The film is about Will Burton (Gaelan Connell), a teen that has suffered much ridicule and is finally getting a chance to break free by transferring to a new high school.  While Will is certainly the central character (though the trailers would disagree), he becomes merely a mouthpiece for the other characters.  It’s not until much later in the film that we see his character’s own problems appear.  Will serves as a catalyst for the uncovering (and much later the resolution) of Charlotte’s (Alyson Michalka) personal struggles with life and death and Sa5M’s (Vanessa Hudgens) struggle with being someone that feels it’s necessary to spell their name with a number in it.  Through this process we are given a small treatise on “cool” music and the troubles of being a teenager.  That does sound familiar, but in this case it’s a much more adult version where the “being a teen” aspect carries more weight than not having the right shoes or fitting in.   However, the films is still aimed at teens which means we the adult perspective is tinged with more angst.

The film does venture into sketchy territory with the way in which Will is portrayed.  He is the everyman nerdy geek that has been played out in many teen films.  We get it, geeks rule and make the perfect lead role.  However, due to the late arrival of his back story, I became a bit annoyed.  There was never the magical connection between the viewer and Will, at least until the very end when his issues become central and come fast and furious.  This says nothing of Gaelan’s ability, but speaks more to problems in character development.  Then we have Vanessa Hudgens.  While I am glad that she is beginning the process of moving away from high school musicals, the direct attempt to be the anti-Gabrielle just does not work.  Her performance lacks the punch needed for a character named Sa5m.  More surprising was the way in which Alyson Michalka drove the story.  Her acting was more polished and really captured the needed emotional attitude needed by her character.  But all of these pale in comparison to Will’s mom, Karen Burton (Lisa Kudrow).  Kudrow steals the film partly due to her perfect fit for the role and partly due to her ability to weave comedic skill into even the most emotional of moments.  Perhaps this comes from being a parent, but you begin to feel that she is the glue that keeps this film from running afoul.  Teen movies need figures like her to be able to address more adult topics and move beyond just being a teen film.

Bandslam is well worth the watch because like so many films dealing with music, you find yourself singing and dancing along.  This is a testament to not only proper music choice but the fact that both Vanessa Hudgens and Alyson Michalka can sing.  If anyone has seen Nine, you know how important good singing can be.  While not a revolution of filmmaking, Bandslam fills the gap between teen film and adult drama.  We are given an emotional level not found in many teen films, while still being able to speak the language of youth.

So why did you not see Bandslam?  Perhaps the same reason I almost did not see Bandslam.  It was marketed to the Disney audience brought up on Selena Gomez and High School Musical.  While I have no doubt they did see the film, they surely did not view it again and again.  And what teen would have any concept of the importance of CBGBs (which Will has to explain ad nauseum to Sa5M) or why in the hell a band called Wilco has a song on the soundtrack.  However, this film falls between the gaps because many adults were turned off by the same reasons teens would be turned on.   With Hollywood pushing megahits and award winners relegated to “only pushed during awards season” status, it becomes difficult for films that are neither.  That in-between status of a film like Bandslam leaves the distributors with a major problem, should they push the marketing towards the Disney crowd or towards the tweeners?  Sadly, this film suffered due to this dilemma.  But don’t let that scare you away from watching Bandslam, even those films that fall through the cracks can be good solid films.

The plot is fairly easy to describe, group of thirty-somethings go for vacation in an isolate snowy area that is being patrolled by undead zombies.  Hilarity ensues.  The group is made up of grad students on vacation, except Sara (Ane Dahl Torp) who decides to ski to the cabin rather than ride in a car along with the rest of them.  I guess skiing to the vacation destination makes sense in the context of location, but I knew she was dead from the start.  The rest act like grad students on vacation with some alcohol and bad jokes.  We learn from a gruff traveler Hertzog (Ørjan Gamst), that the area was home to evil Nazis that stole and killed the people and then ran to the hills after the war to hide their spoils.  No one saw them again, except there have been reports of those Nazis still roaming the woods.  I’m really not sure what else you would need to know except that the hottest actress (Jenny Skavlan) in the film has sex with the overweight film geek in an outhouse right after he has announced to the group how big a shit he has to take.  Mild disgust to involuntary gagging should be overtaking you at this point.  However, it’s the little things like this that make Dead Snow such a fun film to watch.

How in the hell is sex in an outhouse reflective of a fun film?  Mainly because it demonstrates the key factor in making Dead Snow worthwhile, it is self-aware.  While not a parody or even satire, the film recognizes that zombie and horror films have been using the same conventions over and over again.  Why not take those conventions and simply announce that the film will be following them while still playing around a bit.  In the vein of such films as the Evil Dead films, the humor comes from the tweaking of those conventions rather than anything being funny.  When the group first treks to the mountain cabin, the film geek Erland (Jeppe Beck Laursen) wonders just how many horror films begin with a group of people going to an isolate cabin.  Erland provides even more film references and quotes throughout the film, which are typically timely and add to the humor of a particular scene.  The film is not funny because it tries to be funny, it’s humorous because of the slight variations of conventions.  It does play like a straight horror film, but the self-aware nature creates a multi-layered romp through the zombie genre.

Then there is the obsession with intestines.  Dead Snow is certainly not for the weak of stomach.  While you are given the typical gore of a zombie film, you are also given so much more.  The end of the film is an entire smorgasbord of ways to kill zombies and cause as much blood to spread as possible.  Cut-off hand and various impalements later, the snow becomes a blank canvas for the Jackson Pollock-esque blood splatter.  No problem you say, I can handle blood and gore.  How about various scenes that involve the repeated focus on intestines.  How about catching your intestines on a tree branch?  Ever use an intestines as a climbing rope?  Motif, yes.  Disturbing repetition of intestines, hell yes.  We even get a discussion on how you can be alive and still watch your intestines being ripped out.  Which then actually happens.  I’m not sure if you can have your intestines ache, but I certainly am now more aware of the possible ways in which intestines could get me killed or saved.

Dead Snow gives viewers a fun trip into zombie filled woods where intestines abound and conventions become vehicles for humor.  While not being a particularly great film, it does vault itself beyond a bad film.  Or is it that the film is trying to be bad and therefore becomes a very good postmodern zombie film?  I think I will leave that up to you.  If you like zombie films (which apparently I do since I have now began classifying sub-genres of zombie films), you will find this fun and a less than serious stab at the genre.  If you do not like zombie films, go watch something else.  Not only will you be disturbed by the many uses for the intestines, the self-awareness will not make much sense.  Director Tommy Wirkola demonstrates his love of film and his ability to create a film that really could have been just another zombie film and takes it one step further.  He even names a character Hertzog, but that  in itself demonstrates why my enthusiasm for this film is a bit tarnished.  The same thing that makes the film watchable (being self-aware), can certainly come off as a bit of the egotistical film geek making a film vibe.  Future films by Wirkola will certainly prove which it actually was.

The basic story revolves around newly hired radio DJ Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) that has found himself in the doldrums of winter while still trying to bring his fierce anti-persona to the airwaves.  He assisted by his smart yet vulnerable producer Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) and his young just back from military duty technician Laurel-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly).  What begins as a simple day of weather related closings and community interviews (Lawrence of Arabia as a musical anyone?) turns into a potential world threatening cataclysm.  That is, if it’s not a hoax as Mazzy believes.  That hoax is quickly dispatched as the reality comes flooding in from first hand accounts and government involvement.  The twist is that these “zombies” are not zombies in the traditional sense.  Before you read the next paragraph, I am going to reveal a few plot points that may ruin the film for you.  So stop reading now and join us later in the review.

The zombies are created by language and feed off other humans to find another host for what I can only describe as a word virus.  Dr. Mendez (Hrant Alianak) describes this in the film as becoming infected when you truly understand a word, hence the zombies being attracted to people talking and their continued repetition of words.  In fact, you know someone is infected when they begin repeating a word.  Scary concept, yet made less effectual by the virus only working for the English language.  Had this film been aiming at a serious plot, I’m quite sure it would have been a bi-lingual virus at the least.  However, English virus it is.  The reason for English is never explained, but I would think it is either due to the fact that it came from a secret MLA test facility created by Grammar Nazis or someone has a big problem with English.  You do just have to overlook this in the film, but it did give me a bit of a setback for my enjoyment.  I kept thinking about Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash and how you can truly make words a virus.  While not a blockade to making Pontypool a good film, it did give me that feeling that the film missed a chance.

At this point, you can rejoin our discussion.

Pontypool had set itself up to linger in a B-movie hell, but then it rose from the ashes by providing viewers with acting and direction that elevates the film to almost A-movie material.  The characters of Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) and Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) work well to create a quirky and meaningful performance.  McHattie has the look of a man that has been around the block a few times (the cowboy certainly should remind you of another radio host).  His grouchy old man act gives the audience a great opportunity to experience the magic of casting.  Other actors may have run with the fear or desolation angle, but McHattie gives us the crazy element that opens the door for humor and seriousness.  Houle’s performance may not be wonderful on her own; but as a contrast to McHattie, she works well in providing his character with the needed grounding.

All of the characters work because director Bruce McDonald forces them into a bubble.  The confining nature of the actual set and his cinematography isolates them, eventually allowing the viewer to experience the zombie phenomenon on a personal level.  I was surprised that we are really never shown anything beyond the studio (church basement).  However, it works to enhance would could have been a simple slash and gash zombie chase.  It served as the winter prison where emotions and actions become desperate.

Pontypool never takes the viewer to the battlefield, only offering side notes to the greater story.  Yet, that’s what makes the film stand out from other films of this nature.  We are able to experience another side to your typical zombie film.  A side where helicopter weathermen drive station wagons and kill can mean kiss.  I found that Pontypool is entertaining and quirky, but that it will perhaps stay in a niche category.  Fans of zombie or horror  films may be disappointed, but this small little film does provide an entertaining experience.

The slow methodical pace of Moon harkens back to old school hard sci-fi where the science is really only a tool to a deeper understanding of human nature.  While we have moments of action, most of the film is about interaction.  Even when we venture to the surface of the moon, CGI is replaced with models that look more real than any computer generated futuristic rover.  The intent was not to wow the audience with glitz and glam, but wow them with substance.  Although this methodology works for the most part, it does take some time to introduce the core of the story.  By the time we get to the heart of the film, many viewers may have already predicted the twist.  While I will not discuss the twist here, I will warn you that the rest of the review has to reveal the twists so that the review makes sense.  So stop reading if you do not want to know the entire story.

The highlight of this film is certainly Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell, HE3 miner on the surface of the moon.  He has a three year contract before he can go home.  Rockwell’s initial performance in the film is reminiscent of Tom Hanks in Castaway.  He is faced with no other human interaction and only has GERTY (Kevin Spacey), the stations artificial intelligence machine, to keep him company.  Volleyball compared to a self aware machine?  Perhaps Rockwell does have it a bit easier than Hanks, but the perfomance is still stellar.  All this changes when we meet Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell).  You heard me.  After a mining accident, we are suddenly thrust back to the station and see a more gung-ho Sam in a much cleaner space suit.  In a short while, the audience is rewarded with a rescue of Sam, by Sam.  Honestly, this is where Rockwell’s performance hits its stride.  He plays clones of Sam Bell that are reflections of the original Sam Bell (who may have never gone to the moon or may have died landing there) but at different points of their 3 year contract.  One who freshly sees the reasoning for clones and sets out to break free from the Sam cycle and one who has reached the end of his three year life cycle, finally facing the end and finding out the real story behind Sam.  The back and forth between the two Sams is humorous and serious, demonstrating that Rockwell is certainly an unsung talent.

The film works because we are essentially forced to reflect on what it is to be human.  By forcing the viewer into a relationship with Sam, we need to face the idea of our own mortality and the ethics of not only cloning, but human life.  Once you add the self aware and human-like GERTY, the question becomes what makes us human?  While one could point out other films that deal with clones (The Island and Parts: The Clonus Horror), Moon moves beyond the basic ethics of clone creation to a deeper layer of questioning of the basic principles of humanity.  When Sam is faced with the information that his wife has been dead, the clone reacts with sadness and grief one would expect of the real Sam.  Yet, these feelings come from implanted memories and not reality.  Moon works more on the level of Blade Runner.  The viewer is given the viewpoint of the clone (or possible replicant), which muddies the water of reality.  Are we human because of our memories?  Or are we human because of our actions?

Moon is a truly thoughtful film from a first time director.  Jones has realized that all the money in Hollywood only helps make a film pretty, it does not help the story.  While there may be some issues with the film with pacing and editing, they are easy to ignore.  However, much is left in the air.  Is the film good due to Rockwell’s performance or Jones’ directing?  There is certainly space for a sequel, once which I wouldn’t mind seeing.

Is Zombieland as good as a wonderfully spiced and warmed Pumpkin Spice Latte?  In a very extreme way, yes it is!  I had no preconceptions as to the plot, I honestly could have cared less about the plot.  My goal was to laugh.  I wanted a diversion, not unlike the diversion of a Pumpkin Spice Latte on a cold day.  I wanted a film that warmed me up with laughter, much like the before mentioned latte.  Zombieland certainly delivers laughs and does so with multiple levels of humor.  We have intellectual humor with the rules of Zombieland dictated by Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg).  We have physical humor on the level of watching people get hit in the nuts on America’s Funniest Home Videos.  And finally we have humor on an absurd level, not unlike the absurd flavor of a Pumpkin Spice Latte.  I really enjoyed being able to sit back and just let my critical eye go – but that in itself is not always good.

While I am very fond of Zombieland, the plot was lackluster and highly derivative of every other zombie film.  Due to the lack of a solid plot, you find that the humor carries over into serious moments as well.  I laughed at inappropriate times, and so did the rest of the audience.  Not too mention the lack of any solid sense of reality or probability (think of this as the being able to get a Pumpkin Spice Latte from the gas station, it just doesn’t make sense).  Only 5 people are alive in the entire film, and yet we travel cross country.  And at some point, isn’t it inevitable that death will come with vengeance?  Of course then we can’t have a franchise.  Seriously, I have some issues with a complete neglect of believability.  On one level, I want to tell that part of me to shut up and go get a Pumpkin Spice Latte and just enjoy it for what it is.  On another level, I want to demonstrate that other films have successfully merged this idea with a somewhat substantial plot (Shaun of the Dead).  And not to mention that there is no way that Wichita (Emma Stone) is wearing a white t-shirt that is perfectly tight, a bit see through, a bit revealing and yet not dirty.  I wonder who the demographic is for Emma Stone in a tight, slightly see through, slightly revealing t-shirt is?  Oh, no wonder I like her so much!

Speaking of the cast, whom I’m sure enjoyed a few Pumpkin Spice Lattes on set, I had no real problem with any of the casting mainly because there was no major plot.  Emma Stone provides us (meaning anyone attracted to Emma Stone) with eye candy with an attitude.  So I’m a sucker for heavy mascara and a slight punk attitude, sue me!  Jesse Eisenberg is simply there as a narrative pussy.  Yes, I said it.  His character is an accidental survivor, but this attribute makes his character all the more lovable.  In addition, his voice over combined with the initial rules and titles really works well to move the movie out of the ordinary and add a bit of glitz.  Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) is straddling the fence between kid actor and teen actor and only provides the audience with the cute character that should need protecting but it turns out she is just as bad-ass and independent as all of the other characters yet still has the innocence of youth.  So in other words, completely forgettable.  Which brings us to Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson).  This happens to be a role made for Harrelson.  While this may not mean Harrelson is a great actor, it certainly means that sometimes casting is everything.  It works because Harrelson is the the everyman that really sees the zombies as redemption.  If you’re going to kill zombies, you may as well have fun.  Too bad it reminds me a bit of Mickey Knox, without the intense desire to be famous.  Although if you replace that with an intense desire for Twinkies, you may have a case.

To me, Zombieland is the Pumpkin Spice Latte of film.  It can surprise you at times with its spice and warm your heart with its just right temperature.  I won’t ruin the moment, but there is a moment where you do have a hint of a plot and it certainly is a heart warming revelation.  Aside from the humor and outright violent fun, Zombieland serves as a diversion from blockbusters and art films.  In age where you either need to make money or be critically acclaimed, it is refreshing to see a film that knows what it is and accepts its role.  Take a break from seriousness and enjoy Zombieland for what it is.  Now I must go get a Twinkie, are you ready for your Pumpkin Spice Latte?  (You see what I did there?)

Netflix – Hands down the best way to obtain any film in my book, but there is a cost.

Blockbuster – Anyone use Blockbuster online?

GreenCine – I don’t use their service because Netflix has most of what I want, but for obscure titles this may be the way to go.

Online Resources – Some of the older films are available streaming on the net for free such as many of the Edison shorts.  But what about French New Wave or Bollywood?  YouTube does have a few but those are dubious at best.  Do any of you have your favorite streaming sites?

Libraries – Most libraries can get DVDs shipped in, but I worry about time and availability.

Are there any others I’m missing?  I even thought about a loan program via the mail for one or two select hard to find films.  But then I would have to threaten students with an F if they do not return or pass the DVD on.

Obviously the film is about aliens, not much of a spoiler there.  However; while District 9 firmly places itself in the canon of alien films, it never feels like an alien film.  There has been much talk about apartheid and race relations, yet even without those discussions the film creates this air of humanity that simply cannot be missed.  The aliens become more than just aliens, and not in the ET kind of way.  I am quite sure that no one gets all warm and cuddly about the prawns anymore that you would get warm and cuddly over sharks or poisonous jellyfish.  There is a brilliance in being able to take a disgusting creature that the audience can engage with on an emotional level.  We empathize with their plight simply because the plight is all too human.  The real key to this interaction is that it is not an in your face style of message giving like other “message” films.

One aspect that is not discussed is the transformation of Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley).  I do not want to give too much away but I think it’s important to take notice of the Kafkaesque metamorphosis that occurs.  Copley’s acting provides the viewer with a very realistic point of entry into the film because he reacts much like any of us would given his situation.  Yet in his transformation we are confronted with a “what would you do” commentary backed with the opening of a can of cat food (or worms if the metaphor doesn’t work).  His path leads to the inevitable yet somehow moves the viewer to emotional depth that is just not possible without the transformation.

Beyond the well written script, the film also has a good grasp on effective techniques of film-making.  Typically, aliens would equal really big explosions and fight scenes that would cost in the millions.  Don’t get me wrong, District 9 has its share of those – but without the pompousness associated with spending millions of dollars to give the audience those  look at the masturbatory nature of my film-making moments that accompany many Michael Bay films.  District 9 works with a lower budget to produce more succinct effects that work with the film rather than work outside the film.  Even the mixing of narrative style and documentary style works very well and adds to the ambiance of the film.  I hate to say welcome back to old school sci-fi, but this film certainly feels more like those films that anything else.

At one point, The Matrix existed as one of those films that works on many levels where the sci-fi elements were used to discuss ideas in a freer manner than a straight forward drama could.  Then they made the sequels and pissed on a truly extraordinary film.  The only downside to District 9 is that there is a very good chance that a sequel will be made.  I beg of the studios and Neill Blomkamp, do not go bigger budget and become a laughing stock.  I hope to look back at District 9 and not feel that the film is tarnished by a studio and director that want to go bigger just because they can.

District 9 was more than a perfect summer film, it was a layered experience that can lead to meaningful discussion and the opportunity to look at ourselves.  While other films may hit you over the head with their message, this film’s subtle delivery (so it’s not totally subtle due to the location) allows room for many interpretations.  There is something more to District 9, it’s just up to you to decide what that something is.  I could end it there but I do have one more fanboy thing to add…using a pig as a weapon was just the icing on the cake!

The basic premise is that Ángela Vidal (Manuela Velasco)  is a local reporter that has the great (sarcasm) job of chronicling the life of an overnight shift at a firehouse.  All is well until they actually get a call, except it’s not for a fire.  Instead they are called to help an old lady out of an apartment.  Once inside, the old lady is quite unhinged and the building is sealed off for no apparent reason.  Then all hell breaks loose as a mysterious condition begins taking over and people die.  Did I forget to mention that they become zombie-like (think 28 Days Later zombies).  While the reasons for the zombie outbreak need to remain a mystery, they are still a bit convoluted after the film ends.  They are just outlandish enough to be believable but not too far-fetched to ruin the film.  The story may not sound like much, but the story is not the reason this film works so well.

The first person perspective initiated early on is both brilliant for the film but also introduces my one overwhelming problem.  The story would not work if it weren’t for the audience being drawn in by the first person perspective.  Not only does it bring the viewer closer to the action, it also emotionally draws the audience into the mindset and thought process of our intrepid reporter and the cast of supporting actors.  The viewer becomes a part of the film.  I found myself becoming more frightened and more on edge simply because I was wrapped up in the unfolding occurrences (which also could be attributed to a few too many cups of coffee late in the day).  I could easily compare this feeling to what is felt when you are watching Grace Kelly in the apartment across the way in Rear Window.  There is one major difference, James Stewart eventually put down the binoculars.  Our resident cameraman Pablo (Pablo Rosso) only puts his camera down once or twice to help and engage in the action.  Even though he is faced with people or things trying to kill him, he diligently keeps that camera in focus and on the action.  And that’s where some of the believability casually leaves the film.  At some point, he would have put the damn camera down no matter how dedicated he may be in capturing their situation.  Of course, this is why it’s a film.  If the camera would have been put down, the film would have been over.  A small annoyance in a generally excellent film.

Another layer to this film was the addition of many non-professional actors that were given no direction and no prior notice of what was actually going to happen in the film.  By chance or brilliance, they were natural and acted as someone genuinely would in the situation they find themselves in.  Yet another reason that the audience becomes part of the film thereby enhancing the fear.  Was I scared?  More than I’ve ever been since watching Ju-on.  To the point that I had to cringe a bit toward the end.  Why?  Because unlike The Blair Witch Project, there is a payoff for staying with the shaky cam.

It takes quite a bit to move me to such a strong recommendation for a horror film since I typically find that they never follow through on their promises of fear.  [●REC] is scary and more importantly, well crafted.  Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza provided viewers with more than just another horror film.  [●REC] is a horror film that should me mandatory viewing for anyone interested in using first person camera viewpoints and anyone trying to capture the audience’s attention.  Please don’t watch the remake, watch the original.  [●REC] is now one of my favorite horror films, and it should be one of your favorites as well.

Yes, I am writing a blog posting about my new pen.  You see, being a lefthander that never learned to properly slant a piece of paper has lead me to the wonderful world of smearing ink every time I write.  I have tried many pens in my life and only a few have been decent enough to pass muster.  That was until I found the first Sharpie pens.  They were a dream pen, only smearing in one journal.  I mentioned this to @sharpiesusan on Twitter.  She decided to send me more pens, including the one pictured above.  The one that you can’t get yet because it’s not being sold until fall.  The ultimate piece of plastic and clickable metal-like substance that produces a Sharpie pen point filled with that Sharpie ink goodness.  If I sound a bit overwhelmed, well forgive my excitement.  This is the future of pens for me, my clickable Excalibur.  We shall slay dragons (grade papers), defeat cyclops (write in journals), and defeat evil wizards (take notes during meetings).  So raise your grog and drink to Sharpie.

A bit too much perhaps, it’s a great pen.  Now I just have to conserve ink until fall.