Review: Grindhouse (2007)

"But back in the all or nothing days...they had real cars crashing into real cars and real dumb people driving 'em."

Grindhouse is a particularly hard film to review. Partly because, at over 3 hours, it consists of two movies, Planet Terror and Deathproof, and a couple of fake movie trailers. But mostly it’s difficult because Grindhouse is meant to be a throwback to the American “grindhouse” theaters of the 1970’s and the exploitation and B-movies that they showed, many times as double or triple features. And since it is 2012 and Grindhouse came out in 2007, I clearly did not see it in theaters, the way it was meant to be seen. The movies Grindhouse is trying to emulate were known to be terrible: ridiculous plots, little-to-no acting, and special effects that consisted of strings. So it’s hard to gauge what to base a review on. Should it be like any other movie and be defined by how good it is? Or should it be viewed as homage to grindhouse films, with mistakes and everything? Although it walks a very fine line, Grindhouse seems to be both well made and a frame-by-frame tribute.

The first movie, Robert Rodriguez’ Planet Terror, is basically a zombie movie. The acting is a little cheesy, but the plot itself is very tongue-in-cheek so it all kinda works together. What is really interesting is some of the technical choices. To simulate worn film from reels being transported across the US to various grindhouses, Rodriguez scratches the hell out of his film. It’s a unique and cool stylistic choice and definitely something you might never see again what with the (unfortunate) eminent demise of 35mm film in favor of digital. Also back in the heyday of grindhouses, films got shuffled around so much that poor handling resulted in a loss of reels from a movie. To get that accidental effect on purpose, Rodriguez cuts chunks out of the exposition and replaces it with stock footage with the phrase, “missing reel” (Tarantino does this for his film as well). It’s a cute little nod to the grindhouse era and ultimately we don’t lose anything important exposition-wise.

Quentin Tarantino’s section, Death Proof, is much less straightforward. His film is about a maniacal stunt driver who uses his “death-proof” car to kill young women. A couple of years ago I actually saw the standalone version of Death Proof with close to 30 minutes of footage added back to it and I honestly didn’t really like it. For whatever reason, Death Proof works much better with the missing reels and as the second part of a double feature. Still the first half of the film goes on much too long and just isn’t as interesting, funny, or action-packed as the second half. The plot itself is almost more ridiculous than Planet Terror, but Tarantino is a great director and is able to take the absurd and make it entertaining. As I previously mentioned, Tarantino edited the film down to the bare essentials with a handful of missing reels. However, as opposed to Planet Terror’s scratched up film, Death Proof is picture-perfect clean. It’s a bit odd when watched as the full-length double feature but probably unnoticeable on its own.

Each of the films is preceded by a duo of fake movie trailers made by famous directors in the vein of 70’s slasher and exploitation films: Robert Rodriguez gives us Machete (now an actual film), Rob Zombie offers Werewolf Women of the SS, from Edgar Wright Don’t, and finally Eli Roth made Thanksgiving. All four succeed very well, both as a send-up up of 70’s era trailers and as the director’s personal love letter to the genre films that inspired them.

Gun to my head, I'd be more likely to recommend Death Proof of the two. Planet Terror is a lot of fun but it's definitely not quite as well made or as unique as Death Proof. But they truly shine as a double feature.

Taken as a whole, Rodriguez and Tarantino give us two fast-paced action films with plenty of funny moments along with some bonus trailers just for fun. It’s entertaining, interesting, and a hands-on history lesson of 70’s exploitation films, but more than anything, Grindhouse is an experience.

 7/10

Follow @astraeus_

Review: The Cabin In The Woods (2012)

"Ok, I'm drawing a line in the fucking sand. Do NOT read the Latin!"

A couple of reviews ago, I mentioned 21 Jump Street being a smart and refreshing take on the tried and true clichés of both high school and cop movies. It was refreshing because those movies always seem to be the same. Now horror movies are completely different. They go through phases in popularity and have several sub-genres (slasher, psychological, zombie, torture-porn a.k.a. the Saw franchise, etc.) each coming in waves, dying off, and then being resurrected years later.

Remember when The Ring came out in 2002, scared everyone, and made Japan the go-to place for US remakes because Japan was the king of horror? Then a couple years later no one was scared anymore and all of a sudden we had remakes of “classic” horror movies rebooted so kids with cell phones could comprehend how terrifying Michael Meyers was. Remember when Saw and Hostel came out and made people sick with how twisted they were? Remember that resurgence of zombie films like 28 Days Later and the Dawn of the Dead remake leading up to The Walking Dead TV show that no one finds interesting anymore? How about Paranormal Activity and the other “found footage” documentary style horror films?

The point is, horror films seem to follow in waves, flood the market into not finding them scary any more, and then followed by another sub-genre. Repeat ad nauseam. If you can’t tell by this paragraph, I’m not a fan of horror films. I’ve seen plenty and I can safely say horror is my least favorite film genre. Movies like the Scream franchise briefly hold my attention with their lambasting of horror troupes, but overall they still fall into the same rhythm of that which they are making fun of. Why bring all of this up? Just so you believe me when I say that The Cabin in the Woods is easily the best horror film ever made and more importantly a phenomenal film in its own right.

The Cabin in the Woods follows five college students as they head out to the aforementioned cabin in the aforementioned woods for a weekend that takes a dark turn. What sounds like a routine horror movie quickly turns into something more, but revealing anything more robs the viewer of the rich experience this film creates. From the masterminds of Drew Goddard (2008’s Cloverfield, several episodes of LOST, Buffy, Alias, and Angel) and Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, 2005’s Serenity, 2008’s Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, and the upcoming blockbuster The Avengers), The Cabin in the Woods reinvents the genre as a whole. Yes, like Scream, Cabin takes on the basic conventions of horror movies and derides them. But Cabin offers more. As the world-building continues throughout the film, we’re given this grand, sci-fi backstory that’s positively enthralling. Most importantly though is once you take a step back and look at the bigger picture Cabin paints, you realize that its backstory is able to make other horror movies relevant. How many other films can honestly say that they make other, unrelated movies more interesting and purposeful? I can’t say too much more without spoiling anything, but suffice to say, Cabin is a game changer.

The acting is top notch from everyone. Audience favorite, Fran Kranz is absolutely hilarious along with the mysterious duo Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford. Whedon and Goddard wrote a fantastic script with wit and charm and the shot composition and editing are great as well with nothing feeling superfluous or distracting. David Julyan’s (composer for Memento and The Prestige) soundtrack is John Carpenter-esque but with a modern feel.

The one weakness I discovered was on my second viewing of the film. Everything was better, except for the actual horror scenes. Things that made me jump the first time, didn’t elicit much of a reaction at all the second time. It could be that very few movies genuinely scare me or maybe the movie is too smart for it’s own good. But no matter, either way The Cabin in the Woods is a must see, and unlike anything you’ve witnessed before. And I’ll go ahead and say this: The Cabin in the Woods is the best film of the year so far.

9/10

Follow @astraeus_

Review: Clerks (1994)

"I ASSURE YOU; WE'RE OPEN."

In 1994, Kevin Smith made his directional debut with this film, chronicling a day in the life of a convenience store clerk. It’s shot in black and white, is incredibly low budget, and ultimately, a very good film. Clerks is a once in a lifetime type of movie.

Successful directors usually only have such a raw output once before they are given a bigger budget (Christopher Nolan’s first film Following is a prime example). Other times we only see it in hard to find shorts or student films. Kevin Smith’s technique is flawed yet speaks volumes to his potential as a director. Smith reportedly shot Clerks with a measly $27,575. For those not in the know, $27k is a tiny budget. It’s shocking you can even make a film that cheap (although Robert Rodriguez’ first film, El Mariachi, was made with only $7,000!). What’s more shocking, is Clerks went on to gross over $3 million at the box office. I think anyone who’s even thought of making a movie before should be in awe of that astronomical difference.

But there’s a reason it grossed that much. At its heart, Clerks is a film that deconstructs the day-to-day grind of working in a dead-end job and questions why we do it. Probably one of the biggest details Smith gets right is the dialog. Conversations play out like they would between real people. Petty debates and arguments are routine among friends in reality. Smith captures that spirit in Dante and Randal’s conversations (played by Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson respectively), whether it’s about annoying customers or the innocent victims in Star Wars. Aside from Quentin Tarantino’s movies, few films capture the spirit of actual conversation. There is a good reason for that: real life conversations are boring. Luckily this movie is about boredom so pointless dialog is actually appropriate for once.

Clerks is not without it’s flaws though. From the poor lighting on the external shots to the random cut away shots to feet during conversations, it’s obvious that this was a first time director on a budget. And those mistakes can be forgiven in the context of the film. Less forgivable, however, is the acting. I don’t think there is a single performance that can be considered good. Passable, yes, but good? Sorry. Thankfully, the film rarely flirts with bad performances. Occasionally, lines seem simply read but never enough to derail the film. Dante’s continuous quote, “I’m not even supposed to be here today,” borders on the melodramatic at times and are really the only moments that the film noticeably breaks the illusion of disbelief. One could argue that as Clerks is meant to mirror reality and the uneventful life that the acting is good because that is how real people actually talk and act, but I’m not buying it.

Still, despite its flaws, Clerks is a worthwhile film. Anyone who has ever worked in retail or any monotonous job will find similarities to their life and it’s nice to see a film tackle the idea of a dead-end life without throwing some cliché, Hollywood life lesson that nicely wraps everything up. And anyone interested in early, low budget works by big named directors will be thoroughly enjoyed.

6/10



Follow @astraeus_

Review: 21 Jump Street (2012)

 

"You are here because you some Justin Beaver, Miley Cyrus lookin' muthas."



 




Remakes are a tricky bag. Hollywood has been churning out reboots of movies and TV shows for so long now, that most people groan at the thought of having to sit through another one. They usually are either exactly the same (or maybe slightly modernized) or so different that they really have little in common with the original. Occasionally the remake is critically lauded, sometimes even over the original (2010’s True Grit comes to mind but 2007’s 3:10 To Yuma and 1983’s Scarface both work). But really those are the minority. Most remakes are cliché, pointless, and a testament to the “there’s no new ideas in Hollywood” mentality. 21 Jump Street is not one of those films.

Based on the 1987 TV series of the same name, 21 Jump Street follows two cops who go undercover as high school students trying to bust a drug ring open. My extent of knowledge on the TV series, other than it being the jump off point to Johnny Depp’s career, starts and ends with the basic premise. And honestly it’s a pretty ridiculous idea that grown men and women could go undercover in a high school. Luckily for moviegoers, this 21 Jump Street makes it clear pretty quickly that everyone involved knows how outlandish this idea is, and continually makes fun of it. From early on, directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller lambast the original show, as well as high school and buddy cop movie tropes. And it’s easily one of the funniest films of the year.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum star as the two aforementioned cops each complementing the other one; Hill is a brainiac and lousy at physical exertion while Tatum is fine with running and jumping but not so good at tests. They’re predictably asked to adopt identities similar to their own but they accidentally switch profiles while in school, leaving the athletic Tatum to hang with the nerds and dorky Hill to chill with the cool kids. Much of the drama derives from this simple setup whether it’s Tatum coming to terms with Hill being the new cool kid or Hill awkwardly auditioning for the school play.

The real humor of the movie lies in it’s satire of conventions of both the high school and the cop movie. Tatum is stunned to find out on the first day of school that the cool kids now care about the environment, get straight A’s, and in general are nicer to other people. It’s a clear sign that someone is actually paying attention to modern high schools and not just rehashing The Breakfast Club stereotypes. Honestly, I’m not sure what other people’s high school experiences were, but this is about as close as it comes to what high school was like for me. And that’s a refreshing change from literally any other high school-related media in recent memory (I’m looking squarely at you, Glee). Tired of how in every car in every cop movie (or anything in a Michael Bay movie) explodes regardless of context? 21 Jump Street plays that up. Annoyed that Hollywood keeps rehashing the same storylines in movies and hope you never notice? 21 Jump Street goes there. Nothing is off limits and the jokes land whether in context of the story or as a meta-analysis of the genre(s).

On the acting side of things, Jonah Hill is predictably good and well suited to the role (he actually co-created the story the screenplay was based on). But the real highlight is Channing Tatum. It’s no secret I’ve never really thought too much of him, but Jump Street proves he has the chops. He lands both the funniest jokes and the most dramatic moments and can switch between them seamlessly. Also of note is Dave Franco (James Franco’s younger brother). I’ve been a hopeful fan of his since Funny or Die’s Acting with James Franco web videos and he was a highlight on the otherwise dismal ninth season of Scrubs, so it’s nice to finally see him get a decent role in a quality production.

Overall, it’s a solid film from start to finish and the jokes are still funny on a second viewing (a problem with most comedies). Remakes rarely live up to the expectations of the original, but 21 Jump Street surpasses it’s television roots by leaps and bounds with it’s sharp script and invigorating performances by all involved.


8/10


Follow @astraeus_

Review: Blood Simple (1984)

"Well, ma'am, if I see him, I'll sure give him the message."











Before the review, we’re gonna have to jump into a small film history lesson to talk about a specific film movement called ‘film noir.’ Noir is hard to classify but the consensus usually falls that it is not a genre (like a western or a comedy), but a film with a specific mood and feel to it. Obviously this is very subjective so what films constitute a noir and even what noir itself needs to have to be considered a noir are always dependent on the individual. Well somehow, most critics did come to a somewhat vague consensus that film noir is pretty much a descriptor of certain dark, crime films from the 1940’s (this is an incredibly loose definition in order to get to the point). Thus any film since that era that uses some of the same tropes are typically called ‘neo-noirs.’ With a collection of antiheroes, unusual camera angles, and prominent use of Chiaroscuro (light and shadows), Blood Simple is one of those films.

From 1984, Blood Simple is the debut film by the now famous Coen brothers. Joel Coen directed, Ethan Coen produced, and the two wrote the screenplay together. For the past 28 years, the Coen brothers have been a critically acclaimed, filmmaking machine and have been nominated for Academy Awards 33 times. They continue to impress audiences with their unconventional approach to genre films and an increasingly sharp wit. What’s truly impressive is that everything great about the Coen brother’s films can be seen in their earliest form in Blood Simple. The plot itself is dense and filled with double crossings, love triangles, and drawn out suspense. It’s dark and incredibly thrilling. And yet, somehow despite the murders and betrayals, Blood Simple manages to create some genuinely funny moments. It’s a testament both to the Coen brother’s intellect and vision and to the commitment from the actors.

Of particular note are the performances of Frances McDormand and M. Emmet Walsh both of whom really make the characters their own. Much of the aforementioned humor comes from Walsh’s portrayal of the private detective, Loren Visser, who does much of the double crossing. At first glance, Visser seems like a bumbling redneck in a 10-gallon hat with a goofy smile, but in Walsh’s talented hands, there is a real dark tenacity to him. We’re laughing with him at one minute, then scared of what he might do next. It’s a complete shift and like any great actor, you can see this shift in his eyes.

Frances McDormand plays the female lead and in a traditional noir, she would be the femme fatale. The Femme fatale usually was a seductive woman who would charm multiple people (including the main character) into dangerous situations and are typically considered villains. However in Blood Simple, Frances McDormand’s Abby seems much more innocent. Yes, her involvement in an affair ends up in several deaths, but unlike classic noir women, it was never her intention and she is genuinely shocked when someone is killed. It’s an interesting twist on a classic archetype, but this is the Coen brothers and that is usually one of their signatures.

On the technical side, the shot composition and cinematography are absolutely great. The entire roadside sequence is a classic, and is such a treat in lighting, editing, and pacing. This was cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld’s first film, yet it looks like a seasoned veteran did it (Interestingly enough Sonnenfeld would later move to the director’s chair and direct the Men In Black trilogy, Get Shorty, The Adams Family, and…Wild Wild West. Well, we can’t all be perfect.).

Blood Simple is a thrilling ride and a great historical lesson on all things Coen brothers and neo-noir. But make no mistake, you don’t need to be a fan of the Coen brothers or possess any knowledge on a niche cinema style to enjoy this well-crafted movie.


7/10


Follow @astraeus_

The Instruction Manual

By now our loyal readers (Hi Jake!) should be used to the basic format for the posts, but I’d like to briefly delve into our review system to better explain our thoughts on scoring a film. At Chaz and Ryan Love Movies we use a scale of ‘1’ to ‘10’, with ‘1’ being the lowest score and ‘10’ being the highest. On this scale, if a film gets a ‘1’, it is an abysmally bad experience. Any number of things can lead to this but usually it’s a combination of aspects including, but not limited to: lackluster direction, stiff “acting”, incomprehensible scripts, messy editing, bad sound mixing, generic or inappropriate-placed soundtracking, etc. A perfect example of a film that would score a ‘1’ would be Plan 9 From Outer Space. Unless you are watching Plan 9 to make fun of it, there is literally nothing redeemable about this “film.” Basically any film we give a ‘1’ through ‘4’ to, is a movie we recommend not seeing unless, of course, you enjoy pain.

By that logic, a ‘5’ on our scale results in an average film. Some things they get right, some things they screw up beyond belief. Usually a film with a ‘5’ gets a lot of technical aspects right (although never exceeds them) but the fault usually lies in the scripting, acting, or overall direction. Once again, these are by no means bad movies; they are simply average and, unfortunately in some cases, forgettable. These films will be the hardest to review as there simply isn’t too much to say and likewise, we can neither recommend nor discourage you from seeing it. If you’ve been following us for a minute now, my review of Puss In Boots should suffice as an example.

Now anything that gets a ‘6’ or higher we recommend that you try and see. Whether that’s in theaters, download, rented, Netflix’d, or purchased on home video (Blu-Ray is the official format here at Chaz and Ryan Love Movies), these are all worth your valuable time. At about an ‘8’, the film in question is a truly great movie and you should really try and see it in theaters. Trust us, it’s worth the ticket price. Also if you’re curious, anything we give a ‘7’ or higher to, we usually deem a purchase and add to our own, vast Blu-Ray/DVD collections.

If all of this makes sense so far, than it should not surprise you that a ‘10’ is something we consider a perfect film. Obviously perfection is something that is very personal, but in general these lucky few are able to make every aspect of film production flawless. And while it’s not required, these movies usually follow Chaz and I’s theory on film being the ideal merger between entertainment and art. To get an idea of what I’d personally consider a perfect film, these are a handful of movies I’d give a ‘10’ to: Drive, Inception, The Shawshank Redemption, Shutter Island, Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Rear Window, The Social Network, Gone Baby Gone, Contact, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Prestige, and The Fountain. Don’t expect to see a lot of ‘10’s; perfection is hard to come by. Likewise, don’t expect a bunch of ‘1’s. The likelyhood of having more than five of either score in a year is incredibly low.

A majority of movies are average, not terrible or incredible despite what Rotten Tomatoes or your local newspaper will tell you. And since we choose the movies we watch (rather than being assigned), we’ll be a lot less likely to see something that we think looks terrible (if you’re holding your breath for a Transformers 4 review, give up now). Therefore you may notice a trend of ‘6’s and ‘7’s, but keep in mind that is a positive score here. Hope this clears up any questions you might have had about the reviews. If not, hit us up in the comment section or on Twitter.

Follow @astraeus_

Follow @chazclassic

Review: The Secret World Of Arrietty (2012)

"Human beings are dangerous. If we're seen, we have to leave."

*This review concerns the English dubbing of the film and thus will reference the US version’s titles, translation, and release dates*

Japan’s Studio Ghibli produces some of the finest films in the world. Since 1985, the studio has been churning out quality picture after quality picture. Their hard work culminated at the 75^th Academy Awards where Studio Ghibli’s Spirited Away won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, the very first time (and one of only two overall) for a non-US film to win. I love the films Ghibli create. I’ve seen them all and, save for one (I’m looking at you Pom Poko), I highly recommend checking out their full catalog. Studio Ghibli’s founder and key player is Hayao Miyazaki who wrote and directed 9 out of 18 of the studio’s films and produced four others (of those, he wrote the screenplays for two of them). The man has a perfect track record and is easily one of my favorite directors. For The Secret World Of Arrietty, Miyazaki serves as a developing planner and the co-writer of the screenplay. Miyazaki’s usual themes of environmentalism and feminism are still interwoven throughout the story (based on Mary Norton’s The Borrowers), but first time director Hiromasa Yonebayashi puts his own touches to this heartwarming and exciting tale.


The plot revolves around Arrietty, voiced by Bridgit Mendler, and her family of “little people” or “borrowers” who live in the cupboards of a human family’s house. They take small things the humans would never notice/miss in order to survive. They range from a single sugar cube or one tissue or the tiniest scraps of fabric. When a young sickly boy, Shawn (voiced by David Henrie), spots Arrietty, her family must make the difficult decision to either stay in the comfort of their home and risk more humans finding them or traverse harsh conditions to find a new one. It’s a fun story that does an excellent job of making you care about the characters.


The voice acting is good, but not amazing. David Henrie in particular seems out of place and lacking. It’s interesting to note that Disney (who distributes all of the Ghibli films outside of Japan) seems to be using their position in casting the English voice actors to use it as a platform for their own Disney channel stars (both the two mentioned earlier are from Wizards of Waverly Place, while 2009’s Ponyo had both Noah Cyrus and Frankie Jonas in the main roles who’s older siblings were on Disney’s biggest shows at the time). I only mention this because earlier releases saw big names like Christian Bale & Emily Mortimer (2005’s Howl’s Moving Castle), Claire Danes & Billy Bob Thornton (1999’s Princess Mononoke), and Michael Keaton & Cary Elwes (1992’s Porco Rosso). I’m not sure if Disney is getting less and less of a budget to attract big stars or their just choosing young stars from their own roster, but Ponyo and Arrietty both had much weaker voice acting than the previous Ghibli dubs.


What is amazing, however, is the animation and attention to detail. Not since Pixar’s Toy Story have we been able to see such a tiny world seem incredibly massive. From a drop of dew on a leaf, to the heft of a single sugar cube, to the sprawling forest that is the human’s backyard, The Secret World of Arrietty creates a grand narrative out of the smallest details. The animation is bright and fluid, as it always is with Ghibli films. Whether Arrietty is running from the house cat through the grass or a crow on the roof, the animation never rests and is absolutely breathtaking.


Of final note to Ghibli aficionados like myself, The Secret World of Arrietty marks the first major Studio Ghibli release to use a composer other than the veritable Joe Hisaishi. Instead, director Yonebayashi went with French singer Cécile Corbel. Trading Hisaishi’s piano for harp lines, Corbel creates lush atmospheres with tinges of both Celtic and Japanese sounds. Ultimately, I think it works. A new director’s fresh take on a classic story matched with a new composer to give a unique and different feel to anything else Studio Ghibli has released.

8/10


Follow @astraeus_