MOVIE NEWS

The Hole

'This is PG-13 horror done right for a change ... Smart, scary and fun as hell.' 

Kids don’t watch enough television these days. Anyway, that’s the lesson I’ve learned from The Hole, a movie in which two boys move into a new house and, upon finding a mysterious door on the ground in their cellar – one that’s been padlocked a dozen times and hidden beneath a carpet – then proceed to open the damned thing. Don’t open that door. That’s a bad door. What, haven’t you ever seen The Gate?

But open it they do. They peer inside and sure enough, all their fears come to life because it’s the entrance to Hell. They wind up fighting killer clowns (the only kind we have left in this country), ghosts of their regretful past and spirits of abuse and terror not unlike what you’d find in actual childhood nightmares. The Hole may evoke memories of similar youth-oriented horror films, but more importantly it invokes memories of genuine childhood and adolescent anxiety. This is PG-13 horror done right for a change. Unambitious, perhaps, but solidly scary.

The Hole marks the return of director Joe Dante, who introduced the PG-13 horror film back in 1984 with Gremlins and marks his first feature film in nine years. His latest film lacks the impish wit and chainsaw-wielding monsters of that classic frightfest, but it also focuses on younger characters who see the world more emotionally than the rest of us. The Hole captures a childlike point of view and perverts it to uncomfortable levels, displaying a relatable world that frequently devolves into unsettling horror. Dante isn’t a sadist, and The Hole does ultimately reveal that the terrors of young life can be overcome, but only after confronting your phobias head on. And really, confronting our fears is what scares us the most. We spend most of our lives happily avoiding them, or at least settling into a manageable state of denial.

Kids movies don’t imperil their protagonists much anymore. There’s a difference that some filmmakers forget, or are perhaps specifically told to ignore, between comforting young audiences and lying to them. The greatest films aimed at kids don’t shy away from conflict or even terror – Walt Disney was a master of this, and I present as “Exhibit A” 1940’s horrifyingPinocchio – because kids know that scary things exist. They feel fear more palpably than adults ever seem to. Children get nightmares from horror movies all the time, while adults tend to have nightmares about specific phobias or going back to high school. The Hole, like many great kid-oriented movies before it, acknowledges the existence of those fears and illustrates them in all their subjective glory, making the heroes’ journeys more meaningful.

That’s not to say that The Hole is the greatest film of Joe Dante’s career or any kind of instant classic. But it’s a refreshing example of how to make a film for a specific demographic the right way. It understands kids and shows the world through their eyes, but reserves just enough adult wisdom to make the right assurances that, indeed, everything will be okay in the end. The Holebalances entertainment, terror and playful panache in equal measure, and deserves some attention for going to all that trouble. It’s smart, scary and fun as hell.

YOU ARE HERE:

Two Nerds Admit All the Problems With 'The Avengers'

We’re huge fans of “Honest Trailers” and we were really happy to watch the recent Avengersedition the moment it came out. It is spot on, and we give serious credit to the writers for understanding what parts of the film deserved ribbing. We were a little taken aback by what is probably a very valid criticism: a lot of nerds simply refuse to accept there was anything wrong with this movie. As nerds, we find this a bit galling. Let’s be fair: poking holes in what we love is kinda what we do!


Now, we feel like this perception that The Avengers is untouchable is wildly a manufactured one. We think this is mostly from fans of Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy who, when presented with incontrovertible proof that the last movie had serious flaws, now must get the whole universe to admit that every movie has flaws... because then they can sleep at night. Watch out, Citizen Kane, because no film can be perfect if The Dark Knight Rises can’t be perfect.

But we, as ever, digress...
There are some major issues with The Avengers and while they are largely bowled over by the movies’ momentous awesomeness (and thus a lot less glaring) they are there, and we noticed them the first time we saw it and walked out of the theater thinking about them. We noticed, and we’re about as big Avengers fans as can exist. If we noticed, more nerds noticed.

Here, we’ll spell them out for you:


 

1. Nobody’s Plan Makes Sense

This movie really takes place in the chaos between two plans, Loki’s and Nick Fury’s. We largely don’t get to see what either plan was meant to be before it collided with the other, but if you trace them both out as far as you can they very rapidly fall apart. Even less clear is the longer game being played by Thanos (more on him later) as he clearly didn’t send Loki out with a win in mind. Let’s look at all three plans…


Nick Fury’s “Avengers Initiative” seems to only have one step: get a bunch of superhuman folks in the same room. What does that mean? Well, he collects Captain America and Iron Man and Bruce Banner in the first act, but that’s really it. It’s never clear if Black Widow or Hawkeye were meant to be Avengers (after all, they were recruited in the 11th hour by Captain America), nor is it clear if Fury’s long game intended the Hulk to play a major role, or if he just needed Banner for his Gamma Radiation knowledge. Thor, too, was a wild card that Fury could not have predicted as he had no way of knowing if he was ever going to come back to Earth, let alone join The Avengers if he happened to meet them. So what then? The goal was the assemble them... which may not even have happened (unless it was a team of two). And then what? Profit? Shawarma?  

Loki’s plan seems even less clear. He apparently wants to see the Avengers brought together, which is basically setting himself up to fail, but that’s not even the worst part of it. What is his end game for invading Earth? He makes half-hearted claim to wanting to be king of the planet (or something?) and this is somehow a step to his larger goals... but what are they, and why? The best theory is he “wanted to get caught.” If that’s the case, and seeing the overly devoted familiar nature of the Asgardians, couldn’t he have just shown up and said “boo” and they would have picked him up? Why produce an invasion that creates a major threat to you and your “boss?”

Thanos, arguably the most evil creature in the Marvel Universe, apparently, wants to take over Earth, or the Tesseract... or a kitten… or a Five Guys in Chicago? His motivations for empowering Loki and sending him back are nebulous at best. More in question is why he just sends Loki back? The portal that spits out Loki seems to be staying open, so why not send over a few Chitauri guards? Why not just dump the whole army out then? Did they know an infrequently visiting Nick Fury would be there to shut the whole thing down? What if the Tesseract was in that Hulk cage? Wouldn’t they be delivering Loki into captivity? Did it even matter? Meh!
 

2. The Chitauri Are Not a Credible Threat

A lot was made of the incoming Chitauri army throughout the film, but if you look at what actually goes down they aren’t very scary. Captain America and Black Widow (who have no super powers at all) do a fine job of killing them with what could be considered conventional weapons, and Iron Man may be advanced but a few attack helicopters would probably get the job done just as well. Had any actual military shown up, would the legion of sky-bobsleds and space dragons have stood much chance? They didn’t seem to have much in the way of tactics. “Zoom around and buzz buildings” is not a strategy covered in Sun Tzu’s “Art of War.”

Also, Loki at one point says “Send the rest!” which implies the whole army makes it through the portal, and it’s not exactly a buzzing hornet’s nest of aliens in the end there. Earth is a big planet, and regardless of the size of your space-whale-dragon things (which fly in atmosphere because… uh… magic) the combined armies of Earth seem to be a bit of a challenge. Missiles and rockets and snipers and oh my. Remember, a hand thrown shield took out some of these guys. Compared to the whole planet, downtown Manhattan is not that big. The whole battle takes place within maybe 10 blocks of Manhattan (coincidentally, the same block destroyed in the first X-Men movie during the fight at Grand Central Station).


This brings us to one of the most unfortunate F’-ups in the film...


 

3. The Slaughter of the Chitauri Army is Unnecessary and Largely Inexcusable

The previous issues we have with The Avengers are mostly understandable to me in the scheme of things. Strategies and larger goals have a way of getting overshadowed in movies, and we tend to give them a pass. After all, we tend to leave the house with some grand goal most days and end up ranting about something on Facebook or one of our shows and nothing gets done. One issue that really sticks with us though is the final death of all the aliens after their “mothership” is destroyed. This is just plain stupid. We know nothing about the Chitauri that suggests there is even a connection between them that might cause this, and even if there was, there shouldn’t have been. This seems cheap and poorly written, and it turns us off for a hot second before we did what most moviegoers did: we let it go.

Why did the extinction of the Chitauri army have to happen? Probably to make it clear there was smooth sailing for the team to have a shawarma moment and feel all team-powery. This could easily have been explained by the Helicarrier finally showing up (seriously, where the Hell was it all movie?) and fighter jets clearing out the remaining alien combatants. Hell, even if we were left feeling there may have been some stray Chitauri living in the sewers and building another portal out of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans, who cares? Having them all die as if a light switch turned off was stupid. We don’t care, we love the movie, but it’s stupid. You heard us: we’re nerdy fanboys and we openly disagree with Joss Whedon's choice here. There!  We can be the jerks that disprove the rule. We’re not sheep. Up yours, media.

But... In the directors commentary for the film Whedon expresses what could be called considerable regret for this plot point, so I guess we can return to unconditionally loving him with the rest of our nerd brothers and sisters. Please make a “Dollhouse” movie. No we're not serious.
 

4. “I Think I Built in a Failsafe”



A single line change could have avoided a lot of problems for me in this film. When they finally discover that Loki’s staff can pass through the force field and turn off the portal, the good formerly mind-controlled doctor says two things (to summarize):

A) I think I built in a failsafe, and
B) The Tesseract can’t resist its own energy. In our mind, you don’t need A to believe that B would allow for the magic Loki’s staff MacGuffin to shut down the portal. It’s cartoon logic (ACME Tesseract, anyone?), but it is logic. The force shield can’t protect against its own energy. Fine. However, when you build in the idea that the fully mind controlled physicist somehow made this happen subconsciously, well, that seems a lot less plausible. Why overcomplicate it with a line that makes it seem way too convenient when you can just say, “The staff is also magic,” and leave it at that.

The bigger explanation has to be why Loki would ever let that thing go. That’s a problem. Even iPhones have wrist straps to keep you from losing them.


 

5. What Was the Helicarrier For?



Yes, this is our last problem. The movie makes a big deal of the Helicarrier, and how it can fly! It can fly people! It can also turn invisible. (yawn). The movie’s only use of either of these concepts is to threaten to drop the thing out of the air and kill all the characters. If the Helicarrier’s increased mobility and stealth are in no way useful ever, then why risk floating the damn thing up there where it’s mostly a liability? In the whole movie, once its airborne its just getting peppered with explosive arrows and Hulk punches and it barely manages to launch two fighters. Two fighters, by the way, that we don’t want to have launched.

Which reminds us... how easy is it to get a nuke on your jet in S.H.I.E.L.D? Seriously. Nick Fury refuses to launch the nuke, so what? The shadow council just calls a pilot on his cell phone and has him go toss a nuke on his jet and launch? It appears to us that this is what safeguards arethere for. Tim can’t get his Swiss army knife on a Southwest flight, but we’re supposed to believe Agent Redshirt can pick up a nuke like it’s a 2-Liter of Dr. Pepper? Maybe they were too busy making the ship unnecessarily invisible to work on any protocols. Bureaucracy is hard... invisibility plating is a snap!

Ok... before you say it, the Helicarrier was clearly "fanservice" and we fully understand that. We however consider ourselves a little bit above rolling over for including something from comics ungracefully. We don't just want a Helicarrier, we want a Helicarrier that works. In other words, we are horrible American consumers.
 

---

So those are my issues with The Avengers that we noticed with our own nerd eyes while we watched the film on opening night. We noticed them again when we saw it the 3rd and 4th time. We will re-notice them when we watch it on DVD. Why are we mentioning all the times we watched and will watch this movie? Because we won’t see The Dark Knight Rises again unless it’s at gunpoint. By The Penguin.  

But… Let’s look at some of the complaints about the movie that we don’t think are really problems:

 

1. The Hulk Can Suddenly Control Himself? What’s Up With That?


We love this “problem” because it shows both a lack of understanding of the character of Hulk and a complete disregard for the previous movies. In every on-screen rendition of the Hulk we’ve seen him choose his targets and focus his rage at a larger (and often more evil) threat. In the last film he fought The Abomination one-on-one and didn’t go off randomly tossing around police cars. That he chooses to fight the giant alien attack force and not the other Avengers isn’t even close to out of character for Hulk. It may be a little convenient that he’s not choosing to toss busses full of school children at the flying space dragons, but it doesn’t mean he’s not still a big green rage monster.

Plus… we haven’t been with Bruce Banner for months between movies. Perhaps he’s grown (pun not intended). It’s okay for characters to develop in the background. After all, nobody has a problem with Captain America not standing dazed at any flat screen TVs he sees in a shop window. (Plus, when was the last time you saw a bunch of TV’s in a shop window, anyway?) We know he progressed from the end of his movie to this one, so why is it so hard to believe The Hulk has, too?

And he punches Thor.

It’s not a betrayal of character.
 


2. Hawkeye Was Not Well-Characterized

Sadly, he was.
Hawkeye in comics really has three aspects: he’s a very good archer, he’s a bit of a dick, and he has a good heart. We got enough of all of that. He’s not the focus here, and that’s okay, and we have a bunch more movies to understand his subtlety. We consider it lucky that a guy with a bow and arrow ended up seeming bad-ass in a film that contained a Thunder God, a radioactive rage monster and Iron Man. So we think this is a win, not a loss. Your move, WB’s “Arrow.”



 

3. Some Odd Nitpicky Thing About Earpieces


We encourage you to leave your complete technical specs for how everything works in every movie here. We don’t feel like we need to explain everything. It was subdermal-plot-whatsits... It’s a fracking movie. The fact that the mother loving Avengers seemed to be able to talk to each other without holding a CB radio like Smokey and the Bandit doesn’t phase us. Pym particles... That’s it... Yeah... Sure.
 

---

So there you have it, it’s not a perfect film, but then again what is? (Yes, Dark Knight fans, we admitted it.) But it’s a fantastic thrill ride and we count it among our favorite films. Little quibbles like the fact that Thor was clearly using deadly force against Captain America in their first fight and yet they never talk about that is something we can comfortably look past, because the “Shakespeare in the Park” fight is easily our favorite hero-on-hero fight in history.

You can poke huge holes in anything... and the truth is that we do. If nerds on the internet want to fight over what’s better and speak hyperbolically, well fine, but that doesn’t mean that we’re not consuming movies critically.
Do we think some people dig in their heels and refuse to accept any flaws in the movies they love? Sure. We also think we hear that more from Nolan fans than anyone else (but that may be wishful thinking). The fact is The Avengers is a good film... no, agreat film, and it’s exactly what we want in a comic book movie. It felt like a non-stop thrill ride (yes even the first 25 minutes, you haters), it felt like a comic book made real, and regardless of any number of flaws, we walked out of the theater feeling the high of seeing our heroes on screen.


So in closing… we are nerds, we see the flaws, we still love this movie. Stop pretending we don’t see the flaws and painting nerds as cultish. You’re making us angry… and you wouldn’t like us when we’re angry. But if we did get angry and seemed to be able to control ourselves it would be perfectly in keeping with the plot.


P.S. The “Honest Trailer” suggests many nerds didn’t know who Thanos was in the end credits of the movie. Not to throw down an infinity gauntlet here, but if any comic book nerd didn’t know Thanos we’re taking their membership card back. Thanos has been a major force in comics for decades, and you can’t read Marvel and not know. You could watch the movies and not know… not that we’re implying anything. Ahem.

Review: Pitch Perfect

'Damned good genre entertainment. I laughed my pianissimo off.'I don’t want to sound sexist, but I think that the only way Pitch Perfect could have been better is if they recast all the actresses as men and repackaged it as the origin of Rockapella. That way, in the sequel (fingers crossed), they stop Carmen Sandiego before she ransacks Pakistan, runs a scam in Scandinavia, sticks ‘em up down under and pickpockets Perth.

But that is the only way that I could recommend this feel-good doo-wopping movie more than I already am. Pitch Perfect looks for all the world like the kind of lowest common denominator music-based comedy with a “believe in yourself” message that we all grew sick of halfway through Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit, and sure enough, that’s exactly what it is, but with a sharper screenplay, memorable characters and more vomit than you’d usually find on an episode of “Glee,” the film’s closest relation in the pop culture consciousness.

That said, and unlike “Glee,” a show whose strengths lie in repurposing pop songs for otherwise unquantifiable adolescent expression, the music in Pitch Perfect seems kind of incidental. It’s enough that there is music, and that these a cappella groups are pretty good at performing it. These are not confused youngsters yearning to convey their confusing emotions and overcome their harsh surroundings, they are fully-formed adults (almost) who are seeking camaraderie within a competitive setting and experimenting with new pursuits in a college environment wherein actual studying runs distant third behind romance and extracurricular activities. In other words, they are fully believable college freshmen.

The plot, he writes as he pads the review with information you could easily find on IMDb, involves a rebellious college student played by Anna Kendrick who wants to forego her studies and move to California to pay her dues and become a proper DJ. Her father, who teaches at the university, agrees to finance this sojourn provided she gives the traditional college experience a fair chance for a whole year, and participate in at least one extracurricular activity beyond tidying the campus radio station. After getting ambushed in the shower by an a cappella enthusiast in need of new members for her waning musical act, our heroine embarks on an eye-rolling tour of the strange and alien world of vocalists with no other passions besides covering pop tunes entirely with their mouths.

The conventional (but still effective) underdog sporting tropes bolster this plotline because…something has to happen, and to allow the talented cast to interact in ways that show off their comic and occasionally genuinely dramatic chops. Anna Kendrick engages in a largely believable romance with Skylar Astin, the world’s least-threatening and most available male, but also a guy with enough self-confidence to reject Kendrick after the renegade attitude by which she defines herself reveals a total lack of respect for his feelings. That’s one of Pitch Perfect’s greatest strengths. In this type of movie, the lone wolf who comes to redefine the musical act and/or sports team usually has to grow past their stifling parents or their lack of drive. Pitch Perfectbucks that trend by presenting a hero with obvious talent but a genuine lack of maturity, thinking herself above her peers when, in fact, her cynicism actually demonstrates the exact opposite. Bravo. Bravissimo.

So with the heroine’s character arc actually arcing for a change and the dramatic weight of the film actually showing up on a scale, Pitch Perfect is free to focus on the enjoyable supporting characters who each, like in bad movies of this stripe, have a single defining trait, but at least the traits are interesting. Fat Amy, played by Rebel Wilson, is the brunt of several anti-cardio jokes but she also enjoys a healthy sex life and is at least once seen as the object of the innate affection of multiple male swimsuit models. Lily, played by Hana Mae Lee, is the quiet one who inevitably belts out a surprisingly potent solo at the end, but only after inaudibly declaring that she starts fires just to feel joy and did a nickel in a maximum-security prison. The stuck-up leader, played by Anna Camp, attempts to stifle the heroine’s creativity but eventually embraces change… along with her barely controllable need to projectile vomit at nearly all times. These characters are, for the highly specific subgenre at hand at rate, novel at worst, and uniquely entertaining at best. That’s a win/win.

Okay, so Pitch Perfect isn’t exactly pitch perfect. You won’t learn anything valuable, it doesn’t introduce anything new to the cinematic medium and the world will remain largely the same after its release. It is, however, damned good genre entertainment. I laughed my pianissimo off, and that’s no small achievement for a film of any pedigree. What’s more, I never felt pandered to. This isn’t a blatant marketing cash grab, nor is it a celebration of negativity that simultaneously mocks and justifies antisocial behavior. This is a good movie. It feels good, it sounds good and, for about two hours, it makes life pretty good. Pitch Perfect sings.

Butching Out: Emily Blunt on Looper and All You Need is Kill

Why you have to see Looper more than once and transitioning to action movies with Bruce Willis and Tom Cruise.
When we talked to Emily Blunt at Comic Con, we had not seen Looper yet. Now that we’ve seen it we have a whole batch of new questions for her. Ms. Blunt made time for another interview by phone from a break in production on her next sci-fi film, All You Need Is Kill. In Looper, Blunt plays Sara, a farmer whose son just may grow up to be the deadliest mobster in the future. We’re also glad she laughed at our time travel questions.

CraveOnline: At Comic-Con you told us you read the script to Looper three times. I understand now because I’ll watch it over again. What did you get out of reading the script three times?

Emily Blunt: Well, I think I wanted to read it three times just to fully grasp its complexity before I sat down with the director and pitched Rian [Johnson] on why I thought he should let me play the part. More than anything I think I was just so stunned by it so I wanted to read it again to just truly try and figure out how someone had managed to write something like this. I mean, it just wasn’t derivative of anything, it wasn’t generic in any way. It was just so breathtakingly original and so I think it’s rich in complexity in many ways. In the emotional sense and also in the aesthetic sense so I think it just takes a couple of reads and probably a couple of watches of the movie to fully admire how ambitious it is.

Did any part of you think, “Just kill that kid!”?

Nooo. Of course not, no. Absolutely not. He’s a little boy. That was the point of making him so young and vulnerable. That’s the theory of nature versus nurture.

What were your suggestions for the character?

Well, really it was all there on the page to be honest. I think that I really loved the tough exterior with the inner guilt that she sort of torments herself with. I love that unraveling of the character that you don’t know why she’s so tough, you don’t know why she’s so protective. Gradually it unfolds throughout the course of the third act. So really what I said to Rian was that we’ve got to make this whole sequence in the third act like that movie Witness. It’s got to have that sort of pastoral tension to it and the feeling of someone coming in that’s alien to your world and disrupting everything and how frightening that must be for her. So I think really I wanted to make sure we maintain the mystique of the character as long as we could.

Witness is a good reference. It made me remember times in my life where I’ve had a visitor, male or female, and then once they’re gone, you’re back to normal and they’re just some memory you have. Do you know what I’m talking about?

Yeah, I wonder because I think what’s nice is the end of the film is left kind of open ended as to what will happen for those two characters. I think you know when those people come into your lives and they make an impact. You know how much they impact you but yet I think that influence coming into her life is so new to her, it’s so alien, it’s not something she’s used to.

Was the blonde hair your idea?

I think Rian and I talked about it. I said, “How did you envision her?” And he said, “Fair. Fair-haired.” I think that I wanted her to feel weather beaten. She’s someone who’s outside all the time and I’m tanned in the movie as opposed to my usual Casper the Friendly Ghost skin color which I wanted to get away from to play this tough Midwestern girl. So I think we wanted that sort of oppressive hot feel to the farm, and it felt right physically for the character to be weather beaten and fair-haired.

Was the tan a lot of makeup every day?

No, I actually lay in the sun a lot around the time of the movie and leading up to it. I had to resort to going to those dreadful sun beds and then we’d add a little makeup on top of it and that kind of thing. But it takes me a really long time to get a tan. I tan really slowly. Once I’m dark I go pretty dark but it was a slow process to get me that color.

So you didn’t spray tan?

No, I hate the smell.

Was the accent no problem for you?

You tell me. [Laughs] You tell me. I had a dialect coach who I worked with before I started. She wasn’t on set with me but she’s great and we decided on a Kansas sound. The person I listened to a lot was Chris Cooper who’s from Kansas and grew up on a farm. I loved his voice and it sounded very grounded. I found it more helpful to listen to guys than girls because of the toughness of the character.

Which Chris Cooper movies did you watch?

I watched American Beauty and I watched Adaptation but I mainly listened to his interviews, him giving interviews and stuff.

Are you getting into an action phase of your career now with Looper and All You Need Is Kill?

Apparently so. Apparently so. I don’t know what possessed me but I’m loving it.

How did the action of Looper compare to even Wild Target?

Oh gosh. [Laughs] Wild Target there was a bit of running about in high heels. Looper, if I’m swinging an axe and wielding a big gun, that’s slightly more action packed.

Didn’t you have a gun in Wild Target?

I did briefly but I don’t think I handled it very well.

How much more intense is All You Need Is Kill?

I’m literally right now stretching on a rubber ball as I talk to you because I screwed my back up today. It is the most intense thing I’ve ever done. I’ll absolutely say that but it’s really fun and I’m in the hands of a big action star in Tom Cruise that he knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s being very helpful at pointing me in the right direction.

Both Tom Cruise and Bruce Willis each have such unique impact in the action genre. What do you get out of being in a Bruce movie versus a Tom movie?

I think both actors bring so much gravitas to the movies that they’re in simply by their reputation but also by the charisma. It’s a heavy load to carry an action movie and to still make the character rich and likable and watchable. So I think that it’s actually easier said than done and I think those guys bring such gravitas to everything. That’s what I love most about their action movies.

Do you play a soldier in All You Need is Kill?

I do. I play a highly decorated soldier.

How did you get into that character?

Sort of swaggering around in Doc Martin boots and cool gear, but I’ve also been training like a lunatic for it. It’s been martial arts, fight skills, stunt training, wirework, weight lifting. I’m definitely butching out on this one.

You know, they’re talking about doing a female Expendables. After these two movies, would you be up for that?

Oh my goodness, are they really? Who would it be? It could be Sigourney Weaver.

Geena Davis, Linda Hamilton.

Geena Davis, Linda Hamilton would have to do it, Angelina, we’d have to get her roped in, Charlize.

Jennifer Garner.

Jennifer Garner for sure.

Did you feel like you made it in your career when you got to do a voice on “The Simpsons?”

I was really honored actually. I was really surprised that they even knew who I was because that was a while back that I did that. It was thrilling, it really was.

When you’re on the set of movies like Looper and All You Need Is Kill, what sort of philosophical time travel or ethical conversations do you have on the set?

Oh God, what are you talking about? [Laughs] We don’t talk about stuff like that. We talk about what we’re having for lunch. We have enough on our plate.

Well, I can tell you that’s what I think about when I see the movies, so they’ve made an impact.

Oh, good, I’m glad. That’s the point. All the work’s going on when the camera’s rolling and the rest of the time, we’re wondering when we can eat next. [Laughs]

Fantastic Fest 2012 Recap: Day 6

Fred Topel reviews Berberian Sound Studio, Bring Me the Head of Machine Gun Woman, New Kids Nitro and the Short Fuse program.

Tonight’s secret screening was Sightseers, which I already saw and recapped at TIFF. That freed me up to see more Fantastic Fest programming, including significant films from returning festival filmmakers and one that I did miss at TIFF when it played there.

Berberian Sound Studio 

I wish I’d seen Berberian Sound Studio at TIFF. It would have made Toronto just a little bit weirder. This Euro-horror style thriller is about a British sound artist, Gilderoy (Toby Jones), who visits an Italian studio for a job. Berberian is really about the politics of the post-production industry and I love it. I really could watch 90 minutes of foley artists squishing vegetables. But Gilderoy is a guest and the Italians don’t like his style, and Gilderoy doesn’t like the content of the film for which they hired him. The producers and directors versus the actors provide juicy drama too. Then it gets weird. I love the weird parts too so it’s a win-win.

Bring Me The Head of The Machine Gun Woman

Chilean director Ernesto Diaz Espinoza has been making grindhouse action movies for years now, most recently the Fantastic Fest winner Mandrill. Mandrill was a vehicle for a martial artist. WithMachine Gun Woman he creates an action heroine out of Latin TV star Fernanda Urrejola. She doesn’t have much training but she can handle a gun, which is impressive for one day’s training. The stars of D.E.B.S. couldn’t get it down. Espinoza sticks to a lean story about bounty hunters and crooks. He really builds the mystique for Machine Gun Woman and he sure can shoot a woman’s walk. A lot of the film is conveyed with movement and when there’s dialogue, it addresses genre clichés. You know when characters on the run expect their loved ones to just pack up and leave with them? This movie comments on how nobody would really do that. There’s also a good old bullet removal scene, and all I could think was now Machine Gun Woman is going to have a really hot scar. Espinoza gives parts of the film a grindhouse polish, or de-polish rather, and uses ‘70s style music. It still cuts together like a high-class production, proving a do-it-yourself production doesn’t have to look sloppy. I love that he references Mandrill so that these movies could possibly exist in the same world. The action is sparing but it makes its impact and you just can’t wait to see Machine Gun Woman shoot again.

New Kids Nitro

New Kids Turbo rocked Fantastic Fest last year and the New Kids gang already has a sequel for the fest. This Netherlands comedy troupe from a TV series is relentlessly immature. The jokes still involve cars crashing and running over people, people falling down, fireworks and calling each other homos or c***s. This silly style pays off every time they set up a dangerous stunt, because you know it’s going to end badly but it’s never not funny. It’s sort of ADD comedy. They can’t hold still, but with epic music it feels like t he most important life or death action movie. InNitro, a rivalry with a neighboring village intersects with a zombie infection outbreak. I’m surprised a Euro-comedy group would try their own zombie movie, but I guess the style is different enough from Shaun of the Dead that no one will be worried that it’s as good. People here rave about the political incorrectness, but that’s just shock value. The humor that got me was the immaturity, lusting after a pregnant drunk and such. It’s not highbrow but it’s also not worried about likeability like too many American comedies.

Short Fuse

Shorts programs are always a mixed bag, but this program at Fantastic Fest had a bunch of standout talents. Sleepover has really good dialogue and it’s well shot, so director Chris Cullari and writer Jennifer Raite have the makings of a filmmaking team. At the Formal by Andrew Kavanaugh has an impressive long tracking shot with a lot of actors interacting. Game by Josh MacDonald is a respectable slasher horror movie (and you can see it for yourselfhere). Leyenda by Pau Teixidor is a really well shot movie. We should definitely look for more from him. Now I’m against showing three shorts by the same director like Chris Nash’sSkinfections series. Mainly because none of them are very good, but at least the first one “My Main Squeeze” is cute. They’re all too long and the dialogue is not as edgy as Nash or the characters think it is. Also a three part series isn’t a short. It’s a long. Also, to shorts directors, don’t put your title at the end. Your title is not the twist. We need to know the name of what we’re watching if we’re going to tout your work.

post source by internet.....................