A collection of my idiosyncratic thoughts & film reviews. I find spending time sitting in the dark watching far too many films back to back a deeply relaxing experience. International, Indy, Hollywood, Vampires - I have very flexible tastes...
A poster sale - sure, why not? Those were my thoughts when I received the following notice via email from the Northwest Film Forum (NWFF) regarding their optimistically named 1st annual poster sale.
"Movie lovers and memorabilia collectors delight! The Film Forum is having it's first-ever movie poster sale this summer. Stop by on June 26 to browse our collection of posters from films we've shown over the past several years. If you had your eye on that Red Riding Trilogy art, or always wanted to get your hands on a La Dolce Vita reproduction, now's your chance!"
So off I went early Saturday morning. I probably should have gotten there earlier than I did, though I did beat the large swarm that arrived within 30 minutes of the official start time. It wasn't as though I nabbed anything I was dying to hang on a wall - but it was fun and at $1 / poster for members ($2 others) it was cheap entertainment. Ended up buying 7 posters, some honestly just because I'd trekked all the way over to NWFF. :-) My swag included:
- Who Killed Bambi?
- Chop Shop
- STIFF 2010 mini poster
- SIFF 2009 mini poster
- The Yes Men Save the Word
- Three Times (which was a mistake as I was thinking 3 Iron)
- The Red Riding Trilogy poster (pictured to the left)
All this reminds me that I miss SIFF's formerly annual poster auction event around the holidays...
I wasn't really sure what to expect from Knight and Day, the new film starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz (along with a criminally wasted Peter Sarsgaard). The trailer looked like it might be some light summer fun. Both Cruise and Diaz seemed to be having fun in what appeared to be your standard woman meets guy who may be a top secret agent doing good OR a homicidal maniac with a stalker complex wherein they go through a series of shoot em up adventures on the way to falling in love. And that's partly what you get - though the film never really lets go enough in any one direction to deliver a great experience. There's such a mashup of disconnected feeling situations that any early fun gets diffused across way too many scenes that feel repetitive and make so little sense that even though you know that shouldn't matter, it sort of does.
There are positives mixed in. For example a bunch of winking references to other films, and when you recognize one it's cute. Cruise is more watchable than he's been in a while (Tropic Thunder Purim costume rant excepted) - calm and cockily confident in the best moments of the role. In addition to the lack of sense making the film careens from trying to be zany, to trying to be a fun action shooter to trying to be relationship serious stuff in a way that just left me unsettled. That never quite getting into a solid groove plus my not caring particularly for the characters (nor laughing much) just left me flat. And there's something weird to me about a plot that requires Diaz's character to spend a disconcerting amount of her onscreen time drugged by Cruise. Not absolutely horrible, nor amusingly bad - just sort of meh. And I don't feel like one should pay $10 for meh. Thankfully I did not in this case.
So this Marwencol movie I've been hearing so much about from SXSW and SIFF turned out to be really compelling. The high level description I'd heard before going (besides that it was quite good) was that it was a story about a man who'd been savagely beaten in an attack - so badly that he'd lost his memory and suffered other negative results. And that for some reason he'd taken to building an elaborate village filled with dolls dressed up as WW-II era soldiers that was incredible in it's detail. That is basically true - though the depth of it all makes it more interesting than it sounded at first.
The part about being badly beaten is true. And for most of the film they're fairly fuzzy on the reason (not that there really could be a good one) motivating the initial attack. He lives in a small town in upstate NY - which is where the attack took place. And he does lose all his memories from before the attack and have to go through a lot of physical rehabilitation afterward. Even after this he continues to have issues with fine motor skills and is clearly (and reasonably) emotionally scarred from the attack. They point out that he's booted out of the hospital and therapy at some point, clearly before he's ready (gotta love the US health care system). Prior to the attack he was an alcoholic, but (self described for what it's worth) generally not a bad guy - mainly hurting himself. After the attack he has no interest in alcohol - which seems to be the one clear positive outcome. More negatively he's unable to express himself artistically in the way he used to - clearly he was a somewhat gifted drawing artist prior. So he starts to put together increasingly elaborate doll villages and scenes/scenarios as a form of therapy.
He includes dolls within the village (Marwencol) that represent real people in his life, as well as archetypes of other sorts. The mental scenarios he writes for the villagers seem to run the gambit of fantasies for companionship (and sex) to revenge scenarios against those who attacked him. The physical level of detail he brings to it is impressive as are the complex storylines. Some of the stories/themes are sort of amusing, he initially started just with a bar owned by the character that represents him and something like 20 Barbie dolls (all modified it seems by him). The town when his personal avatar of a character "found it" only has women and one of the attractions at his bar are staged "cat fights" between the women for entertainment. He's very clear (there's even a miniature sign) pointing out the fights are staged and no one is injured. Apparently in his universe it's a popular bar attraction - the only one of it's kind in Belgium. :-) Other scenarios are clearly more therapy focused. The German SS keep coming into the town and capturing/torturing him - and he's typically saved by the village women.
He takes photos of the posed figures to archive things, though he doesn't appear very thorough about archiving the photos initially. Then someone he meets sees the beauty in what he's doing and connects him up with the art world. There's some discussion about what happens when his therapy becomes more public as art - what will that mean for him, etc. You can see a lot of the staged photos on the film's website. Seeing the photos on the big screen actually makes the film more "cinematic" than it sounds.
The pictures themselves, the "art" are really very good. I can totally see going to a show of his work. I do want to come back to their website at some point. So that really worked well. Over the course of the film we learn a lot more about the artist who reveals a lot about himself over the course of the film. Is the film part of his therapy too? If it is I hope it helps him in exchange for being so open about who he is and how the experience has affected him.
It's fairly funny at times, sad at others, and altogether fascinating. So a very good documentary and definitely worth seeing - and on a big screen if you can. For more details about the artist you can checkout the films website
Art cars, who knew there were so many of them? Maybe you're not even familiar with "art cars." Of course you are even if you never applied the label. You know that crazy looking car covered with pennies, shoes, pez dispensers, severed limbs that you see from time to time in your neighborhood? That's an art car.
This documentary covers the country to showcase a wide variety of art cars (and motorcycles, and bicycles). The film goes more for breadth than depth, giving fairly short bio clips of the people behind the creations. From what we see onscreen one gathers that folks who turn their cars into art are often unusual and there are a lot of these art cars out there. The first part isn't too surprising, the second perhaps more so. The cars range from the incredibly cool and complex to cars with random stuff pasted to the side. Though I suppose that could just be the subjective nature of art.
The stand out surprise for me was learning Uri Geller has a car covered with bent spoons. Like something out of Dead Again but with alleged telekinesis.
Overall I thought it was a good film if you wanted to see lots of art cars. If you wanted to learn something more about the people and their motivations then it can be a bit disappointing. I was less interested in the cars than the people so it wasn't a stand out film for me personally. Though I did appreciate seeing a type of American art that I've only had limited exposure to in the past.
Outside the Central Cinema where the film payed there was a contingent of art cars parked. Which was very cool. Some photos are below.
This kinda biopic about the beat poet Allen Ginsberg wasn't at all what I expected. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Though, come to think about it I really didn't have the slightest idea what to expect as I really hadn't read anything about it before going. Add to that that I knew very little about Ginsberg before going and I may not exactly be the target demographic for this film.
On it's surface it's probably easiest to describe the film as a set of recreated interviews with Ginsberg transposed with a reenactment of his publisher's obscenity trial in San Fransisco over the publication of the poem Howl.
Don't think you've every heard the poem (OK, I could be alone on this one)? Sure you have. It's the one that starts;
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by
madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix,angel headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly
connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of
cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated,
And so on...
On one level it is just a set of interviews and a recreation of the trial. But it's also a complete reading of the poem itself coupled with animated recreations of what the work may be about. Knowing nothing on entry (except maybe the first line of Howl) I felt as though I did learn about his life, some of his relationships and a little bit about the poem itself. All of which I found more interesting than I probably would have thought had someone described it to me ahead of time. The court room sequences are a bit less than awesome but James Franco does a very solid job playing Ginsberg. All in all, I would say I can recommend it if the subject or the time interests you.
If you want to research Howl a bit more I suppose you can start with its wikipedia entry. It's not like that stuff is ever wrong. ;-)
Last night I went to a double feature at Central Cinema which included a screening of the documentary Best Worst Movie and the film Troll 2. Best Worst Movie iss about the making and/or the revival to cult status of Troll 2 - which for some time had 1 of 10 stars on IMDB's ratings (seems to have since moved up to 2 as I write) - though was beloved by many. Released in 1990 it went straight to video. I hadn't seen the source film until tonight which was screened after Best Worst Movie
Well, if you haven't seen Troll 2 I would say it's quite an experience. It truly is a bad movie. Though I can also see why it'd become a cult classic. If you're watching it to laugh at it it's a far more rewarding experience than if you expected a horror film (sort of like Splice). It's hard to really explain why it's so bad with words alone. There's a bunch of entertaining quotes about it in the doc. One of them points out that it's rare to have a film fail on so many levels, acting, directing, script, music - but this one does. The odd part I guess is how earnest everyone in the film seems to be. Very few appear to be professional actors - most only acted in this one film. One of the best lines was about how there are bad movies made by people who don't really know how to make a movie, but this was made by people who clearly know how to make a movie, but just perhaps had received a recent blow to the head.
A better sense comes from watching parts of the film. Here are some excerpts from it:
Now having seen Troll 2 I don't think it's going to get on my personal list of bad films that I'll watch no matter how many times I stumble across them on TV. But I'm glad I got to see both films with a live audience who were clearly big fans of Troll 2 and totally dug Best Worst Movie. That definitely enhanced the viewing experience for me, and I'd suggest that if you're interested in either you try to catch one of the remaining screenings at Central Cinema.
Some other facts I learned from watching the documentary and the film on which it was based - some of which are just amusing OR serve to explain some of the issues with Troll 2
Troll 2 has absolutely no relationship with the film Troll. In fact, technically there are no trolls in Troll 2.
The script was written by the Italian wife of the Italian director both of whom appear to be characters in their own right. He didn't speak English very well in the present day interviews - it was mentioned by several of the actors that his English was "much better now" - apparently they didn't really understand him at all when they were making the film.
Almost no one in the film seemed to understand the plot of the film they were making. Which isn't altogether surprising as there doesn't really appear to be more coherence there.
It's an anti-vegetarian screed wherein the bad guys (who are goblins, there actually are no trolls for some reason) turn people into plants and then eat them. They're largely defeated by a little boy eating a "double bologna sandwich"
One of the most famous scenes ends with the dad delivering the line "you can't piss on hospitality" (partially captured in the first clip above). For context (what little there is) the lead in to this is the family about to eat food from the goblins (or townsfolk of Snilog - goblins backwards) which will turn them into plants. The goblins spend most of the film attempting to force feed the family as they for some reason need to turn them into plants so they can eat them. Why they cannot eat food from the surrounding forest is entirely unclear. The boy's dead grandfather (who is a main driver of the story for some reason) insists he do anything he needs to to get them to not eat the food laid out for them. So the boy decides to pee all over their food. Thankfully this is off screen.
May be the only film in history to satisfy the under-served market of fetishists who fantasize about having sex in exploding popcorn. If it's not then it's definitely the only one that unselfconsciously involves the exploding corn as a "reasonable" part of the plot.
At least one of the non professional actors played his role which on temporary leave from an inpatient mental health facility. Yet you can easily get the impression quite a few members of the cast had similar issues.
The doc itself centers mainly around the father in the story (played by George Hardy), who in real life seems like a pretty nice guy - and is one of the the most socially well adjusted of the bunch. He was a dentist before his role, and a dentist afterwards. So appears to be financially stable - though with regrets he didn't go into acting full time (not mentioned in the doc is his more recent role in Street Team Massacre). Since he's not really that good at the acting his limited career doesn't seem to be a loss for the universe). He's definitely enjoying basking in the glow of the film's new found world wide cult status. A lot of the other "actors" in the film though don't necessarily seem as well adjusted. So part of the film is actually sad.
Then there's also an aspect to how people view their work in this type of situation as so different from the reality. The director of the film gets a good amount of screen time in the doc. Everyone from his team in Italy seems to be under the impression it's a masterpiece - with someone suggesting audiences are just now "getting it" thanks to the success of Harry Potter. And there's a extended description of it from them being a parable for the bonds that bind a family together against the forces of the world that seek to destroy it - which is pretty hilarious once one sees the final product. Someone compares their performances to those of Casablanca too - though that could be one of the actors. Oh, and the director is none too pleased when he realizes all the packed screenings he's invited to 20 years later involve people mostly laughing at the film. It's as if he made "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and then became agitated when folks didn't think it was Hamlet.
Overall I enjoyed Best Worst Movie. I'm not sure it entirely lived up to the hype I've heard surrounding it but I had a good time even with heightened expectations. It's funny and an interesting look at the cult success of a movie I really wasn't aware of before watching it. It does leave some unanswered questions - most of which for me were around what the economics of even making a film like Troll 2 are all about. It's worth taking a look for this film, but if you can see it with a group of super-fans in a theater that's definitely the way to go. In the case of the screening at Central Cinema, George Hardy even made a live appearance via Skype before the screening for a brief Q&A which was a big hit. The photo directly above and to the left shows Clinton McClung of the theater getting the crowd revved up before the show.
One of my goals for 2010 while attending SIFF was to try out some different sort of activities during the festival. No, not spending time with non-SIFF friends or anything crazy like that. More to not indulge the compulsion to see every film and give myself time to try out a forum, or a party, etc. In that vein I decided to investigate what seemed like a lecture session entitled, How Sex Sold Hollywood. Based on the description on the website it seemed worth a shot
"As long as movies have entertained the public, ‘sex’ has been part of the formula that has helped studios bring the public to the theater. Using a wide assemblage of film clips exploring the battle of the birds and bees, Seattle University professor James Forsher describes a nostalgic look at the sexy and sometimes slimy world of human passion on the silver screen. …"
In the end though it was a pretty meh sort of experience, at least for me. I learned maybe a little bit more about the history of sex onscreen than I knew before going in - but probably not enough to really justify the time spent. I'll admit that learning that an "it girl" was code for a sex/sexy start where "it" = "sex" was new to me. But the presentation was a bit dry bordering on the judgmental. I'm not saying it had to be titillating, but with a title like How Sex Sold Hollywood it really shouldn't be boring. Of course it's always going to be a bit amusing what folks 80 years ago thought was racy. More interesting would truly be what was lurking around the edges. At times Forsher touched on such things, but as the session wore on and he moved into what he described as the "weird sex" section I was actually thinking to leave. First off - if you promise "weird sex" to today's audience it should at least seem unusual in some way. Second, especially by the end I was getting the distinct impression that Forsher isn't the right person to be presenting this material - at least to people fairly open minded (or at least aware) of this topic. Towards the end of the session under the heading "look how far we've gone, but not really" (I'm paraphrasing) he showed the trailer for Bitch Slap. The feeling was more that this represented the last steps in the decline of western civilization than 'wow, this looks like a ridiculous film that could be a ton of fun.' You watch the trailer and tell me which way you'd go on this question. For me, the best takeaway from the lecture was that I should keep an eye out for Bitch Slap. Which is not what I was looking to get out of the evening.
Would I do another SIFF lecture? Yes, I think so - but I likely would do a bit more research on the presenter before attending. I did enjoy the non traditional film things this year at SIFF - next year I'll probably even try one of their live music with silent films nights. And who says people can't change?
A gripping film that teaches the valuable life lesson not to show up for work early Cell 211 is a strong addition to the prison film thriller genre. It's not the masterpiece that A Prophet was but it's still an entertaining ride. Though not necessarily a happily ever after ending one. Can't wait to see how they butcher that part in (what I suspect to be) the inevitable US remake.
Juan Oliver (Alberto Ammann) has taken a job as a prison guard to support himself and his pregnant wife. Looking to make a good impression he shows up for work a day early to get a sense of things. While he's being shown around a riot breaks out. Initially injured Juan is left behind by the fleeing guards and awakens in cell #211. After an amazingly quick assessment of the situation he decides the safest course of action is to pretend to be a new inmate. Juan is successful at this gambit though his true identity hangs on by a thread for most of the film - of course generating a good deal of the dramatic tension.
Malamadre (Luis Tosar) is the leader of the riot, which is far more strategic in nature than it initially seems to be. Malamadre steals most of the scenes and is a big part of the reason to see this film. Juan ingratiates himself with Malamadre and essentially becomes an adviser to the rebellion leadership. As things unfold he also begins to understand that a fair number of the complaints from the maximum security prisoners may well be reasonable - bringing a bit more complexity than your run of the mill prison riot movie (though not sure I can really name too many of those - just really a feeling). The film is well paced and kept my interest throughout. It's certainly one of the more compelling films for your attention that I watched at SIFF this year. I don't want to really say anything more about the film's plot - the performances are solid but the most interesting thing for me was watching in what direction they took the film. I don't expect this was strong enough that it'll make my top ten for 2010 (a lot of people did love, love, love it). But it's definitely worth checking out when it arrives at a theater near you.
BTW - half way through writing this I started to suspect that Malamadre isn't really the character's given name. Unless my very bad Spanish is way off it's making me giggle that the character is referred to as bad/evil mother all the way through the film. If there's a more fluent Spanish speaker that can confirm I'd appreciate it.
From the director of Amelie comes this story of a guy with some unfortunate luck who hooks up with a ragtag bunch of skilled underground people who help him exact a complex and intricately planned revenge on those whom done him wrong. So, basically a French version of 'The A-Team.'
Bazil (Dany Boon) is first wronged as a boy as he loses his father to a landmine manufactured by a french company. Then years later he's shot in the head while minding his own business as a clerk at a video store. When he gets out of the hospital (with the bullet still in his head meaning he could go at any time) he's lost his job and his apartment. Wandering the streets he meets a group of people living in the local junkyard. They're clever, artistic and definitely eclectic. The movie is unusual, though not really as bizarre as the trailer had me believing it would be. The story is actually relatively straightforward. Bazil decides to get his revenge by pitting the two arms dealers that ruined his life against each other to destroy them both.
Oy, some things should be just left well enough alone. The Karate Kid is one of those films that should be untouched and left to be admired for the ages (much like "Road House" and "Can't Stop the Music"). It's not as though the movie hasn't already been remade anyway. There were what, 4 sequels? All of them are a hell of a lot better than the 2010 versions. Yes, I'm including the one with the girl from Amelia.
Seems to me as though the producers did set out to make a similar but different film. But they would have been better off making a shot for shot remake. Somehow this film (which more accurately should be called The Kung Fu Kid) manages to keep most of the pieces of the original while draining all the drama out of the picture. Even though the first time you likely saw 'The Karate Kid' I'm sure you knew how it would end, something about it probably caused a swell of feelings in you. At least if you aren't one of the emotionally undead. But here, the strongest feelings I got were sort of enjoying Will Smith's kid getting his ass kicked early on. And perhaps feeling it was creepy to see Jackie Chan smack around a bunch of 12 year olds.
There are little homages, though they didn't do anything for me. The closest thing to a cameo is Jackie Chan using a fly swatter in one of the earlier scenes.
There are some basic differences. Dre Parker (and who names their kid Dre unless they WANT them to be picked on? Dr. Dre had to go to grad school apparently just to get some respect) is dragged to China by mom instead of California. Luckily, Dre's love interest is one of the few people who speak English. Oh, and if you think maybe 12 year old Smith is a bit young for a love interest then you are not working for the folks who made the film.
Otherwise things follow the familiar outlines. Kid moves to strange land. Get's beat up. Miyagi/Chan step in and save him. Ends up making deal to fight in tournament to get evil Kung Fu teacher to lay off. Improbably becomes martial arts expert while dealing with Chan's drinking problem and taking his jacket off and on. Goes to tournament at which things go the same as the original. Minus someone screaming "get him a body bag" and the catchy montage music. Instead of a crane style finishing move we get one involving a Cobra. Oh, and when Mr. Chan rubs his hands together to do the magical healing they're sometimes on fire. Literally.
So, as the kids say, whatever ....
In short, go and see 'The A Team' for your nostalgia kick - not this. To paraphrase MC Frontalot no one swings their arms like Ralph Macchio certainly not little Smith and his extreme braggadocio. That is all.
Brother and sister hitchhiking towards the south of France travel with a cute guy they both are after. They pick up another guy when it seems the driver is more interested in the brother. Everyone has issues, none of them especially made me want to watch the movie all the way through. But I did. Perhaps because the intro featuring bouncy music and the sister dancing around in a bikini with credits overlaid in the latest cool, hip font gave me hope. Nope, that was the high point of the film for me - downhill from then on. For those not impressed with the sister there's some full male nudity later on. But I doubt that will really make holding on worth it even if that's your thing.
Sunday night was the closing film and party for the 2010 Seattle International Film Festival. The closing movie was Get Lowwhich I'd already seen at SXSW in Austin. While I wasn't really in the mood to see the film again I did venture out to the party that followed it. The party was held in the same location that has been used for each of the last few years. In years past I've spent most of the party on the first floor in a more quiet room in the back. This time I ended up parked with a bunch of friends from Twitter and the festival in a sweet spot near one of the upstairs food tables off the 2nd floor balcony.
Later I did find out that downstairs had some additional food choices upstairs (pays to move around) but we had plenty of the elusive lemon bars and chocolate that proved nothing more than a dream last year. So overall while it wasn't the most balanced meal (tofu, salad rolls, lemon bars, truffles, and rum) thought I certainly wasn't hungry.
Being there 30 minutes early I had a lot of extra time to enjoy the sun and appreciate the Space Needle framed between the buildings. Also got to hang out and eavesdrop on the pre-party training and discussions featuring members of the Rat City Rollergirls. I was having such a great time I didn't get a chance to really take pictures inside. Only towards the end of the night as things were thinning out did I snap an inside photo.
Hope everyone had an equally good time at the party. Look forward to seeing everyone throughout the year at the movies. And remember, only 11 months until SIFF 2011!!!
During SXSW I saw a film called Cold Weather that I quite enjoyed. It was unusual in that it melded what could have just been a film about relationships (in that case between brother and sister) with a Nancy Drew like mystery. That melding of relationship flick with a seemingly completely different genre brought Cold Weather came to whiler watching Monogamy at SIFF last week. The latter film tells the story of a man and his fiance coping with issues within what might otherwise be the structure of an erotic thriller. These two films prove it such unusual mashups can work. I just really hope that Monogamy isn't penalized (in the sense of being harder to nail down distribution for) because it can't be so easily pigeonholed into the easier to explain/sell thriller genre.
The main character is a photographer who has developed an unusual business to supplement more traditional income sources such as weddings. One can hire him to essentially stalk you, taking pictures from a hidden location as you go about your business. You just tell him where you'll be and what you'll be wearing and he follows you from a distance. The first client we see is an older man from the neighborhood whose stalking results in a series of candid shots of him going about his day. The photographer, Theo (Chris Messina) is also engaged to be married to his live in girlfriend Nat (Rashida Jones). They're coming down to the wire, planning invitations and generally appearing to be a cute couple in love in hipster Brooklyn. Then he gets an assignment for one of his special photos essays via the Internet. Now, maybe I'm just cynical, but if I get an assignment from "subgirl" I'm perhaps not expecting to be following a grandfather around the park feeding pigeons. But Theo is more than a little surprised when subgirl turns out to have more than tennis on her mind during her photo shoot in a public park (exactly how much more is somewhat spoiled by the trailer below). Nat does do a great job capturing subgirl enjoying herself and what he witnesses seems to send his mind off on a spiral that soon has him questioning what he truly wants, especially in regards to Nat.
Now it's entirely possible that these feelings might have been there and come out without the titillating experience of watching subgirl. In fact, I've seen enough movies with the guy who seems to have it all begins to question everything to know that the whole subgirl storyline may really be besides the point. But Theo does certainly get more and more obsessed with finding out who subgirl is and why she's doing what she's doing - even as she continues to commission the anonymous photo-shoots. So, I guess that part definitely does not help his stability.
Personally, I guessed fairly early on what subgirl was up to. It took Theo longer, but probably that's because he was over-analyzing his relationship so actively in his mind that critical thought may have gone out the window. The performances of pretty much everyone involved felt natural and unforced, making it easy to believe in the characters of Theo and Nat. There are a few different possible interpretations as to the motivations of the characters, and who is really pulling away from whom (apparently some people view Nat as entirely the problem and hold Theo somewhat blameless). There's enough interesting material going on to keep your brain fully engaged throughout - which is definitely a good thing. Dana Adam Shapiro, the same director who made the very solid documentary Murderball seems to leverage his experience in that form to really make one feel as though they are watching real people. Albeit somewhat fucked up real people.
Another similarity between Monogamy and Cold Weather is the above average look of the films. Shot on the Red camera the film looks great and captures the neighborhood and the people especially well. Several significant parts of the film have us looking through Theo's lens and capturing stills for a few seconds on-screen. These "snapshots" add to the feel of the overall work and made me believe I was truly looking through Theo's lens as he composed the pictures on the fly.
I suspect the material isn't for everyone and to be a bit more clear it's not necessarily going to rank on my all time list of films about guys maybe getting stupid in a relationship. But I'm very grateful to my friend Amie for recommending this film which hadn't at all been on my SIFF radar. There are a lot of "relationship" movies out there and it's sort of rare when someone brings something different in terms of structure to the table, especially without sacrificing solid performances. I think it's worth checking out if you get a chance to see it.
Oops, almost forgot, the director was kind enough to travel to Seattle for the screening of Monogamy. Afterwards he held one of the more engaged Q&A sessions with the audience that I saw during SIFF this year. Couple of simple photos below...
Each year at SIFF it seems I get told I must see the new Johnnie To film. And I dutifully go and see something interesting but not as awesome as I'd been lead to believe. So this year when I learned his latest film had been a late addition to SIFF I was suspicious. Intrigued perhaps because of the inclusion of French singer Johnny Hallyday, but still a little skeptical. In the end I went because I had a free slot with few choices that sounded better. As it turns out this was one of the better experiences I've had with To's films, though I should point out I haven't seen any of the ones that folks generally describe as fantastic.
On one hand the plot is straightforward. When a woman and her family are murdered her father arrives to take revenge on those responsible. However, the manner in which the restaurateur goes about it is somewhat unusual. Oh, and he has some poorly described brain injury which causes him to forget things and that definitely complicates matters. So in fact it's a Hong Kong hitman film crossed with a revenge story and spliced with part of Memento's DNA. It requires a significant amount of suspension of disbelief but overall I liked it more than I expected. It perhaps drags a bit towards the end but otherwise moves along at a nice clip. Though I did learn two interesting things. First, the response time of the Macau police department to gunfire is exceedingly poor - just because you have a raging gunfight in the streets for over 15 minutes doesn't mean you'll so much as hear a siren in the distance. Second, just because you and your colleagues can stand up a bicycle and keep it rolling forward by shooting at it doesn't mean that you'll be able to hit a human being standing closer with the same pistol. Or maybe that's on purpose because the folks in this film took lessons from the original A Team? Joking aside, Vengeance held my interest more than several recent Hong Kong shoot-em ups and has a nice sense of style throughout. If you're a fan of the genre definitely worth checking out. If you're not - may still be worth a look.
For those who just can't wait to know the results of the unofficial pass holder's organization Fool Serious survey results here they are:
Best Director: Winter's Bone
Best Cinematographer: I Am Love
Best Script: Winter's Bone
Best Music: Hipsters
Best Actor: Cell 211
Best Actress: Winter's Bone
Best Guilty Pleasure: Tucker and Dale vs. Evil
Went to see three yesterday films. Here are their stories...
The Sentimental Engine Slayer - interestingly styled film about something. Not really sure what that something is. Halfway through I wasn't convinced I would care and decided being outside earlier was more imperative than finding out. It seemed like something I might like to see the rest of as it's possible that things got tied back together. May just have been a lack of a mystery mood thing.
The Protektor - Czech film set during the years of Nazi occupation. Some things not new - ie. having a Jewish wife caused career trouble for people during this period. Being the wife considerably worse. Even if you were previously a beautiful Czech film star. But the visual style of the film put it into the positive category even if I didn't find it groundbreaking in terms of subject matter.
Diamond 13 (France) - The big man himself Gérard Depardieu attempts to drink himself to death onscreen as an embittered cop who's involved with way too many people killing each other. I was quite tired and snoozed a bit so can't be 100% sure what I thought. But the beginning when I was clearly awake didn't endear me especially to the film. When he ended up with the super young/hot ex-wife might have been when I threw up my hands and let the sandman take me. Didn't seem bad, just not great and occasionally a bit silly. Like a French Diehard 8.
I'd gone to see I Kissed a Vampire a musical teen vampire film with modest expectations. Regular readers of this blog may have picked up on my having more than a casual weakness for vampire fare, coming of age stories and romantic comedies. Heck, I even gave a pretty darn positive review to Twilight - and those vampires sparkled. What I'm trying to say is that (a) I'm rather pre-disposed to like the concept of a teen musical vampire story and (b) I haven't established a ridiculously high bar for the genre. You can be forgiven if you wonder if singing vampires really qualifies as a "genre." However, I can give you two particularly good examples of films fitting that description. First there's Joss Whedon's fantastic episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Once More With Feeling. Second, and more recently there's Suck a true rock opera which I saw at SXSW. All said and done I was super psyched to get a chance to see this film and sought out the first opportunity to do so at SIFF.
In the interest of full disclosure there's a few reasons that some might feel as though my review of I Kissed a Vampire is unfair. First, due to a variety of snafu's outside the control of SIFF we were not shown what I expect will be the fully final cut. My personal sense from the announcements made by the filmmakers is that they were still editing the film as the deadline to screen it Thursday night approached. Rather than pull the film they sent at the last minute (literally, the film started 45 minutes late as we were waiting for the materials to be driven in from the airport) a version without color correction, minus some undefined final effects and with the timecode still visible in the top right corner of the screen. Second, I actually walked out a bit past the half-way point. So theoretically it is possible that things got so dramatically better that my opinion would change if I could have stayed all the way through the film. That's unlikely to happen though - as even I have my limits. That said, I don't think my criticism really would be altered if it had been a final cut and/or if I hadn't left.
The official guide to the festival compared this film to Twilight mixed with Glee and High School Musical. After seeing what I saw I'd say it's a bit insulting to Twilight and Glee to be compared with this production. I've never seen High School Musical but I'd imagine they wouldn't look too kindly on the comparison either. Glee features catchy music and pretty high quality singing/dancing - I get that even if I tend to fast forward through the musical parts if I watch. Twilight features a valuable lesson on the dangers of co-dependence. Plus the aforementioned sparkling. So in my book both have redeeming social value. This film just has a main character I wanted to get away from as fast as possible, and he was one of the more positive aspects of the film.
The technical look of the film seemed OK. I'm sure it'd look somewhat slicker with correction, but I quickly forgot about the time-code in the upper right hand corner. I don't think the film's really worth a deep analysis, so just some of the basic issues in bullet point form (in no particular order) are;
Pretty generic sounding music with beyond bubblegum lyrics. Bubble-gum lyrics to me can be catchy and fun. These were not memorable nor particularly clever. In fact at some point point after "I don't crave to be a bat, live in a cave..." and "I'm stuck in a bloody jam - half a monster, half a man" my brain just decided not to expend the energy processing the lyrics anymore.
Incomprehensible motivations of the characters. I'm not expecting this to be Shakespeare, but I honestly had no idea why the characters didn't want to be vampires. The part I saw had to do with trying to figure out how to not live forever, etc. That's not a completely implausible desire - but it's not at all explored. You gotta give me something to suspend my disbelief with.
Less than thrilling dance numbers - putting it mildly. Sure, I'm gonna like the backup dancers in their slutty goth/vamp outfits with the torn fishnets. But that really can't be the main thing to recommend the film
A main character that I'd prefer didn't get the girl. A set of other characters than made me wish the Cullens would make an exception in their vegetarian diet for.
The only people around me laughing at the "jokes" were people in the entourage from the film.
It may be intended to a much younger/different audience than I. And I know it sounds appealing. Sadly for me it just wasn't. Trailer is below to give a better sense what you'd be getting into. Though it's worth noting the trailer doesn't actually show anyone singing nor seem to have the same music that's in the film. Which is one of the smarter moves made my the producers of the movie.
Screening Notes: Just a general thought to share with directors and/or producers that bring a film to a festival. In short - try not to publicly act like a bunch of dicks. Not sure how to do that? Hint #1 - leaving your fracking i-phones in your pocket. Presumably you've already seen your film, so if you really need to be emailing and/or texting then do it from the lobby. Even after getting the film there late, showing an unfinished version several people from the film continued to screw around with their phones well past the opening credits. Only stopping when audience members (myself included) asked them to knock it off.
Update: I had a few extra minutes so went back to the Q&A the next time the film screened and grabbed a few shots of the cast from the film.
Tight little German noirish story about a man with a lost love, unfulfilled by his banking job who snaps after a client commits suicide in front of him and finds freedom through burglary. And psychobilly music. It's actually somewhat more complicated emotionally than that but I'll leave the rest to folks to discover on their own.
The sparse, industrial aesthetic of the man's apartment mimics that of his demeanor as the film begins. Cold and efficient he seems to be a rising star at work. When a client whom he'd sold a loan that he couldn't repay shoots himself at a meeting the main character (not so) slowly begins to unravel. He bumps into an old friend whom he'd played with in a band and who has (it turns out) has served time in prison. This friend calls him up later hoping for a loan to start a nightclub. Unable to get the loan our young banker recruits his pal to teach him the ins and outs of burglary. I assure you, this makes more sense than it sounds in the film's context.
As he gains confidence the banker tries to re-establish his relationship with the long lost girlfriend whom he's been quietly stalking. Of course there are consequences to all this, and these unfold somewhat, but not entirely as we'd expect in something labeled "noir" in the program guide.
It's an entertaining ride that most likely outside the hyper-compressed festival environment would stand out more. It was a fun way to end the night, though not necessarily something to give up the one film you've been dying to see for. Unless that special film is "I Kissed a Vampire." In which case see "Gravity." You'll be grateful - more on why later...
The first press screening on Thursday (the last day of SIFF 2010 press screenings, *sniffle*) had me confused at first. Was it a documentary or a narrative film? It felt like a documentary in terms of style, but the characters were so natural it felt "realer than real" in the way that something super well acted might. Eventually I figured out that it was a documentary - and then reading the official festival guide description on line confirmed it. To quote
"Grumpy Reuven has been living with optimistic Pierluigi in Paris for decades. They met when they were both studying architecture, and have been together ever since. Now retired, Reuven wants to return home to Israel for his final days, but he has a home in Paris with Pierluigi that he doesn't want to leave. Ten years younger than his partner, Pierluigi boosts Reuven’s spirits with his love and support. After more than three decades together, they bicker like an old married couple, and they come across like two characters from a play. But Paris Return is about more than just Reuven and Pierluigi’s lives. It's a character-driven and intimate look at a couple that is both funny and poignant. Even more, this portrait of a bickering couple, filmed with humor and finesse by a family member, is about life, home, and how the language of love is spoken with gestures more than words."
This is one of the most dead on descriptions I've read in the catalog this year. There's really not that much more to say. Other than to go and see it (or find it on video later). The only thing it doesn't mention is the enjoyable character of French architecture and the feel of Paris, playing itself in the background.
Dermot Mulroney, when I saw he was in this black comedy during the opening credits I'll admit I thought of walking out. And I'm not sure that wouldn't have been the right call. Because the "comedy" otherwise known as "The Family Tree" suffered from a single basic problem. Near complete lack of laughter originating from me. I've certainly met people who enjoyed it a lot. And I'm absolutely happy for them. Sadly I was not in this group.
We start out with Dermot's dysfunctional family fighting with their therapist. He's a bit of a clod, she's charity focused and having an affair with the neighbor, their daughter is trying to pretend she's "easy" and the son is a conservative christian gun nut. Or so we're lead to believe. There's lots of "wacky" and/or hypocritical characters and shenanigans to follow. Many ostensibly of the black comedy persuasion. Not to mention some disturbingly ridiculous stereotypes thrown in. Oh, and Selma Blair has perhaps what may be a career low point role as a teacher having an affair with one of her high school students. All of which I would have been OK with had I been laughing. Except perhaps that Selma Blair thing. That's pretty near unforgivable.
There's some attractive people in the film, but that's about all I can say to recommend it. Hope your experience is better should you choose to chance it.
This week I ventured out from the warm clutches of SIFF to try out a film from the other local festival STIFF. That acronym stands for "Seattle's True Independent Film Festival." I won't get into the politics of the two here, and honestly I don't know much about them. But presumably they exist anytime you have two festivals scheduled at the same time. Not to mention the inherent dig of having "true" in your name. STIFF takes place at a different set of venues including the Northwest Film Forum, Central Cinema, and the Jewelbox (inside Belltown's Rendezvous). I'd never been before but this year there was a lure that proved impossible to resist - BOOK OF ZOMBIE. That's right, Mormon zombies. Would they bicycle everywhere, attempt to reanimate your ancestors posthumously? Had no clue - but felt compelled to investigate further. Now that I've got a series pass for STIFF I am looking for some other films to try over the next few days.
Historically, I haven't really been drawn to zombie flicks. More a vampire guy. But last year was particularly strong in the genre, especially with the release of the kick ass and hilarious ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction. Not to mention Zombieland, Zombie Girl and (sort of) Sexykiller. So I off I went to the Jewelbox.
After sitting through a longish trailer which I may speak to in a future post the 60 or so minute 'Book of Zombie' began. The opening credits seemed promising, slickly done and with what seemed to suggest the promise of gore mixed with at least some funny aspects. Once the film began though it rapidly became clearer that the makers turned out a technically competent film with ample gore but perhaps a less inspired script and acting than I'd hoped for. Though they did get the slow moving zombies part right at least.
Rather than really nailing the theme it's just mainly window dressing around the brain eating (not that there's truly anything wrong with that). Sure there are ample "Utah is boring" jokes and "Mormons are boring and/or annoying" jokes but nothing either particularly deep or that funny. Perhaps the highlight of the cleverness is that the zombies prove more susceptible to caffeinated beverages than the double tap to the head. An example of how the lead character explains this to his dimwitted compatriots:
- I've got it, what don't Mormons eat?
- They don't eat pork?
- no, that's the Jews
- The don't eat pussy?
- no, that's the mafia
- Caffeine?
- ah ha!
Or something along those lines. That's about as good as it gets with a lot of snarking between all the characters. I think it's often a fine line between clever and mean and I felt this sometimes went a bit over that line - without enough positiveness for me to overlook that. The ending IS one of the cleverer parts so it's worth sticking around for.
This is one of those "absolutely had be done" screenings to attend. So I don't blame anyone for catching the second screening at STIFF of the film. It's not unwatcheable, just doesn't truly raise the bar. Do make sure to see ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction (out on video) if you haven't already.
The film opens in Rome as a somewhat intoxicated Russian bi-curious woman stumbles back towards her hotel room with a Spanish lesbian in tow. Both are attractive, and within minutes of coming upstairs they're completely naked. They stay in that room in roughly the same state of dress for the rest of the film. They have sex, repeatedly. They speak sexily accented English, not to mention whisper to each other in Italian, Russian, and Spanish. Everything is technically ably shot, the camera doesn't shake and neither of the characters turns out to be a horrible human being. So how you're wondering can this be anything but an awesome film? Or perhaps if you're female you're wondering isn't this what your boyfriend is sneaking off to watch on his computer when you're not around?
Unfortunately, you'd both be wrong. While the film certainly does have it's pleasures you're likely to be quickly turned cold by the seemingly endless repetition of a single song and the conversation that keeps them up for the night. The conversation is a 90+ minute slow reveal, which never really made me care much about either of the characters. Not a good thing. And whether it was that, the cinematography/lighting, music or something else the part that was intended to be erotica just left me largely uninterested. For some reason I kept wanting to laugh somewhat during the sex scenes. In part because I got the impression that they were trying so, so hard to make them artistically sexy, and second because something about the speed of them seemed unrealistic (from start to climax in 60 seconds could have been the alternative title for the film).
In some ways the stuck in a room together wherein lies, half-truths and secrets come to light as the ultimate moment of truth looms with sunrise (... will we ditch our lives for this person we just met?) will likely remind you of at least one other film. In my case it's "In Bed" which I caught at SIFF sometime in the past few years. That's a far superior film - skip this and find that one.
Someone afterward memorably described the film as, "the Bataan Death March of lesbian sex films." I'm going to end with that - because honestly, I have nothing more to add.
Update (7/19/2010): Interestingly enough according to this blog posting it seems as though this film was after all based on the much better film In Bed I saw a few years earlier (also at SIFF).
Just about the perfect little sweet film for a day at the movies. If you want black comedy, painful relationships, aching over life regrets, suicide, slavery, or abuse of children/animals/pop-music go elsewhere.
Kai (Jackie Yao) works in his parent's restaurant while he pines for his girlfriend who's gone to Paris. Each day he practices his French at the local bookstore to prepare for their reunification. There he meets Susie (Amber Kuo) the adorable staff member who shelves books around him and looks more than a little bummed when she learns why he wants to learn French. But she gamely tries to suggest a more effective approach of him taking a class, even as Kai is barely aware of her. When Kai is dumped (a spoiler, sorry - but an obvious one) he goes to Mr. Bao the local criminal type (albeit a sweet, romantic one) to borrow the money for the trip. Bao has one favor to ask of Kai involving the delivery of a package that involves his retirement score. This attracts the Bao's nephew Hong's attention (Lawrence Ko channeling Pee Wee Herman) who is simultaneously one of the weakest, and funniest (though sympathy inducing) criminal wanna-be you've seen in a while.
The crazy night that follows Kai and Susie's adventure along that with a variety of other characters is just huge pure romantic comedy fun. Writing this is making one scene after another pop to mind for me for me as I smile. It's not necessarily that you haven't seen this material before. But the combination of characters and their performances are just very entertaining together. Though you might want to scope out a place to eat afterwards as the tour through Tapei's street food will leave you craving dumplings at the very least.
The film has the little touches right as well a jazzy score that makes me think of recent Woody Allen films and nighttime wanderings that evoke a comic version of Before Sunrise (in a good way regardless of where you stand on the Ethan Hawke question). Kai and Susie make a cute couple. But the highest praise in my book must be reserved for Kai's best friend Gao (Paul Chian). As the innocent friend Gao, an expert of where to get dumplings, how to charm your kidnappers and the displayer of mad mah-jong skillz he steals every scene he's in. And I desperately want to see the sequel where he finally gets up the nerve to ask out Peach his co-worker at the convenient store. Even if he doesn't ever actual ask her that film would be a delight.
Just go see the movie. You may not be the sappy romantic I am - but even if you don't give it a perfect score I can't imagine you won't at least somewhat enjoy the ride.
Oh, and I'm recommending the creation of a campaign to enter Paul Chian (aka Gao) for the Golden Space Needle best actor slot. Vote early and often.
One strange but oddly compelling movie, 'Gordos' follows the members of a weight loss group therapy program through their (literal) highs and lows. The characters include;
- the lead therapist, trim with an athletic wife who must deal with the weight gain associated with being pregnant and on bed rest.
- a husband who shares his obesity with his wife and one of their two twin children - though is very happy.
- a former weight loss program spokesman whose being sued by his former partner for gaining weight
- an engineer whose gained weight while her boyfriend is away in America on assignment
- the "happy nun" an overweight woman in a somewhat restrictive christian sect who for a while finds breaking their taboo against premarital sex is a recipe for both happiness and weight loss.
In addition to the therapy patients the story branches out include some of the key figures in each of their lives. Whether viewed directly as story about struggling with weight in modern society or as a broader tale of personal demons and relationship dynamics there was more than enough to hold my attention. And the characters will likely stay in my memory for some time. Each of the performances were unusually different but fit within the universe the film makers had created.
I think I'll stop there, save for two caveats. First, the film seems relatively straightforward for much of its course but take a bit of a left turn toward the odd around the final act. That could leave some with a less than satisfying payoff. Second, there is a fair amount of nudity, and much like the male-male-female threesome on screen many will joke that it's not "the good kind" of naked. If that's going to really bother you it's something worth knowing. But it makes sense within the stories they're trying to tell and the film wouldn't really be the same without it.
I've actually been skipping this film at prior festivals. While that was a mistake in hindsight I'm glad I decided to try it this time. Hopefully you may too.
Apparently the demise of the Soviet Union was driven by Knight Rider and Emmanuel. To be clear, they're talking about the first Emmanuel, not the 8th or 9th version where it just got trashy and (presumably) introduced werewolves into the mix. Though that last part I may be getting mixed up with the Anita Blake books.
Anyway, this entertaining documentary from Estonia does give a fascinating peek into an aspect of the cold war I really didn't know much about. Specifically the use of "soft power" to undermine the ideals of the Soviet empire. Or perhaps just to show folks how much fun they might be missing in a culture where watching Dallas was considered highly subversive.
In fact Dallas is the way things start off in the documentary. Being relatively close to Finland their TV programming "leaked" over the border into Estonia. Possibly leaked more than necessary based on the film's premise that the transmitter in Finland was inefficiently projecting the signal over the sea at the request of the US government. But that was just fine for his family who spent Friday night watching American decadence on display, much to their pleasure. When relatives from the country come to visit they're transfixed by the show leaving the young narrator the task of sending a synopsis each week by mail to their relatives. Consequently, his cousin gains a position of popularity in her village as everyone quickly becomes addicted to the latest from JR and company. Soap operas are one hard meme to stop.
With a fair amount of background on the how and when the film explains the hold that western programming gains behind the iron curtain. As well as how black market industries sprang up around feeding the demand. A great early example of information wanting to be free. At one point the government issues an internal memo to be on the lookout for kids talking to cars after Knight Rider springs to prominence. The narrator describing trying to talk to any foreign cars he saw just made me smile in a very familiar way.
I won't go into more of the examples, but it's an entertaining doc that was fascinating for me to watch. It's possible that the narrator and I being roughly similar in age and thus exposed to similar pop culture in entirely different environments helped me enjoy the film. But I think most folks will at least find it an informative viewing. Who would have known growing up how many Americans would have shared the opinion 'Death before Disco' with their communist enemies?
A nice double feature with 'Farewell' which also screened at SIFF and explains how the French
managed to win the cold war for us due to one well placed Russian being a serious francophile. Will be writing up later.
Oh, and I'm not joking about the Emmanuel bit. Really.
Last night I attended a SIFF reception for Edward Norton who received this year's Golden Space Needle Award for his work in film. I'll post more details later but for now I'll leave you with a few less than perfect photos I took at the event. If you're interested in reading my thoughts on the film there's a report from SXSW here.
Writer/director Sultan Sharrief came to Seattle to present his autobiographical narrative feature Bilal's Stand. I'll admit I caught it based on a lack of other alternatives, but if you're reading this I'd suggest giving it a bit more thought than that when choosing your films. It's got a raw, natural feel that often doesn't work well, but in this case it does. Largely because even though I suspect many of the actor's aren't professional they come across mostly as relaxed, and hence as real people. By the end I felt myself getting frustrated by the characters holding Bilal back, which seems a sign it was a well done film that while I suspect is intensely personal will appeal to a broader audience.
Bilal is a teenager growing up in Detroit. We're introduced to him initially through his role as one of the most responsible members of his extended family - who together seem to owe what limited material success they do have to a family taxi business (founded by, I believe Bilal's grandfather). He's a responsible kid, working driving taxis, doing the books, and working hard in school. He's also been bullied by a teacher at his school into applying to the University of Michigan where he's accepted. This sets up the big drama of the film wherein he clearly wants to go there (and not community college) but his mother and others in the family think he should stay home and keep helping the business. The alternative in their view is "abandoning his family." While he debates the issue (mostly internally) he's also desperately trying to find the money to pay for college. As he didn't really expect to go he also hasn't applied for any financial aid (and deadlines have long passed). The best he can find is an ice sculpting contest with scholarship prize money. Bilal's a charismatic guy and soon talks the grumbling ice sculpting teacher at his high school into taking him on. Will Bilal win the contest?, convince his family and himself to go to school?, make new friends outside his current social circle? Or follow the path expected of him by his mom? - all these questions (OK, some of these questions) will be answered should you choose to attend. The end of the film does explain more deeply the outcomes of the true people the story is based on.
While the visual style of the film is rather natural (approaching that of a documentary at times) the director adds some interesting touches to get us further within Bilal's mindset. As Bilal narrates the film a visual emphasis on his words is created by overlaying chalk style drawings of what he's thinking overlaying the natural world. Rather than distracting it's a nice touch that let's us literally see how Bilal's perceptions reshape his universe.
As I mentioned earlier the actions of some of the characters left me frustrated. I've never really understood the parental concern/complaint that "what?, you're too good for a life like mine" vs. what seems to be a more constructive goal of having your children step further up a path of success/happiness on a ladder you helped build. But I suppose judging from this movie (and years of hearing similar things before in a variety of venues) it's a true issue. So it's particularly nice to see a story that confronts this head on without painting anyone as a "bad guy" - while still coming down on the side of not holding your kids back. It's well executed enough that I felt more that I was getting a window into a family outside my personal experiences without it getting mushy/preachy.
Overall, a nice take on what in some ways is a familiar story. Unfortunately it seems the screening I caught was the last scheduled one. But might want to keep this in your Netflix queue or eyes open for any theatrical releases in the future.
A poster sale - sure, why not? Those were my thoughts when I received the following notice via email from the Northwest Film Forum (NWFF) regarding their optimistically named 1st annual poster sale.
