Splice

A film review by Alexander Morales

When I originally saw the trailer for this sci-fi horror flick called “Splice,” I was not impressed. In fact, I thought it was pretty silly. I remember my eyes rolling a little and then, as the trailer ended, immediately opening another tab in my browser to post the link on my Facebook page with some snarky comment about silliness and stupidity. Like I said … unimpressed.

And yet, here I am, basking in the afterbirth of this new film by writer and director Vincenzo Natali (“Cube,” “Paris, Je t’aime”) wishing I could go back, smack the snobby snarkiness off my face that day and make myself realize the potential that this film holds. Well, since I don’t own a DeLorean with a flux capacitor … (clearing throat) … I guess I can just admit I made a mistake.

“Splice,” the newest film by the above mentioned Natali is a scientific, horror gem that has much more to offer than meets the eye. Focusing on two brilliant scientists, Elsa (Sarah Polley of “Dawn of the Dead”) and Clive (Academy Award winner Adrien Brody), “Splice” is a film that defies the borders of morality showing the implications of our actions when we disobey the ethics of our society and thus, the ugliness of what we allow in an environment without rules. Simply put, Elsa and Clive have made new life by splicing together the genes of different animals in the pursuit of finding pharmaceuticals. However, like all scientists, the next step is too enticing and it is only a matter of time before they try mixing their new creation with human DNA.

By the previews and movie poster, I think it’s no spoiler that the two actually do create a humanoid being named Dren, so I’ll spare you the guessing games. Dren, played by Delphine Chanéac is the true star of the film and amazing to watch. As a character, the filmmakers have done an excellent job developing her and making her more than just the hidden, ugly creature. Dren is a complete learning, curious, complex being and watching her move and interact with the actors and the sets is like watching a beautiful interpretive dance on stage. Whenever Dren is in a scene, you cannot take your eyes off of her because she is so interesting to watch. From her birth and as her development is documented, you really do feel like you are watching the maturation of a new, living being and you can’t help but start to feel the connection that occurs.

At the same time, more than half her body throughout the film is computer-generated and save a few moments when she is first born, Dren’s animation is flawless. I remember back to older sci-fi, horror films that make you wait and wait and wait to see the beastie and when the big reveal happens, you are so disappointed because the computer generation was crap. Well not here. Dren is integral to the story and the digital team does an excellent job integrating her into the entire environment.

It terms of the other key actors, Polley and Brody are excellent. As more than just scientific partners in the film, the duo joke, verbally skewer and show affection to one another in a way that seems believable. You actually do feel like they are a couple with a long shared history and, in the end, your heart breaks even more as you watch them allow this experiment to spiral out of control. At the same time, these are not your stereotypical nerds. These are two brilliant, up and coming rock stars of science and they show the confidence that their work produces. They have style, they have personality and above all, they are just like you and me … save the massive amount of data they seem to comprehend and the scientific knowledge they wield … but you get the point.

In the end, though, I think the controversy of this film will be in the story. In my opinion, it is hard to classify this film with other sci-fi horrors for a few reasons. First, it is just too damn smart (in a good way.) The filmmakers clearly are not waiting for the audience to catch up with the science in a few parts and I think that is just fine. Too many times, films slow themselves down to explain details and here, Natali does the right thing and allows the story to just keep going regardless of the jargon that Polley or Brody are spewing out. So I guess intelligent horror is the best way to describe the genre of this film.

Second, smartly, Natali did not go for the old, quick scare tactics or overblown gore that so many films have taken lately. If you’ve read some of my past reviews, I think you can tell that I am not a big fan of that method of horror. Instead, the scares are paced with tension and, save for a few medical moments of bodily fluid and blood, gore is almost nonexistent in the film.

Lastly (and here is the controversial part), I am even going as far to say that the horror in this film has little or nothing to do with Dren. It has more to do with the lack of morals and the spiral down that Elsa and Clive allow as the experiment continues. I’m not sure if this is what was intended, but for me, I saw the personal horror that we as humans will allow to happen if we continue to blur the lines of morality. Don’t take this the wrong way. I’m not trying to preach a particular doctrine or belief system, but once you see what these two allow in the sake of breaking the rules of science, you will be horrified, engaged and on the fence of how you enjoy this film. Like a horrible car accident, this film is hard to take your eyes away from because you can’t believe what you are seeing. I even had to laugh out loud a few times in shock because of what was happening in front of me.

I will share a little warning. Well two actually. First, this is not a kid’s film. There were a lot of kids in the audience when I saw it and this film is rated “R” for a reason. Second, some friends of mine were so disgusted after the screening they could not put into words accurately how they were feeling or if they even liked the movie at all. Personally, I liked it, but I completely understand why they did not. This is not a feel good film or a “quick one and done” kind of horror film. It makes you feel a little gross after seeing it. I sometimes like feeling that way, but if you don’t, just be aware.

Of course this movie is not perfect. At a certain point, the film does have to go a little down the stereotypical route of horror film. Luckily, it doesn’t stray too long but if you pay attention, you can see it unfold pretty early on.

Overall, “Splice” is an excellent addition out in theaters this weekend. Probably better suited for a winter release where it would not have to battle the summer adventure blockbusters that seem to attack us this season, but nevertheless, a smart, sometimes funny, very engaging and horribly icky intelligent horror film that is sure to please the horror elite.

4 out of 5 Genomes

Robin Hood the Prequel

By Jason Gregg

I questioned myself before viewing “Robin Hood” (directed by Ridley Scott) – do we really need another movie about Robin Hood?  It seems to me that there is a retelling of this fictional character every 20 years, and each director and actor has their own take on how the legendary character should be portrayed (Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, Daffy Duck, etc).  In the end I hope this isn’t just another ploy for studios to make a buck but hopefully to introduce the legend to a new generation. 

The film begins with Marion Loxley’s (Cate Blanchett) village of Nottingham being over run by thieves in the night.  It was refreshing to see a strong woman role in this story that is set back in the 1200’s.  She doesn’t need to be saved by a strong male character; she is doing fine on her own. 

The plot line is set up quite quickly and if you can adjust to the English and French accents in time you should be able to follow what is going on in England and France.  King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) is crusading his way back to England while his ‘runt of the litter’ brother Prince John (Oscar Isaac) is the interim king back home.  Prince John is an immature, boy king who is making horrible, selfish decisions for his country. 

There is a lot of action in the first 30 minutes, in addition to the village being attacked; there is an attack on a castle and an ambush, which raises the death toll considerably.  Over 800 years ago the archers must have been incredibly accurate or the arrows must have been incredibly sharp.  The archers’ victims seemed to die immediately no matter where they were hit; unless, the victim was crucial to carry on the story line, then that person would live just long enough to deliver his lines and then die. 

We are introduced to Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) during the initial battle sequence and even though he helps his immediate friends in the English army, he is a more or less a jerk. Crowe was perfect for this character. Longstride soon becomes an army deserter and through some convenient identity theft, he hitches a free ride back to England with his crew of miscreants. There he delivers on a promise where he ends up in Nottingham and Marion grudgingly takes him in. All along Longstride is the reluctant hero. He doesn’t really want to help, but hey, since he is there he might as well do something with his free time. 

England is about to go to war with itself because Prince John has trusted the wrong man and it is up to Robin to unify the country before the evil French invade. Why Robin? Why aren’t any of the other thousands of Englishmen qualified to do the job?  I am still not clear on why Robin is giving motivational speeches.   

There are a few scenes with undertones relevant to today and the United States’ involvement in the conflicts in the Middle East.  If this movie came out a few years ago while George W. was still in office, the commentary would have had a stronger impact.  

The grand finale battle is on a beach where the action has been seen several times before in similar movies.  We have been overrun with these sword and shield movies (even Scott has contributed to this with “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Gladiator”) that when a good medieval story comes along we compare it to “Lord of the Rings” or “Braveheart” or “Gladiator.” Have you seen “Kingdom of Heaven”? Great movie, but it is easily forgettable.  

So where does this lead the film industry when it wants to tell a story that takes place in the time frame of 1,000 A.D. – 1,600 A.D.? There has to be hundreds of stories that screenwriters can draw from in that era. The caveat is that they have to make it memorable.  “Robin Hood” isn’t giving us much new material. 

After all is done, we are introduced to how Robin Longstride became Robin of the Hood.  And, when that happens, you might think to yourself “yes, now it’s pay back time, let’s go Robin, kick some ass.”  But, no. It ends. Ouch.   

Should you see this movie? Sure, go ahead. The acting was brilliant; Blanchett can’t really deliver a bad performance. The action sequences were tolerable (the film has a PG-13 rating; it isn’t dripping with too much blood).  However, with our exposure to so many Middle Ages films out there, I feel that this is going to be one of those movies that you see once and forgot you saw it in three months. 

Iron Man 2 A Film Review

By Alexander Morales

OK, I’m just going to cut to the chase. This movie is amazingly entertaining, genuinely engaging and above all awesome.

There I said it.

And man do I feel better.

“Iron Man 2,” directed by Marvel movie master Jon Favreau, is the first true blockbuster of this summer season. With most of the original cast back in the armor, this film hits on all cylinders. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will run out of positive adjectives to describe my utter happiness with this film before I end. Be warned.

Anyway, back in full narcissistic, boy billionaire form is Robert Downey, Jr. as everyone’s favorite genuine genius Tony Stark. Just a refresher course for those who missed the boat the first time around – Stark makes weapons. Stark is nabbed by some terrorist baddies. Stark makes giant suit of armor using a power source that is also keeping him alive. Stark becomes Iron Man. Stark finds out he was betrayed by his father’s partner. Stark wins. Stark tells the world “I am Iron Man.”

OK, it’s way better than what I described, but now that everyone’s up-to-date, let’s continue.

Beginning right at the end of the first film, “Iron Man 2” shows us another perspective of the press conference where Stark reveals he is the armored do-gooder. Across the globe in Russia, a dying man painfully is making his exit while his son Ivan Vanko (a frighteningly disturbing Mickey Rourke) watches in sadness. It seems these guys aren’t what they seem. In their shambled apartment, lies the litter of industrial intellectualism and it has Stark written all over it. Revenge seems to be in the equation.

Flash forward some time and Iron Man is now the man. Everyone loves him, but as the hero basks in the limelight, the man has a hidden dark secret.

And that’s all I’m going to give you.

The overall story this time around is anything but formula and while some events are regular hero fodder, you never feel shortchanged, bored or feeling as if you have something better to do. In fact, while most filmmakers (especially those working in the world of heroes and villains, i.e., Bay, Schumacher, and well … Bay) have a tendency to throw too much into their second and third episodes of their franchise, not Favreau. While there is quite a bit more including action, characters and effects – Favreau has been able to craft an overall narrative that balances everyone nicely into what they are supposed to do – allowing each actor to do what they do best – make some good movie minutes. At the same time, similar to the first film, there are some nice nuggets of comic book gold scattered throughout the film making every fanboy in the audience (including me) squeal with excitement (and yes, I did that too.) All I will say is pay attention and stay till the end of the credits for a special treat of what’s next.

There are a few things that you could be nitpicky about – Scarlett Johansson’s Natasha (Black Widow) Romanoff doesn’t have the accent and oddly there is a “Wonder Twins” moment between Iron Man and War Machine – but nothing that ever distracts from the overall experience and excitement the audience gets. One thing I appreciated most is that this story did not fall directly into the “Demon in a Bottle” storyline that everyone expected. At its bare bones, the movie is about addiction – either to heroism or revenge, but not in the way you think.

In terms of the acting … it’s good. Downey Jr. is, as usual, wonderful to watch. He just captivates the audience so well and honestly it’s hard not to take your eyes off his performance. He’s confident and he knows it and makes darn sure that everyone in the audience knows it too. As the baddie Ivan Vanko, Mickey Rourke is wonderful. Reserved with not a great deal of dialogue, Rourke lets his physical presence and meticulous planning do the talking, giving our hero one heck of an opponent to deal with. Along with that, Rourke never really allows his revenge reasoning get too cliché which allows the story to continue easily with little clunkiness.

In terms of the supporting cast, Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow are exceptional. Filling the shoes of Lt. Colonel James “Rhodey” Rhodes, (played by Terrence Howard in the first film) Cheadle plays the proud soldier very well. Torn between the duty to his country and his friendship to Stark, Cheadle gives a nuanced performance that adds to the overall story and makes sense when he is able to wear and use the Mark 1 or War Machine armor. On the flipside, Paltrow’s performance this time around is vastly improved. While I think she did well in the first film, here we get a look at a true, confident female leader … and me likey. Not to be pigeon-holed into the damsel in distress part, Pepper Potts shows her corporate prowess and lets the world know that while she may have been just an assistant to a playboy before, she learned from the best and knows how to be a lioness of industry.

But, with all that being said, there are two performances that I think stand out from the crowd - Sam Rockwell as rival weaponeer Justin Hammer and Garry Shandling as Senator Stern. While Rockwell is not the older, more refined version of Hammer I remember from the comics, his acting ability shines and he makes a wonderful second best to Stark’s first. As the senator whose main desire is getting the Iron Man weapon under the control of the United States government, Shandling is experienced enough to handle the snarkiness of Stark, but still holds the presence of a political powerhouse. These two are the guys you love to hate.

The only part that I am on the fence about is Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. While I love the idea of using Jackson for the part (especially with him looking exactly like the Nick Fury from “Ultimates” universe) it just feels like he is playing the part too loosely. Maybe I need to see him under the eye patch a little more, but in a hero story set in our world, he looks like the only person in costume and, at least for me, it seemed a little silly at parts. I guess time will tell on this one.

Now, usually, when I review blockbusters, I get really into talking about the visual effects. I mean, for the most part, that’s what they are all about, right? The bigger budget means bigger explosions and more realistic battles, etc., etc. But reread above. The acting performances are so good and the story is so strong that you forget that the effects are supposed to be top of mind. Don’t get me wrong, people pay to see Iron Man looking sexy in high resolution, computer generated goodness and he does – but everything is well balanced around the effects that they are truly part of the experience and not just the experience.

Overall, “Iron Man 2” is everything it needs to be – action packed, hilarious and full of hero. This film is a great addition to the Iron Man library and an exceptional stepping-stone toward continuing the momentum that the Marvel universe is building in film. Go see this film. Nuff said.

5 out 5 Ironettes Dancing at the Stark Expo

A Film Review by Alexander Morales

Interesting fact before I begin. In 1992, Anthony Hopkins won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of the cannibalistic genius, Hannibal Lector, with less than 20 minutes of screen time in the film. With less than 20 minutes, Hopkins grabbed our attention and gave us an amazing sense of tension, horror and for most, something new to fear.

Less than 20 minutes.

Maybe there’s a lesson in that for the makers of the re-imagined “A Nightmare on Elm Street.”

I’m just saying.

Anyway, on to the review.

Freddy Krueger. A sick pedophilic murderer has enchanted horror movie fans from the very first scene of the original “A Nightmare on Elm Street” in 1984 where we watched in sick fascination as he created his iconic knifed glove. Since then, he’s invaded the dreams of dozens of dozing teenagers in eight feature films and the two seasons of the television anthology, “Freddy’s Nightmares.” Originally introduced to us by mastermind Wes Craven, Freddy Krueger has become a horror legend and even earned New Line Cinema the tagline of “The House that Freddy Built.”

So, as is it goes right now in Hollywood, it’s prime time to reintroduce Mr. Krueger to a brand new generation of moviegoers who may have forgotten how to have a good nightmare.

Directed by (accomplished) music video director Samuel Bayer, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” is a re-imagined, modern day telling of Krueger and his wicked wrath on the teenagers of the above-mentioned street. In all, the story is the exact same as the 1984 version with only a few minor tweaks. Just in case, here is a quick refresher – angered by his despicable actions (?) to their children, a group of parents come together and hunt Krueger down in search of justice. While locked in a small building, the parents do their best to force him out, but instead end up encasing him inside a fiery tomb. Now, years later, their acts and lies have come to the surface and Kruger is killing their now teenaged offspring in the one place the parents cannot protect them … in their dreams.

Scary huh? Well it should be.

But it’s not.

The issue with this “Nightmare” is that it just never really works together. It seems to jump from one dream sequence to the next and unfortunately, you just don’t care about the kids being traumatized. I know that Freddy is what everyone is really paying to see, but honestly, horribly bad acting by several of the supposed teenaged actors and poor overall storytelling get in the way.  

As Nancy, the lead character and Freddy’s “favorite,” Rooney Mara (“Youth in Revolt”) does pretty well and, in my opinion, holds her own against the Krueger character. She instantly has that look of innocence about her and it’s a little heartbreaking when the facts of her history with Krueger actually come to light. But, she’s about it. Which is very disappointing; especially in the case of Thomas Dekker (best known as John Connor from the television series “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”) who dreadfully overacts that you almost want to laugh every time he tries to be serious.

In terms of the story, like I said, it just never comes together well. Visually, it’s pretty clear that Bayer knows how make a stunning movie. “Nightmare” is excellent in how the shots are made and how, as the film progresses, the real world and the dream world start to overlap. However, the story never compares to Bayer’s high sense of style. I was impressed on how they were able to expand the creepiness of the Krueger character by showing him and how he engaged with the children when they were young, but as older teens, their quest for the truth really falls flat. Maybe it’s the way the parents’ and the teenagers’ plights come to a head. Maybe it’s the choppiness of the story. Maybe it’s the fact that it’s just not scary. I’m not sure. But I am sure that, as a horror movie, this film under delivers.

For me, the biggest disappointment was that the nightmares don’t get cool until the third act. They are all basic retreads from past “Nightmare” films and the dream world isn’t really explored until near the end. Lots of potential not tapped. Plus, it’s just not scary. Sure it’s full of the jumpy, quick scare moments, but that’s not sustainable. One jump does not equal fear and after a while you just know when, how and where the scare will be. Predictable is probably the nicest word I can use.

And yet even after all of that, the question that everyone wants to know the answer to … how was Freddy? Jackie Earle Haley (“The Watchmen” and “Shutter Island”) does pretty well as Krueger. While there is sure to be some debate as to how his Krueger measures up to Robert Englund’s original, I liked him. Of course, he’s a different kind of Freddy and that is where most of the debate will turn. Haley is able to push the creep factor but, instead of being as psychotic as the original, he reserves himself a little more and relishes in the power he holds over the teenagers. However, like the film itself, he never really is able to show his real potential until the near end. Which is a shame because that was where I really enjoyed his portrayal. Like I said, people will either love him or hate him, but it’s going to be very hard when the other guy has so many hours of film behind him.

The filmmakers did make one big mistake with the Freddy character though and in the end, really underwhelms the movie. They show him way too much. I don’t mean that they have him in too many scenes. They show too much of him – his whole body and face way too early and way too many times. Let me explain. If you go back and watch the original, Freddy is in the shadows for most of the film and you never get a perfect view of his face. We can tell what he’s wearing and all, but that was part of his power. Of course this was probably because of make-up issues back in 1984, but it made his character more of a mystery in that first film. As a restarting point in this new version, they just show all the goods right away and all the mystery is lost. Maybe this was because they were afraid fans would make fun of the new make-up. Who knows, but for me at least, it took some of that good old-fashioned fear out of the mix.

Overall … eh. It’s a well-made movie and the younger movie watchers in the audience seemed to have fun jumping at all the right parts, but bad storytelling, underachieving acting and not enough scare makes this a one and done for me.

Let’s hope the sequel is a little better. Maybe by then the filmmakers will brush up on the term scary, watch “Silence of the Lambs” and see what less than 20 minutes of fear can do to an audience.

2 out 5 doses of No-Doze.

“The Losers” is a Movie.

By Jason Gregg

It was fun. That's all you need to know about the new movie "The Losers."  If you try to dissect it or make sense of some of the plot flaws, you will be saddened. Go into the theater knowing that you put $10 down to watch a lot of cool shoot-out sequences, big explosions, some slow-motion love making and fast-paced dialogue and I promise you will leave happy. 

“The Losers” begins in a Bolivian jungle where a special ops team of five soldiers need to “paint a target” on a drug lord’s villa. (To paint a target means to place a laser target on an object such as a drug lord's villa so the missiles on an overhead fighter jet can destroy the target with pinpoint accuracy. I feel that I need to explain that because it is not explained fully in the movie. If it wasn't for "Clear and Present Danger,” I wouldn't have known what was going on either. Thank you, Tom Clancy.)  

While the team is painting the target, they see 25 children inside the villa, the team decides to do the heroic thing and rescue the children. This is a great action sequence, with a lot of video game-like violence. The director, Sylvain White, must own an Xbox and a copy of “Call of Duty Modern Warfare” because that was exactly what it felt like in the first 10 minutes of the film. The children are rescued and all is well until the evil super villain, Max (played by Jason Patric, but not seen at this time), takes revenge on the team for not following orders therefore eliminating the children. I know it is extreme, but if it didn't happen there would be no movie.

The Losers are now stranded in Bolivia and the team leader Clay (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) wants revenge on Max. Through a well-choreographed hotel room fight between Clay and Aisha (played by Zoe Saldana), we find the team going back to America to find Max and get their revenge. (Now that I think about it, this is the second movie where Morgan has a violent fight with a woman, the first being in “Watchmen.” I wonder what that says about the types of roles Morgan chooses.)   

We are soon introduced to Max. Max is a super dry super villain. Without his dryness, he is another villain “off the factory” line. Patric brings a new personality to the Max character, he is somewhat mysterious and very evil but in a way he is likeable. He does fall into some of the evil villain stereotypes, which we have seen before. He even has an evil henchman. Max still has the same wants and desires as any other super villain – to take over the world or start a war between countries or to steal a lot of money. Have the Hollywood writers really exhausted all the possibilities of what motivates an evil super genius? I hope not. As far as “The Losers” is concerned the answer is “yes,” they have exhausted the Max character’s motives but they make up for it in his persona. 

The Losers begin their strategy to abduct Max, but through an intense action sequence in downtown Miami where they mistakenly take a very valuable object of Max’s. Max needs this item to fulfill his plans of evil doing. All along there is some alpha dog tension between The Losers and a lot of attraction between Clay and Aisha. This story line has been done before but that's OK.

All this action finally climaxes when the story brings everyone to a Los Angeles shipyard. There is some clever double crossing that adds a “how did that just happen?” moment and the film ends with a nice set up for a sequel. Does it need one? I guess the box office sales will determine that.

After everything is said and done, “The Losers” is a movie, no more, no less. You will most likely laugh, you will most likely be entertained, and you will most likely recommend it to friends (if those friends are males ages 18-34).   

Should you see this movie? Please refer to the opening paragraph. 

Kick-Ass

A Movie Review by Alexander Morales

Violence. It’s not a bad word. It’s the cornerstone of what every comic geek in the world, including myself, loves. Anybody who says differently is lying to him or herself or has not really embraced the true themes of a superhero world. Take the greats for example: from Superman to Spider Man to Batman, all of these characters are based on a violent, painful event that triggers their unique needs to fight crime and be what every awkward tween and teen has desired from the first time they experienced Wolverine “snickting” out his claws – be a superhero. Violence is the beginning. And deep down, down in the recesses of our souls, deep in the little crevasses where we hide the drawings of what we would look like as our own kind of superhero, we crave the violence and the ability to put down the bad guy. You know it’s true. Hulk versus the Thing is one of the all-time classics in comic lore and it’s because we got what we wanted. Violence.

It’s OK. The first step is admitting we have a problem.

Punisher, Green Lantern, Captain America, etc., on and on and so forth, all these characters have delivered for years because when the writers sit down and work with the illustrators, they give the fans what they want.

Violence.

And that is what we have here. Violence. Sweet, super-powered violence. And I’m addicted.

Directed by Mathew Vaughn (“Layer Cake”) and based on the recent, classic comic book of the same name by writer Mark Millar and illustrated by (the always amazing) John Romita, Jr., “Kick-Ass” is the modern tale of a young boy, his love of comic books and the desire to do something right. Dave Lizewski (played by a very likable Aaron Johnson) is just like most of the American teen population of the world. He dreams about girls, he loves fantastic things and most of all; he wants to kick someone’s ass … as a superhero. And one day, he does just that. Dave finds an interesting outfit as his hero garb takes on the name Kick-Ass and steps out on the street to do good. With bad, painful results, but he still does something. Meanwhile, disgraced officer Damon Macready (a ticky Nicolas Cage) is preparing his incredibly adorable daughter, Mindy, to become the most “killer” weapon in his personal war on big, bad crime boss Fran D’Amico (the excellent Mark Strong). Together, as Hit-Girl and Big Daddy, Macready is bringing the pain and destroying the system, one bullet at a time.

Sound a little ridiculous? It’s not really. What really helps this film work is that it’s based on our gritty, fast-paced and sometimes unbelievable society. With current events and pop culture references (some that, unless you’re a comic book fan, you won’t get) oozing out the dialogue, this film delivers in a style that speaks directly to the fans that it’s meant to embrace.

At the same time, along with the action bits, this film is funny. Not just the “weird situations” and you “kind of giggle nervously” funny. Nope, this film is hilarious. Vaughn has clearly understood what kind of film he was making and he is not afraid to allow the characters to comment on what is happening around them. Nice.

OK, now back to the violence. Is it morally wrong to have an 11-year-old girl murder bad guys and speak some of the foulest language caught on camera? Yeah, but it sure is fun. “Kick-Ass” is exactly the kind of hero story that fans have been looking for and the best part is, the characters all are realized out of the violence that surrounds them. Take Strong as DiAmico, he’s not some pretty overdressed prima donna. No, he’s a mean, cynical, tough guy that is a true reflection of the streets that he holds dominion over. Another example — Cage’s character. Macready/Big Daddy is just as much a dork as Dave is, but he has the training, the know-how and passion to do something right. All these characters are reflections of each other and they all share a basic desire and that is what keeps the audience engaged, interested and clapping. Well, that and the violence.

The biggest breakout in this film is Hit Girl. Actress Chloe Moretz (“Diary of a Wimpy Kid,”  “Bolt”) is exceptional as the heroine and steals the show from everyone else. Hit Girl’s high-action and hair-raising language are amazing to watch and the confidence of her character is truly the glue that holds the film together. Every scene she is in is gold and when she’s not on screen, you can just feel yourself asking, “Where’s Hit-Girl?”

Of course, the film’s not perfect. There are a few scenes that could have been edited down and the awkward thing for some, the characters seem to go on and on but overall, it is still nothing I would complain about. Toward the end, there is a sort of silly “hero-shot” that you kind of groan at, but ehh.

Overall, should you see this film? Hell yes! Of course, don’t take your kids and probably leave some of the elderly crowd at home, but if you are looking for a great action ride that’s not as heavy as the Dark Knight and much better than the Emo-centric “Spider-Man 3,” then sit down, grab your popcorn and go Kick-Ass!

4 out of 5 bloody batons.

City Island

Reviewed by: Heidi Nast

City Island directed and written by Raymond DeFelitta opens April 16. The movie stars Andy Garcia (Vince Rizzo), Julianna Marguiles (Joyce- Vince’s wife), Dominik Garcia-Lorido (Vince’s daughter in the movie and a tid-bit of trivia; she’s Garcia’s biological daughter off the screen!), Steven Strait (Tony) along with Emily Mortimer and Alan Arkin. Garcia also served as one of the film’s producers.

City Island really does exist; it’s a borough of the Bronx, as the lights of New York City sparkle against the horizon at sunset on Eastchester Bay.  The population is segmented into “clam diggers” those born and raised over countless generations and in most cases, living in the same family home passed down or “muscle suckers” those that move there, but don’t really count!  Their mannerisms, their cadence, their Bronx shouts-yells and hollers throughout the house or at the dinner table prompted the audience to laugh out loud and at the same time, feel a bit uncomfortable witnessing this dysfunctional family.

The premise of this comedic film is pretty easy. Each of us has secrets that we’ve held close to our heart or buried deep in our minds, hoping they’d never be revealed; only to find that life is a lot easier when the realities of truth are realized versus suppression that tumbles us into personal angst with a heavy price to pay for silence.  

Try as we might, but in the end, truth must float to the surface to embrace those around us that we love and ourselves. And without giving ANYTHING away, I will leave you with a paraphrased quote that sums up what quantifies our secrets as Garcia (Vince) acknowledges that anything is possible when “God gives each of us a second chance.”  That humility found in each of us gives us hope to finally get it right, thus profound strength in humanity is actualized.

City Island and its message is quite simple, truth, understanding and validation does set us free and liberates us to a place of internal harmony that opens the door to receive external love and acceptance and isn’t that what each of us strives for in this lifetime?

The Kansas City Filmmakers Jubilee

Presents

2010 Kansas City FilmFest  - April 14-18

The heart of any festival is the screenings. The soul is the interaction with the filmmaker. This year's festival provides opportunties for filmmakers and film lovers to connect with the creatives who make the movie magic possible.The eight seminars below are in addition to the many Q&A's that follow the screenings. here is your chance to pull back the curtain and discover the wizards of cinema.

Wednesday, April 14th  /  5:00pm – 6:30pm    LOCATION:  Westport Coffee House, 4010 Pennsylvania

Hollywood Style Imagery without the Hollywood Style Budget:  It’s all in the Camera. 

Todd Norris (who lensed last year's "Bonnie and Clyde Meets Dracula") can answer most any question dating back to the camera obscura, will speak to the fact that you can now shoot films that look at good as 35mm feature films for less than $1000.   If you are a camera geek, this is your equivalent of being in a smoky underground cafe when Allen Ginsberg first read "Howl."

Thursday, April 15th  /  4:00pm – 6:00pm   LOCATION: AMC Mainstreet, 1400 Main Street

An Evening With Roberta Munroe

Many speakers have their opinions on what it takes to make a great short, but Roberta Munroe comes at it from the point of view of what NOT to do.  Catch a lively, irreverent and entertaining evening of reflections and warnings, as the author of, “How Not To Make A Short Film: Secrets From A Sundance Programmer," talks us through the pitfalls to avoid when making a short.    Munroe will share insider secrets, her thoughts on current distribution tactics, and screen a couple of her favorite shorts.  The event will include audience Q & A and book signing. Sponsored by Independent Filmmakers Coaliiton of Kansas City.


SPECIAL !!! Friday, April 16th  /  3:30p – 5pm  LOCATION:  Screenland, 1656 Washington

Narrative in Life/Narrative in Film

Our lives are made up of multiple stories, both fiction and non-fiction.  Bob Rosen, former Dean of the UCLA Film School and founder of the UCLA Film Archives, breaks down the narrative form that weaves through life and reflects on how they are reflected in the films we love.  A master educator and internationally recognized film preservationist, Rosen will speak from the "inside" of the world of film, exploring how narratives translate to the screen. Sponsored by UMKC Film Studies.


Friday, April 16th  /  5:00pm – 6:30pm   LOCATION:  Third Eye, 2024 Main Street

Producing Movies in Today's Climate

Shawn McClaren of Hallmark Hall of Fame and Dennis Fallon of Waldo West Productions are active producers living and working from the Kansas City region. Two veteran and experienced professionals, with all manner of production and distribution experiences under their belts, McClaren and Fallon will explore the business side of filmmaking.   A not-to-miss for serious professionals.  Sponsored by Kansas City Film Commission


Saturday, April 17th  /  10am – 11:30am   LOCATION:  Java Port, 208 W. 19th Street

Festival Strategies

This panel speaks to the idea of now that you have made your film, what do you do with it.   This impressive line-up of panelists from top festivals - Toronto International, Sundance, SXSW, Slamdance, and Oxford will speak to the ways in which festivals are the leading market for independent films and how to get your films seen through the festival and other alternative circuits and today's distribution world.     Panelists:  Edward Stencel, Meaghan Brander, Jim Kolmar, Melanie Addington, Roberta Munroe.


Saturday, April 17th  /  12:30pm – 2:00pm   LOCATION: Java Port, 208 W. 19th Street

The Reviews Are In

A film's life can be made or broken by a review.  Get the inside skinny on the curious and enigmatic life of a professional film critic.   What better way to learn what goes over better with a reviewer than from the professionals themselves?  KC Star's Robert Butler, Film Threat's Don Lewis and Creative Screenwriting's Jeff Goldsmith join UMKC's Dr. Tom Poe as they discuss their trades, the trends, and how to prepare early for the ultimate step:  Impressing a reviewer.  


Saturday, April 17th  /  2:30pm – 4:00pm LOCATION:  Screenland, 1656 Washington

On The Web

The internet is one of the most dynamic new opportunities to tell our stories.  Meet and learn from some noted Kansas City filmmakers who have created, directed, and starred in original web series.   They will share experiences, the process and reflect on the future of this burgeoning platform.   "The Unreal Housewives of Kansas City's" Michelle Davidson and Erin McGrane join webisode directors and producers Ty Jones, "Cliffhanger Falls"; and Heather Laird, "Next." 


Sunday, April 18th  /  2:30pm – 5:00pm    LOCATION: Screenland,  1656 Washington

The KC Production Roundtable

This event will be a spirited, informative and educational discussion between KC based industry professionals, visiting artists, film commission officers and and students to find ways to make our region a thriving, all-aspect production center.   In an informal, salon-meets-town hall setting, a frank, open discussion will ensue on how KC can unify and build the local film and television industry, create and lobby for more incentives and use the "while the iron is hot" philosophy to bring more production to the region.   Speakers include:  Brian Boye, Bruce Branit, Larry Garrett, Joe Heyen, Peter Jasso,  Anthony Ladische, Aaron Laue and Teri Rogers. 


ADMISSION to all workshops are included in the ridiculously great-valued Festival Pass, which gets you into all events.   All students are FREE with student ID. If you want to do the panels and workshops separately, consider the Seminar Pass, which gets you into all 8 panels for only $30.   

If you love film, if you want to understand it more, if you want to learn from those in the field, if you want to meet potential future employers, if you want to have something to talk with your cousin, the director about, the panels and workshops are not to miss! 

For ticketing info, schedule and more details, visit www.kcfilmfest.org

Fred Andrews
President, KC Filmmakers Jubilee

913-649-0244
kcjub@kcjubilee.org
kcjubilee.org
kcfilmfest.org

The Kansas City Filmmakers Jubilee

Presents: 

Kansas City FilmFest: 140 films in 5 great days

Kansas City FilmFest is just around the corner

It’s time to begin planning your schedule for Kansas City FilmFest, which takes place April 14-18^th, 2010, at AMC Mainstreet, downtown at 14^th and Main Street.   You’ll have the chance to see 140 films in 5 great days.  Plus much, much more. See the schedule online now.

Two Jubilee Showcase features are highlights of the festival. Tickets for these two events go on sale April 1 online (and are NOT included in festival passes).  All other tickets go on sale April 8. 

Our opening event is not to be missed.  Winter’s Bone, fresh from an award-winning Sundance debut, plays April 14 at 7 p.m. at AMC Mainstreet.  The film was shot in the Missouri Ozarks and many regional industry professionals were involved.  Director Debra Granik will be present to discuss her film with Kansas City’s own Jeff Goldsmith after the film.  Goldsmith is senior editor of Creative Screenwriting Magazine and will conduct a podcast after the screening—and you’ll be there.

From 9:30 to midnight on April 14th, you’re invited to a reception sponsored by the Film Commission of Greater Kansas City.  Meet us and the filmmakers in the AMC Marquee Lounge. 

A Boy and His Dog represents the other end of the independent film spectrum.  Released in 1976, this classic sci-fi film has been remastered and will be shown Saturday night, 7 p.m. at the Tivoli Theatre (where it will be shown in 35 mm).  Director L.Q. Jones will be present to discuss this cult favorite, answer questions and visit with you at the party that follows. 

Tickets for Winter’s Bone and A Boy and His Dog are $20 and go on sale April 1.  These two Jubilee Showcase features are not included in the festival pass and we anticipate a sell-out, so get your tickets early.

Festival pass holders take note

You’re invited to the Kansas City FilmFest Pass Holder Preview Event on April 7th. Purchase your festival pass and pick up the actual tickets you need to attend screenings. Join us anytime between 5 and 9 p.m. at AMC Mainstreet, downtown at 14th and Main Street. Then you’ll have your tickets in hand before individual tickets go on sale to the public, April 8th.

Key FilmFest program staff will be on hand to help you decide which films to see and which workshops to attend.  AMC Mainstreet will offer a free small popcorn and soda along with tours of the AMC Cinema Suites.

This event is open to anyone interested in purchasing a pass and to filmmakers who receive a free pass in return for their competition entry.

Keep up with the festival on Facebook

If you’re not a member of our group on Facebook, you might consider becoming one. We send many inside scoops through our Facebook page.  Kansas City FilmFest on FB.

Fred Andrews
President, KC Filmmakers Jubilee

913-649-0244
kcjub@kcjubilee.org
kcjubilee.org
kcfilmfest.org

Clash of the Titans

A Movie Review by Alexander Morales

I think the only way to start this is by saying that I love the 1981 classic Clash of the Titans. Harry Hamlin running around fighting a slew of Ray Harryhausen’s beasties is one of my most cherished memories of film growing up. Constantly it was regular watching on the television for my brother and me. Even now, I can recount almost every detail of the 1981 classic and I haven’t watched it in years.

Unfortunately, a name is the only thing that the 1981 version and this new 2010 version have in common. I mean, there a few other things that they share, of course, but in terms of the warm fuzzies I get when I hear Bubo the owl whirl and twirl, not even close.

Directed by Louis Leterrier (Transporter 2, The Incredible Hulk), Clash of the Titans is an effects-riddled tale of angst, loosely based on Greek mythology. The story, cut down is simply this: Perseus, played by the new “it-boy” Sam Worthington, is adopted by a simple family in a time when unrest and hate has risen in the hearts of men against the Gods.  Seeing the opportunity to seize control, Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes who has decided to channel Voldemort) makes a deal with Zeus (Liam Neeson) to bring the humans back to fearing the Gods. In the meantime, Perseus winds up in Argos, which, conveniently is the base for the rebellion against the Gods and is thrust into an odyssey when it is discovered that he himself is the son of Zeus. Things happen. Scorpions. Medusa. Pegasus. Kraken.

The end.

Sigh.

All right, it’s not so much the story that is the problem. I mean it is and it isn’t. The problem is that with a name like of Clash of the Titans, you have some expectations. By no means is the original a masterpiece of film. But it worked. The story, the action, the special effects. They all worked together. Even with the limitations of 1981 versus now, it worked. This 2010 version by comparison is just a louder, dulled down, experiment in tepid ideas with some bad special effects at times and nothing new to offer. I mean seriously, this film decided to take a Lord of the Rings/300 mixture of actors and scenes and serve up something that clashes with all of your senses. There’s even a dude that tries to resemble Legolas. Come on.

I guess, to be fair, there are a few things that are worth watching. A few scenes call back to the original and are kind of cool and Gemma Arterton as Io does well as narrator and token, team beauty. Liam Neeson makes a good Zeus, but honestly, all I really wanted to hear him say was “Release the Kraken!” And I guess there are a few lines of dialogue (what little dialogue there is) that either brings a good laugh or is just good tough guy speak.

But after that, nope.

From the blurry special effects that never completely deliver to the random “Chewbacca” character that joins the team, nothing really helps this film become a good experience. The scenes or moments that are similar to the 1981 version are rushed and try so hard to be over the top that they just kind of fail. Case in point, the Medusa scene. In the original, the Medusa scene was paced at a speed that was tense, a little frightening and intelligent in its build-up and strategy. The Medusa scene in the new film – flat, predictable and rushed. 1981 version, Perseus prevailed using skills and smarts. 2010 version – Perseus wins by luck. Seriously. In films, it’s always the little things that matter and here the little things have been stepped on, forgotten and run over by a computer generated thing that could use a few more hours in the rendering room.

Of course, I did get a chance to see this film in 3D so that had to make it better … right? Nope. Listen friends, just like ketchup can’t make burnt grossness taste better, 3D cannot better a film. The issue here is that the film was not shot in 3D. 3D was an afterthought to join the bandwagon and it does not work. If you want to see a film that knows how to use the 3D medium, please see Avatar or How to Train Your Dragon. Here, it’s just a distraction and probably makes the film even worse. That saying about lipstick and bulldogs comes to mind.

So what’s the final word? I think the fact that only about two people clapped (and they kind of sounded like pity claps) at the end of the film says it all. There will be a few people that will enjoy the ride at first and probably because of the hype and the sun finally shining, opening weekend will see good results, but in the end nothing special. Usually “disappointed” is a strong enough word but here, I don’t think so. I had such high hopes for this one and believe me, I wanted to like it so much, but I guess if I want to clash with the Gods on Olympus, I’m going to have to get in my DeLorean or hot-tub time machine and travel back to 1981.

2 out of 5 Stygian Witches (and yes, I know that there were only 3)