post

Out in Theaters: THE WATER DIVINER

The-Water-Diviner-Gallery-01.jpg
The Water Diviner
frankensteins elements from three distinct movie genres: a blood and honor war movie, a fish-out-of-water travelogue and an old timey, on the road adventure flick. Despite borrowing trappings from all of the above genres, it still can’t manage to be interesting or, unsurprisingly, cohesive. It’s like A Good Year collided into a Gallipoli and started napping. The picture is hamstrung to the point of essentially becoming the Australian Unbroken, with director Russell Crowe disproving the old adage “if you can fake it, you can make it.”

For a film about WWI, lost children, sharia law, horse riding and… coffee?,  Crowe’s directorial debut is a feckless kitchen sinker short ordered on excitement and emotion, despite the oft circled back upon thumping drums of war and obvious tear duct ploys it pulls throughout. And from cute Turkish lobby boys in a fez to the ear-splitting thump of canons blasting at our heroes escaping over the hills like certified Von Trapps, The Water Diviner is just one miffed attempt after another to win our sympathies and our interest. All it won from me is a few snores.

In addition to directing, Crowe also stars in his movie as a man whose sons are lost to the Australian war effort (a fact that is revealed in a very shitty table-setter of dramatic misappropriations to come) and whose wife offs herself from the grief. The Water Diviner even manages to slip in your classic Crowe cradling the deceased corpse of his wife, a la Gladiator. Score. After forfeiting his car to the local (and supremely snarky might I add) priest, Crowe’s Connor sets of for Turkey to recover the bodies of his three dead boys. Hip hip, hurray!

TheWaterDivinerPic_21_-_lores.jpg

Jai Courtney appears with a silly mustache (it’s a bad movie, of course Jai is in it) as a Lt. heading up the corpse recovery effort over in Turkey and has little to play with in a role that ultimately just gets forgotten about halfway through the movie. His part is meant to forecast his career (*ba dum tssh*). Once Bond girl Olga Kurylenko is paired up with Crowe as a love interest despite their 16 year age difference (I was also surprised to find out that Crowe was only 51. I could have sworn that he was just about Neeson’s contemporary. Now I get the whole “Russell Crowe’s a fatty” argument…but I digress.) The chemistry between Kurylenko and Crowe is as forced as an arranged marriage (ironic seeing that such issue becomes a contention point) and fails to anchor the romantic element in something believable or worth caring about. Once again, you might as well snooze through these segments (I know I did.)

As Crowe stumbles about, busting chops hither and thither, yelling about his sons (general Fightin’ Round the World fare) he comes to the realization that perhaps all of his offspring have not perished. Zoinks, there’s only two corpses with bullet holes in their heads! Perhaps William or Timothy or whoever it was survived after all! Whodathunkit?! Did I mention that he finds the bodies of his sons by some kind of watery premonition? Because that happens.

TheWaterDivinerPic04.jpg

Early on in the film, we see Connor water witching; sliding around his property dousing for underground agua sources. Which he promptly discovers, digs a 12 foot hole and voila! a lake sprouts from the ground like a babe from the womb. Connor screams at the sky victorious. He later uses this same technique to find the corpses of his kids. The celebration isn’t as pronounced. I don’t know if we’re supposed to take this whole affair at face value (it is worth mentioning that this is “inspired by true events”) or find it inspiring or spiritual or whatever but it’s just so… ugh.

What follows is a supremely boring search for a foredrawn conclusion we all know to expect only 10 minutes into the movie (like playing connect the dots with only a dozen dots. We know it’s an elephant alright?!). Though he’s mostly solid in front of it, Crowe has some issues behind the camera including horrible CGI (the reported $125 million budget will really make you scratch your head), repetitive scene work and a general lack of oomph. For a man who’s worked with a who’s who of directors in a handful of big box office hits, it’s evident that Crowe has learned very little at the feet of the masters. Indeed, his feature is flat where it should be round, hollow where it should be dense and overstuffed with movie hullabaloo in each and every orafice. The sets and costumes do admittedly look nice in Crowe’s all-encompassing sepia tone though.

Don’t let its multiple AACTA Award wins and nominations fool you, the only thing The Water Diviner can divine is a good siesta.

D+

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Weekly Review 77: KILL, WHITE, SONG, BURN

Weekly Review

It’s been a few weeks since the last Weekly Review, as it tends to be but this week gets us back into the swing of things with a list of mostly new releases. Although I feel like I haven’t been to the theater in weeks (having only gone once last week) I had some reviews waiting in the wings for publication, including the excellent Ex Machina (in addition to an interview I did with director Alex Garland), an unexpectedly favorable assessment of social media horror Unfriended, a less favorable walkthrough of James Franco/Jonah Hill crime tale True Story and a gushing review of Noah Baumbach‘s latest hit While We’re Young. At home, I caught up on some studio screeners but haven’t watched anything as of yet this week (what with Game of Thrones back on and still trying to work my way through the surprisingly kickass Daredevil show.)

Also, I don’t often flat-out admit that I was wrong about something my first time through but having re-watched The Babadook, I don’t think I sung its praises nearly enough. I know it’s been heralded (alongside It Follows) as one of the best horror movies of recent years and upon this this second viewing and willing to board that train. My initial assessment didn’t keep it from my Top Ten Horror Movies of 2014 list but it didn’t climb the ranks as I would have it do now. I’m sorry Australia. With that out of the way, let me Weekly Review.

KILL ME THREE TIMES (2015)

simon_pegg_kriv_stenders_kill_me_three_times.jpg
Cheeky, bloodstained Kill Me Three Times has been getting a bad rap around the critical scene (it sits at an undeserved 9% on Rotten Tomatoes as of writing this) but it isn’t “bad” so much as not as good as it should be. With Simon Pegg leading the cast against type as a mustached professional assassin, the whole bloody affair is filled with body bags, double crosses and attempts at black comedy that hit less frequently than Pegg’s comically off-type marksman. Kill Me Three Times is the kind of “everyone gets their hands dirty and then gets their comeuppances” crime saga that we’ve seen innumerable times before without anything too fresh mixed in. It’s almost as much fun as it should be but never quite as clever as it thinks or you might expect. With a fairly insubstantial narrative – regardless of how many corpses pile up – director Kriv Stenders struggles to make us care about any of the characters, nearly forcing us to root for bad guy Pegg. He deals with nonlinear storytelling to varying success with the events surrounding the paid “hit” get increasingly silly and miss their target fairly often. Again, not flat-out bad, just not anything special. (C)

WHITE GOD (2015)

white_god.jpg
This Hungarian stray dog-uprising film will be hard to bear for any pup lover. That much is clear. But those willing to put in the hard minutes watching “impure” canines having their own canines filled down into killing daggers will find a nuanced tale reflecting larger societal issues. The saga starts when Lili’s mom leaves her and her dog Hagen with her distant, unsympathetic father, Daniel. When city officials demand they turn over the mutt or pay a fee, Daniel sets him free to Lil’s devastation.  White God separates itself from the pack by making uncommon narrative choices – the decision to focus on the dark metamorphosis of the dog rather than its owner after their separation, a sweet and sour story that’s unexpectedly dark and blood-soaked – and for that much alone is successful. It’s equally hard to bark at the many accomplishments of the dog trainers, as no CGI is used to accomplish its many pooch practical effects. Though its general arc in large part apes Apes (Rise of the) White God is a compelling portrait of societal underbelly and the effect of rejection that goes a good tug beyond the surface. (B-)

SONG OF THE SEA (2014)

song_hires_5.jpg
One of last year’s unfortunate animated Oscar losers, Song of the Sea can join the long line of those undeservingly snubbed in favor of the mild Marvel match-up Big Hero 6. Hailing from Ireland and featuring a painterly, impressionist visual palette, Song of the Sea recounts an ancient Celtic myth of a part-seal, sea-woman; the rare and heralded Selkie. On the night of Saoirse’s birth, her mother disappears into the sea, leaving behind a bathos-riddled husband (voiced perfectly by Brendan Gleeson), son Ben and her newborn child. Having never spoken a word, Saoirse falls ill when she’s forced to leave her home behind, prompting her and her brother on a quest to right the wrongs of their collective pasts,  allowing Saoirse to live up to her true birthright. Feast-level visual panache aside, Song of the Sea is an involving spiritual journey that adults will cherish as much as youngsters. Imbued with poignant messages, rich thematic tapestries and even richer aesthetic flourish, it’s a wonder (and a shame) that Song of the Sea has yet to garner the attention it rightly deserves. (A-)

BURN AFTER READING (2008)

burn_after_reading_61.jpg
A disconcertingly snide entry into the Coen filmography, Burn After Reading is a cinematic rant about government mismanagement stuffed with deliciously offbeat caricatures and subtle comic beats. No, it’s not their most conservative effort to date – and they hardly try to mask their disdain for their subject matter – but it features moments of silently explosive comedy (John Malkovich‘s douchey pronunciation of “memoirs”, JK Simmons‘ abrupt, confused backroom hearings) and well as unanticipated soulful beats (most involving Richard Jenkins). And no sticks can be shaken at a cast this stacked. Only the Coens could force the reunion of dapper duo George Clooney and Brad Pitt and turn them into such sleek airheads. Burn After Reading isn’t near my favorite Coen bros – in large part due to its flushing-toilet narrative structure, its relative inconsequentialism and its general air of breezy irreverence – but let’s be clear, they don’t have a bad film between them. Calling it out for not being the best is like picking the ugliest out of a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition lineup. It’s still sickeningly hot. (B-)

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Talking With Alex Garland of EX MACHINA

Alex Garland has been lurking through the film world since the turn of the century, trying on all kinds of hats on all kinds of projects. His career began somewhat inauspiciously when Danny Boyle turned Garland’s 1996 Thailand travelogue nightmare into a critically flunky Leonardo DiCaprio project (though I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for The Beach, both the novel and the film.) Shortly thereafter, Garland teamed with Boyle again to greater effect; producing what was to become one of the greatest zombie features of all time in 28 Days Later…, a film that really set the stage for the success of a cultural phenomenon like The Walking Dead. Read More

post

Out in Theaters: UNFRIENDED

Unfriended1.jpg

For a movie that takes place entirely on a computer screen – and only utilizes about a third of the theater screen size at any given moment – Unfriended is a surprisingly flight, economic horror goof-off more geared towards mocking the import teens place on their minute affairs than wrassling up any real scares. Between five-finger games, teenage infidelity, killer computer viruses and a tragic case of pants pooping, Unfriended adds log after log to the straight-faced but campy fire resulting in a delightfully dumb, and occasionally laugh out loud funny, 80-odd minute horrorette. Read More

post

Out in Theaters: TRUE STORY

still-of-jonah-hill-in-true-story-2015-large-picture.jpg

Based on a true story, True Story tells the story of a NYT journalist disgraced for publishing an untrue story about neo-African slavery who must earn back his mag-cover reputation by penning the true story of a wily, potential homicidal killer notorious for telling untrue stories. Got it? Good. Director Rupert Goold‘s doesn’t bother trying to reinvent the wheel with this 2001 true crime saga/Christian Longo biopic so much as he flips the genre’s tropes on their back and proceeds to dissect with a spoon in slow-moving, dull-edged pokes and prods. The result is psychologically unsettling – and speaks to the hazy nature of truth and truth-telling in journalism – but often the pathway is too humdrum and lacking in the significant battle of wits that such a feature truly demands to really get any blood boiling.

James Franco‘s shady simpers have always lent him a kind of notable incredulity and his best performances have come from a place of being able to exploit that to his characters’ advantage. From Aron Ralston to Saul Silver, Franco emotes through his half-cocked smile and stoney, squinty peepers.  For however half-baked and half-witted the writer/director/actor/poet/professor/artist can come across as, there’s something genuinely unnerving about casting his baby browns and easy grin as those of a bonafide psychopath but, due to a script that is decidedly set to simmer, he never gets to really explore the character’s darkest depths to fulfilling – or particularly worthwhile – degree. Rather the project, like Franco’s role within it, is served undercooked and is ultimately underwhelming.

true_story-2.jpg

Sitting across the aisle from Franco’s murderous sycophant is a clean-cut Jonah Hill as Michael Finkel, the aforementioned defrocked journo. He wound up here in a round about way involving identity theft (when captured, Longo was posing as Finkel) and pure dumb luck (a phone call from a party interested in the scoop.) Having been stripped of his position at the New York Times and deemed untouchable by its many competitors, Finkel would be the last man to land an exclusive with a recently captured topper of the FBI’s Most Wanted List but Longo, for reasons not fully clear, has invited Finkel to his stainless steel conference room in exchange for “writing lessons” and friendly convos. You see Longo is a dedicated Finkel fan – or so he says – and wants to learn to hone his writing prowess at the foot of a master. And potential master fibber. After all, there’s not that many great avenues for self-expression for the incarcerated and Longo has always craved an audience.

As Finkel and Longo circle one another, becoming dangerously close and blasting past the line of unprofessional-ism early on and with relish, an unconventional game of cat and mouse unfolds. Goold’s game playing is meant to keep the audience on their toes but he can’t shake the feeling of being too obvious and too oblivious to his obviousness. As we’re expected to parse out whether Longo is a David Gale or a Hannibal Lecter – a patsy or a true psychopath – the film hems much closer to the dramatic success of the former (sitting at 19% on Rotten Tomatoes).

JonahHillJamesFrancoTrueStory2.jpg

Felicity Jones steps in briefly to jumpstart the coronary pumps but her character – the most interesting in the film – is mostly relegated to the offscreen or in charge of sulky but supportive backrubs. When she does rise from the depths to blast her unbridled, fearless opinion of Longo at his own self-satisfied face, Franco again fails to take charge of the scene and the character, leaving him to lie flat as a scolded pup and with just about as much agency.

Though Hill and Franco have played together well in the past – This Is the End and, to a lesser extent, Knocked Up – seeing the two take on such self-serious roles – stripped of even the smallest inkling of black comedy – is far less satisfying than one might hope for. Though for admittedly different reasons than you might expect. Neither flat-out fail (The Interview) or fall on their face (The Sitter) so much as they just do their jobs competently and without any fanfare to speak of. Each have worked as dramatists in their own right but the near-inspired union here is one tear away from disintegrating into a black hole of complete and utter humorlessness.

You would think that the casting of such comedic icons would demand us to reinvent our perspective on the two high-profile jesters. That is just not the case. For a two-hander so focused on these dueling central performances, neither has enough seasoning to turn the product tasty nor ship off our assumption that once “cut” is called, one of the two launch into a one-liner of the “that’s what she said” variety. Give me True Story the Comedy next time. At least that would be different. Instead, we’re treated to a blandly flavored re-heated crime saga that, though not bad, is highly forgettable (even a week after screening it, I almost forgot I had seen it at all.)

C

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Out in Theaters: EX MACHINA

IdQNv-001.jpg

In Alex Garland‘s sci-fi opus, Ex Machina – most commonly seen in the phrase “deus ex machina”, meaning “god from the machine” and frequently used to describe convenient plot contrivances (of which Ex Machina has none) – refers to the process by which a machine transcends its “machininess”. The Turing test has come to describe this as-of-yet unrealized phenomenon more specifically. This experiment tests for a “machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.” Thus the barrier to entry for any truly credible A.I. is sky-high.

Not only must you exhibit superlative intelligence but it must also be nigh indistinguishable from that of a human; a tricky task indeed and one that drives the audience to question what it is specifically that makes an intelligence human. Halfway through Garland’s film, a character drives a scalpel into his arm fervently hunting for circuitry. When the aesthetic design and electronic capacities are this close to impeccable, who’s to say what is man and what is machine. Read More

post

Out in Theaters: WHILE WE’RE YOUNG

Most men buy a cherry red Corvette when they hit their midlife crisis. They dye their hair back to black (speaking of, how has AC/DC never done a Clairol commercial?) and date 20-year old models (here’s looking at you Anthony Keidis). But not Noah Baumbach. The 46-year old independent filmmaker who hails from Brooklyn is all about taking his halfway point in the old game of life with a modest dose of thoughtful reflection. In his now trilogy of brusque analyses on postmodern youth, he has come to terms with the train of aging rather than running down the tracks from it.

Read More

post

Weekly Review 76: CLEAR, BREAKFAST, PLANET

Weekly Review
This week had a lot of hustle and bustle to it with a new apartment and a new puppy in the mix so my time consuming film was somewhat limited. Having already caught Furious 7 at SXSW, I didn’t post any new reviews this week though did catch two solid screenings – While We’re Young and Ex Machina – that I’ll post about later this week. Aside from that, I finished watching The Jinx on HBO – and though it’s caught some flack for its “gotcha” journalism tactics, I found it wholly compelling and enjoyed it immensely – as well as some new It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia over at FXX and finally those accounted for below, including a new doc that’s getting a lot of attention as well as a few classics that I had new Blu-Rays of. So with only three on the docket, let’s Weekly Review.

GOING CLEAR: SCIENTOLOGY AND THE PRISON OF BELIEF (2015)

scientology.jpg
Ever since South Park ousted Scientology in their 2005 episode “Trapped in the Closet” – the episode contained an animated segment recounting scientology’s great secret doctrine of life”, with the all-caps sentence “THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE”  plastered over it – the religion took on an almost jocular status. If prolific documentarian Alex Gibney dispels any untruths in Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, it’s that Scientology is in the least bit funny; the horrors behind this religion as cult are gut-wrenchingly tragic to hear unfurled, particularly in the case of “Spanky” Taylor; and to see families torn apart, privatized secret police employed in intelligence gathering missions and vast smear campaigns – one such plotted against Nicole Kidman to turn her children against her – all enacted under the guise of a “self-help system” is a terrible, appalling irony. Gibney gathers a plethora of accounts from ex-Scientologists and rather than focusing on the wacky fundaments of their belief, he hones in on the very real, and very distressing, systematic emotional abuse and manipulation that haunt current and former members. If there were ever a louder cry for help to the IRS on film, I’ve not seen it. #revoketaxstatusnow (B)

THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985)

rtXwTN0u7rMWXk0Uxx1gD1bBkeh.jpg
John Hughes
‘ sophomoric feature has for decades been called one of the best coming of age stories and for good reason. Hughes’ seminal tale of teenage rebellion showed his voice as that of a man mature enough to poignantly reflect on his own high school experience without schmaltz and cloying nostalgia and yet still young enough at heart to really tap into the zeitgeist of ’80s teenagedom. Hailed for essentially giving birth to the Brat Pack – the kings and queens of 80s teen movies – The Breakfast Club was originally supposed to pull a Before Sunset and reunite the gang every ten years but cripplingly poor repartee between Hughes and star Judd Nelson made such a reuniting nigh impossible. Which is a shame because these characters really do seem to have something to say, even in their slightly transcendent trope vocabulary. But alas, The Breakfast Club marked the second and, surprisingly, final time Hughes and Molly Ringwald worked together (as a director-starlet duo) and such a sequel – or series of sequels – was never to be. (B+)

PLANET OF THE APES (1968)

planet-of-the-apes-1968-main-review.jpg
Charlton Heston
‘s ape-rebukin’ overacting. Noticeably bad ADR dubbing. Awesomely clunky (by today’s standards) makeup FX – that still earned John Chambers an Honorary Academy Award. Jerry Goldsmith‘s iconic (and also Oscar nominated) score that so directly and so clearly inspired Michael Giacchino‘s work on Lost (amongst a plethora of others.) A franchise builder that is more a moral play than an action film. Planet of the Apes has it all. It’s an epically odd science fictioner that deals in moral outrage and philosophical treatises on animal rights just as much or more-so than it does in the set pieces and action spectacles of traditional blockbusters. With an astounding visual language made possible by vast, on-location shoots and meticulous monkey makeup, Planet of the Apes really does feel other-wordly, even if we were on ol’ planet Earth all along. (A-)

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Weekly Review 75: ABSENTIA, PULP, LIES, ROAR, RAIDERS, NYMPHETS

Weekly Review
To recap, the rules of Weekly Review have dictated that this is where I review films that I’ve seen for the first time at home (a rule that has been a sliding scale in terms of my following it) but has mostly now been expanded to include older films that I’ve seen in the theater (your Shinings and Seven Samurais) as well as screeners of upcoming releases that I saw at home – because if you’re not seeing it in theaters, you’re not really seeing it at all. A few of this week’s crops slightly challenge the status quo – one, a release of a 1981 film that never really saw a true theatrical release that I caught at a film festival in a packed (and appropriately rambunctious) screening and another classic that I recently talked about on InSession Film. I’ve seen Pulp Fiction a thousand times (exaggerated figure) but still think it’s worth passing along a few words on. Similairly, I saw one of my all time favs, Raiders of the Lost Ark, on the big screen for the first time (go Cinerama!) so that had to get its own few words. And finally, it’s been three weeks since the last addition so I’m pretty much breaking all the rules and regs but that’s the way it goes in the wild, wild west that is Weekly Review..

ABSENTIA (2011)

ABSENTIA.jpg
Fable horror Absentia twists a classic wive’s tale into new shapes and sizes. Produced with a paltry budget of 70 grand, Mike Flanagan‘s eerie husband absentee horror tells the story of a wife whose spouse has been missing for seven years. With her sister recently back in her life after a stint in recap of the narcotic variety, clues to where he might have gone begin to reveal themselves as she puts the final touches on paperwork declaring him dead in absentia. Impressive for its slight budget with fine performances from Katie Parker, Courtney Bell and Morgan Peter Brown, Absentia still fails to make enough interesting moves along its path to keep you fully interested, regardless of the nifty conclusion it caps off with. In a squeeze, it’s not a wasted Netflix session though your choosing could be more inspired. (C)

PULP FICTION (1994)

pulpfiction.jpg
A finer piece of cinema may there never be, Pulp Fiction is a definitive game changer for late-20st century cinema. Hailed as inventive for an insurmountable plethora of reasons – independent cinema’s first real hefty international cume, Tarantino’s novel use of nonlinear storytelling, investment in character, violence and intelligence that made the film accessible and “cool” for all ages ands backgrounds – Pulp Fiction doesn’t let up more than 20 years after its making and its cinematic staying power has but grown exponentially. There may be no greater deconstruction of the gangster on film than Jules and Vincent in their opening moments riffing on culture shock and foot fetishes. (A+)

TRUE LIES (1994)

1054_0_screenshot.jpg

At the height of his starring power, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays an American James Bond (nonetheless with a thick Austrian accent) in one of James Cameron‘s more toned down action flicks. Though it may be dialed down by Cameron standards, the action in True Lies is simply bonkers, with the last hour or so of the movie spilling from one city-rending potential disaster to the next. And yet, it all works wonderfully and comes together to showcase one of the finer examples of Cameron’s keen eye for spectacle while serving as a reminder of why Arnie was once such a superstar. I mean, before the Furious 7 crew were driving super cars across Dubai skyscrapers, the guy almost jumped a horse between his own cityscape. (B+)

ROAR (1981)

roar2.jpg
When the programmers of SXSW announced that a re-release of 1981’s Roar was the Super Secret Screening that had people waiting hours in line for, the disappointment in the air was palpable. Low expectations or not, Roar was a visceral delight of the highest order – an absolutely batty passion project that employed hundreds of wild big cats to batter, maul and gore over 70 cast and crew members working on the film. The movie itself is a jocular horror to behold – a family comes to Africa to reunite with their father who’s taken up with the lions and tigers and leopards (oh my!) to find feral felines literally everywhere and no daddy in sight – but watching actors fend off these killers cats while delivering their Disney knock-off lines makes for some truly amazing cinema of the most guffaw-able niche variety. Like The Room, Roar is a movie you must watch with friends, slightly buzzed that is guaranteed to make you roar with laughter, shock and utter amazement as to how in the hell anyone allowed this thing to be made. (A-)

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)

Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-indiana-jones-3700641-1280-720.jpg

Arguably the best adventure movie of all time, Raiders of the Lost Ark introduced the world to Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford, hot off of Star Wars, makes the man in the hat iconic from his very first frame – he’s sexy, dangerous and loosely moral. Indy is in many ways an approximation of the hallowed relics he seeks – a living antique of Nazi-era misadventures and WWII heroism – and there has never been any Hollywood icon quite like him. From Steven Spielberg‘s lasting directorial work – the boulder, the visual shadow play, the awesomely weird physical comedy – to John Williams‘ signature score – who doesn’t whistle Indy’s theme song when exploring ancient ruins? – to FX work that still holds up to this day – exploding melted head FTW – Raiders of the Lost Ark is my go-to for breezy nostalgia of epic proportions. This thing is so good and so timeless that it belongs in a museum. (A+)

THE NYMPHETS (2015)

F54598.jpg

Gary Gardner wastes very little time setting the stage for The Nymphets, a dark odyssey into the exploits of a drunken night out with some underaged vixens. And at only an hour and fifteen minutes, it’s for the best that he does not. Joe (Kip Pardue) meets female friends Brittany (Annabelle  Dexter-Jones) and Allyson (Jordan Lane Price) when a bouncer refuses them entry into a club and decides to take the potentially statutory femme fatales back to his place for some drinks and late night fun. The film is bristling with energy – topped out by Dexter-Jones and Price’s giggly but sexually wiggly performances – and definitely has a teasing nature to it, one that Gardner exploits for its full potential, even if it kind of ends up going nowhere fast. As Joe reveals that he’s willing to go the distance to bed these PYTs, Gardner unveils man’s harrowing aptitude for masochism in his dastardly pursuit of sweet release. A SXSW Midnighter with real bite, The Nymphets is a one-and-done ride to the brink and back, slight though it may ultimately be. (B-)

 

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

 

post

Talking with J. Davis and Tobin Bell of MANSON FAMILY VACATION

manson.jpgIn a move that surprised even me, Netflix scooped up their second film of the SXSW festival with off-kilter drama/comedy with an unexpected thriller bent Manson Family Vacation. Starring Jay Duplass and Linas Phillips, Manson Family Vacation tells the story of two brothers – the prodigal son and the black sheep – who reunite after a long stay of absence, one of them having developed a sudden but keen interest in Charles Manson. From our review:

From Lina Phillips’ ticks – his quick-burst nervous laughter after nearly everything he mutters, the awkward, uncomfortable way he holds himself, his unsettling obsession with Charles Manson – we know something’s off. The journey is uncovering what and the platform is J. DavisManson Family Vacation – a dark family drama that knots itself up in misunderstandings and a trembling desire to be accepted. It’s eerily funny, smartly performed and more twisty than you would expect for an independent film.

I sat down with director J. Davis and co-star Tobin Bell (Saw) to discuss the process of making the film, its difficult classification, historical accuracy, Tobin Bell’s creepiness and, of course, Charlie Manson.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

 

There is a lot of intelligence to the film, a rare sort of a grace that you navigate, so well done. For people listening, or reading in, can you describe what is ‘Manson Family Vacation’?

J. Davis: Well, it’s about a guy who lives in Los Angeles, and has a kind of comfortable life with his wife and son. And then his estranged brother shows up in town for a surprise visit. And all the brother wants to do is visit sites related to The Family. So he kind of pulls his brother around town, and eventually, out into the desert, where they kind of enter the modern day world of Charles Manson.

So I want to tread a little lightly, especially here at the beginning, because I don’t want to reveal the “big twist”, as it were, in the film. A lot of the time, I feel like, with independent cinema, there isn’t so much of the film predicated on a twist ending. It is, very much, here. How do you combine the elements of a somewhat restrained family drama with a more thriller-esque aspect?

JD: I feel like it was always kind of felt like under the hood it is a thriller.

Tobin Bell: It’s grounded in what you call “the twist” but that is grounded in historical fact. So that, even, makes it… I’m treading lightly also. I like that aspect of it.

JD: I think that the realistic performances, and the drama of the movie, I was hoping, would lead you to believe one thing could happen, and then you begin to think something else.

And I love that. I love how it transforms. I think it adds a lot of depth to it. In terms of logistics, when you were shooting at the locations of these Manson sites – and you’ll probably be able to tell but I’m not very well versed in my Manson history – but were those the actual locations of the death sites?

JD: Some locations are real. I don’t want to get into specifics of it, just because I don’t think it will add to it.

TB: It was definitely in the neighborhood. It won’t add to the experience of the movie.

JD: Yeah. I wanted to have the movie in the real world that we know and these places are around. I used to live down the street from these places.

Wow. Is that something that sort of initiated your professed fascination with the Manson character?

JD: I wouldn’t say it initiated it because I was interested in this stuff since I was a kid. There’s a story in the movie, about finding ‘Helter Skelter’ on the bookshelf, and I kind of pulled it down, as a kid, and looked through these pictures and saw these crime scenes. This family; these young, attractive people who were responsible for all this stuff that had happened. And pictures of Charlie. And my Grandfather, who was the Chief Of Police in the town I grew up in, came in and caught me with it, and took it out of my hands, and put it on the highest shelf. But I managed to, of course, get it down again.

TB: That just made it more attractive, right?

The allure of the unobtainable item.

JD: My interest in it sort of started young and it was this thing that I was forbidden to be interested in. And Jay Duplass and I are friends and we both had a lot in common. But when I started talking about my interest in the Manson Family and that kind of thing, he was kind of horrified. So I decided to write a script, to kind of explore that difference between us. And once I wrote it, while I was writing it, I was thinking of him as the horrified brother. So I asked him to play the horrified brother. He wasn’t doing much acting at that time, but he quickly, within seconds, said yes.

He was just right for it?

JD: Yeah

One of the things that you played with in the film, which is based not only in historical fact but on events that are still going on today, is people’s obsession with Charlie Manson and his ideologies and even his music.

TB: Which means that people, when they come into a theater with Charlie Manson in the title, are naturally going to be predisposed to some kind of attitude about who Charlie Manson is and what his track record is and all that. I think J. Davis has done an amazing job of giving what is an expected experience, because of the Charlie Manson name, a different kind of tone, and a different kind of feeling. I think the film is very successful in that way because you get a meal that you don’t expect to get and I like that aspect of it.

So, J., did you do much research into more current iterations of what Manson following there is today, like we see in the film? Where there are groups of people who maybe still live out in the desert together? Or is that you taking a little creative liberty there?

JD: Yeah. I kind of know, vaguely, that there are, but I didn’t do a ton of research about it. I just kind of wrote what I thought was an interesting story.

So Tobin, to put this lightly, you have a bit of a creepiness to you whenever you’re in a film. “Oh, it’s Tobin Bell! It’s the guy from ‘Saw’! He wants to play a game.” And so, when you appear in this film for the first time and you’re wielding this lead pipe, we think “Uh oh! Trouble’s coming!” And then you turn out to be somewhat intimidating but also somewhat of a gentle soul. Can you talk about what it was, for you, that defined that character?

TB: Well, the lead pipe part was easy. You pick up the pipe and you chase the guy. It’s no different than any other role. I ask myself a series of questions about who Blackbird is, what his background is, how did he meet Charlie? What is his relationship with Charlie, really? How deeply involved with Charlie is he? Or not? So, for me, it was easy, because the script tells me so. It gives me clues and then I fill in backstory like I do with every other character. In this case, I had a lovely girlfriend who obviously was much younger. I wanted to go into it in terms of her relationship with Dennis and all that. Which I think is lovely, and done marvelously. For me, the script gave me every marker that I needed. J. and I did discuss some lines that we changed slightly because there’s an environmental theme, in this story, and we wanted to talk about that thread, a little bit, to strengthen what Conrad is doing in his quest. It’s part of Conrad’s quest, so we wanted to support that a little bit more. So for me, it was very clear, very easy. Hiking around in the desert is a lovely thing, especially with that kind of landscape. It’s great stuff.

JD: And I should say, Tobin, after he read the script, had such incredible notes. They weren’t limited about his character – they were about the whole script. We talked through the entire script. We had notes about the brother’s relationship. It was great in the moment. I knew he’d be perfect because he was thinking of the entire movie and not just his part in it.

Was there any point during production where anyone reached out to Charlie Manson?

JD: You’d have to ask Lennis.

If Charles Manson did see this film, what might you think his reaction might be to it?

JD: I’d hope that he would realize that, although he’s the lynchpin, and his name is in the title, that it’s really about the era. It’s a character and relationship movie, in which Charlie’s name is in the titles because events around him is what these two brothers are struggling with. So hopefully he would think, “Huh, they did a pretty damn good job telling a story about a brother who feels disenfranchised.” And I’m sure that Charlie probably felt that way, himself, during his formative years. It’s that simple. It’s not really about Charlie Manson, although Charlie’s pretty much Ground Zero He just kind of is at the tiller.

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter