"Hannibal," Year One

Spoilers for the first season ahead.

I've had such a love hate relationship with this show. On the one hand it's one of the most visually interesting crime dramas on television, thanks to the efforts of Bryan Fuller and crew. The cast is also to die for, with Mads Mikkelsen as an irresistible new version of Dr. Hannibal Lecter, and good supporting work from Lawrence Fishburne, Caroline Dhavernas, and Gillian Anderson. Hugh Dancy is still not quite up to par, but his performance grew on me eventually. I like that the corpses of the week often make me physical recoil in a way that I hadn't since the weirder episodes of "The X-files." I like that the case-of-the-week format is largely abandoned by the second half of the season to focus on the interactions of the main cast and the fallout of a single case that had been solved in the first episode. And even when it is tracking down guest star murderers, it doesn't play by the rules, paying far less attention to working out the weekly mystery than exploring what the new mystery means for the increasingly tenuous mental state of Will Graham.

On the other hand, "Hannibal" is often a slog, featuring long, long dialogue scenes of Will in psychoanalysis and puzzling his way through the various motives of the murders. The show's cental conflict between the FBI and Hannibal is sometimes wonderfully tense and thrilling to watch, and sometimes feels like they are going around in endless circles, dragging things out. It doesn't help that nobody in this show talks like a normal person, not the agents, not the lab tech comic relief, and not even the teenage girls. Instead, it's reams of obsessive exposition, often in the form of repetitive arguments and interrogations. Aside from Hannibal, everyone seems eager to recite what they're feeling at any particular moment with hardly any cueing. This is necessary for a show that is so concerned with the inner workings of Will's mind and tracking Hannibal's manipulations, but sometimes they lay it on way too thick. Alana and Will's romance predictably goes nowhere because within a few seconds of making her attraction clear, Alana is reciting all the reasons why the pair wouldn't work together, providing a very professional self-diagnosis of all her neuroses.

More troubling are the constant logic leaps the audience is expected to swallow - Jack insisting that Abigail Hobbs should be investigated as an accomplice to murder with hardly any evidence, Will failing to get a second opinion after the mysterious death of his physician, and the remarkably rushed introduction and dispatching of Abigail's best friend who coincidentally looks almost exactly like she does. Lord Dark Helmet once declared that "evil will always triumph, because good is dumb," but this was pushing things. I'm usually pretty forgiving of genre shows, but I do expect the basic plotting to be more solid, especially when we're talking about a show where all the main cast members are highly intelligent FBI agents or doctors or both. I really dislike how Jack Crawford is too often about as perceptive as a brick. If I were to suggest any improvements for next season, it would be to ease up on the "Shining" references and pay more attention to ensuring that the characters' actions make sense.

Last night's finale episode was one of the strongest of the season, though, and provided some very satisfactory payoff to weeks of escalating tensions. I expect I'd like "Hannibal" better if I watched multiple episodes in one sitting, giving the febrile atmosphere more of a chance to work its way into my skull. I may have my reservations about the overly analytical dialogue, but it does fit this heightened, stylized world that "Hannibal" exists in, where the most horrific crimes are often rendered exquisite through Hannibal's dinners and the artfully arranged crime scenes. The show evokes the creeps on very visceral level, but often understated or intellectualized in a way that makes them much more effective. No other horror series I've seen, not even the more graphic "Dexter" and "American Horror Story," has been more consistently disturbing. And as often as it's dull, it can be very clever. I loved the final scene of last night's episode, with that wonderful reversal on the most famous Hannibal Lecter appearance.

And finally, it was all worth it for Mads Mikkelsen's version of Hannibal Lecter, who is one of the best television characters I've met in some time. I'm glad the show's creators haven't been afraid to depart from their source material and expand on the characters in such delightful ways. "Hannibal" is far darker and more daring that I could have every hoped for, and has turned out to be a very good fit for television. I'm not convinced it's as good as some of its fans insist, but I'm looking forward to next year.
---

Read More

"Hannibal" Comes to Dinner

I'm not sure what I was expecting when NBC announced that they were doing a television show about the early days of Hannibal Lecter, but I didn't think that they'd go so far as to make "Hannibal" an actual horror program. We've seen some fairly intense and violent crime procedurals in recent years, like the early days of "Criminal Minds," but "Hannibal" pushes much farther, giving us shocking, yet tasteful blood and gore in amounts I don't believe I've ever seen on network television before. We're not in "American Horror Story" or "Dexter" territory, but it's pretty close.

This is only one of many interesting elements that "Hannibal" has going for it. However, this is one of those series that looks like it's going to need some time for the actors to settle into their roles, and for the writers to work out the dynamics of the characters' relationships. For instance, there's our main character, Will Graham (Hugh Dancy), a criminal profiler with the FBI, who has been reimagined as having unusually strong empathy that he can use to place himself in the mindset of killers and work out their motives and intentions. The price of this gift is severe social anxiety and other autism spectrum impediments. He has to be coaxed into participating in the FBI's latest serial killer manhunt by Agent Crawford (Laurence Fishburne). Dancy makes Graham nervous and awkward and a bit of a mumbler. He's not compelling yet, but he could be, depending on where his character arc takes him.

And then we have Mads Mikkelsen, the Danish actor who was recruited for a new take on Dr. Hannibal Lecter. His thick accent requires some sharp attention to penetrate, but he brings such a great presence to the screen. Lecter is not the subject of tonight's first manhunt, but rather a highly respected psychiatrist and forensic scientist who is brought in to consult on the case, eventually partnering up with Will Graham. The creators have a lot of fun hinting at his future depravities, showing multiple scenes of him eating servings of meat with carnivorous relish, and advising a nervous patient on the nature of fear. Lecter doesn't do much in the first episode, and doesn't even appear onscreen until the halfway mark. However, it is quickly established that his degree of moral turpitude is murky at best. He helps both sides in the case, exuding the appropriate amounts of charisma and menace as needed. No Anthony Hopkins impersonations here. None needed.

A few other characters are briefly introduced, including Dr. Alana Bloom (Caroline Dhavernas), another profiler who Agent Crawford goes to for help, and who the previews suggest will become Will Graham's major love interest. Hettienne Park, Aaron Abrams, and Scott Thompson (yes, from "Kids in the Hall") pop up as crime scene investigators, who provide rounds of helpful exposition with each new corpse. This is going to be a very dialogue-heavy show, as most crime procedurals are, and it's clear that our two leads haven't quite got the hang of delivering the usual verbal torrents of information yet. This is especially apparent when they're in a scene with Fishburne, a veteran of multiple seasons of "CSI."

This is where all the guts and gore really help. The snazzy technological tomfoolery of your average "CSI" episode has nothing on viscerality of the beautifully staged crime scenes and Will Graham's visions of bloody violence in "Hannibal." And this is where you really see the hand of the show's creator, Bryan Fuller, who was previously responsible for the whimsical worlds of "Pushing Daisies" and "Mockingbird Lane." "Hannibal" shows he's pretty handy with lurid Grand Guignol horrors too. I only wish that all the graphic content could have been put in service of a better script. For a first outing it's not bad, but there's plenty of room for improvement.

One thing to note is that "Hannibal" is being described as a limited series by NBC, which means only thirteen episodes to a season, faster payoff for major arcs, and hopefully a higher level of quality overall. It's a good sign that they're already pushing the envelope as far as the content, which means that we're more likely to see Dr. Lecter and friends get to the really dark and twisted places where they ultimately need to go. Bryan Fuller has mentioned in interviews that he wants to get to the events of "Red Dragon," the first of Thomas Harris' Lecter books, by season four.

I hope the series survives long enough to get there. The Thursday night 10PM timeslot has not been kind to NBC, having killed off several promising crime shows in recent years, including "Prime Suspect" and "Awake." Will it finally meet its match in Dr. Hannibal Lecter? Guess we'll have to stay tuned to see.
---

Read More

The Next Movies Becoming TV Shows

It's pilot season in Hollywood, and we're about to get a new crop of television shows based on movies. This is a trend that has been around for decades, and has yielded plenty of classics. Some movie premises worked better as television shows, like "MASH" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." So I'm going to take a look at five of the movie-based series, currently in development, that may be coming soon to a small screen near you. I'm leaving out "Marvel's S.H.I.E.L.D.," which is really a spin-off of the Marvel films, and will only be featuring one or two of the minor characters, existing very much on the sidelines of the ongoing movie franchise.

"Beverly Hills Cop" (CBS) - The 80s action comedy series is becoming an hour-long police procedural. Brandon T. Jackson of "Tropic Thunder" fame will star as Axel Foley's son Aaron, a young police officer following his dad's footsteps. "The Shield" creator Shawn Ryan is on board as producer, and Barry Sonnenfeld is directing the pilot. No word yet on whether Axel himself will be stopping by the Beverley Hills Police Department to check up on his son. Interviews suggest that the tone of the show will stay light, but it won't be an out-and-out comedy. The original film series was heavily dependent on the charisma of Eddie Murphy, and new version without him might not work. However, between 80s nostalgia and the public's love of police procedurals, I can certainly see why the studios decided that a reboot deserved a shot.

"Bad Teacher" (CBS) - Remember the 2011 summer comedy starring Cameron Diaz? It did all right at the box office, but not well enough that anyone is clamoring for a sequel. However, CBS thought the premise has potential as a half-hour comedy, and is in the process of transmogrifying it into sitcom form. Ari Graynor will replace Cameron Diaz, and the new cast also includes David Alan Grier and Ryan Hansen. The raunch and the foul language of the movie is going to have to be toned way, way down for television audiences, to the point where I doubt the series will bear much resemblance to the film. Still, the concept of an immature, irresponsible female teacher looking for love should have plenty of legs. Television is generally friendlier to female-led comedies than the movies are, so the TV "Bad Teacher" may actually have a better shot there.

"About A Boy" (NBC) - A decade ago, "About a Boy" was a decent sized hit, but I have no idea what prompted writer-executive producer Jason Katims to decide that now was the time to revisit the property and convert it into half-hour sitcom form. Still, this is the guy who resurrected "Friday Night Lights" and "Parenthood" as critically acclaimed television series, so I'm not inclined to question his instincts. FOX actually tried to turn "About a Boy" into a series way back in 2003 with a different creative team, but nothing came of it. This time, they’ve gotten as far as a pilot directed by John Favreau. No word on casting yet, but considering the scarcity of Hugh Grant over the past few years, and the rate that major movie stars have been doing television projects, I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that he’d consider returning to the role.

"The Joneses" (Bravo) - This David Duchovny and Demi Moore indie was released in theaters in 2010, but hardly anyone saw it. That's a shame, because the idea at its core was a fascinating one. The main characters are employees of an advertising agency who are hired to live together as a fake family, push products to their neighbors, and encourage them to keep up with the Joneses (Get it?). Bravo has ordered a pilot as part of its first foray into scripted programming, after ABC took a shot at development. Considering how the movie ended, the television series will likely be a total reboot. Since so few people saw the original "Joneses," it should escape being called a retread. However, I'm not sure about Bravo's claim that it will speak "to the Bravo brand of great aspirational female-driven upscale worlds.” My irony alarm is going off.

"Zombieland" (Amazon) - And finally, Amazon is hot to catch up with Netflix in the production of its own content. It has ordered a half-hour comedy pilot based on 2009's "Zombieland." A sequel never quite came together though there was a lot of interest in one, and the possibility of a television adaptation has been lobbed around Hollywood for a while. Amazon finally took the initiative. The film's original writers have scripted the pilot, and three of the four leads have been recast so far. The zombie craze is still going strong this year, so I expect this one to have a high chance of success. On the other hand, Amazon's distribution system isn't quite where Netflix's is at the moment, and I'm not sure if they have the subscriber base to support a show like this. There are a lot of different factors that could affect this one, so stay tuned.

Happy watching!
---

Read More

My Favorite Alfred Hitchcock Film

Alfred Hitchcock has been seeing a mild resurgence of interest lately with the recent release of movies about the director, "Hitchcock" and "The Girl." I haven't seen either of them yet, but I knew that I had to get this post written before I saw either. I've read enough about both films to know that they both advance their own heavily biased views of the director, and I'm more easily influenced than I like to admit, so I figured I should get my own thoughts about old Hitch down in words first.

Alfred Hitchcock was a great director but an even better showman and marketer, which fueled his legend and won him lasting fame, such that he's probably still the most well-known and well-loved director of his time. Though he started out in the UK, I think of him as perhaps the greatest American director, because he embodies so much of the entrepreneurial spirit and the inherently populist attitude of Hollywood filmmaking. He was a creature of genre films, but elevated that genre to dizzying heights. He outlasted the dismissive critics, multiple career slumps, and cultural shifts by coming up with something new and daring to show us, again and again. He was a director of endless invention, and some claim that he created the first real slasher film, the legendary "Psycho." The first time I saw the full movie after hearing years of hype, I sat down almost determined not to be impressed. And then the amazing title sequence with Bernard Hermann's jolting strings began, and it was useless to resist.

"Psycho" is about a series of intersecting crimes. First, a woman named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) steals a large sum of money from her employer and goes on the run. She stops at a motel run by a young man named Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and his sinister, unseen mother. And really, that's all the plot summary it needs, because the less you know about "Psycho," the better it plays. It's a film full of sudden turns and misdirection, constantly upending the viewer's expectations. Like so many of Hitchcock's other films, the story can be reduced to a series of basic gimmicks. In this case, we have the mystery of Norman Bates, and a few major narrative and POV shifts. However, the film is so cleverly constructed and well executed on a technical level, it is extremely effective at getting exactly the kind of response it wants: rapt attention, followed by screams.

Alas, the famous shower scene was ruined for me long before I saw "Psycho," after too many appearances in retrospectives and too many trips to Universal Studios. I knew from an early age that I was supposed to be shocked and scared by the sequence, but I always saw it apart from the rest of the film, so I never had the proper context to enjoy it as intended. Instead, I found myself much more engaged by the longer, steadier build-ups of tension. There was the initial robbery sequence. And Norman Bates tidying up the vacated motel room and almost overlooking the newspaper. And then there was my favorite shot, the very last of the film - not our final glimpse of Norman, but of Marion's car, being dredged slowly but inexorably up out of the muck to reveal the extent of our killer's crimes. I could feel the creeping dread in the pit of my stomach with every creak of the winch.

The effectiveness of "Psycho" as a thriller has faded a bit with time. It's no longer considered particularly racy or violent, and many of its innovations have become commonplace. Hitchcock killed off his biggest star halfway through the picture, a shock lessened by the fact that "Psycho" is practically the only thing that actress is remembered for . Then he got us to sympathize with the killer by showing the action from his POV. It was pretty daring in 1960, but these days there are whole television shows built around this conceit. The disturbing nature of Norman Bates has long been surpassed in both real life and in fiction. On the other hand, after over fifty years "Psycho" still works on a fundamental level. Norman and his mother are still creepy and fascinating. The viewer is encouraged to root for Marion to get away with her crime, and then encouraged to root just as hard for Norman.

Norman Bates remains a villain for the ages, perhaps the greatest representation of the irreparably damaged psychotic to ever find his way to the silver screen. He appeared in three largely forgotten sequels, and will be resurrected again this year for a television prequel series, "Bates Motel," starring Freddie Highmore as young Norman, and Vera Farmiga as his mother. But without Hitchcock providing his menace, it just won’t be the same.
---

Read More

"Frankenweenie," "Paranorman," and "Hotel Transylvania"

Finally finished all three of last year's animated horror movies. When I saw Sony Animation's "Hotel Transylvania" back in October I didn't think I had enough material for a whole post, so I resolved to wait until I'd seen the other two, and thankfully I didn't have to wait very long. Laika's "Paranorman" and Disney's "Frankenweenie" didn't do very well in theaters, and have popped up inother places pretty quick. It's a shame, because both are pretty solid little flicks, and deserved more attention than they got.

Ranking these three, "Hotel Transylvania" ends up on the bottom. This is not to say that it's a bad film. I think it's actually the best thing that Adam Sandler and a gaggle of his usual collaborators have been associated with in ages. Sandler lends his voice to Count Dracula, who has secluded himself in a remote castle far away from humanity to raise his little girl, Mavis (Selena Gomez). The castle doubles as a hotel for his monster pals, a vacation spot where they can get away without worrying about torches and pitchforks. I wasn't thrilled with the amount of crude humor and tired Sandler schtick that made its way into the film, but at least it's very restrained. The SNL alum-heavy cast dialed back considerably to keep this kid-friendly. This is also easily the least scary movie of the bunch, and the Dracula, Mummy, Werewolf, and Frankenstein we meet are all firmly in the middle-aged family man stage of life.

The result is a sweet little parent and kid bonding story, dressed up in the morbidly fun trappings of an old Universal monster picture. If you're familiar with the old Rankin Bass stop motion movie "Mad Monster Party," this is more or less the same thing, but updated for modern kids, with a little more plot to go with it. The big selling point is really the comedy, though I don't think the cast deserves much of the credit here. "Hotel Transylvania" is loaded with inventive little visual gags, like shrunken head doorknockers and a skeleton mariachi band. There's always something interesting to look at, even if it's only in the corner of the frame. We can thank veteran TV animation director Genndy Tartakovsky for the strength of the visual design work, and for keeping the proceedings very light and fun and energetic. It's hard to believe that this is his first theatrical feature, considering how deft a hand he is with animation.

"Frankenweenie" is another Tim Burton passion project, and thankfully a far more well-realized one than last summer's "Dark Shadows." It's a remake of Burton's 1984 live-action short film of the same name, where a little boy named Victor (Charlie Tahan) is so upset by the death of his beloved dog Sparky, that he finds a way to raise him from the dead. Both versions of "Frankenweenie" are loving homages to old monster movies, chiefly James Whale's "Frankenstein." I was a little worried about the new animated movie being entirely in black and white, when it's already retro stop-motion, but what Burton accomplishes with the visuals and the mood is absolutely worth it. There is some downright gorgeous cinematography in this movie, summoning an appropriate atmosphere of creeping dread. Also, Burton never lets you forget for a second that the revived zombie dog, energetic and lovable as he seems, is still a decomposing corpse.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's quite enough story to support a whole movie. Burton got some parts right, building up the relationship between Victor and Sparky, and making Sparky a more sympathetic character. However, the expansion of the plot to include a controversial teacher, the machinations of Victor's science fair rival, and Victor's crush Elsa van Helsing, didn't do much for me. The windmill sequence at the end of the film feels tacked on, and it looks an awful lot like the one at the end of Burton's "Sleepy Hollow." Then again, there's an earlier sequence involving a gang of the neighborhood kids, their pets, and the misuse of science that is one of the most entertaining pieces of creative mayhem that I've seen in a while. "Frankenweenie" has some flaws, and I expect it's always going to be a hard sell to most audiences, but it's very successful at being what it wants to be, and affirms that Tim Burton has some creative spark in him yet.

Finally there's "Paranorman," which is also stop-motion animation and also contains homages to older horror movies, mostly of the B-movie variety. The story follows Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a gloomy little boy who can see ghosts and other supernatural things that no one else can. This makes it hard for him to relate to his family and get along at school, where he's bullied for being different. I like how gently subversive the story is, the way that it takes common horror tropes and finds news twists on them that help to get its point across. Laika is an independent studio, and not afraid of going to places where the big studios won't go. So it's not afraid of tackling topics like bullying and prejudice, and yes, this is the movie where it turns out that one of the characters is gay. "Paranorman" has some story issues, and isn't quite as focused as it should be, but in the end it's a movie that has something to say and isn't afraid to say it.

I think one of the reasons "Paranorman" didn't do as well as it should have is that it's kind of funny looking, and I mean that in a good way. All the character designs are awkward and slightly grotesque, making Norman and his friends look very different from the cuddly heroes you see in most CGI kids' films these days. It takes a little whiel to get used to the style, but once you do, you really appreciate how well-done the animation is. The attention to detail in this movie is extraordinary. It's easy to get forget, in some of the more mundane environments like schools and bathrooms and neighborhood streets, that everything we see was specially constructed in miniature. However, that impeccable craftsmanship really comes to the fore when we come to the stunning, intense finale scenes, which have some of the best special effects work I've seen all year. Of these three movies, "Paranorman" is easily my favorite.

Looks like we're quickly filling up that deficit of animate Halloween movies. Here's hoping we get more like 'em.
---

Read More

My Least Anticipated Films of 2013

2013 will be a year of good films, but it will also be a year of bad, lazy, awful films. It's inevitable, with a schedule full of more remakes, sequels, and unnecessary adaptations. Now, before we get into specifics, I add the caveat here that you can't always judge a film by its tagline and cast list. Last year, there were some real surprises among the films I'd initially written off, like "21 Jump Street" and "Madagascar 3." However, by and large the films that looked like dreck proved to be dreck. So this is the last time you'll likely see any of the following films mentioned on this blog.

The Horror, The Horror - As usual, the horror genre has some of the worst of the worst offenders. "Texas Chainsaw 3D," is the seventh film in the "Texas Chainsaw" series, and if you can figure out whether it's a sequel, remake, reboot, or all three at once, good for you. "Scary Movie 5" resurrects a franchise that nobody wanted to see resurrected, seven years after the last installment. And to add insult to injury, there's a competing horror spoof, "A Haunted House," coming in January, starring former "Scary Movie" writer/star Marlon Wayans. And not unexpected, but still completely superfluous are sequels "Insidious Chapter 2," "Paranormal Activity 5," and "The Last Exorcism 2." Finally, I am trying to hold out some hope for the reboots of "Carrie" and "Evil Dead," but that hope is fading fast.

The Leftovers - More than a few observers noted that 2012 was unusual for the number of releases that were pushed back to 2013. "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" was delayed from last March, to the dead of January, which is never a good sign. "G.I. Joe: Retaliation," of course, was scheduled for last summer and delayed so it could undergo some reshooting and a 3D conversion. Rumor is that the original version tested so badly, the studio took the unusual step of pulling it barely a month before its old release date. "Jack the Giant Slayer" has a lot of good talent attached, including director Bryan Singer, so there's a chance that it could be decent. However, Warner Brothers decided to push it back to March from last summer too, and all the previews so far have looked absolutely terrible. Finally, Marc Forster's "World War Z" with Brad Pitt was supposed to be released during the holiday season, but it was delayed to this June to allow an extensive rewrite of its third act.

Mind the Gap - Among the plentiful sequels and prequels this year are a couple of real head-scratcher follow-up films. Why are we getting a third "Riddick" film now, nine years after "The Chronicles of Riddick" only did so-so at the box office? And sure, "300" was a hit, but how does a barely related prequel released six years later make any sense? "Sin City: A Dame to Kill For" comes eight years after the original, and if it had been made a few years earlier I might be anticipating it. However, the output of Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller has been so underwhelming in the interim, I can't work up much enthusiasm. I may despair of "Fast and Furious 6," "The Hangover Part III," and "Grown Ups 2," but at least I understand why those sequels exist – they're following up recent films that made obscene amounts of money at the box office. "Riddick"? Not so much.

The Kids Deserve Better - Finally, we come to the movies aimed at younger audiences. Parents can look forward to dreading "One Direction Concert Movie 3D," "The Smurfs 2," and the "Percy Jackson" sequel, which was handed off to the director of "Diary of a Wimpy Kid." However, the year's biggest disaster in the making may be The Weinstein Company's "Escape From Planet Earth," an animated film which is currently the subject of a lawsuit between the producers and some of the primary creative talent that was fired from the project. The production, according to various court documents, was a disaster of epic proportions, and the lawsuit and the surrounding gossip will almost certainly more entertaining than the finished film is going to be.

Now in 3D - Among this year's 3D rereleases will be "Top Gun" and the second and third "Star Wars" prequels. I found all the fighter pilot sequences in "Top Gun" extremely underwhelming when I watched the film a few years ago, and it's pretty obvious that the actors are never anywhere in the same vicinity as the planes. I don't know how 3D is going to help matters. As for the "Star Wars" films, I suspect the releases are only happening because the conversions were already underway by the time the mediocre returns for the 3D "Phantom Menace" came in.

Brace for impact kids. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
---

Read More

My Top Ten "Buffy" Episodes

Because it's the kind of day where I need a little "Buffy" to cheer me up, here are my ten favorite episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," listed in chronological order. As usual, I'll be cheating and counting two-parters as single entries. And spoilers! Spoilers everywhere!

Halloween - One of my favorite comedic installments, where the gang falls victim to a spell that turns them into whatever Halloween costume they happen to be wearing. Willow ends up a ghost, Buffy is stuck as a ditzy Southern belle, and Xander goes one-man-army on us. It's a shame that he villain of the week, Ethan Rayne, never developed into anything more interesting despite his connections with Giles, because he shows a lot of potential here.

Surprise and Innocence - The second season two-parter where Buffy finally gets intimate with Angel, and Angel loses his soul, turning into the monstrous Angelus. This was the big turning point in the Buffy and Angel romance that kept it from being the kind of maudlin high school girl's fantasy that we got in the "Twilight" franchise. Angelus also makes for an awfully fun villain, and I count him as one of the series' most satisfying Big Bads.

Becoming - Another big two-parter that ended the second season with Buffy and Angelus's big showdown. The MVP here was Spike, though, the sarcastic vampire baddie whose resentments toward Angelus and distaste for apocalypses make him an ally of convenience to the Scooby Gang. With loads of payoff for all the arcs in a very eventful season, these weren't the show's best episodes, but they're the ones I think of first when someone mentions "Buffy."

The Wish - Of all the worst-cast-scenario episodes I've ever seen, this is probably my favorite. You have a truly nightmarish version of Sunnyvale, twisted versions of all the main characters, including a jaw-droppingly sexualized Willow, and the show even goes so far as to kill our regular universe POV character, Cordelia, halfway through the episode. And yet the good guys still prove to be the good guys at heart, and prevail in the end.

The Zeppo - Xander saves the day while the rest of the gang are distracted by yet another impending apocalypse. The episode and Nicolas Brendan's performance in it are so good, it actually sparked a small fan campaign to get Brendan cast as Spider-man in the Sam Raimi films. Loaded with humor, culminating in a great one-night-stand sequence with then-newbie character Faith, "The Zeppo" is the ultimate Xander episode.

Graduation Day - Another season finale two-parter, and one of the most significant in the show's run. These were two of the three episodes delayed due to the Columbine shootings, and the fans did not react well, resorting to bootlegging the broadcast from the Canadians, with Joss Whedon's blessing. After all, we'd waited three years to see the Scooby Gang say goodbye to their high school days, and Sunnydale High blown to smithereens.

Hush - The Gentlemen were probably the scariest villains that the show ever came up with. The floating, the grimaces, and those minions flopping about in their straitjackets - all of it was such wonderful nightmare fuel. A good chunk of the normally dialogue-heavy show is completely without dialogue, resulting in Giles having to use a projector and transparencies to deliver his usual exposition, and Buffy left to fight without her quips.

Fool for Love - The Spike episode that finally shows us his history with Slayers and brings about a definitive end to the drawn-out arc where he couldn't harm humans due to that inhibitor chip implanted by the Initiative. There's loads of good character development here, and the flashback scenes are a lot of fun, particularly Spike's origin story and his falling out with Drusilla. I'm not sure I buy his relationship with Buffy, but at least the lead-in to it is great.

The Body - The later seasons of "Buffy" were much less consistent than the early ones, but it could occasionally still come up with moments of brilliance. One of these was the death of Joyce Summers, which was not totally unexpected but still arrived with uncomfortable suddenness. "Buffy" had killed off many characters before, but this was the death with the biggest impact, and handled in the most realistic and heartbreaking fashion.

Normal Again - I know, I know. The sixth season episode everyone loves is "Once More With Feeling," the musical episode. However, my favorite was the one that took the opposite approach, questioning every unrealistic element of the series by introducing us to an alternate universe where Sunnydale is only the figment of a mentally disturbed Buffy's imagination. Though the concept came up a little short, this is still one of the show's bravest hours.

Honorable mentions go to "Out of Sight, Out of Mind," "School Hard," "What's My Line," "Lover's Walk," "Doppelgangland," (best Willow episode), "Restless," "Hell's Bells," and "Chosen."
---

Read More

Checking in With Found Footage

At the beginning of the year, I noted that found footage films were getting more complex and starting to make their way into other genres besides horror. “Chronicle,” for example, was a refreshing take on the superhero film, and “Project X” was a raunchy teen comedy. Both did well in theaters and are expected to spawn sequels in the near future. Since then, there have been a couple of other interesting additions to the genre I thought deserved some discussion.

First, we have the critically acclaimed police drama “End of Watch,” which is partially found footage, comprised of material shot by the characters themselves supplemented by regular photography. Director David Ayer, best known for “Training Day,” uses the found footage to create a greater sense of verisimilitude as we follow the day-to-day lives of a pair of Los Angeles policemen. The film was originally conceived to be entirely found footage, and easily could have been done that way. The conceit made sense for the story, as the actions of the police are frequently recorded, and the technology has progressed to the point where it would be plausible for criminals and other participants to be taping themselves during the events we see depicted.

Another major director took the plunge with found footage in the eco-horror film, “The Bay.” Barry Levinson, veteran writer and director, frames the story as a Skype interview being conducted with the protagonist, one of the survivors of a recent disaster that decimated a small East Coast town. Footage of the Skype call is interspersed with video evidence from various sources that she has collected, which she often narrates for the audience. I thought “The Bay” had a lot of very strong ideas, but the actors were pretty poor and there was too much reliance on traditional horror movie gimmicks and scares. Apparently its distributor thought so too, and “The Bay” was stuck with a limited platform release and was mostly viewed through VOD services.

Found footage continues to flourish in this year’s horror films. “Paranormal Activity 4” and “REC 3” were the latest films in their respective series, both showing some signs of fatigue. “Chernobyl Diaries” scared up a decent profit during a crowded summer season. In the fall we had “V/H/S,” an anthology horror film where the various segments are presented as the contents of a stash of video tapes discovered in the film’s framing sequence. Then there was “Sinister,” which is similar to ‘The Ring” in that the main character literally finds the footage – a series of gruesome Super 8 home movies that show the POV of a disturbed serial killer.

What I like about this latest batch of found footage movies is that they have grown beyond the original concept of recovered footage from a single film camera, like we saw in “The Blair Witch Project.” Instead, the recovered footage often comes from a variety of sources, providing the opportunity for a larger scope and more complex storytelling. As the subject matter of these films has become more diverse, it also reflects the growing reality of a modern world where the cameras are everywhere, and all you need is a kid with a smartphone in the right place as the right time to place a camera on any scene.

What we haven’t seen much of yet is the exploration of how easy it is to edit and manipulate this kind of footage to create serious distortions of the truth. Thinking on the antics of James O’Keefe, I wonder if we might see a more critical crime or political thriller in the near future, contemplating the ability of film to mislead us. One of the reasons I think that found footage is so compelling is that we unconsciously react to the footage as being more real and believable than regular film productions, to the point where we ignore shoddy production values and bad acting. However, it also means we can be more easily fooled.

There’s been vocal consternation that the studios are stuck in a rut and only seem to want to finance either outrageously expensive CGI spectaculars or the microbudgeted found footage films. However, I think found footage does have a lot of potential as a genre that is being overlooked. Some of the most creative and interesting films in recent years have been very low-budget features, and the aesthetic of found footage and commercial video recording is becoming one of the defining ones of this era. Along with the mumblecore films, this is filmmaking getting back to basics, and that’s not a bad thing.

I hope we see more major directors trying out this genre, and finding more novel things to do with it. Found footage has proven itself surprisingly versatile, and this year has seen two major films, “Chronicle” and “End of Watch,” that have elevated it to new heights.
---

Read More

Dreadful "Dark Shadows"

I don't particularly want to write this review, but since I committed to doing it in a Tim Burton post I wrote a few months ago, I feel that I have an obligation to fulfill. I only regret that I have posted this resulting screed so late, when most people curious about the film have probably already seen it.

"Dark Shadows," based on a '60s television soap of the same name, is about a vampire named Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp). Originally a wealthy gentleman in the 1700s, Barnabas spurns the affections of the witch Angelique (Eva Green) for his true love Josette (Bella Heathcote). The vengeful Angelique kills Josette and turns Barnabas into a vampire, who is quickly trapped in a coffin and buried. Barnabas is not unearthed until the 1970s, and finds his descendants still living in Collinwood Manor. They're an odd bunch with a lot of secrets, and have lost nearly all their money and influence to the still young and vengeful Angelique, now a major business rival.

The cast of "Dark Shadows" is terribly impressive and includes Michelle Pfeiffer as Collins matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, Jonny Lee Miller as her slimy brother Roger, Chloë Moretz as Elizabeth's hostile teenage daughter Carolyn, Gulliver McGrath as Roger's glum 10-year-old son David, Jackie Earl Haley as Collinwood's caretaker, and of course, Helena Bonham Carter as a live-in psychiatrist, Dr. Julia Hoffman. Bella Heathcote also pops back into the picture to play Victoria Winters, David's mysterious new governess, who understandably attracts Barnabas's attentions. And what does director Tim Burton do with this varied and talented cast? Extremely little worth talking about.

"Dark Shadows" seems like it would be perfect material for a Tim Burton film, full of supernatural characters and soap opera kitsch. However, Burton chose to turn it into a pure comedy by making Barnabas a fish-out-of-water in the 1970s. I can find little fault with Johnny Depp's performance, a broadly foppish turn accentuated by elaborate makeup and clothing. The problem is that he's a very limited, one-note character stuck doing variations on the same goofy joke for the entire film. And it's the same joke he was doing as Edward Scissorhands back in 1991! Here's this oddly-dressed anachronistic horror movie character trying to get along in the modern day! Ain't that a gas? Well yes, briefly, but you can't build an entire movie on one joke. So "Dark Shadows" rolls out a tragic romance and a family-in-peril story to go with Depp's hijinks, and neither of them remotely work.

This is one of the worst written movies I've seen this year. There are potentially interesting characters who are never properly developed, story threads that go nowhere, random events that don't seem to connect to anything else in the movie, and too many of the major revelations are not set up properly at all. I was trying to give "Dark Shadows" the benefit of the doubt, but it just kept getting more ridiculous. I suspect that Burton was trying to parody the soap opera conventions of the original show, but he never managed to get the tone right, which was nowhere near as campy and satirical as it should have been. Instead, the movie comes off as very colorful and eccentric and typically Burtonesque, with no substance to speak of and no laughs to be found. It was too much "Alice in Wonderland," and not enough "Mars Attacks."

When the film does manage to get something right, it feels like a mistake. Eva Green is a bright spot as the craven Angelique, who at one point aggressively tries to seduce Barnabas in romp that destroys her office and sends the camera spinning. The scene is pretty amusing and a lot of fun visually, but it also makes it clear that Depp has far more chemistry with Green than he does with Heathcote in their tepid courtship scenes. Helena Bonham Carter's psychiatrist subplot turns out the same way, cut off just as things were getting interesting, in favor of something far duller.

The only thing particularly praiseworthy about the film is that it has some nice art direction and cinematography. It's not hard to see where the budget went, as the sets and costumes are gorgeous, playing with vintage styling and Gothic touches. However, the abuse of CGI visuals is becoming a common problem in Burton films, and this is no exception. Frankly, all the common criticisms that are usually lobbed against Tim Burton films are true of "Dark Shadows." It's indulgent. It's style-over-substance. It's weird for the sake of being weird.

The sad thing is, I think Burton was trying to do something different and stretch himself. "Dark Shadows" is perhaps the closest thing he's done to a straight comedy in a long while, and the humor's a little more adult than we usually see from him. A few more tweaks and rewrites, and this could have been a very different and much more interesting film. In its current state, though, it's barely watchable and not worth defending.

Better luck next time, Tim Burton.
---

Read More

The Delights of "American Horror Story"

I wanted to write up a post on the first season of TNT's "American Horror Story" for Halloween, but didn't quite make the deadline. However, I enjoyed the show so much, I still want to recommend it for all your non-Halloween horror needs.

What I like about "American Horror Story" is that it's so unrepentantly exploitative and trashy, every opening shot slapped with a TV MA rating. The content level goes beyond anything else on basic cable. Adultery! Crimes of passion! Devious maids! Burn victims! Children with birth defects! The pilot features a kinky sex scene set to music lifted from Hitchcock's "Vertigo." And of course there's the show's mascot, the guy in the black rubber gimp suit. Every episode has some juicy twist, or some licentious new secret to reveal. The characters are completely over the top, but so much fun to watch, you don't want to stop. So while "American Horror Story" is often a spectacular mess, it's immensely entertaining. It's also one of the only properly horrific pieces of horror television currently on the air.

The bones of the plot are as follows: The Harmon family, comprised of psychiatrist father Ben (Dylan McDermott), mother Vivien (Connie Britton), and teenage daughter Violet (Taissa Farmiga), move into their new Los Angeles home, a palatial Victorian with a dark history. Their new neighbors include the very friendly, manipulative Constance Langdon (Jessica Lange) and her daughter Addie (Jamie Brewer), who has Down's Syndrome. Ben is treating a troubled teenager named Tate (Evan Peters), who takes a liking to Violet. Other regulars include a horribly burned man named Larry (Denis O'Hare), who claims to be a former resident of the house, and a maid Vivien hires named Moira, who appears as a sweet old woman (Frances Conroy) to Vivien and Constance, but men see her as a provocatively dressed young woman (Alexandra Breckinridge).

The series borrows bits and pieces from dozens of horror stories and murder mysteries. The history of the "Murder House" spans nearly a century, and the series spends a lot of time tracking what happened to the various inhabitants who met terrible misfortune within its walls. Home invasions, school shootings, tragic accidents, mad doctors, and a few monsters all make appearances, and the series even recreates a few famous, real-life slayings. Even though the creators didn't know at the time that "American Horror Story" would continue in an anthology format, the first season is a compendium of different horror tales all by itself. The early episodes are the most bizarre and the most intriguing, because you never know what you're going to see next. We learn the origins of some things, like the guy in the gimp suit. Others, like the thing in the basement, are never really explained.

I want to reiterate that the series is really not very good on a fundamental level. The writing is wildly uneven, and the characters are little more than cyphers. All the women are prone to hysterics. All the men have roving eyes and are easily provoked. Ben and Vivien end up in shouting matches about every other episode. The wild twists and salacious content often comes at the price of bad characterization and shoddy logic. I don't think I've seen a show with so much convenient amnesia since "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." It often feels like the writers take the kitchen sink approach, just dumping more and more characters and horrible events into the mix every time things slow down. It's only well into the second half of the season that we start getting decent chunks of character development and proper through lines.

In many episodes, the biggest saving grace is the performances, particularly of Jessica Lange as the tough old Southern Belle, Constance Langdon. She's a twisted woman who does monstrous things, but it's hard not to sympathize with her. Constance could have so easily been another caricature, but Lange imparts her with a steely, knowing awareness and aura of tragedy. No matter what she claims, there's never a doubt that she knows better than anyone else what's going on. The kids, Evan Peters and Taissa Farmiga, are also very good. In a show where all the emotion is cranked up to operatic heights, it makes sense that the hormonal teenagers are the ones who seem the most emotionally genuine.

The only thing I did not like at all about the first season of "American Horror Story" was the ending, which felt like the creators were leaving things open-ended for another season with the same characters. This didn't happen, as the new "Asylum" storyline started over with an entirely new setting and characters, though several of the actors stuck around to play new parts. So I'm really looking forward to the next chapters of "American Horror Story," since the creators don't have any reason to hold back this time.
---

Read More

Return to "Mockingbird Lane"

I feared the worst when I learned that NBC was rebooting "The Munsters," especially when I heard that the concept was to do a prequel series featuring Herman and Lily Munster's early days. Apparently I wasn't the only one with misgivings, because over the summer reports on Brian Fuller's pilot indicated that it was going the more traditional route and following the template of the original series, with Eddie and Marilyn appearing as part of the family. NBC decided not to pick up the show, but was stuck with an expensive pilot for "Mockingbird Lane" on their hands. So they decided to repackage the pilot as a Halloween special, which aired Friday night. And it wasn't nearly as bad as I had expected.

Directed by Bryan Singer, "Mockingbird Lane" looks a lot like Fuller's "Pushing Daisies," full of bright storybook visuals and old fashioned whimsy. The Munster family members no longer resemble the old Universal classic monsters. Instead, Herman is played by Jerry O'Connell, and has a couple of visible scars from where he was stitched together from different pieces, but otherwise looks like a perfectly ordinary man. His lovely wife Lily (Portia de Rossi) has no Bride-of-Frankenstein white streak in her hair, and their son Eddie (Mason Cook) only has werewolf features during the full moon. Marilyn (Charity Wakefield) looks exactly as she always has, but this time she doesn't stand out. Only Grandpa (Eddie Izzard), with his continental fashion sense, appears to have stepped out of another era. However, it's made perfectly clear that the Munster family is still very monstrous. Herman's heart, his only original part, literally breaks when he becomes too emotional. Lily appears in a cloud of swirling smoke and enjoys lounging on the ceiling. The move to the new house on Mockingbird Lane is prompted by an unfortunate incident where Eddie's werewolf side manifests for the first time during a Boy Scout camping trip.

Telling Eddie that he's a werewolf is the major dilemma of the first episode, illustrating how "Mockingbird Lane" swaps out 60s sitcom family dynamics with the considerably more complicated and self-aware ones of the present day. The Munsters understand that they're different, even if it's less apparent on the outside, and this is treated as something that they all struggle with to different degrees. The running joke about Marilyn being the oddball normal of the the clan is translated into simmering resentment between her and Grandpa, who disapproves of Marilyn's very existence. Izzard steals the show, as Grandpa wholeheartedly gives into his wild side, wasting no time in turning the neighbors into blood slaves with spiked cookies and playing mad scientist when Herman's heart goes bust. The horrors are more goofy than scary, but they have much more bite to them than in the old days. In spite of the cuddly family angle, I wonder if the show is a bit too macabre to be considered family friendly. There are some tonal issues that need ironing out, especially the humor, which is a little too light on the suburban satire and awfully glib with the one-liners.

I suspect that this is why NBC didn't pick up "Mockingbird Lane." The pilot is perfectly decent with some good ideas, but it has all the earmarks of a cult show. It's not easygoing enough for families, not sophisticated enough for grown-ups, and not ghoulish enough for horror fans. The original "Munsters" is hardly even shown in reruns anymore, so there's not much nostalgia to count on either. I suspect that the price tag also had something to do with it. One of the big selling points of "Mockingbird Lane" is its gorgeous production design, which incorporates lots of stylized visuals and special effects, which we know cost a fortune. But cut out those effects, and what's left? O'Connell and De Rossi are a little bland as Herman and Lily, without much chemistry between them. De Rossi in particular doesn't get to do much in the pilot, never given a chance to show off her formidable comedic skills. Charity Wakefield and Mason Cook are more solid as the kids, and Izzard is a lot of fun, but leaning on him too heavily would be disastrous.

There is a small chance that NBC will move forward with more episodes of "Mockingbird Lane," but I think the people in charge made the right call in turning the show down. The pilot made for some good season-appropriate spectacle, but I don't know if I'd want to tune in every week for something like this. The end product could have been a lot worse, though. We could have ended up with something like the 80s reboot, "The Munsters Today," or the 90s TV movie version. "Mockingbrid Lane" at least tried to do something original with the "Munsters" concept.
---

Read More

What's With All the Horror Cartoons?

If you're a fan of animated films, you might have noticed that we're in the middle of a glut of horror-themed cartoons. Laika's "ParaNorman" arrived last month, Sony Pictures Animation's "Hotel Transylvania" came out this past weekend, and Tim Burton's "Frankenweenie," based on his 1984 live action short, is due in theaters tomorrow. Of course, this could all be a coincidence. Looking at the producing studios' prior output, Laika's last film, "Coraline," was horror-themed, and all of Tim Burton's animated work has had more than a tinge of the macabre. "Hotel Transylvania," which is really more comedy than horror, spent years in development hell before finally emerging as a finished film, and no one could have predicted it would be at the same time as the other two. And it makes sense for all these projects to be released close to Halloween to take advantage of the spooky holiday spirit.

But still, it's a heck of a coincidence. We've had a "Monsters vs. Aliens" here and an "Igor" there, but rarely more than one or two animated horror titles a year, and usually spaced well apart. I have a couple of theories, one of which is that more than one creative genius decided to try their own spin on a kid-friendly horror cartoon, as it's a promising little genre with plenty of material waiting to be explored. There are so many animated films being released now, and it can be a struggle to make any single picture stand out from the crowd. There's definitely an increasingly famiiar pastel-hued, children's picture book aesthetic that a lot of recent CGI films have adopted. Horror films are a license to get away from that, with a more extreme color palette and wilder designs. It's no surprise that "ParaNorman," "Hotel Transylvania," and "Frankenweenie" are all very visually distinct, tell completely different stories, and are difficult to confuse.

Or maybe it's something a little deeper than that. The American feature animation industry has blossomed in recent years, and we have multiple studios that are thriving financially. The competition among the major players, including PIXAR, Dreamworks, Blue Sky, Sony, Disney, and Illumination, has really heated up, and we keep seeing the bar for quality pushed higher and higher. PIXAR landed two Best Picture nominations at the Oscars in 2010 for "Up" and 2011 for "Toy Story 3," which were lauded for being more thematically serious and challenging. And yet, American animated features have always been limited to very family-friendly, mainstream pictures. We saw some experimentation with more adult ideas for a while, when animators were still seeing what CGI was capable of. This lead to some interesting features like the dystopian "9" and action-adventure "Beowulf," but none of these did particularly well. However, foreign animated films for grown-ups have had more success, and we're regularly seeing gems like "Persepolis," "Waltz for Bashir,” and "Chico & Rita" in the art houses.

Animation fans have often traded theories about how to make Americans more accepting of more adult animation, which would allow for a wider range of stories. However, the conception of animation being children's media is so deeply ingrained, I think any change in attitude is going to be incremental over a long period of time. So how do you push at the boundaries and do something challenging if you don't have PIXAR level talent, and you want to stay kid-friendly enough to attract a paying audience? You make something scary. You create something that parents have to think twice about bringing the littler kids to see, because the warnings are implicit in the choice of material. If you're a smaller studio like Laika, you make "Coraline," a stop-motion horror film that was genuinely frightening. Horror is one of those few genres that can straddle the line between kid-safe and truly adult, that can tap into some very dark themes while still maintaining a friendly exterior. "Coraline" has lots of great visual spectacle, but it also features a sinister doppelganger of the young heroine's mother, who lures the girl into a fantasy world full of disturbing doubles of people from her real life. And when "Coraline" does well, you follow it up with the ghosts and zombies of "Paranorman."

In 1993, Disney took a major gamble backing "Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas," which has become a cult classic and probably the defining Halloween-themed animated film of this generation. All the other horror cartoons that followed since owe "Nightmare" a major debt. It's fitting that Burton's back with "Frankenweenie," which looks to be another very risky film. It's a monochromatic homage to older horror flicks that its target audience probably won't be familiar with. But then again, who can resist a new spin on the classic boy and his dog story? As we go into opening weekend, the box office forecasters are predicting that "Frankenweenie" is going to get crushed by "Taken 2" and the much more accessible "Hotel Transylvania," but there's a lot be said for he fact that the "Frankenweenie" feature actually got made. And there's always the chance that like "Nightmare," it'll find its audience over time, because it's been established that the audience for these slightly older-skewing films does exist.

I doubt that there are many people who want to see all three of the latest animated horror films in such quick succession, but there are clearly a lot of people who are game for one or two of them. And that's enough.
---

Read More

A Visit to "666 Park Avenue"

There have been many television shows about the agents of the Devil, including procedurals like "Brimstone" and "Millennium," and more lighthearted takes like "Reaper." The Devil is never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the first hour of "666 Park Avenue," but all the earmarks of the genre are apparent. The unsuspecting residents of the luxurious New York Upper East Side's fictional 999 Park Avenue are tempted and seduced by the building's owners, Gavin and Olivia Doran (Terry O'Quinn, Vanessa Williams), into committing some capital sin in exchange for their heart's desire, and then the pair collect on the price with the aid of supernatural forces, usually manifesting through the building itself. In the pre-title sequence, we see a violinist unsuccessfully trying to flee the scene, but he only gets a few feet away from the beautiful residence before being literally sucked back inside.

The show's protagonists are a young couple, Jane Van Veen (Rachael Taylor) and Henry Martin (Dave Annable), who have been hired as the new on site co-managers of the building, responsible for day to day upkeep. Henry keeps his day job as an attorney who works for the mayor's office, while Jane is an unemployed architect who takes an interest in the building's history. As soon as they move into their posh new apartment, delighted at their good fortune, Gavin and Olivia start working their claws in. This is clearly a long con, and we are only in the very early stages of the seduction phase, but the Dorans' tactics are clear. Henry has political connections they wish to exploit while lovely Jane has caught Gavin's eye. Jane is positioned as the show's central figure, who not only digs up several ominous historical documents during the hour, but gets a major supernatural warning as well.

Meanwhile, other residents are a little further along in the process. Among the show's regulars will be another young couple, playwright Brian (Robert Buckley) and fashionista Louise (Mercedes Masöhn), who are headed for a dangerous love triangle when Brian's roving eye lands on Alexis (Helena Mattsson), Louise's new assistant who is also a resident of the building. Then there's the thief in the building, Nona (Samantha Logan), a teenager who lifts small trinkets, but is clearly courting big trouble. Finally, two characters who we may never see again after the pilot are John and Mary Barlow (James Waterston, Lucy Walters). Mary is quite dead from an apparent suicide, but Gavin brings her back for John on the condition that he kill a few people on the Dorans' behalf. This arrangement is brief and doesn't end pleasantly. However, from the long list of future recurring characters on the show's roster, the vacancy should be filled pretty quickly.

"666 Park Avenue" is going to follow the format of a late evening soap, full of illicit betrayals and other bad behavior by beautiful people, except with supernatural consequences. Unfortunately, I don't think the horror elements really do much for the show. They're not campy or toothy enough to be much fun, and not scary enough to offer any real thrills. Though they feature heavily in the promos, the special effects are a bore, and the atmosphere is sorely lacking. I like seeing Terry O'Quinn and Vanessa Williams as an evil Mephistophelean power couple, but you don't need to be an agent of the Devil in order to pull that off. The rest of the cast is going to have to hustle to catch up to them, though. I'm already far more interested in how the Dorans met and got themselves into this soul-collecting racket than I am about the Barbie and Ken doll hero and heroine who have stumbled into their little web.

However, there is something fascinating about seeing a parade of hapless, weak-willed television creatures fall victim to their own worst natures week after week, and I can see this series becoming something like a gleeful "Touched by an Angel" in reverse. With so many anti-heroes running around these days, it is nice to see a show with more old-fashioned definitions of good and evil, of right and wrong, where we know the comeuppances are coming. That element, more than any long-simmering romantic tensions or any murky series mythology, is going to be the show's best chance at attracting and keeping an audience. At this point most of the show's regular players are simply too generic, and are going to need a few more shades of gray if their fight to stay uncorrupted is going to actually be a proper fight worth watching. It'll probably take a few weeks of spotlight episodes to tell one way or the other.

I think I'll stick around for another episode or two, at least long enough to see if Vanessa Williams will get to cast a few people into Hell the same way that Terry O'Quinn did in the pilot. I admit that was the part I was really looking forward to.
---

Read More

Let's Go "Beyond the Black Rainbow"

Since I saw the trailer for "Beyond the Black Rainbow," a trippy Canadian science-fiction thriller directed by Panos Cosmatos, it's been high on my "to see" list. More than the psychedelic visuals or the wonderfully strange dystopian plot, it was the soundtrack and sound design, heavy on thrumming synthesizer instrumentals, that caught my attention. It perfectly captured this wonderfully sinister mood I associate with science-fiction films of the late 70s and early 80s like "THX 1138," "TRON," and "Altered States."

"Beyond the Black Rainbow" deliberately evokes these films and others, setting its story in the year 1983. The first thing we see is a delightfully kitschy promotional video introduced by Dr. Mercurio Arboria (Scott Hylands), founder of the Arboria Institute, a commune promising a new-age path to psychic and spiritual enlightenment. Then we meet Dr. Barry Nyle (Michael Rogers), who runs the Institute, in reality a cold, sterile place cut off from the rest of the world. A beautiful young girl named Elena (Eva Allen) is being held captive there, under constant surveillance. She has mysterious mental powers that Nyle uses heavy sedation and a strange glowing device to keep in check. He delights in tormenting Elena in daily sessions, obsessing over her development to a disturbing extent. However, Elena's powers are growing stronger and more dangerous while Nyle is quickly losing control of himself.

There is only a very, very basic story holding together what is essentially a mood piece. I think it's fair to say "Beyond the Black Rainbow" is very much like "Drive," except with a mad scientist and even less dialogue. Long hypnotic shots show off a production design heavily influenced by "2001: A Space Odyssey," with its rigid, severe geometric decor and retro color palette. There are a couple of really impressive sets, but others reflect the low budget of the production. This is clearly meant to be an homage to not only the science-fiction of the 70s, but the filmmaking techniques of the day. So we see the use of a lot of practical effects and older film tricks like superimpositions and double exposures to convey the volatile emotional and mental states of the characters. Dr. Nyle's surreal self-discovery sequence late in the film recalls "2001" travelling beyond the solar system in its use of bizarre abstract imagery. Meanwhile, the aural side of the film is an old school analog wonder, lending depth and dimension to simple visuals, giving a sense of strangeness and intensity to even the most innocuous objects.

Deciphering the film's myriad metaphors and untangling its obtuse narrative doesn't matter nearly as much as enjoying the rare atmosphere of paranoia and possibility that it manages to create and sustain. There are multiple, prolonged shots where almost nothing is happening onscreen, but the tension builds and builds, until the film is practically pulsating with menace. Unseen forces figure heavily into the story, driving Nyle's madness and Elena's need to escape her captors. There are many elements that are never explained at all, like the Arboria Institute's imposing, helmeted sentries that are unleashed to subdue Elena. Who are they? What are they? And where did Elena come from? The esoteric pronouncements of Dr. Arboria and Dr. Nyle's taunts provide some hints, suggesting something deeper, grander, and madder at the heart of the Arboria Institute that can never be fully understood by mere, untranscendant mortals.

Or perhaps not. Where "Beyond the Black Rainbow" falls apart completely is in the final ten minutes, when suddenly it becomes a very different picture and tries to give the audience a very concrete, conventional ending. This does not work at all. Suddenly the scintillating mood is gone, and the film concludes with something straight out of a bad horror movie. Up until those last ten minutes, however, "Black Rainbow" is a really interesting mix of experimental art film, drug trip, dystopian thriller, and Cronenbergian psychological science-fiction. I especially enjoyed the skin-crawling performance of Michael Rogers, who is both creepy and campy in all the right ways. Surprisingly, this seems to be his biggest film role to date.

"Beyond the Black Rainbow" is obviously not for everybody. I'm sure many viewers who will be put off by its alienated outlook, extreme stylization, and the slow pace, but I think it should also have great appeal for genre fans of a certain age, or really anyone looking for something a little weird and out of the ordinary. It just screams future cult film. This is Panos Cosmatos's first feature, and I'm interested to see what he does next, and if he can move beyond this particular style and sensibility. Given the lushness and immersiveness of what he accomplished with only a little more than a million dollars, you have to wonder what he could do with a bigger budget and a real script.
---

Read More

A Creepy, Campy "Jekyll"

Steven Moffat is known for a modern day version of Sherlock Holmes and contributing to the resurrection of "Doctor Who." He also put his mark on another classic character in 2007, in "Jekyll," which is a modern day version of Robert Louis Stevenson's "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde." The original Dr. Jekyll existed in this universe, but any connections to our protagonist, Dr. Tom Jackman (James Nesbitt), are initially a mystery. We first find Jackman hiring on Katherine Reimer (Michelle Ryan), to be a personal assistant and go-between for the anxious Jackman and his alter-ego, who eventually picks the name Hyde. The two share the same body, Hyde surfacing for previously agreed-upon intervals when Jackman falls asleep, though "unscheduled changes" happen with some frequency. Hyde is violent, lustful, in possession of superior strength and a mean sense of humor, and has little self-control. He resents the fact that "Daddy" keeps him on a short leash, and is continually testing boundaries. Jackman, meanwhile, does everything possible to maintain control, and keep Hyde from discovering that Jackman is married to Claire (Gina Bellman), and has two young sons.

"Jekyll" is a genre romp, easily filling up its six hour-long installments with all manner of conspiracy theories, plot twists, family secrets, and some murder and mayhem too. For the first few hours, Hyde is the main antagonist, but soon the operatives of a biotech firm called Klein and Utterson, who want to exploit Jackman's transformations, reveal themselves to be an equally formidable threat. The writing is very entertaining and the individual episodes are beautifully structured, but there are plot holes and convenient explanations everywhere, and the pacing toward the end gets a little too frantic. Also, though the first few episodes feel like your usual crime thriller with some paranormal touches, by the end we're definitely in anything-goes "Doctor Who" territory, which may not be to the taste of some viewers. Personally, I liked the increasing levels of camp and conspiracy, especially the little humorous touches and the wonderfully old-school ending. Though the production has all the modern bells and whistles, Moffat indulges plenty of the old genre conventions, and never takes himself too seriously. As a sign of the times, he includes a pair of private detectives who are also a lesbian couple, Miranda (Meera Syal) and Min (Fenella Woolgar), who provide occasional exposition and comic relief.

Performances are strong all around, but it's James Nesbitt who does the most to make "Jekyll" such a great watch. His double performance as Jackman and Hyde is full of surprises. Hyde is over-the-top monstrous, and legitimately scary at times because he's so unpredictable and we know he's capable of so much depravity. On the other hand, he's a great big kid whose enjoyment of all the nastiness he purveys can be infectious. Meanwhile Jackman is more complicated and compelling, not the nicest or most reasonable man, but his actions become understandable in light of how much he has to lose and the lengths required to keep Hyde in check. Over six episodes, we get to see their relationships with each other and those around them develop, sometimes in unexpected ways. And they complement each other wonderfully. Jackman keeps everything mostly grounded in reality, while Hyde's appearances help to keep the story from becoming too glum and serious, though his antics can border on silly. At one point he finds his way into a lion exhibit at the zoo, and has himself a good primordial scream to signal his arrival.

A few minor odds and ends did detract from the series a little for me. Paterson Joseph plays an American operative of Klein and Utterson's, who is such an extreme caricature that he strains credibility. The directors occasionally try some of these stylized, blurry, handheld shots that don't work at all, though the rest of the cinematography is pretty solid. Also, Michelle Ryan is the female lead in the first few episodes, and then we switch to Gina Bellman as the lead for the remainder. Both actresses are very good, but I found Ryan's character was seriously shortchanged. It felt like they ran out of space for her subplot, which is understandable considering the time constraints, but leaves her an awkwardly extraneous presence in the last few episodes.

All in all, the series is a lot of fun, a quick watch, and makes great use of its premise. If you're looking for something more sedate and Victorian, "Jekyll" is probably not for you. If you're in the mood for something pulpy with a lot of black humor, give it a shot. I don't think it's among the best things Stephen Moffat has ever produced, but it succeeds in doing what it set out to do, which was to reinvent and pay homage to an old classic that turns out to have a lot of life left in it.
---

Read More

What Show Do I Watch Next?

Well, I'm done with "The Sopranos." This leaves me with a little dilemma again. What show do I want to watch next? The next obvious one is "The Wire," but having just sat through eighty-something hours of Tony Soprano and his crew, I think I need something lighter and ideally shorter. So no "West Wing," no "Six Feet Under," and no "Battlestar Galactica" for now. A couple of possibilities below:

"Deadwood" and "Carnivàle" – two short-lived HBO genre series that aired during the run of "The Sopranos," one a gritty Western and one centered around a Prohibition-era travelling show with some supernatural elements. Both had their vocal fans, but neither had the ratings to save them from cancellation. This left both shows technically unfinished, which might be a little unsatisfying, but I've gotten a lot out of cancelled shows before. "Firefly" and "Twin Peaks" come to mind.

"Once Upon a Time" – I watched the pilot episode last fall and didn't like it, choosing to follow the other fairy-tale themed freshman show "Grimm" instead. However, I've been hearing lots of buzz about "Once Upon a Time," with a lot of people describing it as good guilty pleasure viewing. And I'm definitely not opposed to guilty pleasure television. I'm only one season behind, so now would be a good time to give this another try and determine whether or not I want to catch up.

"Downton Abbey" – In addition to winning practically every television award on the planet, this British period piece is relatively short, with two seasons of eight episodes apiece. Maggie Smith is in the ensemble, and has gotten a lot of press for playing the sharp old Dowager Countess. However, I'm really not much for soap operas, which I suspect "Downton Abbey" really is. On the other hand, because the series is so brief, the storylines and relationships aren't going to be dragged out forever.

"Jekyll" – There's short and then there's really short. While I'm waiting for the return of "Doctor Who" and "Sherlock," maybe I should check out the Stephen Moffatt scripted 2007 drama series "Jekyll," a modern day version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." It's only six episodes, and I've heard nothing but good things about it. Apparently it was shown in the US on the Syfy, but it remains awfully obscure and never attracted much attention Stateside. Maybe that's for a reason? Only one way to find out.

"Modern Family" – This is one of the most acclaimed modern comedies of the recent past, and I still haven't seen a single episode. I think I was initially a little turned off by some of the blander marketing, but I've clearly misjudged it. I'm very curious to see what I've been missing, but the show has never really been a priority for me. I think part of me is a little worried that it won't live up to the high expectations. Or I'll love it so much that I'll turn into one of those fans.

"The Tatami Galaxy" – This recent anime series is the latest work by director Masaki Yuasa, best known for working in the "super flat" style on projects like the experimental feature film "Mind Game." I've really loved his other work, like "Kemonozume" and especially "Kaiba." "Tatami Galaxy" aired as part of the Noitamina programming block on Fuji Television, which is devoted to animation for older audiences. I may have outgrown a lot of these shows, but once in a while I do still like a good anime.

"Adventure Time" – And speaking of cartoons, this Cartoon Network show has gone and become a massive cult favorite while I wasn't looking. I occasionally see some love aimed at "Regular Show" and "Flapjack," and of course there's the whole "My Little Pony" phenomenon that's still going on, but the "Adventure Time" fans are another breed. Stills of the colorful show don't seem to do it justice, so I know I've got to go make time to sit down with a few episodes and see what all the fuss is about.

And I still need to finish watching "Spaced." And I still need to watch the second season of "Louie." And I never did catch up on the rest of "The Big Bang Theory." And "House." And "Nikita." And there must be at least two seasons worth of "South Park" I've missed by now. And hasn't "Futurama" started up again?

Okay, I withdraw the question, guys. I have way too much to watch.
---

Read More

"Frankenstein" Live, More or Less

I'd never been to one of those "one night only" Fathom Events screenings before, but when I heard that my local art house was going to show an encore of their live filming and transmission of the UK's National Theatre production of "Frankenstein," I was in. I had actually tried to get tickets last March, but they were sold out almost immediately for my area. This time, with expanded theaters and playdates, it was much easier to find an available screening. I couldn't do both nights, so I picked the version where Benedict Cumberbatch plays the Creature, and Jonny Lee Miller plays Victor Frankenstein. That's two Sherlock Holmes for the price of one.

The pre-show material was mercifully limited. Instead of the usual "First Look" commercials package, we got sounds of a murmuring audience and the screen cycling through black-and-white stills from "Frankenstein" rehearsals. In the place of previews, however, there were a couple of schmaltzy ads for Broadway shows, a PSA for screening sponsor Aviva to push their charity work, and of course Fathom Events and the National Theater plugging similar events. Then there was another intro from a female presenter, and a short making-of segment that felt like I'd accidentally clicked into the DVD extras, before the main event got underway.

Now the conceit of the play being filmed live was something that sounded fine in theory, but I wasn't sure how it would actually come off in practice. It took me about fifteen minutes or so to adjust to the fact that I actually was watching a play and not a film in a movie theater setting. The the editing and pacing were entirely driven by what was happening on stage, but with the multiple cameras providing coverage and often jarring cutting between different shots, initially it felt like the action should have been moving along a little quicker. the fun of live theater is being there in the moment, but the filmed version was too obviously planned out to capture that spontaneity. I'd also have liked more wide shots to show off more of the impressive stagecraft on display, and less of the distracting overhead camera, which was slightly too far from the stage.

Once I got caught up in the play, most of these distractions faded into the background. Though the Creature and Victor Frankenstein are given equal billing, this is really the Creature's show. The first act of "Frankestein" deals entirely with the Creature's birth into the world and early education. Cumberbatch is phenomenal in the role, with one of the best introductions I've ever seen. He first emerges from a womblike structure a howling mass of newly conscious flesh, and then learns to use arms and legs, to crawl, to stand, to walk across an empty stage, all in the space of a few minutes. He writhes and spasms, but gradually gains control over his malformed, stitched-together body. We see his growing self-awareness, his struggle to learn, to live. Most importantly, we see signs of a keen intelligence in the swiftness of his improvement, missing from most filmed versions of "Frankenstein."

The play hews closely to the content of the Mary Shelley novel, if not its form. Instead of the nested flashbacks, the narrative is linear, following the Creature's point of view as he explores the world, and has his first unfortunate encounters with human society. Several minor characters are nicely fleshed out, including De Lacy, played by Karl Johnson, the old blind man who becomes the Creature's friend and tutor. Instead of merely taking instruction, the Creature debates with him after learning to speak, challenges him, and displays early signs of alienation and anger. Also greatly improved is the role of Elizabeth, Frankenstein's fiancée. She's played with considerable charm by Naomie Harris, one of several colorblind casting choices in the production, who we meet once the Creature arrives in Geneva to confront Frankenstein directly.

Now Victor Frankenstein has always been an arrogant, prideful encapsulation of everything scientific ethics review boards exist to prevent. Jonny Lee Miller nails that, but he also makes the man a little sympathetic, a tragic figure whose downfall is painful to watch. His scenes with the Cumberbatch are the heart of the story, and the two are much better matched than I was expecting. The play treats them as equals, really two sides of the same person, to underline the obvious subtext. Cumberbatch is the stronger actor here, and he's has the meatier role for the performance I saw, but Miller does his share of heavy lifting. By the climax, he's become the play's second protagonist, despite having less time onstage. His awkward affections for Elizabeth are convincing, as are his struggles to contain and mollify a ravenous scientific curiosity.

It makes me curious about Miller's take on the Creature, and how it might differ from Cumberbatch's performance, which was the clear highlight of "Frankenstein" for me. I've never seen anything else quite like this, where the actor is juggling impeded speech, sometimes shambling and sometimes frenetic movement (or both at once), and a massive amount of make-up and prosthetics, all in the name of making the Creature look properly inhuman. The physical stuff is damned impressive, but it pales in comparison to the way Cumberbatch gets across the Creature's moral and intellectual development, that fuels the inner torments of his existence that inevitably consume him. He seethes at the injustice of being abandoned and condemned to loneliness. He becomes cruel and vicious, and even something of a bitter wit, but there's never a doubt that he has the capacity for goodness.

The production by Danny Boyle is eye-catching. A star field of dangling incandescent light bulbs stand in for thunder, lighting, electrical activity, and perhaps other things. The rotating stage occasionally reveals hidden sets, and more complex structures build up over time, but early on there's a nice minimalism to the staging. Sun and moon are simple illuminated images, and a strip of turf and illusory flights of birds stand in for all of nature. It was difficult to get a sense of the space without actually being there, and I'm sure that some of the effect didn't come across as intended. For instance, a miniature locomotive traverses the stage at one point, but the cameras did a terrible job of conveying the size and the speed of the thing, which would have been easy to see if I were actually seated in the audience.

Ultimately, I don't think that the filmed transmission "Frankenstein" is a great substitute for the real live play. But given the extremely limited ability that most of us have to access these highly acclaimed productions, it's damn well good enough. And I have to say that it was nice to be in a screening situation where you know it's perfectly okay to clap at the end, as the theater was full of the sound of the National Theater audience cheering on the performers as the play ended. I cheered with them.
---

Read More

Paging Dr. Lecter

Thomas Harris's Dr. Hannibal Lecter is one of the most popular horror figures of the past quarter century, and Hollywood has never stopped trying to capitalize on the fact. While he hasn't been subjected to the same glut of multitudinous sequels and reboots as Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhies, Dr. Lecter has featured in five different theatrical films: "Manhunter" (1986), the Michael Mann film where Lecter was played by Brian Cox, Jonathan Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991), which won the Big Five at the Academy Awards, Ridley Scott's "Hannibal" (2001), Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" (2002), which was both a remake of "Manhunter" and a sequel, and finally Peter Webber's much derided prequel, "Hannibal Rising" (2007).

Now Hannibal Lecter is coming to television. Not one, but two shows based on the characters in the Lecter series are in the works. Lifetime has "Clarice," about the early adventures of Agent Clarice Starling, to be produced by MGM. However, the project getting all the attention right now is "Hannibal," a different prequel series focusing on Dr. Lecter's days as a forensic psychiatrist for the FBI, working with young agent Will Graham. If you're familiar with "Manhunter," this working relationship does not end well. Bryan Fuller is developing "Hannibal" for NBC, and the leads have already been cast. Hugh Dancy, is onboard as Will Graham, a good move for an actor who has been getting no traction in his film projects lately. The real surprise came yesterday with the announcement that Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, fresh from a Best Actor Award win at the Cannes Film Festival, will be playing our Hannibal the Pre-Cannibal. Americans probably know him best as the villain from "Casino Royale," but he's an excellent leading man known for intense performances.

Why on earth are we getting both of these projects now? Well, "Silence of the Lambs" was released in 1991, which puts it in the right timeframe for a nostalgic reboot. Keep in mind that we're also getting new "Sherlock Holmes," "Dallas," and "Beauty and the Beast" series, plus a "Sex and the City" prequel. And apparently that "Munsters" prequel is far from dead yet. I'm also guessing that what makes the main characters in the Hannibal Lecter series an especially promising fit for television is that they were all employed by the FBI at one point or another. The networks are always trying to find new angles on the standard crime procedural that has become more and more prevalent over the years. Having a secret serial killer as one of the good guys is certainly a strong twist, even if "Dexter" got there first. Clarice Starling would seem to be a perfect fit for Lifetime, which has been steadily moving into dramatic territory, as she's one of the only film heroines in law enforcement that anyone remembers.

Will people tune in though? NBC is taking a risk by letting Bryan Fuller follow the cable model, only producing thirteen episodes per season, which will be heavily serialized. The quality should be higher than average, but the trouble with cable shows is that they often attract smaller audiences than the network television model can afford to sustain. "Hannibal" will certainly benefit from the name recognition and the juicy premise. However, I can't help thinking about the last 90s blockbuster film turned NBC television procedural, "The Firm," with Josh Lucas. It certainly had ambition, good talent, and the production values were very impressive. It also got nowhere in the ratings, one of three NBC casualties of the Thursday 10PM slot last season. There's not much information available about "Clarice" yet, but I expect that a lot is going to depend on who gets recruited to fill Jodie Foster's Oscar-winning shoes.

And on that note, I can't wait to see whether Mads Mikkelsen is going to be able to pull off Hannibal Lecter. His involvement now has me very curious about the show, where previously I'd been ambivalent about its prospects. If all goes well, we may be able to add Hannibal Lecter to the growing list of television anti-heroes that have been at the center of so many great shows in recent years. I don't feel that there is any particular need to revisit Hannibal Lecter, but if the studio insists, I find this a much better alternative to more film sequels and reboots. We're long past the point where a television spinoff means low rent genre schlock like "Poltergeist: The Legacy" or "Friday the 13th: The Series" (a beloved guilty pleasure). If NBC can land Mikkelsen for "Hannibal," they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Crossing my fingers.
---

Read More

Okay, Let's Talk About "Kevin"

"We Need to Talk About Kevin" is a psychological horror film about guilt, about a mother whose teenage son has done something horrible. We first meet Eva (Tilda Swinton), living alone as a pariah in her small town, barely scraping by doing menial office work, and living in constant fear of her hostile neighbors and the rest of the community. Many of them are angry with her, and perhaps they have good reason to be.

Through flashbacks, we learn about her son Kevin, played by a succession of babies, dark-haired, unsmiling little boys, and finally the coolly distant Ezra Miller as a teenager. We learn how Eva and her husband Franklin (John C. Reilly) had very different parenting experiences with Kevin, who seemed like a perfectly normal child to Franklin, but was an unholy terror to Eva from the very beginning. As a baby, he would cry constantly, perhaps maliciously. As a toddler, he was sullen, unresponsive, and shunned Eva's attempts at affection. When he was older, there were power games and early signs of antisocial behavior. Was Kevin's abnormality due to Eva's harsh personality and early ambivalence towards motherhood? Or was there something more innately wrong with him? If so, where could the fault have come from, if not from Eva?

Directed by Lynne Ramsay, the film is a fever dream of painful memories that Eva sifts through in search of elusive answers, broken up by daily episodes of misery in the present day. The pace is often slow, and Eva's journey can be a bit meandering in the beginning, but it's all in service of a terrific build-up of tension that pays off with plenty of interest. By the time we find out exactly what Kevin did, the film is almost unbearably intense and emotionally harrowing. There are some particulars of the plot that are a little ridiculous if you think about them for very long, but Ramsay does a fine job of translating them cinematically, and making them work for the story on a thematic level. She also does a great things with the visuals, particularly the color red, which recurs throughout the film. Sometimes it appears in physical objects, and sometimes in abstract flashes, acting as a transitional element from past to present, from memory to reality and back again.

Then you have the performances. This is more exceptional work from Tilda Swinton, who plays Eva in two distinctly different states - first as the frustrated mother at war with a young son she is unable to connect with, and then as a haunted, guilt-ridden shadow of her formerly vibrant self. It's her work in the flashbacks that I found the most intriguing, because Swinton is so good at playing up the ambiguity of Eva's culpability. We're certainly sympathetic to her when Kevin behaves abominably, but there's a coldness to Eva that comes through at times, especially when she's trying to bargain and reason with a small child who is clearly not in a position to do either. I can't imagine the film without her at the center of it. John C. O'Reilly doesn't get much to do here except play another good-natured everyman, which he does here as well as he always does. Ezra Miller as teenage Kevin, however, was a good find. He manages to hold his ground with Swinton in several key scenes, and succeeds in making the audience question whether Kevin should really be considered the villain or the victim or both.

There has been no shortage of films about evil children over the years, but none as thoughtful or as effective as this one. The vital difference here is that the horror doesn't come from what Kevin does, or even from what he is, but from the possibility that the evil in him is a manifestation of some dark part of Eva. That's a far more awful thing to confront than demons or ghouls or a simple abomination of nature. Horror films - and for any parent, "Kevin" is definitely a horror film - rarely tap into these kinds of fears, probably because it requires navigating so much difficult emotional territory and asks so many uncomfortable questions. I don't think "We Need to Talk About Kevin" would have worked without Tilda Swinton's performance. And in other hands, it could have all gotten campy or trite very fast.

But between Swinton and Ramsay, "Kevin" is exceptional. It's easily the best horror film I've seen in ages, and one of the best films of last year, period.
---

Read More

Piling on Rex Reed

Last "The Cabin in the Woods" post, I promise, but I have to talk about the movie a little bit to talk about the latest target of the internet's derision, The New York Observer's veteran movie critic, Rex Reed. Reed is being pilloried from all directions this week for his review of "The Cabin in the Woods," which he vehemently panned. This might have gone unremarked upon, except that Reed's review was full of spoilers, and to many people's amusement and incredulity, a lot of those spoilers were wrong. In fact, most of his understanding of the plot was faulty, as the piece was full of errors that suggest Reed not only didn't grasp what was going on, but may not have been paying much attention to the movie.

This was not just a bad review, but an incompetent one. What's worse, Reed also took the time to lob a few choice insults at what he perceived to be "The Cabin in the Woods'" intended audience of "electronics nerds and skateboarders addicted to Xbox 360 video games whose knowledge of the arts begins and ends with MTV2." Yikes. To some extent I'm sure that Reed intended to be provocative, or even goading. But I don't think he anticipated the extent of the reaction to his review. Cue the gleeful online pummeling, the accusations that Reed is too old, too feeble-minded, and too out of touch for his job. Cue the mocking reaction pieces, the indignant dissections of everything Reed got wrong in his review, and a couple of well-meaning open letters, expressing more muted dismay. And good grief, it's been ridiculous to watch.

Yes, Rex Reed's review was a blunder and a bad one, but the reaction to it has been absurdly overblown. I've seen countless critics fail to grasp countless other movies, mostly on the artsy and erudite end of the scale. I've seen rants and railings against pretentious hacks and the fawning sycophants who enable their fatuousness. Last year, Terence Malick's "The Tree of Life" was subject to plenty of dismissive and hostile reviews, but the reviewers weren't attacked for their lack of comprehension or insight. Countless critics, many of whom I respect, seemed to be knocked for a loop by Tomas Alfredson's unorthodox approach to "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy," and decided it was terrible. Many made errors trying to describe the labyrinthine plot, or missed certain crucial information entirely. I'm not naming names, but few suffered any adverse consequences.

I don't see Rex Reed's take on "Cabin in the Woods" as any more egregious. The big difference here is that "Cabin" is aimed at a geekier, more populist, more tech-savvy crowd, and Reed is an easy target. He's 73 years old and part of the old guard print establishment, a career critic since the 60s who has consistently refused to change with the times. Moreover, he has a colorful history of controversies and bad behavior, and he comes off as an arrogant, combative blowhard more often than not. But sometimes that's what you want in a movie critic, someone who will go to the mattresses to champion or bury a film, who isn't afraid of being the only one in the room to express a dissenting opinion. And with 93% of the critics delivering positive notices to "The Cabin in the Woods," that sure looks like the case here. Armond White, our usual iconoclast, seems to be MIA, leaving the contrarians awfully few in numbers. I know most of the Reed's detractors are going after him for the inaccuracies in his piece rather than the negative marks, but the unpopularity of his opinion sure does help paint a bulls-eye on his chest. Do you think Rex Reed would've garnered this much hateful attention if he'd included that line about the film's nonexistent vampires in a positive review?

Again, I don't agree with Reed's analysis of "The Cabin in the Woods," and I find his slap-dash fact-checking unprofessional and troubling. But I'm also sympathetic to his point of view. I know I'm far less likely to remember the details of movies I disliked than the movies I liked, and I've muddled plot points in summaries. There are certain genres of film I'm not predisposed to enjoy, and I've cast aspersions on those who do enjoy them. I've bitten off more than I could chew and I've gotten carried away and written some really idiotic things on this blog and elsewhere. I try to be self-aware about this, but sometimes I'll have a bad day and slip up. And it's no surprise that sometimes the professionals have bad days too.
---

Read More