You are here: Home / Archives for Miscellaneous

Judicial Retention Elections: Director’s Cut

May 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

We movie critics take a lot of flac. People accuse us of lazily taking cheap shots at directors, actors and techs who break their backs and offer up their work. Occasionally, someone will say “Why don’t you just make a movie yourself, if you think it’s so easy?”

So, I decided to try it. It was a few months ago that I was introduced to Xtranormal.com, the website that allows ordinary people to make movies by selecting characters and locations from a menu, and typing dialogue. And I have to admit, having actually put my nose to the grind stone, that … movie making is really easy! I don’t know why all those studios, with billions of dollars at their disposal, couldn’t get it right, when I did this with a laptop and a few hours. I’m partly joking of course, but I do want to draw attention to three good things that Xtranormal will contribute to the American cinema: One, it puts a bit more of the power in the hands of ordinary people to counteract the Hollywood propaganda machine. Two, you can’t fill your movie up with car chases and explosions, so it forces the audience to focus on dialouge. And three, most of the people who will use Xtranormal will likely be people who have something worthwhile to say to the world, as I did when I made the film below. Enjoy.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
LEAVE A COMMENT
Filed Under: Comedy, Miscellaneous, Movies, Opinion Articles, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Black. White.

January 18, 2011 By 3 Comments

From the philanthropist to the aspiring world-conqueror many have written of the value of walking in someone else’s shoes, and with Hollywood makeup, we can come closer than ever before. This fascinating reality show, produced by Ice Cube and R.J. Cutler, debuted in 2006, and never had a second season. I can only assume this is because its ratings weren’t good; a number of critics did pan it, which is too bad. To be sure, Black. White. smacks of being polished, and it’s hard to tell how much of it is true reality caught on film, and how much is staged. It also must be noted that the experiences of six people, forced into a television schedule, don’t exactly qualify as a scientific study. But give Cube and Cutler some credit. This show, unlike many, was an honest attempt to contribute to the public consciousness with a hard look at race relations in America. As you can see by the length of this review, Black. White. succeeds at provoking thought and discussion.

We meet two families of three; a white family, the Wurgels, and a black one, the Sparkses, who have agreed to live in a house together for six weeks. They will probably spend at least three of those weeks in the makeup chair, because for many of their experiences, they will be trading races.  I was genuinely skeptical at first as to whether the makeup would fool people. However, later in the series, our subjects sometimes reveal their identities to people they meet, who are genuinely surprised. It seems the makeup really did do its job. The Wurgel “family” (actually a blended family, containing two professional actors) is composed of step-father Bruno, mother Carman, and daughter Rose. The Sparks family is made up of parents Brian and Renee, who are anxious about their son Nick, who doesn’t show the level of interest in his heritage desired by his parents. One recurring theme of the series is arguments between Nick and Brian about whether racism is something to be concerned about.

Rose Bloomfield/Wurgel

 

Rose in Blackface

A lot of our subjects’ activities in this show are self-directed; they choose what experiences they want to have as the other race, and what experiences they think the other race needs to have. One of the first things Brian does is have Bruno don his black makeup and take him out to walk through a predominantly white neighborhood as two black guys. He tells him to watch for things like people moving to the other side of the street or women grabbing their purses. He adds “you’ll see how it feels when you go someplace and you get slower service and you know it’s ‘cause your black.” Rarely have two men demonstrated more different world views. As they go walking down the street, the dialogue goes something like this:

Brian getting into white makeup.

Brian: Did you see that? Did you see that?

Bruno: What?

Brian: They wouldn’t look at us! Did you see?

Bruno: No, sorry, I didn’t notice

(A minute later) Bruno: Okay, did you see that?

Brian: What?

Bruno: She looked at me! We had, like, three seconds of eye contact.

Brian: No, I didn’t see that.

They enter a store and begin looking at clothes on the racks. Sales people come over to help them. We hear Bruno in a voice-over say “We walked in there and I was helped right away. People were courteous … there was absolutely no difference between the way I’ve been treated as a white man and the way I was treated today as a black man.” We hear Brian in a voice-over say “Bruno thinks the sales people are coming over to help him, but really they’re coming over to size him up.” Remember, however, that this is quite different from what Brian predicted before they went out. He told Bruno “you’ll see how it feels when you go someplace and you get slower service and you know it’s ‘cause your black.” Granted you’re getting a white guy’s perspective from me, but it seems like Brian really wants to see racism on the street and finds a way to do so. If servers serve him quickly, that’s racist, if they take their time, that’s racist; if people look at him, that’s racist, if people don’t look at him, that’s racist; if people get out of his way on the street, that’s racist, if people don’t get out of his way, that’s racist. I find myself wondering if anything could ever happen to Brian that would satisfy him that he wasn’t facing discrimination.

To be fair, Bruno takes Brian on an equally stupid odyssey to a “white” bar as two white guys, at which he attempts to prove to Brian how un-racist white America is. He asks patrons questions like “do you think black people are equal to white people?” and “would you consider marrying a black woman?” getting predictable responses. Having failed to indoctrinate Bruno the way he hoped to, Brian turns his attention to Nick. Nick says that he doesn’t perceive racism.  Brian gives him a series of directives like “Next time you go to the store, just … look around and you might be surprised that your black butt’s being watched.” In six episodes, we never see Brian in white make up after the second episode, except very briefly in episode six. At first, Brian was excited to become white, believing that it would induct him into the privileged class. Later, however, he appears to decide that life is easier as a bitter black man, and focus his efforts on making sure his son grows up as paranoid as he is.

Nick demonstrates the same inclination in his own way. He has to do something for the show most white kids never have to do: suffer through an etiquette class. Let’s face it, there aren’t many facets of main-stream American life that are all white anymore, so Cube and Cutler had to look to the wealthiest of American society to find things for the Sparkses to do. In between sessions, he vents to Rose that he is miserable posing in his white makeup, and that “I just wish I was black right now!” Eventually, Nick tells the class that he is actually black. You can see him relax as soon as people know. Even surrounded by white kids, he’s a lot more comfortable being himself.

Experiences like this serve to not only expose differences in how the races see things, but also differences between the genders. One night, Bruno and Carmen go to a country bar as a black couple. (Let’s face it, that is kind of like poking a hornet’s nest.) Afterward, they report very different experiences. Carmen says she definitely felt like she was viewed with increased suspicion. Bruno says “I was hanging out with the guys at the bar, I was playing pool with them as a black guy … nobody cared.” Perhaps this difference can be explained by what women and men generally want from social interaction. After Rose has spent several days as a black girl, she tells the camera “I’ve managed to pass myself off and be accepted, but I don’t feel like I’ve really connected with any of these black people on a soul level.” This is something no man would ever expect to achieve while disguising himself and pretending to be something he’s not. When a man disguises himself as another race, he’s thinking about pulling off the act so he’s not discovered. If the people he meets treat him with basic courtesy, he’s content. Women go into social settings wanting to form deep relationships (even when they’re lying to everyone about their race), and so they seem to be a lot more aware of racial tension. About two thirds of the way through the series, Carmen, having twice inadvertently offended Renee, breaks down, crying that she “can’t stand having to walk on egg shells all the time. I don’t want any more apologizing for who I am.” Despite the contempt Renee demonstrates for whites throughout the series, in private, she tells the camera about a desire to form a close bond with a white woman. After a couple of episodes, she gives up on Carmen and begins looking elsewhere, eventually forming a friendship with a woman she meets in a scrap-booking club.

Meanwhile, Carmen has given up on Renee and goes into the world looking for a “black friend that can help me connect to the black community.” She eventually meets

Bruno and Carmen at a black church.

talk radio host Deanna. After a few visits, Deanna takes Bruno and Carman around her neighborhood as a mixed couple; Bruno is in his black makeup; Carmen looks white. She takes them through a park where a lot of black guys are hanging around beating on drums. Carmen says in a voice-over that “I definitely had a sense that I was not wanted in that neighborhood, and, gradually emerging, a sense of actual fear for my safety.”

For his part, Bruno says “I’ve felt more tension and perceived more hostility here than I have as a black man anywhere else. That was the most evident display of hate that I’ve experienced.” Deanna explains “That’s because you’re perceived as a black man coming into this black community with a white woman. You’re perceived as a sell out.”

Carmen eventually breaks down crying. Deanna asks her “do you realize this is everyday life for people like me? You can pop in and out in a day, but my skin will never change.” The show seems to be making a point here about how, even in black makeup, white people can’t understand how black people feel, because they can take off the makeup. However, it’s also worth pointing out that, while Carmen looked white, Bruno still looked black. In order to get either of them to feel real racism, Deanna had to take both of them to a black neighborhood. It brings to mind a conversation I once had with a black friend, who was anxious over the fact that his fiancé (now his wife) was white. A bunch of us were hanging out at Village Inn, and he was worried about the crap that his future kids would take from all-black kids if their skin was the wrong shade. In frustration he commented, “Chris Rock is right when he says black people are the most racist people in America. Black people do not like white people, they do not like Asian people, they do not like Native American people … they don’t even like black people that they don’t think are ‘black enough.’”

Black. White. doesn’t exactly generate a lot of optimism for race relations in America. It gets downright painful to watch sometimes, as Bruno, Carmen, Brian and Renee can’t seem to let go of petty offenses. As tempers flare and hatred percolates, one of the surprises is that Rose and Nick become fast friends, even while their parents progress in animosity. I started to wonder if racial problems wouldn’t just disappear if everyone over 20 just left the planet.

The two families actually manage to have some positive interaction in the final episode. As if to apologize for what they’ve put them through, the producers and camera crews back off, and Bruno and Brian begin to shoot hoops in the park. Renee and Carmen go for a nature walk. The tension eases palpably. Brian and Bruno both say that they have reached a mutual respect. Renee says that she has “forgiven” Carmen. Carmen comments “We don’t all have to love each other, but we can respect each other and let each other be.” Maybe that’s the most important lesson of the whole show. Unless and until the races are willing to sacrifice everything that makes them who they are – not entirely desirable – racial consciousness and, therefore, “racism” will probably never just disappear. That’s no reason cross-racial friendships can’t occur (as they often do). But they’re not going to occur through racial reconciliation conferences or lots of “Kumbaya” singing, and certainly not through disguises and shouting matches. They will occur, if at all, the same way all friendships occur: through people simply being themselves and finding things they have in common. Programs like Black. White., even when they have the best of intentions, need to back off and let this happen. It can’t be orchestrated.

In summary, I have to tip my hat to anyone who was involved with Black. White., if only because it could not have been an easy experience to get through, especially for those on camera. It took a lot of guts and patience from our six heroes, and from the makeup department, no doubt. It delivers a powerful, and mostly seemless narrative of a most intruiging (and, as far as I can tell, unprecedented) social experiment. I forced me to spend some time reflecting on things I hadn’t for a while.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
3 COMMENTS
Filed Under: Miscellaneous, Opinion Articles, TV Shows Tagged With: , , ,

The Real Wolfman

October 7, 2010 By 2 Comments

Man has not always been at the top of the food chain. Our lack of fangs, claws, etc. once made us a temping treat. Only in the last two centuries or so did our ingenuity give us the tools to consistently overcome the world’s top predators. Before that, humans huddled around campfires for eons, jumping at bumps in the night and teaching their children to fear the dark. Most of the time, the fear of fire would keep our primitive superiors at bay. However, there are many instances in history where a human settlement became little more than a buffet to a lion, a pack of wolves, or the Beast of Gevaudan.

The Beast of Gevaudan (pronounced je-voo-DAN) lived, killed, and died in southeast France in the disturbingly recent 1760s. It fataly mauled and mutilated 102 people, most of them women and children. It was hunted by hundreds and shot at by dozens, many of whom were sure they had hit it, but this only seemed to increase its boldness. One cannot study this period without sensing the terror peasants must have felt, cowering in their homes as the Beast walked unchallenged through their villages. But the most frightening thing about the Beast? Nobody knew what it was.

George Deuchar

Enter the History Channel. This story has long been a source of fascination for crypto-zoologists, because whatever this creature was, it left 102 bodies behind. Ergo, it couldn’t have been a hoax or a myth. So it only makes sense that the History Channel would enlist the talents of crypto-zoologist Ken Gerhard to investigate the mystery. Why they paired Gerhard with Jersey criminal profiler George Deucher is less clear. Deucher is sort of the Dana Scully of the pair; the hard-bitten, no-nonsense skeptic. For most of the film, while Gerhard insists the Beast must have been some previously undiscovered animal or mutation, Deucher is equally adamant that it was a human serial killer. How he plans to identify this killer, however, is beyond me. One of the tricky things about crime detection is that the trail goes cold fast. It’s hard to catch a murderer a few weeks after the killing, let alone 240 years. I’m sure the man is good at his job, but it would seem Deuchar was included less for any particular expertise than for the sake of having a skeptic voice in the cast of characters.

Most of the way through, the film progresses about like you’d expect, with the cheesy reenactments that we’ve come to expect from documentaries, and the monster-cam effects that we’re used to from B-grade horror films. We see a lot of retellings of documented instances where the Beast killed. Humorously, we see the same four or five actors die over and over. These are interspersed with Deuchar and Gerhard’s visits to sites in France and arguments between them about

what the few bits of evidence they have mean. For instance, Gerhard reads an excerpt to Deuchar from one scholarly compilation

Ken Gernhardt with a statue of the Beast

of sightings. It says that one man said he heard the Beast “laughing.” He then shows Deuchar some footage of hyenas in Africa. The sound they make resembles a human laugh. His argument: laughing sound = laughing hyena. The only question is how did one get to France. This is a classic crypto-zoologist explanation, known as the out-of-place-animal.  Deuchar retorts “when I hear about a killer laughing, to me that means one thing: human serial killer.”

Realistically, the Beast could not have been a human. Too many people saw a quadruped animal, including some who were attacked by it and survived, often in broad daylight. Doubtless, the witness accounts include some embellishments. One man said he saw the Beast walk on water. Witnesses also reported the Beast to be as big as a horse. None-the-less, I don’t think there can be any doubt that there was a real, unknown animal involved.

But in its exploration of what the real animal was, The Real Wolfman betrays the problems that plague many documentaries: fast assumptions and a rush to meet a deadline. To support his hyena theory, Gerhard leads Deuchar to the Caves of Sarlat in the Gevaudan province, where the Beast was said to prowl. There they appear to discover cave paintings of over-sized, prehistoric hyenas (the editing is a bit rough here and it’s hard to tell if our detectives are seeing what we’re seeing or if this is recycled footage from somewhere else). Deuchar asks “So do you think one of these was still around in the 1700s?” Gerhard replies “Well, give me two months and a shovel and I might find evidence.” What he doesn’t say, but we all hear, is “… but we need to finish a TV show here. We don’t have time for that.” Too bad. On their way out of the cave, they find the skeleton of a goat. Gerhard says “It looks like some predatory animal drug it in here for a snack.” Deuchar pipes up “Like a human.”

We’ll never know for sure what the Beast of Gevaudan was, but, based on what I have read from the time, there are a couple of theories worth taking seriously. One thing we can be sure of is that it was no wolf. Many wolves were killed in the hunt for the Beast, yet the attacks continued unabated. What’s more, this rural shepherd population dealt with wolves on a regular basis, and the wolf had been a symbol of evil across Europe for centuries (just read a few fairy tales). A wolf killing people would not have mystified the locals. Likewise, it seems that French peasants would have recognized a bear, had one been the Beast. And with world exploration well under way by this time, they most likely would even have recognized a great cat had they seen one. A mutation has been suggested by crypto-zoologists, and cannot be totally discounted, but it should be remembered that the overwhelming majority of mutants die in infancy. Obviously, this thins the list of known large predators quite a bit, but, as Sherlock Holmes would say, once we have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I think the hyena theory is plausible. As noted, prehistoric hyenas once roamed across Europe, and were larger than today’s. While they were supposed to be extinct in 1764, it would not be the first time, or the last, that a supposedly extinct animal was found alive. Failing that, it was fashionable for European nobility to collect exotic animals. One could have escaped. A hyena (above) would match most of the witness descriptions of the Beast very well, with reddish-brown, flecked or striped fur, a pig-like muzzle, and an arched back with a fringe of fur. Finally, this species would probably not be recognized by the average Frenchman in 1764. There is another most interesting, and credible, explanation I have read from a crypto-zoologist. He proposes that the Beast may have been a mesonychid, a species of hoofed predator that once roamed Europe, but supposedly went extinct around 5000 years ago. A number of witnesses said the Beast had hooves; sometimes a hoof on each toe. The mesonychid’s hooves had developed a split design that made them function more like claws. Looking at the picture (right), you can see how a mesonychid would fit descriptions of the Beast as well, and would have puzzled any witness (who lived long enough to puzzle) as to what it was. With the world being sparsely populated, and no mass media to speak of, an unusual animal could have migrated a great distance through rural Europe in those days, even killing the occasional human, without being noticed before taking up residence in Gevaudan.

Toward the end, The Real Wolfman really falls apart. The pair has found a fair amount of evidence to bolster Gerhard’s hyena theory. Out of nowhere, and maybe out of jealousy, Deuchar espouses a new theory of “a man, killing with an animal.” He asks a wolf expert if a wolf could be trained to attack on command. The wolf expert says he does not think that could be done. They then show an interview with a zoologist who works with hyenas. Looking slightly surprised at the question, he says he SUPPOSES it MIGHT be possible to train a Hyena to attack on command, due to the level of intelligence they exhibit. Where this theory came from is beyond me. They hadn’t found any evidence to support it, and it isn’t necessary to explain anything. But from there, Deuchar, at least, is on the hunt for evidence of a human trainer behind the Beast.

The official story of the Beast’s death is that a hermit named Jean Chastel, a Protestant outcast whose son had been jailed on suspicion of being a werewolf responsible for the deaths, had his bullets blessed by a Catholic priest and went out to hunt the Beast on June 19, 1767. He was charged by the Beast in the company of several witnesses and slew it with one shot. (One shot, of course, was all anybody had back then.) Upon being opened, the creature’s stomach was found to contain human remains. Being unable to identify the Beast as any creature they were familiar with, Chastel and his companions put it on a cart and began the long trek to Paris to show King Louis XV, who had promised a reward. However, this was southern France in August, and the carcass reeked unbearably before long. Needless to say, they didn’t have any cameras, and were apparently not equipped for taxidermy in the field. Somewhere along the way, the remains of the Beast were lost to history. The other problem was that, officialy, the Beast had been dead for 2 years. Louis had dispatched Francois Antoine, his Leutenant of the Hunt, who had killed an unusually large wolf. Antoine had  been given a hero’s welcom in Paris, and the matter had been closed. When the attacks in Gevaudan continued, and the peasants again begged Louis for help, he hadn’t wanted to hear it. Chastel never did recieve a reward. However, he is now considered a national hero.

At a coffee shop in Paris, Deuchar, having pretty much accepted Gerhardt’s hyena theory, argues to Gerhardt that the only way Chastel could have killed the hyena is if he had trained it. He believes he has found a motive in that “Chastel had a chance to go from from outcast to hero.”

What case they have against Chastel is completed back in the U.S. Deuchar invites Gerhardt to the shooting range where he and his cop budies hang out. In France, someone told our detectives that Chastel used silver bullets when killing the Beast, a story they seem to have accepted at face value. Deuchar has had a friend cast some silver bullets. It should be noted these are bullets of a modern design, to be fired from a modern rifle, not the musket balls Chastel would have used. Deuchar has a marksman fire three lead bullets, then three silver, at a man-shapped target. He isn’t able to be nearly as accurate with the silver as with the lead. Announcer Jonathan Adams then explains that the rifling in the gun can’t dig into the silver as well because it is harder than lead. Therefore, the bullet doesn’t spin, reducing accuracy. Next, the marksman fires a lead bullet, then a silver, through two bricks of ballisitc gel. The gel is meant to simulate the effect of a bullet on flesh. The lead bullet fractures and spreads out on its way through the gel, causing massive “tissue” damage. The silver bullet, being harder, retains its shape and makes a slim, clean puncture (although it also punches further into the gel). Deuchar argues to Gerhardt that, if Chastle had managed to hit the hyena with a silver bullet, it’s very unlikely he could have inflicted a killing shot, unless the hyena had been trained. Gerhardt muses “It’s possible the use of silver bullets at that time had more to do with superstition than actual science” (Duh.) “so you might be right.” Deuchar tells the camera “silver is lousy ballistic material.” Adams takes over. “… so how did Chastel manage to kill the Beast with a single shot? Because it was a trained animal. It knew Chastel. It obeyed him.” So there you have the veteran big city cop’s case against Chastel for 102 counts of murder: Silver is lousy ballistic material. Therefore, the Hyena of Gevaudan was trained by this impoverished hermit to kill women and children. Wait a minute.

The story of Chastel killing the Beast may simply be a folktale. Why didn’t Chastel take the Beast to the nearest taxidermist? If he couldn’t afford it, surely someone would have paid for it, in celebration of the monster’s death. Couldn’t Chastel have promised a share of the king’s reward? None-the-less, the attacks stopped, so something must have happened to the Beast. This version seems to have more support than any other.

Most records from the time don’t say anything about Chastel using silver bullets, and this was probably a story that developed later, especially considering that the silver bullet is a relatively recent addition to werewolf mythology. (See Witchcraft and the Occult, Robert Jackson, 1995.) He probably used a perfectly ordinary lead ball, and I’m sure he wasn’t the first to try having it blessed by a priest (assuming that part of the story wasn’t fabricated later for church propaganda). With the hundreds of men that hunted the Beast, it’s no surprise one of them was finally in the right place at the right time. Assuming Chastel did try a silver musket ball, and had the funds to obtain one, Deuchar’s accuracy test was flawed. Guns in 1767 didn’t have rifeling anyway, so that wouldn’t have been a factor.

Even Ken Gerhardt, on his own blog, later admitted,

“I am still not 100% convinced about the guilt of Jeanne Chastel. I mean, why didn’t anyone ever notice the hyena in Chastel’s care, with so much reward money being offered… and where did a poor outcast like Chastel acquire a rare animal in the first place? With so many eyewitnesses to the Beast, why didn’t anyone report Chastel prowling the area?”

You also have to ask, even if Chastel was such a monster, why did he keep killing children for three years, thereby increasing his risk of getting caught, and missing out on the reward? None of these questions are asked in The Real Wolfman, however. It seems that the element of the human killer needed to be forced into the History Channel’s explanation of the Beast to justify their inclusion of a cop on the investigative team. In the final scene, Gerhardt and Deuchar walk down the street, congratulating eachother. Deuchar says “It looks like we were both right, huh?” They seem oblivious to the seriousness of the accusation they have just levied against an actual historical figure with known living decendants. Seriously, if any such decendants happen to read this, it would be worth talking to an attorney about a libel suit. In summary, The Real Wolfman doesn’t deserve to be called a documentary. It’s just a lot of wild jumps to conclusions and groundless (and needless) accusations. I suppose I’ll give it a star for putting forth the Hyena theory, though it wasn’t the first work on the Beast to do so.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 2.0/5 (3 votes cast)
2 COMMENTS
Filed Under: Miscellaneous, Opinion Articles, TV Shows, Video Reviews Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Trick ‘r Treat

October 3, 2010 By 2 Comments

He sees you when you’re sleeping. He knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good … You probably recognize those words from the beloved children’s song about Santa Clause. You’ve probably sung it, laughing and giggling at a joyful time of year. You have to admit, though, those words are pretty creepy. An old man with supernatural powers watching children sleep?

Every Christmas, we can expect admonitions to respect “traditions,” even if we steer clear of the religious side of the holiday. You have to have a tree and give gifts, like it or not. Why? Because it’s Christmas, that’s why. The same is true of other holidays. On July 4th and Memorial Day, for example, we are expected to demonstrate respect for our national traditions.

I loved Halloween as a child because there were no burdensome traditions. Be whoever you want. Roam the neighborhood at will. As long as you didn’t eat candy without a wrapper, you were free to run amok. Maybe it was your friend from YMCA soccer walking next to you under that costume … or maybe it wasn’t a costume at all. You could have whatever adventure your imagination could write, and no one threatened you with coal.

Until October of 2008, when Legendary Pictures released Trick ‘r Treat. Trick ‘r Treat is set in Warren Valley, Ohio, during the city-wide Halloween festival. The school principal, Steven Wilkinson (Dylan Baker), sits beside a student on his front steps, ominously stabbing and slicing a pumpkin. “My dad taught me a lot about the traditions of Halloween,” he says. “Traditions that were put in place to protect us. Tonight is about respecting the traditions, not breaking them.”

Oh, great.

The first scene in the movie involves a woman who blows out her jack-o-lantern prematurely and is then murdered by “Sam,” a child-sized creature hidden in a burlap costume. Trick ‘r Treat seems to be a horrific version of A Christmas Carol, with Sam acting as the Three Spirits, enforcing Halloween traditions. Later in the movie, he gives similar bloody treatment to a crotchety old man (Brian Cox) who refuses to give out treats. I have to admit, I would not want to be on Sam’s “naughty list.”

The rest of the movie is a patchwork of short stories, overlapping and intersecting. The stories are done fairly well, though there’s nothing original aside from Sam. If you’ve ever sat around a campfire with friends, you’ve heard the staple elements of all of them:

  • A psychopath kills neighborhood children and turns their heads into

    Anna Paquin as horror movie character #VIR017. By touching this movie, she has absorbed its uncanny campiness.

    jack-o-lanterns.

  • A group of friends pulls a scary prank on an unpopular girl, and it backfires horrifically.
  • A girl, begging for help, is murdered in front of party-goers who think it’s an act.

This is a good movie to watch at a party, or with a bunch of friends, to make fun of. It isn’t remotely scary, unless you’re the type who worries about being eviscerated with a lollipop. (Yes, you read that right.) On the other hand, the scenery is really cool, and the writing and acting are good enough to hold your attention. It’s fun to try to predict where the stories will interact. For example, early in the movie, one character looks at his neighbor’s house and sees his neighbor at the window, shouting “help me! Help me!” He waves him off and goes back to the story he is in. Later, the movie backs up and we see the story inside the neighbor’s house and learn what he was so afraid of.

But what is with Sam? Do we really need one more omnipresent holiday symbol secretly watching and passing judgment on us? Especially considering that, while Santa tends to be portrayed as merciful and just, Sam seems rather capricious. Do we really need a morality play about the power of mutilated pumpkins to ward off evil?

As the festivities wind down, the last few minutes of Trick ‘r Treat tie a lot together, and we realize most of what we saw happened on the same street. I would hate to be the coroner for Warren Valley. The authorities will be picking up the pieces for days. What’s more, the funeral homes and grief counselors will be booked solid til Christmas. Then Jacob Marley can start terrorizing us.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 2.0/5 (1 vote cast)
2 COMMENTS
Filed Under: Comedy, Horror, Miscellaneous Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Avatar contest winner!

June 20, 2010 By 1 Comment

Congratulations to Angela and Maia Walter, who won our Avatar DVD/Blu-ray giveaway!  The two of them submitted only one entry, and theirs was chosen by my wife (all the names were put in a box, mixed up, and my wife picked one at random without looking) shortly after the contest ended tonight.

Avatar Contest Entries

All the entrants of our Avatar contest, along with the prize itself.

Thank you to all 16 individuals who entered the contest! To everyone who suggested movies for us to review, we’ll try our best to accommodate your ideas.  :)  And thanks to all our readers for a great first year of Walking Taco movie and TV reviews.  Here’s to many more!

-TacoGrande, MJV, and Movieseal

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
1 COMMENT
Filed Under: Miscellaneous

Walking Taco Turns 1!

June 14, 2010 By 10 Comments

It’s been a great year for Walking Taco! June 21 marks the anniversary of the publication of our very first post, and to celebrate a year of movie and TV reviews, we are giving away a copy of Avatar on DVD and Blu-Ray!  It’s a combo pack, so no matter whether you prefer DVD or Blu-Ray, we’ve got you covered!

To enter, you must do one of the following:

1. Leave a comment on this post telling us the three movies you would most like to see reviewed here on Walking Taco.

Or…

2. Tweet the following message, along with the title of a movie you would like us to review.  Make sure to delete [Movie] and replace it with your idea for a film we should review!

@walkingtaco I want http://walkingtaco.com to review [Movie]. RT with your idea and be entered to win a copy of Avatar!

Or…

3. Tweet the following message:

@walkingtaco To celebrate a year of movie reviews, http://walkingtaco.com is giving away a copy of Avatar! RT to be entered to win!

Only single entries will be eligible to win.  Tweeting a message multiple times (or tweeting both messages instead of just one) is nice, but won’t increase your chances of winning.

That’s all it takes to enter!  Contest ends at 9pm CST, Sunday, June 20.  Winner will be announced Monday morning, June 21.  Thanks for a great year, and here’s to many more!

Questions and other inquiries may be made via our Contact page.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
10 COMMENTS
Filed Under: Miscellaneous

2010 Academy Awards Live Coverage

March 6, 2010 By 2 Comments

Join us on Sunday, 7pm Central, as MJV hosts a liveblog of the 2010 Academy Awards!

<a href=”http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=d2d0856c96″ mce_href=”http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=d2d0856c96″ >Walking Taco covers the Academy Awards…Live!</a>

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
2 COMMENTS
Filed Under: Miscellaneous

Best of ’09/Pre-Academy Awards Analysis

March 6, 2010 By Leave a Comment

This will be a lengthy article.  Since the Oscars air on Sunday night, it’s about time I get my list of the year’s best films up on here, as well as look over many of the current nominees contending this weekend.  I’ll start with my favorite films of 2009.

1. District 9 (Director: Neill Blomkamp)
(4 Nominations: Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Editing, Visual Effects)
A few years ago, production was set to begin on the $135 million  ‘Halo’ movie based on the popular video game to be produced by Peter Jackson.  He wanted his younger protege Neill Blomkamp to direct, but Fox Studios got cold feet and bailed on the project in the middle of pre-production.  Bouncing back quickly, Blomkamp returned to an old short-film he directed and decided to make a feature-length movie out of his original concept under a modest budget of $30 million.  How ‘Halo’ may have turned out, we will never know, but I bet Fox execs are still shaking their heads after the man’s enormous success.  ‘District 9′ is a flat-out masterpiece in every regard, surpassing even high expectations amongst the great hype surrounding it. The movie is socially conscience with something to say, generating strong and interesting conflict in its approach to the age-old alien invasion film. The movie also looks incredible (modest budget or not), is unbelievably intense and has hardcore action in it to boot. All the right elements combine to make the best, most ambitious and engrossing movie of the year.  It’s a thrill to see this get a Best Picture nomination.

2. Avatar (Director: James Cameron)
(9 Nominations: Picture, Director, Editing, Cinematography, Art Direction, Visual Effects,     Sound, Sound Editing, Original Score)
You want a game-changing, eye-popping thrill-ride ala ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Terminator 2′ and ‘Jurassic Park’? Here it is.  James Cameron returns to cinema with the most technically-impressive film to this day. As an immersing 3D package, ‘Avatar’ is a terrifically engaging and beautiful film. The story is very familiar, but the themes are universal and ongoing. This is a film about sheer spectacle, and it achieves everything it sets out to do. Will it plays as well at home? I don’t know. But on the big screen in 3D, it is one of the greatest movie-going experiences of all time, and what the cinema was made for.

3. 500 Days of Summer (Director: Marc Webb)
This movie really caught me off-guard. Marc Webb has directed one of the best films of 2009 by far, a very interpersonal and understanding ‘romance’ without a hint of mundane cliche to bog it down.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the best young actors out there, and Zooey Deschanel compliments him every step of the way.  I didn’t quite know which direction this movie was going, but it was funny, effective, and truthful. This is the date movie of the year, and the past few years.

4. Up in the Air (Director: Jason Reitman)
(6 Nominations: Picture, Actor (Clooney), Director, Supporting Actress (Vera Farmiga),
Supporting Actress (Anna Kendrick), Adapted Screenplay)
Jason Reitman is officially a brilliant filmmaker. After “Thank You For Smoking” and “Juno,” he delivers the year’s most timely film, and it couldn’t be more thought-provoking, darkly funny, challenging and heartbreaking. George Clooney has one of his best roles to date–able to evoke both disdain and sympathy within a brisk 2 hours. “Up in the Air” is a brilliant, airy, intelligent, and tragic film well worth seeing.

5. Moon (Director: Duncan Jones)
“Moon” represents brilliant science-fiction, plain and simple.  This is a complex, slow-moving character drama built entirely on countless themes ranging from the nature of man to morality. Sam Rockwell’s performance matches the quality of the script. “Moon” really is one of the best, most original, and though-provoking pieces of cinema to come out in 2009–and what a year it has been for sci-fi.

6. Inglourious Basterds (Director: Quentin Tarantino)
(8 Nominations: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor (Cristoph Waltz), Original Screenplay,
Editing, Cinematography, Sound, Sound Editing)
Tarantino’s latest is a heck of a ride for his fans, probably his best work since ‘Pulp Fiction.’  The cast is universally excellent for the exception of the Eli Roth bits. Watch out for Christoph Waltz as the central villain–his menacing, slithering performance is guaranteed to get him instant recognition and Oscar glory. As a whole, ‘Basterds’ is a bit hit-and-miss, but mostly an awesome, violent, bloody, hilarious, history-rewriting event of a movie that should not be missed.

7. Star Trek (Director: J.J. Abrhams)
(4 Nominations: Makeup, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing)
“Star Trek” is one definite crowd-pleaser. It’s smothered with action, humor, strong actors, and has been gifted with a fun, if sometimes complicated, storyline. Somehow the filmmakers have managed to take what the franchise used to be, keep all the familiar elements and make them refreshing–and ultimately pretty darn cool. This Enterprise trip works best when the actors really carry their weight, and they’re usually spot-on in making “Trek” accessible, funny, crisp, and thrilling.

8. The Hurt Locker (Director: Kathryn Bigelow)
(9 Nominations: Picture, Director, Actor (Jeremy Renner), Original Screenplay, Editing,
Cinematography, Sound, Sound Editing, Original Score)
Kathryn Bigelow directs one of the most upfront and honest war films of the past decade.  There’s thrilling suspense and some raw emotion within this machine, but there’s nothing robotic or showy about it– look at the flakiness and self-importance that hindered “Stop Loss.” This is an action-thriller-drama that gets it right, without ever waving its arms your face, shying away from overacting and most of the usual syrup. Simple, straightforward, and real–”The Hurt Locker” is very good.

9. Up (Directors: Bob Peterson and Pete Docter)
(5 Nominations: Picture, Original Screenplay, Animated Feature, Sound Editing, Original
Score)
Pixar’s “Up” is truly delightful, a gorgeous-looking film with a lot of heart and tenderness. I didn’t find it to be as amiable, sharp or quietly intelligent as last year’s “Wall-E”, but I did enjoy its gargantuan scale of adventure, and its lead character Carl. With “Up,” Pixar again proves they are light-years ahead of the game with a bold story, memorable characters, and truckloads of imagination. The film also contains the year’s best and most heartbreaking scene: a montage of Carl and his wife’s relationship.  No other film this year has more heart than “Up.”

10. The Informant! (Director: Steven Soderbergh)
Steven Soderbergh hasn’t made a movie this good in quite awhile, probably not since his first outing with the ‘Ocean’ crew almost nine years ago (yeah, I was a big fan).  This film is a superbly entertaining comedic drama highlighting an excellent performance from Matt Damon, which is quite sad because this is one of his best performances by far, and the Academy instead gave him a nomination for his forgettable role in “Invictus.”  With all its wit and twisty plot, “The Informant!” has that casual, fun flow of “Catch Me if You Can” and should not be missed.

Honorable Mention:
The Road (Director: John Hillcoat)
Based on the famous Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men) novel, this is a tremendously dark film–do not dismiss it as slow and uneventful. ‘The Road’ is an experience of a movie–a hauntingly beautiful one that depicts the end of the world not through movie studio executive eyes, but through a realistic, heartbreaking, and horrific approach. This is an intense movie featuring two excellent performances from Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee, both of whom capture an authentic desperation and emotional resonance with their characters.  Of all the post-apocalyptic flicks out there recently, this is the one that will be remembered.

Some other Academy Award Nominees to brush up on:

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire (B+)
(6 Nominations: Picture, Director (Lee Daniels), Actress (Gabourey Sidibe), Supporting     Actress (Mo’Nique), Adapted Screenplay, Editing)
“Precious” is one of the hardest movies to sit through.  There is a very small light at the end of this vast dark tunnel, and taken as a sincere film featuring all-too-real performances from its cast, the movie works as a message for anyone suffering under the hand of abuse. Director Lee Daniels has made a hard-hitting film that only sporadically becomes distracted by music video numbers taking place in Precious’ world, scenes that pull us out of the drama. Otherwise, this is an effective film.

A Serious Man (B+) (2 Nominations: Picture, Original Screenplay)
“A Serious Man” is another solid flick for the Coen Brothers.  In fact, the movie is at times quite brilliant, darkly and sneakily funny, but other times extremely odd. I guess that’s their trademark. Michael Stuhlbarg is extraordinary here and handles the material well, taking on a role likely suited to Ben Stiller in a more mainstream film. The Coen’s are too smart for that kind of commonplace shenanigan, and  they elevate “A Serious Man” to a seriously funny, somewhat whacked movie.

The Blind Side (B) (2 Nominations: Picture, Actress: Sandra Bullock)
Sandra Bullock commands your attention while newcomer Quinton Aaron grabs your heart in this sappy inspirational movie about family, hope, motherhood and football.  You know exactly where this melodrama is heading, but you want to go along anyway.  The Capra-esque vibe is infectious, and these two actors are an unstoppable force even in such manufactured studio formula (even though it is based on a real-life story).

An Education (B)
(3 Nominations: Picture, Actress (Carey Mulligan), Adapted Screenplay)
“An Education” is a light drama that goes exactly where you know it will go.  Carey Mulligan, well deserving of her Oscar nomination, scores huge with her role, and everything else is adequate.  The movies depicts its era well, but “An Education” doesn’t feel like a Best Picture nominee.  It’s another coming-of-age tale, and it’s fine and all, but it’s not as great as it has been hailed outside of Mulligan’s performance.

Nine (B+)
(4 Nominations: Supporting Actress (Penelope Cruz), Art Direction, Costume Design, Original Song)
Rob Marshall’s ‘Nine’ adaptation is a whirlwind of energy, excitement, and beauty. Critics may have turned their back on it, and it may have become the biggest flop of 2009, but that’s too bad because, while uneven, the movie is enormously entertaining featuring an endless line of talented performances. Without the odd Kate Hudson number, “Nine” is otherwise a fantastic kick-back and enjoy musical–far better than the recent “Mamma Mia!’ and ‘Fame,’ and one of the most gorgeous movies of ’09.

The Messenger (B)
(2 Nominations: Supporting Actor (Woody Harrelson), Original Screenplay)
The entire cast shines in yet another anti-war film this year that actually works. Following in the footsteps of ‘The Hurt Locker,’ “The Messenger” is a heartbreaking war film that tells the other side of the coin–the men informing the families of their fellow fallen soldiers. While sometimes a bit melodramatic, “The Messenger” is more often than not a touching and authentic film from beginning to end.  I’m happy to see Woody Harrelson score an Oscar nomination for his work here.

Invictus (B)
(2 Nominations: Actor (Morgan Freeman), Supporting Actor: Matt Damon)
Clint Eastwood makes great movies, and ‘Invictus’ happens to be a good movie aspiring for greatness. There’s something very Hallmark about this Nelson Mandela/Rugby film. It’s meant to inspire and get people off their feet, but I felt as though much of the importance at heart went skimmed over. Morgan Freeman is great here–but it’s to no surprise, and Matt Damon is fine, but hasn’t much to do. In the end, I was left admiring a project I had little investment in.

Crazy Heart (B-)
(3 Nominations: Actor (Jeff Bridges), Supporting Actress (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Original Song)
Jeff Bridges turns in a praise-worthy performance in a run-of-the-mill Oscar bait movie if ever there was one.  This is this year’s ‘The Wrestler,’ but ‘Crazy Heart’ isn’t as impacting. The relationships and plot developments are by-the-numbers. It’s a satisfactory movie with all the trappings of alcohol abuse and relational dysfunction with a country music backdrop. The film will be remembered solely as the vehicle for which the Academy paid Jeff Bridges his due, and nothing more.

Julie & Julia (B-) (Nomination: Best Actress–Meryl Streep)
I’m not the intended audience for “Julie and Julia,” so to my surprise it was satisfactory.  Other viewers may find it dull or rich or entertaining–it’s a lot of everything. Perhaps that’s because it’s a very light film, very warm and airy.  Meryl Streep is excellent in it, and Amy Adams is likable.  Would I watch it again? No, it didn’t interest me much, but the movie is well-made.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (B+) (1 Nomination: Cinematography)
The movies continue to impress. ‘The Half Blood Prince’ is less action, more explanation–but man is this a thick, layered and increasingly intense story. Lord Voldemort, despite his absence in this one, is the center of all the chaos and looming darkness. I enjoyed more humor being salted over this film (the dating, relationships, etc.), but also so much development in the plot this time, even if it has to end abruptly to pave way for the last two-part movie. This is a triumphant chapter.

Sherlock Holmes (C+) (2 Nominations: Art Direction, Original Score)
Robert Downey, Jr. has recently jump-started his career again, and so it’s a pleasure to see him swashbuckling his way through this fast and often funny adventure film. My problem with the film: Guy Ritchie. He takes a lot of directorial nods from his “Rock N Rolla” and “Snatch” to deliver a confusing, almost uninteresting narrative. With that said, the action and comedy deliver for the most part, and for that reason “Holmes” will be a fun time for most, you will just wonder what’s going on.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (C+) (1 Nomination: Sound)
Yes, even those morphing bots (a huge box-office success before ‘Avatar’ made it shrink in comparison) in a movie everyone seems to have went to see but hated with a passion, get a little Oscar love this year.  I can’t hate on the film as much as many simply because most of us fanboys are forgetting that the first film was an undeniably fun, goofy thrill-ride.  “Transformers 2″ starts off pretty well. It’s well-paced, humorous (for the exception of those racist bots), the action is solid, the effects are great, and it kept me involved. I totally thought critics had lost their minds at first. Then somehow the characters zap into Egypt and things fall apart. The plot takes a major dive and the final battle becomes too long and not engaging like the first film.

Oscar Predictions:
If there’s one thing that we know about this Sunday night, is that the awards should be spread around quite a bit.  Otherwise, the year appears to be pretty predictible with perhaps the only real surprise being the showdown between ex-married couple Kathryn Bigelow and James Cameron. It’s likely that the two will trade off Best Picture and Best Director, but which way will they swing?  Technically, Cameron is a director like none other.  The whole world he created in Avatar existed in his mind, and he waited fourteen years to get the technology caught to bring his vision to life.  On the other hand, Bigelow stayed low-key and brought arguably the grittiest action film of the year to the screen, totally defying the playing field in a man’s world of bullets and explosions.  Her war film “The Hurt Locker” makes Michael Bay look like a pansy in comparison.  Well, Cameron has earned his Oscar for ‘Titanic’, and ‘Hurt Locker’ only grossed a measly $12 million, which would make it the lowest grossing film to win an Oscar by a wide margin. “Avatar” is the biggest movie of all time.  I’ll give Bigelow her award for Best Director, and give audience favorite “Avatar” the win for Best Picture.

Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds
Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, Precious
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Best Picture: Avatar

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
LEAVE A COMMENT
Filed Under: Miscellaneous