QUEUE REVIEWS

Wherein I Review Items From My Queue(s)

[queuereviews]

Run Ricky Run (2010)

Written by Sean Pamphilon Directed by Sean Pamphilon and Royce Toni

The 30 For 30 documentary series produces the best material on ESPN. Of the several 30 For 30 docs that I’ve seen, the best are expertly crafted, powerful films and the worst are at least entertainingly informative. Conceived by ESPN personality, Bill Simmons, the series’ brilliance rests in its conception. Allowing accomplished directors the creative freedom to choose their own topics has led to an impressively wide array of films imbued with personally meaning. The directors’ investments in the stories they tell often elevate the films from simple sports documentaries to compelling, often poignant tales. The personal nature of these films is no more evident that in Run Ricky Run, director Sean Pamphilon’s exploration of the life of his friend, former NFL running back Ricky Williams.                                                           

One of the original 30 films made for the 30 For 30 series (dozens more have been made since), Run Ricky Run tells the story of Ricky Williams’ personal and professional development after entering the NFL as one of the greatest NCAA running backs in history. Directors Sean Pamphilon and Royce Toni spent several years recording footage and conducting interviews with Williams, his family, and his friends. The result is a highly intimate, honest look at a complicated man. Williams’ story is one of achievement and sacrifice, sorrow, and acceptance. His quest for self-discovery is both inspiring and confounding. He truly is one of the most unique personalities the NFL has ever seen, a man with a body for football but a mind for healing. The film covers it all, appearing to leave nothing out, good and bad. The goal here was for the directors to allow Ricky, his family, and friends to show the world who this individual really is, and why he did the things he did.

The film is not technically impressive, but it doesn’t need to be. It plays like a collection of home movies and interviews conducted by a close friend about a close friend. It’s watchable because Ricky Williams is eminently compelling. He and his story are fascinating to learn about and listen to. It works because it’s real. Authenticity abounds in every scene, from discussions of his childhood, drug use, his love of football, and his mental instability. Nothing was off limits. Pamphilon presents Williams from all sides, allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions.

Run Ricky Run represents a high point in the initial run of the 30 For 30 series. It helped establish the series as a shining example of the quality of material ESPN is capable of producing when they allow creative people to tell interesting stories.

Star Rating: 

[queuereviews]

NEXT: Run Ricky Run (2010)

[queuereviews]

The Lords of Salem (2013)

Written and Directed by Rob Zombie

I’m not sure whether I like Rob Zombie the filmmaker. I think he has ability to create visually compelling images and moments. Stylistically his films are usually memorable, he has a sense for atmosphere and tone, and his films certainly reflect his influences (which seem to be horror films of the 1970s) as a filmmaker. That isn’t necessarily a great thing, as some would argue that his films are heavily derivative of said influences, to the point of lacking originality. This may be true to an extent, but as an avid fan of the horror genre I generally find his original works entertaining. I liked House of 1000 Corpses as sort of a bat shit, wannabe art house reimagining of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, although I certainly wouldn’t call it original or even a good film. The Devil’s Rejects, despite its absurdly melodramatic ending, is his best, most fully realized film, a gritty, dusty tribute to the grindhouse style Zombie probably loved in his youth. The Halloween remake is terrible in every way. Misguided in it conception (NO ONE wants a humanized Michael Myers), it proved an unfortunate showcase for Mr. Zombie’s biggest weakness as an auteur. He is not a good screenwriter. His dialogue is obvious and contrived, dragging down already questionable acting. I’ve heard Halloween II is better but I’m in no rush to see it.

This brings us to Lords of Salem, where Zombie moves from one staple 70s milieu to another. This time it’s satanic horror with a heavy dose of witchcraft. The influence of films like The Omen and Rosemary’s Baby is evident, and Zombie actually does a pretty good job invoking a similarly sinister atmosphere without descending into pure imitation.

The story takes place in Salem, Mass., home to the famed witch trials, which figure prominently. Zombie’s wife, Sheri Moon Zombie stars as Heidi, one of three hosts of a popular nighttime occultist radio show in Salem. After receiving and playing a mysterious record from an unknown group calling themselves The Lords of Salem, Heidi is haunted by disturbing visions which may be related to her neighbors, three creepy sisters who seem oddly protective of Heidi. Soon things start getting weird, and the film ultimately descends into chaotic incoherence not unlike past Zombie films.

The main issue here is one of style over story. There are multiple instances of effectively creepy/disturbing imagery (especially as the film climaxes) that are enhanced by an excellent use of music. In these moments, the film is a compelling and successful addition to the satanic worship horror subgenre. Unfortunately, those moments are just that, moments. In his determination to make Lords of Salem visually arresting, he neglects the narrative, which meanders and eventually evaporates. A secondary storyline, in which an author of a new book about witchcraft in Salem searches for and discovers the origin of the Lords record and Heidi’s relation to everything that’s happening, feels vestigial, but is necessary for expository reasons. Zombie never manages to integrate explanation into the main story, which focuses heavily on showing the audience Heidi’s increasingly hellish existence. As the film moves into its final act, the narrative loses any coherence or importance, replaced by bizarre, satanic imagery, while at times effective, is often confusing. It’s necessary, as the credits begin to roll, for another expository device to explain to the audience what they just watched.

Sheri Moon Zombie is the only actor given much substance to work with. Costars are present as either vehicles to push the narrative forward (in the case of the doomed writer) or for the sole point of reacting to the machinations of Heidi’s descent. Moon Zombie, tattooed and dreadlocked, looks the part. She is attractive and inviting, but feels surrounded by darkness. Heidi’s neighbors, the three sisters who are much older than they look, service their limited roles well.

I’d love to see what Rob Zombie could do with a good script, one he didn’t write. Would his visual flair work when it’s not limited to stylized homage’s to films that informed his early tastes? I’m not so sure. He already tried (and failed) to impose his style on a dying franchise. Lords of Salem is a sideways step for the director, revealing his strengths but reinforcing his weaknesses.  

Star Rating:

[queuereviews]

NEXT: The Lords of Salem (2013)

[queuereviews]

The House I Live In (2012)

Written and Directed by Eugene Jarecki

 Eugene Jarecki's documentary about the effects of the “War on Drugs” is impressively comprehensive given its 108-minute runtime. The history of drug criminalization in the United States, how laws and law enforcement affecting drug users/dealers has evolved (or not evolved) into the 21st century, and the far reaching and devastating socio-economic and political ramifications this “war” are a few facets the film explores in those 108 minutes. Along the way, the director weaves personal stories, his own and those on both sides of the drug war, into the film.

The “War on Drugs” is not a war because, to quote my favorite television series, The Wire, "wars end". Our war on the drug trafficking industry, on its consumers and producers will never end. It most likely will never even get better. If it is a war, there’s no doubt which side is winning. No, the “War on Drugs” is largely a war on the poor. First, minority (in particular, African-American) communities in the inner city were targeted with politically motivated crusades against drugs like crack-cocaine. Later, rural white communities, where methamphetamine is the dominant drug industry, became a focus. The drug war has become big business for politicians, law enforcement, and the prison industry just to name a few.

This is not a biased film. Nor is it poorly researched. Extensive interviews (with drug addicts, drug dealers, inmates, corrections officers, police officers, politicians, professors, scientists, historians, activists, journalists, and federal judges) are used to paint a comprehensive and complicated picture of the American Drug War. The director allows the experience and the expertise of the film’s subjects to substantiate his claims. While these elements work for the viewer on an intellectual level, it’s the personal stories presented that grip us emotionally. These stories speak to how drug use and its criminalization has devastated so many families and communities. The film never feels like a lecture, nor does it try to unfairly manipulate the audience to get them to adopt its position. The effect of so much information and seeing so many people suffering is powerful.

This is not a pro-drug film. Nor is it anti-government or anti-law enforcement. It’s against the flawed and failed policies surrounding drugs that have arguably done more harm than good. Ultimately, unless the viewer is coming in completely ignorant on this subject, there isn’t a vast amount of revelatory information. Much of what is said is familiar, although not all of it. What’s impressive is how well it’s put together and the passion behind it. As viewers will learn, Eugene Jarecki, like so many Americans, has a personal investment in our drug war. This film was deeply meaningful for him. Hopefully it will connect with its audience with similar deep meaning.

Star Rating:

[queuereviews]

NEXT: The House I Live In (2012)

[queuereviews]

24 Hour Party People (2002)

Written by Frank Cottrell Boyce  Directed by Michael Winterbottom

As 24 Hour Party People nears its end, journalist/reporter/record label and nightclub owner/main character Tony Wilson explains, “This is a film about the music and the people who made the music.”

This is essentially true. 24 Hour Party People is a postmodern tribute to the popular music scene in Manchester, UK from the mid-seventies through the nineties. It’s about the characters that lived it, their music, and the people who tried to make a living around it, like Tony Wilson. Director Michael Winterbottom and writer Frank Cottrell Boyce don’t want to tell the audience about this period in time and space though, they want to show us. They want the audience to experience the lifestyle rather than recount it to us. They want us to hear the music and feel the drug-fueled madness that inspired it. Simply allowing the narrative to explain it to us would be too sterile.

So what is that narrative? The film follows Tony Wilson, a television reporter who is all in on the burgeoning punk rock scene in mid-seventies Manchester. He hosts a television series, So It Goes, which showcases this new music, but it’s not enough. He wants to be more involved. After doing concert promotion, he and some partners form Factory Records and attempt to take this music mainstream. The film follows the record label, the artists, and the craziness that abounds, into the 90s.

It’s not that the narrative is weak or loosely connected. There’s a coherent story here but the plot feels deemphasized. The filmmakers appear more interested in reveling in character and tone than in narrative momentum. Does this approach work? I would say yes, for the most part. A straightforward biopic about a formation of a record label would have been far less compelling, although the narrative does suffer somewhat due to the stylistic choices. For those, like myself, completely foreign to the background of the story, the who, what, when, and where of the narrative would quickly become confusing, if not for the help of Tony Wilson, who constantly breaks the fourth wall to explain what’s happening and its significance, both historically and in the film.

Tony Wilson’s dialogue with the audience about the film is the most apparent, but not only, example of postmodern style. It’s self-referential, at times surreal and absurd. Real-life figures appear throughout, offering their own thoughts on what we’re watching.

I chose this film mostly because I’m a fan of Steve Coogan. I find his brand of caricature, the inept, comically narcissistic wannabe who consistently embarrasses himself, quite funny. There are elements of that character here, but Tony Wilson is far more toned down and realistic than those past characters. This is as serious a role as I’ve seen Steve Coogan in. He’s good. Given the psychosis of the characters that surround Tony Wilson, the drug addicted rockers, the drug addicted music producers, he functions as an amusing straight man. No other character has a consistent and substantial enough role to discuss at length. It is fun to note a number of English actors appearing in the film that went on to have great success.

What is 24 Hour Party People? Is it drama? Comedy? Can a film be a drama if it doesn’t take itself serious (as this film certainly does not)? It’s amusing, but that’s it. The funniest scene opens the film; it’s highly reminiscent of past Coogan work.

I enjoyed the more recent collaboration between Coogan and Michael Winterbottom, more than this film, although I wouldn’t necessarily say this is worse. The story is somewhat predictable to anyone who has seen the “rise to fame in the music industry" narrative: early obscurity, success, and excess leading to downfall, but there’s an authenticity and genuineness to the film that works in its favor. Ultimately, it works because of the recognition that the characters and the setting are far more interesting than the story itself.

 Star Rating:

[queuereviews]

NEXT: 24 Hour Party People (2002)

[queuereviews]

Twixt (2011)

Written and Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

In Twixt, Francis Ford Coppola aims to create a heavily stylized, surreal gothic mystery that pays homage to the work of Edgar Allen Poe. In addition to serving as the model for protagonist Hall Baltimore (get it?), “The Raven” author visits the main character in several dream sequences. In these scenes, Poe’s presence serves two purposes. The first is expositional. Rather than allowing the film’s narrative to slowly or cleverly reveal the circumstances of the murder mystery Hall Baltimore is investigating, it’s easier to have Edgar explain it to him. Secondly, Dream-Poe acts as a writing partner to Baltimore, offering advice on the mechanics of constructing a gothic mystery narrative. This is of great help to Hall, who ultimately wants to write a novel about said murder mystery.

Hall Baltimore, described in the film as “a third-rate Stephen King,” is creatively barren. For too long, the once promising writer has survived on a diet of hard alcohol and witchcraft fiction, the latter of which apparently pays the bills. He yearns to write something more substantial, which may just find after arriving in the small, isolated town of Swann Valley.

Twixt is a small-town murder mystery. I quickly realized this because the film contains most of the sub-genre’s typical beats. Val Kilmer plays a worn-down horror writer who drinks too much to avoid thinking about his tragic past. In Swann Valley he is introduced to quirky characters, including Bruce Dern as a possibly psychotic sheriff/aspiring horror writer who encourages the author to investigate a series of past murders, including that of a 13 year-old girl. Of course this resonates with Baltimore, who is still reeling from to death of his young daughter.

Twixt is also a gothic horror story. It’s as if, once Coppola decided to go that route, he thought of as many gothic narrative elements as he could, then packed them into the film, regardless of their relevance to the story. There is a ghostly, white-faced young girl who appears in heavily stylized dream sequences rendered in bluish-grey colors. There is an ominous clock tower. There is possible vampirism. There are hedonistic teenagers who really like dark eyeliner and occult imagery.

Coppola attempts an artistically ambitious narrative and visual style, neither of which works. This is a low-budget film trying to be visually arresting with special effects and cinematography that foster the gothic tone. It looks cheap and distracts from the story, which is already muddled and confusing. The dream-sequences are designed to feel poetic, but are nonsensical and boring. The murder mystery is not developed enough to engage the audience, nor do the more artistic scenes have any impact, emotionally or intellectually.

Kilmer isn’t terrible in the role; he just has little to work with. The characterization is too shallow and there is not much the actor can do to make Hall Baltimore interesting. There is an amusing scene where Val Kilmer gets to do some wacky impersonations, so there’s that. Bruce Dern’s sheriff is kind of fun, but the character is lost in the narrative mess.

Francis Ford Coppola is a great American filmmaker. He has the experience to make a competent film. Val Kilmer is a gifted actor, despite some of his role choices. Because there is legitimate talent in front of and behind the camera, Twixt is elevated to a level that makes it at least watchable. With a bigger budget, the film’s visual ambition could have been more fully realized. It still would have been poorly written.

Star Rating: