Day 66: Paranormal Activity (2007)

Last day of my vacation. I refused to see this in theaters mainly because I am not a fan of this type of movie - faked "found" footage. I saw it for cheap as a used video at Blockbusters, so I picked it up.

Such a terribly lame film. Nothing interesting about it. So obviously fake. Such simple techniques to create the "hauntings." I really hope that this does not start a trend of films along the same line. Blair Witch was a bad start to the trend, and Paranormal Activity is just another in that horrible trend.

Day 65: The Blob (1958)

Still on vacation. I went to Barnes and Nobles this week and picked up a number of Criterion DVDS at B&N's 50% Criterion sale. This was one of them.

I haven't had the chance to see many horror B-films, so this was a first. It provided the amusement I expected.

Day 64: "The American Experience": The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1996)

Still on vacation. Picked this up last year when I was taking a class on Welles, but didn't get around to watching it until now.

The American Experience makes very good documentaries (this one, in fact, was nominated for an Academy Award), and this one is no exception. I knew most of the information from other readings, but still a good presentation of the debate over Citizen Kane.

Day 63: Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)

Still on vacation. The next Hitchcock film. The only true comedy he did in Hollywood.

While not evidently a Hitchcock film, it was funny. A ridiculous premise, with ridiculous results. The ending felt forced and didn't seem to flow with the rest of the film, but nonetheless an enjoyable comedy. Comedies have changed dramatically in the last 70 years, and I'm not sure for the better.

Day 62: Chelovek s kino-apparatom / Man with a Movie Camera (1929)

Third day of vacation, so another short one.

A classic Russian film that is referred to often in film school, but one I never actually saw. Russain director Dziga Vertov wanted to present a film with no actors, no language, and no scripts to help create an absolute language of cinema. The film features shots of people working in Odessa and other Russian cities. The film highlights on the man with the movie camera from the title, and a lot of people working in factories.

I was instantly reminded of Berlin: Symphony of a Great City which was released in 1927 and featured a day in the city of Berlin and the workings of its city.

What makes Man with a Movie Camera so well known is not only the early use of film as a documentary method, but more importantly, because of the large assortment of film techniques he invented or applied to this film. A great demonstration of the power of film, and provides a great view of life in Russia in 1929.

Day 61: Foreign Correspondent (1940)

Second day of vacation, so another short post. Hitchcock's second American film (which was nominated for 6 Academy Awards).

I managed to convince my dad to watch the film with me. It was a very fun suspenseful thriller. Another war movie, more propaganda.

Day 60: The Invention of Lying (2009)

First day of my vacation. As I'm on vacation, I'm going to keep these posts really short.

Enjoyed it. Had enough funny parts to keep me entertained (I was watching it late at night in my room, and apparently my laughing kept other people up). Could have been better, but didn't fail.

Day 59: Thirteen (2003)

Ever since I started this project, I've been asking people for film recommendations. One friend, Mal, suggested this one, citing it as one of her favourite films.

In a tale based loosely on the real life events of Nikki Reed's life, the film focuses on the relationship between a thirteen-year-old, Tracy, and her mother which is exasperated by Tracey's new relationship with the most popular girl in school, Evie. Evie introduces Tracy to drugs, sex, and petty crimes, turning her from the bookworm into a rebellious youth.

The film chronicles Tracy's quick spiral from "normal" to rebellious, and presents a horrific depiction of teenage life. What what might be called a version of Kids for our generation, the film attempts to demonstrate the pressures put on teenagers of our generation - including mass culture's depiction of beauty, separated families, society's pressure to have money, and most of all - peer pressure.

I wouldn't say the film is enjoyable, because that's not the right word. The film is good, and powerful - even hard to watch at times - but it is so because of it's depiction of the perils of teenagers. There is great acting by both Nikki Reed and Evan Rachel Wood, and the performances take this film from being a bad high-school instructional film and turn it into a powerful film.

Day 58: Salt (2010)

Another summer action film, and since it was the only thing opening this weekend, it was what I saw.

Angelina Jolie is back as an action heroine, this time playing CIA agent Evelyn Salt. Salt is accused of being a Russian spy, and flees in an attempt to protect her husband and clear her name, but this all too predictable action film, the audience is left guessing as to where her loyalties lie. This is your classic summer blockbuster spy action film. It's filled with a ridiculously predictable and ridiculously cliche plot, lots of car chases, gun fights, deaths, and of course, Jolie being some enjoyable eye-candy. Jolie makes the movie watchable - had the lead been a man it would have been quite a different movie. Jolie has proven she can play the lead in an action film, and even with the absurdity of the film she makes it worth the ride.

You get what you pay for. It's a summer action film. Sit back, turn off your brain, and enjoy the action. It won't win any awards, but it'll make money. Some films are classics, others are just fun. This one falls quite heavily in the later.

Day 57: Extract (2009)

Another film I didn't manage to catch in theaters.

Mike Judge, the film's director, is known for his awkward situational humour, and while there is plenty of it to be found in Extract, the film just isn't that funny. With the classic Office Space under his belt, it would seem that Judge would easily be able to switch from the banality of white-collar work place to that of the blue-collar, but somewhere along the switch he dropped the ability to make the audience laugh.

Joel (Jason Bateman) is the owner of an Extract plant and he is trying to deal with problems both at home and at work. From his unfaithful wife, to dealing with a lawsuit resulting from a workplace accident, to a scam artist trying to scam the company, Joel is under a lot of stress.

Joel's life is the same thing everyday - he goes to work and is unhappy, he goes home and is unhappy, so he goes to the bar. Ben Affleck provides some witty insight, and Mila Kunis is hot. This continues until an event that brings the film to a rather unsatisfying end. No characters really develop, and aside from Joel, they are simple cliched caricatures. The film was rather dull and uninteresting - left me bored.

Day 56: Rebecca (1940)

Our journey with Hitchcock so far has been a long one, but we've finally made it to America with his first American film, and his only film to win an Academy Award for best picture.

A young woman meets a rich widower abroad and returns to his Cornwall mansion with him, only to find out that the memory of his dead wife haunts both him and the staff of the house. A wonderful masterpiece of Gothic film, that is beautifully shot. The film reminded me, on a few occasions, of Welles' work, particularly Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons - which leads to me believe that Welles must have seen this film and it stuck with him.

While the film does feel a bit slow and lengthy, it picks up in the third act and provides a very thrilling ride with lots of suspense to keep the audience guessing. Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine work perfectly together, and together create a suspenseful ghost story that proves why Hitchcock is one of the best.

Now that I've mad it to Hitchcock's American films, I can't wait to watch, and re-watch for those I've seen before, the rest of them.

Day 55: Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

The name Bansky has become well known around the world, and when I was in London last year I had to stop by and see some of his now famous street art. When I found out that he was releasing a movie, I waited patiently for it to come out. Thankfully the local indie theater house screened it.

The film raises a lot of speculation over its authenticity, with people arguing its a complete hoax, while others argue it's a 100% legitimate documentary, while others still argue for a mix of the two. The argument for the hoax, and the inability to know whose opinion is the right one, just adds to the fascination of the film.

Thierry Guetta is a frenchman living in LA who compulsively films every day in his life. On a visit to France, he films his cousin, Invader, doing some street art and he becomes addidcted with filming street artists and their art. Thierry becomes obsessed with meeting Bansky, who he does eventually meet. Basnky asks Thierry to use all his footage to make a film. He makes a very bad one. Bansky decides to take over the film, and suggests Thierry try to make some art of his own. He takes on the name of Mr. Brainwash and creates a large one-man show in LA.

The film rests on the character, or real life person, of Thierry who goes to all ends to film and follow these street artists. He climbs on roofs, helps them paint, and talks the whole time in his charming french-accent in broken English. It's a character too perfect to be real, but too funny to be fake.

The film's truth-or-fiction does not matter. The film is hilarious regardless of its truth. While I choose to believe it's not a hoax, people are free to make their own assessment. Either way Bansky is a gifted filmmaker, who does what all good documentaries should do: causes the audience to think. He makes the audience ponder what is art? Is this film, for example, art?

Day 54: Chloe (2009)

I had some desire to see this when it was released, due to it being directed by Canadian director Atom Egoyan, and starring Amanda Seyfried, of which I'm a fan. I didn't manage to catch it in theaters, so I had to wait for the DVD release.

The movie sells itself - Egoyan directing Julianne Moore and Amanda Seyfried in a sexual thriller, with Liam Neeson rounding out the cast. The film starts off strong, but falters by the last act. If one ignores the plausibility and realistic nature of the actions, the film has some interesting (and somewhat risque) situations, but the film fails to come together in the end.

Catherine (Moore) is afraid her husband (Neeson) is cheating on her, so she hires a female escort Chloe (Seyfried) to flirt with him and see what he does. This escalates into a relationship between Catherine and Chloe - resulting in some lesbian sexual situations. Both Seyfried and Moore play their characters excellently, and their acting provides the film with a lot more weight then it'd have otherwise. Sadly the film spirals into a very predictable, and groan-worthy, ending.

Day 53: Life of Brian (1979)

I've always been a huge Monty Python fan, having seen both other movies and most of the TV episodes, but for some reason, I had only ever seen parts of Life of Brian before. I picked it up on Criterion last year, but still never got around to watching it. Glad to finally change that.

Only Monty Python could create a film a film considered to be so "blasphemous" and get away with it. The film centres around Brian, who was born on the original Christmas in the a barn right next to Jesus, and spends the remainder of his life being mistaken for the messiah. The film provides Monty Python with the change to poke fun of not only religion, but also life in the first century. Like any MP film, or sketch, the humour is absurd, silly, over the top, and slapstick and it is funny! Monty Python considered this their best film, and John Cleese called it their masterpiece. Proving a great example of satire, the film does what Monty Python does best - it makes you laugh. I'm disappointed I put off watching this film as long as I did.

Day 52: Polytechnique (2009)

This is another one of those films that I picked up when it came out on DVD, but never got around to seeing. This was a film that I felt I should see, but never found myself in the mood to watch.

The film is a dramatization of the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique massacre, in which a lone gunman, Marc Lepine, killed 14 women. Shot in black and white, the film dramatizes the fateful day. It does not attempt to explain why it happened, but rather portray the events of the day. The viewer is filled with a sense of dread from the start of the film which carries on throughout the film, yet there is a morbid fascination that keeps the viewer watching.

The lack of background into the killer provides the viewer with a lack of understanding of the events of the film - we are just left with a guy who blamed women for the failures on his life. The film should be seen, as sadly, far too many Canadians don't know about the massacre, but the film itself doesn't provide much to the dialogue surrounding the massacre.

Day 51: Inception (2010)

The film I've been waiting all year to see - the only summer release this year I really wanted to see. Caught it with my dad in London, Ontario. The theater was empty! We went at 8pm on Friday, the opening night, and there were only 4 or 5 other people in the theater. Was so weird.

Technology exists in the future in which your mind can be broken into while you sleep, and ideas can be stolen from you. There is also the notion of inception, which is the inserting of an idea into someone's head, though it is sad to be impossible to do. That's enough of a synopsis, you should see the film without knowing too much about it.

This was one of the smartest films I've seen in a while, and it actually made the viewer think. It requires a very active viewing, with viewers paying very close attention. It would probably require numerous viewings to fully understand. The film has it all: good writing, an original concept, great actors, and good special effects that don't overdue it. This film will easily be on the best film list this year, and is worth checking out. Due yourself a favor and read as little as possible about the film before seeing it - let yourself discover it for yourself.

Day 50: Jamaica Inn (1939)

Hitchcock's last British film.

Set in Cornwall around 1880, a woman moves to live with her aunt and uncle following her mother's death. When she arrives at Jamaica Inn, in her uncle and aunt own, she discoveres a local gang that uses the Inn as a hideout. The gang causes ships to wreck on the shore before killing any survivors and ransacking their cargo.

I have a confession to make: I feel asleep four times during this film. Each time I woke up, I went back to the last part of the film I remember seeing and continued watching. All to say, I found the film very boring. Hitchcock said that this was his most unhappy directing job, and he did it hurriedly in order to be able to get to Hollywood. Apparently Hitchcock was hesitant to shot this film, but agreed to shoot it since he wanted to shot another Daphne Du Maurier story, Rebecca, which was his first Hollywood film that is often considered one of his best films, so I guess if this bland film was required for Rebecca to be made, it was worth it.

Day 49: Frontrunners (2008)

I was at the library looking at what DVDs they had, and sadly they had very little (it seems that films get rented very fast) but they did have this documentary, which caught my eye.

The documentary follows the student elections at Stuyvesant High School, the most prestigious public high school in New York. The film follows four teams as they campaign, and at the primaries two of those teams get chosen to go on to the election. The student council, unlike most schools, has a fair bit of power in that they get to decide how they spend thousands of dollars for various student activities.

Of the four teams, one isn't shown at all (safe for one scene in which they talk and mention that they don't think anyone knows they are running), and the other three have the predictable high school students: the popular kid who believes he'll win because everyone loves him, the super eager nerdy kid who strongly believes in the process and it is his whole live, and the girl who wants to do everything in order to pad her resume (who also happens to be a movie star, by which I mean she had a role in Palindromes).

The film is another in a recent series of high school documentaries, along the lines of American Teen and Spellbound. With any documentary it is hard to gauge how much is real and how much is scripted, especially considering a lot of it is filmed in a public high school. Considering the hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage they must have had, they made a very entertaining portrayal of school politics.

Day 48: Despicable Me (2010)

I'm a big fan of animated films, and usually end up seeing them in theaters, and this was no exception.

Gru, an evil mastermind, is struggling to compete with the newer, younger mastermind, Vector. When Vector steals a shrink-ray that Gru wanted, he adopts three orphans to help him with his plan, but they grow on him, and change him. A funny film that appeals to both children and adults. Gru is hardly as despicable as the title would suggest, and the film manages to deal quite well with his transformation from villainous to likable protagonist. The closest animated film that comes to mind is The Grinch, in that both start off being villainous heartless creatures who experience a change of heart through the goodness of others.

The 3D was a bit gimmicky, as it always is, and I really wish it would stop being used already. This film actually used for a roller coaster ride! I hate roller coasters, and found myself looking away from the screen during the 3D parts. I can handle the camera shaking of Blair Witch and Cloverfield, but I can't handle 3D animated roller coasters. Go figure.

Day 47: Beetle Juice (1988)

As a kid I used to watch the Beetle Juice cartoon all the time, and at some point in my childhood I watched the film, though now I have no recollection of my thoughts at the time. Seeing as I didn't remember it, and as it was Tim Burton, I figured it deserved another viewing.

A young couple dies and try to learn what it means to be die, while attempting to scare away the new owners of their house. They turn to a bio-exorcist, Beetle Juice, to help them. By far, the most bizarre and surreal of Tim Burton's films. Despite being the title character, Beetle Juice appears in less then 20 minutes of the film, with the film focusing more on Adam and Barbara's attempt to scare off the family instead. Tim Burton's style becomes quite evident with the scenes in the afterlife and with how Adam and Barbara attempt to "scare" away the unwanted guests.

The most interesting thing, at least to me, is that the film isn't really about anything at all. I mean, sure it's about scaring off the family, but it's really just a springboard for the jokes and claymation and stylistic nature envisioned by Burton. Micheal Keaton is great as Beetle Juice, and this combined with Tim Burton's style makes for an enjoyable film that's worth the watch.

Day 46: The Lady Vanishes (1938)

Another Hitchcock and one that I own on Criterion, so got to cross two things off my list today. Only one more Hitchcock British film left before the jump to Hollywood. Of all Hitchcock's films so far, this and The 39 Steps, are my favourite. When this opened in 1938 in Britain, it became the most successful film aired in Britain up to that point.

Prior to the outbreak of war, a woman is traveling through a European country by train headed back to England when she notices an old woman passenger has gone missing, but no one believes her. In a race against time, Iris, the young woman, must convince others that she isn't hallucinating and find the missing woman before it's too late. This may sound like a more recent film, the 2005 film Flightplan starring Jodie Foster, which uses a lot of elements from this film.

One of the highlights of the film was that Charters and Caldicott, two British travelers obsessed with cricket, whom I recently saw in Night Train to Munich are also in this film. In fact, they first appeared in this film, and their popular success allowed them to be brought back in two other films (one being Night Train). They play the same characters and have a fairly large role in both films - in both films they are passengers on the train who are trying to return to England from an enemy state right before the outbreak of war and are not willing to intervene in anything they believe will slow their return to England. They are quite comical and I can easilyl see why they got picked up to be used again in other films.

This penultimate British film by Hitchcock is another fluff comedy piece that is based on the absurd, much unlike his later more serious American films, but it is a fun film that is well done. Hitchcock manages to balance suspense and comedy perfectly, never allowing one to becoming too overbearing for the other. The film will leave you guessing until the end, laughing all the while.

Day 45: Young and Innocent / The Girl Was Young (1937)

Nearing the end of Hitchcock's British films, only two more to go, then it's off to Hollywood.

Hitichcock's British and American films differ greatly, and this films encapsulates the essence of his British films. The mystery/thriller nature of the film is only the ground upon which the romantic comedy rests. The film opens with a dead woman on the beach (maybe that's where Welles got his idea for the famously missing shot from his film Mr. Arkadin), and the police arrest Robert Tisdall who happens to find her body. For some odd reason the police don't even question or consider the dead woman's husband, who happens to be the killer. Robert escapes police custody in an attempt to free his name, and along the way he meets up with the police Chief Constable's daughter, Erica, who helps him track down proof that he is innocent. They, of course, not only prove his innocent, find the actual murderer, get him to confess, but fall madly in love.

My thoughts on this film are random and don't necessarily fall to any rhyme or reason, so they will appear in bullet points instead:
- Why the change in title? The original British title, Young and Innocent, clearly refers to Robert; whereas the American title, The Girl Was Young, clearly refers to Erica. Robert is both young and innocent and it pertains to the film, whereas while Erica was young, it has no pertinence to the film at all. I can imagine a film today being called Young and Innocent being mistaken for pornography, but I doubt that was the case in 1937. I assume that the American distributors felt that the name change would sell better, but I don't understand the logic.

- In many of Hitchcock's British films the girl is captured/forced/tricks into helping the innocent man, and she eventually falls in love with him; yet we never get to see the outcome afterward. Could this not just be Stockholm syndrome? Or rather yet, are we to believe women were that naive and trusting? I'd like to have seen Hitchcock make a film where the women believes she is helping an innocent man and falls for him, only to have it turn out he was guilty all along.

- The murder is basically a MacGuffin. While not a MacGuffin in the classic sense, it is an event that occurs that causes the elements of the film to happen that is basically forgotten about until the very end of the film. The story is about Robert proving he's innocent, not about proving who actually did it. The husband, aka the murder, appears int he first scene, and then doesn't appear until the last 5 minutes of the film where is playing drums in a band in blackface. He is captured and in the closing shot of the film, he confesses and Robert and Erica hold hands and smile at each other. There is no reason why he did it, though it could be construed that he felt his wife was cheating on him with Robert so he framed him. The point is that the murder could have been anything, because Robert was innocent and the real culprit was not the consideration of the film. While Hitchcock used this technique frequently, in this film it feels overly deliberate and poorly fulfilled. People don't kill with no reason, so don't expect the audience to believe as such. I'm sure most of the audience could care less, and is simply happy the couple are safe and together, but that's just laziness.

- There is a nice tracking shot, running over a minute, at the end of the film as the camera zooms in on the murderer. Always nice to see well crafted camera work.

- There has to be a comment made about the murderer being discovered and caught while wearing blackface. A lot can be read into that, and I'm not going to get into it. It's there, it happened, read into it what you will.

Day 44: Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970)

As a film student, I'm often curious about cult films, and the mention of cult films often gets brought up in conversations with other students. Near the end of the year, someone recommended this film, saying it was the best film ever. Which, of course, is to be taken with a grain of salt as all film students like to believe that their favourite cult film is the best film ever.

While originally written as a sequel to The Valley of the Dolls, Fox didn't like the script enough, and in all advertising for the film wrote "This is not a sequel to VALLEY OF THE DOLLS." Whta is most surprising is that the film was written by none-other than Roger Ebert. This was one of three film scripts he wrote in the 1970s, all of which are cult films. This film is meant to be a parody of the original film, and is very tongue-in-cheek and absurd and with Ebert at the writing desk, there is a lot of cliches parodied. I only managed to catch one film reference though - there is an offhand comment made along the lines "I knew tree grew in Brooklyn, but this..." is a reference to the 1945 film A Tree Grows in Brooklyn.

There's no point in trying to describe what the film is about. It's an X-rated film that bored the tagline "This is not a sequel - there has never been anything like it," which explains the film as best I can. I've never seen anything like it. It takes place among the drug-fused rock-and-roll-loving celebrities of LA and the effects it has on those who take part in it. The film ends with a talkover epilogue that provides a moral for the film (another cliche that Ebert clearly uses as parody). A film better enjoyed at a party, for those who go to partys where films are shown, or in a midnight showing in a theatre.

Day 43: Sabotage (1936)

Another Hitchcock film - this one based on Joseph Conrad's novel Secret Agent.

The owner of a movie theater is a member of a gang who are planning a terrorist attack in London. An undercover agent is placed at the fruit stand next door who befriends the owner's wife, and tries to find out information about the pending attack.

Nothing spectacular about the film. The climax was a bit shocking (somewhat surprised it passed the censor's of the time), but can't go too much into it without ruining the film. All in all, the film didn't leave that much of an impact on me, and as such, this will be a short note.

Day 42: Zoo (2007)

In July 2005, Kenneth Pinyan died from a perforated colon which was the result of having anal sex with a full grown stallion. This death made not only state news, but also national and international news. It threw the legislative body of Washington state into a state of panic who quickly introduce beastiality laws. Robinson Devour, in 2007, released this documentary attempting to examine Zoos, and Kenneth's death.

This was one of the oddest documentaries I've ever seen, and not only because of the content. The way the documentary was shot was the most odd thing about it. Devour, the director, interviewed many Zoos, short for Zoophile, who commented on their love of animals and on Kenneth, known as Mr. Hands. Most of these Zoos did not want to appear in the film, and as such, a large majority of the film is a mix of either Zoos or people concerned with the aftermath of the death of Kenneth speaking with no synced picture. The majority of the footage involves actors acting out scenes as described by the voices - though not sexual scenes, but rather other almost mundane scenes. For example, Coyote, one of the Zoos, explains how he lived in a small town and how the Internet changed everything, and how people sent him money to let him move to Washington where he could meet other Zoos - and while this is happening we are shown shots of a small town, of someone sitting on a porch using a laptop, of Coyote sitting on a bus with fields passing by outside the window. Basically the video provides filler for the audio he has recorded. I really didn't find that any of the visual added to the film at all, and the content could just as easily have been delivered by radio -though, I guess, to a much smaller audience. It's just odd to see film used as a medium to deliver a message that is almost entirely audio in nature.

As much of the film rests on this audio collection, the film lacks any real depth since many Zoos are reluctant to speak in too much depth. Instead, Devour provides a glimpse into the world of Zoophiles but nothing more. While he attempts to provide insight from both Zoos and police and the family of Kenneth, there is a leaning towards the Zoos. This film, despite the graphic nature of the act, is very sobering, tasteful and not disrespectful - it's just a shame, in my opinion, that the film is so heavy on the lyrical/poetic side.

Day 41: Night Train to Munich (1940)

My most recent Criterion Collection acquisition.

Set in 1939 just piror to the outbreak of the war, a scientist and his daughter escape from Prague to England but are captured by the Nazis. A British spy must sneak behind enemy lines and save them before the Nazis are able to make use of the scientist's knowledge. In a very Hitchcockian-thriller, there is a good mix of action and comedy providing a fun early WWII-era spy film. Considering this was made in Britain in 1940 during the war, the lacking technical qualities can be overlooked, and it assuredly provided a welcome escape from wartime life. I have not seen enough WWII era films to be able to make much comparison on the film in that manner, but it was a delight.

Day 40: Year of the Carnivore (2009)

Getting more use out of my Bytowne membership, and some more Canadiana to boot.

A grocery store detective, Sammy Smalls, is in love with a boy, Eugene, who rejects her because she isn't sexually experienced enough for him. The film is a charming quirky love story along the lines of The Squid and the Whale, with a bit more graphic nature to the sex. Directed by Sook-Yin Lee, of Shortbus fame, the film approaches the question of sex: what do we know about, when do we learn about it, and how do we learn about it. Cristin Milioti, in her role as Sammy, carries the film and provides a very charming likable protagonist. The film deals with sex as something that is funny, awkward, embarrassing, and most of all, fun. Overall, quite charming, and we will hopefully see more from from Lee in the neat future.

Day 39: Gamer (2009)

Trying to decide what to rent from the video store when you've seen most new releases worth seeing ends with you trying things you had no real desire to see. Of the various films I hadn't yet seen, Gamer proved to be the most promising.

From the directors of Crank, comes a movie with a similar ridiculous plot that allows for high amount action without making too much sense. In the near future (the locale of all scifi films), new technology is invented that allows humans to control other humans similiar to controlling an avatar in a video game. At first this is used for "Society", a Sim-like game where humans willing sign up to either be controlled or to be controlled. This leads to a new game called "Slayers" (imagine if The Running Man was a video game), in which death-row inmates are controlled by players in a killing match, and if the convict manages to survive 30 games he is set free. The film's protagonist is Kable, a convict who has just won his 27th match, and the closest convict to getting free. Obviously this can't be allowed to happen, and the film deals with his escape, the perils of this technology and the creator of this technology, Ken Castle.

Despite the title and the plot, very little of the film actually takes place in the game. They show almost as much, if not more, of "Society" as they do of Kable in "Slayers." The film focuses less on the game itself, and more on the impact on society and Kable. There is an anti-Castle group, called Humanz, who are trying to stop Castle from brainwashing the world, which is, of course, his actual intent for the software. He intends to soon control millions of people through his nanotechnology. It is, of course, up to Kable to save his wife and daughter, and in the process, the world. This type of film writes itself - throw in a lot of cliches, include two good actors (Gerard Butler and Michael C. Hall) and you got a watchable movie. It won't win any awards, it's not really worth your time, but it will kill a rainy afternoon.

Day 38: The Coca-Cola Kid (1985)

A few years ago I was bored surfing the web and decided to search Coca-Cola in IMDB. For those who know me, they know that I am not only addicted to Diet Coke, but also a big fan of the company itself. I was surprised to find this film among the rest - for it was the only fictional film among a series of documentaries. A quick check proved that it wasn't sponsored, endorsed or licensed by Coca-Cola either (a prologue to the film makes this point quite clear), which intrigued me even more. Apparently Coca-Cola found that the film didn't harm their image at all, so they allowed the film to be screened. I'm not sure what film Coca-Cola saw, but this film does anything but bolster their image.

Becker, a top Coca-Cola salesman, travels from Atlanta to Australia to find out if there is any holes in Coca-Cola's reach down under. He finds Anderson Valley, an area of Australia where not a single bottle of Coke has been sold. McDowell, a local eccentric, has been making home-brew soft drinks for years and corners the market in Anderson Valley. As Becker tries to convince McDowell to sell out to Coca-Cola, McDowell resists. The film quickly spirals into a tale of American Commercialism and Imperialism with Coca-Cola standing in as the metaphor for the "evil" corporations of the West ruining the Australian way of life. What starts off as a promising film quickly unravels and falls apart. With too many subplots - Becker's romantic interest with his secretary, his secretary's crazed and violent ex-husband, Becker's constant attempt to find "the Australian sound" for a jingle, and the waiter at the hotel, who for some reason, believes Becker to be a CIA agent.

The script is based on two works, The Americans, Baby and The Electrical Experience, both of which are short stories that involve the same principal characters but with no linear connection. The script appears to have the same issue - jumping from story to story with no real connection, resulting in a movie that ends up falling apart. What should be the main element of the film, the Becker and McDowell conflict, ends up getting lost and almost forgotten about among the rest of the muddled stories.

What is most disappointing is that the film has good ideas and potential, but fails to implement them properly. There is a few delightful scenes and a few chuckles, but nothing to sustain the film. That being said the film includes a Coca-Cola jingle that, in my opinion, rivals most of real ones ever created. The director's inability to control the film and keep it centered on the plot allows it to derail, resulting in a crash of a film.

One last point - the ending. This is a spoiler alert, but since I doubt anyone reading this will ever see it, I'm not overly concerned. The film ends with Becker realizing his role as just another cog in the machine that is Coca-Cola and leaves the company and settles down with his secretary. Charming enough ending. As the camera pans away from this happy couple to wards the horizon, a title card appears that says "Three weeks later World War Three started." Out of nowhere, in a film that has nothing to do with war, finishes by informing the audience that WW3 will soon begin. There is no correlation between the last 90 minutes of confusion that would lead anyone to even consider that the events would lead to WW3, and I am fairly confident that the events of the film do, indeed, have nothing to do with the war. In an attempt to make sense of the ending, this is my idea of what it means. Coca-Cola is used as a metaphor for American Imperialism and all the horrors that entails. While Becker was able to realize his lack of value within this large machine and escape it's grasp, the machine cannot be stopped, and American Imperialism will eventually lead to the next World War. A bit far fetched, and quite literally tacked on to the ending, it just adds one more confusion to this already confusing mess of a film.

Day 37: Secret Agent (1936)

In 1936, Hitchcock released two films. Secret Agent and Sabotage. Secret Agent was based on two stories in W. Somerset Maugham's Ashenden: Or the British Agent, while Sabotage is based on Joseph Conrad's Secret Agent. If this wasn't confusing enough, 6 years later he would released a film entitled Saboteur, which has no relation to Sabotage. All in all, there is often confusion among viewers as to which film is which, and I am sure in a month's time after having seen all three films, I will be unable to assign the plots to the proper titles.

I have a confession to make: I feel asleep during the movie. I did go back and finish it the following day, and since I started it and meant to finish on the same day, there isn't a break in the goal. I'm not sure if the movie was that boring, or if I was just really tired, but that's what I get for watching most of these movies lying in bed late at night.

During WW1, the British Intelligent fakes the death of a soldier, who they send to Switzerland to carry out a secret mission. In Switzerland, he meets up with a female agent playing his wife and a contact in the country. The three of them must track down an enemy spy who will be fleeing behind enemy lines soon with information that would put British troops in the East in serious trouble. There is the usual Hitcockian elements throughout, and perhaps because I've seen so many, that these elements allowed me to quickly guess the entire plot from the first 10 minutes. Already having a good idea of how the film was going to carryout had me less involved in the film, probably why I fell asleep. Overall nothing spectacular. An early thriller that uses a few of the elements he'll later become known for but in an obvious way that lends to being very predictable.

Day 36: Twelve Monkeys (1995)

I don't know how I have never seen this movie before. Granted I was only 9 when it was released, but considering the cast and the fact that it was nominated for two Oscars I would have thought I'd had seen it. It's always a joy to find excellent films from the recent past that you never knew about, especially with the crap coming out of Hollywood these days.

Terry Gilliam provides his own version on the Hollywood time travel genre, and manages to come off better than most though, any film that tackles time travel will undoubtedly have a plot will be filled so many holes you can see right through it and this is no exception. In 1996/1997 a deadly virus is released killing 5 billion people, leaving the remaining 1% of the population to live underground. They send a prisoner, James Cole (Bruce Willis), back in time to discover more information about the virus and try and capture a pure version of the virus so an antidote can be found. The scenario provides for some great action, and Bruce Willis in one of his best roles. It's a film the demands numerous viewings for its rich layering, and I can imagine would hold up to many viewings.