Do the antics of the audience hold the festival back?
I will preface this by saying that Fantasia is an amazing festival. For many of us, pouring over the programming at the start of July has become somewhat of a tradition. Fantasia gives everyone the chance to see foreign and independent films for only ten dollars a seat –and in the heart of Downtown, no less. It is inexpensive and convenient, and you can actually get tickets, unlike a certain other film festival (I’m looking at you, TIFF). Frankly, Fantasia has everything going for it.
So why can’t I recommend it?
I’ve often heard people say that the problem with public transit was that the public was on it. Unfortunately, in this case, Fantasia seems to suffer the same affliction. The absolute worst thing about Fantasia — and the reason why I cannot recommend it and may not return next year — is wholeheartedly, 100 percent, the audience.
I swear, everything is going fine until you sit down in the theatre. I would even venture that it’s going great up to the moment the lights go down. Then, it begins: first one person, then a chorus. The meowing.
Who started this? And for what purpose? It is something I would expect from my 6-year-old niece at playtime, not a bunch of adults sitting down at an international film festival. It is the most juvenile thing I have ever seen. First of all, it is annoying — and no, it is not funny. Where is the humour in it? What is the punchline? Please, illuminate me. My feeble, comedically-challenged mind cannot find the genius in your incessant meowing.
Oh, and I wish it ended when the movie started, but no. Dark screen? Meowing. Credits roll? Meowing. Lights are still off when the film is over? You guessed it: meowing.
And how I wished it stopped there. Why do you many Fantasia fans feel the need to talk the whole time? I’m talking about you, person who laughs during an emotional death scene. Or you, the one who yells “OWNED” when a punch is landed in an action flick. Or the gaggle of teenagers who sit down to watch an anime film only to practice their Japanese out loud the entire time.
I could forgive these things in a normal movie theatre. Sure, the ticket would have been more expensive, but at least I would have the chance to see the movie again. But at Fantasia, that’s it. That’s likely the one time I will ever get a chance to see this film, and it was ruined by you. So, thanks a lot for that.
And if you won’t do it for me, then do it for the directors. So many of them come to Fantasia to give a talk before or after the screening. They are sitting there, right in the audience. What do you think they feel? For many of them, this is the premiere of their film. They poured their sweat and blood into making something great. And you just meowed at it.
But my last message is for the Fantasia organizers. You guys are doing good work. But no one will ever, ever take your festival seriously with this kind of crowd. At a real festival — or even an ordinary cinema — there are consequences for acting like a child. Why aren’t there ushers to kick out rowdy movie-goers? Why aren’t there rules in place to discourage this kind of behaviour? You have the chance to make something great — but first, something needs to change.
And until it does, this is likely the last Fantasia Fest for me.
International genre film movie festival will run until August 6
Tired of those boring movie theatres in which everybody stays still and silent? Looking for this gem of a movie that perfectly mixes mystery, suspense, a bit of romance and a girl who has chainsaws for hands? Frustrated by those mainstream animation movies that systematically gives you the same old childlike story? Well, starting today, July 17, all of your wildest cinematographic dreams will come true!
The Fantasia International Film Festival is one of the most prominent genre film festivals in the world. It is proposing to Montreal’s movie addicts an array of movies that will surely move you out of your comfort zone. From animation movies to usually ignored international blockbusters, the festival has it all. Concordia University has been hosting this festival since 2003.
The 18th edition of the Fantasia International Film Festival is offering to the public movies by well-known directors as well as promising newcomers’ short films. For instance, festivalgoers will have the chance of seeing Terry Gilliam’s third and last movie, Orwellian triptych, Zero Theorem. For those who are more into Asian movies, like most of Fantasia’s regulars, Takashi Miike’s latest project will be shown, as well as plenty of other treasures. You even get to watch some classic genre movies that were made before you were born!
Another very interesting feature of the festival is that some directors and actors will be present at their movie screenings. This allows the public to ask questions and interact with the people that they would normally only see on screen. It also gives today’s low profile directors a little time under the spotlight so they can maybe move towards becoming tomorrow’s next big name in the industry. In all cases, the Fantasia International Film Festivals offers a crowd-pleasing, diversified and fun medley of cinematographic creations.
Fantasia is all about giving you the chance of seeing beautifully weird and creative movies that would not fit in any traditional categories. In some cases, it will actually be the only time anyone in Montreal will be able to watch these movies on the big screen. But really, the pleasure of going to the Fantasia International Film Festival is actually about taking a leap of faith and experiencing something new. It is true, you may fall onto the most disturbing movie you ever saw, but you may also get to watch your new favourite movie of all time. The brilliantly thought-out randomness of the festival’s selection is exactly what should make you want to attend.
The Fantasia International Film Festival will be taking place from July 17 to Aug. 6. Films will be screened at different locations around downtown campus, including the J.A. DeSève Cinema (J.W. McConnell Building), the D.B. Clarke Theatre (Henry F. Hall Building), and the Alumni Auditorium (Henry F. Hall Building).
Hailed as the “best film of the year” by Quentin Tarantino, Big Bad Wolves is the follow up to Rabies, also directed by Keshales and Papushado.
Violent and graphic, Israeli horror-thriller, Big Bad Wolves isn’t a typical fairytale
Big Bad Wolves never really lives up to its opening scene, which serves as a beautiful introduction to a darkly tongue-in-cheek tale of revenge.
The camera follows three children, a boy and two girls, playing hide-and-seek in slow-motion. They run, first in a forest, then in what looks like an abandoned warehouse. The accompanying music seems to indicate that the game won’t end well. In fact, one of the girls decides to hide in a closet; the next time it is opened, all that’s left of her is one red shoe.
Hailed as the “best film of the year” by Quentin Tarantino, Big Bad Wolves is the follow up to Rabies, also directed by Keshales and Papushado.
We learn that a child molester is at large, and that this is one of many recent kidnappings that have ended in murder. Someone sedates the children, abuses them, tortures them, beheads them and hides the heads so that their parents can’t even bury them in accordance with Jewish law, which requires corpses to be intact — nothing too uplifting.
The cop appointed to the case is Micki (Lior Ashkenazi), a sarcastic and unscrupulous man who doesn’t see a problem with resorting to violence when questioning the prime suspect, Dror (Rotem Keinan), who is a school teacher. He tries to beat a confession out of him, but fails. A boy wanders upon the scene and films the interrogation on his cellphone.
The boy then does what any modern kid would do — he uploads the footage on YouTube, and it predictably goes viral. Both men get in trouble with their superiors — Micki for being a bad cop, and Dror because being a suspected child murderer doesn’t do much to improve the school’s reputation. They end up getting suspended from their respective jobs.
But this is only the setup for the major storyline, which involves Gidi (Tzahi Grad), the father of the latest victim, going on a quest to reclaim his daughter’s head and get revenge on the murderer. He buys a house in the woods, tests it for being scream-proof, and kidnaps Dror for torture purposes. Micki also ends up there, because the plot requires it.
What we have here is a mix of grindhouse horror and black comedy. There are also elements of Jewish humour, like when Gidi keeps getting interrupted by phone calls and visits from his parents just as he’s about to take the next step in torturing his daughter’s alleged killer.
Oftentimes, you may find the humour inappropriate. The directors, Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado, take a mostly light-hearted approach to very dramatic material. Is it really necessary for Micki to wisecrack when the headless, mutilated body of a child is found?
Some twists are clever, others are run-of-the-mill, but still, the movie manages to create suspense in a story that is not of the most original kind. What makes it work is the fairy-tale aspect of it. If you were unlucky enough to have read Grimm Brothers’ stories as a child — the original ones, not child-friendly versions — the feeling of dread evoked by this film will be familiar to you. Everything is stylized to appeal to the darkest corners of your imagination.
Big Bad Wolves is set in Israel, but it could be set anywhere, because where it really takes place is the movie universe. The story, characters and situations are not realistic, nor are they meant to be. How else to explain a Palestinian cowboy? The directors have borrowed cues from various sources and created an odd, stylish amalgam of genres and tones. No wonder it was praised by Tarantino himself.
Big Bad Wolves will be out on DVD and Blu-Ray on April 22.
Two unlikely characters are put to the test — how far will they go for a $250,000 dollar prize?
High stakes and tension are on the menu in Cheap Thrills
Desperation brings out the worst in most people, but how far down the rabbit hole will a person go for a lump sum of cash that could turn their lives around? Cheap Thrills is looking to answer that very question.
The film is a black comedy thriller that can be separated into two portions; the first part of the movie relies on humour, the second takes a much darker twist.
Director E.L. Katz makes a strong debut with this film, which centres around four key characters and features both humorous moments and increasingly disturbing scenes.
After being fired from his job and given an eviction notice, family-man Craig (Pat Healy) ventures to a bar where he runs into Vince (Ethan Embry), an old friend with his own financial issues. The strangeness begins when Craig goes to the bathroom, where a mysterious man in a hat has left money in a urinal. Craig finds the money and returns to his table where the mysterious man introduces himself as Colin (played by David Koechner, from the Anchorman films and The Office), along with his wife Violet (Sara Paxton).
Dared by the cheap thrill — get it? — of playing some games for more money, Colin tempts the duo to participate in a series of challenges for an even larger piece of the wealthy pie. Given the dire financial situation of both Craig and Vince, the two friends accept and begin their dark and comical downward spiral.
Two unlikely characters are put to the test — how far will they go for a $250,000 dollar prize?
Koechner as Colin is a brilliant and twisted mind, ready to give away $250,000 on his wife’s birthday because buying her jewelry means nothing to him. Paxton’s Violet, is a cellphone addict with a psychotic edge who lives in an open relationship. Paxton’s performance is surprisingly strong despite her previous acting gigs. It goes to show that appearing in a terrible movie like Shark Night does not mean an acting career is dead.
One of the supporting characters is played by Brighton Sharbino (known for her role as the troubled Lizzie Samuels in The Walking Dead), who plays Luann — the daughter of Colin’s neighbour. She appears in one scene when Vince is trying to accomplish a bet inside her house.
Despite the focus being on a lesser-known crew, the cast of Cheap Thrills is excellent. The chemistry is evident and each member plays their role effectively. Healy easily puts together a believable performance of his character’s hopeless life situation. Embry’s addition as an old friend bearing a grudge is believable and provides the audience with strong acting and excellent delivery.
Cheap Thrills employs a handheld camera, making the movie feel personal to the characters and less like a scripted series of events. The style resembles films like Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, but unlike those movies, the camera is kept steady, much like the type used in District 9.
If you are prone to motion sickness, don’t worry — you can keep your brown bag safely tucked away under your seat. The pacing is as strong as the supporting cast, and the movie never dwells too long on a ‘killing joke’.
Cheap Thrills does things differently than the average dark comedy, leaving some existential questions about one’s depravity in the face of the mighty dollar. We learn that there are games that are fun to play and there are those that we would rather commit to forgetting.
Cheap Thrills is currently showing in Cineplex theatres across the city.
Disney takes on Marvel again, and turns Captain America into a contemporary tale
Superhero movies have been trending on the silver screen for almost a decade now. Spider Man, X-Men, Iron Man and Thor have each gotten their own reimaginings with a fair level of success at the box office. In the line of heroes covered was also Captain America: The First Avenger. Though the 2011 movie received its share of negative reviews, it paved the way for The Avengers a year later, and proved to be a well received adaptation.
The latest in Marvel’s line of movies is a take on Ed Brubaker and Steve Epting’s Winter Soldier story arc from Captain America. Photo courtesy of Marvel.
Along comes the second movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, bridging together the events following the first film, and putting the hero into contemporary times. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is propelled into the age of Twitter, the Internet and the strangeness that the last 50 years have wrought. Despite this though, Rogers seems in his element and the turn of the new millenium comes off as being almost inconsequential to him.
After an assassination is attempted on Nick Fury (Samuel Jackson), he turns to Rogers and warns him that SHIELD (an organization dedicated to securing the world’s population) has been infiltrated and that no one should be trusted. So begins the retelling of Ed Brubaker’s classic story arc of The Winter Soldier. Captain America must take down SHIELD, that is now hellbent on killing him and using the organization’s superior technology to control the population of the world. Along the way, Rogers meets Nick Fury’s assassin — known only as the Winter Soldier — and uncovers the global conspiracy behind SHIELD’s security breach.
Running at a whopping 136 minutes, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a thrilling ride that, unlike the 2011 movie, captures the essence of Captain America. The action scenes are thrilling, fast and packed with impressive fight choreography and a great mix of hand-to-hand combat and shooting. The special effects are top notch, and the movie’s $170 million budget feels well spent. The city is impressive to look at, and SHIELD’s stellar CGI airships and planes feel dutifully rendered, and seamlessly blend in.
Where the movie falls short is the midway point, breaking up the action for some necessary plot exposition. While it fills its need, the dialogue between Captain America and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is awkward and often skirt on being completely tacky.
But the groan-inducing moments are short-lived, and usually provide the ‘suddenly’ effect that’s popular in comic books. It feels like every scene is going to turn into some sort of action, and while this isn’t always the case, the movie stays on track and never leaves the audience bored for more than a few minutes at a time.
It’s understandable if you are expecting disappointment — superhero movies generally don’t hold up too well for comic book readers. Some of the creative liberties taken for the sake of cinematography often leave a sour taste in the mouth, and usually, makes us return to the original material rather than the watered down Hollywoodized versions.Each scene is supported by masterfully rendered music composed by Henry Jackman (responsible for X-Men among a list of several contributions to the film industry). The soundtrack never feels out of place, and always scores scenes in a relevant, powerful fashion that helps shape the emotion that each scene is meant to evoke.
But The Winter Soldier is different. Walking out of the theatre with after what was a satisfying experience made this reviewer consider what Marvel remakes are coming out next. Whether you’re a fan of the old red, white and blue or just looking to get your fill of superhero action flicks, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is well worth the price of entry and definitely fills the void left behind in the first instalment.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier opens in theatres nationwide on April 4.
In TV shows and movies we often look to characters to be our heroes. It’s even more inspiring if they go through the same difficult experiences as we do — triumphing in the end.
Natasha Greenblatt and Maisie Jacobson, former Concordia and McGill students,respectively, are aiming to create a web series, entitledFlush, that looks deeply at the lives of everyday students, the trials and the unspoken struggles they trudge through. As an innovative and thought provoking twist, these five to nine-minute episodes are set exclusively in various bathrooms.
Jacobson and Greenblatt co-wrote the series together. Greenblatt describes the plot as “a story of people that go away to university [who] are dealing with all sorts of things, about who they are in an unfamiliar territory and deciding what they want to do with their lives, who they want to sleep with, how they want to deal with sex and with themselves, and what kind of person that they want to create.”
The series broaches topics such as friendship, intimacy, sexuality, abortion, losing oneself and being exposed to the harsh realities of growing up.
It was Jacobson’s idea to set the web series exclusively in bathroom settings because, as a private space, “it becomes a really great container for all of those themes.”
What’s creative about this series is that it looks at a greater span of time than just a summer or a year. Greenblatt, who stars as the main character, Lucy, stated: “in our first season we’re looking at her entire university career from the end of high school to the end of university. It’s a very different way of watching time pass,” adding, “we kind of wanted to show her evolution over a longer time.”
Jacobson agreed; “I think that university years are kind of neglected on television and I think that it’s a really important time for a lot of people and a really scary time… it’s a really fun period of time to explore too.”
The trailer for Flush was produced for a grant application through the Independent Production Fund (IPF) in hopes of receiving funding for the series that is to be shot.
“Our trailer ended up being a little darker than we meant it to be. Ultimately this show is about finding oneself creatively which can be a really hopeful and wonderful thing to experience,” said Jacobson.
The choice to stage every episode of the series in a bathroom setting is a unique choice because of the connotations of such a private space.
“A bathroom is a place where you’re able to take off your public persona but you’re also creating your public persona,” said Greenblatt. “It can investigate both of those things.”
“In some ways we’re looking at the bathroom as a place where people take [their] armour off but we’re also thinking of bathrooms as places where people get ready to face the world, like put on their armour. As young women, bathrooms and experiences that we have in front of the mirror are so weighted. It can be so wonderful and so horrible,” said Jacobson.
“Bathrooms are also places that we engage in self-care a lot, but also places we engage in self-harm at times, so that’s also important in terms of how we see ourselves,” added Jacobson. This dichotomy between public life and private life is a strong motif in the work, but more importantly it is meant to encourage people who go through similar experiences and can relate
“I think we’re definitely going for hope, but a complicated hope,” said Greenblatt.
The list of 250 applicants for the IPF competition will be shortlisted by April 7. The first round is based on the amount of views the trailer receives on YouTube before March 31. In order to produce the full web series Jacobson and Greenblatt need the funding, and to help them out you can check out the trailer and share it as much as possible.
The Concordian retroactively attempts to set things right, refusing to produce disastrous movies
Dear Alec Berg, David Mandel and Jeff Schaffer,
Last year, you did the impossible — you ruined a Dr. Seuss story. Now, you’ve written Eurotrip, which is repulsive, idiotic and utterly uninteresting.
Eurotrip is a failure on all levels. It is not an excursion into Europe, as you claim. It is an excursion into the lowest forms of screenwriting. It could, and should, be used in film classes as a counter-example to, say, Casablanca, or Citizen Kane. Your cardboard vision of Europe is artistically bankrupt.
I didn’t believe in the characters. I doubt that you did either. Have you ever had friends? A relationship of any kind? Gone on a real trip, or at least dreamt of doing so? You should have written a film about these experiences. Eurotrip might as well be a science fiction film about aliens who have worked to master our looks, but couldn’t grasp the essence of humanity.
I was about to call the story ‘offensive,’ but you know what, I didn’t even care about it enough to be offended. You can’t just throw a few morally reprehensible concepts together and expect people to have their feelings hurt. Offending is a more subtle art than that. The fact that you used incest as comedy is sad and misguided. I wasn’t offended; I was appalled that none of you could tell the joke would fall flat.
The working title of Eurotrip was Ugly Americans. Stick with that.
Sincerely,
Elijah Bukreev
[divider]
Dear Mr. Levin,
Thank you for submitting your script for the movie Mutant Vampire Zombies from the ‘Hood! While we appreciate new and original idea submissions for horror movies, it is with a heavy heart that we must reject your request for production.
Due to the sensitivity of our audience, the inclusion of black and Asian ‘gang’ stereotypes (“G-Dog” and “Dragon” for example), as well as the idea of cannibal zombie vampires having a blood-fuelled orgy in an old strip club, are not aligned with the content we seek to push forward to the silver screen.
Despite our rejection, we strongly encourage you to seek independent film studios to help materialize your idea, no matter how silly it is.
Regards,
Jocelyn Beaudet
[divider]
On behalf of Disney Studios, we at The Concordian are writing to acknowledge the receipt of your pitch for a Lion King sequel. Unfortunately, we will not be pursuing this concept at this time.
As you are aware we have recently undergone a change in management and have shifted our focus as a result. We will no longer be funding franchise attempts through sequels.
Rather, we will be focusing on cultivating the Disney brand name by carefully crafting timeless stories.
The cornerstone of Disney has always been imagination and innovation; your script shows neither. The story is lifted from Romeo and Juliet while being less effective. Why is Simba xenophobic? When did Scar have children? Where were the outcast lionesses at the end of the first film? These elements were not present in the original because they were not necessary. This is not the story we want to tell. Producing this movie would be as ludicrous as retelling the original movie from the viewpoint of a set of secondary characters.
Thank you,
Robin Stanford
[divider]
Dear creators of this fourth opus of the celebrated Indiana Jones series—previously known as a trilogy.
Sincerely,That is why we decided, as a favour to humanity and to preserve the collective memory of Indy’s fans, to refuse you the right to produce The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The iconic hat-and-whip-aficionados community would find this to be an unnecessary Indiana Jones movie. We also feel it necessary to tell you that a cheap alien twist is never the answer to your scripting problems.
Oh, and concerning the fridge versus bomb larger-than-life scene: seriously, what were you thinking?!Your manuscript has been returned because the idea has been done before. Your concept has actually been wonderfully done three times before and gifted us with one of the most entertaining trilogies of all time, not to mention one of the most lovable characters we have encountered in American filmography.
Frédéric T. Muckle
[divider]
Re: Mr. Marlon and Shawn Wayans,
Unfortunately, we will not consider producing Scary Movie at this time. While we can entertain the idea of spoofing conventional tropes of horror films, the script, as it stands, shows no humour. We believe that the slapstick brand of comedy is taking its last breaths as we enter into the new century.
Additionally, we find that your proposal to star in the films yourselves, and have your brother, Keenan Ivory, direct it, feels like too much of a family affair. It seems to be a script written solely to create jobs for yourselves.
We also find some of your proposed casting choices questionable, especially that of Carmen Electra — who has proven in the past that she cannot act, and is indeed not funny.
Finally, we feel that Scary Movie will not have mass appeal and would not be financially profitable — we can hardly foresee a sequel, let alone a franchise, develop based on this movie.
All the best with your future endeavours,
Alex Lau
[divider]
Mr. Nguyen,
While we appreciate your script submission for Birdemic: Shock and Terror, it is with absolute certainty that we express not only our unanimous rejection, but also our complete bafflement into your submission in the first place.
Birdemic is quite possibly one of the least competently hacked-together scripts to have ever graced our presence. To this moment, we are still unsure of how or why the birds in your movie can simultaneously spray acid and explode on impact because of global warming. With that being said, we strongly suggest you give up your career as a film writer immediately and perhaps take up knitting or stamp collecting.
Comprising two volumes, Nymph()maniac stars Charlotte Gainsbourg, Stellan Skarsgård, Shia Labeouf, and Uma Thurman. Photo by Christian Geisnaes/Zentropa
The much-anticipated Nymph()maniac is the explicit story of a sex-addict
The least you could say about Nymph()maniac is that it isn’t boring. It is also extremely hard to watch, but then, it’s made by Lars von Trier, which should tell you something about its nature. Political correctness is a foreign notion to the provocateur extraordinaire, who has been described by at least one of his actors as a “dangerous” man.
Comprising two volumes, Nymph()maniac stars Charlotte Gainsbourg, Stellan Skarsgård, Shia Labeouf, and Uma Thurman. Photo by Christian Geisnaes/Zentropa
Von Trier is one with a twisted sense of humour, although you can never be sure if he’s joking. Three years ago, during an interview for his previous film, Melancholia, he pointed at his two stars and declared: “My next film is a porn film with those two.” They laughed. The interviewer laughed. The audiences laughed. And then, von Trier went ahead and made the film.
Nymph()maniac, the conclusive title in the Danish director’s Depression Trilogy, has been divided into two volumes, each two hours long. The story itself is fragmented into eight chapters, one of them made in black-and-white. Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays the main character, has starred in a total of four von Trier films, from which one might conclude that she enjoys physical and emotional distress.
That makes her a suitable choice for the role of Joe, a hopeless sex-addict who, at the beginning of Volume One, is found unconscious in a deserted alleyway by a caring middle-aged man out on an evening walk. He brings her back to consciousness and takes her home with him. He is appalled that a woman would get treated the way she did — she seems to have been severely beaten up, her face all bloodied and bruise-laden.
Joe thinks otherwise. She believes the beating was well-deserved; “I’m a bad human being,” is one of the first things she says. Her benefactor begs for an explanation, and that’s how the story gets started. The two films give an account of Joe’s life and addiction, told in her own words.
Some of it you’d wish wasn’t told in her own words. Joe speaks her mind with a disarming openness, casually making use of questionable language. Her host introduces himself as Seligman (“What a fucking ridiculous name”). He listens with interest as she rambles about her “cold bitch” of a mother, her polymorphous perversity (“I discovered my cunt at two years old”), her early experiences with sex (she loses her virginity at age 15), and later ones, all which grow increasingly harrowing. The timeline takes us back and forth between past and present, as causes and consequences are exposed.
The story takes place in an unnamed European city which is, judging by some accents, likely to be situated in the UK. The reason why it’s hard to tell is because very little context is given — we barely ever see any exterior shots. Most of the first film takes place behind closed doors, in bedrooms especially. The main action consists in the conversation between Joe and Seligman (played by Stellan Skarsgård), which shapes the structure of the films and takes place over the course of a whole night. Imagine 1001 Nights as a bleak sexual fantasy and you might get an idea of what to expect.
Skarsgård and Gainsbourg have an interesting chemistry together. Their characters are polar opposites: she is a nymphomaniac, he is by his own admission an asexual virgin. She tells a story, he comments on it using his vast cultural knowledge, which covers all topics except sex. He brings interesting and often amusing insights to the table, finding analogies between Joe’s story and music, literature, even fishing.
However, the conversation often tends to get overly rhetorical. You lose the sense that these are two living people: they become more like one-dimensional mouthpieces for the ideas von Trier wants to communicate. Some of these have no place in Nymph()maniac. For instance, Seligman says he is an anti-Zionist (“which is not the same as being anti-Semitic, despite what some people would have you believe.”) for no other reason than that von Trier has taken a vow of silence after famously getting into trouble for claiming he was a Nazi, and is now expressing himself through his characters.
Another way the movie falters is by its casting. Having different actors play the same characters is a hard trick to pull off. In Volume One, the younger Joe and her first lover Jerome are played by Stacy Martin and Shia Labeouf (in a very unexpected role). In Volume Two, they are played by Gainsbourg and Michael Pas. When the switch happens, you’re immediately pulled out of the story, and keep wondering whether you’re really watching the same characters, especially given that some of their behaviour also goes through a change.
Nymph()maniac is set apart first of all by its content, but also by its style. Von Trier uses shaky-cam, low-key acting and non-simulated sexual intercourse — which comes off as too much of a gimmick — and in Volume One that feels distracting. However, if you watch both volumes in one sitting, you might notice that by the time Volume Two has started, you’ve grown more comfortable with the rules set up by the director in the cinematic world he’s created, and are more able to appreciate the story for what it’s worth. Of the film, Skarsgård has said, “After a while, a penis entering an orifice is as natural as food entering your mouth”, and he’s right.
Volume Two also features much more violence. Be warned, there are scenes of a sadomasochist nature, and they look and feel authentic. One can only hope they’re not. Jamie Bell stars as some kind of a shady pain-therapist. He’s maddeningly calm and methodical in his ‘work’. He knows exactly what he wants, and he gets it without losing his temper. We have preconceived notions of what a sadist must look and behave like, and Bell’s character is none of these things. It is a quietly horrifying performance, light-years away from his breakthrough role as Billy Elliot in 2000.
So are Lars von Trier’s latest two films pornographic? Let’s look at Merriam-Webster’s definition of the term. The definition starts with saying that “movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way” are pornography, which applies to Nymph()maniac. But then, the goal of pornography is “to cause sexual excitement,” which doesn’t apply as much.
The two movies are unthinkably explicit. You could say that the movies contain sex, but it would be more accurate to say that the sex contains the movies. There, you have every variety of it, and this is the censored version. One can only guess what must have been left on the cutting-room floor. Sex is instrumental in telling this story, but is it meant to arouse its audience? The two films are dark, disturbing and fittingly depressing. It’s hard to imagine anyone getting off on them.
Yet Nymph()maniac has its share of pleasures. There are moments of absolute and much needed hilarity, like a scene-stealing performance by Uma Thurman as a heartbroken woman whose husband has mistaken Joe’s sexual lust for love and decided to move in with her. Thurman’s character impulsively decides to take her sons on a visit to their father’s newly adopted habitat and shows them the “whoring bed”.
The editing of both movies is ingenious. There’s a sense of liberation from formulaic narrative structures that makes Nymph()maniac feel like a satanic rendition of a Terrence Malick film. In 2011, Malick and von Trier both had films at the Cannes Film Festival: the former made The Tree of Life, which shows the creation of Earth, and the latter made Melancholia, about its destruction. Both directors make use of religious undertones, classical music, and roaming camera moves. Their styles are not that distant, but their worldviews — irreconcilable. Malick offers hope, von Trier only cynicism. To each his own.
Nymph()maniac opens in theatres nationwide on March 21.
Exotic cars, intense actions and real car crashes are just some of the defining moments in Need for Speed. Photo courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures.
The silver screen adaptation of the video game takes us into the world of muscle car-racing
With Breaking Bad ending last fall, Aaron Paul had a lighter schedule and with it came Need for Speed, a movie supported mostly by exotic cars and scenery. Despite Paul’s acting credentials, the movie isn’t exactly a masterpiece.
In 1994, Electronic Arts introduced its first entry into the racing video game market with Need for Speed. The more recent game in the franchise, Need for Speed: Rivals, became the 20th title in the series to be released. Started in 1998, the Hot Pursuit subseries then had new installments both in 2002 and then in 2010. This subseries is now the universe in which the latest movie by Scott Waugh takes place.
Struggling through financial issues, Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul) and his crew agree to a business proposition with ex-NASCAR
Exotic cars, intense actions and real car crashes are just some of the defining moments in Need for Speed. Photo courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures.
champion Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper). The partnership goes awry when one of their own is killed in a car crash orchestrated by Brewster. Marshall is then framed for the fatal crash and winds up in prison. Two years later, Julia Maddon (Imogen Poots) aids Marshall in getting his redemption, ultimately leading to challenging Brewster in a race. This race is sponsored by Monarch (Michael Keaton), an ex-racer in charge of the De Leon race, an annual invitation-only event held in California for the six best racers in the US, where Brewster and Marshall face off while law enforcement pursues the racers.
When it comes to the acting, Paul is really invested in his character, while Cooper fits the bill as a remorseless racer. Keaton’s character adds humour to the film and his role as Monarch, the overly excited and slightly crazy overseer, nails the performance. Poots’ character, though, is confusing, trusting Marshall at the drop of a hat and never questioning any event.
The weakest point of the acting is in the supporting cast. It is terrible: they are corny, forgettable and stereotypical. Who are Brewster’s stooges? Why is there not a single car driving near the coastline? How does a character get access to army and police helicopters? Why are the police officers not using spike strips? These plot holes and acting deficiencies serve as the main criticism against Need for Speed.
With that being said, the movie takes elements from the Hot Pursuit subseries and translates them to the silver screen making the experience enjoyable for fans of the franchise, while not alienating a new audience. Need for Speed takes the viewer across the United States to a scenic view of the Pacific Ocean. The movie illustrates the beautiful scenery: the canyon, the country, the forests and the mountains, which will surely cause those who played the games to take a trip down memory lane.
Waugh had good ideas for directing; cockpit views and overhead shots at an angle are filmed several times.
Need for Speed showcases impressive crashes and stunts. Each impact is real and no CGI was used to create the scenes. This realism serves as a message: speed kills and so does stupidity.
The score by Nathan Furst is a suitable original soundtrack for this movie and the song selection, including a track by Linkin Park, is decent. However, the cover songs by Aloe Blacc in the movie’s song selection are butchered and bring little to no value to the score.
For what it’s worth, Need for Speed is alright if you can ignore the plot holes and bad supporting cast. One thing is for sure though, it is better than half of the Fast and the Furious franchise.
You can catch Need for Speed in theatres nationwide.
Sometimes it’s better to just leave a “classic” movie be. Photo by JeepersMedia, Flickr
Filmmakers need to tread lightly when reinventing and reintroducing old material
Recently, I watched the trailer for what is now the third remake of “Annie” and I’ve got to say, despite having an amazing cast, (aside from Cameron Diaz, who is just painful to watch because she takes the word annoying to a whole new level), this movie looks like an empty remake with nothing original to offer. It also clearly resembles every other “inspirational movie” made in the last decade. I am not excited at all about this film, because it looks like its going to have the exact same effect as the “Karate Kid” reboot, where film producers just hope families will flock to the cinema and make them millions of dollars without really offering them anything exciting in return.
When I consider the amount of scripts floating around Hollywood at this very moment involving remakes and reboots, it brings a tear to my eye. It shows us how unwilling Hollywood is to take chances with scripts featuring original ideas.
Let’s face it: movie producers hate taking chances on movies that may or may not make large sums of money.
Sometimes it’s better to just leave a “classic” movie be. Photo by JeepersMedia, Flickr
However, I don’t consider remakes and reboots to be a bad thing. In fact, I believe they exist for the sole purpose of introducing the concept of classic cinema to today’s younger generation of filmgoers, whose eyes roll and minds begin to wander at the very mention of a black and white or “old” movie.
Now, this isn’t supposed to come off as me telling Hollywood to remake every single movie that comprises the American Film Institute’s “100 Greatest Movies” list, due to the fact that most of the time, the remake doesn’t capture the essence of the original. Or, in some cases, is just plain awful. I’m looking at you Gus Van Sant, and your pathetic “shot for shot” remake of Psycho starring Vince Vaughn.
This is me saying that some films could actually benefit from being remade because of emerging technologies in cinema. Additionally, you can use fresh eyes to give life to an old script, where a contemporary filmmaker has the chance to improve upon the original.
In order for filmmakers to be successful with their remakes and reboots, they must first develop a thorough understanding of the original. Understanding the source material allows you to maintain a sense of the magic that the original film had. That said, I believe originality is also a key component. Adding your own personal touches to the major themes of the original film will offer fans of the old film a whole new experience. This way, it acts as a love letter to the film it’s based on, while entertaining the younger generation through more relatable material. This will give the movie a platform to stand on its own.
Sometimes a movie just needs to be remade because the look of it just doesn’t match up to the emotion being portrayed on-screen before your eyes. For instance, “King Kong” by Peter Jackson was superior to the original in my eyes because the special effects truly added to the story. They enabled a more human look for the ape, so you truly sympathized with him.
Both JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek” and Tim Burton’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” are two other remade films that I felt were far superior compared to the originals, because the newly added visual effects really made me feel like I was walking through my imagination.
We should embrace remakes and reboots because who knows, they might help you love and appreciate something that you once hated. Although, if you producers touch any of our favourites in a bad way, I promise that will be the last thing you ever do.
Winner at Cannes’ Critics Week, The Lunchbox, connects two lonely people with a lot on their mind.
Winner at Cannes’ Critics Week, The Lunchbox, connects two lonely people with a lot on their mind
You will hear the word ‘Bollywood’ applied to this movie, which is all sorts of wrong. No, there are no eye-rolling dances, no corny music and no eccentric twists and turns. The Lunchbox couldn’t have come from Bollywood and it couldn’t have come from Hollywood as it is today. Instead, it comes, like all great films do, from the heart. First-time writer-director Ritesh Batra has made a great Indian film.
After a food delivery mix up, Ila (Nimrat Kaur, Peddlers) and Saajan’s (Irrfan Khan, Life of Pi, The Darjeeling Limited) love story unfolds, as told to us through a series of letters. Photos courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.
This is a movie that looks like a romantic comedy, starts out like a piece of neo-realism and ends up being a real treasure — an insightful character study. You walk into it, and you expect it to raise questions like “What will she wear on their first date?” Would you believe it instead goes for “What do we live for?”
The main characters are two lonely souls in an overpopulated city. She is Ila (Nimrat Kaur), a housewife dreaming of a better life, more space to breathe, a husband whose shirts wouldn’t reek of other women’s perfumes and a more rewarding relationship with her parents. He is Saajan (Irrfan Khan), a quiet, recently widowed accountant with only retirement to look forward to.
The two people are unconnected. But then, Ila sends lunch to her husband through the famous Dabbawala service — this lunchbox and dozens more are carried through busy streets by bike, two trains, foot and a strolling cart. Finally, the lunchbox lands on Saajan’s desk, in a governmental building. He contemplates it with cold curiosity, opens the cans and proceeds to eat the curry contained inside.
The lunchbox goes back empty. Ila is overjoyed: “He licked it clean!” Yes, someone licked the cans clean, but who? From the way her husband compliments her on an entirely different dish, Ila realizes her curry must have gone to the wrong address. Auntie, her upper floor neighbour who she communicates with mainly by screaming out the window, is adamant: “The delivery man never made a mistake before.”
Well, he has now, and Ila reacts to it in an unexpected manner: she goes with it. The next day, she sends the lunchbox with a small note. Saajan writes back, and a steady correspondence begins. They are both wise, intelligent and well-spoken. It is always wonderful when people like that find each other, against all odds. They have lived through things and have stories to share. Most of them are gripping. Ila and Saajan grow from contact with each other.
The strength of a film always depends on the strength of its actors, and the two leads deliver. You’ve seen Irrfan Khan in such movies as The Amazing Spider-Man and Life of Pi. He’s a skilled actor, but possibly the last you’d imagine in a romantic film. Yet, he makes it work by showing a man hardened, but vulnerable. As for his co-star, it’s doubtful that you’ve seen Nimrat Kaur anywhere, or that you’ve heard her name before, but you just might hear it again. She provides the film with its best dramatic elements. The letters might have been written, but to us, the audience, they are read. Kaur shows a mastery of voice acting — now that’s talent. She’s also drop-dead gorgeous, which helps.
There are many laughs to be had, most of them involving Shaikh (Nawazuddin Siddiqui), an odd-mannered apprentice desperate for Saajan’s mentorship.
Otherwise, the film keeps a serious tone, and takes its time with the story. You may find it slow. You’ll be thankful for it, too — these are characters you want to spend time with. By corresponding, they seek the same thing as we do when we go to the movies — an escape from a seemingly inevitable routine. Their letters open a window into a different world.
Sometimes, another perspective is all you need, and this movie has perspective a-plenty.
The Lunchbox opens in theatres, with subtitles in English and French, on March 21.
In Fear takes a new couple on a night of terror in a grounded Irish scene
“If a man hurts an innocent person, the evil will fall back upon him and the fool will be destroyed.”
These are the lines scrawled on a bathroom wall in an Irish pub, where evil will definitively unleash in Jeremy Lovering’s new psychological thriller, In Fear.
Lucy sits on the toilet, reading the lines, she smirks and pens the words on the wall: “Or not.” This turns out to be a bad decision, as the audience soon finds out.
In Fear is a complex thriller bursting at the seams with mind games. The plot is simple: Lucy (Alice Englert) and Tom (Iain de Caestecker) are going to a festival in Ireland, when they stop off at a pub on the way. When Lucy returns from the washroom, Tom tells her about a slight mishap with the mates at the pub. A man accidentally spilled Tom’s drink, so Tom bought him another one. “I am a lover, not a fighter,” Tom says in his rich Irish brogue as he shrugs.
In Fear creates an ever-growing atmosphere of fear, turning new love into bitter hatred in the face of adversity.
Things look innocent enough until Tom wryly suggests they find a hotel for the night instead of going on to the festival. He wants a romantic night with Lucy and he’s found just the place, a “slice of heaven,” a hotel tucked deep into the woods. The tone is set.
As the couple drive on and on, trying to find the hotel, tension rises. When they kiss, the lovers don’t even notice that the GPS loses its signal. The cell phones keep glitching and the hotel is impossible to find. The pair drive on and on, through a narrowing lane in a forest, until they find conflicting signs concerning the hotel’s location. Does it even exist? As Lucy says when she focuses on the map, “We’re not lost, we’re in a fucking maze.”
The scenery and camera-work do wonders in this film. With vast, flat landscapes and gray pastures, the Irish background makes you want to flee for your life. You feel surrounded by emptiness and desolation. Trees come alive at night time as Lucy begins to repeatedly see a masked man in the form of dancing branches. Tom assures her that she is hallucinating, but as the night progresses, things just get weirder and weirder. The camera zooms in at precise moments to linger on Lucy’s terrified face, on a gate closing, or on tires speeding up. The anticipation just keeps on building, and the viewer is pretty much ready to scream with Lucy when she feels someone (or something) is pulling at her hair.
The best part of the film lies in the psychological mind games. We learn that confidence and new love can quickly turn sour when in a bad situation. Tom and Lucy turn against each other at times, only to unite when faced with a string of dead rats, for example. Who can be trusted, and why? The innocent spilled drink at the pub becomes a burning hot issue. Are the pub mates out there? The viewer is tormented and teased until the very last minute of the film, forced to ponder the nature of humanity and the horror of the survival instinct.
The cast does a fine job of displaying genuine terror. Lovering needed a cast ready to take whatever would come since he insisted on having no script. Every actor had to sign up without knowing what would happen.
Viewers who like immediate action should probably shy away from this thriller, though. It takes a good 40 or so minutes before anything actually happens. The beauty in this production lies in the building up of tension and fear, not in any gory scenes. That said, since most of the action happens in a car in one single night, Lovering excels at moving the action along and keeping the facts at bay. You want to find out who is out there, at any cost.
You can catch In Fear starting on March 13 at Montreal’s Cineplex Odeon.
