florida, we all had a somewhat macabre laugh.  Sure, some poor bastard just got his face chewed off by a guy who was pretty far out of his mind on bath salts.  Like the Darwin Awards, it's something horrible that happens to a person, but at the same time, we couldn't help but be amused.  Inevitably, once reports of a naked man eating another man's face hit the web, murmurs of the zombie apocalypse inevitably started.

...but it didn't stop there.

Suddenly, the web became riddled with stories of people eating people.  An event that, surreal as it sounds, is apparently more common than we gave it credit for.  Especially where drugs are concerned. 

On a quick aside on that note, I'd just like to say - THIS is the kind of shit we need to show people in anti-drug videos.  People aren't gonna remember the video of some idiotic stoner shooting themselves, because that shit almost never happens anyway.  But show them someone who's baked their brain on bath salts eating another man's flesh and kids are GONNA remember it.

Anyway, I'm getting off point here.  The thing is, this all turned into a surreal cause and effect.  The web caught fire with the first story and got caught up in zombie fever, and the news sites got wind of it and obliged people with more stories of people eating people, the unluckiest people in the world.  Any question of whether or not the news sites were deliberately feeding on this (no pun intended) went out the window for me earlier today whe I saw the most recent cannibalism account on The Huffington Post with the interest tag 'zombie apocalypse'

Incidentally, I'd also be VERY concerned about anyone who votes 'Hot' on this story.

What am I getting at with this?

It's an uncomfortable thing I've been batting around for a while now.  With each new account of the production clusterfuck that was the World War Z movie, I figured it was a stumbling block.  When every new FPS game suddenly had a 'zombie' mode, I got even less certain.  With the lackluster performance of the second season of The Walking Dead, I was seriously starting to wonder (though I will admit, I am somewhat hopeful for season 3 based on what we know of the process so far.)

...but that last part aside, in light of these news stories, as well as just all the backlogs of merchandise for it that, by this point, are starting to clutter store shelves like the creatures they depict, I honestly don't mind saying...

I think we finally killed the zombie trend.
Or if we haven't it's time to finally lay it to rest.

I hate to say that, cause it's been some fun times getting to this point.  Sure, not everything we got out of it was gold, but we DID have some pretty fun stuff leading up to it.

But it's time to put it back on the shelf for a while and let it take its much deserved rest instead of letting it linger and overstay it's welcome like...well...a zombie.

Especially given how eagerly some people seem to be latching onto these bad trip stories with an almost eagerness to see a zombie apocalypse happen.  I know this is giving you news sites some great traffic, but really, ease off now before someone really gets worked up enough that some poor bastard gets a shotgun to the chest.

In short, much like in the Italian movie Zombi, the undead craze has jumped shark.  Unlike in that movie, however, it's not ending well for the zombie.

I'm not saying it's never again, but let's give it a well deserved break for a decade or two.

So thanks in the meantime to, among the following: George Romero, Robert Kirkman, Danny Boyle, Edgar Wright, Max Brooks, Frank Darabont Sam Raimi (OK, you didn't actually add to the genre during this new wave, but hey, the Evil Dead movies are still great times) and too many others to properly hope to thank without this going on any longer than it has for the years when this new wave went well...even if Boyle won't actually consider his work zombies.

...of course, this will raise the question of what's to follow.  Time will tell, really.  But for now, let's just leave this one to rest for a while.

To quote another film involving the undead:
"Sometimes, dead is better."

We now return you to this week's--OH HELL! OSCAR DERAILER!

So...remember that article I promised last time? The one where I finally put down my $0.02 on a particular element of film and nerddom that's been getting reevaluated all around?

Well, technically, I'm a liar. I say technically for two reasons
1) I do still plan to deliver on that, but frankly, this piece called to me to get finished first.
and
2) This technically also meets that description, just not as the subject I had in mind.

So what was the topic that pre-empted this entry that is mutating into a two-article topic on its own? Why none other than that wonderful mess of industry politics, questionable decisions, and the occasional good call that is the Academy Awards.

Now, before I begin, I want to say something I've been noticing over the last few months that, honestly, I find pretty encouraging in a weird way.

In light of the recent controversies over copyright and control of the web that have been raging over the internet over the past few months (and I imagine many of you are sick to death of hearing about), I did note one thing that hadn't fully sunk in before that, the more I think about it, is actually rather exciting. The fact is, while the entertainment industry at large seems to be solely opposed to the fact this technology can be used to distribute their goods without them getting payment, there is another area where one can't shake the feeling they're also feeling threatened - in this new age of distribution and greater access to technology, the floodgates for distribution of film have widened.

We're on the verge of an age where being able to make and distribute a film without having to rely on major studio backing is becoming less dream and more reality again.

A prospect that some have speculated leaves the current industry another step closer to being rendered obsolete by the times, a problem they've been wrestling with as it is through their stubborn attempts to block rather than embrace new technology.

'What the Hell does any of this have to do with the Oscars?' some of you are probably asking right about now. Directly, nothing. Indirectly though, it addresses the same question of 'are you relevant anymore?' that has been slowly growing over the industry these last few months.

It's hard to deny that, in light of this year's nominee announcements, reactions were altogether mixed. Almost immediately, lists of numerous films that people thought were snubbed, if not outright shut out, began cropping up on the web. Now, some response of "* was robbed" is to be expected to a degree with nominees in general cause...hey, it's an awards show, not everyone's going to have the same opinions. This year's response, however, seemed much more pronounced than usual, with the absence of several features (some of which I will go into later) called into question and, in turn, people questioning the appearance on the lists of others (most notably, Stephen Daldry's 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close', one of the only Best Picture nominees in general, and of this year's crop, the only one, to actually garner a 'rotten' score on metacritic site RottenTomatoes.)

In light of all of this, more and more people now seem to be asking that inevitable, uncomfortable question - why do we even care about this show? Sure, it's got some nice surprises at times, and some people may enjoy seeing the hardworking members of the industry (and I want to stress that, when I take issue with the industry at large, it's more with studio heads than it is the people actually making the films) all gathered together and decked to the nines for one night that will, inevitably, exceed its given time slot on the networks with almost as much certainty as a Superbowl game.
But as a former benchmark of film quality, is it really relevant anymore?
I mean, how many people here now look and go "This won best picture? That's gotta be good then!" Or how many people feel the need to go to a film on the basis of "Oscar-winning actor *" being in it?
I don't know about you guys, but from the people I've talked to, it just doesn't matter that much anymore. Hell, to some degree, one has to wonder how much it even mattered to begin with, if the numerous lists of bad calls made by the Oscars over the years that crop up like clockwork with each awards season are any indication (fun fact - one of the most acclaimed films of American cinema was beaten in its year for Best Picture. I'm sure some of you already know which one.)

On some level, it seems like the Academy is also aware of its diminishing relevance (how can they not be? It's been acknowledged ratings have been low the past few years, and this year's article revealing the majority of the Academy voter base to be white men over 50 (*) have made it hard for them to ignore it.) To their credit, they have also tried to fix this problem, either by increasing the openings for Best Picture nominee a few years ago from 5 to 9, and actually, for the first time in years, making an effort to try and broaden their horizons, albeit in one of the 'safer' categories. Don't get me wrong guys, I love that you're finally opening 'Best Animated' up to foreign entries besides Studio Ghibli again (and I want to make this clear, this is NOT a knock on Ghibli. Just saying, in the past, this seemed to be as far out of their comfort zone as the Academy was willing to go, which lead to some other greats being sadly shafted) but the fact it took this long to do so disappoints me.

Unfortunately, many of these efforts feel like they're coming too little, too late. Plus the sheer number of things people pointed out as having been ignored by the Academy this year, arguably more so than most other years, seems to suggest the awards are now, without dispute, falling out of faith with the general movie going public.

Now, this isn't to say all of their choices this year are bad. In fact, they have selected several good films this year. The problem is, the number of other equally, or in some cases better movies that got little to no acknowledgment doesn't reflect well on their criteria in general.

...and since I've discussed it several times now, I suppose it's only fitting to round out this article by throwing my $0.02 in on several of the titles that were ignored this year.

Now, given the somewhat long nature of this list, and the fact you guys have already been subjected to enough ramblings, we're gonna try and keep this one moving at a brisk pace (cause as a general rule, we'll all be wondering "How much longer do they plan to go?" tomorrow night.)

Don't be surprised if some, or all of these, you've seen on other lists so far...cause they really do deserve better than they're currently getting:


-Melancholia

Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director (oh come on, say what you will about his comments, and let's face it, those are why he's not on here, von Trier IS a good director)
-Cinematography
-Actress (take your pick, they both stepped up for this one.)
-Supporting actor

In short - were it not for the fact that von Trier's made himself a fair number of enemies with his off-the-cuff comments, this would have been a contender to beat this year. Of course, even if it weren't for von Trier's penchant for PR magic, I can't shake the feeling some of the subject matter of this film also probably cost it some Academy brownie points. I don't just mean the ending (which I can't rightly say I'm spoiling since you know the Earth is doomed within the first five minutes), but the film's rather frank look at depression. This is also where I'd say the acting nominations would pay off. Just as the film doesn't try to sugarcoat Dunst's character's depression, the performances by both her as well as Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kiefer Sutherland trying to help support her, alongside coping with the entire 'Earth is doomed' plotline. But the latter is still a secondary story to that depression element, which the film depicts in showing as sympathetic but not saintly. There are times where we can relate to Gainsbourg and Sutherland's frustration, but at the same time, we know it's not really something that Dunst is consciously doing. In short, it's an honest look at a mental illness.

-Take Shelter

Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director
-Actor
-Actress
-Original Screenplay
-Cinematography

In short - Alongside Melancholia, oh WOW did this film get the proverbial short end of the stick. Again, I wonder how much of this was exposure and how much was the fact that the subject matter wasn't necessarily voter friendly (I mean, mental illness isn't new ground for the Academy in films, but as it's depicted here...well...there's a reason the 'Never go full retard' scene in the movie Tropic Thunder exists. In this film it's not retardation, but the principle remains the same.) Between the film's rather straightforward look at a tricky subject, as well as how it plays in ambiguity to the very end as far as whether Michael Shannon's character's visions are real or not, it's already walking a tenuous road. Despite this, the film carries itself quite well, and in particular leads Shannon and Jessica Chastain both deliver some phenomenal work with roles that could have easily been overdone. It took an interesting approach at a subject that, for some, is still rather uncomfortable...and I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of what cost it recognition.
...of course, again, it could just be the exposure issue.

-Martha Marcy May Marlene

Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director
-Actress
-Original Screenplay

In short - OK, the fact this got NOTHING is still mind-boggling. Especially in light of some of the other entries that got in this year. This is what people are talking about when they say you guys are losing touch, Academy. Again, maybe this was an exposure issue. Maybe it's the fact this movie came before the big awards season (and yes, the fact is when over the year a movie comes out DOES effect its odds with the Academy.) Or maybe, and I apologize for the fact I'm coming back to this, maybe this is another case where the concept wasn't exactly warming up to voters. I mean, like the previous two, we're looking at a film which addresses mental disorders with a rather straight face. The victims aren't lionized, nor are they shunned. We simply see what this condition does to them and those around them (in this case thanks in a large part to a sadly overlooked performance by Elisabeth Olsen.) Knowing what Martha has been through during her time in a commune-like cult, we do feel bad for her, but at the same time, we can see why her sister and her fiance are frustrated with her at points throughout the movie. Alongside that, the film's avoiding trying to completely side with either part of the issue, tied with an ambiguity in the script (to such a degree that the viewer is left wondering what is real and what is paranoid delusion) may have also cost this any chances at the big win. I do want to believe I'm just seeing the worst in these situations, but the more I look at the spread that got in next to the stuff that didn't...it DOES raise suspicions.

-We Need to Talk About Kevin

Possible nominations:
-Director
-Actress
-Adapted Screenplay

In short - I'm sensing a pattern here now. It seems like the more 'downer' films from the year are getting pretty roundly shut out here. Now, this could just be coincidence. I could be reading this wrong. But when, as several people have noticed, the films that deal with more uncomfortable subject matters are getting shut out, while a film like EL&IC, amid a LOT of mixed reception, made it all the way up to best picture, it DOES raise suspicions that maybe these films aren't being left out on matters of quality, but simply because the voters aren't liking what they have to say.

-Drive

Possible nominations:
-Picture
-Director
-Supporting Actor
-Film Editing

In short - Of all of these nomination suggestions, if I had to bat for anyone, I'd join the voices in saying Albert Brooks got shafted from a best supporting actor nomination. Of course, this isn't to say he was alone here. For his own role, Bryan Cranston's turn in this was also worth some acknowledgment. Especially in a year where the Academy has shown they're willing to offer up two nominees from the same film in the same category. Granted, if forced to pick between the two (begrudgingly so,) I'd side with Brooks. In either case, the fact this film only got a nomination for Sound Editing leaves one feeling like this movie, like the others above, should have gotten some more acknowledgment than it did.

-The Adventures of Tintin

Possible nominations:
-Animated Feature
-Adapted Screenplay

In short - OK, I'm still really disappointed this one didn't get a shot. I mean, again, on the one hand, I love the fact we're getting more foreign feature coverage this year in the animated category. On the other, I do still find the fact this lost a slot to the three entries from the US we did get seems rather underwhelming. I've heard some speculation that it was loopholed out due to the fact a lot of it was motion capture. If that's true, I'm going to have to express my disappointment, since that feels like taking an easy out to keep this one from a nomination. As animated features went this year, it was definitely one of the fresher entries this year and, coming from someone who had misgivings about this, more than did the source material justice while still being generally entertaining.

-Meek's Cutoff

Possible nominations:
-Director
-Actress
-Cinematography

In short - I'm not sure if this was just the fact it came out too early with little fanfare and exposure or if voters just weren't that crazy about it's approach. I stress the part on lack of exposure...this was one of those full on 'find the nearest arthouse theater, cause if you think this is going to appear in your usual theater, you've either been very lucky or drinking.' It's a damned shame in either case. In an industry that takes a lot of flak these days for reheating old stories and general unoriginality, this film took what, in other hands, could have been a very cliched story and managed to put it in a new spin that actually leaves one remembering the execution almost more than the plot itself. Further to this end, given the film's 'in media res'/'slice of life' approach to its story, it makes the acting (in particular, lead Michelle Williams) even more of a challenge as they don't have the ability to make the full traditional story arc.

-Hanna

Possible nominations:
-Original score

In short - OK, this one I won't say too much on compared to the others. But the work The Chemical Brothers did for the soundtrack, as a nice change from the traditional soundtrack, would have been nice to see make the list (one thing I will give the Academy on this note - giving last year's Original Score to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross was one of their better calls.)

...so yeah, there's been a lot of questions about this year. I won't say I'm entirely displeased with what we did get, as there have been some good picks in the running as well. Unfortunately, it does make it hard to lend credence to the award as a mark of quality when you see this many good entries getting left at the wayside simply because they either came out at the wrong time, or weren't backed by the right people.

In any event, will be interesting to see how it all pools out tomorrow.

...and yes, next week I WILL make good on that other post was talking about.

That One Holiday Card That Arrives The Better Part of a Week Too Late and Is Addressed to the Wrong Person.

Look well, for this is the face of
the threat to the sanctity of marriage in this country
(...allegedly. I just see an angry ex-child star.)

On a slightly more informal schedule, we return to the Third Row, once again just a little behind a holiday, though hopefully not without a warped sense of how to celebrate it.

After how (relatively) well the Halloween entries went last year (read: they actually got done) I contemplated trying to do reviews for other festive occasions. While Christmas didn't happen this time (though several great targets are lined up for the future) that marked Valentine's Day as the next most likely to try and find something to review.

...now, with an event like this one, known by many for its crass commercialization, its overemphasis on the importance of relationships, and the fact it tends to just be a really shit day of the year when you're single, the very nature of this Hallmark holiday lent itself to a lot of REALLY horrible ways I could take this. Bad stalker films. Downright disturbed relationships. Or just go straight for the 'insane exes' style of film making.

...in what some would consider a twist of perverse holiday kismet, and others just some really bizarre timing, the answer came to me actually from an unexpected source...and appropriately enough, while with my girlfriend.

To try and bring this preamble to a close in a nutshell...the both of us are, to differing degrees, cinematic masochists. While we enjoy as great classic from time to time, there's just something to be said for the cinematic equivalent of a flaming train wreck sometimes to really take the edge off a day. It was with this mindset we found a winner.

Without further ado, I submit to you probably one of the most uncomfortable romantic movies I have ever watched - Kirk Cameron's 'Fireproof.'

Now, in starting this I will admit, as far as romance goes, my taste in film isn't exactly the most synced up. If asked to pick my favorite, I can't help but feel I'd opt for Woody Allen's 'Annie Hall' (yeah, the movie is about the couple post-breakup, but in the flashbacks, you really can see what these two see in each other. Plus, even the breakup phase is pretty damn accessible.) So I'll admit, I went into this expecting some schmaltz and with lowered expectations.

...what I got was a film that, the more I think about it, the more I find it to be rather disheartening.

The story itself is part of where the initial problem lies. Cameron plays the main character, Caleb, a firefighter whose marriage is on the rocks... ...to put it lightly. Right out of the gate, these two are at each other's throats. I mean there is some serious venom in this (...or at least as much venom as you're going to get in a film with Cameron as your mainliner. In this case, the most withering putdown he can think to apply to his wife is by calling her a woman. Which feels rather anticlimactic since the buildup to the line leads you to believe he's about to drop a bomb he'll REALLY regret as a sign their marriage needs some SERIOUS help.)

Even the causes of their arguments come across as, honestly, pretty petty. OK, I could understand being upset that, presumably, your husband's looking at cyberporn (the movie tries to address this in a rather tame fashion that mostly just makes it look like Cameron will be enticed by ANYTHING) but the rest of the argument just smacks of two people looking for reasons to rip into each other.

So, right out of the gate, we have quite possibly one of the most loveless couples I've seen in film in a LONG time.

In their own separate social spheres, the two get advice from their own relative circle of friends and family. I'm under the impression that creators of this film don't seem to get out of their own social bubble that much, as many of them don't sound or feel that much like real people, so much as what the writers believe these people sound like. Unfortunately, they sound like archetypes, at best, stereotypes at worst. Most of it's pretty benign at least...though I can't help but feel there's something unintentionally offensive about how the wife's black friends are depicted. Anyway, HERE is where the movie starts getting uncomfortable for me.

With the exception of a couple of the friends who suggest divorce (I DO commend this movie that, despite its obvious ideological overtones, it refrained from vilifying divorce) their friends are all pulling for them. Now, you may be wondering why I would be opposed to that. It's simple - their sole reason comes down to 'God wouldn't like it.' Next to nothing is said for whether or not they were a good couple before, it's either citing the Bible or "relationships take work."

Eventually, at the behest of Caleb's father, a devout Christian, he takes up a 40 day program to 'fireproof' his marriage (it's worth noting the DVD also includes a version of this program for people to use in their own homes...kind of gives you the sense the program was made first with the movie crafted around it...a feeling the film itself just adds THAT much more ground to.) Caleb is understandably dubious, but agrees to give it a shot. You can guess where this is going from here...in the end, Caleb overcomes his demons, restores his marriage, and finds God.

Happy ending, right?

Maybe if we actually cared. Which is probably the biggest problem of the film.
Do I agree that relationships take work? Yes.
The problem here is, the work still needs to have some sort of a foundation to build on. Over the course of the movie, we never really get a sense of what brings this couple together. Much less why they've stayed together (they can't even fall back on the old 'they have a kid and they don't want to put him/her through that' logic.) Not to mention their own interactions feel, altogether, platonic, even when their marriage is supposedly getting saved.

In another set of hands, I can't help but feel this could have been an interesting, if somewhat depressing drama - two people who let themselves get into a marriage born more out of religious convictions than genuine affection and then find, though they don't actually love each other, their beliefs keep either from simply walking away.

...granted, even in its current form, the film still feels that way, albeit likely not by design. Just, at the end, the couple seem to have fooled themselves into believing they've fixed their relationship (this is largely a result of Caleb being less of a jerk and doing an exceedingly selfless act for his wife, Catherine's, mother.)

Does this make him a nice guy? Certainly. The problem is, we still don't get a sense of what these two see in each other. I mean, by the end of the film I could at least see them staying friends after the divorce, but there's not really any sense that their marriage is worth much of anything based on what we see in the film.

It's safe to say this wasn't by design...at least I hope it wasn't. The script is already a strike, emphasizing why marriage in general is worth saving but not why we should care to see THIS marriage saved. It makes the film maker's intentions a bit too apparent for this as a, loathe as I am to normally use this line since I feel it's abused too often, propaganda piece for the sanctity of marriage.

I'm not just jumping the gun or being anti-Christian here, either. Honestly, like almost anything in this world, I feel Christianity used responsibly can be a good thing...keywords being 'used responsibly.' The behind the scenes features (yes, after riding out this movie, we decided to stick out the extras for car crash value) include one of the major backers of the film talking about how marriage is threatened in this country. The propaganda element is definitely deliberate, if not by conscious intent.
Incidentally, I would like to take a moment to thank them for just focusing on the divorce part of the problem. I don't even want to think what would happen if this film decided to take a swing at the gay marriage protests as well.

We learn next to nothing of this couple personality-wise, well, to be specific, there's nothing for them as far as their interaction. We see plenty of them at their respective workplaces and how they interact with their friends/coworkers. The problem is, except for the flaws they're supposed to overcome by the end of the film, there's strangely nothing to them when interacting with one another.
...outside of perhaps Caleb's tendency to resort to violence in his backyard. There's a whole running joke of sorts where his solution to hostilities is to take inanimate objects out to the yard and beat them, only to realize the neighbors are watching...on second thought, maybe THIS is why they don't have a child. Curiously, this is a trait he never actually gets over. In fact, he uses it at one point as a means of dealing with one of his other flaws:
Tempted by cyberporn? Take your computer out back and annihilate it with a baseball bat. I can't help but think two things here:
1) Somehow, calling this an extreme response seems to be underselling it. In terms of 'I can't control my problem' this is like a guy with wandering eye deciding, rather than simply learn restraint, he's going to burn down a local strip club. This isn't so much an act of strength as a man deciding he has no control over himself.
2) To this end, I sure hope they weren't paying their bills by e-banking, or Caleb's inability to keep both hands on the keyboard )may have just done more harm than good.

Which leads to the other fault of this movie - the acting. Now, I know with the general low budget and the general 'propaganda' nature of the movie, I shouldn't necessarily expect high art per se. But even then, the weak acting really undermines the message here. The one strong performance in the film comes from one of Caleb's coworkers played by Ken Bevel, and that's despite his character being used as a mouthpiece for the writers in many of the scenes. Maybe the fact the guy's passionate enough about it in real life helps. All I know is, he gets results for his scenes, so good on him in this.
The rest run from the forgettable, to the laughably bad. Much to his own chagrin, Mr. Cameron tends to fall into the latter category. Especially during scenes of anger.

Even while writing this, the more I look, the more I feel like the very core idea of the film could, with a better cast and writer/director, have been worth something. Hell, with a capable enough writer, they could have even managed to work the Christianity elements in without them carrying the feel of a Chick Tract (minus the hatred for all things non-Protestant, anyway.) Unfortunately, the building blocks that make up the film are all so underwhelming and focused more on what they're saying rather than how it's delivered (and like it or not, how you say it DOES count in a film, doubly so in a film with a message,) resulting in a film that's at best uninspired, and at worst preachy. In the end, we're supposed to feel happy for Caleb and Catherine, but the film's given us no reason to.

Once this went off, I just felt this bizarre sense of discomfort at the fact this program demonstrates its effectiveness to us through convincing two people to stop fighting and simply coexist. Not love each other, just coexist. Even the choice in end song seems to emphasize that unintentional sense of "Feelings are irrelevant here, God wants you to together for life" with lines like 'when you go to step outside, there's an angel stopping you' (paraphrased, mind you.)

I don't know about you, but that sounds less spiritual and more kind of threatening. Like I just picture a strong arm with wings barring the guy's exit, even on errands.

Wow...that was a bit more of a rambler than I expected it would be. Maybe I'm just not cut out for fundamentalist cinema (...won't stop me from trying again in the future.)

So yeah...while I did resist the temptation to try and find something truly tasteless for Valentine's this year (imagine if I'd opted to make good on that promise of revisiting I Spit on Your Grave here?) I, oddly enough, walked away from this more disturbed by what I saw than I had honestly intended. I mean, I expected something that was inadvertently hilarious in its attempts at being serious. While parts of that delivered, I also couldn't help but be let down by the message they delivered with a straight face (albeit I'm sure they may have meant it to be a bit nicer than their execution makes it come across.)

Isn't propaganda supposed to be all about appealing to the emotions, guys?

Anyway, that wraps up for this entry. and speaking of emotions, next week I visit, and attempt to make peace with, an old grudge of film and nerding that, due to recent circumstances, many others have also found themselves re-examining.

Will my conclusions be any different? We'll see when it gets done.

Till then. May you and any loved ones not find you're together simply because the angels won't let you leave.