Oddities Abound In A Town Called Panic

This past week I caught my first official film of the 2010 season and it was quite memorable. The film, A Town Called Panic, is quite a strangle experience but well worth the risk. I've come to realize that there's no way to adequately explain the film as it all sounds absolutely ludicrous on the surface. It's one of those films you need to see to get the joke.

The action is all stop-motion. It's distantly reminiscent of Wallace and Gromit but then again not. The story centers around three main characters--a plastic cowboy, indian and horse appriately called Cowboy, Indian and Horse respectively.

In their world nothing with respect to reality matters. You just have to take it all with a grain of salt. The three leads all live together in a surreal abode in an even more surreal setting. The main plot revolves around Cowboy and Indian having forgotten Horse's birthday and in a panic to find an appropriate gift inadvertently order a few too many bricks for the barbecue they intend to build.

The look of the film is like looking at an amateur model railroad layout just after the owner got his first book on how to do paper mache landscapes. Water is painted on. The sky looks like a painted backdrop. All the other characters are random plastic toys (and scale is no hindrance here either).

The movie is out of Belgium and in French with English subtitles and none of that matters with regard to the fun. Our theater was full of laughter throughout most of the film. The jokes even defy explanation except to say they just work. To try and convey them would be an exercise in complete frustration.

That said, the group of us that saw it found ourselves talking about it the entire evening and into the following days. Inside jokes bubbled to the surface that some got but others missed (like the films seemingly odd infatuation with waffles--it's out of Belgium remember).

The scenes are rife with total absurdities (like a horse shower, or a run-away fire under water) and still they work. The first time Horse goes to sleep you'll either be rolling with laughter or simply have no sense of humor.

The film is perhaps a tad too long as the joke runs a slight bit thin towards the end but I don't really care. I'm already looking forward to this one on DVD and sharing it with others. If you can't accept absurdity in your films avoid this like the plague but if you've got the ability to suspend that disbelief, hop right on and enjoy the well-oiled ride.

EGO utor Invictus

This week found me stuffing in another 2009 film in Clint Eastwood's latest film Invictus. The movie focuses on a specific segment of Nelson Mandela's early Presidency in which he enlists the aid of the national rugby team to help cure the ills of his fragile country.

Mandela, played exceptionally by Morgan Freeman (as if he could play a role any other way), having lived through more trying time than anyone should ever be forced to endure, recognizes that revenge isn't the correct path no matter how much the populace may desire it. He sees opportunity in every situation regardless of how isolated or unrelated it may seem to those around him. The team, the Springboks, represent everything about the past regarding South Africa. Whites love the team and blacks root for whoever they play against. The local rugby organization wants to abolish the team, its name, its colors and rebuild it in their own image. Mandela realizes that all this will do is prove to the whites of the country that the blacks are acting exactly as feared and that nothing is safe any longer.

His plan is to express to the team just how important their mission is and how far reaching. He does this by appealing to its captain, Francois Pienaar, played by an overly-buff Matt Damon (he looked so muscular and bloated that I couldn't help but think steroids must have played some part). Thankfully it's a perfect match as the captain knows exactly what Mandela is after and has the ability to overcome his own team's racial bias.

Much of the early part of the film plods along at a very slow pace. People were fidgeting around and cell phones were getting heavy use. I'm not sure, after the fact, if all the setup was really necessary but Eastwood knows a lot more about telling a story than I do. I just know I felt it could have gone more quickly for my tastes. The last third of the movie is entirely a different story. Everything got attentive so much so that when the movie finished not a single person left their seat until mid-way through the final credits.

So what about the movie itself? Well, for one things, if Nelson Mandela is even a tenth of the person they portray in this film then he's one amazing individual the likes of which doesn't come around (at least in politics) very often. His background and the way in which he cuts through the chaff and gets to the meat of an issue is a sight to behold. The rubgy scenes are also well done though it does take a while for non-rugby fans to figure out what's going on during the games.

In the end it's another successful Eastwood entity. How many more can he have in him is what I wonder now. I hope it's a lot more yet. Invictus isn't a perfect movie but it's quite effective and entertaining.

A Small Odd Story You'll Never Hear About

On Thursday the Philadelphia Flyers met the Pittsburgh Penguins in Pittsburgh. These two teams have been building up a rivalry that's getting more feisty with each game.

Late in the second period, with the Flyers shorthanded killing a penality, Flyers forward Simon Gagne took a shot that appeared, on first glance, to have gone into the net. The problem was the the goalie had immediately fallen onto the puck with his pads and then slid backwards into the net. Plain old physics suggests there was no way the puck didn't cross the goal line to count as a goal. However, the referee never signaled a goal and that meant that a mandatory review would take place.

For those who don't know hockey, whenever there's a potential for a disputed goal, all video of the event is sent for immediate review to officials in Toronto. This unit inspects all available angles to determine the outcome and then relays their decision back to the referee at the actual game.

If the video's inconclusive then the on-ice call remains. In this case that meant unless video showed clearly that this was a goal then Gagne wouldn't get it.

All during the stoppage each available angle was shown in slow motion to viewers. Nothing looked conclusive enough to validate overturning the on-ice call of no goal. Even without that it was clear to anyone that there simply was no way the goalie could have covered the puck and kept it out. He'd simply slid too far back into the net. Regardless, Toronto saw nothing conclusive and the play stood without a goal.

In the end it didn't really amount to anything with respect to the Flyers as they went on to win 7-4. That would have been the end of it except for what happened just after Toronto's ruling.

Once the ruling is made play resumes and, at that point, nothing can change no matter what else might come to light. As if on cue the moment the puck was dropped FSN Pittsburgh, the station responsible for providing the TV coverage, showed its audience a different angle of the replay that clearly showed the puck over the goal line and it subsequently being pushed forward by the goalie out of the net. The announcers even seemed shocked with one joking, "we saved that one" meaning that they must have withheld that specific replay.

The NHL decided to investigate why this clearly conclusive replay wasn't sent to the Toronto officials for review. Today's news includes a story noting that FSN Pittsburgh has indefinitely suspended a member of its telecast staff, Lowell MacDonald Jr., son of former Penguins player Lowell MacDonald.

So the son of a former player, and most likely a die-hard Penguins fan, has been indefinitely suspended by the station..... Amazing. What a stupid reason to lose your job especially in this economy. Good luck finding another job in TV kid.

Watch the video of the events as they unfolded on FSN Pittsburgh.

My Plans Were All Up In The Air

I saw George Clooney's latest this past weekend--Up In The Air. The movie's about a consultant who gets paid to fire people for companies that don't want to do the dirty work themselves. It was a bittersweet experience to say the least. My job ended in July and I haven't found anything myself yet so watching endless people get axed by Clooney wasn't exactly a thrill.

Much has been made of this movie calling it a clear Oscar contender so I wanted to be sure I managed to sneak it in before I closed out my 2009 slate of films.

Essentially Clooney's character is enthralled with his airbound life that keeps him away from home for all but roughly two weeks (two weeks that he refers to as hell). He loves the upgrades, the perks, the special treatment he gets for being a top-mile flier. Then his world begins to unravel as a young upstart at his company convinces the boss (played wonderfully by Jason Bateman) that it's time to revolutionize the company by taking all these reps off the road and doing the deed virtually via webcam.

Clooney, in an absolute panic goes right after the plan showing the boss that the young executive might have some great ideas but that she really knows nothing about the actual business that she's attempting to re-invent. The rest of the movie is pretty much about the two of them traveling about while Clooney shows her the harsh realities that make up the bulk of what they really do.

Along the way Clooney also runs into a near-equal counterpart in female form played by the gorgeous Vera Farmiga. We also find out that Clooney really has no connection with his own family since he's never in any one place long enough to put either put down any roots or have anyone tie anything to him.

The film turns out to be a story of awakening. Clooney starts to understand that, while he loves his life, it's not much of an actual life after all.

Clooney does a good job handling the role and the movie moves along pretty much as expected. However, the ending is a complete disappointment. It ends with just a simple hint that he's figured it out but that's it. I'd have really liked to see a bit more than this and the response from those in the theater with me seemed to support my thinking.

So is Up In The Air Oscar material? It will likely be nominated but I've seen several better movies this year and thinking about it against past films there's really nothing special about it. It's just a nice solid film that tells you a decent story for a couple of hours.

Avatar Is No Clone

I have to be honest and say that everything I saw about Avatar before it came out made me think it'd be a complete letdown if not a complete disaster. The only hope I had was that it was being handled by James Cameron. Cameron has been through such concerns before. People may not recall, or be old enough to remember, that Titanic was in the press all the time prior to its release and it was always absolutely negative. It was being compared to the devastating events of the liner at every turn. Cameron's career was over according to many pundits back then. While some didn't like Titanic it was clearly extremely popular with the masses and still one of the biggest success stories in Hollywood. As a Titanic buff I loved it. His attention to detail on the movie was just incredible.

Avatar, however, looked like some fantastical comic book story with sledge-hammer heavy morality as the main thrust of the story. In a pinch for time I decided between this (in 3D) and Up In The Air. My mother passed away on December 27th and the last thing I needed on this day was a movie that might be in any way a downer and Up In The Air seemed to be a bigger risk there so I opted for the risk of the fantastical.

The movie struck me, almost at once, as a deft morphing of Dances With Wolves and Star Wars. It may not be as good as either in the bits that it resembles them but as a whole it holds its own well enough.

The film will, no doubt, spawn a strong following. Much about it lends itself to many types of would-be fanatical followers. I can't image too many groups this effort wouldn't appeal to in some form or another. It really is a major event in movie-making well worth your time. The CGI characters are presented using a new approach invented by Cameron (my apologies if someone else did it and Cameron is getting the credit) and the effect is fantastic. Actors wore headsets that tracked all of their facial movements and the result is the most realistic CGI characters ever produced.

The 3D version is also noteworthy. First, nothing about it is forced anywhere. You don't get 3D effects simply because it's in 3D. In every case they're fully embodied into the environment and so subtle that you have a hard time remembering that what you're seeing is an effect. Second, 3D often has issues with brightness. Up was fantastic in 2D and fairly washed-out and dull in 3D. Here that issue seems to have been paramount in the mind of the creators as the colors and lighting are exceptional.

The movie isn't without its issues. It felt a tad long to me and does have some pretty Hollywood-typical resolutions to plot lines here and there. It also does bring the sledge hammer along at times. However, I have to dig pretty deep to really find anything serious to complain about here. The experience of the movie is so engrossing that the few negatives roll off it like water off a duck.

I'll be stunned if we're not hearing about a sequel very shortly. The movie was absolutely made for it and I think it'd be fiscal lunacy not to do everything possible to try and make it happen.