Movies

Telling the story of George Hardy, one of the stars of Troll 2, the sequel to nothing, with not a troll in sight (“we called them Goblins”), this is a documentary that probably entertains more than the mo

vie it references.  The film uses Hardy’s participation in the project, filmed twenty years ago when he was working as a new dentist in Utah, as a jumping point to explore the affection that a surprisingly large group of people have for this odd, straight to video, piece of cinematic history.  The viewer is able to go with George as he discovers the depth of the fandom that surrounds this work, from annual viewing parties to film inspired games and a couple who sculpted their own goblin masks. 

            Though the film is interspersed with many clips from the movie, the underlying theme is not so much the wonder that is Troll 2, but instead the unique experience that an audience has with any type of movie, even those of the supposedly worst caliber.  George remarked before the documentary began that he considered this project a love letter to Alabama, since it included many snap shots of his town and the people he is close to.  It would be more accurate, I believe, to call this a love letter to the movies.  Such a letter would be too banal if it centered on some outstanding work that was lauded so often that praise becomes another element of white noise, alienating the general public.  By focusing on this movie, we are able to strip away the pomp and circumstance of cinematic classics and see instead the simple, raw way in which a movie can grip on to people, to speak to something in them that doesn’t need fancy scripts, good acting, or even a rational plot.

            The director of Troll 2, a swarthy Italian who can barely communicate with his former actors (though apparently his language skills are much better now than they were twenty years ago, a fact that is most likely the reasoning behind each bizarrely performed scene), is at times a comic figure, and not comic by his own desire.  He does not see his film as bad in any way.  He honestly believes that what he made is a genuine portrait of the American family, a deep look into the things that threaten togetherness in the modern age.  And, from the perspective of his wife and the film’s writer, the inherent evils of vegetarianism.  As I said, this seriousness puts him in a comical position since even the deepest fans comment on the horrible state of his work.  In the end, however, his foolish stance is vindicated as he explains that the heart of movies is how they reach the heart of the viewer, by whatever method, whatever story, whatever mark of quality the critics put on it.  The fact that the movie garnered so much love, regardless of what the actors may complain about now (these “dogs” as he dubs them), makes it a success, makes it a classic.  This is the signature of the cinematic love letter, the summation of what the movie going experience is – sincerity of expression, if not necessarily tantamount skill.

            Loftiness aside, it was great fun, with a previous familiarity of Troll 2not required.  The only low point that I saw was in the treatment of Margo Prey, the woman who played the mother in the movie, which made me exceedingly uncomfortable.  I’m not sure what the intention of the filmmakers was, but it seemed that Margo’s life after her appearance in the movie was handled with great jest even though it was clear that she was suffering in some way, though we weren’t privy to what exactly her problem was.  This comic level was acceptable in the overly earnest director, but seemed highly disrespectful with her.  This of course could be a flaw in my own sensibilities.  Such complaint aside, Best Worst Movieis without a doubt one to see.

            As for Troll 2…..

            Obviously, after learning so much about the behind the scenes work and the adamant following afterward of this film, it is hard to resist seeing it for yourself.  In my case, I have to admit that I had Nilbog overkill fifteen minutes into the film.  It truly is terrible, accented by the fact that you’ve just watched an explanation of the extremely convoluted plot and seen many clips of the most hilarious parts.  Perhaps if I’d waited a few days to follow up I’d be a serious fan too, though more likely is the fact that “bad films” just aren’t my thing.

            Two things that can’t go unaddressed when you’re talking about Troll 2: homoeroticism and vegetarianism.  The men are always shirtless, sleeping close together in small spaces, and one boy won’t be accepted by his girlfriend’s family because he “spends too much time with his boys.”  In fact, the only women in this film, aside from the queen of the goblin people and a few zombie-faced goblins, are the mother and the daughter, one of whom we barely see and the other who is flat chested and lifts weights in her bedroom.  The most poignant bit of homoeroticism comes in a seduction scene where the goblin queen “pops corn” with one of the human boys, letting their sexual heat explode the kernels as the two gnaw on an obscenely phallic ear of corn.

            The evils of vegetarians are what drive the entire plot.  These evil creatures don’t believe in the consumption of flesh, unless that flesh has been transformed into a chlorophyll-spewing carcass after consuming foaming broth or eating green sandwiches (sorry, should that have been spoiler alerted?).  There’s not much to say about that angle aside from now we finally know how to defeat these leaf eaters.

            Thanks for that backpack, Grandpa Seth, we owe you one.

--
"Trust your own instinct.  Your mistakes might as well be your own, instead of someone else's."  -- Billy Wilder

--Dosty Glory Read more »

           Let me begin by admitting that I view this movie with somewhat of a bias: I hate Ellen Page.  Yes, hate is a strong word, perhaps even too strong for this situation, but it gets the point across.  With her face frozen in bewilderment and her walk of aggressive sass, Page stuck out like a sore, gangrenous thumb amongst an otherwise stellar cast. Read more »

by Dosty Glory with pictures by Bo Hicks

Toy Story 3, much like its earlier incarnations, is an exploration of the perpetuation of imagination.  Try saying that five times fast!

            Beyond that, there really isn’t much to say.  From my limited memory, the second film in the franchise was a bit of a dud, as second films are apt to be, but this one picked up the spirit where the original left off.  The power of this film, however, is bolstered by the fact that we see the affection for the power of imagination reach beyond childhood, to “infinity and beyond.” 

Both films, if boiled down to a single theme, revolve

around the line between fiction and reality.  When Buzz Lightyear is introduced, he is a creature that doesn’t know of his existence within the fictional realm.  This condition makes him an item of folly amongst the other toys and gets them into trouble, ending in a devastating scene where Buzz is forced to come to terms with the realities of his existence.  This conflict and confusion is embodied in each child who succumbs to the power of imagination.  The whole reason that Buzz is brought into the toy’s world is because their owner, Andy, is affected by marketing to request something flashier than the old fashioned toys he is formerly enjoyed.  Though Buzz eventually enters the fold of Andy’s play universe, he continues to be a symbol of how reality, embodied in the concept of media marketing, attempts to chip away at the autonomy of childhood imagination. (picture to the left is the editors attempt to show "autonomy of childhood imagination")

This most recent film opens entrenched in fantasy.  Gradually, the scene of make-believe is pulled away and developed into a montage of Andy’s growth and change, cumulating in the question of what happens to a person’s playthings when they leave childhood.  In this scenario it isn’t the reality of marketing that encroaches on imagination, but the reality of “growing up.”  The toy characters that we have developed a relationship with over two films are the symbol of youth and freedom of mind and spirit, unaffected by the pressures of the outside world.  The progression of the plot is then an allegory of what happens to that freedom.

What makes Toy Story as a franchise so powerful, to me, is that it thrives on the simply human need for creation as opposed to a more recent dependence of children on video games and television shows.  Both of these things are fine, in limited measure, but they are no replacement for a villainous Potato Head and a courageous cowboy demanding you “reach for the skies!”  Though there is likely plenty of argument to the contrary, I would say that in many ways this film exceeds the first film, and certainly runs laps around the second (Star Wars, anybody?).  By giving us an intimate look at toys beyond Andy’s room, the issues of aging and the destruction of the creative spirit expand to a more global level, even if it’s still in the same suburban neighborhood.  This expansion of the toy community gave their adventure even greater heft, as if our old friends weren’t just fighting for their relationship with Andy, but the relationship of all of us with hope and wonder.

And even if the whole thing were an utter wreck: Michael Keaton as the voice of Ken!

--
"I can fail again, but at least I will fail with something that excites me."  -- Billy Wilder

---Dosty Glory Read more »

The Secret of Kells

Kells is a captivating study of the pursuit and preservation of knowledge.  All of this is personified in a mystical book that ancient monks have been working on for untold years.  The book is danger from two fronts: first, from the encroaching Vikings who seek to decimate the monk population; second, from the paranoia of this invasion that places more emphasis on protecting their treasures than continuing to add to them.

            The fable is grounded in a simple and highly effective foundation.  It begins with the central character, a young man named Brandon, with the set of monks who are responsible for writing the village’s books. Their places of origin are not specified but it seems the monks are meant to represent various cultures around the world, giving an interesting alternative to the more likely history of knowledge being scribed and collected by a narrow group of white men.  While these men are forced to divert their energy into fortifying the village, Brandon goes on a series of quests into the outside world, looking for visions to add to the legendary book.  In the course of these adventures he melds Christian and pagan philosophies without going in-depth into either, focusing instead on the wonders of the world outside the walls and a friendship with a faerie girl.

            Though the men are dressed as monks and there are some Christian symbols exhibited, along with an understanding of what monks used to get up to before the printing press, there is no mention in the book of religious specifics.  The story instead relies on the lines from Genesis stating, “The word is God,” or some more biblically accurate permutation.  Without explicitly saying “God,” it is clear that these men worship “the word,” truth, and knowledge.  Because of this reverence, it is easier to reconcile Brandon’s participation with “pagan” mythologies.  While in the forest, he must follow the truth of the forest, though there are some things he had previously believed to only be children’s stories. 

            Brandon’s guide in the forest is a girl he identifies as a faerie.  Her true identity or origin is never revealed and it need not be, since she exists mainly as juxtaposition to the exercise of truth Brandon had previously been exposed to.  Where the Abbott and the other monks see knowledge as a matter of record, Ashley is knowledge in action.  The comparison immediately brought to mind the difference between learning about life from a self-help book, and learning it from a work of literature.  Knowledge, truth, or whatever you want to call it, isn’t clear and stagnant; it is swirling and undefined, only to be caught through catching.  It is our task to understand Ashley as a concept, not as a list of characteristics.  The she was drawn, very different from all of the other characters, adds a great deal to her illustration of difference.  Her only flaw is that she was given the traits of a sassyyoung girl, much too modern for the rest of the film. She was even wearing what looked like bell-bottom pants.  This modernization didn’t serve any purpose that I could see, and disrupted the established flow of the film in a negative way. Thankfully, her part was small enough that it didn’t mar the film too much, and there were plenty of other, non-sassy scenes, that balanced out the sore points. Read more »

This latest work by Noah Baumbach gave me what all other films from the Indie champ have given: a decent time, but nothing much more or less than that.  The performances were charming, the shooting was perfection, and the story was offbeat with modest quirk.  It had plenty of great components but, as is often the case with these slice-of-life features, the result left me a little cold.

            Staring Ben Stiller in a “dramatic turn,” Greenbergis about a former musician returning to L.A. to watch his brother’s house.  He connects with some old figures in his life, writes snotty letters, and has a romance of sorts with his brother’s assistant.  Greenberg isn’t a particularly likable guy, and though it’s meant to seem as though he’s changed in the course of the film, he really hasn’t.  That’s fine, characters don’t really have to change, but I would argue they do need to draft a more significant note of interest than is exhibited here.  The fault there isn’t in the writing, it’s in the casting.  Stiller is fine enough in his genre, but merely an extended discomfort in this black-comedy field. In this part, Stiller kept the audience at arms length, too guarded for what the character needed to reach a note of naturalness and authenticity.  He was anxious and curt, not in a way that jived with the part but stemming from personal discomfort.  When working with supporting players like the delightful Rhys Ifans and the always lovely Jennifer Jason Leigh, Stiller looks miserably out of his depth, which distracts from the depths that Greenberg’s shallowness could be exhibited. Read more »

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

It didn’t feel like a video game movie, for what that’s worth.  Though it was somewhat comical to watch a controversial Oscar nominee do brown-face.  Wonder if anyone told him that playing a different race does get you quite the same acclaim as playing “differently-abled.”  Perhaps he just watched Tropic Thunderand didn’t catch the parody.

            Personally, I liked Aladdinmuch more as a cartoon than live-action, though Robin Williams never gave him the power to climb walls using arrows that can pierce stone.  At least, not that I remember.  Not even a member of the A-Team could hop that far unassisted!  As Jake Gyllenhaal darted in and out of huts, crashing through crowds and interrupting a harem, all that was missing was a catchy tune and a mischievous monkey.  Well, that and a believable front man.  But hey, animation has come a long way, even back in 1992.

            In this telling, the rascally street-rat doesn’t find a genie, but instead gets adopted as a boy by the Persian king and later finds a magical, time traveling sword that he must guard so it doesn’t destroy mankind and ruin his time with the sexy princess.  I know, I know: why didn’t they just stick with the simple realism of the Cave of Wonders?  That’s modern Disney for you.

            I don’t see any problem with the magical sword of time sand, and really hope this isn’t a fancy legend that I am shamefully clueless of.  There’s no reason a plot can’t be fantastical.  The fantastical does become a problem, however, when it defies logic out of laziness and not some strand of creativity.  Drama is based on a series of actions, a line of cause and effect.  The line of action presented here is a lot of effect, with weak cause.  The King sees Dastan (Gyllenhaal) protecting another beggar child as a boy, admires his bravery and decides to adopt him – what?!  The man already has two SONS, why the blip is he picking up strangers?  This leads to a whole heap of other “why?!”s that I don’t have the energy to pluck down, mainly because it dangerously raises my blood pressure.  The real mind bender is that there was no reason to construct such flimsy premise action, the direct route would have been simpler and required less wiggling and wrangling. Read more »

If liking off the beaten path quirky movies makes us film nerds, so be it. Based on the success of last years "Bama Art House film Series" this years event has grown even bigger. The Bama Art Film Series is a series of one night showings of independent and foreign films that rarely make it to the opulent shiny halls of the Cobb Hollywood 16. It's hard for a lot of these films to fight for screen space when you have such cinematic masterpieces as "MacGruber" and "Sex in The City 2" (*ed. note. "Sex in The City 2" runs only a scant 30 minutes shorter then "Schindler's List". We here at wellthatscool.com all agree that we would rather be shot three times in the junk with a pellet gun then have to sit through that stinker. That's two and a half hours of your life you can never get back.). The Bama will fill this cultural void over the next 8 weeks starting with Greenberg on Tuesday June 8th staring Ben Stiller and directed by Noah Baumbach. Noah Baumbach is known for his 1995 cult classic "Kicking and Screaming" and the critically acclaimed "The Squid and The Whale".(*ed note "The Squid and the Whale" sounds more like a "Mastodon" album than the touching story of two young boys dealing with their parents divorce in Brooklyn. Also the picture to the left has nothing to do with the movie - it's just awesome).

Each Tuesday Morning we will post a synopsis of that week's movie followed by our own movie reviewing maven Dosty Glory's review later in the week. For a complete list of films as well as ticket info please visit www.bamaarthouse.com. Read more »

Shrek Forever After

Sequels are always troublesome.  Sequels to fairy tales are inherently embarrassing.

              One of the great things about Shrek was that it provided a new take on a classic item: the cartoon fairy tale movie.  It was filled with references to not only elements of the childhood canon, but also sassy bits of pop culture.  A movie that could be enjoyed by hoards of children and chuckled at by adults, where ugly triumphs over beauty and the prince in the castle is a dastardly fool, a new stage in fairy tale history.  It was also the first recipient of the Academy Award for Animate Feature.  The trouble with the films that have followed (mainly Shrek Forever After, seeing as I don’t remember the second one and didn’t bother with the third) is that the genre it is bending does not lend itself to continuance.  However cute and daring we may believe it is to look beyond “happily ever after,” in actuality what you get is a pathetic attempt to continue to milk the cash cow, and what results in guaranteed to be curdled.   

              In this installment of the series, Shrek is a poor bedraggled dad who misses his life before responsibility.  In the end (SPOILER ALERT) he grows to appreciate that which he once distained.  Just like the first film, this one is tackling a severely overdone plot line.  Very unlike the first film, the journey from sad to glad is done in the same humdrum way as ever.  There were no bumps and curves, no sense of urgency, no point where I wondered, “how is he going to do this?”  George Bailey had to really be convinced that the world needed him, but Shrek understands very early that he misses what he once had.  His journey to retrieve his lost love could have been noble and thrilling, but instead he was rendered pathetic and bland, with the supporting characters left to carry the weight of the film within their quirk.  Read more »

This is the first of what we hope are many contributions from FOTS Dosty Glory, Enjoy!

Kick-Ass (2010)

It's a premise that definitely hooks the trailer viewer. Comic book nerd, Dave, wondering why no one has followed the example of the heroes in his mags, takes on the city's underbelly in a mask and wet suit. The fact that he, and the other crusaders featured in this film, is a teenager, pushes the appeal even further. Read more »

Watch our first feature length movie, written, produced, and directed by our very own, Joshua J. Hamilton. Stranger in French chronicles the experience of students from the University of Alabama as they spend 5 weeks in the country of France. All seven parts are online and available for viewing.

Read more »