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.