We Are What We Are (A)

While the audience for whom this picture would appeal is admittedly small, Jorge Michael Grau’s writing/directorial debut is both a well-crafted thriller and a look at cities so lost to corruption, fear, and poverty the people begin to lose sight of their humanity.

When his father dies, Alfredo (Francisco Barreiro) must lead his family, despite intense hatred from his mother (Carmen Beato) and a burning rivalry with his disturbed brother Julian (the late Alan Chavez). With the assistance of his sister Sabina (Paulina Gaitan), Alfredo begins to look through the Mexican ghetto he lives in for his prey. His family is made up of cannibals, who feel compelled to complete their bloodthirsty rituals in order to survive.

Meanwhile, corrupt and ineffective policemen Tito (Daniel Gimenez Cacho) and Owen (Jorge Zarate) see that they may be able to prove and redeem themselves by catching the murderers.

Grau (best known for the short film “Mi hermano”) constructs a chilling thriller. The audience is riveted to every minute. The opening is powerful and scary and the tension reaches fever pitch half way in and does not subside, even after the credits role. The cinematography (Santiago Sanchez) and art direction (Gabriel Tapai) never seem artificial, but it still reveals a depressing, dark world which is both lonely and crowdedly claustrophobic. Cinematic newbie Enrico Chapela manages to craft a frightening and strident score that amplifies the effect.

In another good choice, Grau (apparently with influence from Beato) chooses to leave most of the violence and nudity implied. Rest assured, the picture is graphically bloody, but these choices feel necessary and the audience is never distracted by gratuitous content.

The film is about the plight of urban Mexico, but its tale of people choosing loyalties and gaining bitter feuds in a desperate chance to survive can be applicable in many situations (inner city ganglands in the United States, for example). There are little solutions offered, and coupled with its violence the movie is unlikely to please much of an audience (with the exception of a few scares and a chilling ending which may please horror film fanatics). Nevertheless, the message rings true and the artistic quality is exceptional.

We Are What We Are is not for everyone, but it does offer some insights and constructs arguably the world’s best cannibal thriller.

The Role of a Reviewer

Chances are anyone who is reading my blog knows who Roger Ebert is. He is a Pulitzer-winning writer most famous for film reviews. He is probably the most famous and well-regarded art critic alive today. Because of his fame, and his subsequent influence on the film industry, I was disturbed by this quote, given in a response to criticisms for his negative review of Thor:

“I don't consider my reviews instructions to readers about whether they should see a film. They're more like a continuing conversation. Nobody enjoys it when people get too wound up and start shouting. I hope to have a good time at a movie, and to provide a good time in writing a review. My guide is Dr. Johnson: "Those who desire to partake of the pleasure of wit must contribute to its production, since the mind stagnates without external ventilation."”

I feel that Mr. Ebert has seriously misunderstood what his job is. A film critic is, of course, supposed to provide something entertaining in his reviews (and Ebert is one of, if not the, most humorous and entertaining critic who’s work I read). However, finding a funny way to express the feelings you felt at a movie is not the way to write a review. A critic’s job is not to say whether they will like the film, or whether their audience will like the film: It is to say whether or not the film is good.

A prevalent theme in film critic’s attitudes is that a person’s view of a film is their own opinion and is not true or untrue. I find it astounding that someone who would believe that would devote their life to writing their opinion. Yes, film critics like Roger Ebert are able to entertain us with their ability to express their thoughts, and they are fortunate enough that their verdict on a picture generally matches that of their audience. But in the end, this reduces reviewing art into a mere display of the skill and wit of the critic at the expense of the filmmakers.

Think of the amount of effort that goes into making a film: All the people who have invested their time, money, and careers into it. Judging their work based on something as arbitrary as your own enjoyment of a film and then telling readers you do not know whether they should or should not see their work based on that is incredibly hurtful and selfish.

But critics like Ebert seem to see this as their job. To achieve consensus, they have(unconsciously) made the system more elaborate by not even basing their reviews on their own opinions, but on a standard of what a good movie should look like. Frequently, a picture is judged solely, or at least mostly, on its artistic merit. And what is artistic merit? Some of it is creative achievements in the industry; some of it is crafty ways to sway the audiences mind. But, frankly, most of it is a belief of what a film critic’s opinion should be.

As a result, we see the best reviewed movies are often horribly morally askew. Take, for example, The Dark Knight. The acting is brilliant; the imagery beautiful; the mood very powerful. But for all of its merit, the ending point of the film is (SPOILER WARNING) terrible. Batman decides the people of Gotham are too foolish to understand the full truth, so he makes up lies to please them. He enforces the peace by invading their privacy and taboo levels of brutality, and he replaces the law with his own code of honor. And his only qualifications for the job of Batman—a job he violently ensures will only be his—is that he is rich, strong, smart, and through natural gifts “superior” to those around him. This is a fascist, Nazi-esque look at life. A very convincing, powerful look at life, but a fascist one all the same.

Before giving a film a good grade, a critic should think of a few important things. First, they must identify exactly who the film’s audience is. That is not necessarily the same audience the picture was marketed for. After deciding who the film is intended for, one must think whether that person will be pleased by the movie. One should keep in mind the standards of the audience. For example, a movie like The Smurfs is meant for children. Therefore, view the film as a child would view it. This is probably with an eye less harsh than the critic’s personal preference is. Finally, the reviewer should look at what people will take away from the film. A movie that appeals to its intended audience and has little objectionable content, yet does not give the viewer anything or much to take away probably deserves a B. The grade should be higher if either it offers a moral or message that goes beyond its basic story, or if it reaches a broader market, or if it excels artistically far beyond anything else in its genre while not becoming offensive (it is artistically superior to most films around).

What is probably most controversial about what I have said is that it allows a movie with no original content and only a very small market who will only be mildly pleased to get a passing grade. Most critics judge a film based on how they enjoy it, and how impressed they were. Being well-versed in movies, they will almost certainly have a far higher standard that the viewer who pays to see the movie because they like that sort of thing. This is because of the myth that a critic’s enjoyment of a film should directly correlate with their review of the film.

I admit, I found very little entertaining content in The Smurfs. The little creatures were cute enough, but the slapstick humor was evident to me as unoriginal and bland. However, I know a small child will love the picture. And, what is more, I know the small child will not take away a bad message.

In contrast, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Thor. It was funny, well-acted, full of fun battle sequences, rim with amazing visuals, and altogether entertaining. However, I would give that movie an overall grade of a C-. For all of its positive content, it treats excessive drinking as a harmless and routine occurrence, and in fact links it to one’s masculinity. Sure, it was only one scene. And the writers had no intention of making that a part of their film’s message. Nevertheless, it is an undeniable fact that people will watch it and, probably subconsciously, get the idea that intoxication is a joke.

This is because the core of what a review should get at is what a viewer will take away from a film. If the film is The Smurfs, the viewers will be children and will thus take away a good feeling. If the film is Winter’s Bone, the viewer is someone intending to receive a deep and powerful message, and chances are they will get that. If the movie is Thor, the viewer is someone who went to see a fun action movie, and they will take away both a great time and an idea that excessive drinking is okay.

Unlike Mr. Ebert, I see my reviews as instruction of whether people should see or not see a movie. That is the role needed for reviewers. And it is one they should step up and accept.

3-D Report: July

3-D movies can be done well and they can be done badly. Unfortunately, people have seen too many movies with the bad kind of 3-D and thus think that they hate the format when in fact they really don't know it. I am compiling a report of the quality of 3-D for every month. Some of the movies could still be in theaters so you could consider seeing them based on this, or watch these if you have a 3-D player when they arrive on DVD. Or at least read this years later when 3-D home viewing is easier to come by. Still, the biggest reason I write this is that I hope readers who have seen the movies in 3-D will know how that movies' 3-D compares to other movies' 3-D. Then there might be less of a negative view towards what is in truth a great new invention. Before reading this some people willlikely think "I hate 3-D because the glasses darken the image so much." Sometimes this is the case but I will tell you if it is. Now, obviously, if you watch the movie in 3-D and take off your glasses in the middle you will notice how much brighter the screen is. THAT DOES NOTE MEAN THE 2-D IS THAT BRIGHT--a well-made movie will lighten the 3-D version with the expectation it will be darkened by wearing glasses. It sounds simple but you would be surprised how many people think that a 3-D version viewed without glasses is the same as an out-of-focus 2-D one. The movies are presented in chronological order.

Keep in mind Transformers: Dark of the Moon came out in June, so you will find my comments on it in the 3-D Report for June.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

One of the biggest blows to the 3-D genre occurred last year when Warner Brothers had Clash of the Titans hurriedly converted into the format. It was done far too quickly and as a result the 3-D was awful (also due to Warner Brothers' request for last minute editing, the rest of the movie was awful as well, but that is for another article). People paid to see Titans in 3-D, but after that people have been seeing movies in 2-D.

Amazingly, Warner Brothers learned from their mistakes. Only a few months from the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I, the studio took back the advertisements for that movie to be in 3-D, saying they did not think it should be converted in that time and they wanted all their focus to go into converting Part II.

It may have cost them money at first, but it was worth it (at least for the audience). Deathly Hallows 2 has the best 3-D for a 100% converted movie yet. The images are in perfect focus, the world has the right dimensions (meaning no "cardboard cut-out effects"), and the 3-D adds to the experience greatly without interrupting the story. This is one movie to see in the extra dimension.

Now, many people are going to complain that the image is too dark. Well, that is true, but its not because of the 3-D. Back in Prisoner of Azkaban (the third Harry Potter movie), Alfonso Cuaron took his turn directing the series. Not only was this by far the stupidest book (remember time-travel, everyone), but Cuaron decided the best way to convey the "darker tone" was to give the movie a darker tone. And by that, I mean he had his cinematographers digitally darken every single frame of the film, meaning you can't see a thing that is going on. Cuaron and his cinematographer--Michael Seresin--left the series after that movie, but future directors decided not to drastically change his look for the series. This means that for most people (especially those who are even mildly color-blind), the Harry Potter movies have some of the ugliest, depressing, and distracting cinematography of all time (I know some of them have gotten Best Cinematography Oscar nominations, but that is probably because 1) it took a lot of effort to make the movie look like that and 2) voters forgot that its originality was because everyone else knew it was a terrible idea). In short, the final Harry Potter film, while not quite as hideous as most of its predecessors, still is shot in tone of black and green. It looks like the affect of a poor 3-D conversion, but in fact every version of the picture looks like that because it is supposed to.

Captain America: The First Avenger

The 3-D in this is acceptable, but not fantastic. It does add depth to the image, and it does blur the background (to prevent headaches). However, in some cases the characters seem to not be in perfect tune with their surroundings. It is a very slight error in fully expanding the frames, but sometimes the characters stand out as having a not quite right look around the edges of them. It is very subtle, and most of the time you don't notice (or most of the time it is not there). This is often an issue for converted film, and Cap is not as bad as most of them (Green Lantern had it much worse). Still, it provides enough of a reason to strongly consider a 2-D viewing experience.

The Smurfs

Most of the problems with converted 3-D is that it is out of focus, but occasionally these pictures (and ones shot in 3-D, for that matter) have a problem of being over-focused. A person's eye puts the thing someone wants to look at in focus, and everything else is blurred because it is unimportant. A good camera is able to put everything in focus--and when the image is heavily altered through cinematography, this is worse. When a movie is in 3-D, it is absolutely imperative to blur the background. If this is not done (or not done well), the viewer has to work to distinguish what the important part of the picture is. They will get motion sickness, their eyes will get tired, and they will get a headache. I had this problem at Smurfs, and I think most people do to. The makers of well-made 3D movies like Tron: Legacy stress that it is mandatory for filmmakers to follow this rule. Realizing that their market is mostly kids and their parents, who aren't familiar with good 3-D and just want an extra gimmick, the studio behind The Smurfs doesn't bother to do it right. This is very thoughtless, since it will both make people hate the entire 3-D format (robbing other 3-D films of money), and it will make parents think that 3-D only works on children ( a common myth).

Do not watch The Smurfs in 3-D.

As a final note I will mention that there are reports that many theaters are projecting 3-D films wrong (such as by using a dimmer bulb) which makes the image darker. Sure, some 3-D films are actually darker than their 2-D counterparts, but it is often worth considering that your local theater is playing it wrong and its not the fault of the actual movie. It could be worse trying out your next 3-D experience at another theater as an experiment.

Larry Crowne (A)

Few comedies are as charming or as tender as Larry Crowne.

With the help of writer Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), Tom Hanks (That Thing You Do!) succeeds as the author, director, and star of a drama about a middle-aged divorced man (named, you guessed it: Larry Crowne) returning to college after being laid-off from his long-time retail job.

The film starts off rather poorly, with the lack of a consistant tone. The buisnessmen firing Crowne do so in such an unproffessional manner—in refferring to Larry’s lack of an education, oneman blurts out “Who would have thought I’d be premoted before you?!”—that the movie feels almost like a typical comedy with exaggerrated reactions from everyone. However, other scenes use a more quiet, tender mood. By the half-way mark, though, the picture stands firmly in the latter category, and that is a good thing—the audience might not roar with laughter like they did inTropic Thunder, but they care far more about the characters and are far more invested in the story.

Much of the reason the film succeeds is due to the excellent acting. Hanks, who has been nominated for 5 acting Oscars (including wins for Philidelphia andForrest Gump), does his usual mild-mannered, out-of-place routine, but he does it as well as ever (and without the dim-witted tone he showed in The Terminal). Julia Roberts, as an alcoholic proffessor going through a messy divorce, has almost as large a role, and succeeds in giving her character character (pardon the expression) without becoming too irritating—we see the hurt this woman has, and we see how her anger is misguided. More surprising, though, is the fact that even the smallest of supporting roles is done with perfect skill. Talent and effort is showcased by Wilmer Valderrama, Rami Malek, George Takei, and Cedric the Entertainer. With the third largest role in the movie (and a great role to play), Gugu Mbatha-Raw, best known as the female star of TV’s Undercovers, shines in what is hopefully the start of a great film carreer.

Of course, all of this acting talent would be trivial if it were not for such a touching, tender story to go with it. Larry Crowne tackles big issues without boring or berrating the audience, and it resolves them with a bittersweet, satisfying, and surprisingly moving conclusion, of which Hanks and award-winning Cinematographer Philppe Rousselot (Big Fish; Sherlock Holmes) give a soothing style and appearance that underscores the messages.

Few movies are as sweet and as thoughtful as Larry Crowne.

Horrible Bosses (F)

Horrible Bosses is such a bizarrely sickening film it is uncomfortable writing a review about it, seeing as I must open with the words "rape is not funny."

Three average Joes (Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, and Jason Sudekis) become fed up with their abusive employers (Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jennifer Aniston) and decide to kill them. Jamie Foxx, Lindsey Sloane, and Ioan Gruffud have small roles. The picture is directed by Seth Gordon (Freakinomics, Four Christmases).

This is bound to disturb some viewers, but is also an interesting concept that appeals to all of us. Haven't there been authority figures who are total jerks that we really want dead? In this subject, Horrible Bosses acts like a typical dark comedy: presenting a disturbing premise and connecting it to our most primal urges so that we find it both revolting and appealing.

The movie can be funny at times, and the acting is great (especially Farrell, who is funny and yet sad as a sadistic crackhead). Still, this does nothing to fix the fact that this is a bad movie.

However, when the film gets to the subject of rape, they have lost that approach. The issue is not presented as something taboo--it is treated like just another slapstick comedy routine. The reason is that the sexual predator is a women.

Dale (Charlie Day) is miserable at work because his boss (Jennifer Aniston) keeps making inappropriate comments and gropes him. She then reveals that she drugged him unconscious and raped him and then blackmails him with the photos.

I ask for a second for us to consider what the movie would be like if it was the other way around--if the victim was female and the perpetrator was male. Would it be presented in a movie as normal slapstick comedy? Of course not. And if the movie came out with it in there, people would be furious.

Physorg reports that of reported sexual assaults nearly 6% are done by females, and that this number is likely inaccurate because people are embarrassed to report a sexual assault by a woman. This movie contributes to this problem. It presents sexual assault by a woman on a man to be not serious and in fact something for the victim to be ashamed of. Now, obviously people will point out that the victim is planning to kill the perpetrator. This is presented as ridiculously silly--that it really is nothing that deserves a large reaction. Actually, while murder is obviously not a good choice, it should definitely be reported.

Another problematic aspect of the film is that for most of the movies, the three protagonists are in a bar getting tipsy. The attitude is "oh the silly things men do when they are drunk." Sure, murder is presented as shocking, but the tone is that we all think about that things when we get drunk.

Yes, many people get drunk on a regular basis. But it isn't healthy. The movie is contributing to the myth that over-drinking is harmless. It is not. And it is very irresponsible to say it is.

Horrible Bosses's unhealthy and offensive jokes squash out any humor the film might have had.

3-D Report: June

3-D movies can be done well and they can be done badly. Unfortunately, people have seen too many movies with the bad kind of 3-D and thus think that they hate the format when in fact they really don't know it. I am compiling a report of the quality of 3-D for every month. Some of the movies could still be in theaters so you could consider seeing them based on this, or watch these if you have a 3-D player when they arrive on DVD. Or at least read this years later when 3-D home viewing is easier to come by. Still, the biggest reason I write this is that I hope readers who have seen the movies in 3-D will know how that movies' 3-D compares to other movies' 3-D. Then there might be less of a negative view towards what is in truth a great new invention. Before reading this some people willlikely think "I hate 3-D because the glasses darken the image so much." Sometimes this is the case but I will tell you if it is. Now, obviously, if you watch the movie in 3-D and take off your glasses in the middle you will notice how much brighter the screen is. THAT DOES NOTE MEAN THE 2-D IS THAT BRIGHT--a well-made movie will lighten the 3-D version with the expectation it will be darkened by wearing glasses. It sounds simple but you would be surprised how many people think that a 3-D version viewed without glasses is the same as an out-of-focus 2-D one. The movies are presented in chronological order.

Green Lantern

Overall, the visuals in Green Lantern are amazing. This could have so easily seen stupid or reused old tricks, but instead this comic book epic is brought to screen with an enthralling look that is neither disconnected the real world nor underwhelming. Also, the cinematography uses a broad color spectrum, unlike, say, The Green Hornet which gave everything a green tone and passed it off as "artistic." However, Director Martin Campbell has been making movies for a while and thus has some difficulty adapting to a 3-D format. The movie is converted (a good thing, since Campbell's style is not meant for bulky 3-D cameras), but as is often the case with the process the images are occasionally out-of-focus. Furthermore, Campbell is unable to maximize the 3-D opportunities--as a result the movie is simply in 3-D and does not use the format to enhance the story-telling or action-sequences beyond giving it an extra dimension.

One might think that the 3-D makes the movie be a few shades darker, but that is in fact the actual color scheme--the 3-D version has been adequately lightened.

Cars 2

CGI-animated movies do not use a camera and thus can be designed for 3-D much easier. As a result, they are usually the best looking 3-D.

Cars 2 is at the top-end of the spectrum for 3-D movies, but for an animated one is relatively unimpressive. The 3-D is focused and the colors are right, but the film uses few angles that would maximize the use of the format.

Also, Pixar (the studio behind Cars) makes sure not to ever use 3-D as a gimmick. The result is that it never interrupts the story and serves only as a subtle improvement to the viewing experience. The downside is that there is far less evidence for why you paid extra for a 3-D ticket.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Michael Bay is famous for giving us amazing, explosion-filled, mind-blowing action films. The third episode in Transformers, however, was the first time the director used 3-D, a technique he had been hesitant to do. Bay made the daring choice to shoot most of Dark of the Moon with 3-D cameras rather than converting. The cameras often yield better results, but are so cumbersome it seemed unlikely to work with Bay's constantly moving camera style, and furthermore has poor compatibility with IMAX.

Amazingly, Bay manages to make visually the best live-action 3-D film of all time other than Avatar. The details are amazing, the backgrounds are digitally blurred, the lighting is perfect, and the added dimension gives a whole new sense of scale the mayhem. Even more impressive, Bay shot the thing for under $200 million: A feat that recent 2-D pictures like Prince of Persia and Iron Man 2 could not accomplish even with shorter running times. The movie itself is not quite as incredible, but there are no complaints about the visuals.

Oddly, there were only two 3-D releases in June, so this concludes this month's list. As a final note I will mention that there are reports that many theaters are projecting 3-D films wrong (such as by using a dimmer bulb) which makes the image darker. Sure, some 3-D films are actually darker than their 2-D counterparts, but it is often worth considering that your local theater is playing it wrong and its not the fault of the actual movie. It could be worse trying out your next 3-D experience at another theater as an experiment.

Cars 2 (A-)

With the reputation Pixar has built up, it is understandable that adults will go to Cars 2 expecting another Up. Due to this, it is imperative to say, just like every other reviewer has, that no one should delude themselves into thinking Cars 2 is of that quality.

However, it is being very unfair to judge a movie based on how it compares to the studio or director's previous pictures. Cars 2 is not like Up, but that is because Cars 2 does not aspire to be Up. This is not meant to be a groundbreaking achievement which is certain to make everyone cry. This is meant to be a fun action comedy for children which anyone can enjoy. At that, Cars 2 succeeds. And, frankly, that is in many ways a good thing. Do you think children really liked silent montages of lonely robots trash compacting, or elderly men mourning the death of their spouse, or toys being abandoned by children who have forgotten the fun they had together because that is what happens when you grow up or you turn your back on your American Girl doll for one second little kid hahahahahahaha. As much as we deny it, Pixar has become less and less a studio that makes movies kids' will like, or even should see. Cars 2 gives a movie that everyone will enjoy, especially children. If that means some toilet humor and no deep messages, so be it.

The Cars universe is a world without humans, but with anthropomorphized vehicles (planes, helicopters, boats, and of course cars) that eat, sleep, make friends, kiss, and generally act like people. Racing superstar Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) enters the World Grand Prix, a race sponsored by Sir Miles Axelrod (Eddie Izzard) in order to promote alternative fuel sources. McQueen's competition against the cocky Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro) is upset by the antics of Tow Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), McQueen's naive and easily confused best friend. When an American spy-car gives an important picture to Mater, MI6 agents Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) and Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) recruit the goofy tow truck to combat a crime syndicate's scheme to sabotage the race.

The main character of the original Cars was McQueen, but this time he takes a back-seat to Mater. The genre is also switched, from a small-town nostalgia trip to a adrenaline filled mash-up of Speed Racer and James Bond. The first change results in some undeveloped characters and a lot slapstick humor, the latter results in way more violence than should be in a G-rated movie (the MPAA received many complaints from angry parents saying their very young children were distraught while seeing the film).

The morals are not astoundingly deep, but they are nice, encouraging, and great for a family outing. The characters are kind and truly feel bad when they hurt each other. The environmentalist message is too heavy-handed, but is fortunately the only political issue discussed.

One of the best parts of the movie is that despite having cars for characters, the movie offers a genuine spy movie, not a parody. Director John Lasseter (Toy Story 1 and 2, A Bug's Life) uses automobiles to enhance the excitement instead of mocking it. The non-stop action is going to be thrilling for people of all ages (except for some toddlers), and Finn McMissile is so cool he deserves a spin-off movie. The 3-D illusion definitely improves the experience.

Cars 2 is best for children, but it is fun for everyone.