Brüno: he'll turn you on, then turn you off.

Sacha Baron Cohen is one of the greatest living actors. That may sound over the top, but I firmly believe it. He may be cited as being primarily a comedian, but there is more to him than just being a funny man. I've always likened him to a persona like Groucho Marx, and a chameleon like Peter Sellers. But even in that case, Baron Cohen is something completely original and on his own. Even with his own characters, he has an uncanny ability to turn any role he is given into his own alter-ego.

Baron Cohen's chameleonic talents are presented again in another feature length film. Brüno, like Borat (2006), is based on an alter-ego of Baron Cohen's, that of Brüno (no last name given), a flamboyant, gay Austrian fashion reporter and interviewer. And especially like Borat and Ali G, the comedy of Brüno not only comes from the title character's persona, but from Baron Cohen's flawless ability to interview and then humiliate unsuspecting citizens and officials (most of which are unaware of the charade). It is a dangerous and painful comedic exercise.

Unfortunately, Brüno doesn't totally live up to expectations. The movie is painfully entertaining, but suffers from a weak plot. It is technically similar to Borat, but seems to focus more on the extremities of the character. One of the weakest parts of the story is Brüno himself, whose short-comings don't seem plausible enough. The character of Borat was given plausibility in that he was from a country with cultures alternative to the United States. Brüno, however, is just a mass of idiocy, blind egotism, and spoiled judgment. Most of the humor is extreme homophobia, enough to confirm one's own sexual orientation.

In the film, Brüno loses his job as a fashion reporter in Austria after he is blacklisted for disrupting a fashion show (due to him trying to wear a disastrous suit made of velcro). With his desired fame stalling in Austria, he decides to head to Los Angeles with his assistant (who harbors a secret crush, much like Smithers on The Simpsons). Everything that follows is based on his desire to be world famous, no matter what the reason is. Through it all, he fails at: interviewing celebrities; attempting to make a sex tape with Ron Paul; trying to solve political imbalance in Israel; adopting an African baby; and attempting to go straight.

Some of the deception used in the film is a testament to Baron Cohen's abilities. But it doesn't get the same reaction from everyone. After Borat, it seems like a lot of people are more interested in which parts of the movie are staged, and which parts are the real deal. It has already been confirmed that the Ron Paul sex-tape attempt is real (and just as painful for the audience to watch). Others are easy to figure out, such as when Brüno is in Israel, and he is chased by the locals for his offensive outfit (the timing suggests that it is real, and not refined).

On a technical level, there is not much else outside of Baron Cohen's credits. Director Larry Charles (who also directed Borat), manages to make some stylistic changes in adapting to a more flamboyant subject matter. Still, that shouldn't short change Mr. Charles, whose directing and writing credits are rather impressive. But as mentioned before, a lot of the humor comes from the shock value and (harmless) attacks on the unsuspecting public. So really, this movie has a life beyond most of the people involved.

What was unnecessary? The gay sex, although meant to humorous, could have been shortened in length (for those who have seen the movie, no pun intended).

Does he succeed at anything? Yes. He manages to exploit parents who are so desperate for fame they will exploit their infant children through overly religious and politically incorrect photographs. He fills up time in his failed TV pilot with some impressive penis acrobatics (really, they are quite impressive). And he manages to give Mel Gibson a new name: "Der Führer."

The Simpler way is UP

The opening of a new Pixar/Disney is always eventful. Commercially eventful that is. Not much is celebrated at the artistic eventfulness of a new Pixar movie.

There are elements that tend to repeat themselves throughout Pixar movies. That just happens to be the way they write. However they are less repetitive than other studios. Every Pixar movie has a plot different from the last, and they always demonstrate a willingness to try something new. There's something new to the plot of Up for sure.

Up tells the tale of Carl Fredrickson (wonderfully voiced by Edward Asner), a 74-year old widower with with limited social interests and an aversion to change (I can relate a few parts of Carl's physique and personality to my own grandfather). Carl's beloved wife, Ellie, fulfilled a part of Carl's life that was always shy, and both shared an interest in adventuring. However, they were never able to take their dream vacation to South America before Ellie's time came. After being threatened and then court ordered to leave his house of many years to make room for a growing city, Carl decides he must head to South America now, before his own time comes. Unexpectadly, Carl, a former balloon salesman, tethers thousands of helium ballons from his fireplace, and lifts the house from its foundation. Carl then pilots the house from there on, after which we realize the house represents Ellie in Carl's eyes. And that's only the first 10 minutes.

The Incredibles was Pixar's first feature to have all humans as the main characters. Up is another venture down that road. People will read this and think of the animal characters in the movie, but story-wise, the humans control all the actions. Up marks Pixar's first time having an eldery figure as the main character. It might have been done before to a lesser extent somewhere, but this is a major release today. Interviews with director Pete Docter have suggested an uncertainty to how young audiences will able to relate to a 74-yeard old man. But Mr. Docter and co-director Bob Peterson always seem confident, as I'm sure of the movie's writers and crew are. And besides, its a quiet truth that animated features are not just reserved for children, but for adults as well.

The whole story is based around relationship issues. Carl Fredrickson lost his beloved wife and closest companion (nicely illustrated four minutes into the movie, with minimal dialogue). He later meets a young boy scout, Russell (voiced by newcomer Jordon Nagai, and modeled after Pixar animator Peter Sohn), who is later revealed to have issues with his distant father. Then there's the bad guy, a nearly 90 year-old adventurer genius (nicely portrayed by Christopher Plummer), whose relationship with society (and the rest of the world) was damaged years ago, due to skepticism versus enthusiasm. Even the main dog character, Dug (played very lovingly by co-director Peterson), has master and peer issues, as he is the happy outcast in a group of dogs devoted to their paranoid genius of a master. I love movies that deal with developing relationships and regret over previous relationships. It may sound complicated to some, but it really isn't.

Pixar's movies are not complicated. These movies are coherent for sure. But Up appears to have a simpler plot compared to Pixar's last few movies. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Its good to relax. But Ratatouille and Wall-E are quite sophisticated in terms of plot (i.e. rats trying to integrate into the human world; a robot left alone on earth, yet ends up reaching out to humanity). I'm probably reaching too far, but that's how I see it. Up is a simpler tale of a widower wanting to fullfill something that is, in fact, possible.

There's a sense of mild child abuse in the movie, except its portrayed as accidental, so there's nothing to cry over. Russell, the boy scout who accidentally gets stuck on the floating house, finds himself in several dangerous situations throughout the film (I was reminded of moments in Rescuers Down Under and Jurassic Park). He gets dangled a few times from dangerous heights (always a movie favorite, even in fantasies), nearly gets injured by rabid dogs, and almost dropped from a flying durigable.
Does this bother me? No way. I'm just praising the new levels Pixar's writers have reached.

Design wise, there's really nothing new to the movie. Like all of Pixar's movies, everything is just as saturated as everything else, while delicately lit. That's not a bad thing at all, as it looks carefully constructed to suit the story. Its just that I had a discussion with a friend recently about how saturated all computer-animated movies look.

My biggest criticism (and so far only) is over the last few minutes of the movie. Its a happy ending, but I wasn't satisfied with it. It didn't seem original enough, and I guess I expecting some other things to happen. I guess I thought Russell would be convincing someone that he wasn't abducted by the crotchety old man. The rest of the story is great, and I just wish the end had a little more originality than Carl and Russell reliving something Russell shared with his own father.

That's it for Up. I will probably be seeing it again soon. Of course, that also means I will be seeing the new Pixar short, Partly Cloudy, directed by Peter Sohn. All I can say is that I was never big on the idea of babies coming from the sky. And I think this was by far Pixar's most disturbing short film. That may change, but that's how I feel now.

And we're back to seeing a trailer for next year's release, Toy Story 3. We can only wait and see if Pixar can pull a third one off, and without actor Jim Varney and writer/actor Joe Ranft. Still, Pixar got lucky with Toy Story 2, because they were very serious about it, so there may be nothing to worry about.

One overdone and one under-done

The following is a double review of Monsters vs. Aliens and $9.99.

Life's been busy. Going to the movies has been getting sparse for me lately. In the last month, however, I have managed to see two primary animated features.

I managed to see Tatia Rosenthal's stop-motion feature $9.99 at the MOMA, apparently its New York premier. Like others, I have known of the film from the festival circuit for months. It is an Australian/Israeli film, based on the short stories of Israeli writer Edgar Keret. I have to say, for an animated feature, the writing really stood out. Story-wise, it had the structure and essence of a Robert Altman or P.T. Anderson ensemble piece, one in which the characters are unknowingly connected (think Short Cuts or Magnolia). In this case, the various characters all live in the same apartment complex. And along comes an outsider that connects a few of the characters, in the form of a dead panhandler/angel (played wonderfully by Geoffrey Rush). The story then takes several existential turns.

Animation wise, I am kind of mixed. I know that the budget is about $3 million (not bad for an indie film), but even so, that shouldn't have gotten in the way of design. I was a little put-off by the design of the puppets, which seemed to be going for a near-realistic look. I also felt a couple of characters looked too similar, and thus confused a part of the story. The story seemed to be based on enough stark realism, that I thought the puppets could have taken a more simplistic, yet exaggerated look. And I especially can't stand the tiny add-on mouths, which makes the characters look like they are always puckering.

In the end, I have to say the writing got the best of the movie, which is a good thing, since a lot of movies can fall victim to bad writing. The voice acting also seemed to get the job done without ruining the script.

Next up, I saw Monsters Vs. Aliens in 3-D. At first I wasn't interested, but I thought I might wrong. Dreamworks' last couple features had elements that I consider to be vast improvements over their dreaded, commercialized past. Unfortunately, this film took a few steps downward, mostly due to what was supposed to bring it out on top. The movie has already been reported to have advanced, eye (and paddle-ball) popping 3-D, and I was curious about how far it is being taken.

it is obvious to me that a great deal of time was spent making the animation and 3D as impressive as possible. But in the end, the story suffers from under development. Parts of the story feel rushed and recycled, and it is way too predictable. On the other hand, maybe it was a good idea in the beginning, and the 3-D came later, outdoing the original idea. I only hope that the improvements Dreamworks has been making are not fading away so soon.

Of the all-star cast, the ones who stand out to me are Hugh Laurie and Keifer Sutherland. Laurie does a beautiful turn as Dr. Cockroach, P.D., and Keifer Sutherland does a nice job as (General Patton-like) General W.R. Monger. The rest of the actors just seemed to be tossed on. I am also perplexed as to why Renee Zellweger and John Krasinski were even paid just to play a couple of one-minute characters. Definitally a waste of money.

Any good points? The movie has plenty of funny bits to remain entertaining. One of my favorite bits is a guilty pleasure; the President of the U.S.A. tries to communicate with an alien spacecraft via synthesizer. First he tries the alien signal from Close Encounters, then starts playing the "Foley" theme of Beverly Hills Cop, to which a couple of bodyguards jerk rhthymically. And a few of the scenes involving the alien race seem satisfying.

3-D is something that still needs some improvements. Actually its just the glasses. Hopefully, they will find some way to make 3D glasses that don't tint or darken the viewer's eyes.

I will be back here again soon. In the meantime, be sure to check out my articles for the ASIFA-East Exposure Sheet Blog. Or just check out the blog anyway.

Oscar, Coraline, and Slumdog.

The week of the Academy Awards are over. After all the build-up, I remember again why the awards are so fleeting, and how much of a "meat-parade" they are. I have to admit, I stole the "meat-parade" bit from George C. Scott, which is what he called the Academy Awards when he refused his Best Actor award in 1971. This year, the ceremony couldn't have been more overblown, with a broadway style show led by host, Hugh Jackman. Although I have to praise Jackman's song and dance abilities, the whole thing seemed a little too inappropriate given the current state of the economy. Like Benjamin Button, some of the musical numbers just seemed to drag on. Although I was pleased with most of the outcome, by the end of it, I realized I just didn't care.


This year so far, I am all over two movies that left me with a sense of cinematic hope.

Although it opened two months ago, it wasn't until January I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire. Although I am not as familiar with all his work, director Danny Boyle did Trainspotting in 1996, which is one of my favorite movies. Slumdog is a marvelous movie, filmed more like a blood and sweat independent film, rather than a big budget Hollywood polish. I don't mean to sound too biased, but there are times when I am more in favor of the indie style. Come to think of it, most films looked like that in the days before the digital age.

The story of Slumdog reads like a modern-day fairy tale, with a traditional good vs. evil plot. And I mean this in the best way possible. We get a slimey representation of India and its various battles, notably the slums vs. the economy, and the uneducated vs. the educated, and (more realistically) religious conflict. I love this movie, because it is a gratifying story, portrayed with sweat and dirt, and mixed with glitter.


Next up is Coraline. I've seen it only once, and I make it a point to write a proper review after seeing it twice. But I need to be careful financially, so I can't make too many trips to the cinemas. But after one viewing, I was already blown away by how beautiful the movie was. It is full of charm, stunning design work, and a grand mix of chaos and atmosphere. Obviously the right hands were involved in this, and the result is one that doesn't suffer from a transparent script, and doesn't become too predictable. A big kudos to Henry Selick, whose skills as a director are in terrific form with this film.
The film is solid, and is so far, the best film of the year. I know it is early to say that, but I can say it with honesty. I just feel its a shame the movie had to be released in February, when a lot of attention is usually paid to the Oscar nominations. Still, the movie seems to be doing good business, though it still has catching up to do at the box-office.

Now we have a whole new year of new films to look forward to.

Harry Potter and the words of a Film Loving Yank

I love the Harry Potter movies. I keep hearing a lot of negative things about the movies in general (though the acting usually receives the best accolades). All I can say is that if I am both inspired and entertained, then for me, the films have done their job. I love the characters, because they represent things about us we are often afraid to explore. Harry goes through events that most people dread (losing your family, seeing your friends get murdered, having a whole community against you, etc), and survives through it all in ways we can only hope. I love films with a shade of darkness within them. I don't mean to say I'm a morose person (although if I am, I don't mean to be). But the fact is, these are fantasies that revolve around death and mortality. Harry Potter's life story starts with the horrible murder of his parents, and his mysterious (one-year old) defeat of their murderer, the evil Lord Voldemort.

The first two movies were handled by American director Chris Columbus (best known for family films like Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire). While the stories were clear and the acting already in terrific form, the overall feel of the movies were too commercial for my tastes. There didn't seem to be enough going on artistically, and the directing was simply too plain. I don't mean to sound disrespectful to Columbus. I'm sure he's a nice guy, he's just not one of my favorite directors. Besides, if the first movie appears cliched, it was probably because the first book is meant to introduce all the main characters. And from the outset, most of the earlier characters seem to be based on traditional character-types, though they eventually evolve as the story moves forward.


With the arrival of Alfonso Cuaron (Mexican born who did Y tu mama tambien and Children of Men), the series took a new direction. Cuaron's approach involved playing with the visual style (particularly the photography) and making his take on Harry Potter more character driven. Although it has been argued that Chris Columbus's versions were more faithful to the novels, Cuaron's version gave a whole new level of audience accessibility. The relationship and communication of the characters now appeared to be more realistic, which in a way, blurs the line between the wizarding world (fantasy) and the muggle world (reality). The actors seem to be given more room to play with their characters. The Wizarding school of Hogwarts is now portrayed more like a British boarding school, where magic happens to be natural.


These movies get the best actors in the United Kingdom. Not just film and TV actors, but well-renowned stage performers (including Daniel Radcliffe himself). It is known that one of J.K. Rowling's conditions for selling the rights was that an all-British cast be used, unless a different nationality is noted in the stories. One of the reasons I am so entranced with the Harry Potter films is because I am in awe of a fantasy starring the very best British talent in the world. I am simply going to say that I am impressed with every one of these actors. Rambling on any further about them could get kind of boring.

Daniel Radcliffe is an actor with a lot of promise, and hopefully, he will embark on a career beyond Harry Potter. This image of Radcliffe is not from Harry Potter, but from Equus, a Peter Shaffer play currently on Broadway, starring Radcliffe and Richard Griffiths (Harry Potter's uncle Vernon Dursley).





Ralph Fiennes gives Lord Voldemort, the primary antagonist, an amazing energy. His performance makes the character not only dangerous and fearful (as he should), but also gives a charming demeanor, which plays to the character's strengths.












Along with the best British talent, the fourth movie featured some of best musical talent. The Yule Ball scene called for a famous rock band from the wizarding world, The Weird Sisters. In an inspiring cameo, the Weird Sisters are fronted by Jarvis Cocker (leader of Pulp), and members of Radiohead, Pulp, electronic groups All Seeing I, and Add N to (X). The result is a band that looks like a Goth version of Queen meets Jethro Tull.



With Mike Newell, there is now a distinctly British feel to the whole thing. Current director David Yates has managed to maintain that feel. When I say a British feel, I am more or less referring to the British dialects and wording. With that, the movies feel like they are taking place somewhere real; in this case, England. In the third and fifth movies, some of my favorite scenes are those that take place precisely in London. The flying sequence at the beginning of movie 5 is dazzling for me, not just because of the effects, but because of the footage capturing London seen from the River Thames (and Nicholas Hooper's score compliments it nicely). All in all, a nice visual composition.


Now, I don't want people to think I wish these places were real, but like a toddler, I do. But I am old enough to know better. I can call these movies fantasies, and at the very least, they exist on paper and in movie sets.
Anyway, I have read the last two books, and am looking forward to their adaptations. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (movie 6) is set to be released in July.

A Late Start to the new year

In case anyone still reads this blog, here is an internet update.

Parasite's Delight is being shown this week on Channel Frederator. Also included is a brief interview. Thank you for the exposure, Frederator.


Also, my new website is now up at emmettgoodman.com. Its been (and it still is) a long time in the making. Now that is it up, I expect it to be redesigned in a matter of months, hopefully looking more professional.

I sincerely apologize for the lack of updates. I have been busy working on the website, as well getting a few projects started. And the painful truth, unfortunately, is that I have more energy going into my swamp blog, than this one. However, I do not wish to abandon this blog at any point. I always have something to write about, I just never get around to it. Perhaps like the swamp blog, I should find something to update this blog with everyday or something.

Emotional Draining from both sides

I have been unable to write anything since last time. I have been working as part of the crew on an independent film. I don't feel like its my place to discuss any details of the film, and its bad enough I'm not getting immediate payment for it. But I can definitely say the experience is emotionally draining, and if there's anything I'm getting out of it, its possible inspiration for something of my own.

Recently, I got chewed out (to a lesser extent) for putting down the Academy Awards in the comments section of Michael Sporn's blog. Sporn had listed all the animated shorts submitted for consideration, and they of course included all the major studios as well as independents. I've only given attention to the Academy the last few years, but I got the feeling that the Academy was going to nominate Disney, Pixar and Blue Sky, no matter what, because they were the bigger names on the list. I said it, and opened up a can of worms from Sporn and a couple other readers. I immediately apologized when I saw it, but I think I made myself look bad. I didn't mean to cause any grief, but I still believe there is a certain bias in the Academy's selection. Of course, many independent films have won Best Animated Short, which I am fully aware of. But being nominated gains you just as much credibility as winning. And not every Disney short is an outstanding piece. But since I am still relatively new in this industry, I don't have an seasoned experience like some others.

WALL-E, which I think is one of Pixar's most unique works, won the LA Film Critics Circle's Best Picture award. I understand this is the first time an animated feature has won best picture for the LA Film Critics Circle. That's a big achievement, as far as I am concerned.

I currently have a couple of jobs coming up, both unpaid. Though I am very interested in their possibilities, I still yearn for some paying work. Unfortunately, the economy hasn't been on mine or anyone Else's side lately.