Movie Review: Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg (2008)

Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg (2008)

My Winnipeg is a sweet, beautiful, artsy film. It blends historical anecdotes with creative fantasy and tells the story of a man who is trying his hardest to escape his home town, but who is compelled to stay by an unarticulated, dreamy beauty that Winnipeg leeches from every pore. We are shown the destruction of Winnipeg Arena, once home to the troubled Jets NHL team, and the group of free-masons who sneak into city hall to perform a séance that incorporates ballet and dance. Archival footage is blended with animated and live-action recreations. Some sequences are fantastically absurd, such as the horses frozen in the Assiniboine River with their heads peaking from the ice, but others are more sensible. Even as a Winnipegger, I occasionally struggled to distinguish the truth from fiction, but I guess that's not the point.

Guy Maddin spends much of the film recreating childhood memories using his real mother and three actors to play his siblings. The real meaning behind this docu-fantasy is hidden here. Childhood is a magical, often traumatic time, and the magic and myth contained within memories rarely stands the test of time. Our childhood home is replaced by a restaurant and the locations we used to visit for play have lost their special meaning. And how often is it that we remember something exactly how it happened? Sometimes it is more beautiful, and certainly more interesting, to remember things with a little embellishment and flavour.

The great filmmaker, Werner Herzog, often speaks of the ecstatic truth: a truth that you can only uncover by blending fact and fiction. There is a truth, a beautiful truth, lurking in performance, in construction, and in the human heart. A truth that cannot exist by speaking alone, or by telling a story how it really happened. For a deeper truth we must look deeper into how we like to imagine the banal and why we find the fantasy so compelling.

The final verdict: Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg is a very personal film. It is delightful and hilarious. It explores myth, memories and storytelling, and that special attachment to our home town that will forever hold a special place in our heart and that can never be properly explained to outsiders, an attachment that will never let us truly leave.

Professor P

Movie Review: Up (2009) {part 2: the magic}

After all the praise that Up has received (from Taylor, myself, ever major movie reviewer, and basically ever other person who has seen it), a simple but nagging question still comes to mind: why go 3D? Pixar seems to have such a good thing going with their own personal style, so why throw a wrench into the gears of the animation progress. Why seemingly reduce a very powerful and provocative movie with a gimmick that reminds one of cheap thrills from campy movies of one’s childhood. The answer is quite simple: the 3D is no gimmick. Unbeknown to most, apparent leaps and bounds have been made in the realm of 3D projections and the head-aches, disorientation and other less appealing aspects of old-school 3D films are all but gone. In the end the 3D component of this film is not a gimmick but instead a tool used to enhance the story telling.

Up is not the first Pixar film to break a technological boundary in the name of animation. In many ways, each Pixar film has brought about amazing visual revolutions in animated storytelling and each revolution has been utilized not to wow, but instead to enhance the elements of the story in which we as humanbeings can best relate.

Toy Story started it all and opened the world to computer animation as a viable story telling method. Computers were finally able to create characters that moved with expression and detail and could mimic the natural expressions and body languages of humans even in non-human characters.

Monsters inc. then pushed computers in the field of fur creation and rendering and continued Pixar’s astounding work in creating characters, which while far from human still possess the human spark that makes them engaging. (This humanizing of the un-human is a continuing theme for Pixar films and is something that no other digital animation house has been able to approach with such care and nuance.)

Finding Nemo brought forth amazing advancements in translucence.

The Incredibles followed with new advancements in squash and stretch modeling and the first set of “human” protagonists to grace a Pixar film.

Ratatouille introduced an entirely new look to Pixar films: a cross between a watercolor and a pastel painting.




The animators of Wall-e took the look of Ratouille a step further and created a landscape that was desolate and yet hauntingly beautiful. They also raised their level of storytelling with a movie that is basically silent for the first hour.

Each movie for Pixar has represented a leap in technological ability and yet these new leaps have never led to missteps or mistakes, like so many other technological innovators (Windows Vista anyone…). Each new advancement has been added upon what had come before it. Never was a new technique, method or idea integrated just for the sake of its creation. It had to serve a purpose in the story. It had to enhance the character's ability to relate with the audince or create an even better world in which the audince could be drawn into.

Up - for the most part - follows the same paradigm of technological advancment.

I say, for the most part, because the 3D in Up isn't really crucial to the film. After all, unlike many of the other technological innovations from the previous Pixar films Up's 3D isn't a neccessary or even truely an important part of the storytelling. However, this is all really a mute point because as I mentioned before the 3D is never used a gimik. Objects are not selectively 3D; everything is given a place on the dimensional horizon. Objects don't fly towards the audience; they lie on a proper 3D plane and this is what makes Pixars use of 3D so amazing.
This is only speculation, as I have not seen the 2D version, but I have a feeling that even though this movie was designed from the ground up as a 3D entity that in it’s traditional 2D form the movie would still be just as an astounding masterpiece. Because the 3D version doesn't rely on making an audience feel like they have to dodge flying object, watching the 2D version shouldn't make a viewer feel like they are missing something important.

Perhaps the greatest praise that can be given to Pixar for the visual aspect of Up is how they handled the 3D. They utilized a very old technology and brought it back into the mainstream. They did it in a way that enhanced the film and yet would not damage it, even if the 3D was removed. No matter what advancement Pixar makes, they never seem to forget that it is the story that matters in the end and not some new technique or technology.

(One last little aside: a unique property of the 3D glasses was that they slightly dimmed the image that was being projected. This served to darken and slightly de-saturate the colours of the film. One can not help but wonder if the darker vibe of the movie would be slightly diminished in the 2D version or if the animators took this into account and made the 3D version more vibrant to account for the effect of the glasses.)

Movie Review: Up (2009) {part 1: the movie}

Up (2009)

Oh Disney… Disney, Disney, Disney, Disney, DISNEY!!!!!! You are truly God, you are the alpha and the omega, and we will all do as you will, no matter what you throw at us. It’s like we are Job, and you are endlessly testing us, yet we never break faith and will keep coming back. Indeed, after all the Hannah Montana, Jonas Bros, Shia LaBeouf, Disney Channel fam/sit-com pestilence that you bring us, I feel like you don’t care at all, and would rather have us suffer at the hands of the Adversary for your own amusement than pull us out of the quagmire. And then, just when I feel I can’t take anymore, just when I’ve almost given up all hope, just when I’m about to stop believing in the magic that kept me holding on since before I can remember (literally), you give us a single offering, and I come running back. While it may be only one, it’s something that absolutely levels everything else, like a fire through a dead forest or a volcanic eruption. I shouldn’t really have any doubts, but sometimes you make it so difficult. I realize that this has been your game for the last decade: while we suffer for the better part of a year, you still, in the end, deliver. And so, in 2009, you come through, and keep us with Up.

It would be incredibly difficult to do justice to this film’s quality and impact via text, so I will simply comment from a distance. In addition, the less you know about this film before seeing it, the better. Basically, directors Pete Docter & Bob Peterson have forged a masterpiece that both tugs on our heartstrings and fills our eyes with visual wonder. The geriatric protagonist Carl Fredricksen (voiced by the type casted Edward Asner) is one of the most touching, if not one of the most original heroes to ever grace a family movie. Throughout Up, Carl experiences loss, loneliness, heartache, betrayal, transition, sacrifice, revelation, and rebirth, which chalks up to some fairly developed themes for a supposed children’s movie; indeed, the title Up might appear somewhat ironic as it sometimes feels like the tagline should read, “Things can only go up from here, right? RIGHT?” In all honesty, Up might be Pixar’s darkest movie to date. Then again, Pixar has been trending this way for the past few years. 2004’s The Incredibles was a lot of fun, but it was also surprisingly violent for Pixar’s expected demographic and preached a sinister satire of superheroes in America (like a junior version of Watchmen (2009)). While Cars (2006) was a more traditional Pixar outing, 2007’s Ratatouille brought a more tender tone to the fold, focusing on characters that struggled to fit into their respective societies. Of course, nothing could compare to the watershed that was WALL·E (2008), the opus that made An Inconvenient Truth (2006) look like Dorf Goes Green! After experiencing what was arguably the best movie of 2008, I figured that there was no way Pixar could top or continue down that darker path, and while Up might not exactly top WALL·E, it certainly is a more than worthy follow-up that does, in fact, continue down that darker path. In actual fact, WALL·E and Up are very much kindred spirits, both focusing on perils and reconstruction, with WALL·E being the macro worldview and Up being the personal soul-scape. Together, they represent two of the most emotionally leveling family films in cinema, and also two of the best. That being said, after these last two offerings, it’s no wonder that Toy Story 3 (2010) is up next.

There is no doubt that the majority of the credit goes to Pixar, the division that seems to be Disney’s sole shining light as of late; however, Up is pure Disney magic in a classical sense. While the medium might be cutting edge, the storytelling is timeless, just like in Disney’s golden age triumphs, dark 80s gems, and renaissance 90s pinnacles. In addition, Pixar only continues to make better films within the Disney stables, and whether it’s between upholding a royal legacy or making bank in the family films department, Disney’s deeps pockets provide both financial security and safe haven for Pixar’s alchemy. In essence, Disney and Pixar need each other, and Up is a sound indication of that. Whatever dirty business the mouse is into these days, Up is cause enough to still trust him and his minions, because at the end of the day, it’s the story that counts, and that’s why DreamWorks’ Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) and its all-star cast will ultimately lose to a senior citizen.

4.5/5

McS

Movie Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

This movie really doesn’t deserve any of the digital space on the L&G board, but at the same time I feel it is my duty to report the goods, thick or thin, and that I should at least give a warning or an “I told you so.” In any case, this will be short and sour.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) is a terrible movie. That being said, I knew that going into it, but I still went in, and no doubt most people have done the same. It is truly a sad day in society when you feel you need to go see something you know will be bad, but that is the case here, and I am guilty. Of course we all know why we must see it: robots in disguise beating the slag out of each other. And if there is one minute redeeming factor about Revenge of the Fallen, it’s that there is plenty of that, much more than the first one. Such a prospect, therefore, would require us to see it on the big screen, as it’s really the only way to get the most out of such an action plus/story minus flick. Still, the action is obviously excessive and difficult to savor because it feels like the camera/s are/were sucked up into the vortex of a tornado (i.e. that “watching a blender screaming at you” description), but that is far superior to the absolute negative story that is or is not there (I don’t really know). You know that Michael Bay is behind the camera when anything that doesn’t explode is denied seating at the TLC table. It almost feels like every “story” shot was only given one take, which would probably make sense considering the rush to get from one action sequence to the next; then again, I have no vested interest in the human characters anyway, so bravo Mr. Bay. As much as I would happily rail on Don Juan LaBeouf any day of my years of caring, he is the only one who actually tries in this movie, where as Meghan Fox looks like she’d rather be doing lines off her own body. All in all, it’s pretty painful to watch, I’m just glad I already had my appendectomy (thanks a lot Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)).

So in the end, I was one of the millions who shelled out some hard-earned cash to experience assault and battery on my visual cortex, but I felt like I almost had to do it. I guess hegemony has finally found its man and method; congratulations Michael Bay, you are the end of western civilization.

N/A / 5

McS

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker (2009)

The Hurt Locker (2009)

I have been waiting a long time to see The Hurt Locker. I remember getting excited when I noticed the new credit on Kathryn Bigelow's IMDb director's profile three years ago. It was the first movie she would direct after a devastatingly long break following K-19: The Widowmaker (2002). I honestly thought she had retired, but thank God she didn't because The Hurt Locker is her masterpiece, the best film of her career. It is also the best movie I have seen this year and deserves accolades for every aspect of its production, although I doubt it will receive anything outside of the festival circuit. The bottom line is: see this movie. Now.

Kathryn Bigelow is one of the biggest female directors...well...ever. There's not a lot of them, unfortunately. She is also one of my favourite filmmakers and I follow her career with anticipation. It is ironic that the most successful female director chooses to make movies about men. All of her films have decidedly masculine themes and most feature male-heavy casts. The Hurt Locker is the epitome of this, highlighting the final days of the tour of three male soldiers in Iraq, part of an elite bomb disposal unit. It is a job catered to adrenaline junkies seeking the ultimate rush. I hope I am not out-of-line when I suggest that this is most prominently a masculine personality. So yes, The Hurt Locker is about men doing men's work; yet, the film is critical of its protagonists. They make careless mistakes and are often too weak or too strong at both appropriate and inappropriate moments. We get a very personal glimpse at men dealing with a stress that is more than any human being should be subjected to.

There are no clichés in The Hurt Locker, no motivational speeches, or war-is-bad epithets. It barely even qualifies as a war movie. The Hurt Locker follows its characters intimately, but contemporarily. We get brief exerts of who they are in dialogue, but there is no time here for romantic subplots or extraneous story arcs. Every second is calculated like a ticking bomb and every spoken word counts for something important. I like these kinds of movies where everything is purposeful and nothing is wasted. Every piece of the film is meticulously crafted, but three elements make this movie a masterpiece.

The first element is the location. The Hurt Locker was filmed in Jordan: pretty much as close as a film crew can safely get to Iraq while still maintaining a degree of safety. This affords the film an incredible amount of authenticity, especially because so much of the film occurs outdoors in battle-worn streets and barren deserts. The camera catches these locations perfectly and we are never lost.

At the heart of the movie is Staff Sergeant William James and the actor who plays the part, Jeremy Renner. He is an interesting character because he begins the film as the typical reckless, macho hero who enters every situation with confident arrogance. You expect him to make a mistake and learn a lesson. Would it surprise you to learn that his character arc travels in the opposite direction? This male figure, who we are all familiar with, soon becomes deeply complicated and his motivations remain somewhat ambiguous even by the end of the movie. Someone I was speaking to about the movie eloquently described James as a character who begins the movie having already come to the end of a significant character development and we are left to figure out how he got there. But don't expect him to change much during The Hurt Locker. An opening quote proposes "War is a drug." Disarming bombs is the thing James does best, the thing that gives him the most satisfaction and greatest thrill. Adrenaline is the drug and his job provides the vehicle.

By the end of the film, when we finally have James figured out, we realize that we have witnessed a career-making performance from Jeremy Renner. His talent is not wasted on recitations of patriotic verse or motivational proverbs, but instead we watch his skill in the subtle complexities of the human face. His performance is visceral, we feel it more than we hear it.

Suspense is the final element. The "shaky" camera is used prominently in this movie, but not because Bigelow wants to use its unsteady eye to heighten tension. Instead, the "shaky" camera is simply an unavoidable side-effect of the hand-held camera which is used to get closer to the action and to observe a deeper perspective of the scene. The shots last longer than 2 seconds, which is unique for modern action films, but Bigelow wants to earn her suspense with skill and storytelling, not artificial camera movements and lightning-fast edits. Hitchcock would be proud. The Hurt Locker is one of the most intense movies I have ever seen and it accomplishes this without false alarms or predictability. I expect that, like me, you will leave the film exhausted from the action, but there is still much to think about.

I find it offensive that a juvenile mess like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can make hundreds of millions of dollars while The Hurt Locker has barely made over 2 million. It is an independent film, and must overcome obstacles that don't exist for big studio pictures like advertising and distribution. Still, I asked someone else how much he thought The Hurt Locker cost. The first guess was $125 million. The truth: $11 million. And for $11 million Kathryn Bigelow has shot a far smarter, far more entertaining movie than any other action film this year. Let this be a lesson to the bloated system of excess that is Hollywood: a community that doesn't blink before paying millions for a script that could have been written by a 10-year old. Also, Wikipedia tells me that The Hurt Locker earned more money per screen (4 screens total) on its opening weekend when it competed with the release of Transformers. That's cool.

The final verdict: The Hurt Locker is one of those movies that is truly great on every level, one of those unmissable, required-viewing, soul-shaking movies. This is Kathryn Bigelow's masterpiece: a culmination of all the themes, styles, and questions that attracted her to cinema in the first place.

Professor P

Movie Review: Brüno (2009)

Brüno

Wow. Where to begin? Well first off, if you are concerned that the film may be a little too provocative for you, the good news is that the first 5 minutes of the film provide a strong litmus test to gauge your tolerance for extremely vulgar, tasteless humour. Brüno is hysterically funny, if not as consistently as Borat (2006), but the wit and satire that was so rich in Sacha Baren Cohen's last outing has been limited to only a handful of brilliant moments. The rest is penis humour. Literally.

Brüno is really just a handful of loosely connected skits and interviews. The plot here is even more shamelessly strung together than it was in Borat, and, sadly, the majority of these artificial plot-points have carried over. There is the tumultuous relationship between Brüno and his assistant/producer. There is the introduction of the movie set in the lead character's home town. Even some of the jokes are recycled: you will observe nude wrestling matches, awkward confrontations with unsuspecting hotel staff, and various training regimes aimed at altering Brüno's nature.

The best and funniest moments come when Brüno focuses on satire of celebrity culture. There are some brilliant bits when Brüno adopts an African baby and flaunts him trying to achieve fame. There is a brief interview with Paula Abdul which would elicit sympathy for the ignorant prescription-painkiller-addict if she wasn't so self-destructively stupid. Some moments cease to be funny when the reality becomes a little too scary, such as when Brüno holds auditions for a baby photo-shoot where a mother agrees to put her 30-pound child on a diet to lose 10 pounds. And watch out for an incredible interview with Harrison Ford.

For all the laughs, Brüno has an equal number of misses. Some sequences are so juvenile, it is hard to imagine anyone over 14 finding humour. This is peculiar because the movie is rated R and earns it to the extreme. Brüno attends a swingers party and walks around distracting couples engaged in un-simulated sex. It's not funny and is never purposeful enough to earn its deep awkwardness. And it's easy to see why this film received an NC-17 when it was first submitted to the ratings board. A blur here, a black rectangle there, but for God's sake don't cut out the talking penis: that shit's funny.

The final verdict: Brüno is a surprisingly hilarious film despite a titular character that was never as smart or as funny as Borat. As long as you are not expecting the same quality of social satire of the film's predecessor, you will enjoy the mostly tasteless shock humour of Brüno.

Professor P

Movie Review: Moon (2009)

Moon (2009)

Moon opens with a simple but profound question: where are we now? We see a very brief glimpse of an Earth where we may have finally found a clean fuel source, before we land on the moon where the rest of the movie takes place. This fuel is called helium 3 and it is mined on the dark side of the moon by large dust-spewing machines. The whole operation is manned by a single astronaut on a three-year contract named Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell). Moon is a very introspective film, using this one-man-in-isolation microcosm to represent much larger themes about where our society may be headed. Like all good science-fiction, Moon is really about contemporary issues, even though it is set in the future. By the end of the film the question has shifted from "where are we now?" to "what are we now?"

You will find yourself thinking about 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) during the first few minutes of Moon, especially after meeting HAL 9000's distant cousin, GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey), but the film soon becomes more than an homage, revealing a tantalizingly original plot that will keep you on the edge of your seat right up to the end. The concept is so brilliant that the execution must inevitably suffer. I was entertained and satisfied, but the film set up such a unique scenario that I couldn't help but want and expect something more than what was delivered.

Moon is a film that acknowledges its audience's intelligence. It has many mysteries and although a lesser film might convey these revelations as shocks or surprises, filmmakers trust that you likely see where their story is headed, opting to reveal the answers as eventualities. This gives us more time to think about what these revelations mean in the context of the film's characters and themes, instead of constantly being distracted by secreted red-herrings. I like this format. It is conducive to a slower place, but the contemplation is necessary to fully enjoy the experience. This is hard science-fiction, after all, you are supposed to think.

Since Moon is pretty much a one-man show, its success is predicated upon the talents of the lead actor. Sam Rockwell delivers and then some. He carries just the right emotional weight where necessary, and provides wit and light-heartedness to brighten scenes that could have been plainer. I could say so much more, but I don't want to ruin some of the film's best moments. Simply said: Rockwell gives a tremendously endearing performance and I sincerely hope he is recognized when the time comes.

I must also say something about the music here after having some spiteful criticism of 12 Rounds' score. In a film that undoubtedly had a measly fraction of the budget of 12 Rounds, an underpaid composer delivered a phenomenally better soundtrack that is subtle yet atmospheric. It works. And you know why? Because someone actually cared about this film and man does it feel good to watch a film that filmmakers clearly cared about. It's a rare event these days.

One more element that must be mentioned are the special effects. Yes this is a low-budget film, but the choice to use practical effects was an extremely smart one. Sure, some of the sets look only a few steps above Mystery Science Theatre 3000, but the effect is reliable and effective. Moon was shot during the writer's strike so director Duncan Jones was able to lure top-industry visual effects artists to work on the project because...well...they would take anything they could get.

The final verdict: Moon is a smart and satisfying low-budget science-fiction film that teeters on greatness but falls just short of fulfilling its incredible promise. This is a fantastic film, though, with a brilliant concept and an Oscar-worthy lead performance. Moon is the best sci-fi movie I have seen this year.

Professor P

Movie Review: 12 Rounds (2009)

12 Rounds (2009)

First of all, the version I watched was the unrated or "Extreme" version on one of those DVDs that pretends to exude more value by advertising multiple cuts. The "Extreme" version is simply a PG-13 movie with 3 extra swears thrown in, most of them extraneous.

Now onto the film.

Renny Harlin is a director who found some fame making `80s action blockbusters in the `90s like Die Hard 2 (1990), The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996), Deep Blue Sea (1999) and one of the greatest action movies of all time: Cliffhanger (1993). He also bankrupted a studio with the stinker Cutthroat Island (1995). Lately, the demand for his style of filmmaking has waned and he has struggled to find a new niche. All the same, I follow his career with interest due to his talent for filming terrific action sequences in even the worst movies, the latest of which is 12 Rounds. So how does this WWE financed turd fit into Harlin`s canon? Unfortunately, somewhere near the bottom. It does feature some dependably exciting action sequences, but most are difficult to sit through because of exhausted action-scenario contrivances and other elements that come off as being way too convenient.

This is a Saw movie done in the action-film format.

The main character is cowboy police officer named Danny and, yes, somebody does sing "Danny Boy" in this film: this is indicative of the high quality of wit that 12 Rounds strives for. Danny (John Cena) must thwart a revenge plot by a pissed off criminal mastermind who has kidnapped Danny's girlfriend and forces the unassuming detective to pass a series of death-defying tests to win her back. It's a simple structure and one that, if executed carefully, could deliver an action-packed adrenaline rush that warms the soul. Brevity, however, is not the film's strongpoint. Even the action scenes carry on too long and most are boring because we have seen it all before. It's like that stupid highway fight scene in the second Matrix movie that just wouldn't end despite the fact that you stopped caring after the first minute. But I digress.

The villain is apparently an Irishman - although his accent flounders in and out so I think it might be a trick - who is supposedly the most brilliant criminal mastermind on the planet. He inevitably outsmarts a pair of ineffectual FBI agents who possess the social maturity of eighth graders. They fight and bicker, hold each other up against walls as they mutter threats, and display an unprofessional degree of competition about who is most often right. Take the cliché cops from Die Hard (1988) and add two cups of juvenile.

The music would be forgettable if it didn't standout so painfully. The music is so bad I wouldn't be surprised if filmmakers entrusted the soundtrack to a group of teenagers who play in their garage and were paid in pizza.

My favourite part is at the end where the villain is shooting Danny from a helicopter. Danny takes the leap of faith, grabbing onto the helicopter and scrambling inside. Danny's girlfriend, Molly, dependably warns, "Watch out Danny, he's got a gun." Yeah. A reminder was definitely necessary.

The final verdict: a horrendously written action film made barely watchable because of a handful of predictable-but-fun action sequences. Still, I can't wait to see what Harlin does next.

Professor P

Editing of the future

I thought you should all check this out.
Click Here
Pretty amazing technology!

Movie Review: The Girlfriend Experience

Forgive me if this review is a bit different from the norm. I’m going to be approaching this movie from two seemingly unrelated sides. Firstly, a review of the movie it self: the direction, story, acting and such. Then, I’m going to talk about the camera that was used for filming. Normally in reviews the camera that was used is not mentioned, because no one really cares. The use of an Imax camera in the Dark Knight is about the only recent exception I can think of. So then why am I going to bother writing a review in which I’m going to talk in depth about the camera? Because it was filmed on the Red One (…more on that later).

Firstly, the movie itself. The Girlfriend Experience tells the story of high-class escort, who offers a more encompassing girl-friend experience for her clients. For a very high price, she not only provides the usual hooker type activities, but also provides services that are more akin to that of a girlfriend; someone to have dinner and watch a movie with; someone to wake up beside and have breakfast with in the morning. Unlike most prostitutes, escorts, and hookers (I presume) she also has a committed boyfriend who is fully aware of her career. It is not hard to guess where the conflict will arise.

Like many of Steven Soderbergh’s movies, this film has a hook. The escort is played by an actual adult film star: Sasha Grey. In a normal Hollywood film, this would mean nudity and graphic sex, but here Soderbergh attempts to keep it as PG as a film about escorts can be. Since I know you are all wondering, yes there is nudity, but it’s brief and shadowed and as such only got a 14A rating here in Canada. This role really did not demand an actress who was willing to go naked, as the one scene really only served as a teaser and nothing more. Cutting the scene would have had no negative effect on the film.

In what has become a standard art-house tradition, the film is told in a non-linear format, in which the audience is able to watch small parts of the characters lives. Thankfully Soderbergh chooses to use a conflict to move the story forward. While Sasha Gray provides a girlfriend experience to her clients, her relationship with her actual boyfriend is falling apart. He, while accepting of her job, is seeking the experience she gives to the other people in her life. And so, we the audience watches as the conflict arises, grows and eventually reaches its climax.
It is an interesting story, but the jumping around of the timeline only dampens and confuses an otherwise simple plot. Acting, is sparse, bare and for lack of a better word, raw. Sasha Grey is surprisingly good, if a little bit flat in her delivery. However, most of the actors deliver their lines in a rather flat indie-style form and so she fits right in. There is no major dramatics here. The music is limited to a few moments and most of the times it ends up being didactic as well. The few sections of music that are not created on screen are reminiscent of a simplified Friday Night Lights soundtrack.

Visually, Soderbergh chooses to frame his shots in a fashion similar to Ocean’s 11-13 but more exaggerated. Non-traditional angles, lingering shots, focus pulls, deliberate under and over exposures and a moody and dark pallet, make up a majority of the film. It is gritty and the focus is rarely tact sharp. Visually it looks very good and if I hadn’t of known better I would have sworn it was film on 16 or 35mm film. However, I do know better and it wasn’t shot on film. It was filmed on the digital Red One camera.

Anyone who has been around me for the last 2 months as heard me talk about this camera. So for those of you reading this, my apologies for continuing to go on and on about it. But for me it is just something really amazing. For those who haven’t heard of this camera or can’t possible understand why I would bother to take the time to explain what makes this camera unique, a quick recap.

Jim Jannard, who is a majority shareholder in Oakley and was their chairman for over 25 years, is a long time sports and wildlife photographer and videographer. Over many years he amassed a very large collection of cameras and equipment (including a very rare and extremely expensive Canon 1200mm zoom lens). Over those years, he constantly searched for the perfect camera. He wanted a camera that could produce a digital image that was equal or better to 35mm film all within a compact and sturdy camera body. All the available digital cameras for videographer were extremely expensive and didn’t provide him with the image quality or portability he was looking for.

After leaving the management of Oakley he started a new company, in which his goal was to create this dream camera. In the process of making this camera he also added new ideas to its construction such as a modular design. This meant the camera could be stripped down to the bare bones for sports photography or it could be built up with extra parts for use in full productions. Just over a year ago, his company released the first version of this camera: the Red One

And so you have the history of Red. But that is really only part of the story behind what makes the Red One Camera unique. Firstly, the price and specs of the camera are astonishing. For $17,500 you get a camera body (no lenses or other necessary equipment) that is capable of creating a 4k image (4k stands for 4000 lines of resolution). By comparison, a 1080p High Definition TV is just under 2k in resolution. As well, 35mm film negatives are often digitally scanned at 2k or 3k resolutions. Not only is the camera capable of a much higher resolution than the famed digital Thomson Viper, but it also is about 1/5 of the cost and provides footage that is in a raw format. Shooting raw footage allows for colour, exposure and white balancing corrections in post that rival, and usually surpasses what can be done with regular film. As well, the sensor that is used to produce the image is just slightly smaller than a 35mm film strip (The Viper’s sensor is 2/3’ and an Panasonic HVX’s sensors are 1/3’), so the image has a look very similar to regular film (in other words the camera is capable of producing a depth of field almost identical to a regular film camera). Add to all of this that the camera is also capable of doing multiple frame rates between 1 and 100 fps and you have a very powerful machine.

Even with all of that, there is still more about the Red company that makes it unique. The company has been run in an open format, meaning that they would let their potential clients know what was going on in terms of camera development. They started with a plan on what they wanted the camera to be able to do and then told the world about it. Professionals and amateurs alike gave their feedback and the company adjusted. They added features and ideas from the community to help make the camera even better. They were uniquely honest and forthright when issues or changes arose (Their motto became, “Specifications, prices and delivery dates are subject to change. Count on it.”). Jim himself often posts on the companies community forum, answering questions or posting information he believes that the community would find interesting. Pretty amazing when you consider he is worth an estimated $3 billion. (When was the last time Bill Gates posted answers to your questions on the microsoft help forum?)

So you can see that a very unique company created a unique and powerful camera, which attracted the attention of not only the amateur but the professional as well. Early supporters of the company included Peter Jackson [pictured right with one of his many Red Ones], who shot a WWI short with the first two prototype cameras to prove how amazing the new technology was. He is now shooting his big budget WWII movie Dam Busters with them) Those first two cameras were so basic that all that functioned on them was the power and record buttons. From that point on the camera has taken off. It is now used exclusively on filming for several TV shows, including Southland and Vancouver’s-own Sanctuary. Soderbergh first used the camera for his 2 part 6-hour biopic Che. As well, Knowing exclusively used the camera as does the upcoming film Gamer. IMDB lists well over 100 productions to date that have or are currently using the camera in some fashion on their sets.

So now you know about the camera, the question is, how does the footage, for The Girl Friend Experience look when it is being projected in an actual cinema? Pretty dam good. The blacks are actually black and not some dark shade of grey as is typical with most digital cameras. There is no visible clipping, another standard with digital video compression. The colours are strong and clear and high contrast shots don’t seems to be an issue at all. There are moments when the action doesn’t appear completely sharp, however I think this has more to due with Soderburgh’s vision and his choice of lenses than the camera it self. Especially important was the lack of the digital look that non-film cameras tend to produce. Through out the entire film, only one scene towards the end had that slight digital feel and in comparison to other digital films it was hardly noticeable.

All in all, it was really exciting to see footage from my dream camera up on screen and looking amazing. What makes all of this even more exciting is that Red is currently working on a modular and easily upgradable 3k resolution camera that they hope to sell for under $4000. Now, that is revolutionary.

Album Review: The Verve Pipe - 85 on 31 (1997)

The Verve Pipe - 85 on 31 (1997)

A promo album is always a tricky, if not a questionable concept for a band, especially since it usually is never the band’s decision. Functioning as true promotional material (like it should), the promo album hams it up to the nth degree, as if the band or artist it’s representing is the only band or artist that matters; of course, due to its promotional nature, the album cannot be legally sold, acting only as a potential catalyst should this release make it to the right eyes and ears. While the advent of internet advertising and distribution has pretty much rendered this promotional tactic obsolete in the 2000s, the promo album seemed fairly prevalent in the 90s. As schlocky as it might be to have something like that represent you, a dedicated promo album is a good sign that you’re doing well in the eyes of your record company, meaning that you are most likely doing well on the charts. And for a very brief period in the mid 1990s, this was the case for The Verve Pipe. With the literal explosion of their song “The Freshmen” (the 90s rock ballad to end all 90s rock ballads) and subsequent platinum performance of the 1996 album Villains, The Verve Pipe were the apparent toast of RCA, confirmed in no small way by their very own promo album, 85 on 31 (1997). And while Verve Pipe fans might have been thinking that Christmas came early in 1997, it’s more like Halloween came early as this album is full of tricks and treats.

At thirteen tracks, 85 on 31 is a surprisingly generous promo collection for a band that at the time had only one major label album to their name; however, with one view at the track listing, a few tricks are apparent, and with one listen there are a few more. Still, this is a promo collection, so it really shouldn’t be a surprise that nine out of the thirteen tracks derive from Villains. To the credit of 85 on 31, none of the big singles from Villains are presented in their single or album formats, but instead are remixes, demos, acoustic versions, and/or live cuts. Included on 85 on 31, interestingly enough, are four of the best album tracks on Villains in their album versions; nice, but what’s the point? Out of the remaining four songs, two are excellent live cuts from the band’s excellent indie release Pop Smear (1993), and two are covers. Throughout this happily dynamic hodgepodge of music there are several gems (or treats if you will) to be found. The live version of “Penny Is Poison” displays the band’s flawless live chops via one of their best songs, while the acoustic arrangement of “Cup of Tea” turns one of their heaviest tunes upside-down, in a good way, and gives an intriguing insight into the band’s more melodic roots and accomplished arranging skills. The real reward here, however, is the studio cover of XTC’s “Blue Beret,” as you would be hard pressed to find it anywhere else. The live versions of the Pop Smear songs “Spoonful of Sugar” and “Victoria” are also fantastic, proving that they are certainly worthy of their major label recognition. Much of the rest of the album is fine, but nothing otherworldly; however, their live cover of The Beatles’ “Strawberry Fields Forever” is probably the worst thing The Verve Pipe has ever done. Clearly they are caught up by the post-grunge movement (the flavor of Villains), but it just doesn’t work when you beat a song like that to the ground with loud and heavy noise. The song is about as enjoyable as an eternal nosebleed and it’s probably the worst Beatles’ cover I’ve heard outside of the blasphemous Across the Universe (2007). Aside from this very unfortunate tragedy, 85 on 31 is pretty solid, even with its non-necessities.

There’s no doubt that 85 on 31 is essential for true fans of the band, but it’s difficult to recommend this to those on the borderline, as this album will likely confuse them. The thing to keep in mind is that it’s not a b-sides/rarities release, but a promo album that happens to have b-sides and rarities; no one was suppose to buy 85 on 31, they were just meant to listen and pass it on. If anything, 85 on 31 just gives credence to the Villains album (its justification of being a 90s alt rock classic), which was definitely the intention. All in all, it’s obvious that RCA was throwing quite a bit of support toward the band, and it would be suicide to deny. There’s nothing wrong will a little corporate excess for a band that truly deserves some, because all too often the worthy are ignored. Fortunately for The Verve Pipe, with 85 on 31, justice is served.

3/5

"LET ME TAKE YOU DOOOOOWWWWWNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!! / 'CAUSE I'M GOING TOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

McS