Bunraku

Year: 2010
Genre: Martial Arts Film
Director: Guy Moshe
Stars: Josh Harnett, Demi Moore, Ron Perlman, Gackt, Woody Harrelson, Kevin McKidd
Production: Snoot Entertainment

The first ever films were on the whole an exercise in capturing the moment. The Lumieres, Edison and later Flaherty took the time to film events unfolding before their eyes and, with little context, simply marveled at the achievement of celluloid. Then came Melies, Griffith and Wiene; three names among others who saw the potential of creating stories, plots and fantasies. Fabrications told with style and economy. A lie that told the truth. Today's popular cinema basks largely in the glory of the romantic flourishes started by the first few silent-era trailblazers. A 110-year-old line can be drawn directly linking The Avengers (2012) to A Trip to the Moon (1902) yet lost along that line is Bunraku, a little seen, often maligned gem that needs reconsideration by the masses.

On the cusp of this deceptively simple film is a near universal acknowledgement of style over substance. It's even in the name Bunraku which is a form of traditional Japanese puppeteer-ing. The opening credits of the film plods with nonsensical narration brought by a cynical voice and colorful puppetry mixed with economical computer graphics. We're submerged into a world of paper mache, all the world is a stage and all the players almost seem to notice. With a wink and a nod they dance around each other; a cowboy, a samurai, a woodcutter, an assassin, a barkeep and a maiden. All the world is a stage and pulling the strings are the dexterous hands and wide eyes of a teenage boy. Deceptively simple because it is an indulgence similar to youth's long hours with toys at the foot of the bed or after midnight's Kung Fu marathons.

Yet there's more than meets the eye here. The script's sometimes frustratingly scant dialogue circles around the notion of violence. Its not one of those films that admonishes violence while inviting the audience to enjoy stylized buckets of blood. It's a film that tries to posit violence as part of the cyclical machinations of the universe. What matters is how you use violence; towards selfish ends or selfless ends. Our heroes, the drifter and the samurai fight for good, in a sense. Their families were effected by the woodcutter and his gang, thus they battle to reclaim their family honor. A simple story of revenge told hundreds of times across multiple cultures and mediums. Even the characters in the plot are aware of their place in the larger story. The barkeep, played by an affable Woody Harrelson even props up a pop-up book telling a similar heroic tale. The tale he tells though the names are changed is that of Spider-Man; confirmed by the moral of the story "with great power comes great responsibility."

The story goes deeper into the depths of political and moral philosophy with the inclusion of a character known as The General. His Proletariat League remains in the periphery until the third act. The character is treated as a phantom which prods the Woodcutters gang to remove his iconography. Then he appears a withered old man reminiscent of an aging Fidel Castro. He's waited, perhaps too long, to strike against the woodcutter and his gang which control the city. Does he, by the end of the film replace a politically violent reign with another? Maybe, but the movie strongly adheres to the cyclical nature of human politics. When Harrelson's character insists he makes the drinks and fought only so he could continue to make the drinks, our two heroes seems disappointed. As if to say when good men do nothing, evil prevails. The movie then ends with a Rising Sun Flag doubling as the sun itself. Fascism and cruelty still lurks in the shadows or in this case, the light.

Yet the draw of a movie of this kind is not a flaccid political statement or a hero's journey we all can recite by heart. Most films, with noted exceptions are like Christmas trees, its not the structure but the decorations that set them apart. And there are a lot of decorations. Bunraku is nearly an entire product of pastiche. The city home to our players is constructed to look cheap as if made on a sound stage, as it likely was. The walls are paper thin, dominated by harsh masculine edges and aside from beer bottles and bifocals, there is no glass in the windows. The unnatural light shifts suddenly from blue to red and orange to create an atmosphere of dread, anger and fear depending on the situation. Its as if The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)  was remade into  a gangster movie. The vibrant costumes take hints from Bollywood, the scene transitions are pop art, the characters an amalgam of ronins, cowboys and grizzled private dicks; east meets west meets points in between.

The actors themselves are a mixed bag exemplifying the eclectic tastes of its audience. fading teen heartthrob Josh Harnett plays the cowboy. Years earlier his casting would have been the very definition of American Hollywood. His trajectory has a precedence in the late work of Henry Fonda or Eli Wallach who both reinvented themselves as Spaghetti western villains and rogues. The only difference is Harnett's star faded quicker; a boyish stud who lost his appeal when he lost box office. Our other protagonist is played by Gackt, a Japanese pop musician with international appeal. Bunraku was to be his international debut, a step up from the small screen which he had experience. Before Bunraku he played a reoccurring character in a Japanese period TV series called The Trusted Confidant (2007).

Our main villain, the Woodcutter is played by the classically trained Ron Perlman, a favorite of French filmmakers Jean-Jacques Annaud and Jean-Pierre Jeunet. While never amounting to much more than a unique face on the screen, the rugged Perlman brings heft to the tin stars that fight against him. Then there's Woody Harrelson who since his TV days has flirted with commercial and critical appeal. An A-Lister; perhaps not but a solid B-lister who can always count on regular work. Finally there is Demi Moore who in the early nineties was arguably the most popular leading lady in the world. Yet much like her character her star was lost among a menagerie of young ingenues.

To surmise; one greenhorn, two has-beens, one almost-is and one never-was. All posing before the unique art design that floods the screen at any moments notice. Its hard not to realize that all cinema today is pastiche. Coen, Scorsese, Anderson both Paul Thomas and Wes; films and filmmakers that get the most notice are the ones that reference with intelligence. Yet Bunraku is not intelligent. It celebrates it's own brevity with an infused childlike wonder; the workings of a gifted amateur? Perhaps. There are liberal dashes of Kurosawa; a dollop of Leone, layers of the Shaw Brothers and gallons of videogame sensibilities intermixed with directorial decisions seemingly made for economy. Yet through all the filigree, the passion shines through. I must prefer the undisciplined spirit of a gifted amateur over the grizzled and worn cynicism of a pro.

Make no mistake, this movie is a masterpiece and not in an ironic sense either. Frazzled and rough around the edges to be sure, but nonetheless Bunraku reveals a masterful depth politically and visually. It follows in a cinematic tradition while bringing a rare gust of originality that can make you question how to truly make and interpret a lie that tells the truth. All the worlds a stage and in this case, I'd get a front row seat right quick.

Final Grade: B

Bulworth

Year: 1998
Genre: Political Satire
Director: Warren Beatty
Stars: Warren Beatty, Halle Berry, Don Cheadle, Oliver Platt, Sean Astin, Joshua Malina
Production: 20th Century Fox

For those who ever had the inclination to see Warren Beatty rap, boy do I have a movie for you. To be honest, much like today's circus-like political climate, I have no idea what to make of this film. Is it a mess? Is it a masterpiece? Misunderstood? Offensive? Passionate? Tone-deaf? Can it be all of those things? I'm going to venture to say yes.

Jay Bulworth is a longtime Democratic Senator from the State of California. The first time you see him there are frames in his office of Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson and other prominent civil rights leaders. Yet the campaign ads playing in his office ring of a former liberal turned centrist. Sacrificing his values and trapped in a marriage that's been dead for a while, the insomniac Senator plans to end his life; suicide via hitman. Then he campaigns like a madman telling the truth as he sees it.

I can see where the film is coming from and I give it props for its bluntness. Former rebel-rouser turned Hollywood celebrant Warren Beatty cashed in all his chips to play the manic Senator who sputters his "rhymes" with the truth of the streets. By all outward appearances Beatty may have lost his cache after Dick Tracy (1990) under-performed back in the early 90's but truth be told, Bulworth feels more like his Swan Song leaving everything out on the field.

My Fellow Americans (1996),
not among the savvy political comedies...

Bulworth was released among a mass of savvy political comedies that defined the Clinton years. Dave (1993), Primary Colors (1998) and Bob Roberts (1992) all left an indelible mark and honed in on very specific cultural pressure points and policies. Bulworth is the only one to my recollection that concentrated largely on race, urban blight and crime; a subject not captured outside of movies like Do the Right Thing (1989) and Boyz n the Hood (1991). In other words, movies made by black filmmakers for black audiences, appreciated by the critical community though largely ignored by white America.

Yet as much as I'd like to give Bulworth a thumbs up for focusing on a misrepresented population and catered by white liberal guilt I just can't. Much of it has to do with Beatty's borderline black-face one-man mistral show. For all his good intentions, the level of appropriation and white paternalism should have been enough to make audiences of the nineties look twice. The only person who manages to break through Beatty's campy monologue on race relations is Don Cheadle's L.D., a drug kingpin who scolds the Senator for the company he keeps. Even then his words are simply parroted later as a lazy attempt to empower. It's like Bulworth became Cheadle's white-friendly translator.

Dear lord Beatty! You're making a scene!

I will say this, despite my reservations, this film will remain in my memory for quite sometime due in large part by the visuals. The story certainly puts the audience in the point of view of the sleep-deprived Senator. The dialogue overlaps in a dizzying cacophony of sounds, the lights gleam with jarring intensity and the camera likes to doddle in a series of one-takes yet never seems to stop moving. I suppose that's something; that despite its insensitive portrayals and warped politics it still manages to be visually mature.

Suddenly everyone thinks they can rap now.

Yet despite it's flair, there's the problem of believably. Within a 48-hour period the Senator's campaign implodes in a flurry of insanity. He manages to run from his handlers several times, drive a limo into oncoming highway traffic, slink away from public view to rendezvous with a young Halle Berry, assault a police officer, attend a drug dealer's party and steal a car. This is not even including what he says to his donors! It's realistic for the media to eat it all up in an almost orgasmic fashion but its patently unrealistic for the man to become a political icon because he does all this madness while rapping like a elderly Beastie Boy.

In an almost perverse way, Bulworth has become a harbinger of the modern political landscape in two major and tragic ways. With the repeated incidences of police officers killing unarmed black men and women, it's easy to project the same frustrations we see on the nightly news with the story of Bulworth and his near suicidal odyssey. Much has changed in the last seventeen years yet we still face the exact same problems concerning racial relations now; lack of opportunity, social injustice, abhorrent drug abuse, lack of diversity in those in power, and a huge swath of the population either ignoring the problem or denying there's a problem at all.

Then there's Bulworth as a cult of personality. As his behavior and public persona becomes more erratic, his handlers morph the Senator's new-found honesty into a cynical political strategy. New acolytes to Bulworth's kamikaze campaign consume his words, feed off his brevity and are entertained by his one-man circus act. Dare I say it? In a time before Twitter and Instagram, Bulworth predicted the singularity that is Donald Trump. Bulworth may have a more inclusive message than the Donald but his presentation is much the same, i.e. that of a preaching, vitriolic, rebel-rousing populist. Also much like Trump, instead of apologizing for his insane proclamations, Bulworth doubles down, trampling over anyone with a semblance of sanity.

Much like the American political process, Bulworth is likely messy and off-putting by design. I applaud its efforts but a bi-product of this movies messiness are offensive caricatures and absurdly painful moments that are as unhelpful as they are untactful. Its interesting to note that this movie, unlike Warren Beatty, is still relevant though unfortunately its relevant for all the wrong reasons.

Final Grade: D

Dope

Year: 2015
Genre: Comedy/Drama
Director: Rick Famuyiwa
Stars: Shameik Moore, Kiersey Clemons, Tony Revolori, Zoe Kravitz, Blake Anderson, A$ap Rocky, Forest Whitaker
Production: Significant Productions

One thing that I wholeheartedly, unabashedly love about film is its populism. For all its faults film is the popular art that all walks of life flock to. Its almost poetic to think that people of all ages and all nationalities and faiths can come to a movie theater and find something they enjoy with characters and/or images they can connect to. I am a white heterosexual male in his late-twenties with a reasonably well-off background. So what do I have in common with Malcolm Madacombe (Moore), a black kid from Inglewood, California? Turns out a bit more than I thought.

Dope follows a series of unfortunate events surrounding Malcolm and his geeky friends Jib (Revolori) and Diggy (Clemons). At the start, all have to walk the tightrope of being a geek in the ghetto. Most times being that way gets you bullied; in The Bottoms it could get you killed. After Malcolm runs into a small time drug dealer (Rocky) and does him a favor, he and his friends are invited to his birthday party where they come into the possession of designer drugs. Digging in deeper and deeper into ever escalating havoc, will our plucky heroes make it out of their situation unscathed?

Coming into the film I expected something along the lines of The Girl Next Door (2004) only without the porn angle. Both films do involve a trio of nerds coming of age through harsh and seedy realities after all. What I got however was a movie more in-tune with Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) by way of Boy N the Hood (1991). A movie with sage-worthy thoughts and unique perspective told with a structure that is at times cinematically jarring. A satire of the highest order that misses the funny bone and aims directly for the heart.

The episodic nature of the film is part of its charm. Side stories involving Malcolm's crush on the drug dealer's girlfriend Nakia (Kravitz) and the budding popularity of the trio's band are given time to breathe and go on tangents. Writer/Director Rick Famuyiwa cares less about story structure than about getting the audience to identify with Malcolm. His foibles might have graver struggles than those you or I may have faced but being a teen means everything we did back then had immediacy and consequence. I for one can see myself in Malcolm even though the gravest issue I had to deal with at his age was not getting the part I wanted in the school play.

I would have made a great Othello!!!!

It is when the audience fully connects to the protagonist that the dynamic of the film slowly shifts to that of a satire. More poignant than before, the film's third act is not the frivolous good-time comedy it was advertised as. No matter, the satire is much richer and sharper, the antagonists that emerge are much broader foils of the economic and educational gatekeepers. The visuals are more dynamic and turned everyone's attention to the tightrope all teen in Malcolm's position must walk. I honestly wanted more. I left the theater hoping not for a sequel necessarily but for more characters like the ones I saw.

Now trending!

Dope is a satire of the best kind. It offers a unique and compelling perspective and does so sympathetically without being maudlin. It doesn't sacrifice keen and critical discourse with overbearing of over-broad humor and finally its a coming-of-age tale populated with characters who we care about and want to see succeed. In an art-form that manages to touts its populism while giving its supporters less and less in story and structure, I'm glad film can create something like Dope. Let's hope this starts a trend.

Final Grade: A-

Inside Out

Year: 2015
Genre: Animated Comedy
Director: Pete Docter
Stars: Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Kaitlyn Diaz, Richard Kind, Lewis Black, Bill Hader, Mindy Kaling, Diane Lane, Kyle MacLachlan
Production: Pixar Animation

Yeah, okay, it's good; but is Pixar's newest film really that good? Truth is, the worst thing you can say about the worst Pixar films (cough, cough Cars 2) is by comparison they just don't reach the high bar set by Pixar itself. None of them are truly bad artistically. In fact, in comparison to other animation studios, Pixar remains a downright godsend. In that regard, Inside Out is a massive triumph. Bring the kids! Enjoy the crap out of it. Read no further...

You decided you read further...hmph...cue obligatory synopsis

Riley (Diaz) is just like any twelve-year-old Minnesotan girl. She loves her family and friends and likes to play hockey and goof off when she's not getting good grades in school. Up until now most of her memories are happy largely thanks to the emotions that run her mind. But when her family move to San Francisco those same emotions; Joy (Poehler), Sadness (Smith), Anger (Black), Fear (Hader) and Disgust (Kaling) must experience a parallel odyssey in the mind of young Riley.

On the whole the idea, while terrifically refreshing, thinly veils its 94 minute run time. This is including a subplot involving Joy and Sadness getting lost in Riley's subconscious and their odyssey to get back to mission control. While good for a full movie, it's much better as an animated short where straining for material doesn't feel too cloying. No matter, for the geniuses at Pixar know how to make things work story-wise using a myriad of psychological inside jokes and kid friendly humor. Having the "dream factory" look like a Hollywood studio was a particularly nice touch.

Pixar is also deft at making sympathetic characters and the emotions that work Riley's brain and influence her actions are well fleshed out. Its true that each character is meant to encapsulate the emotion they represent but their far from the flat characters I expected. It was honestly one of the most pleasant surprises I've seen in an animated film in some time. Joy probably goes through the largest character change realizing that despite her dour demeanor there is a place for Sadness in Riley's world. It helps that the voice actors chosen are able to convey so much so well.

Hmm, maybe I should have paid more for 3D

Hang on though, Pixar isn't off the hook when it comes to all characters however. Perhaps it's just the limitations of the high-concept but with all these emotions controlling Riley's head, Riley herself comes off as one-dimensional. The decisions she makes are, well for lack of a better word emotional, and rely on little logic. I'm not saying a twelve-year-old should have an adult's understanding of consequence and forethought but for the most part she was simply reacting to stimuli like a behaviorist's wet-dream. There's little history or experience in her actions other than a hatred for broccoli. Likewise her parents are just flat. The father inhabits the role of the absent father whose busy with work...no new ground broken there, and the mother is just your run of the mill concerned mother too tacit to really see what's going on.

Overall, the movie's faults are outweighed by its successes. Its a gorgeous movie that does a great job creating the world inside the head of a twelve-year-old girl. It's said that the animators wanted the emotions to appear like apparitions and not as solid objects. In congress with the playful ergonomics of mission control and the creatures the populate the subconscious, Inside Out is yet another visual threshold the animators of Pixar have powered through.

Years ago when Up (2009) came out, I saw a news clip about Disney's irritation with Pixar's toy strategy. They were miffed because no child would ever buy a Carl Fredricksen action-figure complete with a tennis ball adorned cane. I'm sure a few rebels in Pixar giggled but John Lasseter and the executive board likely owed Disney's merchandisers for having a 70+ year-old protagonist. Inside Out offers cute characters who are sure to sell at Toys R Us as will The Good Dinosaur (2015), Finding Dory (2016), Toy Story 4 (2017), Incredibles 2 (TBA) and Cars 3 (TBA). Here's to hoping the future intent of Pixar movies remains telling a good yarn and not selling it.

Final Grade: C+

Spy

Year: 2015
Genre: Comedy/Spy Film
Director: Paul Feig
Stars: Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Jason Statham, Allison Janney, Bobby Cannavale, Miranda Hart, Jude Law
Production: 20th Century Fox

"Fun feminist spy comedy;" "...perfectly enjoyable;" "A rib-tickling espionage spoof;" critics and audiences of America, you have been duped! Spy is not very good, it's barely even passable both as a broad comedy and as a spy-spoof. I'm sorry but this stuff is the lowest of low hanging fruit and even the most seemingly learned among you are poised to be hosed here. Its not completely your fault though critics; I get it. Melissa McCarthy is a talented star. The mere fact that a woman of her, lets say unique perspective can become a popular cultural figure is a sure sign of progress in a certain sense. Additionally having a woman as a lead in a genre dominated by hetero-normative male tropes is beguiling, but in the case of Spy it's not only a missed opportunity, its a ruse and not a clever one either.

Why wasn't this plot funny twelve years ago when I did it?!

Let us start at the beginning. McCarthy plays a talented CIA analyst who is often paired up and runs interference for a suave, sophisticated field agent (Law). However after the agent's untimely death, the CIA quickly realizes that all their best agents are compromised. The only way they can recover a stolen nuclear weapon from a nefarious arms dealer is to put McCarthy's Susan into the field to gather intelligence and possibly save the world.

What could have been a truly ballsy, subversive routine ends up being a broad heckle from the sidelines. The first half of the movie consists of McCarthy's character being the butt of every mean spirited gag in the book. She's fat, she dresses poorly, she's homely etc. The thing is its not clever or thought out; its basically glorified improv; the director's excuse to let his players riff so he can cut everything together later. All of it sounds like the taunting of a dimwitted high school bully. Seriously, who acts this way without fully realizing their total dicks and impressing nobody. The only actor who is partially successful in balancing mean and funny is Jason Statham who by the last half-hour is transformed into a Falstaff-ian caricature lacking any real substance.

In fact, all of the characters, including Susan do somersaults to fit the plot compromising character motivations, traits and interests. Susan snaps from a scared, introverted analyst to a foul-mouthed, ass-kicker with the sudden sound of a cocked handgun. Another character murders and witnesses the murder of multiple people yet is reluctant to pull the trigger on a shoe-horned comic-relief character (Hart) because of...reasons. Jason Statham's character quits the CIA then does his own investigation to stop the people who murdered a colleague he hated because of...reasons. Bobby Cannavale's character wants to blow up the U.N. because of...reasons. You see a pattern emerging here? No matter let's all watch a gregarious Italian man grope Melissa McCarthy again.

Because European men lusting after large women is...funny?

The second act of the film consists of an escalating number of action set-pieces which offer nothing new to the genre; action, comedy, or otherwise. Its all so paint-by-numbers that rarely anything is given suspense. Even the jokes that pepper the chase sequences and close-quarters fighting are so painfully obvious, its hard not to let the mind wonder and miss the days of Austin Powers. By the third act all the dead horses are flogged and dead dogs boiled. All that's left to do is tag on convoluted double-crosses and swap allegiances a few times in the vein hope that the audience still cares about our all but ignored maguffin.

Then I said, feminism...that's the joke...guess you had to be there.

My main problem with Spy is it completely fails to lampoon or undermine the point of spy films, instead replicating the same tired comedy-spy schtick that's been around since Casino Royale (1967). They're male fantasies that not only glamorize violence, they glamorize living life in a haze of grey. James Bond, Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne et al, they embrace the peril of a lifestyle that shifts with the alliances of criminals, terrorists, governmental bodies and femme fatales. "That's a Smith and Wesson and you've had your six," smirks Bond in Dr. No (1962) before killing a helpless assassin. They dispatch foes with the coolness of true professionals and we root for the characters despite their blood-lust. Spy seems so concerned with knocking on McCarthy's girth and gender that it fails to really get to why something like Mission: Impossible (1996) is a draw in the first place. Honestly, In Like Flint (1967) is post-actively a better take-down of sexism in action movies than Spy.

There are worse movies than Spy to be sure. Far from a nadir in the genre, to be sure (I can fill a days worth of column inches with terrible spy/action comedy movies). If broad, lazy comedy is your particular brand of weak tea, you may well get your money's worth with Spy. Yet with folks raving that this newest McCarthy vehicle is some kind of feminist provocation, I simply had to clear the air and say it's simply not. Like almost all American comedy over the last ten years, Spy is just another improv session among a stock cast of players all hoping their game of "park bench" ends up in the theatrical cut. What could have been a shot across the bow to male-dominated cinema ended up being the flick of a paper football tossed by a pigtailed girl asking politely if she can play. If I were you, I'd just take my ball and go home.

Final Grade: F

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