Playing some sort of combination of punk and hard rock with touches of stoner and metal, Invitro is storming the shelves and trying to take over your mind! Their debut release, When I Was a Planet, sounds to be on the verge of fertilizing your ears with an infectious sound that cannot be categorized. All this while they perform their musical operations in lab coats and tin foil. I think that about covers it. To be honest, I am still in the midst of forming an opinion on these guys. The sound is definitely unique, slightly odd, and I cannot really compare them to anyone else at the moment. The only problem is that being different, unique, and odd can be very different things from actually being good. Being good is something I am not sure can be applied to Invitro.The band definitely has an absurdist sense of humor in their approach. In a way, Invitro would likely be at home in the animated realm of Dethklok (Metalocalypse). For example, check songs like "King" with its talk of Burger King and "Comb Over Party" whose name alone brings up images of a skullet. Combine that with a frenetic pace and energy that is all over the map. For as middling as the final product may be, the energy is downright infectious. It is that energy which really saved it for me. It was not without some effort that it saved it in my eyes from being a trainwreck of weirdness for weirdness sake.
On my first pass through, I wasn't quite sure what to think of it. Was this supposed to be taken seriously? What kind of music was it? It seemed like they were playing random parts with no frame of reference to put it into. That is likely the point. This is music played with no intentions of buying into any type of corporate plan for success or pandering to suits in order to make a buck.
The more I listened, the more When I Was a Planet seemed to make sense. I hesitate to call it good, but I will call it potentially good. Meaning, with another album or two to hone their plan this could prove to be an interesting seed that initiates the growth of a band forging ahead in their own fashion. At this stage, it sounds more like a band looking to find their way. Invitro is making an attempt to stay away from the mainstream and create a new direction.
Perhaps it would be best to view this album as an experiment. Maybe it could be put in a category similar to Rob Zombie's film House of 1000 Corpses. That movie was like an experiment in filmmaking where Zombie compiled all of his influences and ideas into one big screen mash-up. Some of it worked, some of it didn't. He took that experiment and distilled out his own personal vision and turned out a gritty 70's era grindhouse style flick in the genius The Devil's Rejects. That could be what is going on here, an experiment that will be distilled to a finer focus that results in a fantastic sophomore outing.
Bottomline. A middling experience to be sure, Invitro could grow into an interesting voice. This is an album that I cannot fully recommend, but may be worth checking out by the curious. I have a feeling that we will be hearing more from these guys down the road.
Mildly Recommended.
With an eye carefully turned towards the international market, Daniel Lee brings together an international cast in his highly-stylized action extravaganza, Dragon Heat. Originally released to the international market with the title Dragon Squad, the 2005 Maang lung has finally made it across the waters, landing on DVD courtesy of The Weinstein Company and their Dragon Dynasty imprint. Now, if you are a fan of Asian action, Dragon Dynasty is a label you are likely already familiar with. If you are not, do yourself a favor and take a look at what they have to offer. Dragon Heat is not have a heck of a lot of martial arts action, but it delivers some nicely realized gun fights.
In case you were wondering, gambling is bad. It is an addiction that is not easily beaten. Gambling can ruin lives, take lives, rob you of your life savings, break up your family, or any number of other terrible things. In case you didn't already know that, thankfully we have Even Money to tell us. It is a movie that has an amazing cast, but a story that attempts to bring in people from all different walks of life under the banner of demonizing gambling. Unfortunately, Even Money does not work. It is too bad, the cast is really good and with a better script could have delivered a very good film.
A big problem with the film is that we do not get enough time with any of the characters to build up any sort of sympathies. I have no reason to care about any of them. We are not given any insight into why they gamble, just that they do. The film tracks their stories to their inevitable conclusion, a conclusion that was met with a "eh" by this viewer. What was the point of this movie? To understand why people gamble and what it can do to good people and to their families and loved ones? Nope. The point is that gambling is bad, but I said that already. Why keep reading this? I don't know, I already gave you the purpose of the film. Still here? All right, I think there is more I can give you.
One prong of the story centers on Clyde Snow (Forest Whitaker), a down on his luck handyman who lives vicariously through his younger brother, college basketball star Godfrey (Nick Cannon). Clyde gets in over his head placing bets on his brothers games. Then there is the story of Carol Carver (Kim Basinger), a novelist who spends her writer's blocked days plugging the family savings into slot machines and on blackjack tables. Meanwhile, her husband (Ray Liotta) and daughter struggle at home to keep the family together. Carol's story gets a little more complicated when she meets Walter (Danny DeVito). Walter is a down on his luck magician, reduced to doing tricks at old ladies dinner tables for scraps. He also happens to be trying to get some real work with Victor (a scenery chewing Tim Roth in the most notable performance of the movie), a rather nasty hearted bookie. Carol and Walter engage in some get rich quick schemes (as Basinger's performance slips from decent into ridiculously bad territory). Finally we get the story of a pair of bookies, Augie (Jay Mohr) and Murph (Grant Sullivan). Augie is looking to step up in the ranks, while Murph wants to go straight with his girlfriend (Carla Gugino).
I am sure you all saw the names and are wondering how can a cast like this result in a bad movie? Grammar, Whitaker, Basinger, Liotta, DeVito, Mohr, Roth, Gugino, what a cast! The problem lies with Robert Tannen, the writer. I can see the pitch to the actors as sounding quite good, something along the lines of being involved in a multi-tiered story about the affects of gambling on families and the tragic results that it can lead to. It all sounds well and good, but when the screenplay has no heart or personality; there is not much for them to work with.
Two Weeks is a Lifetime-styled weepy that tosses in a couple of expletives to garner a R rating. With a couple of minor tweaks, that wouldn't change the effect of the movie, and this would be PG and ready for televised consumption without requiring any cuts for content. Its length, 93 minutes, is already tailored for the small screen. If you count the videotaped framing device, it is already set for commercial breaks. All this makes me wonder if Two Weeks was a made-for-TV movie that was shoehorned into a limited big screen release when they saw the strength of Sally Field's performance? Not to mention here return to the limelight following here well received guest spots on ER and her starring role on Brothers and Sisters (a role which just won her an Emmy).
Something else I have to wonder after watching it, is who was this made for? Who is the intended audience for this? It is a question that goes back to the overall Lifetime aura that surrounds the movie. Outside of that, I do not see a widespread audience for this. Those who have gone through something like this don't want to relive it on the screen, and those who haven't, by and large, would probably prefer not being put through the ringer. I have lost a family member within the past year and I was able to identify with some of the situations, if not the characters.
The movie plays towards the melodramatic side of the coin, rather than the straight up dramatic. It is a choice which seems to rob the narrative of any real emotional heft. It strikes me as a cathartic experience for writer/director Steve Stockman who lost his mother to cancer some years earlier.
While feelings are dug up, I could not find a way into the characters. While they all had distinctly different personalities, I did not feel I got to know any of them well enough. To further muddy the water, the middle of the film has a number of secondary characters appear and then quickly disappear, never leaving much of a mark. I cannot help but feel that there are large chunks of film that were left on the editing room floor. Then there is the videotaped interludes, which is set up as a video being made for posterity. We get clips of this throughout the film which break the film down into chapters. There is no real indication of when it was made, although it was clearly prior to the start of the two week timeline. While it may be something nice for family members, it seemed to cut into the dramatic path the film was trying to carve.
Witchfinder General is a title that I have seen on DVD wish lists, and anytime there is a discussion of Vincent Price. Since its release in 1968, the film has gathered quite the cult following and had much praise heaped upon it. What does that mean to those of us that are unfamiliar with it? Well, the big thing is the hype that is built up in your head. The more and more positive you read about the film, the higher the hype level, and that much better the movie has to be in order to match the hype. Cases like this are almost assured of being a letdown. It is a no-win situation as few movies actually live up to all the hype. That said, Witchfinder General is definitely a good movie, just be sure to keep your expectations in check.
Way back in 1981 the age of slasher film was really beginning to gather steam. Following the virtual invention of many of the conventions in 1978's Halloween and 1980's Friday the 13th, the market was preparing for a flood of summer camp killers and holiday themed blood spillers. Among the string of films was 1981's The Burning (which was re-released under the name Cropsy at one point) kicked off the careers of a number recognizable names in front of and behind the cameras. Among those names are Harvey and Bob Weinstein, this pair was responsible for the story and screenplay, they have gone on to become a pair of the most well known producers, founding Miramax and now The Weinstein Company. In front of the camera you have the debuts of Jason Alexander, Holly Hunter, and Fisher Stevens. Is the film any good? It has its moments.
The Burning starts of the activity named by the title. A group of kids at summer camp want to play a prank on the grounds keeper, Cropsy. In the middle of the dark night they sneak into his cabin, leaving behind a worm covered skull (where did they find that?) with candles in the eye sockets. The prank works almost too well. Cropsy wakes up and freaks out, knocking over the flaming skull, in the process setting himself and the cabin on fire. He survives, but is very badly burned, spending the next several years in the burn center of a hospital.
Anyway, when the action picks back up we are treated to a number of nicely bloody kills. Among the kills is a fantastic multiple kill on a raft. Generally slasher film kills are one on one deals in the dark of night, while this was a bunch of kids in the light of day. The tension builds up through the finale with the reveal of the killer and the final showdown.
Way back in 1974, Stephen King wrote a story called Sometimes They Come Back. It was originally published in the collection called Night Shift. It also included tales such as Battleground, Lawnmower Man, and Children of the Corn. All of which have been turned into big and small screen creations. The most successful was the hour long Battleground that opened the Nightmares Dreamscapes mini-series in 2006. It was a brilliant hour that starred William Hurt and had no dialogue. Back to the movie at hand. In 1991 Sometimes They Come Back was brought to the small screen to amazingly boring effect.
I cannot help it, whenever I see Michael Ian Black I think of a friend of mine whom I haven't seen in years (James, if you read this, you will be forever linked with Michael Ian Black). Don't ask me why, they really are nothing alike. Something kicked off that connection in the past and I do not foresee it being severed at any point in the near future. Anyway, this is the first actual stand-up comedy I have heard from Black and it is pretty darn funny in a detached sardonic manner. I Am a Wonderful Man puts is odd and dry wit front and center at the Lakeshore Theater in Chicago.
My pick this week is one half of Grindhouse. Grindhouse was a theatrical experience brought to the big screen earlier this year by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. For those of you who have not seen Grindhouse, here is the basic idea behind it: In the 1970's and 1980's the grindhouse was a cheap theater that specialized in exploitation films and low to no budget features. Tarantino and Rodriguez sought to bring the experience back by pairing up a couple of films, adding fake trailers and bumpers, adding marks and scratches to the prints and dropping frames. They went so far as to remove an entire reel from each feature.
Much like what Halloween did for slasher films in 1978, 1974's Death Wish helped to set the standard for vigilante films. It is not the be all and end all of the genre, but its influence cannot be ignored, and pretty much any vigilante flick to come since will ultimately be compared to the Charles Bronson starring film. That includes both vigilante films that have come out within the past month. First was Death Sentence, a B movie that embraced its roots and delivered an entertaining film. Now we have The Brave One which is definitely B grade material with efforts by the primary cast and director to elevate it to the A level. It is not entirely successful, but the film is still rather entertaining in its efforts.
The Brave One does not waste anytime getting going. We are introduced to Erica Baine (Jodie Foster), a talk radio host who shares her tales of walking the streets of New York City. She is engaged to a doctor named David (Naveen Andrews) and the two are preparing for their impending nuptials. One night, walking through Central Park (a hotbed of criminal activity if there ever was one) the couple is accosted by some hooligans. Erica is beaten within an inch of her life while David loses his. This attack has shattered Erica's existence. It has taken away the love of her life and has instilled within her a fear of everything and everyone. She is barely able to leave her apartment, much less work and carry on speaking of walking the city. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in that position, it is a truly horrifying proposition.
What follows is an examination of vigilantism, both sides of the story, through the eyes of a woman who has been on both sides. Unlike Death Sentence, where the lead is almost single-minded in his purpose, The Brave One's Erica is much more reluctant at first. It is almost as if she is testing her willingness to become a more proactive participant. She is forced to examine the changes that have taken place in the wake of her loss. This is contrasted with Detective Mercer (Terrance Howard) who follows the law no matter how frustrating it can be in blocking him from bringing criminals to justice.
Director Neil Jordan does a good job of showing the buildup and the changes that Erica goes through from the start of the film to where she is inevitably going to end up. However, the film does run a bit long and has this feeling of "artiness" which does not always work. I want to use the word "pretentious," but I feel the connotation is a bit strong for what I am trying to say. There are many sequences of voice-over as we listen to Erica Baine's radio show. She talks of walking the streets and how alive it is all in this flowery NPR-style talk, which later becomes something of a confessional as Erica's experience becomes fodder for her show. At times it felt a bit much, as if they were trying to hard to elevate the pulpy base. At the same time I liked the very thing I am criticizing. Weird, I know.
The performances were very good throughout. Jodie Foster is one of those actresses that I cannot claim to be a particular fan of, yet always enjoy her work. The Brave One is no different. She can portray so many emotions simultaneously, I was amazed by most of her work here. She goes this great transition from the happiness early on, to the pain of loss and fear, on through tragic determination as she steps into vigilante mode. My only problem with her performance is that we get too many shots of her in her sickened/shocked/excited at what she just did look that seems to linger forever whenever she pulls the trigger. I get the point already, move along. Terrance Howard also turns in a very good performance as the detective on the case. He may be the law and dedicated to doing the right thing, but he is also conflicted and the relationship that develops between his Mercer and Erica is quite interesting as the dynamic changes.
Wow. Where to begin? This film was nearly incomprehensible. Dragon Wars is so bad its funny. Seriously, this is perfect fodder for Mystery Science Theater 3000 style commentary. I sat in the darkened theater on opening night, only three other brave souls joined me. That is not a good sign, but it was still more than who went to see DOA: Dead or Alive on opening night. Dragon Wars is a Korean import which sports the largest budget ever for a Korean production at around $30 million. I am wondering where the budget went. As far as I can guess, it was all spent on the effects, which were not all that great (although I am willing to overlook that). Here is the short of it: see this if you are looking for a movie that is so bad its funny, wait for DVD if you are curious and like dragon movies, do not see this if you want to retain all brain cells and are hoping for a good movie.
