CREED

If you paid attention to the Rocky movies then you know Apollo Creed's personal life always played the background. His personality was so big that it distracted from everything else (plus he wasn't the main character so there wasn't any time to delve in to his life outside of the ring in addition to Rocky's). This adds an interesting quality to Creed as the character of "Adonis Creed" (Michael B. Jordan) was the product of a character who folks often forget had a life outside of boxing.
This is all afterthought however. I wasn't prepared to give this film the credit it deserves prior to seeing it. Like a lot of people, when the news of yet another Rocky movie started making waves I thought to myself: "...another one?!" But I knew even over a year ago when I first found out about this movie that I was going to see it no matter how skeptical I was.
What was it that drew me to Creed? Was it the Rocky franchise residue/nostalgia factor it carried (like a lot of 80's kids, I grew up watching the Rocky movies so much that it left a lasting impression on my movie brain)? Was it the well-cut trailer (other studio movies should take note on how to cut a proper movie trailer)? Perhaps I wanted it to be good because it was the sophomore feature of a young up & coming filmmaker (Ryan Coogler) that I want to see succeed. I also caught a recent screening of Fat City (probably one of the three greatest boxing movies of all time) so the genre is pretty fresh in my psyche at the moment and I have a greater appreciation for (good) boxing movies.
Maybe it was a combination of all of the above and more (I'm also a fan of Michael B. Jordan and I didn't want him to end the year with Fantastic Four being the last thing on his 2015 filmography).

I had a feeling Creed would be entertaining but I didn't expect it to be this well-made. Sure the film plays on cliche storylines like the role of the father figure, the idea of "passing the torch", and Sylvester Stallone's Rocky Balboa making the transition from boxer to trainer, which is really what Rocky 5 should have been (not only is Stallone the same age as Burgess Meredith was when he first took on the role of Mickey, but there's a middle section in Creed that kind of plays out just like an important moment in Rocky 3).

But sometimes it doesn't matter how cliche something is but rather how well it's executed. And Creed was executed quite well. The premise is simple & straightforward (Apollo Creed's illegitimate son seeks out Rocky Balboa to train him to be a better fighter), the performances are solid (Stallone did a lowkey great job), the pacing of the movie is good, and Coogler makes Creed its own (somewhat) separate entity. ...Kind of. The look, feel, music & all around ambiance is different from all the other Rocky movies with the exception of maybe Rocky Balboa. There has to be some sort of a tie-in/connection with the Rocky franchise and Ryan Coogler definitely does that. Not only do certain key moments in Creed play off of key moments in Rocky 1, but the final fight between Adonis Creed & opponent Ricky Conlan is right out of Rocky 4.
But at the same time, when Sylvester Stallone isn't on camera you sometimes forget you're watching a Rocky movie.

And as cliche as Creed is at times, it also doesn't give any false or blind hope in parts where you think things are going to magically work out. In one scene early on in the film Adonis gets his ass handed to him in the ring just after acting brash & confident like his father. And in the final fight, Creed's walk out to the ring isn't very triumphant or even that adrenaline pumping. Instead, he approaches the ring with caution and a little bit of fear (I appreciate Creed's honesty in moments like this because boxers are incredibly vulnerable at times no matter how tough they are).

I guess my only issue with Creed is that the title character's rise & popularity in the boxing world happens way too fast (almost like Jamie Foxx's Willie Beamen in Any Given Sunday). Legacy or not, you don't get a title shot as fast as he did. But that's really nitpicking on my part. That kind of stuff is to be expected in a movie like this so it really isn't that big of a deal (on a sillier note, I wonder why Carl Weathers didn't make a ghostly cameo like he did in Happy Gilmore).

The cinematography, courtesy of Maryse Alberti (Poison, Velvet Goldmine, The Wrestler, etc), deserves its own separate write-up. It's the perfect combination of flashiness & technical prowess (almost like a good boxer). It may take some of you minutes to even catch on that a lot of the fight scenes in Creed are done in one fluid shot without any breaks (Maryse definitely upped her in-ring camera work since The Wrestler).
But again - if you paid attention the Rocky movie then you know great cinematography is nothing new to the franchise (the first Rocky film is always noted for its Steadicam usage).

Creed successfully bridged a new era of fresh Rocky content with the old classic material. Instead of trying to desperately squeeze out the last bit of nostalgia from the old Rocky, Ryan Coogler set up a whole new potential franchise that can pretty much stand on it's own (with a few callbacks here & there). I only hope younger folks who aren't familiar with the older films will seek them out (leaving the theater I seriously overhead one young girl ask her boyfriend "soooo who was Apollo Creed? Like, some guy who died?" So yeah, we have some work to do). At the end of the day Creed had no business being as good as it turned out and is definitely a top 10 contender for 2015.

TIFF '14 HIGHLIGHT #4: NED RIFLE

*Disclaimer: you really shouldn't read this unless you're AT LEAST familiar with Henry Fool (and happen to remember a few small details from it). If not, almost nothing in this review will make any sense. Reading on without any knowledge of the characters in the Henry Fool universe would be like reading Lord Of The Rings fan fiction without knowing anything about The Lord Of The Rings*

One of the best things about Ned Rifle, the third & presumably last film in the Henry Fool saga, is that it keeps the references to Fay Grim (the 2nd film in the series) to a minimum. Fay (Parker Posey) is now in prison serving a life sentence from the events in the 2nd film, but other than that there's really no other mention of anything else that happened in Fay Grim. I don't want to start this review off on a sour note, but I really didn't like Fay Grim. I give Hal Hartley much respect for taking on such an ambitious project (he touched on everything from globalization to coexisting religions in America), but it just didn't work for me. I guess I liked the idea of the dysfunctional family from Queens that we came to love in Henry Fool (the first film) suddenly caught up in a world of terrorism, globetrotting & espionage, but the actual final product just wasn't my cup of tea (I'm saying this as respectfully as possible given that I'm a diehard Hal Hartley fan). In the first film our colorful characters dealt with realistic/personal issues like trust, friendship & child abuse. Then suddenly those same characters got thrown in to a quirky Tom Clancy-esque world of spies & secret agents in Fay Grim. It was clear that Hartley became attached to the wonderful characters he created from his original film and he didn't want to let them go.

Ned Rifle has way more of a connection to Henry Fool (Simon Grim even goes back to wearing his original garbage man outfit). I liken the Henry Fool trilogy to the original Mario Brothers trilogy for Nintendo

allow me to nerd out for a minute...

For those of you who are equally knowledgeable in art-house cinema as well as old school video games - remember how much different the 2nd Mario brothers video game looked in comparison to the first & third ones? The same thing applies to these movies. It's almost like Fay Grim was a dream and now we're back to reality. The only other minor connection/similarity that Ned Rifle has with Fay Grim is that some of the characters in both films have taken on new identities in an effort to deceive some of the other characters.

Ned Grim through the years: Henry Fool / Fay Grim / Ned Grim

As some of you may know, each one of these films focuses on a character whose life is drastically changed by Henry (the degenerate central character in this saga). In the first film it was Henry's friend/brother-in-law Simon Grim. In the sequel it's his wife Fay Grim. In part three we focus on Henry's son...
In Ned Rifle, we pick up with an 18 year old, newly religious Ned Grim. With his mother (Fay) in prison and his father (Henry) still on the run (again - you kinda have to see Fay Grim to understand), he's been living the last couple of years in the witness protection program (under the moniker "Ned Rifle") under the care of a loving religious foster family (played by old school Hal Hartley regulars Martin Donovan & Karen Sillas). Now that Ned is an adult, he plans to move out of his foster home, find his father Henry, and kill him for ruining his mother's life.
Along his quest to find his father, Ned picks up a companion in the form of "Susan" - a young grad student whose dedicated her life to the work of Ned's famous uncle Simon Grim - a world renown poet and former garbage man who is now taking a stab at stand-up comedy.
As the story progresses we learn that Susan isn't really who or what she says she is. In fact, she has a relationship with Henry that Ned isn't even aware of.

Karen Sillas & Martin Donovan

My biggest gripe as a Hal Hartley fan surrounding this film is that critics seem to be mostly concerned with Aubrey Plaza's presence. I know she's the biggest name in the movie, so she's going to draw the most attention. But at the end of the day Ned Rifle was made for fans like me who are familiar with Hartley's universe. We watched the same actors/characters for three movies. Aubrey Plaza is a new addition to a story with characters that have 17 years of history with some of us. Presenting this movie as if it's centered around just her (which many critics coming out of Toronto have kinda been doing), is going to give the wrong idea.
But I don't mean to downplay her. If you know how Hartley directs his actors then you can imagine that Plaza is a perfect fit with her usual apathetic/bored delivery. She gave a surprisingly good performance in this and her character is pretty important to the story (it might be good to revisit Henry Fool before watching this).

In addition to the Henry Fool/Fay Grim references, Hartley uses almost all of his original stock actors (with the exception of Edie Falco & Chuck Montgomery). For fans like me - seeing Martin Donovan, Karen Sillas, Bill Sage & Robert John Burke in a recent Hal Hartley film is like seeing Robert Deniro, Harvey Keitel, Frank Vincent & Joe Pesci show up in a new Martin Scorsese film all of a sudden.

In typical Hal Hartley fashion there's plenty of semi-deadpan quirkiness; religious figures; (intentionally) dry yet prolific delivery from the actors; well choreographed movements; and a finale that leaves it up to the viewers to decide if certain characters are redeemed or not (actually, the ending is pretty similar to the end of Hartley’s1994 film Amateur).

THE TRIP TO ITALY

Although I did laugh out loud quite a bit while watching The Trip To Italy, I found the overall experience to be a little underwhelming. Was there really a need to make a sequel to The Trip? I know that sounds a little harsh, but I think the team of Michael Winterbottom, Steve Coogan & Rob Brydon have taken the genre of playing slightly fictionalized versions of one's real self as far as it can go (just my opinion). This movie reminded me why I vowed to stop watching all those Judd Apatow-related movies that feature some combination of James Franco, Seth Rogen, Danny McBride, Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Justin Long, Craig Robinson, Paul Rudd, Jay Baruchel, Jason Segal, etc etc etc. I enjoyed Pineapple Express & 40 Year Old Virgin, but once you've seen those movies, you’ve kind of seen 'em all. Do I really wanna pay money to watch a bunch of real life friends hang out on camera and do stupid shit? I can hang out with my own friends and do silly stupid shit for no money at all. I guess the reason why Steve Coogan gets a pass with me on all that is because I think he's far more talented & funnier than Seth Rogen & Co. (I know it’s easy to pick at & dump on Judd Apatow movies these days but god damn...enough is enough). I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – I always wished we (Americans) got Steve Coogan instead of Hugh Grant (one of the many celebrities Brydon & Coogan impersonate in The Trip To Italy). He’s extremely talented and has been underused in mainstream film until recently (Philomena). It’s almost a crime at how little he was used in Tropic Thunder (a common theme in these Trip movies is Coogan's desire to break in to mainstream American cinema).

In The Trip To Italy, Steve Coogan & Rob Brydon take on a new celebrity food criticism assignment which allows them to travel too places like Rome, Liguria & Capri. Through the course of the trip they see the sights, talk about their careers and deal with family issues back home, all while listening to Alanis Morrisette’s Jagged Little Pill album. This film focuses a lot more on Brydon this time around. He's having problems back home with his wife and he's up for a co-starring role in a (fictionalized) Michael Mann film.
Coogan & Brydon play off of the same things that made the first film funny - Michael Caine impersonations, really bad Al Pacino impressions and Steve Coogan’s insecurities about his career. But that’s not to say they don’t bring anything new to the table. The duo takes a stab at Tom Hardy’s Bane, Robert Deniro's mannerisms & generic American accents.

There’s some emphasis placed on the food, but not as much as in the first film. In fact, you almost forget that they’re on a writing assignment. Winterbottom makes it a point to shoot the food and show the cooks behind the scenes working, but it feels more like Coogan & Brydon are just on vacation hanging out.

I’d be lying if I said this film wasn’t nice to look at also. Italy is a beautiful place and Winterbottom gets that across to the viewers. The Trip To Italy made me a little nostalgic. I spent some time in Rome studying architecture for school in my early 20’s. During my time in Italy I never ventured outside of Rome and this film made me regret not going to places like Capri & Liguria. 

Another huge thing this film missed out on was not really showing the locals. I like to think I’m more experienced in European travel than the average American (besides Rome, I’ve spent plenty of time in Paris, Barcelona & London), so I can weigh in on this. Italians have that cliche reputation for being passionate & overly emotional (and it's kinda true), but they’re also some of the warmest & friendliest people. They engage you on the street and even invite you in to their home for dinner (or maybe that was just my own personal Italian experience). Think back a few years ago to Certified Copied (another movie set in Italy starring two non-Italians). How many times did co-stars Juliet Binoche & William Shimell interact with all the locals through the course of the film? Plenty. That’s a very Italian thing to do. With the exception of one scene with an Italian hotel receptionist, at no point do Steve Coogan or Rob Brydon truly interact with or have any funny improvised moments with any of the Italians they’re surrounded by. In fact, the only other supporting characters of substance in The Trip To Italy are other brits.

I’d advise all of you to take this review with a grain of salt. My relationship with Michael Winterbottom’s filmography is a lil’ funny. Besides people that are actually from Manchester, I highly doubt anyone loves 24 Hour Party People as much as I do. The problem with that is I’m always hoping Michael Winterbottom to deliver something just as great (and the fact that his latest film stars two of the main actors from 24 Hour Party People makes my expectations that much greater). I know that’s not a fair expectation, but it is what it is. Winterbottom has certainly put out other films I really enjoy over the years (Tristram Shandy, The Trip, etc) but nothing quite like 24 Hour Party People in my eyes. For a sequel, The Trip To Italy doesn’t have the kind of plot that’ll lose you if you haven’t seen the first one. Even if you aren’t familiar with the work of Michael Winterbottom or Steve Coogan, it’s impossible for someone to not find some laughs in this, which is ultimately the point. I guess I just hold Michael Winterbottom to a higher standard for some strange unfair reason.

PUSHER 2: A SURPRISINGLY SAD & PERSONAL FILM

He [Tonny] is very much a sidekick in his own movie - Mads Mikkeksen

If you read this site regularly you'd know I'm a big fan of Nicholas Winding Refn. I've written about the majority of his filmography on here and he's one of the few young-ish/non-master filmmakers to get a "cinema of..." installment. But at the same time, I'm really not a fan of his early work. Prior to Fear X, which laid the groundwork for all of his future films, Refn was more of a guerrilla style filmmaker who embraced handheld camerawork & grittiness like every other young indie filmmaker in the 90's who looked up to Robert Rodriguez or John Cassavetes in a confused mis-guided way. Pusher & Bleeder (Refn's first two films) were full of gangsters, thugs & drug dealing for the most part. The goings-on in his work remain the same today: the criminal underworld, gangsters, and an almost immature exhibition of violence. But there's a beauty in everything he’s done style-wise since Bronson that makes his work so good (personally, I think it was Refn's unspoken exclusion from the Danish film scene that inspired him to move away from that cinema verite style and embrace the glossier, cleaner style that most people know him for today).
I know it’s strange to write about the middle film in a trilogy but Pusher 2 is quite different from the others. After watching the first Pusher I really had no desire to finish the series but an employee at the now closed video store; World Of Video, convinced me to give it a shot...and I was pleasantly surprised. If anything it's is a loose sequel in that it takes a smaller/supporting character from the first film ("Tonny") and makes him the main character this time around. The character of Tonny is the last person you'd expect to have an entire film based on. In Pusher he's essentially a sidekick that gets written out of the story in the first half. You honestly forget about him at the end of the first Pusher. 

Tonny shows a prison tattoo to his unimpressed father; "The Duke"

Pusher 2 picks up with Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) after just being released from prison. This is hardly a story about an ex-con trying to rehabilitate to life on the outside or doing his best to not get pulled back in to a life of crime. Instead Tonny goes straight from prison to being a gangster again (even after discovering he’s a dad). It's almost as if his time in prison meant nothing. Tonny hopes to work for his father; "The Duke" - a respected criminal with a lucrative chop shop operation. The only problem is that The Duke pretty much hates his immature son and considers him an embarrassment. Throughout the film The Duke berates & disrespects his son Tonny to point where it gets ridiculous (Tonny does bring it on himself at times). But like a sad puppy, Tonny continues come back and vie for his father's love no matter what. There's an important subplot in Pusher 2 involving "Milo" (the Serbian drug kingpin from the first Pusher film and the main character in the third installment) and there's plenty of violence and other typical elements that make a gangster movie what it is, but at the end of the day Pusher 2 is really a drama about a son wanting to be accepted by his father. Refn just disguises all of that underneath a typical gangster story. I've read conflicting stories on why he made Pusher 2. Some believe Refn put no thought in to it. He needed to make a few quick films to get out of debt so he capitalized on the popularity of the first Pusher film and quickly churned out a sequel for the money. Others seem to think the real life relationship between Nicolas Refn and his father Anders Refn (also filmmaker) was the inspiration behind the relationship between Tonny and The Duke. Perhaps Refn's motivation was a little bit of both. I don't doubt that he made it for financial reasons, but maybe his subconscious kicked in during the writing process or while in pre-production and he drew inspiration from his personal life.

Much of this film's success is owed to Mads Mikkelsen's lead performance. I don't know if it’s his face or the vibe he gives off when he's acting but I can never picture another actor in any of his roles like I do so many other actors. Tonny is an interesting and surprisingly complex human being. He's a big immature child trapped in a man's body with grand illusions of being some big time gangster. Part of me dislikes him and wants nothing to do with him. Yet we somehow sympathize for him due to all the abuse he takes from his father and everyone else around him. No one else could have played the role of Tonny as well as Mads and not many filmmakers would dedicate an entire film to an unimportant sidekick character.

A big reason as to why I'm so critical of Refn's early work is because I was introduced to him through stuff like Fear X and Valhalla Rising. I'm more a fan of his slower, Kubrick-influenced stuff. I was a late comer to the Pusher series (I first saw the Pusher films only a few years ago). In retrospect I kind of appreciate the whole series because it showed Refn's growth as a person. For me, the first Pusher film represented a piece of work made by someone incredibly young (which Refn was at the time) with dreams of becoming the next Robert Rodriguez, who watched Mean Streets WAY too many times and still got the wrong message that Scorsese's early film tried to deliver. There's actually quite a few worthy comparisons between Mean Streets & Pusher. Both films are gritty/guerrila-style stories about lower-tier gangsters juggling women problems & unstable/lose cannon friends that get in way over their heads with people far more powerful than them. Both films even end on a negatively ambiguous note.
It's no mystery that Refn thinks gangsters are "cool", even though he did try to show the negative side of that lifestyle with the Pusher series. But from the score, the overall tone and even the advertising for the first Pusher - Nicholas Winding Refn's debut came off more like a "cool cocaine-induced indie gangster flick" instead of the depressing life lesson that it really should have been. However Pusher 2 makes up for all that. The Refn who made Pusher 2 was clearly a slightly more mature adult.

A MOVIE FOR VALENTINE'S DAY: 2046

In keeping with my tradition of writing about Wong Kar Wai films on & around Valentine's Day, I decided to write about his last solid effort. It's a little disappointing how luke-warm he's been in recent years. You've already read my thoughts on the disappointing My Blueberry Nights, and his latest effort wasn’t that great either. Granted, I have not seen the supposedly better directors cut of The Grandmaster - WKW's "ok", yet overrated, embellished story about IP Man (Bruce Lee's teacher/mentor) but I'm highly skeptical that some additional scenes & editing could make it anything better than just "ok". I'm surprised at all the praise it got last year. As I've said before - sometimes we get so caught up in who directed something that we allow it to cloud our true feelings about a film's status. I understand Wong Kar Wai is one of the modern day living legends but it's ok to admit when he does something underwhelming (not bad, just underwhelming). WKW rarely delivers a film that's just above average so people have a hard time accepting that when it really happens (like in the case of The Grandmaster). Prior to My Blueberry Nights his only "ok" movie was As Tears Go By which was his first feature so it gets a pass. Even when he made films in a hurry they turned out great (Chungking Express). But are you guys gonna honestly tell me you weren’t bored or, dare I say, slightly confused at certain plot points in The Grandmaster? I certainly was, and I have no shame in admitting that. I used to think 2046 was without any fault simply because it was directed by a modern legend. I was so caught up in the mystique of having a WKW film released in my adult life that I'd deemed 2046 a classic before I saw it. But a couple of years ago I came to the realization that it could have used some SERIOUS editing. It's like towards the last 20-30 minutes WKW turned in to Peter Jackson and just refused to end the movie. It kept going & going.
But putting that bit of criticism aside, 2046 is still a really good film. Not since Days Of Being Wild (1991) had Wong Kar Wai centered a story around an asshole antihero. Furthermore, we never saw Tony Leung play that kind of a role under the direction of Wong Kar Wai. Since the beginning of their 2+ decade long relationship we saw Leung get dumped by his girlfriends (Chunking Express), taken advantage of by his boyfriend (Happy Together) and cheated on by his wife (In The Mood For Love). No matter how cool he came off in every on of those films, he was still the quintessential art house sap. 2046 was his turn to be the asshole.
This was also the last collaboration between WKW and his regular cinematographer; Christopher Doyle. Much like how Hal Hartley stopped working with Martin Donovan, or Wim Wenders stopped working with Robby Muller or Scorsese & Deniro, WKW's work hasnt been the same since the departure of Doyle.

2046 is the final film in WKW's unofficial trilogy along with Days Of Being Wild & In The Mood For Love ("2046" being a reference to a hotel room # from In The Mood For Love). In the film we follow Chow (Tony Leung) after the events of In The Mood For Love. After being cheated on by his wife and never consummating a relation with Su (Maggie Cheung), Chow becomes a science fiction writer/world traveler/playboy (he's made an unofficial pact to live his life as a player and to never fall in love again). Instead of being the loyal/faithful husband we knew him as in In The Mood For Love, he now goes to bed with a different woman almost every night. But It's more than obvious that this new extra masculine version of Chow we see in 2046 is a front. He puts up this cool unfazed facade, but in reality he's still hurting from past relationships. The 2046 Chow may be somewhat different than the average sensitive leading man that we're used to in a Wong Kar Wai film, but that element of sensitivity & vulnerability (which we seldom see in leading men in cinema) is still there.

Because 2046 & In The Mood For Love are so deeply connected with each other more than any other combination of WKW's films, he reuses a lot of similar shots throughout…

2046 / In The Mood For Love

2046 / In The Mood For Love

2046 / In The Mood For Love

2046 is broken up in to chapters. WKW takes us in to Chow's romantic relationships following the break up with his wife. His most memorable & impactful girlfriend/fling/relationship is with "Bai Ling" (Zhang Ziyi) who is probably the most (possibly only?) tough female character that Wong Kar Wai has ever crafted. Like Chow, she puts up a tough/unapproachable exterior, but the more they start to genuinely fall for each other, the more their facade's starts to come down. But does Chow decide to settle down with Bai Ling or continue to live his life as a player? The story of 2046 is also intercut with fictitious scenes from a science fiction novel that Chow is currently working on (a story within a story in the style of Adaptation, CQ, etc).
The problem with Chow's past that WKW creates is that it feels like there's a whole entire movie we missed between In The Mood For Love & 2046. Wong just kind of breezes through Chow's past and in certain points in 2046 there's flashbacks or references to things that we aren’t in on. Basically, 2046 becomes a little too familiar at times and assumes we know what’s going on. I also didn’t like that Maggie Cheung’s Su only appears in the film through archival footage from In The Mood For Love. That part of the film felt very cut & paste.

2046 doesn’t exactly have a happy ending, but there's still plenty of romance, love & sensuality in almost every frame of the film (even parts that were a little boring). If you have the patience and understand that certain parts of this film lingers on when it doesn’t have to, this is a nice alternative to the average romantic comedies & love stories that people are drawn too on this day.
2046 isn’t so much the end of a saga but rather it brings the story of Chow full circle as it ties in to the first film within the trilogy. There’s a moment at the end of Days Of Being Wild where an unnamed character, played By Tony Leung, is preparing to go out for the night. Some might say this is the best part of the film even though it comes out of nowhere and really has nothing to do with the rest of story in Days Of Being Wild. Prior to the release of 2046, that moment had a lot of mystery and mystique to it. But once you watch Tony Leung in 2046 and think back on that infamous scene at the end of Days Of Being Wild, you can’t help but wonder if it's supposed to be a random moment from Chow's life following the events of In The Mood For Love. In reality, Days Of Being Wild was supposed to have a separate story starring Tony Leung but almost all of it was cut minus that final scene. But if you ignore that bit of factual information, it's nice to pretend that Wong Kar Wai was ahead of his time and had his loose trilogy all planned out years in advance...

MANDERLAY: LARS UNCHAINED...

I'm a little embarrassed to say this, but I was pretty intrigued by Manderlay when I was younger. I never thought it was a great film but I remember thinking there was something interesting about it in all of it's heavy-handedness, but not so much anymore...

I used to take Lars Von Trier way more seriously than I think I was supposed to. But now that I've read enough books on the man, kept up with his antics over the years and have re-watched everything he's done over & over, I honestly get that he's trying to be a button-pushing provocateur over everything else (Dancer In The Dark, Breaking The Waves, parts of Melancholia and the final moments of The Idiots being the exceptions) and for whatever reason; I dig that about him. It's in my newfound understanding of Von Trier that I've come to respect him and enjoy his work even more. I just wish more people shared my way of thinking about him. Anyone who STILL gets frustrated over a Lars Von Trier movie in 2014 deserves the aneurysm that they're giving themselves when they get all worked up at the sound of his name. It's like people who saw Terrence Malick's To The Wonder and took the time to write super long scathing reviews of the film or go on verbal rants about how stupid, weird & artsy it is. I personally love Malick's latest work but I can understand if someone were to not like it or brush it aside. But some people's reaction to that film were as if it was his debut and they had no idea that Tree Of Life, The New World & The Thin Red Line existed (sorry, I refuse to believe anyone stumbled upon To The Wonder without knowing about Tree Of Life. You knew what you were getting in to). It's the same thing with Von Trier's recent work. Sure, it's understandable that something like Antichrist would cause the stir that it did given certain scenes and how women are presented in it. But at the same time, were those frustrated critics & cinephiles that were familiar with his work unaware of the abuse that Nicole Kidman & Emily Watson took in the last half of Breaking The Waves & Dogville, respectively? What about Bjork's body just dangling from the noose at the end of Dancer In The Dark? Was it really that shocking to see how Von Trier handled his female character in Antichrist based on his previous two decades of work? To be honest, LvT haters make me like him even more. I liken him to that of a heel wrestler. He's essentially a troll. But what's so strange is that he's a talented troll. When it comes to the technical aspects of filmmaking (which is important no matter how you look at it), having an understanding of the language of cinema and getting excellent performances out of his actors (Emily Watson in Breaking The Waves, Bjork in Dancer In The Dark, Charlotte Gainsbourg in Antichrist, etc); I'll put Lars up against your favorite filmmaker any day of the week from Alfonso Cuaron to Christopher Nolan (yeah, I said it).

As you can see I have no problem defending LvT as a filmmaker but unfortunately Manderlay is something I can't get behind no matter how many nuggets of truth or social commentary it contains.

Top row: Confederate States Of America / Cache
Bottom: Django Unchained / 12 Years A Slave

Because of recent films like Django Unchained, 12 Years A Slave & elements of The Butler, slavery & racism has suddenly become a hot topic in cinema again. But this is an echo of 2005 when the subject of racial guilt became a minor deal within indie/art house cinema all of a sudden. You had Cache (one of the greatest modern films ever made), Confederate States Of America (one of the most eye-rolling, almost unnecessary films ever made) and Manderlay, which is somewhere in the middle of those two films although it treads closer to Confederate States Of America. Cache is a film about everything from racism being swept under the rug in Europe to chickens coming home to roost while Confederate States Of America (produced by Spike Lee) is a sort of hybrid mockumentary/fiction story about a modern day America had the confederacy won the civil war. Two out of those three films dealt with slavery (Manderlay & Confederate States) and all three were about racism, guilt and atrocities committed against people of color (I can’t exactly group the Algerian characters from Cache in with the African American characters from Manderlay & Confederate States Of America, but they’re all descendants from Africa in some shape or form so, close enough…). Strangely enough, both Manderlay & Confederate States Of America played at the IFC Center around the same time if I'm not mistaken...

I’ve eluded to my extremely uncomfortable experience watching Manderlay at IFC in previous entries, but allow me to explain in full now that we're actually talking about it...

As I sat watching this in a theater made up of mostly white people, I found myself becoming more & more uncomfortable as everyone around me chuckled & laughed out loud at scenes I honestly didn’t find to be funny as a black person. Not only was I uncomfortable, but I found myself almost embarrassed for a lot of the white audience members because a lot of their laughter was clearly their way of dealing with the discomfort they felt while watching Manderlay. Don’t get me wrong, there are some legitimate humorous moments in the film, but overall there was WAY too much laughter about something having to do with slavery. 

Manderlay is ultimately a failure but at the same time, there is still a reason I bought the DVD at full price and end up talking about it from time to time at length with equal minded friends. I even devoted some time to write about it on here when I could be writing about something else...

Shot in the same stage play style as its predecessor; Dogville, Manderlay is the kind of film where if you were to stumble upon it in the middle, you’d find yourself asking; “whoa, what am I watching here?”

Black face in Manderlay

Lars touches on the (tired) taboo's of interracial relationships in Manderlay

Strange Fruit.

Going back to my troll comment from earlier; the whole motivation behind Lars Von Trier making his Grace/America Trilogy, made up of Dogville, Manderlay and a not yet made third part, was to be just that - a troll. He just wanted to challenge/annoy Americans after the criticism he faced for Dancer In The Dark. In Dogville he criticized the immigration system in America (no matter how much he denies this) while Manderlay is about race issues concerning black people in America.

In Manderlay, we pick up with the Grace character following the events of Dogville. This time around Bryce Dallas Howard takes up the role of Grace instead of Nicole Kidman (John Hurt does return as the film's narrator). Set in the early 1930's, Grace travels with her mobster father (played by Willem Dafoe this time instead of James Caan) and his henchmen through the deep south. In their travels they eventually come across a plantation ("Manderlay") that still practices slavery decades after it's been abolished in America. Apparently this was a deep backwoods southern region where they somehow kept the news of slavery being abolished a secret. Sounds a little far-fetched, I know. But I can let that go. It makes for an interesting story. Grace, along with her father’s henchmen, takes it upon herself to free the slaves but given their institutionalized mindset, they can’t function as free people. Against her father’s wishes, Grace stays back in an effort to help the freed slaves and of course by the end of the film she incidentally becomes the new defacto "master" which is the exact opposite of what she was trying to do in the first place. It's also revealed at the end of the film that one of the elder slaves (played by Danny Glover) is a bit more sinister than what we thought. It's kind of a shame Glover wasted such a good performance on this overall mess of a film. 

Manderlay is a paradox because Grace is self-righteous & obnoxious, yet so is the overall message of this film. Von Trier tries to criticize the Grace character in all of her self-righteousness & know-it-allism in her mission to help the slaves not realizing that Grace is actually a mirror of Von Trier himself in making Manderlay. Lars points his finger at America and criticizes the racism that exists in this country (which it certainly does exist) but he has yet to even step foot on American soil. I'm not saying that he can't have an opinion on racism in America (or even make a movie about it) but for him to go as far as he did with Manderlay without ever witnessing it firsthand is a little strange to me. How could this be truly authentic? Plus, Von Trier is pretty much trying to go out of his way to blame all white people for the plight of black people in America and its SOOO much more complicated than how he presents it. He simplifies such a complex issue (racism) to the point where it becomes insulting. In the final moments of Manderlay, one of the slaves, played by Claire Denis regular; Isaach De Bankole, practically looks in to the camera and says to Grace; "YOU made us this way." I have two major problems with that. One, it's as if Debankole is speaking for all black people (myself included) as if we're one like-minded group of people who all think the same and blame the same. My other issue with that statement is, like I said earlier, it's the biggest oversimplification of what's probably the most complex issue in the world, yet Von Trier manages to whittle it down into a single phrase.

Recently a good friend of mine (Mtume Gant of the site; Alter Eye) offered an interesting perspective on Haneke's Cache which I actually feel applies more to Manderlay. On the subject of Cache, a film we don't exactly see eye-to-eye on, he felt that at the end of the day Cache was about racism & people of color, but it was made by white people and for white people only. I understand that take on it, but in my opinion, Cache is the only kind of film Michael Haneke could make. Had he made that kind of film from the perspective of the Algerian characters in Cache, I feel it would have been out of line & out of place. Cache is told from the perspective of a white European male because Haneke himself is a white European male. If you're going to make an authentic film about racism, it's potentially dangerous to take on the perspective of a black person when you've never walked in their shoes (not saying it can't be done, but it is risky). Even the few parts of Manderlay where Von Trier is on point with his social commentary, I can’t help but feel like it isn’t his place to say anything given he’s spent ZERO time around African Americans outside of a movie shoot and has yet to step foot in a highly populated black area in America. And to add an extra layer to things, Manderlay is the kind of film where mostly white intellectuals will talk about this among themselves without knowing or wanting to know a black person’s opinion on it.

And lets be clear – had a black person made this very exact same film, I still would have had problems with it…

I’m a little disappointed that Lars’ one & only film to date that tackles race head-on turned out to be this. He’s handled minor racial issues in the past (on & off camera) in a way that I’ve respected. The character that Catherine Deneuve plays in Dancer In The Dark was originally supposed to be a black woman but Lars decided to not add to another long list of black supporting, sidekick female characters so he made her white instead (as strange as that sounds, that’s how I personally prefer more filmmakers handle things instead of trying to please black audiences by throwing in an under-developed black character in an effort to make things “diverse”).
I always found it odd that the biggest controversy from the production of Manderlay was John C. Reilly walking off set in protest due to a donkey being killed for a particular scene. 

How were there no reports of racial tension or inner turmoil among the director and his mostly black cast given the subject matter & tone of Manderlay?
This almost feels like what a movie about slavery would be had it been produced by Vice Magazine. Manderlay also suffers from some of the same issues as Django Unchained - another film centered around slavery with a heavy tone of white guilt (conveyed mostly through the Dr. Schultz character) where the white characters are more interesting & complex than the black (MAIN) characters (Danny Glover's performance being the exception). I still place Manderlay above a film like Django but that’s almost like picking the lesser of the two evils. Although this movie is ultimately a failure/mess, I still think it should be seen by anyone with an interest in race issues or the films of Lars Von Trier.
I love Lars to death but I don't know if it’s possible to have something backfire in your face as bad as Manderlay did.

COUNTDOWN TO EXPENDABLES 2: DIE HARD 2 (*Special Guest Blogger: Chris Funderburg*)

For the first time in PINNLAND EMPIRE history I've invited guest writers to contribute to the site. The first half of this month is Expendables month and I've invited some other great writers to share some of their favorite Expendables-related movies with you all. Who better to go first than Pink Smoker: Chris Funderberg? His writings on The White Ribbon & Miami Blues as well as his recent 81 greatest movie titles are just a few reasons to love The Pink Smoke and why I'm always honored to contribute to the site whenever I'm asked.

Enjoy...

Oh, Die Hard 2: Die Harder – what can be said about this film that hasn’t already been said in every sheepish defense of Renny Harlin’s career? One thing on which I think we can all agree is that Die Hard 2 is truly the Die Hard of Die Hard sequels. Certainly, it deserves respect for its willingness to embrace its unfathomable subtitle, a gibberish phrase that embodies Hollywood’s turn of decade devotion to a more insane, abstract concept of action film awesomeness –the film and the phrase represent an almost koan-like and spiritual dedication to paring of “awesomeness” down to its aesthetic components and tossing aside worldly considerations like intelligibility or humility. Action films in those ruthless days were, as Godard said of Bergman, not wont to pretend to shame. To Die Harder, one must embrace an existential state of “awesomeness;” a state in which Bruce Willis is willing to bite off and spit out a chunk of William Saddler’s leg and use an icicle as an eye-gouging stiletto. Dying Harder means willful entry into a world of breathless plot movement, grotesque savagery, sleazy double-crosses and the quivering jowls of Fred Thompson. The simple, elegant plot follows a retired police detective who discovers a terrorist scheme perpetrated by former special ops soldiers who intend to rescue a notorious South American drug lord/dictator (played by noted Italian sexpot Franco Nero) from his upcoming imprisonment in the U.S. by holding an entire airport hostage and forcing it to land a plane containing the drug lord in abandoned hanger and then give them another plane in which to escape. Simple enough, right? Perhaps sensing their plot needed some pizzazz, the conceptual team behind the artwork added the intriguing element of another special ops force sent in to contend with the airport-jackers who turn out to also be in on the scheme and using blanks in their gun-fights with the terrorist group in order to give the appearance that they’re not in on the plot. At one point the retired cop dives off of a snow-mobile as it flies over a tractor-trailer truck and explodes in mid-air. If we can say anything of Die Hard 2, we can say only that it is a pure expression of action film spectacle in an era devoted to the purity of action film spectacle divorced from modesty, a sharpened blade of the genre’s internal logic wielded by a maniac who apparently despises the media for some reason.



Honestly, the only complaint I have against the film – and truthfully I prefer to treat it as a mystery rather than a flaw – is the inordinate amount of time spent on a subplot in which a scurrilous reporter played by William Atherton, the man with no dick from Ghostbusters, is once again subjected to dick insults by the retired cop’s wife, a poofy-haired Bonnie Bedelia. The series of zingers are not on the level with Bill Murray’s aforementioned quip, really they just boil down to people calling him “Dick” - which happens to be his name, but also has a devastating double-meaning. He somehow does something inappropriate – I believe he asks for a pillow? – and the stewardesses hate him and give Bedelia free champagne because she once punched him in the face and he now has a restraining order against her. None of the flight crew seemed overly concerned that they are in violation of the court order to keep her separate from her victim. Most appallingly, Atherton’s fears turns out to be well-founded: due to the crew’s negligence, she is once again able to assault him, this time shocking him with a 5,000 volt stun-gun acquired from a little old lady on the plane. They should all lose their jobs for allowing the stun-gun to make it onto the flight; their laughing reaction to Atherton’s further basement surely means they their union contracts will be terminated without residual benefits. But what is the artist’s point in this cruel and insistent depiction of the media as scorn-worthy buffoons? That hostages on planes in danger of crashing should just shut their fucking mouths? That women should be allowed to punch whoever they want? That the media is somehow making the situation worse by wanting to ascertain the truth and alert the general public to a massive terrorist scheme in which their loved ones are potentially involved? No, Atherton is guilty of caring about his career. Like a dad that misses his son’s big baseball game in order to go to a meeting, Atherton has surrendered his fundamental humanity by being excited to break what would surely be the story of the century. Jerk. Now I’m happy someone shocked him with a weapon commonly believed to be the cause of the disgusting uptick in the unexpected sudden death per arrest rate of police forces around the country? Get this woman champagne! Also, there’s another female t.v. reporter in the film and Bruce is pretty hard on her even though she doesn’t do anything wrong. She just wants to talk to somebody about the drug lord/dictator. That’s legit, right?

Anyhoo, Die Hard might be fueled by excess and absurdity, but the film plays, as they say. For sure, it plays to 12 year-old boys of all ages and I can’t imagine what complaints anybody could have against it. It features both John Leguizamo and Robert Patrick in tiny roles as Saddler’s henchmen – and as Above the Law proved, tiny nearly invisible cameos by John Leguizamo are the hallmark of a pretty good, decidedly not great action film starring a late 80’s/early 90’s action movie icon a la Bruce or Seagal. I think if you drill right down into, the only meaningful problem with Die Hard 2: Die Harder is that it is the sequel to Die Hard. To this day, Die Hard constitutes the platonic ideal of American Action Cinema. It is the form to which the genre naturally aspires – if not deformed by their creators and other interference, every Hollywood Action Blockbuster would naturally become Die Hard, so harmonious is its configuration. It’s only the rotten ideas of men and the vanity of artists that prevents every Action Film artwork from achieving this absolute. Die Hard 2 is not the ideal, it is the baroque mirror of an ideal and, thus, suffers in comparison. It reflects its predecessor but distorts the purity of the original – many find the result to be garish, but I believe that it attains its own peculiar beauty. The difference between Die Hard and Die Hard 2: Die Harder is what separates Raphael’s Alba Madonna from Georg Grosz’ Methusalem or, if you’d prefer to be more literal about it, DaVinci’s Mona Lisa from Botero’s Mona Lisa. In terms of the latter artworks, I happen to appreciate both the evocative, subtle original and the big fat, fatty-fat-fat grotesquery. It should be noted, that the grotesquerie cannot exist without the original and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider the twisted distortions bourn of imitation to merely be another facet of the original artwork: that is, Die Hard 2 and its leg-biting, Leguizamo-slaughtering, Art Evans-showcasing insanity would not exist without the beautiful truth that is Die Hard – it cannot be separated, as the child is of the man. To celebrate Die Hard 2: Die Harder is in some circuitous way a celebration of the original’s perfection, not an insult to it. It is a shameless abstraction of the awesomeness of the original. It doesn’t matter whether you believe the same shit could happen to the same guy. My professional advice? Watch both films at Christmas with your loved ones. Dads, in particular, love that shit.

-Chris Funderberg

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

I know some people are getting tired of Christopher Nolan’s Batman series being placed on a pedestal and looked upon as the only standard for current super hero films, but some of the most successful films have borrowed a thing or 2 from it. In Captain America’s case, it was the importance placed on the origin of the main character and the pacing of the story. It didn’t have the same issues as ‘X-Men 3’, ‘Wolverine’ or ‘Spiderman 3’. It didn’t try to cram a bunch of shit in to two hours or try to get all “artsy” like Ang Lee did with the Hulk (sorry but that’s what you get when you hire an “art house” director to make a superhero film). ‘Captain America’ was over 2 hours which gave plenty of time to tell the story without having to rush. And there was only ONE villain to focus on. And at the same time, ‘Captain America’ didn’t try to be like ‘Batman Begins’ or ‘The Dark Knight’ as far as being a “gritty” dark retelling. The film contains a decent amount of campiness and corniness that one should expect from a super hero movie like this. Captain America is not only Marvel’s “Golden Boy” or “Superman”, but he’s also a symbol of patriotism (sorry to sound so corny), so you shouldn’t expect for the filmmaker to go all “dark” and “brooding” with this one (which is what I’m worried this new Spiderman revamp is going to try to be like). At times Chris Evan’s overally patriotic performance seems a little forced with lines like; "there are men laying down their lives every day. I’ve got no right to do any less than them", but at the same time it is Captain America we’re talking about here. The feel of the film, set in the early 1940’s, is slightly cartoonish yet at the same time has a somewhat grainy/grayish look to give it an authentic “old timey” feel.
In the film Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers: A small & weak yet patriotic American who’s chosen for a secret experiment to turn him in to a super soldier to fight a sub division of the Nazi’s called “Hydra”, led by Hitler’s right hand man “Red Skull” (played by Hugo Weaving), who has the same powers & abilities as Steve Rogers/Captain America (both characters went under the same experiment). At first, Captain America is paraded around the country and used as a sideshow attraction instead of being used to fight in the war. But after he proves himself by saving a group of U.S. soldiers, he’s given the chance to fight alongside the other soldiers. In the beginning, Hugo Weaving comes off as a typical Nazi Villain straight outta Indiana Jones. But once he embraces the classic Red Skull skeleton face look, he gives a great performance. The film also delivers an actual showdown between the hero and villain, which is something some directors of comic book movies still don’t seem to realize is an important thing. At the end of the day, people wanna see a fight. No one wasn’t to see the Hulk jump through clouds & lightning. No one wants to see Wolverine investigate or play detective. This is one reason why I’m anticipating ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ as Bane is the main villain who, although is very smart and a criminal mastermind, is a physical character (a wrestler to be specific). So I’m hoping for some kind of a fight or showdown between him and Batman.
Anyway, ‘Captain America’ was the best 3D experience I’ve had in the theater so far (the only other movie that rivals it would be ‘Thor’). Between ‘Avatar’ and Werner Herzog’s ‘Cave Of Forgotten Dreams’, Captain America seemed to be the only film where I didn’t feel like I had keep taking of my glasses every 10 minutes. It really added to the action, which looked great. The vibe of the movie may have been slightly corny, but Captain America’s fighting scenes looked great.
This movie also tied the Avengers story together more than any other film in the series. Besides the obvious Nick Jackson/Samuel Fury cameo (I seriously hope at this point in the game you don’t consider this a spoiler), Howard Stark was an important supporting character. He was one of the scientists that turns Steve Rogers in to Captain America, and he also helps the Captain out on a critical mission to save a group of U.S. Soldiers captured by Red Skull’s army. Also, Odin (Thor’s father) is referenced heavily at the beginning of the film by Red Skull.

A reference to Thor: Red Skull w/ Odin's cosmic cube

A reference to Ironman: Howard Stark in 'Captain America'

Avengers Reference Nick Fury's cameo

‘Captain America’ was definitely a sigh of relief as this is the last solo Avengers story leading up to the joint film which I now have faith in thanks to not only this but ‘Thor’ as well.

TOY STORY 3

I'm sure by now most of you have seen this, but I'm pretty late on it. I admit that i slept on this movie. Even with all my friends telling me how great it was, i still planned on skipping it. Don't get it twisted, I'm not one of these pretentious film snobs that hate on pixar movies just for the sake of hating. I love incredibles , up and monsters inc. I just didn't think toy story 3 would be my kind of movie. Boy was i wrong. It was almost like god was trying to tell me i need to see this movie. On my flight back from spain (i flew Air France), Toy Story 3 was one of the MANY movie options i had to choose from. I must say, i always knew the french loved cinema more than most people, but shit...even their movie selection on their airlines are superior. I couldn't believe some of the movies i had to choose from on my flight back: wild at heart, le circle rouge, heat, 12 monkeys, animal kingdom and many more. Ive done a bit a of traveling over the years, but I've never got to choose from films by; David Lynch, Jean-Pierre Melville, Michael Mann or (GOOD) Terry Gilliam. In fact, the movie choices on my last 2 trips out of the country was shit like; Speed Racer, Red Belt and Blind Side. Good movies really do make flights go by faster. From now on, i may only plan my trips around locations that Air France flies too.
I always had a special attachment to my toys when i was a kid. And me being an only child meant that i had more than the average kid who had to share his stuff with his siblings (that's something foreign to me). Now, unlike Andy in toy story 3, i gave up playing (or even thinking about my action figures) long before going off too college, but the movie still touched an emotional nerve. Toy Story 3 kinda made me feel bad about giving my action figure away when i was kid. In fact there's that scene in in the movie when the pre-school kids play too rough with Andy's toys that brought back some memories. Even when i was young i use to hate kids like that. Id always avoid playing with them. They'd just take action figures and smash them together to simulate fighting. I hated that shit so much. I remember when i was 12/13 i went to my aunts house and saw some of my old toys on my cousins floor all broken and bent up with marker writing all over them. Toy Story 3 brought back all those memories.
In Toy 3 story, Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang have come to terms with the sad fact that not only has Andy totally given up on playing with toys, but hes going away to college. After Andy decides to only take Woody to college with him (as a memento of his childhood), Buzz and the rest of the Toys fear that they'll be thrown away. A mix up occurs, and Andy's toys are accidentally sent to a day care center where they meet a new set of Toys, led by "Lots' O' Bear", who may not be as nice as they appear at first. Now they have to figure out a way to escape from the day care (or prison as it slowly turns out to be) before Andy leaves for college. The last half of this movie gets pretty "dark" for a family movie. Some parts in Toy Story 3 are pretty heavy for a little kid to handle, especially the scene towards the end when they're at the landfill, and pretty much accept the fact that they're about to die, just before being saved.
I think a lot of people relate to Toy Story 3 (or the Andy character specifically), because we've kinda grown up along side him with each movie, and can relate to growing out of playing with toys and action figures. I was pleasantly surprised with Toy Story 3. With the year almost over, i see Toy Story 3 maintaining a solid position on my top 5 of the year.