In Dreams: Thoughts On and Discussions of INCEPTION

I saw INCEPTION, Christopher Nolan's mostly brilliant new film, on opening night this past week, and was thoroughly entertained.  I think he may be popular cinema's most consistently interesting auteur of what I like to call the "Thinking Man's Blockbuster."  And while I may not be a fan of every single choice Nolan makes, I find all of them interesting, especially his missteps and what they may tell us about his films more than what actually works in them do, and the discussions they lead to in the online world.  (Though you shouldn't really be surprised if you frequently read my blog, I feel it's actually necessary to point out that there are really big spoilers below, and on most of the links I'll provide, so if you have some fear of such things, please make note of this now).

For instance, there's some hullabaloo currently happening in the film blogging network that has sparked some serious and refreshing debate.  The argument centers mainly on two things:  first, that INCEPTION's "dreams" don't actually operate in the strange, illogical way that real dreams do, and second, that there's no emotional connection to any of the characters (or emotional logic to the supposed revelations they have) during the course of the "mechanical" plot (see Jim Emerson's thought-provoking discussion for an overview and to join the fray, especially comments by long-time contributors to the discussion Matt Zoller-Seitz and Christopher Long for the most interesting threads of debate).

What strikes me most about the discussion are the comparisons being lobbed about to other dream movies, amid the denial of total fans that the movie isn't "about" dreams at all.  This is a point I agree with, and mostly feel that if anything, the entire movie and all of its mechanics are a McGuffin for working through Cobb's (Leonardo DiCaprio) hang-ups about his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard).  Arguably, everything we see in the film is a construct of Cobb's imagination, a perpetual dream state that he either got lost in during his own experimenting, or by choice over the guilt of what he may or may not have done to his wife.  The flip side is that there's actually a layer of reality in all of this, which I don't ascribe to, and which I'll get into in more detail later on.  What is fascinating to me is that a lot of the criticisms of Nolan is that he is too literal in his dream-world.

As many have pointed out, the dreams within INCEPTION aren't really dreams at all, but literal constructs of an architect, who is out to deliberately fool the subject's subconscious into not realizing it's under attack and having a normal dream state.  Well, given this, why would dreams appear to the audience of the film appear to be anything other than that?  There's absolutely nothing in the film to suggest that the dreamer is privy at any time to the knowledge that they're dreaming, and who knows what his dreams are like while he's wandering around inside of them?  Aside from the "Mr. Charles" episode, which actually does play out a bit like a surrealist dream state of lucid and conscious dreaming (I'm thinking of the sudden appearance of rain outside the hotel as water starts hitting the faces of the dreamers in the above level as the van is under attack), appropriating incidents from the previous reality into the current dream state.  Think of this like every time you awake with a jolt from your leg falling off the couch, or have to go to the restroom after waking up from a dream in which you were about to, etc.  I think this sort of interplay between "real" dreams and constructed dreams works fairly well within the rules set up by Cobb and Ariadne (Ellen Page) at the beginning of the film.  Why some of these rules are disregarded by the end of the film is exactly why I think the entire film is a dream state of Cobb's making.

The biggest thing that stems from the ending and its implications:  not only does the top continue spinning, but there's absolutely no reason it should fall.  Upon going back over the film in my mind, I've discovered this really is the only outcome, and the biggest clue is the top, Mal's totem, itself.  In an early scene, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is explaining the concept of a totem to Ariadne, and says that it should be a personal object that grounds its holder to reality, and which only the holder should know the specifics of, in order to avoid being unable to distinguish the dream from reality, and potentially becoming stranded in their subconscious.  So where is Cobb's totem?  We only ever see him with Mal's top, which at the point it becomes handled by him, has been compromised.  This can only mean one thing, really:  Cobb is trapped in a dream state just like he fears Mal was (and really, does this mean that maybe Mal actually left the dream world for real and the idea that spread in his mind was that dreaming was reality?)  Or, was Mal even real at all?  Is Cobb simply dreaming a better existence than what he may have had outside in "the real world"?  I don't know that I can answer any of those questions, but they're certainly interesting things to ponder.

Going back to my original thoughts about the dream mechanics and how literal they are, the utter disregard shown by Cobb at all times for these rules, from constructing dreams of his wife from his memories to the risks he takes by delving into Limbo on, apparently, at least two levels in order to save Saito (Ken Watanabe), also shows that the film's reality is also a construction of Cobb's: if he's dreaming, then the rules can change from moment to moment whenever its necessary to progress the lie he's telling himself, no matter what the lie may or may not be or mean to him personally or the audience watching the movie.  While this may be sloppy storytelling mechanics, I think it definitely makes a case for the dreamworlds within INCEPTION to be a bit more dream-like and transient than they may appear at first glance, even with the presence of an architect that builds them into labyrinthine constructs meant to trap the dreamer and keep them from discovering the truth that they are, in fact, dreaming.

I don't want to seem like I'm lavishing too much praise on the film, though.  I do think that there are some extremely imaginative sequences, including all of the shifting- and zero-gravity stuff with Arthur toward the end of the films and the concept of actually creating stable dream states (which is what most of the critics seem to have problems with, acceptably so, I'll point out - not everyone has the same interests).  But, as with all of Nolan's films (including both Bat-flicks, despite my assumed "fanboy" status), I have some problems of pacing and the existence of far too much exposition in dialogue form rather than simply utilizing film to do what it does best: show us what we need to know.  I also think that its similar psychological territory to that certain earlier-this-very-year DiCaprio thriller, SHUTTER ISLAND, is too much to ignore.  They would certainly make very interesting viewing partners, even if one were only interested in dissecting strengths and weaknesses between the two.

What all of this means to the current discourse, I can't say just yet.  I know that I'm genuinely interested in the back-and-forth this particular film is providing for us all, and I'm looking forward to being able to discuss the similar (and dissimilar) parts of INCEPTION and any number of "dream"-related films that have already been brought up in context: TOTAL RECALL, eXistenZ and any number of Cronenberg films, MULHOLLAND DRIVE, etc, etc, etc.  In parting, I'll leave you with this thought: is a film that sparks so much debate and academic/professional interest really that bad of a film to begin with?


*****
For further discussion and context, check out my friend Julia Rhodes' very positive review of the film over at California Literary Review, where she shares some similar but slightly different thoughts and responses to mine, as well as Jim Emerson's previous essay on Nolan's film THE PRESTIGE, again on his ::scanners:: blog.

IRON MAN 2: Exactly As It Should Be

Reading all of the online articles posted about it, you'd think this Summer blockbuster season was populated by a bunch of really awful films being released on a very well-informed and comparably underwhelmed movie-going public.  I don't think it's nearly as dramatic as all that.  Sure, there have been tons of really bad flicks, buy what month goes by in theatrical releases when that isn't true?  What really bothers me, though, is that aside from the actually pretty bad and disappointing movies, there is one really big one that everyone is describing as a huge letdown:  IRON MAN 2.  I don't get it.

IRON MAN 2 is exactly the film it should be, especially when taking the first film into consideration along with the rules of the sequel.  We had a largely-uknown hero get his due from the audience, in a light, much more character-centric take on the superhero genre, that featured some really amazing special effects, and a charismatic star turn from Robert Downey, Jr.  The sequel is bigger, has more action and more special effects, features more quips and one-liners from its star, further establishes and expands the mythos and world of the Marvel films, and is a really fun ride, even if it does do a bit of wandering.  But these are all things that seem to cause problems for people.  A major complaint is that it has too much going on.  I disagree.  I think that, for its aims, it may actually do too little.

This time out, Stark is being attacked by a vengeance-obsessed Russian (Whiplash/Mickey Rourke, who I'll get to a bit later), an arms-dealer competitor hungry for the Iron Man tech (Justin Hammer/Sam Rockwell), the government and, by extension, the military, and his own body, which is being slowly poisoned by the very technology that's keeping him alive.  On top of all of this, though, this second film is also the set-up for the next two years of Marvel releases, teasing Captain America and Thor with weapon cameos, nods direct and indirect to S.H.I.E.L.D., and most of all, setting up Tony Stark as an integral part of this universe.  That's a lot of stuff to cram into a two and a half hour run time, and Favreau does a pretty good job of getting it done, especially considering the fact that it's fun and engaging.

The whole film plays a bit loose, and if it seems to only get its story going about forty minutes in, well, it should.  Stark is a loose character, always a bit flighty, and I really enjoy the fact that, unlike most big superhero flicks, it doesn't always feel like he has some sense of duty.  He's got an ego the size of Texas, easily, and he thinks he can get away with anything.  Some of the best parts of the movie have nothing to do with anything other than Tony being Tony: genius savant, ladies' man, egoist.  Just the sight of him eating a hangover donut in the Iron Man suit after an out-of-control party and showdown with his best friend, or his perfect interplay with Pepper Potts, or his completely devastating and quite funny showdown in a Senate hearing is enough to keep me coming back for more.  This allows the film some much-needed room to breathe, which is what a lot of these pictures lack.

I also felt much more acclimated to this style during the second time I watched IRON MAN 2.  It flows a lot better than I thought it did, and even the final battle doesn't seem like as much of a let-down in how brief it is.  I think I initially suffered from what a lot of people who saw it did: high expectations.  The difference is that now I've seen that it in fact met all of my expectations, and perhaps even surpassed them.  It's not a disappointment in any case.

As for the film doing too little with certain things, it just feels a bit too small.  Whiplash is an interesting character, but we get too little time with him.  I wanted more of his bloodlust.  It's also a shame that he doesn't end up with ties to some of the super-villains that I know are coming up in the future films (AVENGERS and, hopefully, IRON MAN 3).  I also think that there could have been some more time spent on S.H.I.E.L.D.  We're introduced to Black Widow, but what's her role in the organization?  She has some really great scenes, but the character is held back too much.  Nick Fury's two scenes are played mostly for comic effect and to set up the next films, but he's still a mystery.  But, maybe I'm alone here.  I did, after all, think that Peter Jackson's KING KONG could have used an extra ten minutes or so.

In any case, I think IRON MAN 2 is perfectly fine as a sequel.  It's not a well-oiled machine, but it has to be understood within the context that Marvel isn't attempting a single franchise here.  If the focus were only on Stark/Iron Man, the film would probably have been greatly streamlined.  The film, however, doesn't have any particularly deep flaws aside from a bump here or there.  As a Summer blockbuster, it's exemplary.  It's exactly what it should be, if not what I expected the first time around.

Blurbs

Here's a smattering of things I've seen recently.  Some I'm lukewarm about, but overall I mostly liked these selections; just didn't have enough time for full-on write-ups.  Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, a new installation of my regular column, Blurbs:

GET HIM TO THE GREEK (2010)
This offshoot of the very funny FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL is the first big comedy of the year that I've wholeheartedly enjoyed, not that I didn't also find COP OUT and DATE NIGHT to be worthwhile diversions in an otherwise unimaginative summer schedule as well.  Maybe it's my affinity for Aldous Snow, the burnt-out, drug-crazed rock star played by Russell Brand, or maybe it's the face that I have yet to tire of the almighty "Apatow machine" branding.  Either way, I laughed a lot, and if the film has a small weakness, it's that its heart just didn't seem as big as the best of the crew's productions.  I really loved an extended stopover in Vegas that goes into really unexpected territory, as well as serves for the end-film gag of Infant Sorrow's new song: "Furry Walls".  Also of hilarious note is the fact that Snow's band, Infant Sorrow, have also released a real-world album (which also serves as the film's soundtrack).  Pick that up if you're at all interested - there are some real gems on that release.

LAND OF THE LOST (2009)
Nowhere near as awful as I'd heard.  Watched this one lazy afternoon on HBO, and really kind of admired its oddball qualities.  Will Ferrell is reliably funny, and I love Danny McBride's constant "variations on an ignorant and clueless hick" routine enough to give him a pass, though I do wish he'd start branching out a bit.  It does toy around with (and in a few instances mock) the beloved TV show, but who cares?  I had zero expectations, and I was amused for a couple of hours.  That's good enough for me.  After all, I could've been watching yet another "___ Movie" movie.

THE BACKWOODS (2006)
I missed out on this Gary Oldman / Paddy Considine thriller when it came out, but man am I glad I finally got around to seeing it.  Part STRAW DOGS, part X-FILES episode "Home", and just a little bit of DELIVERANCE, THE BACKWOODS is pretty powerful revenge-thriller stuff.  You know, I've followed Considine ever since his performance in Michael Winterbottom's 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE, and I really wish he worked more, and gained at least the reputation that Oldman has.  He thrives in these dark dramas, so maybe someone like Fincher could pick him up stateside for some work?  In any case, the usual Oldman rule applies here, too:  he's all badass, and then he dies.  Anyone familiar enough with his work knows this rule, so that's not really a surprise or a spoiler.  Anyway, this is riveting stuff, highly recommended.

BIGGER THAN LIFE (1956)
Nicholas Ray's underseen masterpiece is a revelation.  A broad expose on the "Father Knows Best" era of the American nuclear family, the film hinges on an unbelievably riveting James Mason as Ed Avery, a school teacher with a possibly fatal affliction who becomes addicted to an experimental drug called cortisone.  The drug causes wild mood swings, and eventually begins changing his personality completely, transforming him from a loving father figure into a monstrous despot who starts to loathe his wife and see that there is no way his son will turn out better than he is now, so it would make better sense just to kill him.  Walter Matthau turns in some impressive side-character work as Ed's coworker who tries to help his family get their patriarch back on the right track.  It features breathtaking CinemaScope cinematography by Joe McDonald (PANIC IN THE STREETS, PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET) that really utilizes his experience in Films Noir as well as the expansiveness of the CinemaScope format (the screenshot above is in proper aspect ratio).  If you've never heard of this film, seek it out.  It was recently issued on DVD and BluRay by Criterion, and it features some typically insightful special features as well as a gorgeous picture and sound transfer.  This is one to own - trust me.

"I Wanna Be Where The Boys Are": THE RUNAWAYS

I may be going out on a limb when I say this, but THE RUNAWAYS, Floria Sigismondi's adaptation of the book NEON ANGEL by Cherie Currie (with obvious input from other sources as well), which details the rise and fall of the all-girl rock group, is an hour and forty-five minutes of exhilarating storytelling experimentation within a genre that has become all too stale in recent years.  What some may see as lacking in forms of context, I think is invigorating.  There are things that Sigismondi all but ignores in the film, mainly in the way she handles the exact level of fame the group achieves, that leave an enigmatic and half-baked feeling, but gets a whole hell of a lot more bang for her buck in terms of character and feel.  This is a film as preoccupied with the aesthetics of storytelling as it is with actually telling the story of five young girls who grew to be one of the most important rock acts of all time.

Kristen Stewart is Joan Jett, and Dakota Fanning is Currie.  Both are unbelievably good, with Fanning carrying a lot of the film's emotional weight, and performing a fairly provocative role at the same age as her real-life counterpart when the group started.  The relationship between the two girls is explored in reasonable depth, but plenty is left floating out in the ether, too, which I rather appreciated.  It left me thinking about them a whole lot after the film was over, and how amazing it was that this band happened at all given its totally disparate band members.  As the film (and the book) make pretty clear, a lot of that had to do with producer Kim Fowley, who coaches the girls on how to think with their cocks, exploit male physical attraction, and defend themselves against stage debris, all while helping them write songs and create an on-stage presence.  The Runaways as an all-girl rock band may have been Jett's idea, but there is no doubt that they were Fowley's baby.

There's an amazing sequence mid-way through the film where Jett and Currie hook up while on tour.  It's not really anything explicit, but all of the eroticism and drug-fuelled desire of it really makes it stand out. The scene's all reds and blacks and flesh, and the constant throbbing of Iggy Pop.  It's one of the closest approximations to the feel of passionate sex I think I've ever seen, and all while basically showing a lot of close-ups of arms and one very quick and smoky kiss between the two girls.  And, better yet, the fact that it is two girls isn't played up at all - it's all completely natural and un-attention grabbing, which may be why it really hasn't been mentioned much by the press.  What I like here is the expressionism of the scene.  It's all about mood and not about act.  And it works.

And that's not the only time the film plays around with things.  Rather intentionally or unintentionally, the only time there's a taste of how big the group has actually gotten is its foray into Japan, where Curry dons her famous leggings and corset, and even that is basically relegated to a performance of "Cherry Bomb" and a scene in the dressing room when a group of screaming fans breaks through the glass door and chases the girls down.

Otherwise, the film focuses on drug use, battling egos (especially Curry's of mythological proportions), and girls raising hell.  It's not perfect, but I like this approach to detailing the rise and fall of such a misunderstood and important band in the history of rock music as The Runaways really and truly are.  By the time the fall part of it all comes around, it's not quite as big a shock because you've already witnessed the girls at each others' throats for the last half hour, and the battle between Cherie's loyalty to her work and to her family at home, and it all flows logically and never becomes completely routine.

The performances in the film are all pretty great, but I was particularly impressed with the two leads.  Stewart and Fanning are pretty great as Jett and Curry, and have an energy that buoys the film throughout.  Fanning has really come into her own as an actress, and she does some great work here, adding real psychological depth to a character that could have easily been treated like a cartoon.  As for Stewart, I've known since PANIC ROOM that she had the ability to seriously act in her somewhere, but all of her post-stardom work (even in ADVENTURELAND, which I like quite a bit) seems to consist of the same boredom infused lip biting that makes up so much of the character of Bella in TWILIGHT.  Apparently all it takes to make her act is to put her in something she actually gives a toss about.

A quick word about Michael Shannon, too, the fabulous actor who really wowed me back in 2006 in William Friedkin's BUG.  His portrayal of Kim Fowley is spot-on, flawless really, and backed up 100% by interview footage of the real Fowley and Joan Jett at the time.  But it transcends mere impersonation, and he really comes into his own with the character of Kim - someone who is flamboyant, racy and really couldn't give a shit.  He is fantastic.  Michael Shannon is one to keep your eyes on.

I don't think I've really done this film justice here.  I really loved it.  Is it perfect?  No, it's not, but I'll take imperfect and interesting any day over glossy perfection that just bores me to tears.  Seriously, in my honest opinion, THE RUNAWAYS is worth seeing just for that Stewart/Fanning sequence with Iggy Pop.  That's pure cinema, and you can't say that about many other biopics out there.

Of Fleshy Blobs and Bio-Ethics: SPLICE (2010)

Thankfully, there's Canada.

Without their particular brand of crazy, I don't know where the sci-fi/horror genre would be.  Sure, there are the French, but that's another thing altogether.  No, the Canadians have had this market cornered for decades now, with David Cronenberg's body horror oeuvre being most prominent, and now we have SPLICE, directed by CUBE mastermind Vincenzo Natali.

SPLICE follows superstar geneticists Elsa and Clive (a terrific Sarah Polley and Adrian Brody), who are also a happy couple, and their attempts to splice a new creature together and track down an enzyme that is a gateway for all kinds of cures.  So, we have Fred and Ginger, two slug-like organisms who are apparently far more complex creatures, who bond ("imprint") with one another, and who are extremely successful at producing the protein that the pharmaceutical company is looking for.

After this success, Elsa and Clive want to move on to human splicing - the next logical step - but are told no by their big-pharma employers, who want them to shut down their operation and attempt to synthesize the protein now, so they can start making some money off of their years of research.  And of course, Elsa and Clive ignore all of this ad create the thing anyway, "just to know that they can."  Things are never as simple as they seem in these movies, and inevitably, they decide to put off destroying their creation, and stuff eventually goes very, very wrong.

And then the film becomes absolutely, thrillingly insane.  I mean it: crazy.

After the initial shocks of the experiment - the premature birth, the rapid development of the creature, their fear of its potentially deadly abilities - Clive and Elsa decide to keep it, especially once Elsa becomes attached to it, and gives it a name, Dren, which is significant ("nerd" backwards) in that it stems from a discovery she makes while bonding with "her."

The decision to assign a gender to Dren is a significant one, because it fuels a lot of the most intriguing questions the film raises.  It also makes complete sense, given the fact that during one of the most amazing sequences, while dancing with Dren, Clive notices Elsa's features in her, leading to the realization that the human DNA spliced into her was not some random donor, but was in fact her own way of having a child (a subject brought up by Clive, but which disinterested Elsa, perhaps as not being "enough" for her).  This realization is where the film completely changes into something profoundly interesting, with Dren developing self-awareness, drawing conclusions about relationships, and, of course, typical adolescent urges.

The resulting final hour of the film is packed with questions and ideas about bio-ethics, relationship dynamics, greed, species and gender identities, sexual ethics and so much more it's mind-boggling.  I was so breathless by the time I left the theater that I felt like I had just run a marathon (the way I feel after watching Cronenberg's films, too).

Now, I'm not going to spoil much of anything for you, but I will give this piece of information:  the relationship between Dren and Clive sets all of this in motion, and it's one of those oddly erotic moments that you're quite simply unsure of at the time.  The model and sometimes actress Delphine Chaneac was no doubt chosen to play the oddly attractive Dren (from the waste up, at least) because the creature is supposed to have some sort of sex appeal.  The film thrives on our identification with this thing as a humanoid.  It totally works, too, because throughout the narrative, the film consistently plays with who the audience identifies with based on their relationship and reactions toward Dren.

The six or seven college kids behind me hated it.  They weren't kids, just immature adults.  SPLICE is not a movie for someone who is just looking for a big dumb horror flick (which is acceptable, too), and it certainly is not anything like what you would expect.  It is, however, excellent, and then you even get the traditional final reel freak-out horrorshow to top it all of.  It's nothing short of brilliant, and easily one of the best films I've seen this year.

George A. Romero's SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD

It seems that with each new installment of his "Dead" films, Romero further solidifies his reputation as the king of so-called "serious" zombie cinema.  He is more focused than ever on his life's work and his humanist message.  His films have always had a political bent to them, but he seems more conscious of this than ever with his previous film DIARY OF THE DEAD and his new epic, SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD.  The main difference is that he's lost a bit of his cynicism regarding the human race - there's a streak of actual hope in his recent efforts, and his focus (particularly since DAY OF THE DEAD) on the possibility that the undead might have their old memories lurking underneath all that decaying flesh and insatiable hunger has really lent itself to the morality at play in the whole "should we kill them or wait to find a cure" conundrum that sits at the heart of all standalone zombie films (as if no one had ever seen a zombie movie before).  In this regard, he's become a storyteller of great empathy, somewhat akin to a latter-day, splatter-centric and less technically masterful Kurosawa, who sees the potential in humanity through all its ugliness.

I've been following and writing about Romero's series for quite some time now, and I'm sorry to say it, but this film is most certainly the beginning of the end.  SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD is Romero's sixth zombie film, and again the odds are on the dead overrunning the living.  SURVIVAL marks two major departures for the director, as well as the series:  it's essentially a take on the Western (a showdown between two feuding families on an island over what to do with the dead forms the central conflict of the piece), and it features a character from another film in the series, Sarge Crocket, the National Guardsman who hijacks the protagonists' RV in DIARY.

This really opens up the universe of the series, and fulfills the hopes (somewhat) of late film-theorist Robin Wood, who wrote of DIARY that he hopes to see characters from that film populate later films, though he was speaking mostly in the context of the militant blacks who had taken over the town and supplied the kids with a lot of the stuff that got ripped off by the National Guard.  I agree, that would be one of the more interesting sets of people to make a zombie movie about, especially in Romero's super-charged politically relevant mythology.

The plot is pretty basic - in an Earp/McLaury scenario, the island two families of Irish immigrants live on isn't big enough for the both of them, so one has to go.  Forced off the island, Patrick O'Flynn takes to ripping off people for passage via boat to the island, which is apparently unknown to anyone who doesn't live in the area.  Sarge and the crew he ends up with encounter O'Flynn while trying to flee the mainland, and end up bringing him back to the island.  The morality play picks up and goes from there, ultimately ending in a bloodbath, but one that has some real ramifications for where the series goes in the future (Romero has said he only wants to do one more, but we'll see if that's adhered to, or not), particularly in regard to the undead's apparent ability to remember their family members, though this ends with tragic consequences.

SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD has been heralded as a let-down by both non-fans and admirers of Romero, but really it's not the bore-fest it's been purported to be.  Like most Romero films, there's a healthy layer of cheese that covers everything, from the over-the-top kills and the self-important dialogue (a way of interpreting other "end of the world" films' overwrought mental masturbation, in my opinion, and often bad on purpose), but none of this should be a surprise to anyone who's followed the director's films since CREEPSHOW.

He's a pulp-infused storyteller, more akin to a schlocky EC comic than anything cerebral and "intellectually engaging" on traditional levels.  Part of the pleasure of watching SURVIVAL is seeing how Romero blends and synthesizes genre, undermines his own supposed legacy, and continues building upon both at the same time.  It may well be the weakest of the "Dead" series, but when you're discussing any horror movie in the same breath as NIGHT, DAWN or the under-appreciated DAY OF THE DEAD, that's not exactly saying anything revolutionary in thought.  Compared to the original three films, almost all horror films are completely inferior, and not just those featuring the beloved lumbering undead.

Edit - 5/28/10 3:10 PM:
Check out this interview with Romero that's really quite interesting.

Antici---pation!

Here's a few that I'm looking forward to.  Oddly enough, none of them are really on anyone's radar.

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU

This is an odd-ball.  Matt Damon plays a congressman, and Emily Blunt a ballerina, who share a romance, but soon find out that they cannot be together due to...a lot of extenuating circumstances.  A group of creepy guys in hats start following them around (see also: DARK CITY, KNOWING) that turn out to be some sort of supra-national organization that controls, quite literally, everything on the planet, and that Blunt and Damon's coming together would spell disaster for something that's supposed to happen.  It's that perfect paranoid conspiracy that has me hooked, even though I know things like this probably don't really exist - especially with the odd sci-fi bent.  Still, I'm into it.



THE AMERICAN

This thriller from Anton Corbijn, who directed the excellent Ian Curtis (Joy Division) biopic CONTROL, stars George Clooney as an assassin on "one last assignment".  While this plot development is overused almost to the point of it being a parody, the classy Clooney's keeping me interested - I'll watch anything he does, even if I eventually find it insufferable.  The trailer's got some pretty great scenes in it.



WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

Gordon Gekko is back, and I'm super-excited.  There's been plenty of buzz from Cannes and elsewhere that Oliver Stone's sequel is very much on-point, and that's great news.  Some people may have problems with the film, but I don't really care.  I'll be there opening weekend.

5 Performances - Val Kilmer

Whether he's taking on real-world icons, or crafting wholly original characters, when he's on his game, Val Kilmer is a talent to be reckoned with.  He's been in Westerns, thrillers, crime-dramas, and even comedies (thought I love it, REAL GENIUS only gets this mention), and has played everyone from gunslingers to fallen porn stars.  And then there's my love for him as Madmartigan in Willow, but that's another article altogether.  Val's in theaters currently as arch-villain Dieter von Cunth (insert joke, right?) in SNL sketch-cum-feature-length movie MACGRUBER, which I have yet to see, so in honor of his return to the big screen, here's some of the more memorable slices of his career, and, since I like him so much, and because I make the rules, he gets five performances instead of my customary four.

Jim Morrison, THE DOORS
I think Kilmer's under-appreciated in this film, and that may be largely due to the more salacious details surrounding its reception.  Some feel it's too schlocky, while fans of The Doors find the film overall to be a bit too slanted to Ray Manzarek's version of things and therefore factually inaccurate.  But that doesn't take anything away from the performance Val gives us as Jim Morrison, the poet/provocateur behind one of rock's enduring iconic bands.  Maybe it's because of his amazing physical resemblance to the real Morrison, or maybe it's just that he's so damned good in making a sympathetic figure out of a man who was by all accounts a bit off-putting.  Morrison had issues with his audiences, constantly clashed with indecency enforcers and there were a lot of mind-altering drugs in use - the brilliant Indian in the desert sequence where all the members of the band are tripping balls was hilariously parodied in WAYNE'S WORLD 2.  Stone's film may be imperfect, but Kilmer's spot-on.

Gay Perry, KISS KISS BANG BANG
Shane Black's brilliant buddy action-comedy/noir/Hollywood tale was actually the rebirth of both the careers of Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer (who's gone on to have tons of work since, most of it very good and overlooked), though for some reason Downey's the one everyone paid attention to.  Still, Kilmer's turn as the gay P.I. hired to show Downey's actor-impersonating criminal, Harry Lockhart, the ropes in the trade to prep him for a role is where the real money's out.  His constant state of incredulity at Lockhart's behavior is hysterical by itself, and really drives a lot of the best reaction moments from Downey.  This is a great movie and has two of my favorite actors at the top of their games.

Doc Holliday, TOMBSTONE
This is probably his most popular and impersonated performance, but Kilmer's Southern-gent take on the iconic, tubercular sidekick and friend to Wyatt Earp still remains top-notch interpretive acting work.  At once comical and deadly, Doc Holliday is a thrilling character in George P. Cosmatos's blockbuster, action-centric take on the story of the Earps and the legendary status they achieved in the town of Tombstone.  With amazing delivery on some of the best trash-talking dialogue in screen history, like "I'm your huckleberry" and "You're a daisy if you do" when taunting Johnny Ringo (a great Michael Biehn) about his threat to kill him in a gunfight, Kilmer's performance goes into instant legendary territory.  Is there a person alive who doesn't at least like Doc Holliday in this movie?

Scott, SPARTAN
In David Mamet's 2004 masterpiece (one of several, it should be noted), Kilmer plays Army Ranger Scott (maybe, though he's more black-ops off-the-radar than that, and even hints that he may not be a Ranger after all), who's given the task of tracking down the kidnapped daughter of the President.  The film's filled to the brim with the traditionally Mametian double- and triple-crosses, enough twists and turns to effectively fill an album full of '60s car crash tunes, and an ensemble cast that's to die for (Ed O'Neil, William H. Macy, Derek Luke, and Kristen Bell).  This was the first major film role that Kilmer had had in quite some time, and it undoubtedly led to him getting further prominent work.  As Scott, he's all quiet and troubled subtlety - a man searching for the truth in a sea of corruption that Mamet has a field day with.  The scenes between him and the Secret Service agent who was assigned to protect the daughter are especially moving, and Kilmer conveys the exact mood that overcomes Scott and compels him to complete his mission, swimming through all the muck and bullshit and beaurocracy to find the missing girl.

Chris Shiherlis, HEAT
As part of Neil McCauley's heist crew, Chris Shiherlis is a man of principle who is truly in love with his wife, Charlene, but who faces marital problems due to a gambling addiction that continues to fuel his dependence on the criminal life.  With long blonde hair, Kilmer portrays Shiherlis as a no-nonsense professional, and at the end of the film when forced to leave his wife behind so he can go on the run and attempt to get free of the ever-tightening noose of the police, it's devastating.  "For me the sun rises and sets with her," he says in the film, and it's especially evident in his face as he realizes that he has to go, and that she can't come with him.  HEAT is every bit the modern crime epic that it's said to be, though I think some people actually underrate it just a bit.  Kilmer's just one of many great performances, and it's arguably the last truly great film Michael Mann made.

Blurbs

Because no one demanded it, here's a rundown of the past few things I've seen...you know, because I'm either too busy or too lazy to do a full write-up of them.

DATE NIGHT
Tina Fey and Steve Carrell turn in some solid comedic performances in a movie that is better than I expected it to be, but still felt a bit off for some reason I just can't place.  Maybe it's the circular plot, or the outlandishness of the premise (despite being firmly grounded by the lead performers' natural demeanor and delivery).  In any case, this was an enjoyable action-comedy, with an emphasis on the comedy half of that distinction, and there really are some laugh-out-loud moments - hell, even the usually not very funny "outtakes" at the end of the film contains a great one-liner from Tina Fey.  The film also features more than a few really great cameos, and the action actually integrates into the comedy itself rather than sticking out as sore-thumb, tacked-on sequences.  I know the trailer made this look like a less than worthy effort from all involved, but it really has been one of the best studio films I've seen this year.

OCEANS
I'm a sucker for nature docs, and this one featured a lot of gorgeous images that really made me want to go back and watch BLUE PLANET again.  If you saw last year's DisneyNature release, EARTH, you know what to expect here as we track various animals across the world's oceans.  Some of it is really jaw-dropping and magnificent, but there are a few minor quibbles I have as well: not giving us the names of species that only get a scant mention but are peculiar enough to warrant a full segment, and having no coherent storythread (other than, it seems, pollution is bad).  Still, if this is your thing like it is mine, then I say see it.  If you're looking for in-depth analysis of stuff...Eh.

CABIN FEVER 2
After seeing THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL, I was really looking forward to this follow-up to Eli Roth's original.  Director Ti West is obviously capable of some top-notch work, but this ain't it.  It takes an interesting premise: the skin-eating virus getting into a bottled water supply, but does absolutely nothing with it.  Winston, the party-hard cop from the first film, is back and attracting plenty of trouble everywhere he goes, but instead of focusing on his predicament, which would have been fairly interesting, apparently it's a better idea to take us to a high school prom with a lot of uninteresting characters and slowly move toward the end with a lot of vomiting blood and a gory, pus-y penis.  And yeah, that's gross and all, but there's nothing here to keep us interested.  Blah of the highest order.

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010)
Jackie Earle Haley is an inspired casting choice for a reboot of the character of Freddy Krueger, but this film takes the awesome possibilities of his performance and squashes it with an absolutely humorless script that changes a whole lot of story elements for absolutely no reason.  Nancy's character dynamics for one are completely changed.  Her mother's no longer an alcoholic, her father's completely nonexistent, and she's some sort of shut-in weirdo with no real friendships to speak of.  Even her love interest (played in the original by Johnny Depp) is deadened, with no chemistry that makes you care whether or not they help each other survive.  And then there are the kills, which are so much more sadistic and brutal in the original film that it's almost laughable here.  When people should be dragged kicking and screaming across walls and ceilings, or explode in a shower of blood, or any other set piece that got redone here, they float and then get slashed, or have a glove explode through their chest.  This is possibly the least imaginative take on the Freddy universe I could have ever dreamed up.  I could spend an entire full-length review summing up what's wrong about this movie, but what's the point?  I'm done with it.

THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009)

Writer/director/editor Ti West's horror flick THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL is a slow, brooding and atmospheric exercise in retro horror, never succumbing to post-modern genre tropes like subversion or updating of material.  The film is a refreshingly old-fashioned homage, and unlike the work of contemporary retro-shocker Eli Roth, it lacks entirely the irony and self-referentialism most post-SCREAM horror flicks, and it packs in a ton of aesthetic flourishes that would have felt right at home three decades ago.  On top of the fact that it looks, feels and even behaves like an early-80s occult horror film, it also manages to be pretty damned good, delivering heavy atmospheric chills and a late-in-the-film freak-out that's quite memorable, and it does so with very little gory, although when the blood does flow, there's plenty of it.

Delivering a knockout debut performance, Jocelin Donahue plays Samantha, a struggling young college student who hopes to move out of the dorm room she shares with her highly sexually active and somewhat slovenly roommate and into a place of her own.  In pursuit of this dream, she takes a babysitting job from the Ulman family, a strange clan that lives in the country outside of the college town Samantha is familiar with, despite the protestations of her friend Megan, played by current indie darling Greta Gerwig.

From the start, West demonstrates an economy of storytelling, cramming a lot of character and background information into a very brief period of time.  Within the first twenty minutes, we have fully established relationships, fears and motivations, and a good deal of creepy dealings with Mr. Ulman on the telephone that get the proceedings going pretty quickly.  And once our heroine is on her way into the woods and unfamiliar territory, the film slowly ramps up the atmosphere, the house itself becomes as much a character as Sarah or Mr. Ulman - a labyrinth of locked doors and strange noises emanating from the bedroom of Mrs. Ulman's mother, the actual subject of Sarah's babysitting job.

Tom Noonan plays the odd and off-putting Mr. Ulman, a tall, lanky man who easily sends the creepy vibe to Samantha, Megan and to the audience while remaining subtle and mysterious.  The latter is no easy feat in today's over saturated genre films that feature over-the-top performances on part of the villains.  After he successfully recruits Samantha for the job, and has left with his wife for the evening, we are left alone in the big house - empty except for the sickly and supposedly bed-ridden mother, and a whole lot of strange going on.

The house itself - and the secrets that we are given snippets of that Samantha has no awareness of (like the slain family that lies behind a locked door upstairs and the grisly death of her friend Megan) - ratchets up the tension notch by notch toward a horrific climax that shares a place in film history with the overlooked road movie/Satanic horror hybrid RACE WITH THE DEVIL and the (after-)birth scene in ROSEMARY'S BABY for sheer ballsiness of content.  It turns out that everything is definitely not what it seems, especially Mrs. Ulman's elderly mother, and Sarah is in great danger because it's the night of the lunar eclipse.  And we all know what happens with Satanic cults and eclipses.

The film opens with the statement that the 1980s was a period of widespread belief in the existence of Satanic cults, and proceeds with one of the best title sequences in recent memory, with retro typeface and freeze frames.  It feels a lot like a Craig Brewer sequence, actually, which may or may not be a reason I enjoyed it so much.  But, unlike a lot of badly put-together titles, it gets the period, tone and character established, and there's not a stupid newspaper clipping in sight to make sure the audience knows what's going on in the world of disappearings or kidnappings or any other such B.S. the studios usually cram into these bits.  I have a soft spot for this sort of film, sure, but I do think it's worthwhile, and while not for everyone, it's definitely interesting, and may be a flick that even non-genre fans can get into.