FROM BENEATH THE HEFT OF THE KAUFMAN FRO: SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK

I had the great privilege of meeting Charlie Kaufman and seeing his latest film, Synecdoche, New York, yesterday, at the third cell in the title image.

...Perhaps you're saying Syne-whahh?? And maybe even who, if you're neither a New Yorker nor familiar with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, or Being John Malkovich (my favorite). He wrote those good/weird movies.

The man himself is short, nebbishy, unassuming, with a curly top that adds an extra four inches to his thin 5' nothing frame. I had to seriously resist the urge to scoop him up, when I stood next to him.

He's not nearly the arty pretentious stereotype, I'd thought he'd be. In fact he was just the kind of odd-cool of people who don't think they are, in lieu of the douchie-ness of folks who are certain of that status. He spoke quietly into his mic and reminded me of Woodstock, if Woodstock wore glasses sitting precariously on the end of his nose.

I liked the answers he gave about his films (he refused to define them, so we wouldn't be limited by it) and on the demise of several indie film companies (movie companies prefer to promote amusement park rides).

He claims this one, Synecdoche, New York is his foray into the horror genre. And...yes, as soon he said that, I was all with the head-nod of understanding. It's a very personal horror story, a study of fear, for upper-middle class New Yorkers. IMO, most of the best art comes from folks who put all their blemishes out there as Kaufman did in this film. It's probably self-therapeutic.

I can't say I loved this film, but I found that I could not look away for all the stuff going on and the acting-skillz of all of my favorite actors, like the always amazing Phillip Seymour Hoffman (just layers upon layers of acting challenges!!). Eventually, my bladder forced me to. It was weird, of course, but also long, y'all.

Now, on that thing about the indies, 8 out of 12 independent distribution companies are closing folks, partly due to the economy and the difficulty of making their money back on these types of films. I tell you, I snickered HARD when he said they are all looking for the next quirky comedy *cough*juno*cough*.

Anyway, here's the trailer:



If it looks interesting to you, support it. It opens on November 7th.

For me though, I'd say it's worth a matinée for Kaufman fans and fans of damn good acting, a rental for the rest.


PARENTS: This is not for the kiddies.

P.S. There was more meat than usual for the outstanding female actors in this piece.

DAKOTA FANNING: ACTING PRODIGY, NEGRO SAVIOR

NO.

Also, in the randomly connecting fictional characters to real-life people column, Why McCain is Thanking Jude Law for playing the title character in Sky Captain: The World of Tomorrow.

Bob Tourtellotte, man... WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

Dakota Fanning is AN ACTOR. This movie is a FICTION based on a FICTION.

Dakota Fanning is not Viola Gregg Liuzzo. She's not Ann Dunham. Heck, even the fictional character she portrays is a far cry from them. It's an insult to even vaguely imply they are some how similar.

And does anyone else find it hilariously sad that he only heaps praise upon the solitary white lead. And for what... being the decent, curious, human beings we should all be by default? ...In a film chock full of black characters courageously facing ten-times more?

...Yeah.

Way to lend credence to a very wrong assertion from the previous posting.

I'm torn about seeing this. On one hand, I want to support the actors and director of this project. On the the other hand? I'm tired of the Captain-Save-A-Minority movies...starring white people.

FOREST WHITAKER REJECTED FOR BEING 'TOO BLACK...UGLY'

You think I'm playing? That I'm about to link to an article from The Onion?

Think again.



You know, I can understand racism. Fear and willful ignorance breeds hate, but the stupidity of allowing that to effect the quality of your product?

That I just don't get.

Green is color you'd think they'd be most concerned about.

CITY OF EMBER

Well, it isn't quite the hidden gem I'd hoped for, but it is a pretty stone. Ember itself is an imaginatively designed world, with plenty of rusty bits and steam-punky pieces. That's what attracted me to this film, in the first place. Think low-rent City of the Lost Children.

The young people here, lead by Saoirse Ronan deal with a dilemma that's relevant our political situation, right now. My friends also noted the heavy Orwellian influences. ...And that's as far as I'll go into the plot.

The flaw that keeps it out of the "really good film" category for me is the rushed feel of this thing along with some overly-simplistic dialogue, common to kids' book-to-movie translations. The ending was also pretty abrupt.

But the idea? The actors (Tim Robbins, Martin Landau, Marie-Jean Baptiste, Toby Jones, Bill Murray)? And ESPECIALLY the set-design? Wonderful. I can even see this becoming a minor cult-classic in the future.

The kids behind me were definitely feeling this, talking at the screen-characters in a way that let me know they were really involved with the outcome. And there is a brilliant bit of creature-design that I can see leading to some unexpected nightmares for the kiddies.

...Yes, this a good thing, in my opinion.

...WHAT?!

I'm just saying, if I had to endure the Poltergeist clown and this ish...


I think it's okay for a matinée or rental, but I have a feeling the book's much better.


PARENTS: There is creeper of a creature, but I think a little scariness for the kids is a good thing. Your little ones, who have read the book will likely be disappointed, another good thing. :)

QUARANTINE

There were a few good bits here, but it ultimately fell well-short of the original. The original Spainish film this was based on, [REC], is very well-done. So, why not just just release it here?? Oh, that's right, many folks don't like reading. But of course, that would have been a plus as it would have eliminated the P.S. on this review.

What's been changed between the two versions will clue you in on the flaws in this version.

There are more people in Quarantine and therefore a higher body-count, a much more concrete explanation of what's going on, and more of a shaky video-game aesthetic to the first person perspective. And those were the problems.

Though, I must admit one particular set-piece involving the camera as a weapon definitely got a big reaction from the people and the always reliable Jennifer Carpenter held her own here. Yes, there are a few chilling parts, but it's done better in the original version.

What made [REC], the smart little gem of a horror film it is, was how real everything felt. By ratcheting up the body-count, blood, and scripted-feel...It felt like the B-horror movie it was and therefore took out much of what made [REC] good, the real-time docu-show feel.

The fact that snapshots of the best bits, including the ending are included in the trailer also ruins things pretty handily.

My friend got motion-sick, so folks prone to it via-shaky cam should avoid this.

Horror-makers, work harder please! Come on, chop-chop!

No, I don't mean the sure-to-be craptacular SAW 5.


Another lackluster horror-offering.


PARENTS: No kids.


P.S. My audience, as usual for any horror offering, had an overabundance of loud idiots. But do you know what really killed me? There were a group of black teens who found the appearance of an African couple the most hilarious thing in the world. A regular group of baby Uncle Ruckus's.

WTH is wrong with people? And I speak of their parents, here. TEACH YOUR KIDS TO LOVE THEIR THEMSELVES, PLEASE.

APPALOOSA

It's a western done in classic style. That's full of tensely polite put-downs, the law and the outlaws, and quick-drawing men who wear the tale of their hard-killing lives in the wrinkles on their faces and in the coldness of their eyes.

Now, I have to preface this by saying I grew up on the old school westerns, by way of my Gary Cooper-loving mom. Back then, however, I never really appreciated the quiet sophisticated tension, which ultimately built to that finale of a gun-battle. In fact, I usually whined about having to watch a movie like High Noon on a Sunday afternoon. I preferred my Creature Features, like Swamp Thing or my Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies.

But I grew to love them. I enjoyed the spaghetti westerns of Eastwood and I still watch Tombstone every time it's on TNT. Unforgiven on the other hand, underwhelmed me. I thought it was thoroughly overrated. Nicely filmed, great performances, but boring.

And yet, I LOVE the awesomely-bad Sharon Stone vehicle The Quick and the Dead, mainly for Spotted 'cannot be killed with a bullet!' Horse and Gene Hackman's appropriately over-the-top performance. So, that should give you a little insight into my oft'warped taste and whether or not you think you might agree with my assessment of this film.

That said, I really liked this movie. There were no camera tricks nor slow-motion shots to be seen here. Everything feels as quick or as slow you'd think it ought to. Even the bullet cracks sound abruptly realistic, all lending to that classic-feel. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as pretty as The Assassination of Jesse James..., but that makes it even more appropriately retro.

As you'd expect, Ed Harris and Viggo Mortenson do wonderfully with their roles. Their relationship was my favorite aspect of this movie. Renée Zellweger's role was my least-liked aspect of the film. I did not like the way she was written and played.

Though after the fact, I did come to realize her part was very true to what it was for many women trying to survive in those times.

I was also distracted by her odd appearance. Stop mucking with the one of the biggest instruments of your craft, Renée!

When your eyes and cheeks smile, but nothing else above does....Well, let's just say not only was it distracting, but it made certain aspects of her character less surprising because she didn't initially appear as she was supposed to.

It was good to see Jeremy Irons again in fine form again (thank you, for your efforts to erase the memory of Dungeons and Dragons *shudder*).

Overall, this film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon.

The only other criticism I have for Appaloosa is that it felt like a rental. Not that it's any less good, but it just felt a like a smaller, more intimate affair meant for your living room while dinner's cooking.

Hence, the rating.


PARENTS: There are naked booties from afar, fist fights, shootings, and plenty of quiet-but-crackling dialogue. I'd say the quiet western loving mature tweens might be able to handle it but none below that age-set.


P.S. Back to Renée for a bit, I think it's a testimony to our sexist leanings, that we require women to look artificial for these decidedly unartificial times portrayed, but the men can and usually do look realistically worn.

I can't blame her too much. She's got to play to stay in the game.

EAGLE EYE

This was the stupidest piece of crap movie I've seen since Jumper. It was so awful, in fact, a couple actually got up and walked out in the middle of a FREE SCREENING.

Imagine a cross between Enemy of the State and the 80's Tom Selleck vehicle Runaway minus the robot spiders with a female HAL in the Gene Simmons' role, pumped up with terrorism paranoia....but much more stupid than that sounds.

That's this movie.

So, what made it so bad?...Besides the above? Well, for one thing, script is jaw-droppingly awful. Virtually every word uttered is sprinkled with idiocy. That's not just for the absurd amounts of suspension of disbelief required, because there's so little logic even within that framework.

It was so bad, I was too pissed at this thing to even heckle it. I just sat there in awe, shaking my head and occasionally chuckling.

It really is a shame too because Shia, despite giving off a strong vinegary bouquet whenever he's not acting truly is a gifted natural performer. He gives good tears here which is more than I can say for a good many Academy Award holders.

One of the more subtle messages here about the relationship between untapped potential and achievement is pounded like so much unyielding dough. It's been done better in other films.

All of that could be almost forgiven if it were fun, but no, it really isn't. And so, the Hollywood movie drought continues...


It wasn't quite the endurance-test of Jumper, but the suck-level was high.


PARENTS: If your tween liked Disturbia, which I thought was a similar pile of crap, but less-so than this...They may enjoy a matinée of this.


P.S. I saw this in high-def IMAX and now I am certain. Sports, wildlife, and gorgeous special-effects ONLYPLEASE. I do not need to be distracted by Rosario's blemishes.

I'll take the crackly old-school movie prints with hairs, scratches, and burn spots dancing all over the screen over this.

P.P.S. On the capped photo...WTH was up with the female computer calling Rachel (Michelle Monaghan) "the female"? ...Jealousy?

And here we have more proof that our mid-east brethren are the new expendable negroes. Here we had just barely an intro before he was randomly killed in a very jacked-up way, as a demo of the phonevoice's power.

NOT COOL.