Avatar: It's Not Easy Being Blue

In the last several months (or has it been years), I’ve heard so many descriptions of what to expect from James Cameron’s first film in over a decade: “Avatar.” My friends with inside knowledge on the project have tried to describe the story to me, but nothing has stuck in my memory. When James Cameron spoke about the film for twenty minutes at this year’s E3, I found myself even more confused at the end of his presentation than I was before he started. However, after seeing last night’s 3D IMAX presentation of 16 minutes of the film, I finally feel like I know what the movie is about. “Oh. I get it. The humans want to blend in with the alien tribe so they take on their form through avatar bodies and they slowly integrate into their culture, learning that they’re not so different after all! Right? Right?” Still not quite sure.

I don’t think that “Avatar” looks unlike anything we’ve ever seen before, at least in terms of technical wizardry and story. I don’t even know if it will be the best science fiction film we’ve seen in years, especially since I just bestowed that honor on “District 9” but a week ago. I will, however, give it credit for having a style and visuals that look unique and different from most science fiction films I’ve seen. I love the setting of the jungle planet, filled with vegetation and creatures that look familiar to ones found on earth, but with subtle twists to make them seem fantastical, yet almost believable. In the several scenes featured in the presentation yesterday, most involved confrontations with rhino-like charging beasts, vicious reptilian snarling dogs, and spectacular flying creatures that require taming before they can be mounted. If nothing else, “Avatar” should be a fun creature-feature, not unlike “Jurassic Park” or “King Kong.”

But speaking of those creatures, I’ve heard a lot of complaints that the film looks like it has too much CGI. I think it’s a fair complaint, though I must admit that the footage and animation looked very sharp and impressive in 3D IMAX. I would actually take the complaint a little farther, though I’m not sure yet if it really bothers me. It occurred to me after watching the footage yesterday, that once the humans adopt their avatar forms, they too become CGI creatures, and then are dropped down into the mostly animated jungles and surrounded by animated beasts. At that point, does the film then become simply an animated film? I’m sure the actors were motion captured for their roles, but I certainly hope the film doesn’t end up looking like just another “The Polar Express” or “Beowulf.”

I’m still quite excited by most of what I saw. The live action footage of Stephen Lang talking to his cadets had a B movie quality to it, not unlike the training scenes of “Starship Troopers.” The jungles and creatures used a color palate not often found in film, such as pinks, purples, blues, and greens, all with a kind of shiny, metallic tint. The 3D was very impressive, though one scene was so fast paced I could barely tell what was going on, what with all the trees and branches in the foreground. The story might be a bit too “Dances With Wolves,” but Cameron might also be aware of that and could be keeping it in check. There is, after all, a reference to that film in the footage I saw, when someone suggests that the lead avatar try to dance with one of the giant creatures that looks poised to kill him. It does still concern me a bit that the story might be more familiar and less original than we have prepared ourselves to expect. Even the central conceit of humans using avatar bodies has been borrowed by at least two other films coming out this fall, “Gamer” and “Surrogate.” I’m sure “Avatar” will be far better than both those films, but I hope we don’t have to look too hard to find what is still original and groundbreaking about this film.

What was the fan reaction? I suppose there was some moderately enthusiastic applause from about half the audience. I even raised my fist in the air and shouted “YEAH!” though I don’t think that was entirely sincere. The couple I was with was so split over it that they started fighting, with one of them getting so upset over his girlfriend being unimpressed that he threatened not to see the film with her come December. It was all very George and Martha in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” I’m still keeping my expectations and skepticism in check, though the fact that James Cameron is so excited for this film gets me excited too and I can’t wait to see what he’s been cooking in his brain for the last twelve years. I watched “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” last week for the first time in a long time and I was astonished at how great it still was and how many details I remembered after all these years. “Avatar” may not be the classic that film was, but when I stuck my ticket to the December 18^th midnight show on to my refrigerator, I got a very anxious feeling. Something is coming. Just a few months away. Could be big. Don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’ve still got some time to get ready for it.

-Johnny Pomatto

Ernest Goes To Jail. What Was His Crime? Being Too Lovable.

There was an all too brief time when Jim Varney’s Ernest P. Worrell was a cultural icon. At first he was limited to State Fair appearances and car dealership commercials, but somewhere along the way, he became the star of four successful theatrical films, and later, five direct to video follow-ups. I’ve taken to regularly asking my friends which is their favorite Ernest movie. I get a lot of “Ernest Goes To Camp,” and a few misguided bastards who defend “Saves Christmas” and “Scared Stupid. But very rarely do I hear people mention what is far and away Varney’s greatest film.

“Ernest Goes To Jail” is the most classically influenced Ernest film to date. His role of a night janitor in a bank harkens back to memories of W.C. Fields in "The Bank Dick." The bank itself offers an exciting set piece and the opening scene in which Ernest becomes electromagnetic is inventive and exciting, as Ernest is attacked by filing cabinets, staplers, and safety deposit boxes. It is a completely original scene, not featured in a film before or since. The film also includes another wonderfully hilarious sequence in which Ernest starts to chew on a pen, only to have it explode, covering his mouth and face in black ink.

So far, so good, but how is sweet, simple-minded Ernest going to get to jail? We keep seeing ominous scenes of a prisoner known only as Mr. Nash. We always just see him from behind. Who is this mysterious stranger and what could he possibly have to do with the A story? It isn't until Ernest is hilariously and proudly serving his civic duty on a jury when we learn that Ernest is the exact double of Mr. Nash. That's right. In a move that can only be described as Shakespearean, Jim Varney plays a dual role!

Now it would have been easy for him to play a really funny villain, but he doesn't. Mr. Nash is an evil, murdering, hardened criminal. A nice stretch for Varney. This adds a real sense of suspense and danger once Nash is out and disguised as Ernest. In his attempts to rob the bank that Ernest works for, we never know if he's going to kill one of Ernest's friends Chuck and Bobby, (the hilarious and expressive team of Gailard Sartain and Bill Byrge, reprising their roles from most of Ernest’s other films), or even rape his potential girlfriend. It is the Mr. Nash scenes that confirm this to be Varney's greatest and most layered performance.

The set piece of the prison is also delightfully surreal. It's not the least bit realistic but rather is washed in nightmarish colors of purples, pinks, and greens. Ernest’s prison uniform magically becomes an inmate-green version of his signature costume. The prison guards are dressed in cartoony broad shouldered uniforms. Every scene in the prison feels more like a dream sequence that Ernest might wake up from at any minute… but of course he never does.

Most of the humor is derived from Ernest's many escape attempts, including one in which he dresses up as his famous alter-ego, Auntie Nelda. It is also in jail where seemingly just for fun, he stands in front of the mirror and does a spot on James Mason impression. Now people write off Ernest as a character geared towards children and rednecks, but clearly Mr. Varney's cultural horizons expand far beyond that, plucking out an impression of an actor that most children have never even heard of. In fact, you won’t find a single child in the whole film. How refreshing that we are able to watch adults do stupid comedy, without having children present to announce to the audience that this is indeed a family comedy. This notion would already be completely abandoned by the time “Ernest Scared Stupid” came around, with Ernest and a bunch of kids working together to stop a troll. At that point, he was just paving the way for his Saturday morning variety show.

This still is a movie for kids, though it does go into truly dark territory at the end when Mr. Nash, (though really Ernest), is sentenced to death by the electric chair. These are high stakes, people. The threat is real here, and the danger is thrilling to the point that we actually see Ernest sitting down in the chair, about to die. Of course he does not, but the switch is pulled, with the executioner showing little remorse in his eagerness to kill our beloved, redneck icon. Due to his magnetized state from the beginning of the film, the electricity doesn't kill Ernest, but rather turns him into Ernest P. Worell: Electro-Man, giving him the power to shoot lighting from his hands. If the film was starting to lose anyone, this is the point where it wins us back.

Ernest goes on a rampage and successfully escapes from prison just in time to attempt to stop Nash from robbing the bank and blowing up his girlfriend. However the electric powers fade away, but new powers arise. Suddenly he is given the ability to be weightless and Ernest begins to bounce around in zero gravity. Between this and the Electro-Man scenes, this is the first introduction of magical-realism in the Ernest universe. It’s like Calderon’s “Life is a Dream” with toilet-plunger jokes.

After a spectacular finale of Ernest fighting Nash and flying around the bank, he flies the bomb high into the air and seemingly explodes. As everyone is mourning Ernest's death and hailing him as a hero, Ernest falls down to earth and utters the immortal phrase, "I came, I saw, I got blowed up." Truer words were never spoken. Most films would have some sort of a coda or an epilogue. Not this one. Funny line, face-first fall, and roll credits. Any more of a wrap up would just be filler, but we do get the nice moral lesson a little earlier when Ernest gives his cellmate friend a chance to escape and he refuses. The probable violent offender (and likely racist) states that he belongs in prison and that at the end of the day, prison is a pretty nice place for a guy like him.

This would be the last truly great Ernest movie, though the direct to video "Ernest Rides Again" comes close. After that it would all be visits to Africa and chance encounters with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Sure, his adventure at camp is pretty good, but I think you'll now agree that this film truly pushed boundaries, at least as much as an Ernest movie can. "Know what I mean?"

-Johnny Pomatto

Who Could Be "Revolt"ed By This "Youth?"

America seems to be cooling to the hilarious young man that is Michael Cera. On "Arrested Development" he seemed to reinvent the very notion of the awkward teen. But after seeing variations on the same character in "Juno," "Superbad," and the unbearable "Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist," people know what to expect and they're starting to tire of it. I'm a bit on the fence though. I would love to see Cera play George Michael once again for an "Arrested Development" movie, and then maybe see him channel the character once more for a good indie comedy just to say goodbye. In the meantime, I look forward to him playing a different set of roles, as I see a lot of potential and range in him. I would love to see Cera play an unlikable asshole. I'm very excited to see how he fares as the title role in Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World." Cera has a film coming out this fall called "Youth in Revolt." I knew absolutely nothing about this film, nor its tone. A friend of mine saw this a few weeks ago. He wrote up a review and submitted to Aint It Cool News. They never posted it however, so he sent it my way and after reading it, I thought I'd post it here for you all to read as well. I don't think I'm violating any rules or embargoes by putting this online. I'm even protecting my friend's identity. Hope you all enjoy.

-Pomatto

Youth In Reviolt

I’ve just had the privilege of seeing what was introduced as “one of the first” screenings of the upcoming romantic comedy Youth in Revolt, which is evidently due for an October release. The film, starring Michael Cera, features a veritable “star studded cast,” including supporting performances by Jean Smart, Steve Buscemi, Fred Willard, Ray Liotta and Zack Galifianakis. Miguel Arteta directed, which surprised me, since I didn’t think he would have the gall to make any new films after The Good Girl (2002), which, I must admit, I saw once when I was sick with the flu.

The film is a sort of mixed bag. We have the typical story of a youth attempting to transition into adulthood, though of course he finds no easier recourse for achieving this apart from getting laid. He meets a girl, falls in love and becomes intent on romance. The film follows his growth into the character he thinks will best woo the object of his affections.

Michael Cera plays this impossible, youthful – and virginal – aesthete called Nick Twisp who is marooned with a dysfunctional family in Berkeley/Oakland. After his mother’s boyfriend gyps a group of naval officers, the motley crew embarks on a claymated journey to a trailer in the woods, where he meets the equally snobbish Sheeni (Portia Doubleday), who more or less shares his lonely despair, and quickly falls in love. The two share a passion for literary culture, but Sheeni, with her posters of JP Belmondo, fantasizes about an eventual French lover – though she is dating some d-bag named Trent.

To meet her romantic ideal of a manly man, Nick creates for himself a second personality: Francois Dillinger, a pastiche of a French tough-guy anti-hero, chain-smoking, snappily dressed and of few words, most of them obscene. Francois, assuming the sort of Tyler Durden role, encourages Nick to act out in order to get the girl. The film follows Nick/Francois on the path to wooing Sheeni.

It was nice to see a romantic comedy aim for something so absurd and capitalize on the (often awkward) personae of its actors. The humor is quirky and generally on the mark, though there was often a lot of laughter at moments that I did not think were intended to be funny, as well as moments where the audience was expected to laugh and there was nary a chuckle. Some standout scenes include the first introduction of Francois to Nick’s mother, Francois and Nick wreaking havoc in Berkeley and – most potent of all – the impeccable sequence wherein Nick attempts to fake his own death.

However, there are several elements of the film which stumble or flat-out fail. Firstly, Ms. Doubleday’s performance is simply awful, though this is no indication of her acting ability as much as it is a symptom of the mostly unlikable character she is portraying. Unlike Nick, Sheeni’s snobbish demeanor feels coquettish, unfair and annoying; at one point she chides Nick for being a virgin, but has herself only had one sexual experience. While Nick’s interest in literature seems deep-seeded and meaningful to his character, her love for French culture feels affected and false, serving no character development.

The supporting cast, though impressive, is similarly, almost startlingly, misused. Jean Smart plays a whorish, white trash mom who lives on the child support payments from ex-husband Steve Buscemi and the kindness of her boyfriends, played by Zack G and Ray Liotta. Smart has enough screen time to make her character work well enough, but the remaining supporting cast appears only briefly and often meaninglessly (though both Fred Willard and Justin Long drawing huge laughs in their respective short screen times).

It’s also impossible to review this film without making mention of a scene involving psychedelic mushrooms. This sequence, while book-ended by two very funny gags (courtesy of Francois, as well as the helpful sexual advice of thankfully underused side-character Lefty), sort of struggles along, causing dim-witted fits of laughter among only the most dim-witted of audience members at the simple presence of psychedelic mushrooms.

Finally, there is the point of Michael Cera. On one hand, with Nick, he plays the same character we have come to expect – a gawky, nerdish type. Francois, however, is an interesting case; we don’t really ever feel that he is supposed to be a completely independent character from Nick, but we get the impression that he is the character Nick imagines Sheeni wants. So it is still Michael Cera playing his gawky, nerdish type, only this time there is a subtle shift in the performance worth noticing. This is probably not enough to distract anyone critical or bored with a typical Cera performance, but it was slightly refreshing to this viewer.

The film screened tonight was a work print, which was, as anyone who has attended an advanced screening can attest, introduced as an unfinished version. However, it seemed to me to be pretty much complete, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the final cut of the film. In a brief group afterward, I learned that there potentially exists a different version of the ending, which I can only hope does not see the light of day. Though there are a few dragging moments, the ending of the film provides a perfect cap to the previous events of the 110-ish minute runtime, pulling us back into reality.

It will be interesting to see how this film is marketed in the coming months; I imagine it might make a really good trailer, but find difficulty in TV spots, due to its slightly weird plot devices. The film, which is absolutely deserving of an R-rating, might be too light for older audiences, but too sophisticated or intellectual for the young’ns. Overall, despite its occasionally darker depiction of teenage angst, Youth in Revoltis recommended to fans of lighter-fare comedies or fans of Michael Cera.

-Proust

"Watchmen" Is On DVD, And Yet The World Still Turns

After waiting for so many years, Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” was finally made into a feature film. You remember, right? Came out last February? It was a really big deal for about a week and a half? Sigh. This is the problem. We were finally granted a “Watchmen” film, but the world doesn’t feel any different. I went opening weekend. I enjoyed it, for the most part. But I didn’t go a second or third or fourth time, and I didn’t tell my friends that they absolutely had to see it. It’s modest box office numbers would suggest that nobody did. For now, the movie simply exists. It was made, it wasn’t bad, but nothing is changed. I would love to write up more of my detailed thoughts on the film, but the trouble is, I really don’t remember enough about what I thought. I remember thinking the opening credits were inspired, and I was genuinely thrilled by seeing Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach brought to life on screen. But I also remember some really oddly directed sequences, such as the prison break. I remember often thinking “Really? That was Malin Ackerman’s best take for that line reading?” Now that the film is on DVD, I plan to revisit it at some point, in order to refresh my memory, and hopefully have the film grow on me.

In the meantime, I thought I would celebrate this DVD release day by posting a video that I did, (with Jesse Hicks, Alessandro Minoli, and Will Weinand), to celebrate the release of the, then, highly anticipated film. We all went to the midnight showing at the AMC Lincoln Square Theatre in New York. Our goal was to ask some humorous questions of some die hard fanatics. Things didn’t go quite as well as I had hoped. First of all, I had written some silly exchanges under the pretense that there would be many people dressed up in the costume of their favorite characters. At New York Comic-Con, I must have seen twenty Rorschachs, but I didn’t see one at the screening. This put a damper on, what I thought was quite a funny routine I planned to do.

My Lost Rorschach Scene

Johnny: In the film, fan-favorite Rorschach is played by 70’s teen movie star Jackie Earl Haley. This is certain to become an iconic role for him, and he gets most of the best lines.

Rorschach: (In the deep, gruff, gravelly voice) “The world will look up and shout ‘Save us!’ …And I’ll whisper ‘No.’”

Johnny: Exactly. But Jackie Earl Haley is remembered for so many other great roles. I was curious to see if Rorschach would seem just as terrifying and threatening when saying lines from some of Mr. Haley’s other classic films. If you, please… (Cue Rorschach, scary close up.)

Rorschach: (Still using scary, gruff voice) “I’m sorry… but I’m afraid I have some Bad News… Bears.” (After the line, put up a still of Jackie Earl Haley in “The Bad News Bears.” Include a title card and a “ding” sound effect. Trust me, “dings” make just about everything funnier.)

Johnny: Oooooo. I have chills. I would not want to play against you in little league. Can we have another?

Rorschach: “I should break your arm for that… but I think I’d rather be… Breaking Away.” (Still from “Breaking Away.” Title card. Ding.)

Johnny: Ah yes. One of my personal favorites. And finally…

Rorschach: “Could you tell me where I might be able to find some… Little Children?” (Still from “Little Children.” Title card. Ding, or perhaps, since this one is a little inappropriate, a buzzer.)

Johnny: (Noticeably uncomfortable) Uh… yeah. That was kind of creepy. Borderline inappropriate. I think we’re done here. Thanks for your time. (End Scene)

See? Comedy gold. Sadly, we only found one costumed individual, and for the most part, not many people were terribly enthusiastic about the film. Still, it was a fun night and I made some lasting friendships. I hope you enjoy my IFC Watchmen video, more than America enjoyed the actual movie. Until next time, friends.

-Johnny Pomatto

The Hurt Locker: More Boom For Your Buck.

I’m not surprised by the success of “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen.” What does surprise me is how many people seemed to enjoy it. One of my close, anonymous friends defended it by saying, “Sometimes I just like a movie filled with explosions.” Of course you do. I do too sometimes. But do we really have to settle for the lowest common denominator to get them? Yesterday I saw Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker,” and for a summer action film, you could not do better.

In a summer that has included “quality” popcorn flicks like “Wolverine” and “Terminator: Salvation,” we really haven’t had many great summer films that are geared towards adults and set in reality. Every film seems to be about super heroes, robots, time travel, and museum exhibits coming to life. Forgive me now while I act like a crotchety, old man. Back in the 90’s, we had mindless action films that still had a mind. Some would argue in defense of Bigelow’s “Point Break,” but since I just had a fight with a friend last week over the stupidity of that film, let me add another example, Jan de Bont’s “Speed.” Both films blew up things real good, but they were also contemporary action films about real people, or at least as real as Keanu Reeves can get.

“Speed” in particular had one or two memorable explosions, but most the film featured tense situations on the bus, exciting high-speed chases, and crackling dialogue while the characters waited for a solution to the predicament they were in. Ah yes, the waiting. That’s what has been lost in the summer action game. Hollywood is so afraid of boring the audience (never mind the fact that many of these films are an excruciating two and half hours plus) that they barely let five minutes go by without an action set piece or giant explosion. Dialogue and character development come second, but only if we’re lucky.

“The Hurt Locker” has everything that we used to crave in summer action films, and more. There is plenty of action, shoot-outs, and explosions, but perhaps the fact that it is being reserved primarily for the art house crowds, and not being given the 4,000 screen treatment that a giant robot movie would get, is due to the fact that this is ultimately a war movie. There hasn’t been a successful film to come out of the unpopular Iraq war. The bad films can be really bad, and the few good ones can still seem like an unpleasant and preachy chore to sit through. I had this fear going in to “The Hurt Locker,” which may be why I waited for the second week of its release to go. Did I really want to watch bomb squad soldiers die in Iraq when I could just go see “Up” for the third time?

“The Hurt Locker” opens with an intense, eight-minute scene, in which the audience can feel impending doom. A malfunctioning robot wheel causes a bomb to be manually dismantled. The staff sergeant nervously jokes as he puts on his protective suit, while his team carefully watches the dozens of onlookers in windows above the street. Any one of them could have a cell phone that will set off the bomb. A man runs up to a soldier and distracts him by asking where he’s from. A taxi drives recklessly into the street. I watched this scene as if I was on the street with these soldiers. I kept squirming to get comfortable, with my stomach tied in knots, knowing full well that the bomb could go off at any moment. I was relieved when the sequence was over, but I was also concerned for my enjoyment of the film. I didn’t know if I could take another two hours of feeling like that. Maybe I would have been better off at “Transformers 2,” where I at least would know that Michael Bay would keep the explosions coming so often that they would start to feel routine and never surprise me.

Fortunately for me, my stomach remained unknotted for the rest of the film, and I felt more entertained than uneasy. I didn’t expect “The Hurt Locker” to be so fascinating, relatable, and most of all, funny. The incredible and mostly unknown Jeremy Renner plays a Staff Sergeant so cocky and fearless that he often reminds us of a fictional super hero type. But this isn’t a bad thing. The war setting is always surrounding the characters, but we have a lot of fun living the adventure with them. The tension is constantly building, but it gives us a chance to breathe, and patiently wait with the characters, as they suffer through thrilling monotony, such as when they look through their sniper scope on a window for hours, just on the off chance that there’s one more shooter hiding inside.

“The Hurt Locker” is probably the best live action film I have seen this year. Most of my “artist friends” are going to see it, and they were always going to see it, with or without my recommendation. I’m not speaking to them. I’m speaking to the rest of you: the people who just want a nice distraction in the summer. Some stage and spectacle, with the occasional explosion. I want you to know that not all the summer action films are boring exercises in masturBAYtion. Likewise, not all the art house films out there are black and white meditations on Francis Ford Coppola’s daddy issues. There is an alternative, people. This is the kind of film that USED to qualify as a summer movie. I really hope that “The Hurt Locker” becomes a sleeper hit of the summer, and ends up playing nationwide soon. Given the fact that its per-screen average last week was 14 thousand dollars, while “Transformer 2’s” was only 10 thousand, I think there’s a pretty good chance of that happening.

-Johnny Pomatto

Johnny Pomatto's Adventures at BAM Cinema Fest

Hello, friends. Johnny Pomatto here. Lately I’ve been craving an outlet for my creative juices. So I decided that I would start a blog, if for no other reason, I’ll no longer have to repeat my rants individually for all my friends. Now you can simply subscribe to my blog and get the latest on all my thoughts, opinions, and film and theatre reviews. Keep in mind, this is all very new to me, and I’m not incredibly tech savvy. I’m still not entirely sure what the word “blog” even means.

So to start things up, I thought I’d post my reviews for the recent BAM Cinema Fest, which concluded last week in Brooklyn. In years past, this festival was co-sponsored by Sundance, though this is the first year BAM has produced it on its own, and I couldn’t be happier. It’s a great festival, featuring some great films. But not everything I saw was so excellent. Read all about it below.

BIG FAN

With only two screenplays under his belt, Robert D. Siegel may already be establishing himself as a champion of the underdog. In his directorial debut, and his follow up script to last year’s incredible “The Wrestler,” Siegel sets his sights on familiar territory.

Much like Randy “The Ram” Robinson, the titular character in “Big Fan” is a bit of a loser who is able to ignore the sadness in his life by escaping to a fantasy world. While “The Wrestler” focused on the fall of an athletic hero, this film randomly plucks one of the fans from the crowd screaming “RAM JAM” and examines what it means to devote your whole existence to cheering for the accomplishments of others. Beloved stand-up comic Patton Oswalt plays Paul Aufiero, and rather than wrestling, his passion is football, specifically the New York Giants. He uses the pronoun “we” when describing the team. He watches the games from the stadium parking lot on a TV hooked up to his car battery. He writes and rehearses long diatribes that he passionately recites on a sports radio call-in show, though he can’t get too loud and passionate with his mother sleeping in the next room.

Paul’s fandom is tested, however, when a chance encounter with the Giants’ star quarterback removes him from the role of insignificant, anonymous fan, and puts him in the public eye where he is accused of betraying the very team he loves more than anything in the world. While on the surface Paul doesn’t seem disturbed or unbalanced, the events in the film take him to some dark places and to a shocking and surprising conclusion. Patton Oswalt is perfect in this role, with lots of his witty cynicism from his act coming across, though still never overshadowing the character or completely masking his shyness and sadness. Oswalt has the uncanny image of a sad sack, and Siegel mentioned in his Q and A that if you’re going to have a depressed loser of a character, you’d get a much more accurate representation with a stand-up comedian than you would with a Hollywood pretty boy.

Though Siegel didn’t direct his last script, it is worth noting that stand up comics Judah Friedlander and Todd Barry played similar pathetic bottom-feeders in that film. Equally good in the film is the always reliable Kevin Corrigan, as Paul’s protégé and cohort. The two share a relationship of pure understanding, where neither judges the other or questions the life sacrifices they are making out of devotion to their team. “Big Fan” is inevitably going to be compared to “The Wrestler,” and it’s not as strong of a film as that was. Some of the humor in the beginning of the film comes across as too broad, and considering how many thoughts are going through Paul’s head in the last act of the film, I feel the audience is denied some explanation of those thoughts in an excuse to provide some suspense and a bait and switch. Still, “Big Fan” is essential viewing for any Patton Oswalt fans, and for any passionate fans that aren’t afraid to have a mirror held up to them. I know I was scared to see a bit of myself up there.

YOU WON’T MISS ME

Talk about an apt title. Ry Russo-Young’s mumblecore mess of a movie is a profile of a girl named Shelly, played and co-conceived by Stella Schnabel, and it would seem genius has skipped a generation. We see Shelly abusing drugs and alcohol, having numerous one-night stands, engaging in arguments with girlfriends about nothing, going on humiliating theatrical auditions, and loitering and just generally being lazy and annoying. However, in spite of 80 minutes of nothing but Shelly, I didn’t feel I came away with knowing anything about her or who she is.

Despite Russo-Young’s claim that every aspect of Shelly’s history and personality were explored, written, and acted out in rehearsals, there just isn’t really anything to show for it at the end. Shelly seems to care about so little, that I’m pretty sure she would be bored to tears by her own film, so I can’t imagine why she would think any of us would want to see it.

There are several distracting devices employed in this film, including the constant switching of formats and cameras. These were supposedly to show the many different sides of Shelly’s personality, but they seemed pretty random and visually offending. Occasionally we’ll suddenly be watching Shelly from a grainy, hidden camera’s perspective as she interacts with real people, annoying them in such ways of smoking in a hotel and refusing to leave when accosted by the manager. The only real purpose I can guess for these scenes was to pad out the film past the 60-minute mark.

This film is certainly going to have its defenders, and there are a few scenes that work individually, such as a heated argument in a hotel room and a one-night stand barely attempting to feign interest in Shelly. The audition scenes show some promise, but I was always more interested in the director and situation, rather than seeing it as another trial for the protagonist. Ok. I’m going to say it. Are you ready? I won’t miss “You Won’t Miss Me.” Ha! That was awesome.

HUMPDAY

Lynn Shelton’s “Humpday” is one of the funniest comedies I’ve seen in years, and also one of the very best films I’ve seen this year. It tells the squirm-inducing story of two straight, male friends who, on a dare, decide to have sex and film it for an upcoming porn festival. In a slightly more tolerant and comfortable society, this could sound like the perfect premise for a mainstream comedy, starring big name actors in the leads.

However the closest Hollywood film to even approach this idea would have to be “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,” and you all remember how that turned out. Well, you don’t if you’re lucky. This is an ultra low budget film that treats the subject matter seriously and maturely, while still managing to be hilarious and bold.

The two friends include the free spirited Andrew, (Joshua Leonard, giving Zack Galifanakis a run for his money as funniest bearded man of the summer), and Ben (one of great halves of the The Duplass Brothers, this one being Mark) who is just settling into his marriage. The proposal starts off as a jokingly drunken dare, but the next morning the two friends are still somewhat determined to go through with it. The reasons why is what the film explores. Is it just a macho game of chicken, or an excuse to recapture a wild side that has been lost in marriage and conformity, or could it be that one friend carries a secret attraction for the other? And though one of the friends is married and the other lives a Kerouac-esque lifestyle of hitchhiking and free love, they aren't a simple Oscar and Felix odd couple. The various positions each of them takes and the decisions they make feel surprising, authentic, and very relatable.

The first question for the director at just about all screenings like this, (especially for a mumblecore film) is “how much of the dialogue was improvised?” I was shocked to learn that, according to Shelton, these actors improvised almost the entire film. Shocked because, while the dialogue sounded incredibly natural, realistic, and off the cuff, the film and scenes felt so tightly plotted and structured that I only assumed this was the work of an incredibly careful screenwriter. Props goes to Shelton and her editor Nat Sanders for shaping a seemingly unplanned and open story into a wonderful tale, especially for the, ahem, climax, which Shelton says was written and decided on by Duplass and Leonard on the spot. Also a special shout out is needed for lovely Alycia Delmore, who essentially anchors the film as Ben’s patient, but not so understanding wife.

I really hope people give this movie a chance and hopefully it will become something of a sleeper hit. Hollywood isn’t making films like this, so let’s support the people who do.

IN THE LOOP

I didn’t realize it going in, but “In the Loop” is actually a spin off of a short-lived BBC series called “The Thick of It.” I remember seeing the series on BBC America a few years ago and I remember enjoying it. I don’t, however, remember laughing as hard as I did at the theatre last night. This is a hilarious film that would be considered political satire, if it weren’t so damn accurate in its portrayal of politics and bureaucracy.

Tom Hollander plays a politician in the UK’s department of defense. When he says a seemingly innocent comment about war being unforeseeable, he sets off a chain of events in his country and ours, involving certain political figures pushing to start a war, with others attempting to stop it. The cast is excellent, featuring the likes of Gina McKee, Paul Higgins, James Gandolfini, Anna Chlumsky (My Girl is all grown up), David Rasche, and Steve Coogan. But it’s Peter Capaldi, reprising his role from “The Thick of It,” who steals the film. As the ruthless and profane Malcolm Tucker, Capaldi gets a belly laugh every time he opens his mouth, usually to scream an angry threat at someone.

These are not over the top stereotypes of ruthless and dumb politicians. Every one of these characters is instantly familiar to us. Hollander's character isn't a stupid person, but is just a man in the public eye who makes a few mistakes when he happens to be on camera. Though to be fair, he is a little stupid. The film also look very raw and realistic, mostly shot digitally and handheld, giving it a mockumentary feel, without the lazy device actually being imposed.

My only real complaint for the film is that it’s only a film and not a two-hour television pilot for a continuation of “The Thick of It.” When the end credits abruptly began to roll, the audience actually let out a sigh of disappointment. It would be swell if the film could be spun back into a television show, as I would happily watch this every week. Mitch Hurrowitz produced an American adaptation that never aired a few seasons ago. Perhaps it’s time to try again, but this time, keep the actors, and put it on a network where it’s appropriate to end phone calls with the word “Fuckity-Bye.”

BEESWAX

It can sometimes be difficult to describe the plot of an Andrew Bujalski movie. He specializes in slice of life character studies, not exciting, suspenseful tales of intrigue. But someone might be trying to change that, since the festival was going out of its way to describe “Beeswax” as a legal thriller for the indie world. But fear not. Bujalski hasn’t abandoned his roots, though I would say that “Beeswax” is his strongest and most accessible film to date. It tells the story two sisters, played by real life twins Tilly and Maggie Hatcher. Tilly plays Jeannie, a co-owner of a vintage clothing store in Austin, (I didn’t know they had those there; wink), who spends all her time there and does all the work, though is still under the looming threat of her partner possibly suing her for the rights to her half of the store. Maggie plays Lauren, her supportive but flakier sister, who can’t hold down a job and seems to make excuses to get out of any commitment she makes. Alex Karpovsky plays Merill, Jeannie’s on again, off again boyfriend, who is preparing to take the bar exam, and giving Jeannie legal advice on her potential legal problems.

While this is far more story and exposition than “Funny Ha Ha” or “Mutual Appreciation” had, most of these issues aren’t discussed or spoken of directly. You learn about these things though their attitude, behavior, and things they don’t say out loud. Jeannie is also paraplegic, an issue that is never verbally addressed but is portrayed honestly and plainly as we see her effortlessly adjusting to her situations, such as literally being looked down upon at her own business, to the complexity of getting out of her own car. “Beeswax” is a lovely film and a big step forward for Bujalski. I eagerly anticipate his next film and his future career.

BRONSON

After a quick IMDB search, I discovered that I’ve actually seen Tom Hardy in several films before, though I’ve never really noticed him. In Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Bronson,” you can’t help but notice him. He looks through the screen, into your eyes, and forces you to watch him, and in looking back, I saw an actor destined for stardom. “Bronson” tells the true-life story of Charles Bronson, (a name that he gives himself), who is dubbed the most violent prison inmate in British history. Bronson has never killed a man, but he has spent 34 years in prison for violent crimes, and due to his violent nature, 30 of those years have been spent in solitary confinement.

Bronson is never happier than when he is in prison. It’s where he wants to be. There’s nothing he loves more than fighting and tormenting others. As the film portrays him, he actually wants to make a name for himself this way. We see Bronson in a fantasy world, telling his story and performing for a faceless crowd like he’s a sadistic clown in a sideshow. Think of a cross between Alex from “A Clockwork Orange” and most the cast of last year’s violent offender “Ex-Drummer.”

This film is sure to come under fire for making this violent and terrible lifestyle look fun and exciting. “Real life prison violence doesn’t have such a great soundtrack,” I can already hear them say. These complaints may be valid, but speaking as someone who was not familiar with Charles Bronson and his story, I only saw an immensely entertaining and captivating film. Just about every ounce of credit has to be given to Tom Hardy. With his shaved head, waxed, pointy mustache, and a grin inexplicably full of teeth, he is magnetic and captivating. He looks a bit like a demented, muscle-clad Steve Coogan, and indeed he comes across more like a comedian than a maniac. When he’s speaking, we are hanging on his every word. When he is silent, we are on the edge of our seat waiting for him to explode.

There was a moment in the film in which the only movement in his entire body is the dilation of his pupil, and you can suddenly see him become a completely different person from all the way in the back row. Hardy’s performance will and should be talked about a lot this fall, and this time next year he should have a gaggle of projects being offered to him, though I can’t yet see him playing a positive, good-natured character you would want to root for.

When you think about the actual story of Charles Bronson that has been unfolding for the last 34 years, it probably isn’t a very interesting one. A few brief moments of ultra violence that may only cover a few hours of his life. However, while we watch this film, those small moments are the most important things Bronson has ever accomplished, at least in his eyes. It’s exhilarating to see him proudly take credit for them, even as we fear what else he might do. “Bronson” is not perfect and it will have many haters, but I urge everyone to see this for Hardy’s performance. It has to be seen to be believed.

BROCK ENRIGHT: GOOD TIMES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME

Jody Lee Lipes’ beautiful and jarring documentary chronicles Brooklyn-based artist Brock Enright and his girlfriend Kirsten as he prepares for a solo show at a New York gallery. Since we never get to see Brock’s finished work, it’s a little difficult to decipher and describe what exactly he does. He’s a video artist, a performance artist, a maker of hand-made objects and knickknacks, and he throws in a little live defecation for good measure. Brock seems like a fairly macho and handy guy. His knowledge and use of tools suggest he could have simply been lost in carpentry or construction. But he has a need to create and shock, as well as having a fragile soul. When his brother-in-law to be is confronted by a naked Brock, covered in white paint, he calls him a freak and says he doesn’t understand what he’s doing or why he’d want to do it. This sends Brock into a sobbing tantrum, wailing about how even the closest people in his life don’t understand him.

Brock is always teetering off the edge. When one of the chief investors from the gallery comes to visit, we think Brock will pull it together and professionally display what he’s been working on. Instead, he practically kidnaps the woman, slashing her tires, and screaming at her that he decides when she can leave, sleep, etc. I knew virtually nothing about this film going in and it really got to me.

The ending offers a beautiful surprise that actually made me tear up a bit. Lipes, a cinematographer by trade, has filled his film with gorgeous shots, and seems to show all the little pieces that you would usually expect to find on the cutting room floor for a documentary. There are no interviews. The story tells itself, to a point. The rest is a mystery. I don’t feel like I understand Brock in the way he’d like me to, but after watching the film, I’d certainly love to try.

THE SQUARE

“The Square” shares the same genre as films like “Blood Simple” and “Shallow Grave.” Perfectly nice, honest people commit a little crime to get some money, and everything that can go wrong does, leaving a pile of bodies, and some very unhappy and regretful people. If you’re in the mood for that sort of thing, “The Square” is a competently made flick that offers some intense thrills and layered performances.

Unfortunately it just doesn’t offer a whole lot of fresh ideas or originality. Several throwaway lines signal twists to come, and the last act has a few plot developments that are comical and confusing. A few dream sequence fake outs in particular might have taken the film in some exciting directions were they actual plot developments. Stuntman turned director Nash Edgerton certainly has a lot of talent, and he never makes his film a bore. I just wish I had been on the edge of my seat because I was engrossed in the story, and not because I had seen enough and wanted to leave. A worthy effort, but you’ve seen it all before.

THE EXPLODING GIRL

Along with Alison Pill, Zoe Kazan is one of the best young actresses working in the New York theatre scene today. When she won the best actress award at The Tribeca Film Festival for her performance in Bradley Rust Gray’s “The Exploding Girl,” I was very curious to see it. Having done so, I’m not sorry I did, but I wouldn’t recommend it to many others. The film follows Ivy, an epileptic girl at home in Brooklyn on a week’s break for college. She reconnects with an old friend, plays phone tag with an insensitive boyfriend, walks around the city, and sleeps. That’s really all there is to it.

There is some lovely photography in the film and Kazan’s performance in particular is very subtle and sweet, but what takes 80 minutes could have been done in 30. I hate to simplify it so much, but I just got a little tired of waiting for the inevitable conclusion, and then not feeling much once it came. I’ve loved Zoe Kazan on stage in many plays here and I believe she is going to be noticed by a wider audience in the future, but this isn’t the way to have her introduced to you.

SORRY, THANKS

My least favorite film of the festival has the involvement of some of my favorite people in independent film. Indie faves Wiley Wiggins and Andrew Bujalski are featured in this story about two participants in a one-night stand, and the separate directions they each take following it. The dialogue feels improvised, but in the worst kind of way. Lots of scenes grow monotonous, jokes fall flat or feel poorly communicated, and actors seemingly struggle with conveying just what sort of relationships they share with their co-stars.

The film is full of scenes that feel out of place, like one in which a guy’s friends all casually tell him that they think he’s an asshole. We’ve never really seen him act like an asshole, nor do his friends seem to not like him or have their views affect the way they interact with him. So why is this scene here? Is it just supposed to be funny banter? It always seemed to me that the actors were probably all friends in real life, but couldn’t figure out how to establish a fictional relationship with one another.

There was one thing I really liked about the film, and that was the ending. The last scene in the movie ends in an ambiguous and open-ended kind of way, with practically nothing wrapped up, leaving us to speculate on what might occur later. However the film left me way more interested in what could happen in my own imagination than what the filmmakers actually chose to show me.

Whew! That was a lot of films! I’ve never seen so much digital video in one place! Until next time, friends.

-Johnny Pomatto