Robot Chicken, Season Four

Newest review of this absurd animated show on Chud.com

Rescue Me: Season Five, Volume Two

The newest review for Chud.com is now live.

The Messenger - "Recieved"

Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
Directed by Oren Moverman

The opening shot of The Messenger isn’t that important. In fact, there is hardly a sole image that may sit in your mind when looking back at the film. But man, there will be a feeling. And it will stay with you for a long time. Staff Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) is recovering from injuries he sustained in Iraq including a scarred eye and a slightly gimpy leg. For the last three months before he is released from the Army, he has been assigned casualty notification duty, to inform next of kin that their family member has died in service. His new partner, Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) is a tough man assigned to how him the ropes in what is often a terribly stressful job. They must stick to the script, be clear and precise about the death of the individual, and get the news to the family before they could find out from some news outlet or alternative source.

Part of the trauma of the position is that they are representing the U.S. Armed Forces, and as such must follow a protocol to not touch or get emotionally involved with the next of kin. They cannot inform anyone but the listed next of kin. They never know how someone will react to the news, and the film shows a variety of the kinds of things people go through when being informed of such disheartening information. Sometimes it is a slap to the face of the officer, sometimes it is being spat at. Sometimes a person will become sick to their stomach. All of these possibilities must be accounted for and expected, and that’s why it is so odd when Stone and Montgomery inform a woman named Olivia (Samantha Morton) of her husband’s death and she reacts with certain nonchalance.

Olivia and her son become a sort of obsession for Montgomery. But despite the synopsis or the advertising, the film is hardly about his relationship with her or the fact that his trying to start a forbidden relationship with a widow he recently informed. Above all else, this is an excellent account of how war is still very much a battle even when you are “home”. Stone and Montgomery reflect this throughout, and the ways they handle the stresses therein are the real lynchpin of it all.

Foster plays Montgomery as a sort of everyman. This could be any soldier’s story, and the location that the film takes place in is never defined - a sort of general America. This is a key component of the film, because although we are drawn to the extremely dynamic performances on the screen by Foster and Harrelson, we are so enamored because they present themselves not as actors but as people. Foster is sort of quiet through the opening scenes of the film (for good reason) but I hung on his every word because I was curious whether Montgomery was being portrayed as a stereotypical movie soldier farm boy or with some sort of southern accent. In not going this route and giving him a flat Middle American voice, the fact that this could be any soldier’s story is furthered in a subtle but relevant way. Montgomery has anger issues, problems with abandonment, probably drinks too much, and general frustrations that plague a man who has seen the worst the world has to offer in war. Yet he is intelligent, does his job, and sometimes needs to just blow off some steam. The same can be said of Harrelson’s Stone (though he does natively have a southern accent), who is similarly great in his essential supporting role which has been nominated for a Golden Globe award.

One scene portrays a soldier who is having a welcome home party in a bar, and we see it all through Montgomery’s eyes. Similarly, the first time that he and Stone go to report a death in the family, it would have been just as easy to focus the camera on the tragedy- the wild outburst of tears and crippling pain on the faces of the next of kin. But instead the camera stays steadily on the stern and unchanging face of Montgomery who is clearly going through a baptism of sorts. It is only once he has become comfortable in the mission that the camera loosens up a bit and focuses on the mourners more. This was possibly the wisest camera choice in the whole film, next to a scene of Montgomery and Olivia in her kitchen that plays out in one long take.

Sound also has a large presence in the film, arguably more than the visuals. The music that Montgomery (or Stone) listens to is never mentioned, save a neighbor yelling to turn it down. But it is a great decision to have it be a constant stream of hard-rock, all of which seems slightly behind the times. The general sound design in the film often accentuates the mood, sometimes to add a small moment of anticipation or suspense as we wait for the visuals to catch up to what we are hearing. A voice, an approaching person, something unexpected, we often hear these things before it steps on screen. Perhaps this is a subtle allusion to Montgomery’s own eye trauma. If so, it is brilliantly conceived and executed, as it never grabs your attention unless you pick up on it.

Director Owen Moverman and his co-writer Alessandro Camos have brought an intellect to the post-war experience. Being Israeli, Moverman’s own experiences as a paratrooper must have contributed to this understanding. Living in a country where everyone you know has served in the military, you see all the forms people can take after the fact. Yet, this film has very distinctly American details- a scene where Stone and Montgomery sing “Home on the Range”, for instance (which subsequently Willie Nelson plays over the end credits). The fact that neither Moverman nor Camos, who is Italian, are American-born matters as they are evidently wise observers of American life. Just as the Montgomery is the everyman and the setting is anywhere, the experiences of loss and finding a balance are universal.


****1/2 Four and a half stars – Definitely see this film

The Messenger is still playing in limited release. For a list of where it may be playing near you, see the list on this site or check your local listings.

Sugar - "Baseball Uncoated"

Check out my newest DVD review for Chud.com!


**** Four Stars - Definitely see this film

Sugar is available now on DVD and Blu-ray Disc

Black Dynamite - “Black Gold”

Screenplay by Michael Jai White & Byron Minns & Scott Sanders
Directed by Scott Sanders

Black Dynamite is hilarious. Anything you've heard about any other movie being the funniest film of 2009 is pure lies. It's a little bit Enter the Dragon and a little bit Shaft by way of something like Young Frankenstein, where the films being made fun of are both shown respect and ripped to shreds. It is the mid-1970's and Black Dynamite (Michael Jai White) is a former CIA operative and Vietnam veteran who just wants his streets cleaned up. For too long 'the man' has been pushing drugs and guns on his people (including orphans!) and to end it, he'll go to any lengths necessary. This of course means shooting a whole bunch of people (in amazingly fake ways) and using kung fu (at which he has no equal). Needless to say, the plot hardly matters but it is refreshing to find an absurdist comedy that doesn't just ignore plot, but uses it as a tool for comedy.

Where films like Undercover Brother and Kung Pow: Enter the Fist failed in capturing a mix of humor and the blaxsploitation / kung fu cinema style, this one succeeds. It is the best period-parody film since 2001's Wet Hot American Summer. When Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez made their 2007 Grindhouse project they focused so much on the scratches and lost reels of film that they lost what made those films fun- bad acting and genuine errors from filmmakers just trying to make the best film they can with the budget they have. 'Dynamite' understands this and knows how to let the joke be the sincere attempt at greatness. One scene which has the only boom-mic in shot joke in the film succeeds because of the actor's uncertainty whether to continue after it hits his afro. Within a beat he looks around and then gets back in character and delivers the scene. It's a quick moment and is relatively subtle as far as boom-mic jokes go making that much funnier.

Cameos abound in the film; Arsenio Hall, Cedric Yarborough, Richard Edson and Brian McKnight all make appearances. Forgotten comedian Tommy Davidson also has a role in the film as “Creamed Corn”, a pimp who assists Dynamite. Davidson may be the weak link in the bunch, but each is obviously enjoying their chance to chew scenery and make a dedication to the films they (probably) grew up watching. Everyone involved was clearly approaching the film from a place of love, especially Jai White, who carries the film. He is clearly following the lesson of original blaxsploitation filmmakers like Melvin Van Peebles that if you want to make a movie you just make the damn movie. If one was not in on the joke, they could take the film as a serious attempt at this type of cinema.

The Kentucky Fried Movie may have been first in parodying this entire genre of film, but Black Dynamite has become a welcome addition. The movie actually includes the line “First Lady, I'm sorry I pimp slapped you into that china cabinet” and a shootout in a donut shop. A few people have talked of how the joke stretches a bit long and that the film has effectively outstayed its welcome by the time Black Dynamite leaves Kung Fu Island. But I would say the joke going further is necessary to truly capture the laborious experience of watching one of these films. It is at this point that the film does have it's one “out of character” effects shot, but I'm willing to forgive it for the ridiculous way they cheat their filming locations in the final sequence and the final battle that takes place afterward.

This reviewer is a tough sell for comedies- a smirk or chuckle one will normally get out of me. Here there was no shortage of genuinely laughing out loud. To ruin the many gags (often as subtle as a certain look or line delivery) would be a sin so let's leave it at “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and Black Dynamite are a double feature made in heaven”. The rewatchability of the latter may even come close to the former. For fans of both Bruce Lee and silly.


**** Four Stars - Definitely see this film

Black Dynamite will be released on DVD and Blu-ray disc on February 16th, 2010.

Inglourious Basterds - "Who's The Bastard?"

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino


Inglourious Basterds was not what I expected. Walking into the film, I was expecting a film (as advertised) about a group of rag tag Jewish American soldiers, hacking their way through Germany under the leadership of Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). In truth, they play only a small part in the film. In fact, I would suggest that despite referring to themselves as such, they aren't even really the inglorious bastards of the film. That award belongs to Christophe Waltz's Col. Hans Landa, who rules every scene he is in with a charismatic fist. One could also make the case that the title refers to every central character of the film, who as much as I hate to admit it, is portrayed as both inglorious and bastardly at times.

The Jew who truly attacks the Nazis is Shosanna Dreyfuss (Melanie Laurent), a Jewish survivor of an attack in France, and now owner of a movie theater in Paris under the name Emmanuelle Mimieux. The Nazi war hero and film fan Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) is enamored with her and arranges to have the film premiere of Joseph Goebbel's next “masterpiece”at her theater. Shosanna decides that she will destroy the theater and everyone inside or die trying. It's hard to say who the true protagonist of the film is- Raine, Landa or Dreyfuss. But Shosanna certainly takes center stage for conceiving of the plot that the Allied forces then involve themselves (and specifically the Basterds) in that they dub “Project Kino”. The problem here is that we never see any indication of Shosanna getting the word out about her plan to the Allied forces, so either they conveniently come up with the exact same plan on their own or it's a plot hole.

Like most Quentin Tarantino films, this is sectional. Each chapter is essentially one long scene with brief intercutting. When each play out in a similar way there is a certain monotony to it, but never lethargy. What this accomplishes is probably the film's greatest feat- a dramatic tension that continually builds, usually ending in quick moments of tragedy. This is a direct nod to one of Tarantino's idols, the great Italian director Sergio (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Once Upon A Time in America) Leone. The opening scene, where Col. Landa visits a dairy farm in the French countryside, plays out (and is shot like) a combination of the second scene of TGTB&TU (Lee Van Cleef's the intimidating villain, visits a man's home), the scene from Orson Welles' Citizen Kane where a young Charles Foster Kane is essentially sold by his parents to a rich man, and a bit of the John Ford classic The Searchers thrown in for good measure. This is a tremendous feat, combining such masterstrokes of cinema and creating a new one in the process.

The serialized aspect of the film gives us many opportunities to see different aspects of the action from different characters points of view. Unfortunately, I was also left wondering where in the hell the other four Basterds (the most notably being Samm Levine) disappear off to while we follow the story of everyone else. Why have these missing men around in the first place? They serve little to no purpose and their assignment to collect the scalps of 100 Nazi soldiers given to them by Lt. Raine never really comes to fruition. One can assume that they were quite successful off-screen in this regard, but in a film that draws heavily on “ragtag soldiers with a mission” films, you would think that they could at least off handedly mention the whereabouts of the missing Basterds. I guess since every other character is given such a key role that is never wasted, why even include those that are in the first place?

(THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS)
Once Landa's presence and renown as a “Jew-Killer” is established, any time he reappears the tension follows. His story is odd though, because we never truly understand his motivation for making a deal to end the war and let his superiors be killed. The first indication we get of a weakness is that after he kills the Jewish family hiding in the farmer's house, he allows the daughter, Shosanna Dreyfuss, to run off into the hills making a conscious decision to not shoot her. Previously in this scene Landa explains his appreciation for the nickname he has been given, but then we never see him personally kill any Jews at any point in the film. In fact, holding himself from shooting Shosanna implies he isn't what he makes himself out to be. Later, he and Shosanna, as Emmanuelle meet again at Goebbel's table. Landa orders milk with the strudel for Shosanna, a nod to his knowledge of her secret dairy farm past. And yet, again allows her to go. He allows the plan to kill all the high ranking officials of the Third Reich to go through, apparently with his full knowledge. But still, he murders Bridget von Hammersmark with his bare hands for being a double agent and for trying to do exactly what he allows to happen. Why murder von Hammersmark only to soon after become a double-crosser himself? And why would he trust himself to the hands of Aldo Raine, whom he knows to be a savage? The “twist” of Landa betraying his fatherland seems to come from nowhere. He does admit a different feeling toward being referred to as the “Jew-Killer” when speaking with Raine at the climax of the film, shrugging it off as a nickname he never asked for. But this doesn't explain why he would simply give up on the life he built for himself in Germany, a life he seems otherwise quite proud to live.

Much has been said about the film being a “Jewish fantasy” film, reclaiming the notion that Jews can in fact fight back (an absurd notion in some ways), and in this case, indulge in wish fulfillment like personally killing Hitler and his ilk. I don’t really think the film actually is successful at this for several reasons. One, only one Jew in the whole film survives the ordeal. Two, the film dances with dangerously iffy political notions in having so much Jewish self sacrifice going on. Sgt. Donny Donnowitz (Eli Roth) A.K.A. “The Bear Jew” (and also the weakest actor in the whole film, who because of his terrible accent ends up as more of a cartoon than Hitler is portrayed as) and Pfc. Omar Ullmer (Omar Doom) end up firing round after round of ammunition into a screaming crowd that will die in a fire anyway with a look of haunting look of glee on their faces. But that’s not the worst part- the fact that they decide to remain there, blowing themselves up with dynamite instead of setting the bombs and leaving- can’t help but draw a connection to the ongoing suicide/homicide bombings of horror that continue to plague the state of Israel. Whether the filmmaker intended it or not, he is paralleling Jews attacking Nazis and Palestinian attacks on Israel, something that takes the notion of a Jewish revenge fantasy that Tarantino talked up in interviews into a dangerous opposite direction.

Also heartbreaking is the death of Shosanna, who is taking the most direct revenge of all. She is the true hero of the film and to see her taken down in such a way is painful. If it wasn’t for the glee shown in the violence throughout the film, I would say that the film was trying to show the futility of getting back at those who wronged you. Yet again we are left with the feeling of what did it all add up to in the end? Sure the war is over, but why does this revisionist take on history have to show us the continued death of Jews, especially ones we have become attached to for their vigilance in standing up against those that wronged them and their families.
(END SPOILERS)


Tarantino’s formula for filmmaking is out in full force here. References to an endless array of world cinema (love the nods to Bavarian mountain films, an oft forgotten era of German cinema), long speeches that take on different dramas the longer they continue, Mexican standoffs, close-ups of women's feet, it's all at play here. This may be his best film to date, because it mixes the stage play-like drawn out scenes of Reservoir Dogs with the serialization of Pulp Fiction with the complex combination of his influences into a cohesive animal that is Kill Bill, without resorting to cartoonishness. When he does break the carefully woven universe the film occupies, it stands out negatively. There is no reason to stamp the screen with a grindhouse-eque name plate for Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger) and the narration by Samuel L. Jackson, whose voice is jarringly out of place in this film. Yet he holds to the period more often than not, and seems to be having fun in the process.


**** Four Stars – Definitely see this film

Inglourious Basterds is available now on DVD and Blu-ray disc.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox - "Living Up To Its Name"

Screenplay by Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach
Directed by Wes Anderson


Dressed in an orange corduroy suit that both mimics Wes Anderson’s own trademark look and acts as representative of Fox’s fur, Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney) is a sly and overly confident character that fits well in the overarching canon of Anderson films. Fox doesn’t apologize for his shortcomings; he merely has to come up with a better plan to overcome it all so everyone loves him. And as usual, there is an ensemble cast of various outsiders and confidants who follow our protagonist through thick and thin. Anderson has beautifully adapted the book by ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ author Roald Dahl into a unique stop-motion animated film making it his own while paying homage to the author’s original work. Though it differs in some respects, the story has been expanded in a way that is not obtrusive and feels like the organic child of the two creators. Much had been said of the distance with which Anderson directed the film (he reportedly would send his comments and wishes via the internet from his home in France) but you would never know from the final film. Every frame has the fingerprints of this auteur all over it.

The tone struck by the film is familiar territory. It is a fairly simple problem stands in the way- our hero uses his own wits- we cheer- formula, but as usual for Anderson the focus is more on the obstacle within the family rather than overcoming the external threat of the three farmers who want to destroy Mr. Fox and his home. Mr. Fox has a wife, Mrs. Fox (naturally) who is voiced by virtually the only newcomer in the cast for a Wes Anderson film, Meryl Streep. She is excellent as always and is given the biting strength that makes her the true leader of the family much like Etheline Tenenbaum or Eleanor Zissou. Perhaps this is meaningless, but I actually wonder why Angelica Huston, having played both previous roles, didn’t voice Mrs. Fox. Rounding out the family is their son Ash (Jason Schwarzman) and cousin Kristofferson (Eric Anderson) who play rivals for Mr. Fox’s attention. Kristofferson has a mellow tone and is a natural athlete following in the chicken-snatching limber footsteps of Mr. Fox while Ash holds a grudge and is forced to find his own ways to gain his parents’ attention. One scene of their competition is truly remarkable; in one long shot we see Ash refusing to share his bedroom with Kristofferson, delegating him to sleep on a matt under an elaborate tabletop train set in the room. Their entire conversation, Kris trying to get comfortable while Ash is sitting in bed reading silently and turning out the light only to then come down and start playing with the train set has no cuts and goes on for an inordinately long time for a stop-motion film. I can’t recall ever seeing such a scene accomplished like this before.


The animation is done in a style that harkens back to Rankin-Bass films of the 1960’s and 70’s (apparently shot at 12 frames-per-second rather than the usual 24 for motion pictures). The fur of the puppets flows with a charm that can only be seen in this type of film. On the other hand, camera zooms can feel awkward at this speed, but they’re used sparingly. This isn’t the technical leap forward that Coraline represented this year nor the 80’s style of Mary and Max, which I faulted for feeling like too much of a throwback. Mary and Max bothered me with how un-animated it was at times, not necessarily that it harkened back to an older style. Fox is full of plenty of vigor and punch and at times characters literally leap around the screen. Similarly, I was struck with how subtle the movements could be at times, little ticks of the face especially. This is potentially the best visual acting I’ve seen in stop-motion. I’m still not sure whether separate, larger puppets were used for facial close-ups (of which there were lots- sometimes used for a hilarious running gag) to get those really detailed delicacies, but regardless it was wonderful. The only nitpick I would have is the inconsistent sense of scale between the animals and humans which seems to fluctuate at times (or the fact that some animals are upright and sentient while others are mindless creatures), but this hardly detracted from the overall experience.

This is Wes Anderson’s most kid-friendly film to date even though it deals with similarly dark themes in a pop manner as in his other work. Here you always know who the heroes and villains are and boundaries aren’t overstepped (the song "Heroes and Villians" by The Beach Boys is actually featured in the film). This is about family survival against those that are clearly cruel men (even though they are trying to protect that which is theirs from being stolen, but that doesn’t matter since they’re bad men). The violence never gets darker than a Disney film of old like Bambi, similarly about animals trying to survive in a world of human villains. Cleverly, the issue of curse words is glossed over by the great recurring gag of saying “cuss” when a real cuss word would otherwise be used (whether this comes from Anderson himself or screenwriting collaborator Noah Baumbach doesn’t matter as it seems to be consistent with either of their styles and sense of humor). This allows an appreciation of what is being said by adults while children can similarly be entertained. In fact, one of my favorite little touches is in the town where the climactic battle takes place that there is graphitti splashed on the side of a building that simply says “cuss” in a colorful manner.

Indeed, the whole thing comes off as the work of an experienced auteur who is playing in a sandbox of his own design. It feels like watching a child who is walking you through the story he has concocted for his action figures (an expert child, much like Max Fischer and his high school plays in Rushmore). The film is entertaining and comical, with a bit of heart. It is neither a Wes Anderson film that just happens to be done with animals nor an animal film that happens to be made by Wes Anderson. The two are designed for each other and meet in the middle to make one of the funniest films of the year.


**** Definitely see this film

The Fantastic Mr. Fox is in theaters everywhere.

Where the Wild Things Are - "They're Inside Us All"

Screenplay by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers
Directed by Spike Jonze

The first film from Spike Jonze since 2002’s masterpiece ‘Adaptation’, Where the Wild Things Are is the perfect cap to his “bizarro reality trilogy”. Like in his previous films, ‘Wild Things’ takes the simple beauty of life as we know it and augments it with a little magic that puts us just beyond the real into the surreal. Adapted from the classic book by Maurice Sendak, the film tells the story of Max, an uncontrollable boy who ventures off into the far off land of the wild things. While the book is fairly short, the film expands greatly on its themes of imagination and struggling to find an outlet for that energy.

It is precisely in this way that the film feels both grounded and wondrous. While the plot itself is fairly simple (Max struggles for the attention of his single mother, he goes off to a fictional land of wild creatures, they smash things and fight then he comes home), the layers of psychology on display are something to behold. Max is both a completely feral brat and yet sympathetic- we quickly understand his relationship with school, other kids, and his entire family, all by giving only one scene to each. He is a child that we either knew growing up or may have been ourselves. The actor Max Records gives one of the best performances I have ever seen from a young actor as he truly carries the entire film on his shoulders.

Running through the whole film is a sense of beauty and adventure. Whole portions of the film seem to exist in glowing natural light; we follow Max to a wonderful land of forests, deserts and beaches that feel both alien and right around the corner. The film has a prominent dark side as well, and there are a number of moments of true fear and uncertainty. The threat of being crushed or eaten by the mammoth wild things lies at every turn. The mood of the film is also set by the music by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Carter Burwell, which alternates between accentuating and setting a mood for particular sequences. If there was one drawback, it would be that the music stands out a little too much. Like editing, music is something that should work for the story and not necessarily bring attention to itself.

Once Max has gone off to the land of the wild things, we are introduced to the seven hulking creatures with simple names. The design and implementation of them is magnificent and never veers far from the suspension of disbelief. Designed by the Jim Henson Company, the suits are several steps beyond the ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ or ‘Dinosaurs’ of old. The actors inside the suits contribute body movements, while the faces are animated digitally. On top of that is the voice, given to each by a prominent actor (James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Paul Dano, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker) who drives the realism of the monster to a new level. Each character coalesces from these multiple performances into a fully realized person.

Additionally, the wild things themselves act out in ways that can only be described as reflective of Max’s own thoughts, memories and insecurities. To classify each as its own specific symptom is too simple, as many take on multiple levels at their own time. Bubbling to the surface are issues of abandonment, loneliness, and anger. Sometimes the wild things are his parents (the one outstanding oedipal moment is when Max escapes the wrath of James Gandolfini’s “Carol” by climbing into the mouth of Lauren Ambrose’s “KW”. Here, Max sits in a womb-like state while the two wild things have a verbal fight echoing divorcing parents). Sometimes they are fellow kids at school. Sometimes they are just Max. Each is handled in a way that is never too obvious; it is left up to the audience to understand. Kids and adults will likely each experience it on their own level.

Subtle reference is made in the film to the 1980’s animated Disney version that almost came to be both in the mention of a “Mr. Lasseter” and the opening sequence of Max chasing a dog around the house. John Lasseter, now head of Disney Animation and one of the founders of Pixar, had tried to make a ‘Wild Things’ movie using hand drawn animation against then-revolutionary CGI backgrounds (this was a technique that eventually made its way into Beauty and the Beast). The short test sequence is embedded below for those interested. On the whole, Jonze’s film is a very good expansion on the source material. In a way I can’t picture an adaptation working in any other way. He, like Lasseter before him is a man who seems to have never forgotten the mischievous and imaginative child within himself, something that is necessary for a film like this and that comes across on the screen like gangbusters.


**** Four Stars – Definitely See This Film

‘Where the Wild Things Are’ is still in select theaters if you can catch it.

Adam Resurrected – “The Day the Clown Cried”

Directed by Paul Schrader

Screenplay by Noah Stollman based on the novel by Yoram Kaniuk

In 1972 Jerry Lewis made a film called “The Day the Clown Cried” about a Jewish clown in WWII-era Germany who is put into a concentration camp. He ends up being used by the Nazis for entertaining children, gaining their trust so he can lead them to the gas chamber. It is infamous in film circles as an unfinished, unreleased film for obvious reasons. “Adam Resurrected”, based on the 1968 novel “Adam Ben Kelev” (“Man, son of a dog” literally translated from Hebrew) by Yoram Kaniuk, addresses similar subject matter. Here, a clown is again juxtaposed against the horrors of the Holocaust. However instead of a distasteful farce, we see a moving and all too human portrait of the torture that the concentration camps inflicted, including the lasting effects it had on those who survived.

Adam Stein is played by Jeff Goldblum, who sheds most of the clichéd quirks we have come to expect from him over the years. He loses himself in the role creating levels of both sadness and joy, sometimes piled on top of one another. As the film opens we find out Adam, living in 1960’s Israel, has recently almost killed a woman during a magic trick, and is headed back to a mental institution for unstable survivors where he has spent most of the last 10 years. Adam has a run of the joint; the other patients treat him like a king, the doctors let him work out his own treatments, he sneaks alcohol from behind air conditioning vents, and the head nurse (Ayelet Zurer) even carries on an affair with him. But he cannot escape the torture that is bottled up inside.

It is at this point the film begins to flash back to life for Adam in Germany. In the 20’s he was a huge star, headlining his own circus and magic show. He had a wife and two daughters, who supported his act. But as the Nazi party rises in a beautiful sequence showing how his audience changes over a 5-10 year period, it is no longer appropriate for such a revered entertainer to also be a Jew. And so, Adam and his family end up in a concentration camp. Commandant Klein (Willem Dafoe) recognizes Adam from his show, and has him act like a dog for his amusement. This begins a long scarring period of humiliation for Adam where he is given “preferential” treatment by Klein by acting just like a pet dog, where he crawls on all fours, begs for scraps, and wears a choke collar. All the while he begs for his family to be spared due to his compliance. These flashback sequences are portrayed in stark black and white, a clean and elegant cinematography comparable to Schindler’s List, while the rest of the film is lit in a modern, muted color palette.

Director Schrader is no stranger to dark material. I’ll admit this is the first film of his I sat through since feeling like my brain needed a bath seeing “Auto Focus” in the theater. Schrader is famously the screenwriter of such dark psyche-delving material as “Taxi Driver”, “Hardcore”, and “American Gigolo”. Here, working from someone else’s screenplay, he strikes an excellent balance between the horrors that exist in humanity and hope for those who can live through such things. Hope for Adam comes from being forced to finally confront his “dog days”, and while forcing humanity on a feral fellow inmate, he has a chance at finding redemption himself.

There is a reoccurring theme throughout the film of Purim, probably the silliest holiday on the Jewish calendar. It is mentioned several times in different sequences, and the climax of the film takes place on this day. Purim is a day of joyous drinking, wearing masks, and celebrating survival in the face of near destruction. The holiday is about pointing out how what is on the surface is separate from what is inside or what we could be at our best. It is an apt metaphor that ties together the themes of life and death, suffering and celebration that resurrects Adam.

****1/2 Four and a half stars – Definitely See This Film

Adam Resurrected, after having an almost non-existent run in theaters, was recently released on DVD and Blu-ray and can also be watched streaming online through Netflix.

Moon - "How do you confront yourself in isolation?"

Story and Directed by Duncan Jones
Screenplay by Nathan Parker


Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. In the future an astro-man is off in space, pretty much alone in the space station save his talking computer that controls everything around him. Things start to get scary and mysterious, and it seems there is more to meets the eye about the computer/space station than we think. Duncan Jones’ Moon has all this, but with a fresh twist that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the 90-odd minute running time. Just when you think you’ve got the film’s twists and surprises figured out in the first act, it goes off on a path that exceeds your expectations and treats the audience with intelligence.

Sam Rockwell stars in a tour de force one-man performance as Sam Bell, the only person on a moon base. His job is harvesting energy off rocks on the far side of the moon’s surface in a future where such farming has cured Earth’s energy crises. Mostly it is an innocuous job where he monitors the machinery, makes occasional trips out to the rovers and otherwise passes time exercising or carving a model of his home town. He is two weeks from finishing his three year stint on the station, and is eagerly waiting to return to his wife and young daughter. His companion is the robot Gerty, cooly voiced by Kevin Spacey.

Gerty the robot turns out to be less of a HAL from 2001 and more an expansion of what computers are meant to be- extensions of our own wants and needs. The smiley faces used on his display to show his “thoughts” are a great touch and by far the best is just watching the way the “nervous “ face is used to show his own struggle. His moral conundrum comes across almost as conflicted as Sam Bell’s, but being a computer, he ultimately must follow his programming for better or worse. It’s sad to say this is best performance I’ve seen (heard) from Spacey in years. His matter of fact delivery harkens back to ‘Se7en’, where once again he knew more than was willing to let on to our protagonist.

When things turn sour, and injuries are incurred, the film begins the drive into madness only hinted at in the trailer. The best part of it all for me was that once the twist comes, life on the station continues in a matter of fact way that an amped up Hollywood version of the film could never do. Imagine if after Sigourney Weaver blasts the Alien out the airlock in ‘Alien’, we followed her life as she just deals with the idea that “there was some messed up stuff that just happened to me” and she tries to figure out definitively where that Alien came from. ‘Moon’ never becomes mundane as it sets off on this path; it just switches gears into mystery mode.

It is from this point forward that Sam Rockwell’s performance goes from good to great. Each moment is played with tact and understanding of how to play Sam Bell at that moment. Although the Academy Awards are always based on hype more than performance, I have to say this is the best lead performance I’ve seen by an actor all year and I can only hope that come award season, there is some recognition given here. Rockwell is supported greatly by solid costume, hair and makeup departments that reflect the aspects shown of Sam Bell, especially as the film progresses.

In the end we are left with a semblance of hope and the open ended possibility of a sequel. Usually I would shun such sequel-bait, but with this concept the existence of a sequel could only serve to sweeten this film. It would take the universe in such a different but fascinating direction that I welcome it openly. I eagerly look forward to the next film from freshman filmmaker Duncan Jones, who is breathing new life into an often stale sci-fi genre.


**** Four Stars – Definitely see this film.


‘Moon’ is on home video in U.K. right now and arrives on DVD and Blu-ray in the States on January 12th, 2010.