As sharp and perfectly executed as they come. 4/4.

Tom DiCillo’s Living in Oblivion is a labor love about a labor love.  Making a film, especially an independent film, isn’t easy.  With all the various problems that collide with one another on set, it’s a miracle anything ever gets finished.  It’s no wonder that everyone in the film industry is borderline, if not certifiably insane.

Living in Oblivion focuses on a small, independent film crew shooting three scenes in a single day.  In an interesting twist, two of these scenes turn out to be dreams from two different crew members, and although the use of dreams may seem like a pretentious or frivolous plot device, it works, as both dreams are very realistic.  The “real” scene, oddly enough, involves the shooting of a dream sequence that is bizarre in a typical cinematic way.

The first sequence is dreamt by director Nick Reve (Steve Buscemi), who tries to shoot a simple, intimate mother/daughter conversation.  Unfortunately, everything, from an intrusive boom mic to bad milk, gets in the way of finishing the scene.  The scene (within the scene) is shot in color, while all the action behind the scenes is shot in a gritty black white, cleverly toying with the perception of real and cinematic reality.  The symbolism is obvious, but appropriate to the rags-to-rags misfit spirit of indie filmmaking.  Buscemi is perfect as the grungy, average-guy director understandably frustrated and agitated at the difficulties of capturing a single scene, and his meltdown at the end of the sequence is earnest, and even heartbreaking.

The second dream is dreamt by actress Nicole (Catherine Keener), who is known only for a “shower scene in that Richard Gere movie.”  This time the sequence is in color, while the scene, a romantic reveal, is shot on set is in black and white.  Again, a scene simple enough to shoot goes awry, this time by egotistical actor Chad Palomino (James LeGros), who stops every scene with a new idea of his own.  Keener is good as a desperate actress climbing her way to the top of the Hollywood food chain, but LeGros steals the show.  He’s a spoof of the movie star gaining street cred via twisted, small-budget films, most involving him as a rapist whose victims fall in love with him.  His fake, big-shot persona amidst the modest set is hilarious, and his tense back-and-forth with cinematographer Wolf (Dermot Mulroney) involving an eye-patch is a highlight.

Breaking away from the tried and true dream formula, the final sequence takes place in “reality”, yet is almost kookier than any of the previous scenes.  Shooting a dream sequence very reminiscent of Twin Peaks (red room and a dwarf), the scene is interrupted by Nicole’s flat performance, Reve’s Alzheimer-ridden mother showing up unexpectedly, and the resistance of the scene’s token dwarf Tito (Peter Dinklage).  Dinklage is perfect as an actor who is, clearly, tired of getting cast in roles that cater only to his size, and calls out the horse-beaten-to-death cliché of dwarves being thrown into dreams to make it zany.  One can’t help but think that this scene is directed towards David Lynch, who frequently uses dwarf actor Michael J. Anderson in several of his movies to give it that extra bit of surrealism.

Focusing on filmmaking itself, Living in Oblivion places the spotlight on the crew, and the use of an ensemble cast of little-known actors is a well-orchestrated one.  Each crew member has their own quirks and one-liners that remind you that many people are behind a film, and each makes their own contribution to it, whether or not its seen in the final cut.  The collage of personalities fill in the gaps between the focal points of the film, adds to the chaos surrounding a movie set in the most entertaining of fashions, and pays homage to those who receive no recognition for their efforts on a film.

In many ways, Living in Oblivion is an independent film made by, about and for independent filmmakers.  Making a film is no easy task.  Scratch that, its painfully difficult; taking into account the colliding egos, differences of vision, hunger for control and the sheer number of autonomous people, it’s a miracle films are made at all.  Oblivion revels in how even the smallest things, from bad milk to a digital watch, can ruin an entire day’s worth of work.

Like the best of indie films, Living in Oblivion is personal, and like the best of films, it’s got a great cast, talented direction and a tight script.  For the life of me, I cannot find one thing wrong with this film.  If there is one thing wrong with Living in Oblivion, it’s that it ends on a screwball coincidence that seems to be possible only in a dream, yet given the film’s affinity for dreams, it’s oddly appropriate.  Plus, if the little things aren’t as responsible for success as they are derailments, many films may never have been made.

Inception

James: I’ve seen this already.  It’s the best film of the year so far and already amongst my favorite films ever.  What do I have to do to get you to go see it?  You’re not going yet?  Go.  Now.  No seriously, now.

Benn:  Best movie of the summer by far, and probably amongst the best of the year.

Dylan: My only concern is that I don’t have high enough expectations. Everytime I see the trailer, I get a little chubby in my pantaloons. Seeing it A.S.A.P.

Fil: I’m very obviously excited about this.  Hopefully some people (JAMES) don’t hype it too much.  Definitely going to see this tonight, go see it and form your own opinions people.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

James: This looks like it could be passably fun, but the reviews haven’t been great.

Benn:  Looks fun, and for some odd reason, Nick Cage looks very entertaining.

Dylan: These are the kind of roles that Nick Cage should be playing, the goofy, silly, wacky character (like his should-be Oscar nominated performance in Kick Ass!). If this doesn’t try to be serious in any way, then I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing it.

Fil: I’ve been dying to see a wizard battle on screen for a long time.  Harry Potter get’s close, but this looks like it might finally give me what I want.  Netflix’d

Despicable Me

James: The trailers look cute but forgettable and I’m still not 100% sure what this is even about.  I’m predicting this to be a decent rental.

Benn:  Looks fun, but not my thing really.

Dylan: I’m not really sure why I should care about this movie. There are yellow freaks and Steve Carell and that’s about all I gathered from the trailer. Not the top movie on my list.

Fil: I think this might be kind of a fun movie to see.  Not exactly something I expect greatness out of, but it might surprise us.  Focusing on the ancillary characters in trailers is usually a bad sign though. <-Formatting error…or subtle hint that my opinion is more important?

Anna: The teasers looked like shit, but I recently saw a full trailer and it looked fun. I’d give it a try.

Predators

James: I remember loving the first Predator when I was a kid, but I haven’t seen it in a long time.  I’m wary of reboots like this, but Robert Rodriguez did write the script so that’s saying something.

Benn:  I’m very, VERY curious to see how this film will turn out.  I’m totally in.

Dylan: It’s getting good buzz so far and like the original as a mindless action film. For nostalgia’s sake, I’ll try and catch this a few weeks down the line.

Fil:Vurry excited to see this, even though I’m assuming it will suck.  I’m never wary of anything, cuz I got BALLS, but we’ll see, I suppose.

Anna: I’m seeing it Sunday and I’m going in without expectations. It is my duty.

The Kids Are All Right [limited]

James: Y’know, I actually really liked this trailer.  I don’t expect to see this in theaters but it looks like it could be a pretty good film.

Benn:  Looks like a pretty good film.  Plus, its got Mark Ruffalo; ain’t nothing wrong with that.

Dylan: I’ve got a weird thing for Julianne Moore, so this trailer calls out to me in an awkward way that I won’t go into the details. The story looks fun and interesting, plus the rest of cast ain’t that bad either. In for this.

Fil:I agree with James, for once, this was a fun trailer, and it’s something I wouldn’t say no to seeing.  Plus, I love all the people in it, especially lesbian Julianne Moore.

Anna: Looks like a nice heartwarmer, but I’ll never make an effort to see it.

The Girl Who Played with Fire [limited]

James: I haven’t seen The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo yet, but the buzz is huge.  I take it this is the sequel?  Or just by the same author?  I’m unclear.

Benn:  This is the sequel to “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” which was a phenomenal film.  Its a safe bet that “The Girl Who Played With Fire” will be just as great, if not even better.  This is the must see of the week.  Seriously, go to the University 6 theater at UCI and see it.

Dylan: The first film was a phenomenal mystery/thriller with that distinct Scandinavian style. It looks like this one will have more of an up tempo, action pace than the slower, putting-the-pieces-together pace of the first film. I’ll definitely see the sequel.

Fil:I also have not seen The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo but this looks pretty cool.  The images of fire, especially, are pretty striking in this trailer.  Probably should see the first one though.  Or set fire to some shit myself.

Anna: I usually take the time to read the book first, but the books have never interested me, nor have I seen the first movie. If the trailer for, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is just as cool, I’d give it a try for a cheap ticket.

[Rec] 2 [limited]

James: I saw the American remake of [Rec] (Quarantine), it was kind of fun in a watch it and forget it way.  I hear the original was better and this is its sequel but once again that’s a few too many steps away for me to consider watching it.

Benn:  I would really like to see the first film; it got fantastic reviews.  By the looks of the trailer, it looks really good.  I love the claustrophobic, documentary style filmmaking that went into this.

Dylan: Didn’t see the first one, but it doesn’t seem to matter for the looks of the sequel’s trailer. I have an affinity for shocker, virus films. I doubt this will be playing anywhere near me, so this will be a Netflixer film.

Fil: The original [Rec] was really pretty good, and I thought that Quarantine sucked monkey balls because it was essentially the same film.  This looks like the logical continuation of the story, so I’d definitely like to see this.

Anna: The mood of this movie looks pretty creepy, but I fucking hate zombie movies.

Great Directors [limited]

James: This looks kind of fascinating.  I’d watch it, but I’m a bit biased.

Benn:  I’m totally down to watch 10 directors discuss what it means to make films.  Plus, come on, David Lynch dude.  Who doesn’t want to hear what he has to say about anything.  I’d listen to this guy do weather forecasts all day long.

Dylan: The film studies minor in me is jumping at this and the documentary lover really wants to see this. I’m in.

Fil:My gut reaction to this kind of thing is that it’s pretentious nonsense, but I can see this being kinda interesting.  Not my kind of interesting, though.

Anna: Seems like they talk about everything that “artists” should already know, just filmed in a very pompous manner.

Grease (Sing-A-Long)

James: Most have seen this before.  If you haven’t, you’re not the audience for this.  If you have, singing along will be encouraged at these showings, I guess.  I’ll keep away myself.

Benn:  I’m not sure what I find worse: a Grease sing-a-long, or the legion of music theater geeks singing along with the film in the theater.

Dylan: Ug… not happening.

Fil: I’ve never seen Grease, so this means nothing to me.

Anna: I saw half of it and wasn’t impressed, but I’d rather see this than ever see any of the High School musicals. Plus John Travolta looks kinda cute.

Light-hearted fun, but not much else. 2.5 out of 4

“Micmacs” is a French word similar to “knick-knacks”, as in “a little of this, a little of that.”  In many ways, this describes Jean Pierre Jeunet’s latest film pretty well, as its made up of charming little ideas, yet doesn’t add up to anything all-too substantial.

Micmacs opens with Basil’s father killed by a French-made land mine in the Middle East in 1979.  Thirty years later, Basil (Dany Boon) is caught in the crossfire of between a criminal and the authorities, and is accidentally shot in the head.  He survives, but after his recovery Basil finds he is without a job, without a home, and still has the bullet lodged in his brain.

After a few months of living on the street, Basil is adopted by a family of misfits who salvage junk for a living, and exist in an oddball kind of harmony.  After discovering the two arms dealers inherently responsible for his father’s death and his own bullet, Basil and his makeshift family decide to pit the rival companies against each other.

A major element, perhaps the element of Micmacs is its dedication to Rube Goldberg-like machines, and it’s reliance on your everyday junk drawer treasures.  Like the wire hanger creations of the family’s resident handyman-artiste Tiny Pete (Michel Cremades), Micmacs is the assembly of many a great things long-since forgotten by the public.

This clockwork aesthetic is tailor-made for a director like Jeunet, whose attention to visual detail has enabled him to create masterpieces like City of Lost Children and Amelie.  Similar to the occupation of his characters, Jeunet too relies on the knick-knacks of cinematic history to supplement his vision.

Like many actors who have worked with Jeunet in the past, the stars of Micmacs each have a very unusual look about them, as if they were made in a factory somewhere in France with the sole purpose of starring in a Jeunet film.  The actorsin Micmacs are armed with very distinct facial features that enable them to speak more with their faces than with words.  As a result, the film sometimes plays out more like a silent film as all character development and interaction relies on over-exaggerated expressions and movements, which, frankly, wears a little thin from time to time.

Reverance to silent films aside, the film is still recognizably “Jeunet”, particularly in his trademark use of color and mise en scene.  Whereas his previous films have been more serious in tone, Micmacs is his most light, whimsical film to date.  In many ways, Micmacs looks like a product of fun.  And yet, therein lies Micmac’s greatest flaw: playtime hardly makes for great work.  Sure, the film looks fanciful and fantastic, but there is a prominent “who cares?” sentiment that lies beneath the surface of the filmgoer’s mind while watching the film.

The film has been referred to as a satire on the arms race, yet this mild political statement only appears as a mere undertone at the beginning and end of the film.  Of course, no one should blame Jeunet for not making a political movie, but the film’s opening scenes rely greatly on the widespread repercussions of violence, war and death.  Unfortunately, this sentiment disappears amidst the aesthetic clutter of Jeunet’s great, but possibly over-excited imagination.

Despite the cast of unusual characters, none of them succeed in really coming alive on screen.  When Basil’s new family is introduced, they each bear a unique, singular quirk, from super-matriarch Mama Chow (Yolande Moreau) to superfluous proverb spouting Remington (Omar Sy).  Unfortunately, these same quirks are revealed to be the only thing going for these characters, diminishing them to entertaining, but flat caricatures.  Only Jeunet-regular Dominique Pinon succeeds (somewhat) in bringing a little something extra to his character as the family’s resident human cannonball.

Micmacs plays out like the Rube Goldberg machines it features so often; lots of little things here and there are used to create darling shows that are as delightful as they are forgettable.  The film is by no means bad, but a masterpiece it is not.  At it’s best, Micmacs is undeniably charming, and at its worst, unremarkably so.  Nonetheless, it is still fun to watch.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

James: What do I say about Twilight that hasn’t been said on this site 100 times already?  The trailer looks better than the first two?  That doesn’t take much.

Benn:  You know what?  I’ve said everything that needs to be said about this terrible, terrible thing.  Google “Fur and Loathing, Lock Stock” for my summation of “Twilight.”

Dylan: I’ve heard this is the best of the Twilight movies thus far. It’s like ranking S.T.D’s in order of most tolerable. This represents all that is bad in the world.

Fil: I, for one, am so excited about this.  GO TEAM BUFFY!

Anna: All I’m going to say is that there was a trailer for this before Iron Man 2. Everybody in the theater made noises of disgust. I joined in.

The Last Airbender

James: Worst reviewed movie of the year?  I’m morbidly curious now, I think I’ll rent it at some point just to see.  Supposedly the show is fantastic, go watch that.

Benn:  I might see this just to see what a colossal failure looks like.

Dylan: M. Night Shamalamadingdong hasn’t given me a reason to trust him in a long time. That and this is getting scathing reviews. Plus, why are all the main characters, who are either Asian or Inuit in the show, cast as whities?

Fil:  Dude, I love the show, but this…I just can’t believe he messed up this bad.  This is supposed to be worse than The Happening.

Anna: The trailer for this looks really, really cool. But like everyone else, I’m wary from Shyamalan’s history. Plus I’ve heard of the flaming reviews. Fil probably won’t let me see it anyway until I watch the show.

Love Ranch

James: This just looks so unnotable, which is disappointing for Taylor Hackford.

Benn:  Good principal cast, but…eh.  I take this time to cross off “Seven Samurai” off of my list of shame.

Dylan: “There’s no business like ho-business.” Since there’s not much this week… I’m going to hit up the instant watch on Netflix. Time to play catch-up.

Fil: I think of all the movies coming out this weekend, this looks like the one I would be most likely to divert to after not wanting to see the others.

Anna: I’ll probably be seeing this a few weeks before the Academy Awards, because it looks suspiciously like it’s going to make it there.

Don't know what he's looking at...it's not the beach.

Last night, I watched one of the more depressing movies I’ve ever seen.  It was about this old guy who tells a story to a female resident of this nursing home.  He tells the story of a couple who had fallen in love, and there were some plot twists and things, and at the end…YOU REALIZE THAT THE MAN AND THE WOMAN WERE THE PEOPLE IN THE STORY BUT THEY JUST HAD ALZHEIMER’S.  Then they die, and there are swans flying as the credits roll.  The tears were just flying out of my eyes, it was terrible.

So anyways, I didn’t actually watch The Notebook, but my writing skills are just so good, that I totally had you going, didn’t I?  Hah!  The movie I actually watched last night was On the Beach, a 1959 film about the end of the civilized world.  It was directed by Stanley Kramer and starred Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Anthony Perkins, and Fred Astaire.  Being born in good ol’ 1985, I have no idea who any of those people are, but apparently they’re some big movie stars?

I’ve begun a trend of choosing movies that I have to defend as science fiction.  Mad Max, Night of the Creeps, and like half of the other films I’ve reviewed – none of them give outward signs of being anything close to science fiction.  I’m hard pressed to justify myself.  This week’s movie is no different.  It’s in black and white.  There are no dinosaurs.  There are no robots.  They don’t even go to space.  But it does have something I’m (apparently) quite fond of:  the apocalypse.  Yes, looking back, almost a full third of the films I’ve reviewed are about the end of the world somehow.  These kinds of movies don’t make interesting science fiction because of how humanity and the world die.  If anything, these are facts that are usually glossed over in the first few minutes of a film.  Unless it’s a disaster epic, where the end of everything we’ve ever known is mostly just spectacle.  No, most post-apocalyptic and apocalyptic films are interesting because of their portrayal of how people cope with the fact that life has gotten so hard, or changed to a point where it’s virtually unrecognizable to the audience.

How characters interact with each other and their own philosophical musings are at the heart of On the Beach.   The film takes place in Melbourne, Australia, with the nuclear fallout from the apocalyptic war creeping ever closer to wiping out the last few people on the face of the Earth.  We follow the lives of a few of the survivors: a couple with a newborn child, a submarine captain, and two drunks – a socialite and a scientist.  Presumably, these are the perfect characters for this sort of thing, because all people in the world can be put into one of those main groups.  I’m the submarine captain, if you’re wondering.  Which one would you be?

My Zeppelin is just out of frame

A lot of the themes the characters are dealing with are pretty heavy.  I mean, at the beginning of the film, it’s stated pretty explicitly that no one is going to survive the coming fallout.  The few glimmers of hope in the film are an automated radio signal coming from the coast of San Diego, and a farfetched idea that the colder weather at Point Barrow, Alaska might slow down the radiation enough to build a habitable life.  Naturally, anyone who knows anything about radiation knows that that’s highly unlikely.

And the radio signal turns out to be a bust too.

To be honest, this is a pretty depressing film.  Anthony Perkins has to deal with his wife’s denial of the coming events, eventually getting to the point where she is delusional about their chances of survival.  He also has to wrestle with the idea of feeding a suicide pill to his child to prevent the long, slow, painful radiation death that would take her otherwise.

Yeah.  Depressing.

Most of the film is dedicated to the relationship between the sub captain and a woman who, until now, has been a drunk, unable to cope with her coming doom.  Of course, drinking yourself into a stupor is a perfectly reasonable course of action given the circumstances.  If I wasn’t busy commanding a submarine zeppelin, I would probably do the same thing.  Gregory Peck is still tortured over the fact that his family was killed because they were living on the East Coast when the bombs hit, and this makes it hard for him to strike up a romance with another woman.  Of course, knowing that they only have five short months until the end of the world, is it really worth it to start something?  Does anything even matter?

Lets synchronize watches....now!

As a side note, and a way to keep myself from being depressed, I’ve just realized that Australia seems to be the place where most people assume the world is going to end last.  It’s where Max goes mad, the Earth goes Quiet (2 reviews from now), and people play on the beach, waiting for silent, deathly radiation to kill them.  Can someone tell me why Australia is so preoccupied with the end of the world?  Are you guys planning something?  It must be a thematic thing.  Australia must represent mankind’s eventual resting place.  DOOM, if you will.

The film is shot beautifully.  There are sweeping vistas of empty cities and ice flows, not to mention the incredible landscapes of beautiful Australia.  At times, the angles skew slightly to unnerve the viewers, usually when the characters are talking about a desired future, or making plans for the future.  It shows the futility of everything.  Some haunting dialogue accompanies these images…saying that the cities are deserted because “dogs go somewhere to be alone when they die, maybe people do the same?”

I mean, what else is there to say?  The film is fantastic.  It generates these terrible feelings of hopelessness and despair.  The only thing I wasn’t too sure about is the score.  There are points where the visuals are accompanied by a tense, almost grandiose score that seems to want to emphasize the fact that the world is dead.  This is just about the only misstep in the film.  Scenes like these need a mournful, or haunting score to accompany the depressing images.  It’s almost trying to scare you into thinking about the end of the world.  We really should be depressed by it, saddened by the passing of the human race, and the futility of life.

Other than that, the movie hits every emotional beat it aims for, and really depicts how depressing and sad the end of the world is eventually going to be.  I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to feel the cold, icy grasp of nihilism creeping into your heart.

Proving this movie is sad: do you want this to be the last thing you see?

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to get back to my men on my Zeppelin, the Spirit of the Paleozoic.

Away!

Midnight Run is not an obscure movie, but its starting to get old enough that most audiences may not have heard of it.  And yet, there’s beginning to be some interest in a sequel to the film in the past few months.  Because I enjoy Charles Grodin in everything I’ve seen him in (you may know him from Beethoven, Dave, or So I Married an Axe Murderer), and it’s hard to miss with DeNiro, I decided to check it out.  The plot is very simple, it’s a road buddy movie in which DeNiro plays Jack Walsh, a bounty hunter hired to track down Charles Grodin’s white collar criminal and bring him across the country.  Shennanigans ensue.  Not only is the setup elegantly simple, but the film does a fantastic job of creating big stakes and lots of conflict.  After acquiring Grodin, DeNiro’s character has not one, not two, not three, but four different groups trying to track him down and get Grodin for their own very different desires and needs.  Complex character motivations from both DeNiro and Grodin’s characters really push them against each other nicely and create interesting dynamics alongside the different groups who are after them.

But the real charm of this film is the chemistry between the two leads.  The dynamic between the hard-ass Robert DeNiro and the overly well balanced and put-together Charles Grodin is just, to put it simply, entertaining.  Robert DeNiro does his job comedically but I think it’s Charles Grodin that really makes this pairing shine.  He usually is relegated to more supportive roles, but here he has a whole movie with which to pester his straight man.  And which really is the straight man?  Charles Grodin normally takes that role but here he has all the good lines.  There’s something about his ability with facial expressions that can get laughs on that alone, they’re not silly or over the top, but they manage to express a world of disapproval with just his eyes and a few wrinkles in his face.  A scene in which he imitates a government official is a particular highlight as he brings his stern sense of comedy forth.

This is a chase movie in every sense of the word and they find a lot to do.  At 130 minutes I was worried that the jig would wear out its welcome a little early, but, aside from the usual bits of ADD on my part (it seems to be getting bad of late) I had no problem sitting down and taking in the full duration of the film.  There’s plenty of twists and turns (not shocking, but logical and dynamic) to keep the plot going and it comes to a relatively climactic conclusion that keeps the focus on the characters.  It should be said that this is more than just a comedy, it’s also a well executed thriller as well.  Props also go to the supporting players, particularly Joe Pantoliano, who I always enjoy seeing, and Dennis Farina, who curses funnier than, well, anyone.

Those just looking for a fun entertaining night of movie watching tend to go straight for the new release wall, thinking that watching older films can be a chore.  That’s not the case even remotely with this film, I had a really good time watching it and anyone who appreciates a good comedy with some great acting and good character chemistry will too.  Check it out if you can find it.

As usual the podcast is available for download on iTunes and Podcast Alley. Please leave a review there if you haven’t yet, we need more listeners. And you can always listen to it right here on our web page.

Knight and Day

James: Cruise looks to be kind of back on his game, but Diaz looks way out of place. I guess that’s the point, but I’m still not too interested.

Benn:  Diaz is terrible, but Cruise looks like he’s having fun, and that goes a long way.  I won’t be lining up for the film, but I’ll say this, “Hey, its better than ‘The Killers’.”

Dylan: I remember when the early trailer came out that made this film look like a comedy/action flick. Cruise was playing a goofy character which works for him now (especially after Tropic Thunder). But now they’ve made it look like an action flick and I’ve lost all interest in seeing it.

Fil: Yeah this looks kind of fun. I mean, it’s not something I’d seek out, but it looks better than The Killers. Then again, watching paint peel was probably better than that film.

Anna: Looks kinda fun.

Grown Ups

James: Wasn’t interested at all until Ebert gave it a good review. I mean in the past I found these guys funny, could they do it again? Probably not.

Benn:  Watch old SNL episodes from the early 90′s instead.

Dylan: Rob Schneider is still alive?! Damn! This is anti-funny.

Fil: No. Not interested. None of these guys are funny anymore. And the comedy looks too…um…I guess the word I’m looking for is [pee turning blue because of the chemicals, but it's the adults who pee, not the kids]-ish. Fuck it.

Anna: I love most of the cast. I’d see it for $5 if I felt like watching something stupid and fun.

Restrepo [limited]

James: I feel like I heard good things about this, but it’s just not the kind of thing I’m that excited about.

Benn:  This actually looks like a really good war documentary.  It will be interesting to see the lifestyles and struggles from the soldiers’ raw, true perspectives.  Equal parts raw and noble, which is always the best mix.

Dylan: I’m really interested in seeing this, if it were in close proximity. It’s the kind of doc that is for or against the war, rather taking you through what soldiers are dealing with… and there aren’t any bad old guy jokes from comedians past their prime.

Fil: This looks pretty damn good. Always interested to see a war doc. Somehow I doubt I’ll be seeing it until it’s streaming on Netflix.

Anna: I have a hard enough time watching war movies. And the trailer suggest elements of reality TV – I wouldn’t watch it.

Wild Grass [LA/NY]

James: Trailer looks kind of interesting.

Benn:  The cinematography looks good, but…. the romantic element is just plain creepy.  Despite the onslaught of apparent critical acclaim, I can’t get over the idea of the whole romantic stalker thing going on here.

Dylan: Yeah… I don’t think so.

Fil: I’ve gotta say, this looks to be the best release this week. Still won’t see it. BECAUSE THERE ARE NO DINOSAURS IN IT.

Anna: Looks like a normal drama with a psyched up trailer.

A bit disjointed now and then, but absolutely fascinating and well done. 3/4

“Writing,” William Lee (Peter Weller) says, “is a dangerous thing.”  I imagine he says this because writing is an act of introspection, and if you’re anything like Lee, what lies beneath is a surrealistic, Beat nightmare that is as fascinating as it is insatiably weird.

Naked Lunch isn’t so much a literal adaptation of William S. Burroughs’ novel as it is an interpretation of how he wrote it.  Often said to be an unfilmable novel, writer/director David Cronenberg decided that the best approach for filming a collection of disjointed, surreal vignettes was to focus on the man behind them, blending real events from Burroughs’ life with the nightmarish dreamscape depicted in many of his works.

Working as an exterminator in post-WWII New York, William Lee, the alter ego-of-sorts of Burroughs, spends most of his time getting high off of bug repellant with his wife (Judy Davis), and his friends Hank and Martin (Nicholas Campbell and Michael Zelniker), both of which are cleverly modeled after Jack Keruoac and Allen Ginsberg.

When a William Tell re-enactment results in Lee shooting his wife in the head, Lee begins to experience bizarre hallucinations of talking beetles who tell him to go to the Interzone (which resembles Tanjeer) to investigate the distribution of drugs harvested from various insects.  His reports while abroad, which turn out to be the novel, have little to do with his mission, which is an appropriate concept concerning Burroughs’ novel and Cronenberg’s film; both narratives have nothing and everything to do with whatever’s going on.

For this reason, Naked Lunch does and doesn’t work.  On the one hand, it can be difficult to get an idea of what’s going on, and the film’s surreal storyline tends to steer the plot into a few dead ends.  There are several instances where the narrative abruptly changes in an attempt to represent Lee’s descent into madness.  Although Naked Lunch is disjointed in nature, some of the transitions between reality and fantasy are so jarring that the audience may spend more time figuring out what they missed, and less time on the film at hand.

On the other hand, Cronenberg’s vision of the inner workings of Burroughs’ mind is fascinating.  Achieving success as the master of body horror, Cronenberg manages to experiment a bit with Naked Lunch by weaving his old tricks involving grotesque manifestations of the sub-concsious into a near-autobiographical account of an important part of the Beat movement.  Amidst creatures resembling sex organs, talking roach/typewriter hybrids and horrifying human transformations, there is also a prominent Fifties aesthetic, a great bebop score by Howard Shore, and subtle Beat sesnsibilities that compliment the film’s surrealism.              

The film also offers a number of strong performances, particularly from Peter Weller, who remains stone faced and aloof amidst the raging madness off his own powder-infested mind.  His descent into madness is a subtle one, yet quite noticeable; his performances of two passages from Burroughs’ novel are perfectly delivered in a haunting monotone.  This dichotomy between Lee’s stoic personality and his twisted sub-conciousness grounds the film, and Weller holds his own as the ego to Cronenberg’s id.

Several character actors revolve around Weller’s sleeping awake protagonist, embodying a few creepy quirks that give Cronenberg’s setting a little more depth.  Ian Holm and Julian Sands, in particular, play two residents of the Interzone and both exhibit a civilized exterior with an eerie aura that becomes more and more realized as the film progresses.  Roy Scheider makes one hell of an impression (despite only showing up at the beginning and end of the film) as the good Doctor Benway, who uses his practice as a front for peddling the ultra dangerous “black meat” powder.  Scheider’s appearance at the end of the film is appropriately out there and fantastic, and his natural charm brings a maniacal bonhomie to the character.

Naked Lunch is not for everyone; as the Kerouac-inspired character says of Lee, “He has a grip on a unique reality principle.”  The same can be said, for better or worse, about the film.  Some may find the film to disorienting to make any sense out of, and Beat purists may take offense to Cronenberg’s creative liberties.  Yet, that same affinity to chaos over order is what defines Burroughs, if not the whole of the Beat movement.  If anything, Naked Lunch may not be so much an adaptation of Burroughs’ novel as it is his mind.