Red Fox Media - Video Production - Website Design - Birmingham, AL

Guest Review By Troy Wagner

Sometimes movies completely surprise you. They leave an impact that you never saw coming. Perhaps it’s because you go in with lowered expectations, believing that what’s to be on the screen will be nothing more than a formulaic summer movie with some explosions and, get this, aliens. While District 9 has both of those things, there’s no way you will be calling it formulaic, and is likely to be one of the best movies you see all year.

Okay so, movies about aliens. That should seem pretty familiar to most people up to this point. We’ve seen them terrorize countless space crews, attack arctic research labs, and outright invade on plenty of occasions, be it on patriotic national holidays or not. The main problem with these, however, is the fact that they’re not all that rooted in reality. What would realistically happen if aliens were to come to Earth? District 9 has a pretty good guess.

The aliens, later known as the “prawns”, have arrived. Their enormous mothership comes to a stop over Johannesburg, South Africa. Once the millions (yeah, MILLIONS) of prawns are taken off the ship, they are placed in holding areas sectioned off by the government, the eponymous district 9. Time passes and these areas soon become slums, occupied by the prawns, who have now become dirty, diseased foragers. The government decides to rellocate them to a more isolated area to appease the paranoid public. A beaurocratic pencil-pusher named Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copely) is appointed to lead the massive undertaking.

In all honesty, that’s all you should know when going into the theater to see District 9. It is made all the more fantastic the less you know beforehand. This could be said for any given movie, but it really needs to be emphasised in this case. It’s inspiring to see how the filmmakers turn such a simple premise into something pretty remarkable.

Essentially every aspect of District 9 is masterfully executed. It’s director Neill Blomkamp’s first feature, yet it easily excells above other, more well-established films of the genre. However, while nearly all of it deserves praise, lead actor Sharlto Copely is the centerpiece that holds everything together and makes it work so well. He’s the lead amongst very few flesh-and-blood counterparts, and plenty of CGI prawns (not to mention the fact that many of his scenes are improvised AND District 9 is Copely’s acting debut). Wikus is a very complex character to watch on screen. He goes from being despised, to tolerated, to loved, and back again multiple times. It’s just staggering to realize that Sharlto Copely had never truly acted for the camera before until District 9. His performance is incredibly powerful at points. It really just blows you away.

District 9 is right on the verge of being revolutionary. But it’s not flat out perfect. Jumps from the documentary style to being behind the fouth wall can be jarring, and the CGI is dodgy in rare instances. But those are relatively small blemishes on an otherwise amazing film. As long as you’re not squeamish about intense violence, of which there is only a handful, District 9 is a fresh and exciting film that absolutely deserves to be seen.

9 1/2 out of 10

There’s no doubt that Will Smith has impressive range as an actor. His emotional performance in The Pursuit of Happyness is one to be remembered, and I suppose he was hoping to capture lightning twice with last year’s Seven Pounds. However, Smith’s performance alone couldn’t prop up a film with very little in the way of story and execution.

The film is a very weighty drama, in which Smith plays Ben Thomas, a broken man seeking redemption for a past mistake. The ideas explored in the film (redemption, goodness, selflessness, sacrifice) are all valid and the story does a good job of promoting all that is good with humankind. However, the biggest failure with Seven Pounds is that it gives away too much too soon, and it’s attempt at a foreceful one-two emotional punch falls flat.

The ending is given away at the onset of the film and then quickly we are rushed back to the beginning to see all the events in chronologcal order. The hope is that viewers will sit on the edge of their seats, waiting to see why Smith’s character made that phone call in the first scene. However, because of what we know in that opening moment, Ben Thomas’ ultimate plan is known a little less than half-way through the movie. We are left to watch as Ben goes around meeting a host of characters upon whom he can impart his goodness, in an ongoing effort to ease his own guilt.

Seven Pounds is certainly an emotional film, but one that lacks any serious impact.

4 out of 10

Bill Simmons competes in the Wing Bowl

SnagFilms is an excellent place to find documentary films, including the one I saw over the weekend -  Swallow Your Pride, a story about the rising popularity of competitive eating. What I love about documentaries is their ability to expose viewers to subcultures that the general public doesn’t notice, like a group of people totally committed to eating as much as humanly possible.

The film follows five competitive eaters as they prepare for and compete in Philadelphia’s annual Wing Bowl, an event wherein contestants eat as many wings as possible within a certain amount of time. The winner receives a crown and a brand new car.

The important thing about this documentary is that it avoids becoming superficial. The upcoming Wing Bowl drives the movie forward, but directors Josh Camerote and Brian Dwyer do a nice job of rounding out the story with great character insights and solid subplots. The film resolves around issues such as the motivations driving each eater, the impact on their health long-term, the credibility of eating as a sport, and the organization and governance of competitive eating. And all of the above is portrayed in an entertaining, humorous, yet honest way.

Swallow Your Pride has all the right elements - a good pace, a strong story arc, firm direction, unique and off-beat subject matter, and interesting characters. Anyone else craving chicken wings?

7 out of 10

Before director Danny Boyle was winning accolades for Slumdog Millionaire, he shot a little film about two English brothers who fall into an incredible amount of money. In the film Millions, brothers Damian and Anthony re-locate to a new area of town with their father Ronnie. All three are still reeling from the death of Ronnie’s wife and the new house gives them a chance to move past the grief.

Damian is an imaginative little boy, always conscious of others and always willing to help. So, when a duffel bag full of British pounds literally falls into his lap, he’s motivated to use the money to help as many people as possible. His brother Anthony, in contrast, wants to keep the money to himself and use it for his own benefit. But complicating their situation is the fact that England will switch over to the Euro in only 14 days, leaving their cash worthless.

Millions is told from Damian’s perspective, and the fanciful special effects and vibrant colors throughout reflect Damian’s imagination and his view of the world around him. Each scene becomes a visual treat, especially the opening sequence when the two brothers venture on to the empty lot of their soon-to-be-built house. They start to imagine what the house will look like and as they dream, the house builds itself around them.

The film has a distinctive charm that’s brought out both through the wonderful visual elements and the performances. Alex Etel’s portrayal of Damian is heartwarming, and although the character is naive and innocent, he teaches us a lot about humanitarianism. Overall, Millions is a delightful story with identifiable characters, a solid plot, and an emotional appeal that doesn’t become overly sweet.

7 out of 10 stars

Knowing Poster

Knowing, the latest Nicolas Cage film, paints a bleak picture of man’s future and delves into philosophical questions pertaining to the order (or lack thereof) of life’s events. Themes of destiny, futility, and spirituality are all wrapped up in a suspenseful plot that’s entertaining, yet entirely predictable.

The film begins in the year 1959. To commemorate the opening of their new school, a group of elementary school students lower a time capsule into the ground. Inside the capsule is a drawing from each student, illustrating his/her vision of the future. However, one disturbed little girl named Lucinda inserts a piece of paper filled with numbers.

Flash forward to present day. John Koestler (Cage) is an MIT professor and single dad with his own set of emotional issues. His son Caleb is handed Lucinda’s paper when the capsule is opened at a school ceremony and John starts to believe that the numbers have accurately predicted world tragedies from 1959 to the present. Only three events have yet to happen and John’s hope is that he can stop each tragedy before it occurs and uncover the truth about the origin of the numbers.

Although entertaining, Knowing has an abundance of plot holes and scenes that feel way too expository. For example, at one point in the film John’s sister confronts him about his fractured relationship with their father. It’s a scene that tries to bring some humanity to Cage’s character, but it seems out of place and forced.

The film also becomes a mixture of several genres. Dramatic and emotional scenes between father and son are followed by moments of intense action; those moments are followed by elements of mystery and suspense; and in the wake of those scenes are moments suited for sci-fi. Some might see this as a case of identity crisis - a movie trying to be too much of one thing without really developing it’s strongest point. Others might see this as a device to hold an audience’s interest and maintain quicker pacing. By movie’s end, however, Knowing becomes a bit muddled by all these devices and the overall impact is weakened.

5 out of 10 stars

How one goes through life depends entirely on his or her perspective. One individual might see the tragedy inherent in a specific event, and yet someone else might perceive the same event to be a positive. Is the event itself tragic or comic, or does it depend solely upon your point of view?

Summary

This philosophical merry-go-round is the foundation for Woody Allen’s 2004 film, Melinda and Melinda. The film opens at a restaurant where four friends are in the middle of a conversation about life and relationships. Two of the friends are playwrights. One friend says that life is inherently tragic, but the other claims that life is inherently comic. A third friend sets the plot in motion when he asks the two playwrights to listen to a story and then comment on whether the tale is best viewed as a tragedy or comedy.

From that point, the film follows two parallel stories, centering on Melinda, a young woman trying to get her life back together after a series of bad relationships and self-destructive behavior. One story follows a dramatic interpretation, and one follows the conventions of a romantic comedy.

Commentary: The Premise

The premise of following parallel stories is engaging, although cliched and formulaic. This movie would not seem quite so original had it been produced as a stand-alone tragedy or comedy. But because both story arcs are shown side by side, the film is much more interesting. I think most people enjoy contemplating how life’s course can be set in one direction or another by events outside their control. It’s fun to imagine what if? scenarios, thinking how things could have been different, if only…

Commentary: The Dialogue

The dialogue in the film is a number of things - snappy, clever, poetic, and philosophical. Allen allows his characters to speak what many of us only think. The danger of doing so, however, is that a lot of the dialogue is too on-the-nose and expository. It doesn’t ring true for real life. Characters (Melinda especially) engage in reflective and introspective monologues that are often tedious. At times it feels more like a stage play than a film, but perhaps that’s the intent, considering that we are seeing this story through the eyes of two playwrights.

Commentary: The Comedic Interpretation

Of the two “Melinda” stories, the light-hearted, comedic tale is much more interesting, due to the talents of the actors on screen. Will Ferrell plays Hobie, a struggling actor married to an up-and-coming director played by Amanda Peet. Ferrell’s Hobie is charming and innocent, and he falls for Melinda (played by Radha Mitchell) when he realizes his marriage is going nowhere. Peet is equally likeable as the ambitious work-aholic filmmaker, striving to lock in the extra money to get her first feature into production. The dynamic between Ferrell and Mitchell is fun to watch, and the dialogue between the two rings truer than the dramatic counterpart of the film.

Commentary: The Dramatic Interpretation

The weaker of the two stories is the dramatic interpretation. Here, the characters are far less interesting, the dialogue far too stilted, and the acting too melodramatic. Aside from Mitchell’s performance, the ensemble around her was flat, stiff, and too over-the-top. Mitchell’s portrayal as the emotionally disturbed and suicidal Melinda really carried this portion of the film.

Final Thoughts

Overall, Melinda and Melinda explores some very human themes in very conventional ways, but presents them in a unique way.

5 1/2 out of 10

Recently I watched the film The Prime Gig
on IFC - a story centered on Pendelton “Penny” Wise (Vince Vaughn), a smooth-talking small-time phone scam artist who wants to score some big money. As the film opens, Penny is working in a low-level telemarketing office with other sales people who are trying to scrape by. It’s obvious from the start that Penny is a big fish in a little pond and he knows it. He wants more. He wants a bigger challenge with a bigger payoff. Through his connections, Penny hears about an opportunity with Kelly Grant (Ed Harris), a well-known figure within their world. Penny knows that if he can get on board with Grant that he will earn more in one week than most people do in six months.

The Prime Gig follows other grifter and con-artist films and I fully expected the plot to be a tangled web of double-crosses, leaving me guessing until the very end. However, the difference with The Prime Gig is the fact that it’s focused more on the Penny character, not an ensemble cast or a multi-layered plot. I don’t mind the strong focus on character, but this premise lent itself beautifully to the type of plot one comes to expect from this genre and it didn’t capitalize on the opportunity.

The first act of the film was very promising, but there was nothing in subsequent acts to really heighten the tension and propel the story to a new level. After hooking the audience, the story seemed to level off. And the subplot between Penny and his good-for-nothing bum of a friend went nowhere.

Julia Ormond did a wonderful job as Caitlin Carlson, a sexy and strong love interest for Penny. The script developed her character really well. The same can’t be said however for the mysterious Kelly Grant. Ed Harris did what he could with what was given to him, but I really wanted more from this character. Grant was set up early on as an antagonist for Penny’s character, but the conflict never did build.

Overall, The Prime Gig is a film with great promise that goes flat less than half way through.

3 1/2 out of 10

It’s dark, disturbing, and violent, and paints a bleak picture of the human race. It’s a superhero film driven not by wall-to-wall action, but by the flawed and dysfunctional psyches of the few who don the masks to save humankind from themselves. This is Watchmen, the film based on the infamous graphic novel
of the same name. It’s a somber story that attempts (and succeeds) to tear down previous preconceptions about superheroes and the type of people they are.

The year is 1985. the US has won the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon is still in office. And the Cold War is at its height. The Soviets and the Americans are on the brink of total destruction via nuclear war. Cynicism rules the day and costumed vigilantes are a thing of the past. Members of the group, known as the Watchmen, can only reminisce about days gone by, as they try to lead normal lives. But the status quo changes when one of their own - The Comedian - is brutally murdered. That leads another of the Watchmen, Rorschach, to find out why The Comedian was killed. This leads ultimately to a much larger plot that threatens the lives of millions.

The challenge of weaving twelve volumes of comic books into a single film was no doubt a daunting task, because it’s important for the unfamiliar viewer to understand these characters, their history, and their world. Otherwise, the story can’t engage the audience. The incredible opening credit sequence was a tool used by the filmmakers to condense some back story and yet provide important exposition at the same time. This was done beautifully.

The trade off is that when you must rely on so many flashbacks to orient your audience, you also run the risk of bogging down the pace of the film. This is exactly what happened with Watchmen. There were so many flashbacks and so much backstory that there didn’t seem to be a solid enough story arc to propel the film forward. There was no momentum. The flashbacks were offset with lengthy, dialogue-laden scenes from the present where Watchmen characters like the diestic Dr. Manhatten contemplated the human race, their nature, and their fate. Other characters like Nite Owl and Silk Spectre would digress into discussions about the “good ‘ole days” of Watchmen crime fighting. And woven into all of those elements was Rorscach’s investigation into The Comedian’s death.

Visually, the film is incredible. There are wonderful special effects from beginning to end. The fight scenes are intense and bloody, and makes The Dark Knight looks like a church picnic. Director Zach Snyder definitely had a strong vision for this film and he communicates this nicely. Watchmen is not a typical superhero movie where everything is black and white and flawless costumed heroes adhere to a high moralistic standard. These “heroes” cross the line. They’re violent. They’re disturbed. They have emotional and psychological issues. They struggle to know the truth about right versus wrong, which leaves everything in a messy gray. For its commentary on humankind and our plight, the film succeeds. However, it fails in its pacing and the overall story arc.

4 out of 10