What We Do in the Shadows

Year: 2014
Genre: Horror Comedy
Director: Jermaine Clement, Taika Waititi
Stars: Jermaine Clement, Taika Waititi, Jonathan Brough, Cori Gonzalez-Macuer, Ben Fransham, Jackie Van Beek, Stuart Rutherford
Production: Unison Films, Funny or Die

Vampires, like most Gothic horror monsters have gotten a very infamous reputation. A reputation which has lasted over a millennia. They have been pegged as evil, blood-thirsty villains; soiling the innocence of all who become victim to their blood-lust. What's worse is within the last two decades their standing has changed to much more humiliating status; that of the romantic lead. Yes, we can all agree Twilight (2008) was a blight on the world but you can't deny the YA series' made an impact. Plus there were the better received True Blood (2008-2014) and Vampire Diaries (2009-now) which, for better or for worse, reformed Dracula's personal image. Between misanthropic movie monster and hunky boyfriend of the undead, is there maybe a better, more sympathetic portrayal out there for the besieged blood-sucker?

Probably not.

We're normal, nothing to see here...

What We Do in the Shadows involves the semi-normal life of four vampires who have made New Zealand their new home. In-between feedings, Viago (Waititi), Vladislav (Clement), Deacon (Brough) and Petyr (Fransham) have to deal with the common trials of being flatmates. Such trials include dividing up the chores via chore wheel, juggling their active social lives and avoiding run-ins with vampire slayers, local werewolves and a mysterious creature known only as "The Beast". Their biggest obstacle is modernizing to the 21st century, a task that is helped by new friends who tip the balance of their creepy, decrepit home.

Co-written by half of Flight of the Conchords and given a mockumentary style, What We Do in the Shadows is the funniest movie you're likely to see this year. It's bolstered by goofy, self-deprecating performances and cheap yet seamless special-effects. Special mention should be given to Waititi's fussy performance as an Interview with a Vampire (1994) knock-off with an Eastern European accent. He becomes the center and voice of reason amid a growing group of rowdy undead friends and despite having the straight-man role, his nit-picking most often had me at medium giggle. The belly laughs however came from Clements's Vlad, designed to look like Dracula circa 1992. His one-liners showed a depth of skill when it comes to improvisation which hasn't seen a screen near me since Flight of the Conchords (2007-2009) ended its run on HBO. As far as mockumentary, What We Do in the Shadows matches This is Spinal Tap (1984) and Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999) chuckle by chuckle, perhaps more so.

I still say this movie is a classic! A Classic I say!

Along with being incredibly rich territory for situation-comedy, What We Do in the Shadows brings up some grounded if unconsidered questions about living with eternity. We all get older so we naturally struggle to keep up with the "next big thing," so what happens when a three-hundred-year-old man attempts to enter Wellington's most popular club dressed like an 18th century dandy? What happens the first time they use a cellphone or a computer? These aren't the chiseled, pristine vampires of Twilight; no these guys can't even use a mirror and are forced to draw each other to conceive what they look like. There's no way these guys have the sensibilities to make it in today's world. At least not without a lot of help and hilarity.

Hilarious

As with all movies that adapt the mockumentary format, there are some drawbacks. There's some pretty cheap production design here and due to the subject matter most scenes are shot at night (duh!). This kind of budget is not helped by a flat aspect ratio and single-setup, point-and-shoot-type camera work. Thankfully there are enough consistently funny gags that keep the film light on its feet even if the supposed documentary crew are not.

What We Do in the Shadows may not help vampires reclaim the staple horror movie villain image we grew up with and took for granted. I personally yearn for Nosferatu to jump out of the shadows and give the floozies of True Blood a run for their money. I suppose all things must go through reinvention and renewal. Modernizing overall is a positive force is it not? If for no other reason than we get fun little experiments like this Kiwi comedy classic.

Though sometimes modernizing is a terrible idea

Final Grade: B

Mad Max: Fury Road

Year: 2015
Genre: Action
Director: George Miller
Stars: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Nathan Jones, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Zoe Kravitz
Production: Kennedy Miller Productions

There was an unmistakable pang in my stomach when I watched the very first trailer for Mad Max: Fury Road a few months back. I watched it with a gaggle of young people and their response to the trailer was one of elation. Then I mentioned the originals and everyone looked confused. Has this sequel/reboot of the crazy post-apocalyptic world created by director George Miller come to late? Will fans of the original still look at the blighted desert hellscape with the same reverence? Will newcomers to the series welcome it? After watching Fury Road I can safely conclude that not only will the film be welcomed by a majority of people craving a good action-packed popcorn flick, this new movie will effectively change the action-adventure game for the better.

Now this is how you pull off Bane!

The story begins with Max (Hardy) being chased by a group of crazed goons across the desert in his signature Interceptor car. The vehicle crashes spectacularly and he's immediately captured. We're introduced to a host of characters warped by the landscape and made crazy by their circumstance. Immortan Joe (Keays-Byrne) sits atop of the social spectra. A violent, disfigured dictator who has hijacked not only the world's most needed resource, water, but the world's most precious: the future. He has taken the most beautiful brides among his dirt-pile civilization and forces them into a harem where he rapes them to birth a normal, untarnished heir. That is until Furiosa (Theron) a trusted marauder takes the harem and escapes in her war rig with a mission to take them to "the green place". With war parties in fast pursuit, Max is forced to be a feral warrior's "blood bag" until fate allows him the chance for escape and possible redemption from the thoughts that haunt him.

After a fifteen minute setup the entire movie boils down to one, big, long, explosive, exciting, pulse-pounding chase through the desert. Each action set-piece is a master's course in chaotic beauty and mayhem. Lest you think you've seen it all, watch the first extended chase between the war rig and the war parties...then wait another five minutes, because the expectations you just set for yourself will be blown to smithereens. George Miller decided to film in the otherworldly desert of Namibia instead of the Australian outback. The hues of the rock and sands of Namibia make for some austere beauty and intensifies the desperation of the world of Mad Max. No longer are their paved roads, only basins of flat unforgiving dirt remain. Trekked by those most craven and those most crazed.

Gotta love a strong silent type

Through all the absurd chaos, characters emerge. Not through dialogue or long-winded explanations but through action. Everyone we meet is stripped to their essence and pitted against each other. The number one goal for our beleaguered protagonists? Survival; it's that simple. Max in particular has quite a complex character arc given the movie's structure. He is reintroduced in our psyche as a man who once had a moral compass now reduced to an animal; wild and instinctual. He lost those he loved most and is haunted by their memories. By the end of the movie his purpose is molded beyond simply survival. His resourcefulness and pragmatism follows a logical train that ends with Max becoming a restorer of hope. A rebirth of the dark anti-hero we once loved and all with little to no dialogue.

Now a game-changing movie like this is not without its controversy. Men's Rights Activists have been crying foul ever since this movie's been released, claiming the movie is feminist propaganda masquerading as a shoot-em-up. Noted chauvinist blogger and blatherskite Aaron Clarey even initiated a boycott over it's perceived "feminist agenda". "men in America and around the world are going to be duped by explosions, fire tornadoes, and desert raiders into seeing what is guaranteed to be nothing more than feminist propaganda, while at the same time being insulted AND tricked into viewing a piece of American culture ruined and rewritten right in front of their very eyes."

Apparently Mad Max is now American 

With as much respect as I can give people with rudimentary understanding of discrimination; shut up. Having physically and emotionally strong female characters is not propaganda. Nor is making an enemy out of a thoroughly disgusting human who in no way represents the male gender or the patriarchy as it exists today. If anything the warped society that exists in Fury Road is an exaggerated view of patriarchy therefore categorizing the political elements of Mad Max as satire. Even to claim the film has a feminist agenda of any kind is suspect. Not all feminists believe the same thing but a majority believe portraying women in media in the mold of a traditional male sans a penis, is not the best way to empower women. Not to discount Theron's performance but her Furiosa does fit that bill.

My only real complaint is less about the movie and more about Hollywood's insistence that 3D is the way to go. Dazzling sequences of real stunt driving and explosions that would put the Fast and Furious franchise to shame are interrupted by obvious frames where 3D is injected for the sake of being injected. In one, almost delirious moment of climax,  we see obvious computer generated twisted metal synchronized to look like a jack-in-the-box. It was distracting flaw but not a fatal flaw.

Mad Max: Fury Road is not just a spectacular action film; its an action film that truly raises the bar. Those who have never seen the original films won't be lost nor will they be disappointed. Through frenetic editing, solid, smooth camera work, strong acting, brawny, metal-meets-muscle action sequences and minimalist story, every action movie the foreseeable future is going to wish it was Mad Max.

Final Grade: A

Ex Machina

Year: 2015
Genre: Sci-Fi Drama
Director: Alex Garland
Stars: Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Alicia Vikander, Sonoya Mizuno
Production: DNA Films

With The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) making its way to a theater near you this weekend, every fanboy from here to Timbuktu wants a piece of the action. They want to see familiar faces, face up against new villains and possibly team up with new allies. They're entranced by the spectacle, in love with the unabashedly overwrought story and eager to see what specific lip service Marvel will give their fans (Spider-Man cameo? Guardians maybe? Whatever happened to Bucky Barns?). I'd be lying if I said I wasn't giddy too. Who's thirteen year-old self wouldn't want to see beautiful people in skintight outfits (or iron armor) blowing things up and being forces of good. Yet with so many popular films doing similar things, is there room for movies that truly challenge the mind and enrich the soul?

Hulk questioning whether morality the conclusion of our reason...also smash!

A.I. is not always pretty

Ex Machina (2015) is certainly one for the books and in my view a watershed in sci-fi. A science fiction film with state of the art special-effects which nonetheless offers a small, quiet and poignant parable of the human condition. Domhnall Gleeson (of Harry Potter fame) plays Caleb a mid-level coder for Bluebook; a Google-type internet search engine company. He's won a competition and is given the opportunity to meet and work with reclusive and brilliant CEO Nathan (Oscar Isaac). The assignment at first is a mystery. Caleb meets Nathan at his quiet estate nestled in the mountains of a place unknown. After an off-putting introduction, Caleb is introduced to Ava (Alicia Vikander), an A.I. humanoid. He's told his job is to conduct a Turing test of sorts. He must decide whether or not she is the first of her kind; not just artificial intelligence but real intelligence.

Well they clearly can't do Isaac Asimov very well

We've seen dumb down versions of this theme before from the Bicentennial Man (1999) to I, Robot (2004) yet in Ex Machina's case there's a much more contemplative tone. Much of this must be credited to its deliberate pacing and slow-cooking suspense. Yet we mustn't ignore the unforgettable visuals which evokes the austerity of Ingmar Bergman yet with a utilitarian twist. First time director Alex Garland seems to have a real eye for capturing beauty in everything from the intimidating grandeur of the glacier ladened mountains of Norway to the simplicity of a kitchen counter-top. They say that a great movie is three great scenes and no bad ones but in Ex Machina's case, every scene is breathtaking.

...and then Bergman said "You know what'd be great? a car chase!"

Story-wise, Ex Machina asks a lot more questions than gives answers. It's a ballsy move reserved only for the greatest of the great like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Persona (1966) and 3 Women (1977). There are cues in the film lifted from the aforementioned but A.I. as a subject has never looked and felt more beguiling than in Ex Machina. I'm slightly disappointed that the movie pulled its last punches of philosophical and psychological contemplation in favor of a potboiler final act. It is also disappointing that the majority of the audience I was with, concluded the movie was a cautionary tale and not a meditation on self-actualization. Ava, while exhibiting all the skin-deep trappings of an A.I. unit (wires, hardware, perfect diction and extensive vocabulary), she approaches every new sensation and experience with wonder. She sees Caleb as a curiosity then later as a confidant. She looks at Nathan with actual fear and resentment.

She'll break your heart then take over Skynet.

Its funny to think I have the opposite reaction to Her (2013) an impressive movie most audiences found to be rather charming but I saw as a cautionary tale. In Her, Samantha (Scarlett Johansson) was never prone to violence like Ava can be yet in Her, it was pretty much stated the operating systems have moved beyond humans. Ava doesn't "move beyond" humans or at least not explicitly. The last tableaux is indicative of this. I won't ruin it lest to say Ava never seems to loose her sense of wonder. Here's hoping we never do either; even if our sense of wonder is limited to superhero movies.

Final Grade: A

Dear White People

Year: 2014
Genre: Comedy
Director: Justin Simien
Stars: Tessa Thompson, Tyler James Williams, Brandon P. Bell, Teyonah Parris, Kyle Gallner, Dennis Haysbert, Peter Syvertsen
Production: Homegrown Pictures

It seems that conversations about race relations are on the up-tic over the past few months. In reality these kinds of conversations have been on the up-tic ever since 2008 and have generally been shut down by white Americans insisting we have moved beyond race. Now with prevalent, if irresponsible news coverage of incidents in Baltimore and Ferguson (among several others), the uncomfortable topic of race is thankfully, for now, water cooler fodder. Still those who lack vocal black co-workers and/or black friends might just be stuck in the Fox News echo chamber. Luckily there's a film like Dear White People out there, which of course doesn't give *the* definitive black person opinion but gives a unique opinion on race relations informed by the black experience. A perspective you'd best not ignore.

The film follows Sam (Thompson) a college sophomore who is running for house president of her dorm at an ivy league university. When not campaigning she runs a satirical radio program called Dear White People which inflames the fervor of nearly everyone from her opponent Troy (Bell), to the school President (Syvertsen) to the editor of the campus's satirical magazine Kurt (Gallner). Meanwhile parallel stories develop; two involving students named Lionel (Williams) and Coco (Parris) who are trying to see where they fits in all this controversy and a fourth story revolving around the aforementioned Troy. Seems his father (Haysbert), and current Dean of Students went to the same school and has high hopes for his son.

Pardon me, but I have 2/3 of a boardroom and
no idea what to do with it

Visually, the film is not the most pleasing. First time director Justin Simien has just enough visual flair to keep things above TV quality but the movies indie budget shines through in the lack of coverage and a sticks-and-wire mis en scene. Is it Putney Swope (1969) level cheapness? No there are nod to Welles, Altman and D.W. Griffith but it's clear the film's visuals are not the primary focus of the director. His mind seems fixated on the dialogue, the story and the message behind the story.

And what about the script? Well it's sharp, its witty, its unapologetic in its social satire and it balances its themes quite nicely. You truly understand and sympathize with the characters even if the camera is a hindrance to those ends. Tessa Thompson in particular does a fantastic job harnessing the aureate oratory of a civil rights leader, the intensity of a Black Panther and the styling sense of Lisa Bonet in A Different World (1987-1993). What's more because her character is immediately the most interesting her character arc becomes the most gratifying.

In preparation for this review, I not only did my usual research, I trolled the comments on several chatrooms around the internet. The results made me want to vomit. I know, it was my fault, I should have realized internet chatrooms are the confluence of throbbing teenage ids and angry unemployable man rage. Yet not only do these mouthy taint devils hate the movie, I feel they truly miss the point. This movie is not about demonizing white people as many claim. I may be wrong but I feel Dear White People is about perception in a more universal sense.

Post-college I define myself as $100,000 in debt!

During our college years, we struggle to define ourselves in much the same way we do with any great crossroads in life; only in college the stakes are higher. We sometimes over-value how others perceive us which can hinder our personal growth. All four main characters struggle with that growth not just within the context of being college students, being straight, gay, male, and female but also being black. Being black in America doesn't just mean being three times more likely to be shot by police nor does it just mean black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated than their white counterparts, it also means they are perceived by the majority by their race first and all other factors second. You can see that tension in the wondering eyes of Lionel in the first act, Coco's beleaguered defense of the party in the last act and Sam's film projects that bookend the movie.

Pressured by family, friends, race and reality show producers, our ensemble cast cover their true intentions under a guise of cattiness and stonewalling. Underneath the skin, the nappy hair, the argument that Gremlins (1984) is a veiled allegory of institutional racism; they are just as focused on forging their own path, living their own dreams and passing their finals like the rest of us.

Final Grade: B-

God's Not Dead

Year: 2014
Genre: Drama
Director: Harold Cronk
Stars: Kevin Sorbo, Shane Harper, Dean Cain, Cory Oliver, Cassidy Gifford, Trisha LaFache, Hadeel Sittu
Production: Pure Flix Productions

They say that good art challenges its audience. It imposes something on the viewer or the listener and gets them to ask questions about their world. Sometimes the questions we as the audience ask ourselves are deceptively simple like: can you capture real human experiences in a painting or in a piece of music. Sometimes they're overtly political or social in nature like: are you willing to live in a post-modern consumerist culture or are you willing to give up essential freedom for security. Bad art however, if you can even call it art; is just propaganda. Such is the case for God's Not Dead, a plodding, ill-conceived trifle of a movie that runs the danger of being taken seriously.

The movie begins with a jumble of different characters all getting up and going to work/university/life chores to the sound of twangy country pop. You can tell which characters are Christians because they're the ones who are smiling and happy to be alive. We're then introduced to the various threads of, let's call them plots in fast procession. The main one focuses on Josh (Harper) a college freshman who butts heads with his philosophy professor (Sorbo). Professor Hercules tells everyone in class to write "God is dead" on a piece of paper so the class can dispense with religious philosophy. Anyone who refuses will not only force the class to discuss the topic but they will have to present their arguments to the class on why they believe God is real. Also in the mix is a Muslim woman (Sittu) with a crisis of faith, an atheist blogger who has a crisis of non-faith, a preacher who just wants his car to start and a Chinese exchange student who is drawn to Josh's pronouncements. The professor and his wife (Oliver) seem to be in for conflict too but perhaps I'm front loading this boat a bit too much.

Mostly the professor and his wife aren't fans of these guys

Stylistically, this movie is not well developed. The stagecraft here is just bad with terrible blocking decisions, lazy camera work and a host of semi-professional actors left to talk at one another with little or no interesting action. Sorbo is easily the best actor in this entire mess but even he cannot escape moments of un-cinematic 180 conversations. The only time I noticed dynamic camera shots were in the opening credits and the last five minutes of the movie.

I suppose the set-design could have been worse

Though the direction and cinematography is nothing compared to the writing which fits each character into a neat little Crash-like box mistaking stereotype for character. Nearly every non-white character is treated with a disrespect bordering on racist. Poor Chinaman and his over-valuing of family honor. If only he could be free to make his own decisions like an American can. Oh poor Muslim girl, if only she could escape her wrongheaded, borderline abusive father and be free to convert to Christianity like an American can. Oh and lest we forget the Rafiki-esque African reverend who seems to think watching a man die on the street is evidence of a "good day".

Which brings me to the most egregious example of stereotyping in God's Not Dead, the angry atheist caricature. There are three people who are kindly enough to be the strawmen for this exercise in choir-preaching; the aforementioned blogger, the professor and a man I can only describe as the douchiest guy in the world. The blogger is brought to the good side when she is diagnosed with cancer. Before then she lived a life of selfish indulgences which included casual sex, environmental rebel-rousing and picking on red-blooded Americans like Willie Robertson and kin. Meanwhile the professor is revealed to be not an atheist but an anti-theist who denies God's existence because of something devastating in his past. Then there's the douche, who is just a douche. There's no explanation, he's given no motivation, he's just a big a--hole towards everyone he meets. So based on the very clearly drawn lines in the film, all atheists are jerks who if pressed, will acknowledge there is a God but refuses to believe because life is unfair.

Killing Jesus; now in 3D

I could fit multiple column inches going over point by point, destroying every little wrongheaded detail of this shrill piece of propaganda but I won't. Honestly, ranting about how awful this movie any further would be like beating an injured child. Christians, like all walks of life need to demand more of their art than just ham-fisted messages that reinforce a simple, whitewashed, easily-refutable worldview. Complexity is a good thing, especially when it comes to characters and their deeply held belief systems and I would welcome a movie that acknowledges that. For now though Christians will have to settle for a movie who only pushes its audience to ask one question: did I really pay money for this?

Final Grade: F