2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
89 minutes
Ambush Entertainment

***

My stance on the films of Matthew Broderick has long been a controversial one. I particularly dislike the much beloved “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” (There, I said it!) So I was all set to rip apart “Wonderful World.” And then an amazing thing happened. I didn’t hate it.

“Wonderful World” tells the story of Ben Singer, a former children’s musician and divorced dad who isn’t shy about sharing his opinions with everyone who crosses his path. His views are usually perceived as pessimistic but, honestly, a lot of what he says is just telling it like it is, a practice that most adults have trained themselves not to do.

I find Ferris Bueller insufferable because he shows no remorse for his selfishness getting everyone around him in trouble. More ridiculously, the community at large views him as a sort of hero. In “Wonderful World,” Ben is also somewhat selfish, but at least he’s called on it and eventually makes an effort to change. His depression-fueled brand of honesty becomes a problem when he tells off his neighbor, an SUV-driving yuppie who complains that, because of Ben’s car, he has to make five inconvenient wheel turns to get out of his compact space. The neighbor takes out his revenge by having Ben’s car towed, just as Ben needs it to rush his diabetic roommate, Ibu, to the hospital. Ben’s depression worsens as his roommate slips into a coma, Ben loses his job, and he is unable to sugarcoat things for his 11-year-old daughter. As a result of her dad’s downer ways, she no longer wants to spend her court-appointed weekends with him. Eventually, Ben realizes that his attitude is driving people away and preventing him from success. Something must change.

Ben’s attitude starts to shift when he meets Khadi, the beautiful Senegalese sister of his roommate who stays with him while Ibu is in the hospital. Ben teaches Khadi that if you understand “The Bottom Line,” the idea that every situation has a total value which makes you decide whether or not to do something, that you understand America. By way of example, it’s what insurance adjusters to every day. In contrast, she teaches him that magic is everywhere and that “thoughts are things.” Inevitably, their situation turns romantic. It’s a sweet relationship and just what Ben needs to find his way.

But here’s why “Wonderful World” is only a three star film: Many of Ben’s complaints are totally valid. His neighbor was the one who chose to own an SUV in an urban setting. The boss who fires him is a prick. “The Bottom Line” is the slogan for Capitalist America and it’s one of the main reasons why bad things happen to good people.

So while I agree Ben has room for emotional growth, he shouldn’t have to be happy all the time or change completely. And he has every right to call certain people on their bullshit. Someone has to do it. I only wish Ben Singer could have met Ferris Bueller.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 3, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
79 minutes
Santiago Films

3 Stars

In 1968, a group of people started a utopian community. They used a poster entitled “Common Sense” to recruit. It claimed that “Love is the answer and we are all one.” That notion would be all well and good if “Love” weren’t the name of the group’s leader, a Jesus figure to whom they were required to give full power of attorney after they donated all their worldly possessions.

The members adopted the last name “Israel” (the chosen people) and received a virtuous first name like “Truth” or “Patience.” As an initiation, they’d have to undergo a week-long fast, the first three days of which also forbade water. They had to perform hard labor during this time. The only book they were allowed access to was the Bible. They also took a vow of celibacy. Unless they were young, pretty women, and then they got to have sex with Love. If this sounds an awful lot like a textbook case of “cult” to you, well, that’s because it was. “It Takes a Cult,” a documentary about the Seattle Love cult, was shot by Eric Johannsen, a boy who spent his early years living on their compound in Arlington, WA with his biological parents…and 300 other people.

Cults make for an inherently interesting story. In terms of access, it would seem that a kid who grew up on the inside, but has since joined ordinary society, would make a reliable and revealing film about the subject. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. It’s easy to make judgments, but the film leaves nearly all the judgment up to the audience. Because of that, it seems like no one learned anything from situation. The way they talk about brainwashing is so nonchalant. One member says, “My brain needed to be washed.” Yikes. And whenever someone starts banning books, it’s clearly no longer a good place to be. Everyone glosses over the fact that some kids were abused and locked in closets as punishment. It sure seems unlikely that these things didn’t do any permanent damage to the members.

The Love cult fell apart in 1983 when the other members wrote a letter to Love Israel complaining about his abuses of power. He tore up the letter and that was the end of the compound. But the remaining 30 members still believe in the core values and have been attempting to reboot the system ever since. The audience for the screening I attended was full of Israels. The post-screening Q and A revealed that they were all pretty happy with the final cut. I find this very telling about the film’s tone.

The film is full of archival footage from the early days at the Arlington compound. There was plenty of dancing, singing, working, and playing – like it was Woodstock everyday. Most of the time, “It Takes a Cult” feels like an infomercial for the Love family. And you know, I even agree with some of the founding principles. I believe we’re all connected. Not spiritually, but as humans. We should treat each other with the same respect we’d treat ourselves. We should keep our minds open.

However, these ideas (and any idea) become dangerous when you give one person absolute power. I’m not saying the filmmaker was deliberately hiding something. But it does seem like a documentary about a literal cult – where brainwashing and book burning happened, where the leader stole people’s money and lavished himself while the rest of the members worked for him, while young women gave themselves to him and older women took care of his children – should have been a little more provocative.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 2, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: 2 Comments

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Rated PG-13
88 minutes
Paper Heart Productions

4 and 1/2 stars

Charlyne Yi doesn’t believe in love. But it’s not because of past heartbreak. It’s because she’s never felt it before. So she embarks on a project with her best friend, Nick, to meet real couples and hear their stories – all in an attempt to define love and determine whether or not it truly exists or if some people are doomed to remain unloved.

Part documentary, part improvisational narrative, “Paper Heart” is an atypical yet authentic romantic comedy
for people who normally find such things insufferable. For the record, I am one of those people. And “Paper Heart” charmed the jaded pants off of me.

Charlyne and Nick travel around the country interviewing anyone and everyone about love and relationships. They meet young couples and couples married 50 years. They talk to Elvis impersonators at Vegas wedding chapels and academics at universities. Meanwhile, Charlyne tries to make sense of (and resist) her budding relationship with actor Michael Cera. They both play alternate universe versions of themselves, which makes for a pretty bizarre, and totally compelling, love story.

Plus, Charlyne is not your typical leading lady. In fact, she’s a character we rarely see in any film, let alone a rom-com; the boyish woman-child. She’s not one of those fake, sexpot tomboys (i.e. Megan Fox) who wear dirty jeans and pigtails but still know how to give a smoldering sidelong glance. Charlyne is the genuine article; a girl who loves video games and fireworks, doesn’t bathe much and wouldn’t have the slightest idea what to do with an eyelash curler. She has huge glasses and a Pee Wee Herman laugh. You get the impression that you could have a great time hanging out with her and she would never ever try to steal your boyfriend.

But she starts the film as a somewhat tragic figure. She’s never had any romantic feelings toward anyone and it’s led her to believe that true love is a myth. She claims that this doesn’t bother her. That she’s mainly curious about love from an academic standpoint. However, it’s clear that the real issue is that she’s never opened herself up to anyone for fear of getting hurt. As a result, her reluctant romance with Cera is as bungling as it is cute.

The true documentary vignettes are just as enjoyable as the driving plot line. They employ puppets and two-dimensional backdrops to illustrate some of the stories that couples tell her about their courtship. Many of the interview locations are quirky and amusing such as a biker bar and a room full of mounted animal heads. These interviews also serve to mirror and foreshadow the fictional story. A romance novelist tells Charlyne that the formula for a love story is always “Romance – conflict – resolution.” It all fits together so perfectly that it’s necessary to remind yourself you aren’t actually watching Yi and Cera fall in love.

Actually, they do a little of the reminding for you. Some of the most hilarious parts involve purposeful breakage of the fourth wall. After their first date, there is an awkward goodbye at Charlyne’s car and then Michael asks “Should I give back my microphone now?” When Charlyne and Michael kiss for the first time, the camera pans around to reveal reaction shots from the crew.

There are also several really sweet moments that let the audience know Charlyne might not be as immune to love as she thinks. The song she writes for Michael (but isn’t sure if she’s going to give to him) is totally heart-rending. At that point, she’s pretty much the only one who can’t see what’s happening. The question is whether or not she will recognize it in time.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, Cera once again does his “Michael Cera thing.” Personally, I love his “thing” but know it’s not for everyone, and I agree that it doesn’t always work contextually. But trust me, here it really works.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 30, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

1990
Un-rated
95 minutes
Cult Epics

2 stars

The gritty art film is a bit of a dying art form. Perhaps it’s because it’s so cheap to make a digital film with clear picture and audible dialog these days that no one has the patience for films like “Kiss Napoleon Goodbye”. Fortunately for fans of old school art house, they’re granted new life on DVDs distributed by Cult Epics. So now you can sit in a dark room with your introspective friends and struggle to hear fuzzy audio without even owning a projector or VCR.

“Kiss Napoleon Goodbye” was written by underground spoken word artist Lydia Lunch and directed by someone called Babeth. Lunch also stars along with Don Bajema and Henry Rollins in the story of a married couple (Lunch and Bajema) who move to a castle in the Dutch countryside in an attempt to rekindle their strained marriage. Their attempt is thwarted when the wife invites her ex (Rollins) to visit and is entirely incapable of keeping her hands off of him. I guess we don’t have to wonder why those two kids can’t seem to work it out.

The subplot, if you can call it that, revolves around the ghosts of other people who have lived in this castle, including Napoleon, his mistress, a guy who likes to drill holes in his head, and some bunnies. The spirits of former inhabitants mingle with the current ones to exemplify parallels in their lives. At least I think that’s what it all means. Or maybe it’s a precursor to Keanu and Sandra’s “The Lake House.”

So is it good? Well, that all depends on what you like. It looks great. I love that soft, orange film look (budgetary as it may have been) and the castle (which actually was home to Napoleon at one point) is gorgeous. Lydia Lunch is fairly sexy and spends a good deal of time wearing next to nothing and boning everyone within arm’s reach. But the dialog is cliché and the acting wooden. You know a movie is in trouble when Henry Rollins comes off as the best actor of the bunch. Of course, I missed at least a third of the dialog anyway. I had to turn the volume up to ungodly levels and be careful not to chew or breathe in order to catch what was being said. Usually, I regretted the effort. Though, I suppose that’s part of the point. In the bonus documentary, “Lydia Lunch: Paradoxia & a Predator’s Diary,” Lunch talks about how appalled she was by the budget of “Titanic” and how that money could have gone to feed the world. So spending money to remaster her film would have gone against her principles.

The special features include the aforementioned Lunch doc plus a performance of one her spoken word pieces entitled “It’s a Man’s World.” These are great features if you can really get “Napoleon” and are into anarchic feminist rants. But they are pretty tedious otherwise. Listening to Lunch speak is like having someone read you their diary. Personally, I find her more palatable when she’s in her underwear and making out with Henry Rollins.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 25, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

1978
Un-rated
105 minutes
Criterion Collection

3 Stars

My knowledge of Japanese Ghost cinema is relatively limited. It mostly consists of films about killer cell phones and creepy little girls, which were instantly remade in America starring blonde leads. But I assume “Empire of Passion” is regarded with veneration or else they wouldn’t have bothered to release a Criterion DVD. So are all the Japanese classics this insane? Or is it just the ghost stories?

“Empire of Passion” is a cautionary tale about what happens when you fall in love with your rapist. Seki is a lonely housewife living in the 19th-century Japanese countryside. She is mother to two children and wife to Gisaburo, the town rickshaw driver. Seki passes the time by eating pastries with a younger man named Toyoji. One day, Toyoji finds Seki napping with her young son, and decides that because he can see down her kimono, she’s asking for it. Cue the first of many, many rape scenes!

After a while, Seki starts to fall for her overbearing rapist boyfriend (maybe it’s the moustache) and he convinces her that the key to their happiness is killing her husband. They concoct a very convincing story about how he’s just gone to Tokyo to work. People buy it for a while, and aren’t even upset that the only rickshaw driver in town has moved away. Unfortunately for our wholesome couple, Gisaburo’s ghost turns up three years later to haunt, well, everyone. He shows up in dreams, he shows up in Seki’s living room and he taunts Toyoji. It’s not so much the guilt as it is the idea of getting caught that eventually leads to Seki and Toyoji’s undoing. It plays out like a fairy tale but instead of a prince and princess, we have a rapist and a wet blanket as leads.

Not that “Empire of Passion” isn’t entertaining. It’s a messed up country love story with Hitchcockian flair, Shakespeare morality, and a Lynchian mentally challenged character thrown in for good measure. I was riveted throughout. It’s just not the most accessible of worlds. Seki is a pathetic sack who is constantly sobbing. She cries when she’s raped and she cries when she’s not being raped enough. She isn’t the slightest bit cool when the town policeman comes to question her. She’s a terrible mother and not just because she helped murder her baby daddy. Her daughter tells her she’s running away from home because her dad’s ghost shared some interesting information with her. Seki’s response is all “OK! See you! [SOB!!]”

Toyoji is evil enough to rape and kill, but not diabolical enough to even try to get away with it. I don’t have a lot of experience hiding bodies, but I do know one thing. You probably shouldn’t make daily visits to the well in which you’ve stashed said body and fill it with leaves. It might draw just the tiniest bit of attention to the grave.

The last third of the movie is mostly Gisaburo’s ghost silently haunting his murderers and Toyoji and Seki taking turns freaking out about whether or not he’s ratted them out. Visually, it’s interesting, but because Toyoji and Seki are so unsympathetic, it gets a little tedious. Frankly, I was left wishing for a few more rape scenes.

The DVD features a beautiful restored, HD digital transfer full of rich colors as well as interviews with the actors, production staff and a video essay explaining why this murder/rapefest is an important film.

Originally posted from FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 20, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL SELECTION!
Un-rated
86 minutes
Montivagus Productions

3 stars

Ventriloquism is a strange art form. It’s part acting, part puppetry, part stand-up comedy. It’s vaudevillian in nature and therefore it feels old-fashioned. Yet contemporary ventriloquism is alive and well. The documentary “I’m No Dummy” explores the world of ventriloquism, both past and present, in an engaging enough way that you are sucked into the film, even if you are never sold on the act itself.

Now, I admit that I can be a bit of a Grumpy Guss. I hate magicians. If they were really magic that would be one thing, but the slight-of-hand doesn’t impress me. I’m not afraid of clowns, but I find them annoying and not the least bit funny. (Krusty the Clown is an exception. Do satires count?) Ventriloquism had always seemed to me akin to those professions. But I must confess that “I’m No Dummy” changed my mind. I’m not going to run right out to buy a doll and practice singing whilst drinking water, but there is definitely some art happening here and some of it is downright impressive.

“I’m No Dummy” begins by defining the subject and giving it some context. The filmmakers interview several working ventriloquists (and, of course, their dummies) and ask them to define “ventriloquism”. The answers range from the technical (“a monologue perceived as a dialogue”) to the existential (“different sides of a personality”). It’s clear they’ve all thought a lot about this. No one entered into this world lightly and they are in it for the long haul. In fact, all of them began their careers as children. One of them was an only child. One had polio and spent a lot of time in bed. One suffered from acute dyslexia and admits he took to it because he wasn’t good at much else. It’s a goldmine for rudimentary psychoanalysis.

And some of it is also pretty neat. I’m still not sold on the stand-up aspect. I like my stand-up a little more raw and/or political. But when they go into the history of it and show the early masters, it does get a little mind-blowing what some of these people can do. Senor Wences, one of the more famous “vents,” created his signature head-in-the-box “’salright – ‘salright” bit by accident when his figure’s head became detached from its body in transit. Paul Winchell performed an amazing act wherein he sang a duet with his gypsy dummy…that was playing the tambourine. He was doing the work of at least 3 men all by himself. He also hosted a children’s show and was extremely popular in his day. These days, his legend is overshadowed by Miley Cyrus.

Other early fellows profiled include Jimmy Nelson and Edgar Bergen. The filmmakers also interview and profile enthusiast W.S. Berger, who spent his life collecting ventriloquist memorabilia. He called himself a Ventriloquarian. Seemingly obscure or no, each of the hundreds of dummies in his collection once had a life in showbiz. One contemporary ventriloquist named Jeff Dunham pulls in 4000 people to one show. And some of them are teenagers.

The film concludes with theories about the future of ventriloquism. Some say it can be kept going through innovation and transcending the genre. Some say it’s a dying art. But one person suggests that art never dies. I guess that’s true because I’m off to go watch some old-timey entertainment on youtube.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 11, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: 3 Comments

2008
Un-rated
113 minutes

Three and a half stars

Loneliness is terrible. And sometimes it makes an otherwise good person do terrible things. That is the theme of “The Country Teacher” (“Venkovsky ucitel”). Bohdan Slama’s film centers on Peter, a homosexual science teacher who takes a job in the Czech countryside to escape the darkness of his life in the big city. Unfortunately for him and a mother and son he befriends, the darkness comes along.

“The Country Teacher,” which screened at this year’s Philadelphia Film Festival/Cinefest, is an interesting film on a provocative subject. It’s difficult to love a film about molestation but there are a lot of things to like about this one. For starters, life in the Czech countryside is beautifully captured on 35mm film. When Peter befriends a lady farmer and helps her with her chores, the audience is given real insight into what it’s like for these rural folks day to day. They love their land, they love to drink beer and dance, and occasionally, they have to hand-deliver calves by yanking them out of the mother cow by hand.

I also appreciate the way Slama handles Peter’s homosexuality. He makes sure to show, early on, that Peter has not been subject to external oppression for his sexuality. When he comes out to his mother (his father already knows), her response is simply “you shouldn’t be alone.” She only wants him to be happy. When his ex boyfriend (with amazing Judd Nelson hair and dark glasses) comes to town, he serves to represent Prague and its progressiveness. Any torment Peter feels is entirely self-inflicted. So when he develops an extremely unhealthy attachment to the teenage son of his farmer friend, we know they aren’t saying, “Gay people are pervs.” Just that “Peter has problems.”

Where “The Country Teacher” seems to fail is in its conviction. For a very long time, it’s not clear whether or not the boy in question is bi-curious himself. With his indie haircut and tight t-shirts, the boy certainly has that “Gus Van Sant extra” look to him. At one point he tells his girlfriend that he’s not sure they “fit together.” And how many times have you gone on sunset boat rides with your tutors? Not that, if he turned out to be gay, it would make Peter’s actions acceptable. But it would definitely change things.

I’m also not sure how I feel about the ending. I will try to keep things spoiler-free, but if you plan to see this film, you should be warned: loneliness is terrible. And sometimes it makes an otherwise sensible person do nonsensical things.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

May 4, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment

2009 PHILADELPHIA FILM FESTIVAL/CINEFEST FEATURE!
Un-rated
91 minutes
Gargantuan Films

One and a half stars

“Sun Dogs,” which screened at the Philadelphia Film Festival/Cinefest and is written and directed by Jason Affolder, is another self-important movie about an underachieving 30-something who scrapes by on pseudo-philosophy. The protagonist is Michael (Matt Palumbo), a high school teacher on summer break. He makes money by donating plasma every 3 days and spends most of it on booze. In his spare time, he cavorts with, and dispenses advice to, a latchkey teenage boy. It takes a lot of chutzpah to write and direct movie like this. You have to be pretty confident that your dialogue is groundbreaking or, at the very least, realistic. If it isn’t, you’ll have a tedious mess on your hands. And that, my friends, is “Sun Dogs.”

When he’s not attached to a needle, swigging from a whiskey bottle on a park bench or selling contraband to teenagers, Michael likes a bit of karaoke. But he only does one song: “Cupid” by Sam Cooke. One evening, a girl named Ashley catches his performance and violently rips the mic away from him, before storming out. Thus begins their irritatingly complicated love affair. She doesn’t believe in love. He does. She doesn’t want a commitment. He does. She has secrets. He also has secrets. Will these secrets tear them apart?! Whatever!

Michael also spends a lot of time with a high school student named Andy, teaching him to drive and dispensing love advice. Andy is ignored by his single, working mother. You can tell she ignores him because they are out of cereal. In fact, this movie is full of hackneyed short-hand moments like that. Michael and Ashley are whimsical because they dance in the street when there’s no music! Chess is a metaphor for life! Puh-lease!

“Sun Dogs” is supposed to be about quirky, lonely people who say offbeat things that double as universal truths. It’s tries very hard to be “Me, You and Everyone We Know.” But Miranda July’s movie works because her story is full of humility. Her characters have real reactions to life as it happens to them. They take it one moment at a time. In “Sun Dogs,” the characters see everything as a metaphor for the big picture. Michael says things like “I’m watching the present become the past”, “You gotta pick the golden peanuts out of the shit pile” and “It’s an accidental world” and you can hear Affolder’s smugness in every line. There’s a desk calendar out there that could use his brand of wisdom. But in script format, it’s a bloated mess.

The dialog wouldn’t be so intolerable if the characters were at least somewhat interesting. But Affolder doesn’t give us any reason at all to care about them. So he’s a lonely teenager. So she’s a waitress who paints trees and doesn’t get along with her mother. So he’s a poor, alcoholic high school teacher. So what? Do they do or say anything we haven’t seen or heard before? The most interesting thing about Michael is that he has a beard. But then, at Ashley’s request, he shaves it. . . into a soul patch. He’s a soul patch kind of guy. How much do you want to bet that Jason Affolder also has a soul patch?

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

April 15, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: 1 Comment