SIMON SAYS: Celebrate Chinese New Year with these blockbusters

SIMON SAYS: Celebrate Chinese New Year with these blockbusters

nullThis weekend is Chinese Lunar New Year, a cultural landmark that even some of my Chinese friends needed to be reminded is almost upon us. One way you can tell that the holiday is impending is to look for Chinese films at your local movie theater. In the same way that a crop of big budget Bollywood premieres are perennially released in time for autumn’s Diwali festivities, so too are a number of studio-produced would-be Chinese blockbusters released in time for the new year. But blink and you'll miss ‘em: there are only two Chinese films being released at AMC theater chains.

But hey, that's more than you knew were being released last year, right?

China Lion, a relatively new company dedicated to releasing mostly mainland Chinese (and some Hong Kong) films to American multiplexes, will release All's Well, Ends Well 2012 (unrelated to the Shakespeare play, though it is the seventh film in the romantic comedy series that began in 1992 with a film starring the likes of Stephen Chow and the lamentably deceased Leslie Cheung) next Friday and The Viral Factor this Friday. That may not sound like a three-car pile-up but considering that China Lion has heretofore staggered their releases over a matter of weeks (sometimes even a couple months), it's a sign that the Lunar New Year is here.

More importantly, it's a good time to take stock and see what China Lion has released over the last year. Sadly, while the idea behind the new company is great—introducing both established and new fans of popular Chinese/H.K. films to the latest pop cinema—the results have been mostly underwhelming. Don't expect China Lion to bring you prime-grade films from Wilson Yip, a guy that went from making films with titles like Bio Zombie and Daze Raper to Ip Man and Dragon Tiger Gate. Don't get me wrong, Ip Man and Dragon Tiger Gate are both enjoyable in their own ways, but Magic to Win, Yip's latest and most flavorless film in a while, is totally underwhelming.

If last year's worth of releases is any indication, China Lion films are, at best, immediately likable but largely disposable melodramas. My vote for their most, ahem, outstanding title would be 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy, a funky little softcore comedy that was a hit in Hong Kong last year thanks to its endearingly unsound use of 3D technology.null

Sadly, more often than not, China Lion puts out movies like The Viral Factor, a frenetic but totally shallow and mostly inert action movie starring milquetoast stars Nicolas Tse and Jay Chou. Directed by Dante Lam (Fire of Conscience, Beast Stalker), The Viral Factor is a cop drama high on bathos and lackluster action scenes; Lam and co-writers Candy Leung and Wai Lun Ng haven’t met a cliché that they didn’t like. Two estranged brothers, one an amoral thief (Tse) and one a righteous cop (Chou), reunite in order to fight an evil cartel of corrupt policemen-cum-terrorists. Tse and Chou run around and struggle to remind each other of their similarities.

Between lame plot points, Lam delivers typically frenetic but unpolished action scenes that are distinguished largely by their hints of preposterousness. Early on, Chou’s cop gets shot in the brain, and the bullet is still lodged there throughout the film. Still, he persists in running around and fighting bad guys—with an actual bullet lodged in his brainpan. This is impressive even when you compare it to the scene where Tse stumbles out of a hospital after jumping several stories and landing gracelessly on a car below him. If there were more crazy stuff like this throughout The Viral Factor, it’d be worth the price of admission. Unfortunately, such insanity only serves as garnish for Lam’s otherwise flavorless film.

Thankfully, China Lion hasn’t just released disappointing piffle like The Viral Factor. They’ve also released charming piffle like Love in Space, a romantic comedy about three self-centered sisters that struggle to fall in love, and Aftershock, an epic family drama about two siblings that were separated during the 1976 Tangshan earthquake. null

Aftershock is probably the more durable of the two aforementioned titles. Its pseudo-progressive depiction of Chinese history is fairly compelling, if only for the light touch that director Xiaogang Feng (The Banquet, If You Are the One) brings to his film’s series of minor domestic crises. Love in Space does have one of the most charismatic ensemble casts of any of China Lion’s films to date, but, like The Viral Factor, it’s mostly worthwhile for its quirks. (Love in Space is just as cliché-ridden as The Viral Factor, but it’s mostly amiably cheesy.) Aftershock is at least compelling, if sappy, for its core story, which is taken from a novel by Ling Zhang.

So if you want to celebrate the Lunar New Year with a new Chinese flick, fire up your Netflix account and check out Aftershock, now available on Instant Streaming. It’s not a must-see film, but it is as good of a representative of the China Lion brand as you can currently get. Unless, that is, titillating comedies about libidinal enhancement (i.e., donkey penises) are more your thing, in which case you’ll probably want to check out 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy. Either way, come for the shrill melodrama, stay for the sincere cheese.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice< andTime Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comic Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, The Extended Cut.  Simon reviewed 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstacy here for Press Play. 

SIMON SAYS: Top Five From the New Wave of French Horror

SIMON SAYS: Top Five From the New Wave of French Horror

null

Xavier Gens used to be cutting edge. Which is to say, he used to be a sign of what horror fans optimistically thought was going to be changing times. This was in 2008, mind you, back when Gens’s Frontier(s) was released in the US. Apart from catching on with American gorehounds in a big way (it seemed like you couldn’t get away from the title for the rest of the year), the Film Society at Lincoln Center singled Frontier(s) out as part of their annual Film Comment Selects program. Festival programmers used both Gens’s film and Inside, Julien Maury and Alexandre Bustillo’s 2007 gutting chiller, as prime examples of a burgeoning new wave in French horror cinema. The cult success of Frontier(s) opened the doors for gritty dystopian French horror and science fiction films like Them, Martyrs, and even Inside, which didn’t come out in America until 2008.

If you believed the hype behind the film, Frontier(s) was the first sign that the French were re-inventing the generic wheel. This was an exciting prospect for horror fans bored of shit like teen-oriented remakes of ‘80s films like The Fog (2005) and The Stepfather (2009). If you believed the hype, then you thought the French were coming and that they were going to bring horror back to horror films and they were going to do it with ungodly amounts of blood and guts, too. These mythical films were talked about as if they were what “torture porn” films could have been like if they were filmed by vraie artistes and not brats like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie (Hey, this may not have been so long ago but it’s what many thought! The cult of The Devil’s Rejects had yet to form and people were still having a great time kicking Roth around for being a mouthy, exploitative huckster.).

Too bad Frontier(s) isn’t very good.

I’m reminded of this salient fact because Gens has a new film out this weekend, one that he hasn’t yet publicly disowned (he didn’t have such a good time making Hitman, saying that this bland video game was taken out of his hands by studio execs). The film’s called The Divide and it is also not a very good film, in spite of the fact that it stars The Terminator’s Michael Biehn smoking a stogey and doing his best Dennis Hopper impression.

nullLike Frontier(s) before it, The Divide is a grungy pastiche of a classic horror film; it is to Night of the Living Dead what Frontier(s) is to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. In The Divide, the sudden impact of a nuclear explosion in Manhattan forces a group of survivors to pile into a subterranean shelter where they bicker shrilly, form cliques and devolve into monsters. In the film, Gens tries to prove that he can be even more cynical than his predecessors were, if that’s imaginable. So instead of the black guy getting shot and killed at the very end, the black guy gets shot and killed about midway through the film while his murderer’s silhouette is hidden behind an American flag; take that, Romero!

Still, there’s one thing about The Divide’s current limited NYC engagement that has me excited: it’s getting exactly the kind of roadshow release that such a film deserves, namely a limited midnight-only engagement at the Landmark Sunshine.

(A brief tangent: This is the kind of clever event programming that the Sunshine used to regularly take chances on as far back as, oh, 2007 and 2008, incidentally. At that time, the Sunshine tried midnight showings of contemporary horror movies like Midnight Meat Train (which is pretty fun in a dopey way, incidentally). That film was sandwiched between older midnight movie fare like A Boy and His Dog and Night of the Creeps (Before the latter film was even released on DVD!). Now, the Sunshine typically shows Jurassic Park, Breakfast at Tiffany’s and The Goonies, though there are an encouraging number of cult films in their upcoming slate of midnight movies (The Room and Cruising being the most exciting of the bunch). End tangent.)

Horror fans should be excited about new horror films. So seeing The Divide play a couple of midnight showings at the Sunshine is an encouraging sign that somebody out there knows what they’re doing with the film. Just wish The Divide was, you know, good.

Though maybe I expect too much from Gens. He may end up being an important filmmaker in the long run because of the way that Frontier(s) and maybe The Divide helped to keep the presence of new French horror movies in the public eye. After all, while The Divide now has a small theatrical release, Livid, Bustillo and Maury’s sloppy but effective follow-up to Inside, still hasn’t gotten a theatrical release beyond touring the international festival circuit (midnight audiences ate Livid up when it screened at the Toronto International Film Festival this past September).

So if you go see The Divide and you’re hungry for more (and hopefully better) Gallic fare, try these on for size:

nullFor people that just can’t stand gore: Them (2006). This spare, based-on-a-true-story house invasion film is so gripping that people still maintain that, even though its plot is pretty much pure formula storytelling, The Strangers is somehow a rip-off of Them. Them’s just that good.

For anyone that doesn’t mind gore so long as it means good chills: Inside (2007). Really one of the best films of the recent spate of French horror flicks and one whose vision of the post-urban apocalypse is uniquely expressed via a relentless, feature-length chase where a pregnant woman plays Roadrunner to a very violent murderess’s Wil E. Coyote. Creepy, claustrophobic and very grisly.

For fans of bone-headedly macho stories of the post-apocalypse: Eden Log (2007). If you like watching a mute amnesiac with a caveman mentality scramble around the ruins of a futuristic commune, then you’ll probably dig this.

For the fans of Humanoid comic books and stories about men with God complexes: Dante 01 (2008). Delicatessen co-creator Marc Caro directed and co-wrote this acid-soaked story about a schizophrenic mental patient that saves the universe by transforming into a human glow stick. It’s not very deep, mind you, but Dante 01 is kind of fascinating. Though only kind of.

For anyone looking for something a little stronger, shall we say: Martyrs (2008). If you still haven’t seen this one, don’t read anything else about it. Go in blind and expect to be totally drained in the end.

SIMON SAYS: See ‘Devil’ if you must, but buy tickets for ‘Darkest’

SIMON SAYS: See ‘Devil’ if you must, but buy tickets for ‘Darkest’

nullAccording to Box Office Mojo, The Devil Inside wasn't just this weekend's surprise box office leader. Having raked in approximately $33.7 million dollars in just three days' time, the maddeningly generic Exorcist rip-off-by-way-of-Paranormal Activity also holds the record for the third-highest grossing domestic release to debut in January. Funny thing about that success: as Box Office Mojo also points out, Devil was most successful on Friday night, raking in about half of its take in just one night. Word of mouth about this pile of doo, directed by the guy that brought us Stay Alive, spread faster than a stink bomb in a middle school bathroom. (Stories about spontaneous booing at the film's hilariously anti-climactic conclusion are personal favorites.) And yet, common sense did not ultimately prevail and a goodly portion of the American movie-going public collectively said, "Fuck it, I'm going to just give my money away."

I mean, look, I get it: the siren call of crappy horror films is intense. I splurged when I watched The Devil Inside and bought a ticket for an RPX ("Regal Premium Experience," Regal Cinemas' answer to AMC's "Imax" auditoriums) screening of the film. I got a weirdly masochistic kick out of paying too much money to get the best possible picture and audio quality for a movie that was shot on handheld digital cameras with a palsied, fast-and-dirty, one-take-and-out aesthetic. But for criminey's sake, people: it's not worth it. The Devil Inside is not shitty in an interesting way, it's shitty in a "I just french-kissed a car battery" kind of way. There's no reason to support it.
 
If you paid to see The Devil Inside this weekend, the joke is on you. You just paid to see a movie you've probably seen several times before, a film whose trailer looked unequivocally bland and juice-free. You punished yourself by watching a film whose camerawork honestly could have been done by a three-toed sloth with a tripod, a drinking problem and a death wish. And you rewarded a major studio and an imaginatively stunted filmmaker with your cashola, telling them that you want more creative bet-hedging (i.e.: more of the same tacky first-person POV horror films that cost nothing to make and takes little to no skill to pull off). You fucked up, America. Hell, I fucked up with you, albeit for entirely different reasons (I just wanted to see what all the hubbub was about, though that reasoning is pretty much a cop-out when we come down to it, huh?). Still: you stink, voces populi, wherever you are. And if I pegged you wrong, and you did pay, see and enjoy The Devil Inside, then, uh, well, it's been rough knowing you.
 

If, however, you must have no-brow horror cinema and refuse to go beyond your local multiplex, might I suggest The Darkest Hour? Director Chris Gorak's ill-advised follow-up to his surprisingly stirring horror thriller Right at Your Door is at least uniquely awful. The Darkest Hour looks like it was cobbled together from parts of two equally superficial but otherwise dissimilar films. One of those films is a dopey but sometimes engaging alien invasion B-movie starring Emile Hirsch (who is currently stealing his schtick from DiCaprio, circa Catch Me if You Can) and a bunch of other young actors that are somehow even less famous than Hirsch. The other film is a clumsy disaster film-cum-metaphor for post-Soviet Russia as a consumerist mausoleum. So when you watch The Darkest Hour, you're paying to watch pretty young things run around a deserted Moscow as humans get disintegrated by invisible energy-absorbing aliens that inadvertently expose how hollow the lives of contemporary Muscovites are under capitalism. It's like they read our minds and created a film just for no one….

null

But seriously, The Darkest Hour is at least a uniquely disastrous fantasy. Apartment-shaped Faraday cages become metaphors for the protective shell Cold War survivors created for themselves after Mama Russia was introduced to designer clothes and McDonald’s stores. And, oh yeah, young pretty things get menaced by energy monsters that reduce every form of organic life they touch (man and dog alike) to ash. By contrast, The Devil Inside is just a one-trick turd. Its cookie-cutter protags get harassed by non-threatening demons that mouth the same curse words and make the same obscene gestures that Linda Blair and William Friedkin did in The Exorcist…except without any of that classic film's conviction or charisma whatsoever. 

So if you want to watch a fun, trashy movie this weekend but you're dead set on seeing The Devil Inside, go to a theater showing both The Darkest Hour and The Devil Inside. Buy a ticket for The Darkest Hour and support a film that has a truly bizarre vision, one that's so strange that even a promising tyro like Gorak wasn't able to pull it off. Start watching The Darkest Hour. And if you don't like it, sneak into The Devil Inside and see what you're not missing. This way you can get what you only think you want and support an ambitious misfire while doing it. You probably won't leave the theater happy. But at least you'll have voted with your wallet for a film that has several original thoughts competing in its head instead of a thrice told tale that was only ever as exciting as its ideas.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village VoiceTime Out New YorkSlant MagazineThe L MagazineNew York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, The Extended Cut.

I mean, look, I get it: the siren call of crappy horror films is intense. I splurged when I watched The Devil Inside and bought a ticket for an R.P.X. ("Regal Premium Experience," Regal Cinemas' answer to AMC's "IMAX" auditoriums) screening of the film. I got a weirdly masochistic kick out of paying too much money to get the best possible picture and audio quality for a movie that was shot on handheld digital cameras with a palsied, fast-and-dirty, one-take-and-out aesthetic. But for criminy's sake, people, it's not worth it. The Devil Inside is not shitty in an interesting way, it's shitty in a "I just french-kissed a car battery" kind of way. There's no reason to support it.
If you paid to see The Devil Inside this weekend, the joke is on you. You just paid to see a movie you've probably seen several times before, a film whose trailer looked unequivocally bland and juice-free. You punished yourself by watching a film whose camerawork honestly could have been done by a three-toed sloth with a tripod, a drinking problem and a death wish. And you rewarded a major studio and an imaginatively stunted filmmaker with your cashola, telling them that you want more creative bet-hedging (i.e., more of the same tacky first-person P.O.V. horror films that cost nothing to make and take little to no skill to pull off). You fucked up, America. Hell, I fucked up with you, albeit for entirely different reasons. (I just wanted to see what all the hubbub was about, though that reasoning is pretty much a cop-out when we come down to it, huh?) Still, you stink, voces populi, wherever you are. And if I pegged you wrong, and you did pay, see and enjoy The Devil Inside, then, uh, well, it's been rough knowing you.

SIMON SAYS: As another year passes, Chris Gorak’s RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR reminds us where we have been

SIMON SAYS: As another year passes, Chris Gorak’s RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR reminds us where we have been

null

Writer/director Chris Gorak's The Darkest Hour hit theaters on Christmas Day; to give you an idea of why you should be excited, here's an appreciation of Gorak's topical 2006 chiller, Right at Your Door.

“They don’t really know anything,” Rory Cochrane murmurs wonderingly at one point early on in Right at Your Door, writer/director Chris Gorak’s nightmarish horror parable about the War on Terror as it's imagined at home. That line of dialogue guilelessly gets to the heart of Gorak’s drama, which features the best and not-so-best aspects of George Romero’s trenchantly moralistic horror movies.

Cochrane's exclamation is a small but significant breakthrough for his character. At this point in the film, a dirty bomb has gone off in downtown Los Angeles, sending toxic ashes across the city and its suburbs. Brad, Cochrane’s harried antihero, has sealed himself into his house at the recommendation of local authorities. He’s shuttered his house with duct tape and cellophane. But his wife Lexi (Mary McCormack) is on the outside of his house. She's now, as the title says, right at the door, and Brad can't – or maybe just won't – let her in.

So when Brad says, “They don’t really know anything,” to Lexi, who’s now tearfully begging Brad to let her into the house, Brad’s not really talking to her. He’s admitting to himself that yes, all the preparation and due diligence he’s hitherto performed don’t amount to a hill of beans considering that the people he’s taking orders from aren’t even sure what’s happened. From that moment, Brad’s one short step away from half-wailing and half-spitting out to Lexi that the L.A. authorities “don't fuckin' know enough to sugarcoat anything."

nullAs in Romero’s The Crazies, Right at Your Door evokes a world where authority figures are visibly shown to be unreliable. This is extraordinary in Right at Your Door because authority figures are only physically represented by armed grunts clad in gas masks and biohazard jumpsuits. These monsters are just following orders when they don’t answer Brad’s questions. For example, one can't help but notice the way one soldier hesitates and even trembles while puffing out his chest and defensively telling Brad, “We’re not trying to cause more panic than there already is.” Compare that with the way the similarly dressed soldiers in The Crazies are defined by their actions. They don’t use verbal prompts that might even tentatively reveal their humanity. By contrast, Gorak's army men reveal their humanity while they’re doing the most cruelly impersonal things.

And yet, Brad still clings to the notion that what he’s been told by authorities makes some kind of sense. He improvises an elaborate series of cellophane tarps and hangs them up on open doorways in order to quarantine Lexi in certain parts of their house until someone can come by and check her out. He does all of this because he’s in full-on panic mode. While Brad is thinking clearly enough to try to help his wife as best as he can, his self-preservation instincts have kicked into overdrive. So while he knows that the voices on his radio that warn him to stay indoors and seal himself into his house are not entirely reliable, he listens to them anyway. Because in this apocalyptic scenario, heeding any advice is understandably preferable to sitting on your hands and waiting to die.

Right at Your Door is striking both for its spare scenario and its sympathetic characters’ plights, and also for Gorak’s tendency of not shying away from pointed, Romero-esque sermonizing. At one point Alvaro (Tony Perez), the gardener of Brad’s next-door neighbor, despondently explains why he was admitted to Brad’s home and Lexi wasn’t: pure chance. “We didn't decide anything,” Alvaro insists. “It was instinct. It was just instinct." Gorak, like Romero, is shooting from his gut, not the hip, which is what makes the film’s twist ending and its shrill, blind howl of rage against the shadowy tactics and potential repercussions of the War on Terror. Gorak points a big honking finger of blame squarely at the evil-looking g-men, but they’re not really guilty and neither is Brad, even though he’s ultimately responsible for his fate. Hearing Cochrane cry out, “I’m still alive,” at the end is terrifying because it’s the last impotent complaint of a man that knows he’s unwittingly killed himself.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, The L Magazine, New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, Extended Cut.
 

SIMON SAYS: Tom Cruise in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 4: “it is my destiny to be the king of vain.”

SIMON SAYS: Tom Cruise in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 4: “it is my destiny to be the king of vain.”

null

In the recent Mission: Impossible movies, Tom Cruise has basically played a charismatic body under stress. While Mission: Impossible III is still the most satisfying film of the series because it takes the Ethan Hunt character and gives him personal stakes to fight for, Hunt’s main appeal has always been his charm as a humorless beast of burden. No film in the series makes this more apparent than the fourth and most recent entry in the film franchise, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. Here, Cruise, who gets a prominent producer credit in the film’s opening credits, shows his age; in fact, he flaunts it. Not in an “I’m getting too old for this shit” kind of way. More like a “My body has seen better days but I’m still pretty amazing, so shut the hell up and watch me scale the tallest building in the world…one-handed” kind of way.

Okay man, sure, I just came for the movie, I swear, don’t hurt me!

Tom Cruise in Ghost Protocol is intimidating-looking. In fact, watching the grooves on Cruise’s scored face is so distracting that it’s sometimes just as thrilling as watching the film’s immaculate set pieces. The bags under his eyes are always more pronounced, the contours of his face more angular and the wrinkle lines etched into his cheeks like stone always suggest more texture than his co-stars’ features. Take note: Tom Cruise’s body hasn’t gone to seed. But Hunt’s hair is longer than usual and his face is certainly showing signs of age.

nullYou’d have to work pretty hard to cover up that kind of wear, but that’s kind of the point of Ghost Protocol: Cruise’s Hunt is not in denial. He’s in great shape – did you not see him clean up the world’s tallest building in Dubai? Or, on foot in a sand storm, running around like a madman? Or crashing several BMW luxury sedans? Just think of Tom Cruise’s face as the portrait of Dorian Gray, which I guess makes his body Dorian Gray…except in Ghost Protocol, Dorian Gray is galloping around the world with his portrait on display. Which is…odd, to say the least.

So Ethan Hunt in Ghost Protocol is going around doing incredibly impossible missions. He’s not developed well enough to be treated like most characters, with ulterior motives and “feelings” that extend beyond the circumstantial peril Hunt is constantly forcing upon himself. So in this film, he’s just a really versatile guy that takes it upon himself to do much of the heavy lifting of tracking and disarming an evil Russian madman, codenamed “Cobalt” (Abduction’s Michael Nyqvist).

Until Hunt and his team catch Cobalt, they’re in the shit. But even though he’s working with them throughout the film, Hunt has to basically lead the group because none of them are capable of doing things with restraint, improvisatory skill or much brawn without him. He’s the Mr. T to their A-Team; if they were replaced by other actors mid-film, no one would notice or care. That lopsided team dynamic is sort of a given until the film’s last big set piece, which reminds us that the film is about a team of spies, some of whom, unlike Hunt, are actually both charismatic and capable of laughing at themselves, too.

Cruise’s Hunt has no such default setting. His onscreen persona throughout the series has been, and continues to be, pretty brittle. So it’s a very good thing that Cruise is naturally charming. The curious thing about these Mission: Impossible movies is that in them, he’s constantly trying to remind us of this by performing spy hijinks and superhuman acrobatics, like his big Dubai Spider-man act in Ghost Protocol, where he climbs up 11 stories using magnetic gloves, one of which short-circuits mid-climb. This only momentarily fazes Hunt. He keeps climbing.

Director Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles) and Ghost Protocol’s capable stunt choreographers play up Cruise’s glassy charms by making a sight gag of Hunt’s malfunctioning magnetic gloves. After he callously shucks the glove off, Hunt soon finds the errant glove stuck to a pane of glass just a few stories below where he originally ditched it. This is a rare thing in Ghost Protocol, a joke involving Hunt’s man of action. But it should be noted that the joke is not on Hunt but rather the malfunctioning equipment that Benji (Simon Pegg), a geeky and relatively effete fellow spy, gave him. Modern technology can’t even keep up with Tom Cruise!

nullBut in all seriousness, Ghost Protocol needs Cruise’s over-seriousness and his tendency of making himself look that much more focused, that much more determined and that much more capable than everyone around him. Even newcomer Jeremy Renner looks like a girly man compared to Cruise, like in the scene where Renner is floating around (literally, floating around) in an overheated subterranean tunnel while wearing a chain mail suit that levitates his whole body.

Yes, there is actually a sequence where Jeremy Renner, a new macho action hero for our times, is floating around with his arms outstretched in front of him like he’s Supergirl. And he’s sweating. Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt doesn’t sweat, not even when he’s fighting Michael Nyqvist’s Cobalt, a villain that is so hardcore that he’d rather kill himself than let Hunt get the upper hand. Cruise’s Hunt, by contrast, is all upper body strength and an unending supply of physical endurance and facial tics when he wants to show you just how hard he’s pushing his body (note: pretty freaking hard). Without him, Ghost Protocol would be nothing.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice,Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, The L Magazine, New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, The Extended Cut.

SIMON SAYS: THE SITTER, blah blah, balls on fire, Method Man cameo, blah blah, double-fisted punch to the balls, blah

SIMON SAYS: THE SITTER, blah blah, balls on fire

nullThis is it, folks: David Gordon Green isn’t the guy that made George Washington and All the Real Girls anymore. Now, he’s the guy that made Pineapple Express and Your Highness. Which is a transition that doesn’t really deserve an award or a hearty handshake or even much praise really. But for the sake of needlessly giving credit where credit is due, I have to say: this new David Gordon Green is ok.

No, seriously. I may have joked in the past that, after hearing that Green wanted to remake Dario Argento’s Suspiria, perhaps doing a shot-for-shot remake of Super Mario Bros.: The Movie would be more his speed. And I definitely don’t think his comedies are worth starting a #teamstonergreen movement for or anything. But Green’s slacker comedies have been incrementally getting better. And they’re mostly funny.

So…yeah, I am working myself up to recommending The Sitter. Because it’s often very funny, thanks in no small part to star Jonah Hill. And until Green and his screenwriters start to take seriously the clichés they had been theretofore only conforming to with their tongues lazily lolling in their collective cheek, it’s pretty amiably ditzy. The film’s charms don’t really wear off until it has to become a narrative about something. Still, The Sitter’s about 2/3rds on-target, which is unfortunately more than can be said about most studio-produced contemporary comedies.

In The Sitter, an exceptionally disheveled Hill plays Noah Griffith, a push-over and a slacker that has to baby-sit three troublesome tykes so that his single mother can go out on a date. One kid, Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez), is Hispanic, has to go the bathroom constantly and enjoys blowing toilets up. Another kid, Blithe (Landry Bender), wants to grow up to be a “celebutante” and hence wears too much make-up and acts like she knows what’s hot and what’s not. The third kid, Slater (Max Records), is the least annoying kid as he’s just got anxiety issues…oh, and apparently he’s a repressed homosexual, which is news even to him. None of these kids are interesting. You did not come to see The Sitter to watch these kids. Because these kids are only worthwhile as straight men to Jonah Hill’s fat man in a little plaid coat.

nullBecause, let’s face it, the plot of The Sitter is exhausting and not always comically so. Even screenwriter Brian Gatewood and Alessandro Tanaka eventually throw up their hands and accept that they have to get semi-serious about their lazy, potty-mouthed pastiche after a point, which puts a serious damper on Green’s genital-fixated style of humor (I’d say the point where the film stops being generously funny is probably the point where Noah tells Slater that he’s gay…).

So Noah takes these kids out on a wild journey to buy cocaine from Sam Rockwell, who plays a cocaine dealer named Karl that’s basically like Alfred Molina’s character in Boogie Nights but with a muscleman fetish and not as funny. But that goes to hell because Rodrigo winds up stealing one of Karl’s smack-filled dinosaur eggs (Karl also has a dinosaur and Faberge egg fetish). Then Noah meets Roxanne (Kylie Bunbury), an attractive but nerdy black girl that he can relate to and hence eventually winds up dating. Oh and Noah’s got daddy issues. Blah blah blah, balls on fire, blah blah blah, Method Man cameo, blah blah, double-fisted punch to the balls, blah.

But hey, how ‘bout that Jonah Hill? While his serious dramatic performance in Moneyball is impressive, I think he delivers an equally superlative turn in The Sitter. Hill exudes schlubbiness, which is almost enough to make his character seem fully-developed (note: his character is not even halfway well-developed). Noah is a sassy, slovenly loser, which is perfect for Hill, since he looked like Gene Wilder ate Zero Mostel when he shot The Sitter.

Noah is such a waste of space that we’re introduced to while he’s going down on his aloof girlfriend Marisa (Ari Graynor). Marisa doesn’t reciprocate, leaving Noah to peddle dejectedly back home to his mom’s place on his two-speed bike. This isn’t for want of trying: he guilelessly tries to steer her towards his crotch, winking and nudging her all the while. But she feigns stomach problems and that’s the end of that. This is material tailor-
made for Hill, though if Moneyball is any indication, he’s now trying to put that period in his career behind him. It’s similarly too bad that, true to generic form, Noah has to grow up a little by film’s end—he was just hitting his stride.

But let’s not talk about that. Like Hill, Green is in a period of creative stasis. He’s doing what he’s most comfortable right now and that’s only commendable because he’s doing it with a comic performer as talented as Hill, someone that can really turn it on if given half the chance. And The Sitter is roughly half of a chance, give or take a tenth of a chance. It’s sporadically very funny, then it’s mostly just a stupid kiddy pic. But hey, I laughed.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, The L Magazine, New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, The Extended Cut.

SIMON SAYS: Géla Babluani’s 13 is pure, bone-headed bliss

SIMON SAYS: Géla Babluani’s 13 is pure bone-headed bliss

null

Géla Babluani’s 13, a remake of his own 13 Tzameti, is arty, self-serious macho bullshit, and it’s also a lot of fun. The director still takes his original premise too seriously, but it’s a problem that only really becomes apparent during 13’s last 20 minutes, so until then, you easily get lost watching Babluani cover the same ground again, only this time with a mesmeric ensemble cast.

In a remote part of upstate New York, a baker’s dozen of tough guys – the likes of Ray Winstone, Sam Riley, a sweaty and morbidly obese black man, Mickey Rourke and a guy named Hans that yells, “ARRRGH!” a lot – gather in a poorly lit room. Other macho men, including 50 Cent, Ben Gazzara and Jason Statham, bet on those 13 men, who are given 13 revolvers with one bullet each as Michael Shannon, seated precariously atop a tiny ladder, yells the rules to the version of Russian Roulette they’re about to play. It’s like The Deer Hunter without anything but the barest topical context (more on this shortly). The 13 men all stare at a light bulb and wait for it to turn on. Then they shoot each other.
null
This movie exists. This is a real thing. There’s enough musk in that poorly lit room to put down a herd of rabid bison, and the only thing that could take 13’s testosterone level any higher would be if Mel Gibson showed up, jammed a bit and reins in Hulk Hogan’s mouth and rode him around like a pony. 13 is pure boneheaded bliss, a film so high on sweat and mortality and the sounds of Michael Shannon barking things like, “Eyes on the bulb,” that it can’t help but be better than its predecessor. It is cheesy and pulpy and dopey and fun fun fun!

But why, you might ask, do we need an action movie that takes the memorably traumatic death sport from The Deer Hunter and strips it of its historically specific context? I dunno, Bunky, but did you know that there’s a recession going on? That’s basically the answer Babluani offers in 13, a film that starts and stops with Riley’s young, downtrodden, passive-aggressive, blue-collar man.

Riley plays Vince, a stringy twenty-something looking for a quick way to pay off his recently deceased father’s considerable debts. He finds an out in the form of an invitation extended to him by a mysterious illegal gambling ring that encourages him to travel to a dimly lit room and hold a loaded gun to the back of a stranger’s head. If he lives, he makes lots of dough; if he loses, well, you get the idea. This is such a ridiculous manifestation of the action film’s young-man-with-Atlas-complex-must-make-money-to-support-family-because-he-like-Obi-Wan-is-their-only-hope stock plot that I’m surprised it hasn’t been pushed this far before.

Then again, 13 isn’t entertaining because it’s original, but because Babluani takes himself somewhat seriously, and because he’s assembled a game cast of character actors. There are large swathes of the film where these intimidating or just effectively posturing men look threatening simply by talking to each other. And somehow, almost every actor in the film hits his marks, or as my good friend Steve Carlson might put it, all of them meet the material they’ve been given at its intended level. 50 Cent twitches his eyebrows like a confused but hyper schoolboy while talking to an appropriately wasted Mickey Rourke. Jason Statham just stands there and lets Ray Winstone breathe heavily, as is his wont. Even Brad Gallagher, who plays Hans, is a real treat.

If I may, I’d like to praise Gallagher for a moment. Hans is represented at the match by Schlondorff (yes, Babluani is pretentious enough to name a character after Volker Schlöndorff!), played by Ben Gazzara. At one point, Schlondorff calls Hans over, but Hans won’t go. Now remember, Hans’s default answer to everything is, “ARRRGH.” When Schlondorff gently admonishes his champion that, “When you start something, you know you must see it through,” Hans replies with a lusty, “ARRRRRGH.”

So when Schlondorff says he needs to talk to Hans and asks one of the game’s volunteers (they seem more like film festival volunteers than employees, too sheepish and unsure of themselves to be getting paid) to bring him over, Hans reacts with an “ARRRGH” as the volunteer takes him by the arm. And that’s not even Hans’ best “ARRGH.” At the end of the first round of Russian Roulette, Vince looks behind him, making the mistake of looking back at Hans. Hans, being Hans, says, “ARRRGGH.”
null
Babluani does a commendable job of keeping events tense enough to move ahead at a brisk and reliably taut pace. There are stakes to this game, as you see when shooter #3 (Omar Hernandez), the aforementioned morbidly obese gentleman, has to sit down before the third round can proceed. His face is covered in enough sweat to make the sweat coating Dwayne Johnson in Fast Five look like a light misting. He’s got an advanced form of the shakes and it’s a pretty sad sight to see, especially considering that Michael Shannon’s referee is glowering down at him.

When Shannon starts yelling in 13, you forget that he’s yelling at a group of grown men – grown men with loaded guns, no less. He’s giving them orders and they’re just averting their eyes and loading their guns like it’s not a big deal, like it’s just S.O.P. and they’re really hoping Shannon doesn’t see them: “Oh gosh, don’t see me, don’t see me.”* But he sees #3 in that moment of weakness, and for a split-second, you’re afraid that shit’s about to go off. But it doesn’t. And you’re relieved for #3, you really are, and you’ve just barely met the guy.

Because it’s populated with such fascinating monsters, the world of 13 never feels stale, at least not until its stale denouement. Babluani takes so much time introducing various different subplots which he makes a point of not satisfactorily resolving that by the time the film returns to Vince’s story, you’ve forgotten that the film has to be about this hard-luck kid. That’s a real saving grace for a film as fundamentally unambitious as 13, though admittedly, it would have been nice if Babluani dared to make Vince just another face in the dimly lit room’s crowd.

But even Vince is a captivating character thanks to Riley’s twitchy performance. You can tell that this kid is dangerous (in a sociopathic sense) just from an opening scene where he asks his sister, on her birthday, why the pet lamb she dreams of owning must have black ears. She tells him it’s so that she can identify the mutton in question and take it back to bed with her at night (visions of Woody Allen’s Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex…But Were Afraid to Ask might dance through your head here). Riley interrupts her to say, “Yeah, but you forgot something.” And for a moment, it seems like Vince is going to shove a butter knife up his kid sister’s nose and twist it until she starts singing “When the Saints Go Marching In.” But he doesn’t. 13 works as well as it does because it’s filled with almost-confrontations just like that, little moments of absurdly overloaded tension. It’s real fun, oh yes.

* There needs to be another Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, just so Shannon can play Willy Wonka and make children cry while growling in their ear as ropey gobs of spit shoot out of his mouth like laser beams.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, the L Magazine, the New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, Extended Cut.

SIMON SAYS: Is Frank Henenlotter a horror genius or a sick man?

SIMON SAYS: Is Frank Henenlotter a horror genius or sick bastard?

null

Somehow, it seems wrong to single out two of Frank Henenlotter's more "horror-comedy" films as examples of the writer/director's style — which, in a sense, is fitting. Henenlotter's a guy whose crew has abandoned him on two separate projects because they found what he was making to be in such poor taste that they refused to be a part of it. You can complain all you want about how his films are juvenile and gross and unpolished and what have you. But don't you want to see a penis-shaped monster suck the brains out of a woman through her mouth like he were a very evil boner and she were giving the world's worst blowy? Doesn't the thought of seeing something so uniquely low and disgusting intrigue you? Don't you want to see a man with no shame, no sense of good taste and no self-restraint at work?

The main pleasure in watching Henenlotter's films is in watching an inspired caricaturist earn yuks through some genuinely vile horror-themed body jokes. Between 1982 and 1990, Henelotter, whose films are being celebrated at New York's Anthology Film Archives this weekend, made his splatter comedies while David Cronenberg was at the height of his powers. Cronenberg made everything from "Videodrome" to "Dead Ringers" in the time it took Henelotter to produce three sloppy but invigoratingly scatological features: "Basket Case," a valentine to the grimy Manhattan of the early '80s and a slobbering tongue-in-cheek dramedy about a boy and the separation anxiety he shares with his evil, lumpen Siamese twin; "Brain Damage," a Lovecraft-inspired comedy about a boy that gets hooked on the mind-altering secretions of a murderous, parasitic "H.R. Pufnstuf" monster from beyond; and "Frankenhooker," a gleefully deranged story about inequality between the sexes that happens to star a slavering, undead prostitute who inadvertently electrocutes all of her clients. This piece focuses on "Brain Damage" and "Frankenhooker," but not because they're necessarily more worthy than "Basket Case." On the contrary, while I prefer these two films because they are more accomplished farces, given the anarchic nature of Henenlotter's comedies, that doesn't make them better films.
null
Of the two Henenlotter-helmed projects I've singled out, "Brain Damage" is most similar tonally to "Basket Case." Henenlotter makes a more concentrated effort to mix semi-serious melodrama with his eccentric brand of scattershot comedy, frequently crossing lines that other filmmakers, ones guided by more hands-on producers or advisors, almost certainly would not go near. For an especially gross example, see the infamous blowjob scene in "Brain Damage," in which Aylmer (voiced by John Zacherle), the film's bulbous, phallic monster, slithers out of the fly of Brian (Rick Hearst), his host, and devours an incautiously flirtatious woman's brain. Henenlotter's crew reportedly fled when it came time to film the scene, which revels in a proudly crass it's-not-what-it-looks-like-but-it-kind-of-is sight gag.

If you are intrepid and depraved enough to seek out "Brain Damage" after reading this piece, you should thank your lucky stars that Synapse Films released a cut of the film featuring the aforementioned fellatio scene. That sequence was cut from both the film's theatrical cut and, if you can imagine that such a thing exists, its television cut. It's a particularly ugly and uncomfortable scene. Don't miss it!

All kidding aside, "Brain Damage" is as weirdly funny as it is because it seems to have been made by a proudly deranged filmmaker. In one scene, Henenlotter shamelessly asks viewers to care about Brian's addiction to the blue-tinted liquid Aylmer injects directly into his brain — "shamelessly" because that same addiction is the stuff of no-brow comedy in several earlier scenes, my favorite of which has Brian sitting in his bathtub, tripping out of his mind. Meanwhile, his roommate and his girlfriend are both worriedly standing outside the bathroom door, intently listening to him squeal with joy as Aylmer sprays hallucinogenic ejaculate all over his chest. So watching Brian in a later scene shiver and shake while he begs for a fix, soaked in fecal-colored sweat that stains his white cotton wife-beater and his oversized tidy-whities, is remarkably unseemly.
null
At least when you watch "Frankenhooker," a feature-length put-on that advertises in its title Henenlotter's commitment to a pointedly perverted scenario, you immediately know what you're getting into. "Frankenhooker" doesn't have a serious bone in its body, a fact which becomes apparent when the film breaks down during its half-assed Grand Guignol finale. Jeffrey Franken (James Lorinz), a young medical student in the tradition of Herbert West, loses his mind after Elizabeth Shelley (Patty Mullen), his fiancée, dies in a freak lawnmower accident. We hear the news of her demise as it's covered by an opportunistic news reporter who facetiously pouts about callous community members who are more concerned with the macabre details of Jeffrey's tragic loss than in the victims' well-being. She says this just before she idly speculates that Mary's disembodied head was probably stolen “by person or persons unknown.” Nobody really cares in this film, or at least, nobody really has emotionally stable or sympathetic responses to events. This is especially true of Brian, the film's lead protagonist and a nebbish psychopath who cooks up a batch of homemade "Super Crack" in order to kill prostitutes so that he can chop them up and give Elizabeth a new body composed of his victims' parts. Brian reflexively psychoanalyzes himself thusly: “I seem to be disassociating myself from reality. I’m becoming anti-social, dangerously amoral.”

That sentiment explains the off-kilter tenor of Henenlotter's films, if only partially. They're gleefully unsound films with charming volatility. This is best expressed in "Frankenhooker" when the aforementioned Super Crack causes a cabal of street-walkers to explode one by one in spectacular slow-motion. It's like "Zabriskie Point" but with more prostitutes and less counter-cultural commentary. In other words: "Frankenhooker" is exactly what you've been jonesing for — you just didn't know it until now.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, the L Magazine, the New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, Extended Cut.

SIMON SAYS: Harold Camping’s doomsday prophesies come and go, but DR. STRANGELOVE endures

SIMON SAYS: Harold Camping’s doomsday prophesies come and go, but DR. STRANGELOVE endures

By Simon Abrams
Press Play Contributor

Harold Camping, the 89-year-old evangelist and serial doomsayer, previously announced that the Rapture would occur on May 21st. He has since said that he was mistaken and that the Rapture is actually now scheduled for October 21st. So the third annual Doomsday Film Festival and Symposium this weekend at 92YTribeca couldn’t be timed any better, really.

It’s an event dedicated to the apocalypse, and this year’s line-up of screenings and panels includes a couple of standout titles, like the spectacularly deranged God Told Me To and the uniquely awful Lifeforce.

And yet no other film at this year’s celebration of End Times matches the hopeless vision of gloom and impending doom on display in Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Stanley Kubrick’s mighty adaptation of co-adapter Peter George’s novel Red Alert will screen this Sunday at 2 p.m. The film will be followed by a panel discussion featuring such talking head luminaries as Time Out New York film critic Keith Uhlich and The L Magazine film editor Mark Asch.

You can read the rest of Simon's piece here at Capital New York.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, The L Magazine, New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, The Extended Cut.

SIMON SAYS: Director Steve McQueen forces SHAME on his audience

SIMON SAYS: Director Steve McQueen forces SHAME on his audience

By Simon Abrams
Press Play Contributor

As a filmmaker who initially screened experimental short films influenced by Andy Warhol and Jean-Luc Godard, Steve McQueen (Hunger) surely knows the importance of the image as symbol. In theory, Shame could have been set in any other city. But when he changed his film’s location from London to New York City, McQueen changed the texture and the character of his bathetic and fundamentally shallow update to Death in Venice. Visconti, this guy ain’t.

This can be seen in a telling scene in which Brandon (Michael Fassbender), a jaded sex addict wracked with guilt over his addiction and his lust for his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan), races past the 2nd Gulf War memorial on 29th Street and 5th Avenue. It’s a brief shot, but it also has to be. Brandon is racing to save Sissy, to stop her from becoming just one casualty amongst many in McQueen’s dour N.Y.C., a New Babylon that’s had all the life sucked from its veins. Brandon doesn’t want her to become one more faceless name amongst many.

At the same time, Shame could be remade in any other city because any faceless city could be the setting for McQueen and co-writer Abi Morgan’s facile and altogether trite observations about being stuck in a bad spiral of shame. That glancing shot of the memorial and all the other specific references to the city, from Madison Square Garden to the way Brandon conspicuously shuttles from 28th Street to Fulton on his way to work, make Shame, as it exists now, very much a film whose meaning comes from McQueen’s surface-deep view of the city. Then again, why should he value the character of the city he’s shooting in when he shows us that he doesn’t want to cut any deeper into his human protagonists’ personalities either?

Shame’s Manhattan is not what it used to be, as is evinced by the obnoxiously conspicuous graffito of “Fuck” plastered above Brandon’s head as he has sex with a stranger in public. McQueen indulges Brandon’s capricious and self-pitying vision of both the city and his sister when Sissy sings “New York, New York” in an embarrassingly slow and mournfully "meaningful" way. Her performance is shot in real-time and in close-up, making it impossible for McQueen’s audience not to be impressed by how hard both Mulligan and he by extension are straining to make the scene in question mean something, or just feel more significant than it does.

McQueen tries so hard to make Brandon’s problems seem more than just dramatic but rather momentous to the point that Shame doesn’t look operatic but rather self-satisfied and over-cautious. Every emotion is writ in impersonally large letters, such as the way that Sissy, the bright-eyed and unfettered bohemian who still thinks of New York as a playground for her amusement, stands right at the edge of the R train’s platform while Brandon, the morose and self-loathing sex addict, stands at least a meter away from the edge. By trying to keep Brandon as physically far back as possible from his sister and any oncoming cars, McQueen rubs in our face just how literally he can represent the carnal abyss that Brandon’s trying to avoid.

Shame does not organically develop any of its wan narrative into substantive drama because McQueen and Morgan never lay down any real stakes. With the exception of Fassbender’s strong performance, the film is an entirely superficial monument to self-indulgent hubris, and I don’t mean Brandon’s sex addiction. Bookend images of Brandon refusing to follow his hedonistic impulses and pursue a married woman he’s eye-fucked on the subway reveal just how un-nuanced, how consistently shallow Shame is. McQueen never really tries to dig into Brandon’s psyche beyond loaded symbols, like the wedding ring on Brandon’s subway daydream girl. Married as it is to Harry Escott’s bombastic score, this visual motif perfectly sets the tone for McQueen’s funereal drama. Fassbender gets buried alive here in a talented young artist’s pretentious, pseudo-spiritual vanity project.

Simon Abrams is a New York-based freelance arts critic. His film reviews and features have been featured in the Village Voice, Time Out New York, Slant Magazine, The L Magazine, New York Press and Time Out Chicago. He currently writes TV criticism for The Onion AV Club and is a contributing writer at the Comics Journal. His writings on film are collected at the blog, The Extended Cut.