2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Rated PG-13
95 minutes
Olympus Pictures

**

I first became aware of Aspergers, a high functioning form of autism, when a contestant on America’s Next Top Model announced she was suffering from it. It was pretty fascinating watching a lanky, pale, and extremely awkward girl attempt to navigate the ridiculous “challenges” that Tyra threw at her and to try and fit in with the other girls. She blamed her Aspergers for nearly every failure, explaining that it hindered her from understanding normal social interaction. Of course, the conditions of ANTM are hardly “normal.”

I longed to see what it was like for an Aspergers sufferer in a more realistic setting. That why I was really excited to see “Adam,” a film about a young man with Aspergers who falls in love with his neighbor. I don’t know what I was thinking.

I find nearly every film about mentally challenged characters excruciating to watch. I’m embarrassed for the actors in their Oscar Bait roles. I’m embarrassed for everyone in the theatre laughing and awing at the “retards say the darndest things” moments. And I’m embarrassed for myself for choosing to spend 90 or so minutes with these people. None of these movies ever come close to accurately depicting what it’s like to live with mental challenges.

While it’s not quite “The Other Sister,” “Adam” is no exception. People with Aspergers can’t comprehend sarcasm, jokes, or behavioral nuances. Adam takes everything literally, which of course results in numerous instances of wacky misunderstanding, dramatic outbursts, and people learning shit about each other and themselves.

When Beth moves into Adam’s New York apartment building, she is immediately drawn to him because he’s cute, like an Aspercrombie and Fitch model. Having just been dumped, Beth is vulnerable and desperate and, mistaking his condition for eccentricity, makes her interest known. He is likewise quite lonely, having just lost his father. They embark on an unlikely courtship involving makeshift planetariums and midnight raccoon watching in Central Park.

Challenges arise when Adam loses his job as an Electronics Engineer and Beth’s father (Peter Gallagher and his delightful eyebrows) is criminally charged with corporate nepotism. Beth must teach Adam how to interview for a new job and come to terms with her father’s potential guilt. She must also deal with her father’s (perfectly natural) disapproval of her relationship with Adam.

The drama is balanced with comic relief from the aforementioned misunderstandings, as well as Adam’s interaction with his obligatory friend of normal intelligence, a sassy construction worker. The parallels were already quite apparent, but I knew I completely hated this movie when writer/director Max Mayer directly references the most insulting of the half-retard movies. Beth offers Adam some chocolate and he refuses, saying, “I’m not Forrest Gump.” This groaner is delivered in such a smug manner that I wouldn’t be surprised if they had based the entire script around that line. If you trade stars for shrimp, “Adam” is actually pretty close to Gump. And that’s why the Hallmark crowd will eat it up. But as for me, I’m not buying it.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 23, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Rated R
95 minutes
Soudaine Compagnie

**

“The Girl From Monaco” is party buddy-comedy, part romantic tragedy. If it had been more of the former than the latter, perhaps I would have liked it. But I am so tired or stories about men who are powerless against the wiles of a Succubus.

What’s a succubus, you might ask? Well, it’s somewhat synonymous with a Femme Fatale – a woman who uses her sexuality to manipulate men into doing whatever she wants, usually to their detriment. However, a Succubus is different because she doesn’t seem dangerous at first. She’s usually fun and flirty and might even seem a little simple. But she knows what she’s doing. She finds a target and puts her claws into them, not letting go until they’ve convinced themselves they’re in love with her. Audrey (Louise Bourgoin), the titular girl, is one of those ladies. A townie from Monaco, she meets a Parisian lawyer named Bertrand (Fabrice Luchini) who is there working on a case. Inevitably, he allows her to worm her way into his life and wreak havoc.

Audrey is a local weather girl who got her start, naturally, on a reality TV show. In addition to musical weather reporting (it’s true, Succubi love to sing), she also reports short human-interest stories. She decides to do one on Bertrand so that she can get closer to him. It’s clear from the start that Audrey has sugar-baby ambitions. She’s not very smart but she knows how to make a man do what she wants. In Bertrand, she sees the opportunity to have a life of leisure in Paris.

Since Bertrand is working on a high-profile case, he is assigned a bodyguard named Cristophe (Roschdy Zem). Christophe is a serious and straight-laced guy with a direct manner of speaking. Physically, he’s a cross between Lou Ferrigno and President Obama. He also happens to be Audrey’s ex. (Not that it’s a coincidence. Apparently, she’s slept with everyone on the island. Like, literally.) Contrasted with the irrational, shortsighted Bertram, Christophe’s way of handing things is pretty amusing. That’s the buddy-comedy aspect that could have worked. But this movie isn’t called “The Lawyer and the Bodyguard.” It’s the fucking “Girl From Monaco.” So instead of hilarious differences of opinion and high-speed chases, it’s scene after scene of Bertram being suckered by a Succubus.

Bertrand is supposed to be an awesome lawyer – a miracle worker. But he’s bumbling and a terrible judge of character. He has issues with two other women before encountering Audrey, both of them failures in some capacity or another. Clearly Audrey isn’t an exception to his normally discerning love life. He’s actually kind of a schmuck too. It makes it hard to feel sorry for him.

For a while, it makes things a little more fun to imagine Christophe as Barack Obama, securing perimeters and dispensing advice. But mostly, it’s annoying watching Bertrand fall for Audrey’s shit over and over again. And then Christophe proves that he’s learned nothing from his own past with Audrey. Oh, Mr. President! How could you?! If some men are really like this, I don’t want to know about it.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 22, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
90 minutes
Cowboy Films

***

Welcome to the Nut House. Our guide, known simply as N, is a career outpatient nutter, living off British government-provided “Mad Money” and a happy hour cocktail of anti-psychotic medications. A bit of a loner, she’s clearly comfortable with the life she’s carved out. It’s not until she meets a new, reluctant patient named Poppy Shakespeare that she starts to question her routine and the policies at Dorothy Fish Day Hospital.

N begins by telling us, “It weren’t my fault, what happened to Poppy,” so straight away we know something bad is going to happen to the vivacious woman who is brought to the Dorothy Fish against her will. Poppy claims she took a test as part of a job interview and the next thing she knew, she was in the loony bin. She certainly seems sane enough. But then again, we’re seeing this entire tale through the eyes of a potentially unreliable narrator. After all, N is a mental patient, even if she is working the system.

Poppy and N strike up an unlikely friendship after N is assigned to show Poppy the ropes. In the process of helping Poppy prove her sanity, they uncover a tragic Catch 22. In order to hire a mental health lawyer to prove she’s not crazy, Poppy must receive Mad Money. In order to receive Mad Money, she must prove she is crazy. N must teach Poppy a skill that she’s perfected for years – how to act loony. Even without N’s forewarning, we know this can’t end well.

It may be called “Poppy Shakespeare,” but this is really N’s story. She doesn’t talk much about her past, but that’s probably because there isn’t much to tell. She goes to meetings, grabs her drugs, and goes on her merry way. She doesn’t have to work. She doesn’t have much of a social life. It’s the same thing every day. Once a year, in order to stay in the program, she must really pour on the crazy for a panel assessment. She’s a professional. But when Poppy’s attempts to prove her sanity start to take a real toll on her mental state, everything changes for N. Our protagonist starts to realize just how crazy she’s not. Tragically, N’s tutelage is a bit too effective for Poppy’s own good.

“Poppy” takes a cue from early Mike Leigh films, depicting the dark side of London with muted tones and apocalyptic speeches. The colors are especially engaging when they contrast with occasional brightness, such as N’s pallid, makeup-free face against her signature red coat. Poppy starts out so vibrant, strong and sweet that you become as smitten with her as N. It’s heartbreaking when things don’t go according to plan.

The supporting cast of crazies does dip into the realm of cliché. They seem to be trying too hard and their paranoid rants are fairly tedious. I couldn’t help but gloss over during the scenes they dominated. Then again, maybe that’s the point. After so many years dealing with those people, perhaps N has begun to tune them out as well. It’s difficult to know what the real story is when you’re seeing things through the eyes of a mental patient.

On the whole, the film is emotional, weird, and occasionally beautiful. It’s painful watching these two women attempt to navigate a system that seems more interested in statistics than in the people it was designed to help. It’s not a groundbreaking film by any means and it doesn’t quite hit all its marks, but you’d have to be mental not to find something to like about “Poppy Shakespeare.”

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 22, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
Un-rated
89 minutes
Film Polski

**

Forgiveness is hard for some people. It’s especially hard for Joanna, an entomology professor and the daughter of a famous Polish politician from the 50’s. After celebrating her 40th wedding anniversary with her husband, Jan, she finds an unlabeled VHS tape in a pile of gifts. On it is a news program alleging that when they met, Jan was actually a secret agent for the Polish secret service and that their marriage was a sham designed to uncover possible communist ties. There is no indication of who brought the tape or why. But that doesn’t stop Joanna from being immediately suspicious of her husband. Of course he denies it. And even if it were true, it’s clear that he has truly loved her for quite some time. As he aptly puts it, “Who, if not you, knows what sort of man I am?” But she doesn’t listen. She is consumed with mistrust and anger. Her emotions propel her into a deep depression. She becomes extremely cruel, not letting him touch or even talk to her. She locks herself in her office where she eats and sleeps, doing everything in her power to avoid him while she attempts to obtain proof of his guilt.

Joanna completely unravels as a result of this supposed betrayal. Jan is understandably frustrated. He tries absolutely everything in his power to reason with her. But she won’t have it. And it’s awful to watch. You’re never sure when she plans to stop being a bitch and leave him, believe him or forgive him. She takes a leave of absence from her job. She waters plants in the dark. She loses a taste for food and can only eat cereal. She basically goes mental and her poor husband can do nothing but watch it happen. He makes one final attempt at reaching her by calling in their daughter to talk some sense into her. The daughter tells Joanna that her father was the only one who was ever there for her. He couldn’t have been a fraud because he was the better parent. She listens stone-faced and then throws up to get away from the intervention.

The themes of the Polish film “Scratch” are certainly interesting – the notion that one’s entire life could have been a lie, consumption by unsubstantiated suspicion, past indiscretions coming back to haunt you – but Joanna is so awful to Jan from the first second she suspects him that it’s incredibly hard to feel sorry for her, whether or not he is guilty. The film moves very slowly with scene after scene of slamming doors and one-sided conversations. You’re constantly wondering where this story is going and it’s a little boring waiting for it to get there. The ending arrives abruptly with no real resolution.

There’s nothing enjoyable about this film. No jokes. No tender moments. No reason to care about the woman who takes up the majority of the celluloid. We never get a chance to become emotionally invested. If Joanna had been developed as nice at first or if we’d seen more of them as a happy couple maybe we could see this as an otherwise good person stripped of her rationality through grief. But the scene with the daughter implies that she was always this self-absorbed and distant. So why should we care what happens to her? Let her be alone with her cereal and her bugs.

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 17, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

2009 SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL FEATURE!
un-rated
83 minutes

****

In case you may have forgotten, human beings can do really awful things to each other. Most of the time, the people behaving badly are adults who should know better. Sometimes, these people are even parents. And sometimes the victims are children. Just because we know these things can happen, it doesn’t make it any easier to take. And it certainly doesn’t make it easy to watch films like “talhotblond.”

“talhotblond,” which screened at this year’s Seattle International Film Festival, is a documentary about a cyber love triangle between a middle-aged man named Tom (handle: marinesniper) an 18-year-old girl named Jessi (handle: talhotblond) and his 22-year-old factory coworker named Brian (handle: beefcake). Tom insists that it started innocently enough. He was a former Marine. Bored and in a marital rut, Tom began chatting online with Jessi. When she told him he was in a room for teens, he panicked and told her he was 18. The lie quickly snowballed and soon, he’d created an elaborate alter-ego. He was Tommy, a young Marine in boot camp who was about to be shipped off to Iraq. Their chatting turned sexual and their “relationship” escalated to the point where Jessi actually believed Tommy would marry her. The tide turned when Tom’s wife found a pair of Jessi’s underpants that she’d mailed to him. Tom was forced to come clean. Jessi then became involved (also via the internet) with Brian, Tom’s more age-appropriate co-worker. Jealously and anger erupted for both Tom and Jessi. And then one day, Brian was found dead, shot by a sniper rifle in the factory parking lot.

Whilst watching “talhotblond,” I could not help recalling a story I read last year about a little girl who hung herself in her closet because she was devastated by the derogatory messages she was receiving via MySpace from a classmate. These messages suggested, among other things, that everyone hated this little girl and that the world would be better without her. It turned out the person writing these messages was not her classmate after all, but her classmate’s mother.

For some people, it’s easy to convince themselves that damaging behavior won’t actually hurt anyone or that they have good reason to be doing bad things. Tom says that he tried to end the relationship several times but Jessi always re-instigated it. Even after she knew he was a creepy old man. He claims he was helpless to her wiles. He makes excuses about how he got in the situation in the first place. He was bored, lonely and impotent. He was in the shit. He never intended it to go so far. But most of the time, even if it doesn’t end in death, a relationship with a teenage girl will never end well. Because of the nature of the internet, it was so easy for Tom to lie to Jessi. But he never once contemplated the notion that it’s just as easy for other people. The outcome of these lies wouldn’t have been so tragic if they’d just hurt the people telling them. Unfortunately, the people hurt most were the ones who’d only ever been themselves.

The tale of “talhotblond” is extremely devastating its own. But the film’s structure, narrated by an actor playing Brian from beyond the grave, sucks the audience further into the story. There is also a great deal of text montage, showing excerpts from the actual instant message conversations that took place between the 3 key players. The amount of natural foreshadowing in these conversations is staggering. Interviews with a philosophical detective working on the case and a shockingly matter-of-fact Tom keep the viewer riveted to the bitter, bomb-dropping end.

But what echoes in my ears doubles as the moral of the story. The aforementioned detective philosopher says this whole situation, as well as most frivolous and stupid crimes, could have been avoided if people only followed this very basic advice: “Be nice. Don’t lie.”

Originally posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

June 16, 2009
Categories: Filmpinions . Tags: filmthreat . Author: Baxter . Comments: Leave a comment

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