Cold as a Whore's Heart

I have to give props right now to the peoples behind the Living Room Theaters for their schedule of movies. They have been nothing but consistent with selecting interesting, off-the-radar films for screening. Looking for Palladin is a rare slip for them.

The premise of the movie is straightforward. Hollywood agent Joshua Ross (David Moscow) is sent on a mission to Antigua, Guatemala in order to coax legendary actor, Jack Palladin (Ben Gazzara,) back to work. Ross finds himself broke, and at the mercy of the town’s inhabitants who distrust him as the phony with the blue-tooth ear piece and fake Gucci loafers.

The film looks low-budget, but that may have to do with the challenges involved in shooting on location in Central America. The setting is actually the movie’s most endearing quality. The town of Antigua is representative of a lot of small Latin communities with its pretty cobble-stone streets and color-washed historical buildings organized around a main square. Filmmaker Andrej Krakowski made a very cool decision in shooting his movie there.

Location aside, the story is messy with loose and dead ends. Gazzara’s Palladin is surrounded by a glut of side characters that are hastily introduced and awkwardly utilized. They do little to move the plot forward or provide background information. A few of those characters, like the pasty American writer, are especially painful to watch.

Worse is the lead character, Hollywood agent Joshua Ross. Ross personifies every ugly “gringo” stereotype imaginable and looks especially ridiculous acting out high-stakes industry phone conversations while sitting next to a local holding a live chicken. I understand the need to demonstrate the character’s growth as the film progresses, but I thought the early scenes were rendered too over-the-top.

White people are a--holes, there is no doubt about that, and I appreciate Krakowski’s enthusiasm for the idea. Still, I can’t front. No white person is that obnoxious.

At 115 minutes, the movie is mad slow in its buildup and lacking in a payoff. By the time Ross found Palladin in order to offer him the Hollywood role, I was no longer interested in his answer. In the end, it didn’t make much difference. I give Looking for Palladin a D+.

I appreciate what this film was trying to do. I hope this is among the first of many movies shot in Guatemala. I know there are better stories to be told there.

Coming of Age in Connecticut

I’ll never be able to stand death or cope with it. I could watch a thousand movies where characters learn and grow to accept it and never be satisfied. Harvest is among the stronger attempts I’ve seen to reconcile the two difficult subjects of family and loss.

The film follows three generations of a family in shoreline Connecticut, spending their last summer together before the death of the patriarch, Grandpa Siv (Robert Loggia.) There is Feng Shui and Yoga mother (Victoria Clark,) joined by her pot-belly-garbage-golfer-never-been-married brother (Arye Gross,) and her college student son (Jack Carpenter,) taking care of grandpa and grandma. Grandma is a movie all by herself, suffering from dementia, she sweeps the grass and likes to throw cookies in the air.

The writing and acting around the characters are both outstanding. The movie is seen largely through the perspective of the youngest, and Carpenter is steady throughout as Josh. He is realistic in scenes where he acts his age (wanting to escape yelling “It’s too f---ing boring!,”) as well as scenes where he acts wise beyond his years.

I loved the scene where young Josh became angry at his mother, talking “I’m destined to be alone. It’s like it’s in our genes or something.” I can definitely relate to that fear. Most relationships end before the people in them do.

I also loved Robert Loggia in his portrayal of Siv, a man succumbing to pancreatic cancer. His big scene involved a beautiful bike ride around his coastline small town, where people play Bocce ball on their lawns and line Main Street for the annual parade. At 80 plus and dying of cancer, he rides across the entire town to speak with his sister for five minutes. Peaceful moment aside, the film also addresses Siv’s failures and regrets. All of the characters have complicated pasts.

The final deathbed scene is extremely powerful and I couldn’t help but think of my own grandparents while watching it. I think most people that have gone through similar experiences can recognize the realism in the dialogue and acting here. Writer/Director Marc Meyers is truly gifted.

I give Harvest an A-. It had memorable lines, scenes and characters. There are no weak links in the ensemble cast. Maybe there were a few familiar aspects to the story, the undocumented saucy Latina housekeeper perhaps, that veered a little close to cliché but the story overall was very sweet and thoughtful.

The Hairdresser Rock Star

Can a hairdresser change the world? It sounds like a stretch to suggest it, but the idea is the central premise in Vidal Sassoon: The Movie. I watched the documentary and can almost co-sign on Sassoon’s behalf. He was the Kobe Bryant of his profession, the greatest, most determined of his time.

I didn’t know who the man was before this movie and I think that is why the opening sequence was such a turn off for me. There he is, legendary Vidal Sassoon, looking like a baller at 80 years old, strutting across a bridge fashionable with his skinny trousers, leather jacket and scarf. He is shot in slow motion and in black and white while anonymous voices make hyperbolic statements about his career and legacy.

I wanted to hate on him right there, but I never got a chance. It turns out that Vidal Sassoon is the truth, a self-made man who worked hard to develop his own style and revolutionize his profession in the process. Basically, he changed the hairdressing game. He created new styles and methods, then he created the modern salon, then he created a salon school, then he created a visionary product line, and he hasn’t stopped since.

Along the way, he was also a brilliant spokesperson for his salons, products and industry. Vidal Sassoon: The Movie was actually produced by the head of a hair products company and former hair dresser, Michael Gordon. Gordon also produced a book about his hero to go with the movie. This might explain the obvious effort by the film to push Sassoon’s legend.

Still, the documentary has a lot of evidence to back up their boy, utilizing archival footage, period magazine spreads and newspaper articles, and present-day interviews. I especially liked watching footage from when Sassoon was at his creative peak in the 1960’s. Before him, women’s hair was always big and stiff from heavy product use. After him, it was short, free from product and shaped and angled asymmetrically to fit the face.

It was impressive to see Sassoon in action, selling his revolutionary ideas to the girls in his chair and chopping their long hair off. I am trying to sell my girlfriend on getting one of his creations right now, the five point cut, but I don’t know if that’s going to happen. The short hair styles look retro cool and European, and were featured in cool movies and magazines. I can understand the film’s assertion that his ideas influenced the culture of the day.

It was also nice that Sassoon himself took the time to share his story. Unlike greats in other professions, he is generous with the credit and secrets to his success. His voice sounds especially rich through the Living Room Theaters speakers. Sassoon has lived an epic life, from poor boy living in an orphanage, to serving as a messenger during World War II and as an enlisted soldier during the foundation of the state of Israel, to hairdresser rock star and business mogul.

Vidal Sassoon: The Movie is a great story and I give it a B+. It is a little biased, but produced very seriously and professionally.

The filmmakers were able to craft a complex story of Vidal Sassoon the man, provide historical context, and finally convince the viewer of his far-reaching impact. The photographs and footage were very strong. You can’t argue with the evidence in a closing segment, as the filmmakers provide photographs of models from Paris fashion week 2010 walking down a runway. They are rocking Sassoon’s five point cut, fresh and exciting as ever.

Everyday People

I have a great admiration for family men. I’m talking about daddies that handle their business, the ones that deserve the big piece of chicken. I don’t have a wife and children of my own, yet, but I imagine it is hard. In Every Day, a father struggles to maintain his family as he is tested by hardship after hardship.

Ned (Wolverine’s Liev Schreiber,) is a writer for a TV show that requires him to write incest and drug-fueled accidents into his plots. He is frustrated as his boss and co-workers push him toward deeper and deeper lows. There is no relief at home when Ned’s wife (Helen Hunt) agrees to take care of her dying father. Also, his eldest son is gay and wants to go to gay prom. Life is hectic to say the least.

It gets crazier when you add smoking hot actress Carla Gugino to the mix, as Ned’s new writing partner. You’ve seen her in shows like Entourage and you already know how sexy she is. Here, she is soaking wet in her black thong bikini, brainstorming scandalous turns of plot with Ned, as they float in her private pool. I’m not sure how many of us men would say no to those lips, Gugino is perfect as the sophisticated temptress.

The interaction between Ned and his teenage son is another highlight in the film. Schreiber is realistic in his uneasiness over his son’s sexuality. In one scene, he is worried about the message his son is sending older boys with his sleeveless shirt and tight jeans, and in the other he is consoling him after a bad night with a reassurance that he will find the boy of his dreams. I think these are very progressive scenes. They are also very sweet.

The father-in-law (played by Brian Dennehy) is one of the weaker characters in the film. I understand that his arrival drives the plot, but there is something about his deathbed alcoholic story that is very stale to me. Writer/Director Richard Levine could have been more subtle here, giving Dennehy’s character an original wrinkle or two.

I give Every Day a C+. It was well-written and acted, if not entirely fresh and original. It was also a little bit disconcerting. Life is hard and it makes me wonder if I will be able to man up and be deserving of the big piece of chicken someday.

Old School Cool in North by Northwest

The Living Room theaters show throwback films from time to time. A couple of weeks ago they had Casablanca, and right now they have North by Northwest. Premiering in 1959, North by Northwest is considered a classic. I saw the old-timey movie and liked it.

The film was directed by legendary filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, using a script by Ernest Lehmen. Spies selling American secrets have picked up carefree ad executive Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) who they have mistaken for a government agent on their tail. They try to murder him, then they frame him for murder, then they try to murder him again. If you’ve seen a thriller in the last 60 years, the plot is going to sound familiar to you. Along the way Thornhill meets a dangerous blonde (Eva Marie Saint) and uncovers the global conspiracy.

Some of the big scenes hold up well today. About halfway into the movie, an assassin tries to kill Thornhill, only he does it in the most ridiculous way possible, by stalking him in an open field with a biplane. The premise is completely stupid, but the shots are composed really well by Hitchcock. The director sells you on the fear coursing through Thornhill as he runs for his life and a plane gets larger and larger over his shoulder.

The special effects may have been cutting edge in those days, but are silly now. For car chases, the film uses stationary cars in front of projection screens, and when the chases end the collisions are low-speed and cause wimpy explosions. My favorite scene has nothing to do with special effects. Here, Hitchcock creates a sense of terror by utilizing a well tossed book of matches.

I’m taking a minute to acknowledge the coolness of Cary Grant. By today’s standards he is too old and too lean, but I don’t think people got big in those days. Grant is just a little bit taller, tanner and smoother than the other guys in the film. Dude wears one suit the entire movie, rocking the grey on grey. He makes it work and I want me one of those.

When he is seducing his blonde, Grant delivers all kinds of sexual innuendo that must have pushed the boundaries of decency back then. This is hot stuff, and set before free love and the 1960’s. The girl is saying all the right things and I’m thinking they are about to do nasty things in their train cabin, until, the dialogue suddenly whips around to marriage and the man sleeping on the floor. Ridiculous. I would have thrown that lady off the train right there for playing around too much.

“How does a girl like you grow up to be a girl like you?” Thornhill asks his blonde. Too funny, man. I’m going to try to drop that one next time I’m trying to seduce my blonde.

I have to give props to Hitchcock and his team for coming hard with something so polished and influential. I can see why it is considered a classic, mostly because the filmmaking is so bold for its time. Everything is big here, the musical score, the twists in the plot, the dialogue, the love scenes and the special effect scenes. Unfortunately, movies have evolved substantially since 1959. North by Northwest holds up, but isn’t very jaw-dropping by today’s standards. I give it a B-.

Sexytime in the Irish Hills?

I can identify with the characters in the film Nothing Personal. They are self-sufficient and solitary. One lives on a lonely island in Ireland, the other wanders around Europe like Forrest Gump. I can see pulling stunts like that. Personally, I plan on going Kerouac on everyone’s a-- for a couple of years someday.

Anne (Lotte Verbeek) is the wandering vagabond, scaring families by eating from garbage cans and truck drivers by faking insanity. She is almost feral. The film doesn’t fully explain her background, but she has abandoned her previous life. Anne finds Martin’s (Stephen Rea) house and begins to study him while camping out on his land.

At one point she breaks into his house and starts doing odd, child-like things to leave her scent on his possessions. When he shows interest in knowing her, she acts like a brat and wants to leave. Something tells her to stay. They make a food-for-work deal with a strict no intimacy clause.

The two eventually break through each other’s defenses. They spend days working side by side tending to the garden and moving dirt around, and arranging cute little fruit, bread and milk meals for each other. Maybe the film is trying to tell me something about the human experience?

I like how the film was shot, romanticizing the Irish hills and country, and the beautiful features and skin of Verbeek. The scenes are arranged into artsy close-ups, hands massaging sea weed into dirt or creeping closer and closer to each other, medium shots where both actors shine with nuanced expressions and body language, and overall shots of cold and lonely landscapes.

The story is character-based and not plot-based. There is a beginning, middle, and end, but I think writer/director Urszula Antoniak is encouraging viewers not to think too linearly, as flashes of text separate the film into chapters, but don’t exactly appear in familiar order.

The oddness of the characters and the small twists in the story make it a mostly enjoyable film. I don’t see mass market appeal for the story, though. It is too subtle and moves too slow. The central idea is that people need people, even though they may try to deny it by running or hiding themselves away.

I give Nothing Personal a C+. For me, the moral comes through a little too easy and clean in the story. I can appreciate the beautiful cinematography in the composition of shots, and the artful performances by the actors, but there seemed to be a spark missing from the film. I am going to be a harsh critic and blame it on tiny imperfections in the script.

Beast Mode

My dome just about exploded from watching Evangelion 2.0: You Can (Not) Advance. I thought I was immune to the anime bug from my experience last week watching the first film in the four film series. That film was less bold. I think this film is a more accurate representation of what anime fans love about the genre.

Like the first movie, this one revolves around the young pilots of massive government built super-robots, and their defense of the planet from supernatural beings called angels.

The animation is very slick here. The opening sequence establishes what is to come with the brilliant rendering of a new pilot and a new machine, or Eva. The technology that is imagined in the cockpit is similar to that imagined in movies like Avatar where pilots are hooked up to move naturally and feel the pain in the bodies they drive. It is rendered colorful, mystical, and very cool.

The skyline in the cities of the future is not static, but moving as whole buildings rise up and down from underground depending on the threat level. The ocean is not blue and full of life, but red and dead. There is a funny scene when the young Eva pilots visit an Aquarium that houses a tiny fraction of what used to be earth’s marine life. The gag involves the brutal decontamination procedure for all the attraction’s visitors.

The battle sequences are strong again in this film. I complained about the first film’s vision of angels as abstract geometric patterns, and here again, a big bad villain angel is revealed to take the form of a rainbow flower with petals that unfold and leave paths of destruction. Somehow, I am starting to understand the weirdness and prefer it. Who am I to question what planet devouring super-beings are supposed to look like?

After the flower angel is defeated, and after some decent attempts at crafting rounded characters with realistic flaws and desires, comes the big draw of the movie, the climactic final battle. I would describe it as a colorful videogame battle acid trip.

If you have ever gone berserk in competition or from passion, you know about beast mode. In the movie, there is a girl who pilots her robot into crazy town for the sake of a fight, and the government handlers called it transcending the limits of humanity. I call it going into beast mode. Come see me on the basketball court man, I’ll show you beast mode, haha.

Anyway, once beast mode doesn’t work for the girl and people start getting eaten up by monster angels, the hero of the film, ten year old Shinji, transforms into God Mode, or for NBA fans, Kobe vs Toronto 2006.

In God Mode, Shinji and his true love are the center of an apocalyptic tornado of pink and purple energy. Goofy Japanese pop music plays in the background (which I started to appreciate after a while.) Shinji is transcending the limits of physics with stuff floating around all menacingly, and everybody thinks the world is about to end.

At the center of the tornado are two little kids in love. This is how the film ends. The world is about to end and little Shinji is defiant and happy for it as long as he has his girl. I give Evangelion 2.0: You Can (Not) Advance an A-. I was geeked out over it, but I have to leave some room for the next movie to improve.

After leaving the theater with my jaw all wide, I found out that there is a secret scene after the credits roll. I suggest staying for it if you can. It sounds pretty awesome.