Savages - Luke McKay

Savages is Black Hawk Down meets Blue Crush, with the occasional scene made awesome as shit by the presence of Benicio Del Toro’s glorious hair/acting.  The three main characters are so boring.  I despise their stupid privileged lives, especially Ophelia’s.  There is nothing remotely worthwhile about Blake Lively’s character except, some may argue, her extremely un-unique rich ass surfer girl hotness.  Her character is a prop.  Her only purpose is being the object of desire tossed back and forth between California and Mexico.  As far as I can tell she’s desired only because she’s hot.  But she would be way hotter if she like, I don’t know, had a sense of humor or played the harpsichord but wasn’t very good at it but kept insisting on playing songs she’d just written or something.  Why can’t she be something real and new?  Ben and Chon are the main(er) characters, and the ones who have a supposedly functional love triangle thing going on with Ophelia, and they suck too.  Basically all three characters are plastic action figures freshly plucked from the still warm recesses of their factory molds.  They’re not even painted yet.  There is nothing distinguishable about them for fear of flitting too close to the edge of what is acceptable within pop culture’s strict calipers.  The plot was very entertaining, but the movie is all plot and no character.  I guess that does it for some people.  Lado, played by Del Toro, is one redeeming component of the movie.  But it’s rare (impossible?) for Benicio Del Toro not to be awesome.  I have a feeling his part wasn’t written as awesome as he made it.  Also, my friend Tedd pointed out a highly allusive scene in which Lado sniffs cocaine off of the tip of a bowie knife, as perhaps a self-given good game butt pat to Del Toro’s character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.  Out of 10, I give this movie a 5, because half of the time the movie was an 8 and the other half it was a 2.  As an afterthought I’d like to disclaim a bit of the above negativity by mentioning that the Navy Seal loving always camouflaged and jackknife smuggling little boy in me loved the urban warfare scenes, although he admits that good characters are still important.

Killer Joe - Nell Green

Killer Joe has to be one of the most unsettling cinema experiences I’ve had in a long time, Tine and I sat until the end credits had finished rolling in a surreal stupor and when we finally left the cinema we were both speechless (which is a rarity). I really had very little to say about this movie.  It’s taken me a week to scrape together some thoughts...

This film is extremely violent, deeply disturbing, relentless and at times very funny. Things are pretty messed up from the start – the premise is that kids Chris and Dottie (Emile Hirsch and Juno Temple), along with their father and step mum, agree to have their biological mother murdered by local cop/assassin ‘Killer Joe’ (Matthew McConaughey ) in order to claim the life insurance payout. Of course, things don’t pan out as planned and the inevitable downwards spiral of violence and desperation begins.  The audience is dragged into their miserable, fear-fuelled lives; increasingly uneasy about their prospects of making it we become enthralled in a tense race to the finish, repeatedly punctuated by ever more twisted acts of aggression, sex and intimidation.

All else aside, this film looks awesome on the big screen – it has a hint of Drive about it but less cool and more gritty. The performances are great, some are incredible - they are difficult parts to play and I was suitably impressed.  Despite the barely comprehensibly warped world and insane rollercoaster lives that these characters inhabit, mostly I was convinced by it and I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes a cult hit.  Their world is revealed to be consistently cruel and as the story unfolds you search in vain for the expected redeeming feature/s. Instead you are left reeling in shock – not only at what is happening but also the characters’ acceptance of it.  They are all fundamentally flawed and there is a devastating lack of empathy between them – even the protagonist, our ‘hero’ (if someone who decides to have his own mother assassinated can be considered a hero, but he is the closest thing we have and I found myself rooting for him), gets little support from his family when his life is in danger from the local heavies. In fact, it barely concerns them. Life is apparently less valuable than we were led to believe.

Now, I love a gritty genre movie as much as the next person, and I’m a sucker for the noir ‘look’. My problem is that I left the cinema unable to work out what the point was. I kept waiting for the payoff, the lesson to be learnt, the thing that justifies all this craziness. I’m still waiting. Maybe I’ve been conditioned to expect this and it’s an unreasonable criticism. I think the only thing I took away is that it reminds us humans can be fundamentally cruel, selfish and violent (but it tells us this very stylishly, so I guess that makes it OK). Sure, they all live in a pretty horrible world where it’s a struggle to survive – they’re painfully poor and lacking any opportunity to change that – but maybe they’d have a better chance if it would only stop raining for a minute, or the dog could quit barking long enough for someone to hear themselves think. Perhaps then they would bother to get dressed in the mornings instead of walking round their trailer half naked, literally.

OK fine, maybe I should get over it – there doesn’t need to be a point.  I suppose my main frustration is that the storyline is so extreme that the movie would have been more effective if it was toned down. By the end the characters are all revealed to be such nutbags that the last sequence is completely surreal. It didn’t shock me as much as it could because I didn’t quite believe it. 

So – I would recommend Killer Joe (although not to the faint hearted). It will probably make you very uncomfortable (there’s something wrong with you if it doesn’t), but there’s some merit in that, right? Failing that, go and see it for the great cinematography, awesome performances, intriguing lack of music and a whole new perspective on Matthew McConaughey. But definitely don’t go see it with your mum (or your mom).

I guess I did have something to say after all.

Safety Not Guaranteed

I'm starting to believe that there are two reasons or two ways to make a movie. One, the movie exists to tell a story not so much about people but a just a story. Two, the movie exists to teach us about people. A story is told and it's a story about people, in the general all encompassing way, that is to say, humans.

On one hand, I'm thinking that Titanic is a movie about a story. I'm willing to say that Ghost Writer, Haywire, and Avengers are all just stories that have people or persons as props or voices. On the other hand, Forest Gump, Lawrence of Arabia, There Will Be Blood, The Right Stuff (some of my favorites) are movies that obviously tell a story. They're great though because they teach about humans. It's that they share with us, they foster imagination and empathy. This designation is observed in how a plot is folded into the characters versus the characters folding into the plot. A writer or director seemingly makes a decision on behalf of the characters. Will the character's dialogue further the plot in the first place or will it further the emotional appeal of a character's plight. Maybe we could call this plot versus plight. This is about as far as I'm willing to take this designation at the moment because for now it's more of a feeling than it is a science. It's a hypothesis more than it is a law. Indeed, I love great movies that are just stories, so don't take this the wrong way. But I might be loving movies that are not just stories more than I love just stories. To call both of these versions of a movie, 'stories' might be inaccurate. I'm going to stop now cause you need to hear about Safety Not Guaranteed.

It starts with a personal ad in a newspaper from Ocean Beach, Washington, U.S.A. The poster is looking for a companion to time travel with. The poster has only done it once and he/she can't promise safety and he/she asks that the companion bring their own weapons. The wording of the ad and the jest of the journalist that pitches the idea of tracking down the foreseeable, W.O.W. enthusiast for a hopefully, humorous story leads us to believe that we're dealing with a poster that's going to be heart-warming. From the start I felt like I was watching Cool Runnings on a couch in my best friend's basement cause our Saturday little league game had been rained out. Things around me were pleasant and I settled in for a more adult, intellectual Cool Runnings experience. Aubrey Plaza and the Indian (could have been black) sidekick were emerging as more than just props in the early scenes and I was glad for that. Characters were the story as opposed to the story using some characters. Aubrey and the sidekick are interns for the abrasive, arrogant but affable journalist, Jeff (Jake Johnson). Jeff posed the story as something that could be funny but it also gave him an excuse to track down a high school hook-up. Off to Ocean Beach in Jeff's Escalade. Aubrey is staid and aloof. Sidekick is playing computer games. Jeff is hungover. Great start.

We then get to meet Kenneth (Mark Duplass). Duplass is the real deal. I'm told that he's jumping around Hollywood, meeting with and performing for and writing for and directing for big timerz. His character on The League does so well fulfilling a role in every group of guys raised on Sportscenter and internet pornography that it's eery. He steals the show on The League and does the same in Safety Not Guaranteed. He believes in time travel and believes in himself and I believe that Duplass was Kenneth. Back To The Future and a whole slew of other time travel movies have never encountered a better recipe for time travel - belief in it and belief in self. Science aside, I'll side with a character that believes like Kenneth does for making the unreal a reality. Isn't this what I'm talking about? Real people as opposed to semi-real character that just don't say much? Kenneth says something in this movie and the writers (Duplass and one of his buddies) deserve some recognition for pulling this off. "My calculations are flippin' pinpoint." I mean this movie had so many opportunities to completely wipe-out and fail miserably. Duplass and Kenneth, together, walked over the coals and quicksand with ease. Gosh, this movie is good.

So this is all I'm going to say because I want you to see this movie. Aubrey Plaza, Jake Johnson, Plummer, and Karan Soni (Indian sidekick), achieve Goonie-esque sportsmanship and team work and likeableness. With my ten year high school reunion on the horizon I'm urged to think about high school because of this movie. I mean how many movies have been inspired by our collective high school experiences? Be it the turmoil eccentric writers, directors, actors, and producers had to endure or be it their hilarious experiences or be it their tumultuous, tortuous experiences or be it the stories they (Kenneth) want to go back and re-write, there is something to all of this in Hollywood and plenty of all this in Safety Not Guaranteed. No doubt, you'll leave the theater with the same feeling I did when I'd leave my best friend's basement after a Saturday rain-out matinee. And, depending on how affirmed you felt in high school, you'll raise your fist as Jeff does in the last scene, a perfect scene.

Moonrise Kingdom - Luke McKay

James King killed this review (ie, good) so what I have to say is only a continuation.  This movie indeed shares multiple Wes-isms with other Wes flicks, including sets and characters that are fashionably coordinated, the hilarious and endearing resistance to believable special effects, severe quirkiness of characters and dialogue, and careful organization of small prop combinations.  I’m a big fan of King’s sentiments that MK could be just another disc to slip into Anderson’s box set.  Each of his films seems to exist within the same Anderverse and is simply separated from the next by geography or chronology, though not a difference of opinion about the world: the past is really fucking important and people make mistakes--lots of them.  One crucial missing element was Anderson’s knack for unforeshadowed and heart-wrenchingly tragic loss.

Screenshot Review - Prometheus

Prometheus

Ridley Scott's Prometheus is a film that has been nudged into new territories by the Alien Franchise, Greek Mythology, David Lean, and Science Fiction all at once. There is a lot of cash money flowing from this cohort and each wanted its due in the film. As a result, this film appropriated Titanic funds easily yet set itself at a sprinters pace, moving through alien insurrection, creation myths and neo-positivism as if the three intertwine seamlessly in our real world. If you're like me, you'll spend most of the movie thinking about how great that last scene was and then freaking out and getting anxious cause you're not paying attention to the scene at hand, all worried that you're going to miss something life changing.

This started for me in the first few moments of the film (take a deep breath now) as a ripped, pale white humanoid ingests a cough syrup stolen from the set of The Mummy, turns to ashes on top of that famous Iceland waterfall, tumbles into the water while the camera super zooms to the molecular level where we see humanoid DNA strands performing reverse transcription, 3 prime to 5 prime, while a hovering spacecraft departs into warp speed in the horizon. Don't think I forgot David Lean, cause a few moments later, 'David' a robot from late 21st century, embodied by Fassbender, combs his hair like Lawrence of Arabia (a pyro) and rehearses quotes from the movie of the same title as he eavesdrops on the dreams of the passengers on Prometheus (a titan tortured for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to his creation, humans), the ship, who are in an induced two-year sleep while traveling to a distant moon, L-223, thought to be the landing point for creatures that 'Engineered' sentient and non-sentient life (exhale now). By the time I realized how much I was enjoying the Lawrence of Arabia shout-outs (third on my top 100) I was in the process of missing shout-outs to the original Alien flick. It was just too much too fast. But I think this movie was great, especially the more I think about it and the new ground it might be laying.

There is everything you could ask for in a science fiction movie directed by Ridley Scott. The associated questions with a movie titled 'Prometheus' are dealt with respectfully and creatively. "Where did life come from? Why was it created?" The acting is top notch. The sense of fight or flight dictates all the action as characters fly when you wish they'd fight and fight when you wish they'd fly. The future is infused with humanity as we know it and heaping doses of, "Whoa, that machine that performs surgery sans-physician is cool." I don't know what it is though, and maybe this is a question that deserves its own HOM post/conversation, but have all of Ridley Scott's movies been, I don't know, less than Blade Runner? I'm thinking maybe or most likely. I'm just not sure this movie was really great, though, I'll say it again, I think it was great, especially the more I think about it. Most of all, though, this movie reminded me that there wouldn't have been Blade Runner without it's predecessor, Alien.

Movie Night With The Kohrs'

Drive, the Dissenting Opinion - Rob Culpepper

Everyone I've talked to Drive about thinks I'm nuts. I suspect the women really just love Gosling (or the idea that if they were in a room with him they'd have a chance; not likely). I suspect the men really just want to be Gosling. Hop in, do cool stuff, hop out, don't get hurt. I get it, he's a solid actor with good looks and the right amount of weirdness to let us know that he's an artist.

But seriously, everybody loved this movie. Everybody. The critics were crazy about it because it gave them a chance to refer to movies we all should have seen except that we have jobs and families and lives apart from the movies (alas). Google reviews of Drive and in every single one you'll find some reference to Godard or Eastwood, or both, and about a dozen references to obscure films from the French New Wave, 60s Italian Cinema, and 70s American Cinema.

Here are the parts I liked: Driver's jacket, Driver's car, the cinematography (which, in my opinion holds the film together), the silences, the long driving sequences, the 80s influence, and the SHOCK of the first violence. You know, the film runs a lot like Elliott Smith's Either/Or record. Give it a listen from start to finish and tell me if I'm not right about when the second chorus of Cupid's Trick hits. That's the elevator scene.

I also like the actors and the acting. I think it was superb. They really explored the unspoken nature of their relationship (Hitchcock once said he was afraid that movies with sound would just show people talking). Drive did a good job of showing us how Driver felt in the moment; Irene,too. I think the actors made the relationship work in their subtle gestures and expressions.

But the characters were poorly drawn, and even with the incredible nuance of the actors, we still don't understand their motivations. This is a script issue. Where does Driver come from? What changes in his world to make him want to attach to someone? Why does he attach to the boy? What draws him to this hopeless situation among others? Where does the nature of Driver's interest in Irene come from? Should we go fully feminist theory and ask if he's blowing off steam because he's sexually impotent? Do we know enough to raise that question? Or more simply, how did he get so good at driving, or why? What does it mean when the garage owner says "he's the best I've ever seen"? Compared to what? And why do the thugs who want to invest in Driver as a racer happen to be the same thugs he coincidentally tangles with shortly after they meet? Did we run out of time to introduce new characters, so we stick to the ones we already know? Perhaps none of these is the right question, but they point to existence.

Godard once said that Breathless was about a man who only thinks about death and a woman who never thinks about death.

And that's the difference between Drive and the movies it wants to be. It's simple, but strangely significant.

Movie Night With The Tepe's

Moonrise Kingdom - James King

An Interview with the Characters

Sponsored by Broadway BBQ & Club 280

Youngsters pointing their Astrola reflecting telescopes at the Birmingham sky last night might have noticed the absence of those glittering, glowing orbs we call stars.  Save that boring rock called Moon or the occasional bit of floating cosmic dust, the night sky would’ve been a big blank. The reason, of course, being that the stars had truly fallen right here in Birmingham, Alabama, lending their glow to the Oak Mountain State Park Amphitheatre’s premier of the critically-acclaimed/publicly- adored Moonrise Kingdom. 

Later than night, when the hum of the reel stopped and the film’s spell was broken, hoots, hollers, and applause roared the audiences approval.  Chaos at the Club 280 Pavilion, as the characters signed autographs, lost bits of costumes to overzealous fans, and linked hands to finally overcome the crowd and enter single-file into the press tent.

Due to the impending storm, all of the interviewers, including myself, deferred to the famous local meteorologist, James Spann, for the first question:

James Spann:  My sleeves are rolled up.  The storm is coming.  Social Services, have you kept everyone away from tall, isolated trees, open fields, the tops of ridges, water, metal objects, and tents, which would offer no protection from lightening?

Social Services:  “Where’s the boy?  I’m told that he’s just been struck by lightening?”

Scout Master Ward:  “It’s true.”

HOM [bumping Mr. Spann out of the way]:  Hi there!  James with http://hashingoutmovies.blogspot.com/.  Our readership loves your work and no doubt will find Moonrise Kingdom a great achievement.  But I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve met each of you before.   
For instance, you, [pointing] young, psychotic scout on the motorbike, look a lot like Mr. Eli Cash.  Also Sam seems to inhabit the body and soul of the precocious love-struck youth from Rushmore, while Bill Murray plays the sad dignified, time-worn Bill Murray character that we’ve come to expect, and look forward to, in a Wes Anderson film.  Should these films be appreciated as a multi-volume collective work rather than as any one individual movie. Care to comment, sympathetic authority figure, Scout Master Ward? 

Scout Master Ward:  “This is the best-pitched camp that I’ve ever seen.”

HOM: Hmm.  Thank you Scout Master Ward.  Club 280 does do a good job with their pavilion, but did you not understand the question?  

Sam: “Dear Suzy, walk four hundred yards due north from your house to the dirt path which has not got any name on it. Turn right and follow to the end. I will meet you in the meadow.” 

HOM:  Wo there!  No need for name-calling. I’m not looking for a fight!

"Royal: “Well, sweetie, don't be mad at me. That's just one man's opinion. 

[Margot gets up and gathers her presents just as Ethel comes in with the birthday cake and everyone starts singing Happy Birthday, which trails off as she leaves the room. Ethel glares at Royal]” 

I left the pavilion confused and in a huff.  I could still hear the inexplicable birthday party in the distance, as I began to transcribe these events for the HOM readership.  As my fingers banged away on the typewriter, however, I began to realize that I shouldn’t be offended or threatened by these strange events.  Those weren’t just random fictional beings saying weird things out of context in order to hurt me, rather they were a community—the brothers on a train to Darjeeling, the Tennenbaum family at Royal’s grave, the island community risking their necks to save an orphan scout— who were simply answering a question that I was too dull to ask: How do you bring together what dysfunction, confusion, and hurt pull apart?