Sundance Review: 7 DAYS

Your 8-year old daughter is kidnapped, raped and murdered. Her body is left out in the open, exposed to the elements to be found by whoever happens upon her. As a parent, what do you do? How do you cope? What form of justice seems fair in a world where something so terrible can occur? If these questions sound shocking and extreme, its because 7 DAYS deals with shocking and extreme subject matter.

Daniel Grou tackles these questions in 7 DAYS, or Les 7 jours du talion, his feature film directorial debut, adapted from and written by novelist Patrick Senécal. This French-Canadian production is a disturbing and poetically accomplished film of revenge and regret. 7 DAYS is at times terribly difficult to watch, but at other times is mesmerizing with its quiet, contemplative approach. The audience is taken inside the mind of a father who has tragically lost his 8-year old daughter in the most horrible way imaginable.

Dr. Bruno Hamel, played by Claude Legault, struggles with the loss of his daughter Jasmine, but cannot bring himself to mourn in the traditional, inactive way of his wife Sylvie, played by Fanny Mallette. Instead, Bruno allows his anger and his need for vengeance to take over, justifying it as his debt to his daughter. Once Bruno learns that authorities have captured the offender with rock solid DNA evidence, Bruno concocts an unexpected but well-laid plan to kidnap his daughter’s murderer and serve his own justice.

As I mentioned already, 7 DAYS is both a beautiful film and also a disturbing piece of psychological cinema. From the very beginning, Grou sets the audience up with sterile but meticulously arranged visual storytelling. The shots are framed with surgical precision to accentuate a sense of empty space. Characters are often placed far off the one edge on the image or are made distant by their relationship to the foreground or sandwiched claustrophobically within spaces of falsely created barriers to the outside world.

The cinematography from Bernard Couture embraces the washed out and sullen palette of grays and whites, not just because the story takes place in winter but as a way to convey a sense of emotional winter for the Hamels. While there is a score composed by Nicholas Maranda, the audience will be hard pressed to notice any music on this effectively silent film. This lack of noticeable music embeds the sense of reality within the viewer’s mind. The experience feels less like an escape into a world of fantasy and more like a frightening revelation of how our real world actually is at times.

As Bruno proceeds with his plan for revenge on his daughter’s killer, the film becomes increasingly uncomfortable. Viewers, whom are squeamish at the sight of violence against another, torture or blood, beware. However, 7 DAYS is not equitable to films such as SAW or HOSTEL. The blood and gore are kept at a minimum, but there are graphic depictions of torture and pain, as well as male genitalia. 7 DAYS focuses more on the psychological aspect of torture and revenge, not just from the killer but also through the eyes of Bruno.

With seven days between when Bruno kidnapped his daughter’s killer and the date of Jasmine’s birthday, Bruno exacts one act of torture after another. What begins as cold and methodically delivered acts of torture from Bruno, slowly erodes into more frantic acts of desperation as Bruno’s conscience begins to regain control over his need for vengeance. Making his plan all the more difficult to carry to fruition is Detective Mercure, played by Rémy Girard, who works diligently to locate Bruno, but shares a similar sense of loss and feeling of helplessness at the hands of the justice system.

7 DAYS is an extremely powerful story about the inner workings of the human mind when subjected to extreme emotional trauma. The film is a perilous expedition deep into Bruno’s psyche as he battles within himself between his primal urges and his greater sense of what is right and wrong. For Bruno, a man whose life has been built upon the Hippocratic oath, righting a wrong requires an act of wrongdoing.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Sundance Review: DADDY LONGLEGS

What exactly does it mean to grow up? Does becoming an adult, or more to the point, does becoming a parent mean the end of being a child? Is it possible to maintain the essence of your own inner child while being responsible and raising children?

DADDY LONGLEGS, formerly titled GO GET SOME ROSEMARY, is a film that addresses these questions and more. Written and directed by Ben and Joshua Safdie, the film follows Lenny (Ronald Bronstein) as he struggles with being a good father to his two sons, Sage and Frey. No longer with their mother, Lenny gets to spend a couple weeks per year with his boys and tries very hard to make the most of his time with them.

Lenny is a projectionist for a small cinema in mid town New York who works late hours and lives the life of a bachelor most of the year, but when he has his boys he finds himself torn between being the cool dad and best friend to his boys and being the responsible and protective father that their mother and the school principle expect him to be. After an initial couple of days of fun, Lenny clearly begins to show signs of stress, frightened that he can’t be the father they need.

DADDY LONGLEGS is equally heartwarming and frightening. Lenny clearly loves his boys and would do anything for them, but finds that being a father is a demanding job, even for just a few weeks per year. The film has a docudrama feel and a vividly realistic point-of-view. The characters are rich, covering an array of backgrounds and personalities as is to be expected in New York, including a cameo from filmmaker Abel Ferrara.

The suspense of Lenny’s story is compelling. Lenny is a good guy, but like any human being doesn’t always make the best decisions. We root for Lenny and can empathize with him, whether we have children or not. His story is one of so many in real world where life is rarely easy and Murphy strikes hard and fast without mercy. Ronald Bronstein captures the essence of a father doing his best but never truly feeling like it’s enough or that his intentions are appreciated.

DADDY LONGLEGS does begin to feel a bit long after the first hour, but patience is key as the final third of the film recovers when Lenny begins to break down, realizing what fragile connection he has with his boys is at risk from their mother’s distrust and concern over Lenny’s situation and parenting skills. Faced with the difficult truth, Lenny resorts to measures of desperation to salvage his relationship with his boys.

This is a small film from The Big Apple with a big heart, combining family dysfunction with a less appealing side of life in New York City to cultivate the anxiety and angst that surrounds Lenny. DADDY LONGLEGS is not an easy or comfortable journey to take, but it has its share of tender moments and candid snapshots of a father and his boys that will make you smile.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Review: LEGION

Now we have it folks, another vision of the end of mankind. Another tale of God turning his back on his children, smiting us in one fell swoop… throwing in the towel so to speak and starting over. Well, at least that’s the intention.

LEGION is Scott Stewart’s big cinematic break and personally, I found the film to be mostly a big cinematic disappointment. No, it’s not a terrible movie. In many ways, it’s a perfectly adequate addition to the average stock of genre fare, but what it lacks is any truly original or groundbreaking elements.

The film begins by introducing the cast of human characters whom all coalesce at a dumpy all-in-one diner, filling station and repair shop. As God sends his legion of meat puppets possessed by angels to wipe out mankind the small ragtag group of humans are led in an unlikely battle royal by the angel Michael (Paul Bettany) who has “severed” his allegiance to God in a bid to save humanity.

Now we’ve laid out the overall plot of LEGION, and no… I haven’t given everything away, but honestly there’s not much to give away. I really don’t mean to be so hard on the film. It had its moments. For example, the costume design and approach of portraying the angels Michael and Gabriel (Kevin Durand) was pretty cool and Gabriel had some nifty fighting moves and a badass techno-mace as a weapon. However, the film lacked any really intriguing or fascinating draw. I found myself at a loss for even a single moment of awe. Nothing in the film truly grabbed my attention and demanded that I sit up and pay attention.

LEGION admittedly takes a difficult subject matter, but one with which it could have done some really cool things with, and fails to perform outside the box. What is lacking from the film that could have made it much more compelling was if it had taken some risks, perhaps a bit of controversy or stepped out on a limb. LEGION needed more edginess; more flare and fire. Overall, it falls flat.

The human characters — portrayed by Dennis Quaid, Lucas Black, Tyrese Gibson, Adrianne Palicki, Charles S. Dutton, Kate Walsh, Jon Tenney and Willa Holland – are little more than part cannon fodder and part story crutch. There is a little character development for Charlie (Palicki) who is indirectly significant to the plot and Jeep (Black) ends up being under developed given his ultimate role in the story.

LEGION is at least fairly consistent, despite some stereotypical characters and a plethora of clichés, but the infamous “granny” scene that popped up in all the trailers actually feels terribly out of place in the film. This scene seethes early Sam Raimi a la EVIL DEAD, but none of the remainder of the film leads up to or maintains this feel at all. To be quite frank, the film would have been far more entertaining if it had begun and stuck with this Raimi-esque feel throughout.

Overall, the film ranks somewhere between a high-end direct-to-DVD and a moderately cool theatrical release during a matinee show. LEGION has its moments, but nothing really stands out. It’s great to see Charles S. Dutton back on the big screen and I hope Scott Stewart has acquired some valuable experience so that PRIEST, his next scheduled flick, proves me wrong and blows me away.

Review: CRAZY HEART

If you were to dig up and dust off your old Encyclopedia Britannica and locate the phrase “washed up” its possible you’ll find Bad Blake’s picture listed. The only hitch is that Bad Blake doesn’t exist. At least, he doesn’t exist as his own person but exists as a symbol for so many artists who have endured a similar self-induced sacrifice on their own lives in the pursuit of their craft. The troubling dilemma becomes deciding between the art and the people you love.

Actor turned writer-director Scott Cooper makes his feature film debut with CRAZY HEART, based on the novel by Thomas Cobb. This is the story of Bad Blake, a washed up country-western singer and songwriter who travels the southwest in his beat-down 1978 Suburban he calls Bessie, performing tiny gigs in hole-in-the-wall dives and bowling alleys. Blake hates that his career has ended up here, but he does it despite his frustration in an attempt to make ends meet.

Jeff Bridges is outstanding as the run-down, alcoholic Blake, fighting the battle of the booze while still somehow maintaining his knack for song. The opening scene sums up the character with humor and blunt bravado, as Blake steps out of his Bessie and reluctantly prepares to perform a gig in the Spare Room. Despite his inner turmoil, Blake always humbles himself before his adoring fans, those old enough to know who he is, and generally takes his frustration out on his tough-nosed but understanding manager who books his gigs.

The sprawling vistas of the southwest featured throughout CRAZY HEART are more than just pretty to look at, serving as visual reminders of the loneliness that Blake endures on the road and without a soul in the world to love and be loved by. That all begins to change when Blake meets a small town reporter named Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who wants to interview the country music legend. Blake and Jean sort of tumble into a mutual romance, despite their difference in years, but their common thread is the difficult lives they have led.

Gyllenhaal is a breath of fresh air, not so much for a drastic change in approach to her craft, but because she fits the role like your favorite pair of jeans, no pun intended… well, maybe a little. Jean is an attractive young woman whose had her share of heartbreak, but this has made her wise in her limited years. Gyllenhaal’s sad, puppy dog eyes demand empathy as she gives Blake a chance despite her instincts to the contrary. The true turning point however is Jean’s 4-year old son Buddy as Blake embraces the boy as his chance at redemption for a painfully unspoken chapter of his past.

Rounding out the cast of CRAZY HEART is Robert Duvall as Blake’s friend Wayne who owns a bar in Blake’s hometown of Houston. Duvall has a limited role, but his scenes are splendid, especially his fishing trip with Blake. Colin Farrell is the unlikely face as Tommy Sweet, the protégé of and sore spot in Blake’s bruised ego. Initially, seeing Farrell walk on screen as a country-western pop star feels out of place, but he holds his own and does the role justice.

One of the fascinating elements is that Jeff Bridges did his own singing and, surprisingly, it turns out The Dude can actually carry a lovely tune. CRAZY HEART is a film worth experiencing for the music. Watching Bridges breath life into the shattered mirror of the man Blake once was and perform his songs is a revelation of how truly great an actor he is and how deserving he is of finally getting the Academy’s recognition as such.

This is not a film about the modern mediocrity of the country music genre, but rather a testament to what made the music grand during its hay day. Composed by Stephen Bruton and T Bone Burnett, who won four Grammies for O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU, the bluesy country music in CRAZY HEART is a thing of beauty. The song “The Weary Kind” is just the best of the best in terms of the music available on this soundtrack, currently available from New West Records and anxiously awaiting your purchase. Watch for it to potentially upset the favorites in the coming Oscar showdown.

CRAZY HEART is more than just the music, painting a portrait of a troubled man brought to this low in life by his own account. Blake is fully aware of his mistakes in life, but is determined to somehow pull himself out of the ditch and redeem his name, his character and his self worth. CRAZY HEART is both sadly heartbreaking and bittersweet, uplifting in its honesty and candor, just simply brilliant!

Lucas Envisions STAR WARS Universe in 3D

Behold, fans of the far, far away and long time ago tales of intergalactic war… George Lucas envisions the Star Wars universe in 3D and now, he sees it as a very possible realization. Having been keen on the idea for years, Lucas told Access Hollywood during a Golden Globe after party that seeing the improvements to the technology evident in James Cameron’s AVATAR gives him a new hope for making his Star Wars universe one in 3D.

So, I am compelled to ask myself… Do I really want to see this come to fruition? Short answer: Yes! Of course, I feel it’s necessary to qualify my statement…

If Lucas’ plan is merely to re-release the entire existing franchise (again) in an attempt to bank on the new 3D popularity, then to be quite frank… screw him! I’ve already played into this dollar-making device twice now. Hell, it took Lucas long enough to transition from VHS to DVD and we still haven’t seen Star Wars on Blu-Ray.

If he really has a true desire to do something cool, he should put together and produce a project that takes the franchise in a whole new direction, or delves into any number of yet untouched story-lines. In a sense reboot the franchise. Not in the start over from the beginning sense, but make a real effort to create an enjoyable, quality storyline that fans will appreciate, instead of over-marketing the movie(s) to kids. Lucas has enough money to last him till death, so how about a really good story this trilogy around, eh?

I would love to see him seek out some fresh, new talent with a keen creative eye that could give the new chapter of the Star Wars saga a fresh new look and an intriguing perspective. Lucas should be looking for someone who could recapture the hearts and minds of existing fans after the disappointment of THE PHANTOM MENACE and Jar Jar Binks, but also draw in newer, younger audiences.

So, let’s just go ahead and ask the questions that we’re all interested in discussing. Chime in on the subject. Tell us if you have a particular director in mind. Do you have a favorite untouched story arc you’d like to see adapted for the big screen? Any particular character of interest? Share your thoughts by leaving your comments below.

Source: ComicBookMovie.com

Review: THE BOOK OF ELI

The Hughes Brothers, Albert and Allen, return from a nine year hiatus from feature filmmaking to give us their entry into the post-apocalyptic pool of stories. THE BOOK OF ELI is the Hughes Brothers’ follow up film to FROM HELL, which dates back to 2001. No, THE BOOK OF ELI has nothing to do with FROM HELL, but it does show a certain loosely interpreted fascination the filmmaking siblings have for timely tales of things not fully understood.

THE BOOK OF ELI was written by Gary Whitta, his first feature to be produced, drawing from and reveling in parallels to a very specific body of text. The story has Denzel Washington playing a mysterious wanderer named Eli, walking the country for many years on a path to the west. Carried with him is a book. Eli protects this book at all costs, meeting obstacles along his journey ranging from cannibalistic hijackers to motorcycle-riding bandits.

Despite how the film looks on the surface, THE BOOK OF ELI is not MAD MAX, nor is it THE ROAD of recent release. However, there are some basic thematic elements that it shares with those films. This is to be expected, given all three films deal directly with human life after a catastrophic event that wipes out most of the human race and life in general. There is also a familiar element of classic spaghetti westerns, with Washington serving as a new Man with No Name, except he has a name while dominating his numbered enemies.

The film opens quite slowly and poetically with Eli going about what is construed to be his daily routine. He walks, he hunts, he eats he reads and he sleeps. Eli lives a fairly simple and repetitive life, with the occasional violent encounter thrown in for good measure. This actually sets the pace and tone of THE BOOK OF ELI, which has unfortunately and misleadingly been marketed as an action-packed carnival of carnage. As I mentioned before, MAD MAX this is not. And, for those who have seen THE ROAD, it is not that either. In fact, THE BOOK OF ELI is a great mix of what makes both films enjoyable.

The beauty of THE BOOK OF ELI is in the story and lies in what is read between the lines. The underlying moral of the story will become evident rather quickly, but it’s the adaptation to a contemporary sense of moral ambiguity and a less black and white interpretation of good and evil that make it unique. Eli follows what he believes to be good and right, seeking a place to properly share the message he carries, while a local self-made leader named Carnegie seeks out the very book Eli carries to obtain power and control.

Carnegie, played by Gary Oldman, is a well-read and intelligent man; an older man like Eli, surrounded by the younger and ignorant generation of people born after “the flash” as it is referred in the movie. While Eli lives a life of solitude, Carnegie has surrounded himself by these younger degenerates, using his intellect to manipulate them to his will as he seeks out the sacred book. As always, Gary Oldman is a cinematic treat. Carnegie is portrayed as a less-neurotic, Southern version of Stansfield from LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL with the appeal of a morally corrupt televangelist, interested more in the sinful benefits of instilling faith amongst the sheep he intends to lead.

Mila Kunis plays the young tart Solara, enslaved by Carnegie for her naturally endowed characteristics, while Carnegie holds her blind mother hostage to bend her will in his favor. Kunis is not going to win any awards or garner critical acclaim, but she does the job as the wild card in the struggle between Eli and Carnegie. I have to admit; she is gradually beginning to shed the skin of Jackie from THE 70’s SHOW. Rounding out the cast are Ray Stevenson (PUNISHER: WAR ZONE) as Carnegie’s reliable right-hand man and Michael Gambon (HARRY POTTER) as George. Tom Waits also offers up a second wonderful character performance this year, this time as the town engineer employed by Carnegie within his little growing shanty town of misfits and hooligans.

Aside from the performances from Washington, Oldman and elements of the supporting cast, THE BOOK OF ELI is also rich in production value. Most significantly, the score demands attention. With original music composed by Atticus Ross, from the very opening sequence in the film it serves a powerfully present purpose in the film. Ross has worked with such artists as Bad Religion, Rancid and nine years with Nine Inch Nails, which has clearly had an influence on the score for THE BOOK OF ELI. The cinematography by Don Burgess (SPIDER-MAN, FORREST GUMP) is also worth mentioning as moody and descriptive, but doesn’t match up to the visual storytelling in THE ROAD from Javier Aguirreesarobe.

What stands out visually in THE BOOK OF ELI is the editing by Cindy Mollo. As I mentioned before, this is not an action film, but the scenes that required action and fight choreography are stellar in their effectiveness. Each of the handful of hand-to-hand combat sequences featured in the film are fluid and precise, cutting seamlessly to allow a continuous flow of action without relying on a lingering array of stationary camera shots. One scene in particular during a massive shoot-out features the best editing, giving the impression of one epic continuous shot and greatly enhances the adrenaline of the scene.

Overall, THE BOOK OF ELI is a rather slowly paced film compared to the widely marketed trailer. This is not a negative, but instead a surprising reason to see the film and appreciate it as more than just a big budget buffet of bad guys and explosions. There is an element of convenience and suspension of disbelief that is required, but I have to admit I didn’t recognize it fully until after the movie ended. Be sure to watch THE BOOK OF ELI closely, allow yourself to absorb the subtle intricacies and you’ll leave the theater with a heightened appreciation for the film in some very satisfying and surprising ways.

Sam Raimi walks, Sony to Reboot SPIDEY Franchise

So, I’m gonna cut right to the chase here and say that if this news is 100% valid, it must be the most shocking (albeit not entirely unexpected) development in Hollywood this year. OK, so the year is young, but still… allegedly, Sam Raimi has pulled out of directing SPIDER-MAN 4, reportedly over creative differences regarding the direction of the script. In response to this, Sony Pictures is apparently opting NOT to replace the director and is instead said to be taking the opportunity to start from scratch, so to speak. The word is that Sony will reboot the franchise, returning to a script written a while back by James Vanderbilt and will likely recast the entire project. Look… whether you loved or hated Tobey Maquire as the red and blue tights-wearing superhero (personally, I thought he was good for the role) — this is potentially BIG news! The one confusing thing in my mind is, what of all the recent talk about John Malkovich being confirmed as The Vulture for the fourth installment. Are these conflicting stories, or is he on in spite of this sudden change of plans?

Now for the fun part… assuming this is solid and the franchise as we know it is dead and Sony is indeed returning to the drawing board, what would we — the fans — like to see in this seconds go around? Granted, we know not of Vanderbilt’s script, but the question begs to be asked… who should be the next to slip on Peter Parker’s spectacles and dawn Spider-Man’s Spidey Spandex? Chime in, let us know… we eat this stuff up!

Source: FilmJunk

Focused Favorites: PHOEBE IN WONDERLAND

FOCUSED FAVORITES is an ongoing taste of my personal favorites, narrowed down with a fine-tooth comb, into very specific categories and topics. It’s a way I can share some of my personal choices in film and hopefully introduce others to films they may not have otherwise seen or even heard of. Enjoy!

I’m doing something a bit different this time for Focused Favorites and I’m focusing on a single film. Why, you may ask? Well, this particular film exists amongst a category that is thin with options to begin with, but “good” ones are even more scarce. In other words, I might subtitle this Getting it Right.

PHOEBE IN WONDERLAND is a film that truly shocked me, not in a bad way, but in a way that spoke to me and connect with the story. Part of this was certainly due to my own personal connection to the story, but it’s also very much the feeling that this movie effectively conveys a conversation too often ignored, too often misunderstood or disrespected.

Written and directed by first-timer Daniel Barnz, this is the story of a young girl named Phoebe, played by Elle Fanning, the younger sister of Dakota Fanning. This is apparent as the two look strikingly alike. Elle gives a wonderful performance that is very well-layered for an actress at the age of 9-10 years old at the time the film was made. Her mother is played by Felicity Huffman and her father is played by Bill Pullman.

We’re thrown into Phoebe’s dilemma from the very beginning, as she is already familiar with her own unique situation, but does not understand it as something being “wrong” with her. This idea of her being abnormal is only put into her mind by school faculty ignorant of Phoebe’s true situation. She is labels a problem child and finds herself in a tug-of-war between her mother who loves and supports her and the school principal who does not truly understand and simply wishes to write her off as a nuisance.

Phoebe’s mother is a writer who happens to be writing a book about Wonderland (as in Alice’s) which instills a certain fascination in Phoebe’s mind. When she discovers that her school is auditioning for roles in a production of Alice in Wonderland, she nervously throws herself at the opportunity. It is Miss Dodger, (played by Patricia Clarkson) the faculty member putting the play together, who realizes something special in Phoebe despite her struggle and encourages her to embrace herself for who she is and never to give up on what she wants in life. It is a combination of Phoebe’s mother and Miss Dodger that allow her to open up and begin to break free of the hold that Tourette Syndrome has on her life.

The film itself has a great deal of charm and the performances are wonderful, in that high-quality film for the whole family fashion. Pullman is believable as a father who is both stressed to his max and scarred of what his daughter’s condition will mean for her life. Huffman is fabulous as Phoebe’s mother who puts every ounce of her being into supporting her daughter, while also protecting her from the negative influences that surround her, including an initial backlash against the doctors before she realizes one of them truly has Phoebe’s best interests at heart. The special effects during Phoebe’s fantasy sequences are clearly the product of a limited budget, but work very well within these constraints.

For these reasons, in addition to the overall admirable quality of the film, I am regretful for having taken so long to finally experience this charming and family-friendly — but honest — story of the difficulty that often accompanies growing up with Tourette Syndrome. This is a movie that does great justice not only with sharing the turbulent experience children have with the disorder, but also with the turbulence, ignorance and confusing emotions that parents, school faculty and child peers experience in the company of a child with Tourette Syndrome.

In the past, only a handful of movies have given screen time to Tourette Syndrome. Until now, my favorites have been accomplished artistic works of cinema, but have not done a great deal for improving the stigma of living with Tourette Syndrome, nor has have they efficiently and compassionately given a decent portrait of the child’s point of view.

NIAGARA, NIAGARA (1997) which is a very adult story, not readily accessible to children and while I do greatly appreciate the film, does not win favor with many for it’s negativity. Starring Robin Tunney as Marcy, a troubled teenager who has Tourette Syndrome, NIAGARA, NIAGARA focuses on how bad things can be for such a person despite her efforts and how she travels the path of an outsider and outcast. It’s her love for her boyfriend that keeps her spirits up, but ultimately cannot change the tragic obstacle that her choices will lay before her. This film is only available in the US on VHS and not easily acquired at that, outside of eBay and Amazon.

On the other hand, THE TIC CODE (1999) tells a story much more from the point-of-view of an adult who continues to live with Tourette Syndrome, but has developed ways to conceal his condition and succeed as a jazz musician. Tyrone, played by Gregory Hines, meets a boy who also has Tourette Syndrome and finds inspiration in Tyrone, but Tyrone resents the boy’s and his mother’s acceptance of the disorder that has made his life so difficult through the years. This film is available in the US on DVD, but isn’t likely to show up on an store shelves, meaning you’ll have to either special order this one or rely once again on Amazon.

Something I’ve noticed in recent years is a tendency for movies, primarily comedies of the lower-brow variety, to make comedic fodder of people living with various types of handicaps, a word which a hesitate to use but for ease of explanation. I am not a person who feels a filmmaker or artist of any kind should censor themselves or be told what they can and cannot create, but in fact encourage this. So, I’m not going to jump on some soap box here about how these films (you know who you are) hold no interest to me and I generally try my best to avoid them. Of course, this isn’t always possible.

So, this brings me back to PHOEBE IN WONDERLAND. This isn’t a comedy. It is very clearly a drama. However, I make this transition because perhaps the most significant and valuable aspect of this film is it’s usefulness in helping others understand and learn about Tourette Syndrome and the effects it has on those who live with it and theirs families who often struggle not only to understand it but also to cope with it’s unfortunate social side effects.

I encourage anyone and everyone who has an interest, or even just questions or curiosity, to give PHOEBE IN WONDERLAND a chance. View the film with an pen mind. If you’re a critic, I might recommend viewing the film without the goggles of being a film critic… see if it has a different affect on your experience. Not all movies are strictly for entertainment and this is one great example. If you’re a student, a parent of a student (with or without Tourette Syndrome) or especially a teacher, please… I insist that you watch this film just as a way to better understand the diversity of people who live around us in the world. Below is the trailer for PHOEBE IN WONDERLAND to serve as an appetizer.

PHOEBE IN WONDERLAND may have only had a limited theatrical release, but fortunately the movie is readily available on DVD. Reasonably priced for purchase at Amazon.com, while also available for rental through Netflix, either on DVD or as an instantly available streaming movie to your computer or Netflix-equipped Blu-Ray player, Tivo device, X-BOX or PS3 gaming systems.

Review: CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE

Generally speaking, when a comedy hits theaters to the moviegoers surprise, having not heard of the film, it’s a good sign the movie isn’t very good. There are exceptions, but CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE really isn’t one of them. That’s not to say Tim Allen’s directorial debut doesn’t have it’s own merits, it just simply doesn’t succeed on those merits.

Written by Judd Pillot and John Peaslee, both of whom are television writers having most recently worked on the sitcom ACCORDING TO JIM, this helps to explain why the film often feels a bit like a made-for-TV movie. CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE’s most devastating flaw is that this style of writing just doesn’t fair well for a feature film. Add that the flow of the story is disjointed and the humor is hit and miss, and what you end up with is an inconsistent comedy that is carried by Sigourney Weaver and J.K. Simmons.

CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE is a story about Tommy Zelda (Tim Allen). Tommy is a guy just released from doing three years in prison for video piracy. Upon release, Tommy is thrown back into life on the outside, living with his deceptively loving sister Vicky (Sigourney Weaver) and her horny husband Ed (J.K. Simmons) who doesn’t like Tommy. His grandma thinks Tommy has been in France for three years, as Vicky couldn’t bring herself to tell her the truth on account of her weak heart. This is just the first of several “little white lies” that Vicky has told to “protect” Tommy. One of the things Vicky struggles to protect Tommy from is Gray (Ray Liotta), his former partner in crime who wants to get Tommy back into the piracy game now that they’ve gone digital and are making some serious dough.

Determined to turn his life around, win back his girlfriend Christy (Julie Bowen) and restart his father’s painting business, Tommy struggles with the temptation to follow the money of his former life despite the efforts of Vicky to keep him on track. Working for minimum wage at a burger joint isn’t what Tommy had in mind after being released, but it’s his probation officer Angela (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and her son whom drive him along the straight and narrow.

Sigourney Weaver is funny and quirky, playing the role with a playful tone. She’s sharp and she has good comedic chemistry with Tim Allen as well as J.K. Simmons, who is hilarious. Granted, Simmons’ character is a bit over the top and shallow, his blatantly horny character was seemingly written for him and he does the jokes justice. Ray Liotta, playing the “bad guy” falls a bit flat, not entirely of his own fault, but because the character is poorly written as a stereotypical comical hoodlum. Liotta’s experience in films such as GOODFELLAS was not put to proper use in CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE.

It’s clear that Tim Allen hasn’t quite gotten a firm grasp on the reigns of directing a film, but his efforts weren’t entirely in vain. Elements of the film had appeal, some of them even had creative potential, using interesting comedic visual metaphors such as the way he portrays his and Christy’s sexual reunion. However, CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE feels like a comedic jigsaw puzzle completed using pieces from various different sets. From romantic comedy to quirky, from dramedy to absurd, back and forth… the movie is distracts itself with it’s own indecisiveness, repeatedly pulling the viewer out of the story.

I can’t trash Tim Allen, because he has taken a chance at crossing over from actor to director and hasn’t completely failed. That takes a certain amount of guts, but he needs more practice. Allen is a decent comedic lead, having been a significant part of movies such as BIG TROUBLE and GALAXY QUEST, both of which I enjoyed. CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE would have likely benefited from more experienced direction, but he has to start somewhere. As I say, a good film starts with a good script, something this movie was lacking.

I won’t go so far as to say CRAZY ON THE OUTSIDE is totally bust, but I would refrain from paying full ticket price. If you’re interested, give the film a chance during a matinee show, or simply wait for it on DVD. I predict it won’t take long to make the transition to store shelves. However, despite the many reasons the film fails, I support Tim Allen’s bold venture and encourage him to try something a little deeper and edgier next time and step outside the box a little. After all, who expected Ben Affleck’s directorial debut with GONE BABY GONE to be such a fantastic accomplishment?

Discuss: Are they remaking 80’s Classics too soon?

I’m sort of recycling this a bit, borrowing the idea and news from Cinematical, but it got me to thinking. So, first I’ll pass on the general thinking here… the bit about FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF being remade isn’t a fact, or even a rumor, but rather a concept brought up during an interview by Cinematical with Matthew Broderick, who said “It would be fine” when asked how he would feel about someone remaking the 1980’s classic.

As for MANNEQUIN, this I am disturbed to say, is apparently actually happening. Courtesy of Cinematical, Gladden Entertainment wants to remake the 1987 film, which originally starred Andrew McCarthy as a sex-obsessed department store employee who fantasizes about a window mannequin coming to life. Played by Kim Cattrall (SEX IN THE CITY), the mannequin turns out to be a reincarnated Egyptian princess. Gladden Entertainment is hoping to give the story a more contemporary appeal with a hip, young cast… a la The Twilight Saga, maybe?

With the FAME remake behind us, the FOOTLOOSE remake coming out this year and the RED DAWN remake rapidly approaching, it seems we’ve entered a new era of recycled 80’s stories. It’s all coming full-circle, but is it too much too soon? Personally, I think so. You’ve got to give a movie to run it’s full course. It used to be, we wouldn’t see films remade for at least a good 20-30 years, and even then it was far less common than it is today. I’m only 31 years old and still vividly remember movies like FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF like I just saw them yesterday. So, it’s strange to find these films being remade already. Now, I don’t have children, but many from my generation do… but, how many of these kids are even old enough to watch these remakes AND be able to appreciate the originals?

It’s my opinion that a film should at least skip a generation before being remade, in order to be respectfully accepted. In these examples, it’s not been enough time. Anyone who has seen the originals is likely not interested in seeing the remakes and those old enough to see the remakes are likely clueless about the originals. Therefor, there’s a disconnect between the source material and the new material. Give parents of my generation a chance to pass our classics from our childhood down properly, then consider remaking them for future audiences, when the new generations is old enough to approach the material respectfully and with some knowledge.

So, you’ve heard my two cents on the subject. What are your thoughts? Is it too much too soon? Are we robbing a generation from being able to appreciate our classics by spoon-feeding them the watered-down remakes before they’re even exposed to the original material? Chime in and make yourselves heard. We want to know how our readers feel about this.