Review: Frozen

Shot on location during a harsh winter month, Frozen is the story of three young college students stuck on a ski lift. The perfect series of mistakes are made, leaving the three kids up on that lift without hope of rescue for at least a week. And while it sounds like a simple story, I know what might be running through your mind as you read this: All the ways in which this couldn’t possibly ever happen, all the things you would do if you were in this situation, and writer/director Adam Green obviously had the same thoughts you had. This is a simple story, but its telling will rip your nerves ragged and leaving you wincing and near tears. This is hardcore and it will not stop tearing at you once these kids are stuck, ripping at your heart and your soul as you see them make mistakes. The simple act of touching becomes harsh and vicious when frostbite sets in, and then the unflinching burn from a relentless sun simply beats down on them all day long. There is no merciful reprieve for our main characters; no clever till turn of chance and opportunity that lands a pizza on their laps. They are stuck and time is working steadily against them.

Two boyhood friends regularly take the mountain ski trip in order to get away from the stress of their school life. They’ve made this trip on dozens of mountains, sharing jokes and camaraderie in the way so many men have. They’ve been bound by a lifetime of familiarity and experience. But now the girlfriend of one of the two wants to tag along wants to learn how to ski, wants to spend time with the man she loves and share in his experiences. This is a triangle dynamic where two people hide their resentment of one another for the sake of their one point of common concern. So as much as this film is about three people facing the rigors of nature, this is also about a group dynamic that seems destined to crumble from the very beginning. The acting is unbelievably intense with an unbelievably deep performance from Sean Ashmore that finds greater strength than we think him capable of at first.

Look, going any further with regards to this film will spoil it for any future viewer. I’ve seen many horror films, as my blog attests. I love the genre, from the gory and sometimes comedic to the serious and oftentimes disturbing. “Frozen” falls into the latter category. My nerves were shot through with panic, fear, and pure horror. I was left a ragged little ball of tear-stained misery by the end. Green presents a film that is intimate and personal with a kind of horror I rarely ever find in this day and age. He drives a proverbial fist to the gut, yanks you back by the hair, and spits on what is left of your dignity with a cocky smile and dismissive drop to the ground. That damn Green just has a knack for doing sadistic things to my mind, I think.

5 out of 5.

Les Miserable.... IN YOUR FACE!!!!

Les Miserable

I’ve only recently developed a kind of love for musical theater, having had very little exposure throughout most of my life but having been given a great deal of exposure in the recent years through friends in the theater community. However, you’d kind of have to live out in the middle of a third world country with almost no exposure to popular culture in order to miss having heard at least a few songs if not the entire soundtrack of “Les Miserable”, a musical based on the paperweight novel by Victor Hugo. It’s not the first, last, or most faithful adaptation of the source material but it is probably the most successful and has played throughout the world to sold-out audiences. It’s a masterpiece, it’s critically acclaimed, and it’s credited (along with “Cats” and “Phantom of the Opera”) with bringing big musicals back to prominence during the Broadway renaissance of the 80’s.  And while I’m familiar with the music, the rough outline of the story, and the characters, I have never actually seen the show in its’ entirety.

Adapting a stage musical to screen production comes with a great many challenges, especially a production as popular and well known as Les Mis. Casting, set design, and everything else along the way is going to face severe scrutiny from the shows fans and you also have to utilize a wholly different medium to its best advantages. Previous film productions like “Phantom of the Opera” faced similar scrutiny and never really achieved the kind of success seen by the original production. Time will tell whether Les Mis will find a bigger audience, but it did have a higher budget and much more production than the previously mentioned show. I’ll just offer my thoughts on the show…

Amazing.

Okay, so that’s a little short and non-descript. Let me just state that putting the majority of the show across the shoulders of Hugh Jackman in the central role was a terrific decision on the part of casting. Jackmans’ voice is strong, his acting is top notch, and he’s someone the audience can cheer, feel, and understand. It’s easy to see why many of the actors were chosen for their roles, including a few Broadway cast reprisals. But I have to give an amazing amount of credit to Anne Hathaway for her portrayal of Fontaine. “I Dreamed a Dream” is an amazing song on its’ own, but Hathaway takes the song to a new level for me. The camera remains fixed on her throughout the rendition, never cutting to a new angle or using some trick in editing to cover or stylize the performance… it’s honestly raw and brutal and heart-wrenching to see her break down throughout the song, to watch her find the character in a way that I can’t help but admire.  

Ah, but you hear a but in there somewhere, don’t you? Okay… while I loved the movie, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the few things that took away from the show for me. There were two major issues for me so let me address them.

Along with every other person who is criticizing this movie… Russell Crowe falls short on several occasions. Inspector Javier is supposed to have a voice that is strong and certain, but when he is singing across from the powerful Jackman, Crowe’s voice seems less than adequate. He does manage to carry his solos quite well and the big one near the end is powerful and fully captures the moment so he’s not as bad as everyone claims.  So if you’re letting reviewers convince you to stay away due to this performance, don’t… Crowe is reasonably acceptable and matches Jackman so far as screen presence as acting. His voice isn’t horrible, it just isn’t what one expects from the character he is playing.

The second issue may take some more getting used to… there are some amazing shots in this film with regards to cinematography. Sweeping set design, beautiful architecture, and flawless costuming… most of which will be missed if you don’t have a quick eye because the director’s vision included keeping the camera about two feet away from every single performer. We are close enough to each and every performer to take in every bubble of snot in their nose, to count every wrinkle on their face, and to note every single edit from one angle to another. In some shots, this technique works… the aforementioned solo with Fontaine, Marius’ solo in “Empty Chairs and Empty Tables”, and a few other songs. But when you have a huge ensemble piece like “Lovely Ladies”, the technique falls apart as we rapidly cut from a focus on Fontaine to the featured bits and pieces of random ladies on the street. It’s no more blaringly a miss with regards to “Master of the House”. It feels like some of the songs are sung AT us. This, however, was obviously an artistic decision and I may simply be of a different taste from most audiences.

All in all, I really loved the movie and encourage audiences to give it a shot.

4 out of 5.

The Hobbit: (OR... how I trash a print review)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (… OR… how I trash a print review.)

I have been known to occasionally savage films that I didn’t necessarily enjoy. I’ve used strong words like “insipid”, “Wretched”, and “miserable” while describing the Transformers movies, the Avatar film, and various other productions that didn’t necessarily deliver on what I was either expecting or wanting. I was, however, always “fair” regarding the merits of the film… from whether it had good special effects to the music soundtrack, I do try to find some light of positive energy to mention for those who actually read my blog.

With that said, we have a weekly newspaper here in this county and I often check the print for movie times, reviews, and other such stuff. It’s considered an “alternative” newspaper, which pretty much means it’s the most “liberal” minded paper. This includes their film reviews, which have featured both negative or positive reviews regarding the political content of a given movie. I don’t often agree with the reviewer, but never have I been more blown away by just how incredibly WRONG the review was  with regards to “The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey”, which garnered a whopping 2 ½ stars from this incredibly moronic writer whose expectations, knowledge, and taste is woefully poor at best.

Let us start with the assumption that “The Hobbit” is supposed to act as some sort of a prequel to Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. While filmed by the same director, written by the same author, same setting, and featuring many of the same characters… “The Hobbit” is a stand-alone story with an entirely different theme, many different elements, and entirely different mood. Elements featured in the later story are much less prevalent, and Bilbo Baggins is an entirely different main character than Frodo. The writer comments that the ONLY scene he felt was justifiably dragged out was the one introducing us to the older Bilbo from the original film and some dialogue between he and Frodo. Yes, the only scene that actually does NOT have a place in the book itself is the only scene the writer thought was justifiable.

The Hobbit was always intended as a CHILDRENS book! It came out long before “Lord of the Rings”, it enjoys just as much popularity and acclaim, and the writer is acting as if the Hobbit is a prequel “follow-up” to the second story as if this were Star Wars. The mood, the tone, and everything is supposed to be vastly different than that of the laborious and emotionally grinding pathos found in “The Lord of the Rings”. This isn’t some romanticized “return” to Middle-Earth, this is the very cornerstone foundation upon which the other works have been built.

When the writer laments that this “return” to Middle Earth focuses too much on the dwarves he displays an unbelievable display of ignorance regarding the fact that the story is about 13 Dwarves and a Hobbit!!!  The complaints are no more keenly proof of ignorance than in his expression that the audience is forced to sit through two (“Whole!”) songs by the Dwarves… both of which are incredibly important to the mood, story, and characters of the Dwarves themselves. No, this scene which actually IS important to the story is pulled out for far too long. The songs? The first is a flashback to the much beloved Rankin-Bass cartoon and is actually featured in the book itself as a playful number describing how the Dwarves take to a fun party atmosphere. The second is a lament to all that the dwarves have lost, all they’re missing, and what this “Unexpected Journey” is really all about. It’s also one of the most important turning points for Bilbo, who begins to see the importance of this journey and what it could mean to these men who are fast becoming his friend. The fact that this song touches Bilbo is lost to subtlety for the writer of the review, the fact that there’s something of an adventurer within the lead character is lost with regards to his youthful exploits and the playful jibes with Gandalf. For the writer of the review, there’s “No explanation” as to why Bilbo decides to join this quest. This is how to build a story, my dear critic… not with one-liners, gags, and prolonged exposition.

This is a sweeping fantasy film with fun adventure, chilling danger, monsters, a looming threat, and heroes who decide to take a stand when others might bend their knee or fall. An earlier article in the same paper discussed why we, as an audience, might actually need the kind of story that this movie is supposed to elevate… how a small person could make a difference in the world. The writer of that piece mentioned that it’s something we can’t do here in the real world, with billionaires and politicians in positions of power and how a small person will never have the sweeping effect the hobbits have in these films…. I recommend that the writer go back and watch those films, because those small people didn’t set out to change the world. None of them accomplished a feat that not a single one of us couldn’t do ourselves… whether we simply inspired through an example of courage, such as Merry… or inspired through a display of honor unexpected, like Pippen, or if we just cook a meager meal and help carry bags like Samwise, it is the small people that will always make a difference. It’s the small people who change the world in small ways, the ways which truly count, the ways which show the people in power who it is they are working to protect and serve.

The films length, which may seem daunting, is appropriate for the material covered. The writer fails to understand this, and so he tries to make it seem as though the material isn’t justified. Jackson includes some elements from other materials that Tolkien has written, and embellishes other elements to flesh out the story. What may have been spoken through exposition in the books is, here, shown in its entirety… we see the Dwarves driven from their kingdom, we see the discovery of the Arkenstone, we see the brief battle over the Mines of Moria, and we see Radagast’s discovery regarding the mysterious “Necromancer”. The book often features the disappearance of Gandalf here and there, but we see here precisely what is keeping him at various points. And through it all we see the growth of our two primary characters… Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo Baggins, each burdened with a certain sense of responsibility to those they have sworn to lead and aid, respectively.

That’s not to say some scenes couldn’t have been trimmed, because there are moments that maybe drag a little. The ones offered by the writer of the review were far from the worst culprits of Jacksons’ directorial and editing style, and I continue to look forward to the additional films from the franchise.

So, the writer of the review I offer you two hands with a single finger salute from each… you, sir, are an incredibly ignorant piece of manure. From acting, to effects, to cinematography, to the “new technology” you actually did praise, this film has exceeded in every conceivable manner.

5 out of 5.

SKYFALL



I haven’t been spending a great amount of time with my son the past few months, so Saturday was going to be a big “make-up” day regarding the time we lost. And our way of bonding is to go to the movies and check out something on the big screen… he gets his own tub of popcorn, a drink, and we lounge back in the seats with constant looks at one another during the tense, funny, and exciting moments of the show. This movie was going to have an interesting twist however. He was allowed to pick any movie under an “R” rating… and he picked “Skyfall”, the new outing from 007.



Why doesn’t that sound special to you? My son has never expressed an interest in Bond, has refused to watch any of the movies when I asked him to, and I never even really expected him to be aware that it was out. But school friends and neighborhood friends were yapping about it and he got it in his head, and off we were for the boys first experience with James Bond. And it paid off in dividends!



I could tell you about the plot; it featured Bond returning to action after having been assumed dead in the line of duty in order to find a terrorist with a list of undercover operatives. The villain was significantly portrayed by Javier Bardem, of course. There were “Bond Girls” and this may be chauvinistic of me, but I /really/ do not care about the sexism inherent in Bond films. (If “Fried Green Tomatoes” can literally cook up a man to fulfill female revenge fantasies, than James Bond can jetset through exotic locations with exotic women.) And Daniel Craig continues to deliver one of the best performances for 007 since Sean Connery and Tim Dalton! But you know what? None of it really matters in the end… here’s what I’m going to really tell you about the movie:



My son walked out of the theater with his fingers in a gun position, he was loudly humming the theme song, and he was throwing his body out in elaborate dives to mimic one of his brand new cinematic heroes. It was amazing Father-Son Bonding.



5 out of 5.

Who is Sylvia? No, not the goat... but the new Paper Wing Theatre Production!

“Sylvia” : at the Paper Wing Theatre



Have you ever felt a little “disconnected” from the world around you?


“Sylvia” may seem to be a story about a man and his dog, but the underlying theme directly tackles that feeling of disconnect through the relationship. When Greg (Jay Devine) returns home one evening with stray pet Sylvia (Tatum Tollner), we are introduced to a man whose life has become disconnected. His children are out of the home, his wife is focused on her career, and his work is becoming more “abstract” as time goes on. Sylvia seems like a godsend to him, a lifeline in a world that’s become more confusing and unconnected to the increasingly thoughtful Greg. Her adoration for him provides an anchor, and his talks with the dog manage to fulfill the missing pieces from his own life. And the increasingly jealous Kate (Chris Caffrey) finds herself competing with the dog for the affection and loyalty of a man who suddenly seems very distant from her.


Jodi Gilmore tackles the role of “Everybody Else”… an amalgam of three different people who find themselves caught in the story. There’s the high society New Yorker friend of Kate, the fellow dog owner, and the “gender-questionable” couples therapist; all of whom reflect an outsiders’ view of the story to humorous effect. His appearances often shake up the story to humorous effect, though my favorite was the book-quoting dog owner in the park who constantly brings up book titles that are increasingly ridiculous.


The shows dramatic compass hinges on the audiences connection with Greg, and Jay Devine constantly finds moments to shine in the show. We feel for the connection he has with Sylvia, we can understand what he’s lost over the years, and we’re constantly wanting Kate to just stop and ‘listen’ to what Greg is saying throughout the show. The story revolves around Sylvia, but it’s really about this couple and whether they will manage to rediscover the connection they once had with each other. Kates’ cold practicality can seem off-putting to an audience that is already predisposed to “side” with the affable Greg, but there is an honest hurt beneath façade that our “hero” also has to come to terms with.


With all of that, however, Sylvia is a story about a dog. Tatum Tollner consistently dominates in the title role as a mixed breed mutt rescued by Greg. Her honest portrayal of the dog is riddled with hyper-active adoration, nervous energy, and a frankness that can be downright vulgar on occasion. Sylvia speaks with a pure honesty that addresses the needs of Greg, all while telling him that she’s not going to understand the deeper thoughts running through his head… for her the world is fairly simple. Going “out” is the greatest thing in the world and her greatest challenge is sneaking a sit on the ever elusive “couch” where all comfort could be found. She constantly paws this piece of furniture, constantly circles, and ultimately looks for every excuse possible to find herself lounging across it. I found myself laughing so hard throughout her exchange with the “Cat” that I couldn’t breathe, so that moment has to be mentioned as the absolute highlight of the show for me.

3 Reviews! Devil's Carnival, Psycho Gothic Lolita, and Exit Humanity.

The Devil’s Carnival:



The creators of “Repo: The Genetic Opera” reunite to bring fans a follow up to the cult favorite. But rather than dwelling in the same world as the original production, the cast and crew are reunited for what may become an entirely new and episodic horror musical independently financed and distributed by the creators themselves.



“The Devil’s Carnival” is the destination for three lost souls; John, a tormented father looking for his son; Tamara, a naïve woman escaping an abusive relationship; and ____, a kleptomaniac on the run from police. The Devil presents their stories as three musical renditions of “Aesops Fables” with a cast of carnival attractions ranging from clowns and magicians to dancers and knife throwers. The three fables are represented with interesting twists and an absolutely amazing costume and set design, every detail extraordinarily elaborate. Director Bousman makes a good choice in centering most of the over-arching story around John (Sean Patrick Flannery), whose character seems to anchor the audience with a degree of sympathy regarding his own sins and grief. The carnival side show attractions have incredible fun with their parts, with grand gestures and an overly dramatic flair.



The songs are an interesting change of pace from the techno-industrial flair in Repo, making a conscious effort to sound much more “carny” with horns, strings, and uneven tempos. Each story tends to follow with a pair of songs describing the personal story of the character and further thought on the Fable associated with their tale. I liked the songs personally, but some were near-misses with me and others who were forced to listen to my new CD in the car.



Though comparisons to their previous feature may seem unfair; the advertising boasts that this is a reunion for various cast, crew, and the creators behind Repo! The Genetic Opera. And in that vein “The Devil’s Carnival” is somewhat inferior as a stand-alone project. It lacks the character depth of the previous project and its’ pacing seems all over the place, clocking in at 55 minutes with little having been accomplished in that time. We hear some small fables, we see some interesting characters, but the movie ends with a bit of a cliff hanger as both Bousman and Zdunich have made claims that this is intended to be an episodic piece with a more expansive story. But without those later tales, the film only has itself to judge it by. So to that end, The Devil’s Carnival is a fun ride that doesn’t quite live up to it’s predecessor.



4 out of 5.





Psycho Gothic Lolita



It’s time for some more WTF-Japan!



After her mother is assassinated by a gang of ruthless street criminals, Yuki dons the fashionably cute Lolita garb with a black leather Gothic twist in order to exact her bloody violent revenge on the killers. With a premise as short and tempting as that, how could I possibly resist this feature on a lazy Sunday morning? HOW?!?!! And here’s what I expected… blood geysers, fetish-wear, screaming, sub-titles, and really strange wire work. That’s what I got…. And it was well done. While not quite as gore-ified as “Machine Girl”, the movie had its’ fair share of slapstick blood and guts and was just silly enough to be entertaining without being overwhelming. The story is fairly predictable with a few twists and turns, but this is largely “action-horror” anime straight out of the 90’s with little narrative thought throughout. The movie knows what it is and relishes in it.



3.5 out of 5.



Exit Humanity



This one was an odd duck… so bear with me on it, because I really think genre fans should definitely give it a go.



The story is about a Civil War veteran who returns home to find his wife and son have been attacked by zombies, a horror he once faced during the war of the states. Surrendering to his grief, our lead protagonist takes us on a journey to dispose of his sons’ ashes near the falls where he once found peace during the war. The story unfolds as a journey through the desolate wasteland left behind in the aftermath of the war, zombies roaming the country-side, and desperate survivors struggling with the monsters and one another. Though hampered by the budget, the film somehow manages to feel much bigger than it is and it has an almost epic feel to it. The lead character manages to carry the film on his back, often wandering alone through major chunks of the film with a skeleton cast of ensemble actors filling in various roles.



If you enjoy low budget films struggling to make the most of their budget, this film is for you. Every dollar is on the screen for your examination but this isn’t just some sort of zombie “shoot ‘em up”… this is far more “Western” and character study than it is a gore-filled ride through violence. Taking note that this movie is one of the few to violate my major “rule” regarding the genre, the movie doesn’t use the moment for cheap shock and gives it the impact and emotional depth such a thing should incur.



5 out of 5.

Don Juan In Hell: There are no easy answers.

Don Juan In Hell



I’m not a fan of George Bernard Shaw. Let me make this clear… his politics sicken me, his view of the world annoys me, and I find him an unbelievably elitist scumbag whose Pygmalion flat out insults my sense of freedom and liberty. (Oddly, I do happen to love “My Fair Lady”, which is based upon the latter work but features enough music and additional characters to distract me from the original point of Pyg.) So with all of that in mind, I wasn’t quite certain what to expect when Jourdain Barton decided to adapt one of his pieces for the Paperwing Stage. Her previous adaptation, “Prometheus Bound”, hit to close to the heart with many of my own frustrations and railing against the gods of convention and paradigm. Barton has a way of taking a work known for promoting one view and sort of turning it in on itself, exposing several bits of raw hypocrisy and laying open a great many hard questions without the benefit of an easy answer. I love that and decided I needed to see what she did with this work.



Don Juan In Hell is another successful venture in philosophical torment. The titular character, Juan(Timothy Saminiego), is truly suffering an eternity of torment surrounded by the exquisite horror of false love and beauty. The Father of Lies (Erik Morton) isn’t about to roast the wicked in eternal fires of damnation, not when there’s so much love to share with one another. And the crux of the story is the debate between two beings who are diametrically opposed to one another in philosophy, ideals, and goals. This is a debate that has gone on before… time and again, by the introductions from both characters and their endearments to one another. But all great events begin with a catalyst, and the final decision on whether Juan stays in Hell or moves on is brought to a head by the arrival of Dona Ana. (Taylor Noel Young)



The most famous paramour in the stories of Don Juan passes at the ripe age of 77. Her first meeting in the new plane is with Juan, who fails to recognize her at first. He tells her where she is, he explains the new “rules”… or lack thereof… regarding the form of the spiritual body. They are soon joined by Ana’s doomed father, The General (Jodi Gilmore). The two men have long since put their past behind them and have become fast friends in the time since their passing. In fact, the General is actually visiting from the Heavenly Host… much to his daughters disapproval. And the only comfort either father or one-time lover can offer is disillusionment.



And that disillusion is no better embodied than by The General, who has chosen to exist in the form of his own marble statue and bask in the glory of his own dashing image. Gilmore provides terrific comedic timing with the image of a right proper gentleman, mocking the seriousness of their debate and declaring his intention to find permanent residence with the damned. His confessions and desires embarrass and occasionally horrify Ana.



We get the feeling that the debate has gone on before… the argument between the Devil, Juan, and the General feels somewhat “old hat” between the three friends. And that’s where Ana comes into play… because whether they admit to it or not, they are struggling to convince this newest addition to their discussion on the various points of their arguments. The devil declares that the only things of worth-while value are love and beauty and social standing and adoration and it simply does not matter whether any of these things are “true” or not. Only that they are and that people enjoy them. Heaven is a place for boring contemplation, we're told. Endless contemplation for the promotion of “life” and creation and the universe and ones place in it. It’s also flat out boring, at least according to our three characters in the "know". The devil sells his Kingdom with all the passion of a zealot… Mortons’ performance is flat out chilling to this particular viewer. He is absolutely the Father of Lies, in all his twisted glory and as seductive in his assurances, promises, and twisted rhetoric as one could imagine such a creature to be.

But Juan refutes the empty promises with equal passion, intelligence, and understanding of just how deceitful this kind of eternity truly is. Samaniego cuts through to the quick on his performance with equal parts biting humor and depressing impact. He doesn’t as much as defend “heaven” and “life” so much as he refutes the basic lie of his current existence. And while he has obviously had this conversation before, the newest addition to their little discussion provides a vehicle through which Juan struggles to reach a new understanding. But, make no mistake,Ana is more than the rope between the characters in some sort of tug-war and starts to take various stands, rising to the dialogue with equal ferocity and questioning the points of all three. Taylor delivers a moving performance of her own, dismantling the points of all three gentlemen with the view of a woman and her own role in their existence.

I don’t want to spoil anything for anybody… the climax is amazing and every person may get something different from the experience. Thirty people watching the same show and my guess is that not one of them had the same view regarding the "point" of the discussion or precisely who "won" the debate. The show has one more weekend and that means two more opportunities to catch these amazing performances. The Paperwing Gallerie Threatre repeatedly delivers on the full immersion experience. Support the local arts and check this show out!



5 out of 5.