Monday, April 18, 2011

Awesome guests you won't want to miss!

The Everything Film Show has some really fabulous guests planned for its listeners in the weeks ahead. Just look who will be swinging by to chat with the crew!



  • 4/21 - Producer, actor, and director Michael Gleissner will be joining the show to discuss his new film "Deep Gold 3D", which will have been released just a couple days prior in Los Angeles, with expansion to other select theaters the day just after the show. He is also a partner with Bigfoot Studios and oversees operations of the International Academy of Film and Television, which he founded.


  • 4/28 - Writer, director, and producer Eduardo Sanchez joins the show for the 100th episode celebration! Most of us got to learn of his talent through "The Blair Witch Project." Tune in to learn what future dark visions he has in store...


  • 5/05 - Matthew J. Evans is a fresh-faced actor who will appear alongside celebrities in the Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, and Jason Segel-fronted film "Bad Teacher" coming out this June. He is also is an award-winning filmmaker whose short film “Poetic Justice Project” debuted just days ago at the Newport Beach Film Festival.


  • 5/12 - You've most recently seen the following actress in the hit television series "Smallville," but there is nothing small about the prospects for award-winning actor Allison Mack. Acting since she was four and having racked up hundreds of television episodes and other projects, there is no telling where the future will take her.


As you probably know, The Everything Film Show airs live every Thursday at 7:30 p.m. PST/10:30 p.m. EST. We hope that you will join us!

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

TEFB REVIEW: HANNA



Directed by Joe Wright


Starring Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett

Review by Mark Pezzula


Ladies and gentlemen, director Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice, Atonement) has thrown down the gauntlet. He's set the bar. High. "Make a better movie than this," he's saying. By "this" he means his new film, Hanna. And with Hanna he has indeed made the best film so far of this, admittedly, young year. As fresh as this year is, however, I'm confident when I proclaim that Hanna will be greatly remembered by 2011's end. A lusciously photographed chase movie, Hanna is more than an arty-European take on the Bourne franchise. It's a feral fairy-tale that marries primal action with technological movie wizardry to create a propulsive and singular cinematic experience.

When Hanna opens, we're in the bleak tundra of Finland, where a little girl kills and guts a deer before engaging in a bout of fisticuffs with a bearded man we come to find is her father. Her father has been training her, if not be as deadly with her hands as she is with a pistol, to survive in the most unforgiving conditions using a combination of honed intellect, razor sharp wit, and expertly-trained martial-arts skills. This is Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) and Erik (Eric Bana). And they have been living this way almost since Hanna was born.

"I'm ready", Hanna says one day, and by the next she's flipping a switch her father tells her will bring a woman named Marissa, who wants nothing but to kill Hanna, to their isolated cabin, and won't stop until that happens. With the switch flipped, Erik leaves Hanna to her own devices against Marissa and her minions (really CIA and international operatives), with the plan being that Hanna will meet her father in Berlin, Germany.

That's the basic gist of Hanna, which is carried by a very simple premise. Girl trained to be deadly is let loose in society and attempts to reconnect with her father while being chased by equally (well, maybe not) deadly international undercover agents . It's a paltry plot, and one that is buffered with a fuzzy back-story regarding Marissa's (Cate Blanchett) relationship to Erik and his daughter, but it's a plot that relies on the tropes of fairy-tales and legends as opposed to the rigid structure of the modern movie narrative. Hanna is the young innocent girl lost in the forest, and Marissa is the Wretched Witch of the West, bent on claiming the innocent girl for herself.

That Hanna isn't structurally sound from a screenwriting perspective and is, in fact, hazy regarding the reasons Marissa is so intent on finding Hanna is, I believe, deliberate. Wright has filled his film with overt fairy-tale imagery. Fairy-tales are meant to be interpreted and re-interpreted by different generations and cultures. Whether this was the original intent of the writers or not is unclear. Perhaps it's simply that Wright left much of Seth Lochhead and David Farr's script on the cutting room floor. Whichever explanation, though, takes nothing away from the exhilarating experience of Hanna.

Stylized to an extreme, Wright has crafted a Bourne film filtered through the lens of European expressionism. Utilizing the same fight choreographer as Paul Greengrass used for the last two Bourne films, Wright wisely minimizes the use of the exhausted shaky-cam aesthetic and instead finds a balance between that and fluidly shot fight sequences/chases. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Wright has invented a new kind of action movie, but Hanna certainly strives to be different in a genre replete with boring, stale set-pieces (see: Battle: Los Angeles. A film with a billion more bullets than Hanna, but not 1/100th of this film's intense excitement). And with the film set to a score by The Chemical Brothers, Hanna's set-pieces are primed and visceral, alive and breathtaking.

The film, though, is certainly not wall to wall action. Wright wisely let's Hanna breathe (maybe a little too much so), but keeps the lulls in violence every bit as alive and fresh as gun play. This is especially true when Hanna is tagging along with a young British girl named Sophie and her family through Morocco. After an encounter with the girl (Jessica Barden in an almost scene stealing performance) in what would probably be a one-and-done scene in an American film, Hanna is accepted into their family and spends much of the film experiencing things normal girls Hanna's age would experience - close friendship, boys, familial bickering. It's not brand new ground Wright is treading cinematically here, but it feels genuine, especially given Alwin Kuchler's cinematography and Ronan's work as the guarded but infinitely curious (but not wide-eyed) Hanna.

It's a performance, by the way, that should garner awards attention come ten months from now. It's rare where I see a role so totally owned that I cannot imagine it belonging to anyone else. Hanna is such a role for Saoirse Ronan. I simply cannot think of another young actress able to project the icy glance of a trained killer one moment and then the curiosity of an innocent child the next. Ronan is so good that she out-acts seasoned actors Blanchett and Bana. While both are very, very good in their respective roles, neither come close to the heights Ronan reaches here.

The other stand-out performance in the film is given by Tom Hollander, probably most recognizable in the states for his recurring role in the Pirates of the Caribbean films. Here he plays a quirky, transgender loving interrogator hired by Marissa to find Hanna. Dressed in a track suit with a blonde parted mop constantly flopping in his face, Hollander's character Isaac appears quite benign at first. As soon as he begins to whistle a nursery-rhyme-esque melody, however, he becomes a sinister presence throughout the film. It's a weird yet memorable character, and Hollander's portrayal is practically iconic.

Despite being a tad unpolished narratively, Hanna ends up being an insanely satisfying cinematic experience. It offers more than just mindless action and popcorn thrills. It's a beautifully intense and (if you look hard enough) layered film. In an system hemorrhaging unoriginal remakes, reboots, retries, retakes, sequels, and adaptations into the market, Hanna is a like a canister full of nitrous oxide into your lungs.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

TEFB REVIEW: MONSTERS

review by Mark Pezzula




Directed by Gareth Edwards




Starring Whitney Able, Scoot McNairy







I don't know how many people realize it, but right now is a great time to be a fan of science-fiction films. Director Neill Blomkamp made hardcore sci-fi geeks, the casual movie goer, critics, AND Academy Award members sit-up straight and take notice with his 2009 film District 9. Likewise, filmmaker Duncan Jones had a lot of success (although on a much smaller scale) with the film Moon, one of the best genre films of the last decade. Now, the creator, writer, director, and visual effects artist Gareth Edwards joins the ranks of these two virtuosos, and positions himself as one of the most exciting new filmmakers to come along in quite sometime, as his film Monsters demonstrates him to be quite a talent. 

Despite the film's marketing as a full-scale alien invasion film, Monsters is actually quite small and, dare I say it, more of a drama. That's not to say that Godzilla fans won't get their gigantic beast fix, but, on a budget of less than one million dollars (and without the clout of Oscar winning director Peter Jackson behind it, like District 9 had), Monsters is forced to focus more on its characters than on the creatures promised by its title. Although its marketing positions it as an epic creature film, it's actually quite small, and, I believe, all the better for it.

Monsters begins six years after an alien invasion, when the alien creatures are part of every day life for the people who live on the Mexican-American border. While the area (known as the "Infected Zone") has been destroyed by battles with the gigantic, HP Lovecraft inspired beings, it's still sparsely populated, and run by outlaws and gangs who make their money by transporting people across the border, from Mexico into America.

Two of these people being transported are Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a photographer for an unnamed American magazine, and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew has been sent to Mexico on an assignment to get footage for said magazine, only to end up playing babysitter when Sam's father (also Andrew's boss) asks him to accompany his daughter (who was injured in Mexico) back to America. Soon, Andrew and Sam are trying to barter with corrupt Mexican officials who won't allow them to travel without dispensing major cash, getting drunk on tequila together right outside the Infected Zone, and falling in love with each other while trying not to get eaten by invaders from another world.

Despite a terrifically shot and heart-pounding opening scene, Monsters spends a lot of time observing Andrew and Sam slowly becoming enamored with each other. Andrew initially turns down his boss's instructions to get Sam back to the border safely and then, for reasons unexplained by the movie (I can only guess it's because, well, Sam's smokin' hot), changes his mind. He's hostile towards her at first (she is, after all, getting in his way of taking a photo of either a live creature or a dead child), and she towards him (he is, pretty much, a prick). But, as they say, danger has a way of tightening the strings of attraction, and danger permeates the world in which these two characters exist.

It's a world that, in spite of it's low budget, director Gareth Edwards builds with care and attention to detail. From news reports of creature sightings on a television in the background of a scene, to kids playing with gas masks, to signs and graffiti marking danger zones, Monsters takes atmosphere and setting very seriously, and not once will you not believe that this story is taking place in a world changed by disastrous events in much the same way it was by 9/11. Filmed documentary style, Edwards knows how to fill a frame with interesting compositions, and much of the film is very beautifully shot, even when taking in disturbing subject matter. The look of the film is comparable to an indie art-house film, and while it may seem strange to mix "art-house" with "science-fiction", Edwards makes it work for pretty much the entire film.

What doesn't work for the entire film, unfortunately (unfortunately, but not so much so that it damns the film completely), is the screenplay. Characters make odd decisions that don't quite make sense, even in context, and it appears whole scenes that may explain character motivation are missing. For instance - at one point Andrew is on the phone speaking with his son, which he hides from Sam (who, at this point in the movie, he just wants to have a hot night in the sack with). A few scenes later, however, they're having a conversation about his son as if Andrew's been candid about the situation for the whole film. I'm not sure if this was an oversight during the writing of the script or if, during the editing process, a scene was excised that would explain that jump in the narrative, but either way it makes for a disjointed and perplexing experience.

Also disjointed are the performances by Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able. She fares much better than he does throughout the entire film, but her job as Sam is still uneven and, at times, just plain terrible. Scoot, while able to perpetrate a douchebag with a camera, struggles to keep his performance from seeming like anything other than an audition. The chemistry between the two leads is actually quite good, and there are times where they both nail emotional beats, however there are certainly much stronger actors out there who could have improved this aspect of the film immensely.

The CG effects in Monsters, for the most part, are wonderful. They are, of course, aided by the fact that the creatures only expose themselves at night, and therefore any flaws in the F/X can be covered up by shading easily. That is in no way a knock to the visual effects work done by Mr. Edwards, however. Apparently created with his home computer using consumer-grade Adobe software, the shots involving the aliens look mostly stunning, and the creature design is visually intriguing. The only shaky effects work comes towards the very end, when it's obvious that a large-scare effects house (such as WETA) wasn't involved in the making of the film. That's a nit-picky complaint, though, for a film so ambitiously created and executed on such a small scale.

Speaking of the ending - I'll avoid spoilers, but I was mighty impressed with how Monsters handles it's climax and resolution. It sets up a battle between monsters and military - and then takes a completely different turn into territory I don't think any alien film has ever gone to. I was surprised at the direction the film goes in, and pleasantly at that.



Monsters may disappoint those hardcore sci-fi fans looking for wall to wall battles and creature action. However, those looking for an ambitious, interesting, well paced, and superbly shot art-film that takes place inside the plot of a B-movie, look no further.

Monday, February 28, 2011

KELSEY'S OSCAR WRAP-UP!

The 83rd Academy Awards have come and gone. As young starlets party into the night, generating sensational TMZ footage for tomorrow, I take this time to reflect. ABC extended their contract so that they will have exclusive broadcasting rights through the year 2014. Did they make a mistake? There is little to describe this night as anything other than ho-hum. Fashionistas will be gushing for weeks over the designs worn to the red carpet, but there was nothing in the way of shocking like the infamous swan dress, or even stunning like Sandra Bullock's shimmering gown last year with its mile long slit. The awards were doled out in a mind numbingly predictable way. The biggest surprise of the night for me was short animated film Day & Night being beat out by The Lost Thing. Now, true, the awards are meant to honor the best- but where's the upset? The drama? The scandal? For a room full of entertainers, tonight was disturbingly dull. The only moment that is worth mentioning is Melissa Leo's unthinking F-Bomb (the first in Oscar history) for which she immediately apologized back stage. So who were we given to package this snooze fest in a swallowable pill?

The hosts. By all accounts this should have worked. Anne Hathaway and James Franco are young, hip, talented actors both with theatrical backgrounds. Why didn't it work? In the past, the show has shined with unexpected quips from its comedic hosts. Tonight, any funny jabs were scripted and lost their bite before they even passed through those glossy pink lips. The glossy pink lips of James Franco of course, who appeared in a Marilyn Monroe inspired pink dress. Yep, I think the quarterback at my highschool pulled the same prank at Homecoming 6 years ago. The saddest thing is, I wanted to like them. Everyone wanted to like them. They're likeable people, cute and sweet enough to be Mouseketeers. Unfortunately the same can be said about the majority of presenters and winners. The hosts, not from a valient act of trying, failed to fill the stage. Though still America's sweethearts, this pair will not be asked to host again.

Overall, I think Hollywood needs to rethink their Awards Show. Pull the stick out of Oscar's butt and liven things up a bit. Put on a show! Actors are the most emotional people on the face of the planet, but you've never seen stony faced apathy until you see reaction shots after a winner is announced. Sure, you can honor a job well done, but unless you're in the mood to actually entertain us, don't bother televising.

-Kelsey

Sunday, February 27, 2011

ACADEMY AWARDS WATCH 2011: BEST PICTURE

I previously mentioned that over the next few weeks I'd be taking a look at the nominees in eight major categories for the 2011 Academy Awards. I'll be writing about what I think will win, what I want to win, and my thoughts about each category overall.







The nominees for Best Picture are:
 
Black Swan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Fighter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Inception
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Kids Are All Right
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The King's Speech
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
127 Hours
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Social Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Toy Story 3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
True Grit
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Winter's Bone
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What a difference a few months and some hardcore Oscar campaigning makes. Back in October it seemed even moot to have an Academy Awards ceremony this year. "Why pretend there's a competition when The Social Network is going to LITERALLY win every single category?", went the prevailing thought. Not only was a movie that featured Facebook as its backdrop good, it was really, really, REALLY good. Perhaps the shock of this spun the Oscar talk for the film out of control, or perhaps people realized that it's simply not possible for one film to sweep the entire Academy Awards. Most likely it was a combination of those reasons and, also, the realization that 2010 actually produced a lot of really great films and, while The Social Network is one of them, it does face some pretty stiff competition.
 
The stiffest, of course, being the much ballyhooed and really British The King's Speech. Four months ago an Oscar upset would have been Tom Hooper's story of a stammering son of sovereign toppling David Fincher's tale of a twisted tough-tongued twerp. It appears, now, that the upset would be opposite.
 
Not as much of an upset, however, should any of the other eight films in the running for the Academy's most prestigious award come away with the honor. There is little chance of that happening, I think, for the following reasons:
 
Toy Story 3 is automatically out of the running, as it has the greatest chance of seizing the Best Animated Feature Film award and the Academy doesn't take animated films seriously anyway (see: the creation of a Best Animated Feature Film category in the first place).
 
Inception, while smarter (much smarter) than your average summer blockbuster is still, in the eyes of the Academy, just a summer blockbuster. Had the category only included five nominees (as it did just two years ago and for many years before that), Christopher Nolan's flick wouldn't even have been considered for the award. The Best Picture category was expanded precisely so that films like Inception (movies that play well with mainstream audiences, internet movie geeks, and critics alike) could be included, thereby assigning some credibility to the Academy in the eyes of these folks and also guaranteeing a larger audience than years past.
 
The Kid's Are All Right is simply too small to pick up the award, as is Winter's Bone. Had The Hurt Locker (an astounding piece of filmmaking, but one approximately ten people saw) not won last year, both of these films would have had a better chance (however slight).
 
The Fighter, while inspiring, is too formulaic, and not nearly as inspiring (or British) as The King's Speech is  while 127 Hours may be too unconventional for the Academy to handle (and who knows how many Academy members didn't see the whole film because they passed out during "that" scene).
 
The two films that have the best chance of sneaking up behind TKS and TSN only to push them both aside and proclaim the award as their own are Black Swan and True Grit. Swan just killed at The Independent Spirit awards, and although it's perhaps a tad too grotesque (and has roots in the horror genre, a genre the Academy almost always ignores) for the voting folks it's still very highly regarded by both critics and audiences. True Grit garnered an astonishing ten nominations, and people seem to be enamored with the Coen brothers' classy and tight retelling of Charles Portis's novel.
 
All that being said, I believe The King's Speech is going to own the 83rd Academy Awards. I'll offer director Tom Hooper and everyone involved in the production a congratulations in advance, and if I'm wrong, well, congratulations David Fincher and the cast/crew of The Social Network.

Friday, February 25, 2011

ACADEMY AWARDS WATCH 2011: BEST DIRECTOR

I previously mentioned that over the next few weeks I'd be taking a look at the nominees in eight major categories for the 2011 Academy Awards. I'll be writing about what I think will win, what I want to win, and my thoughts about each category overall.










The nominees for Best Director are:
 
Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David O. Russell - The Fighter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tom Hooper - The King's Speech
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David Fincher - The Social Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Joel and Ethan Coen - True Grit
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wow, looking at this list of nominees makes me realize movies are not dead, and that we are lucky to live in a cinematic era that produces these filmmakers. All five of these helmers directed the hell out of their respective films, and if any of these gentlemen (gentlemens in the case of True Grit?) were to walk away with the award I don't think I would have any compaints. (Except, maybe, for David O. Russell. While The Fighter is grade A formula filmmaking, it's one of Russell's lesser works, and if he were to win it would lessen his chances of receiving The Big One in the future for something more spectacular. And no, I'm not talking about his adaptation of the videogame Uncharted).
 
Of course, there can be only one winner, and I'm having trouble deciding whether or not that will be Tom Hooper or David Fincher. I have a feeling that if The Social Network wins for Best Picture, Hooper will walk away with the Director award, and vice-versa. None of the other nominees are a real threat to those two filmmakers, whose films have been topping critic lists and garnering multiple awards since the season began.
 
If I was an active, voting member of the Academy, I'd throw down for Aronofsky. I have yet to go back and revisit Black Swan, as I had planned to, but it simply grows in stature with each passing moment in my mind. No director put more blood, sweat, and tears into each frame of their film as Aronofsky, and while the film certainly has a few issues, there's quite frankly nothing quite like Black Swan out there.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

ACADEMY AWARDS WATCH 2011: BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

I previously mentioned that over the next few weeks I'd be taking a look at the nominees in eight major categories for the 2011 Academy Awards. I'll be writing about what I think will win, what I want to win, and my thoughts about each category overall.




The nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role are:

Javier Bardem - Biutiful
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jeff Bridges - True Grit
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jessie Eisenberg - The Social Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Colin Firth - The King's Speech
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
James Franco - 127 Hours
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
Colin Firth seems poised to acquire his first Academy Award after snagging two big other acting kudos: a SAG and a BAFTA. I just recently saw The King's Speech and can vouch for the greatness of Mr. Bridget Jones's work in the film. Prince Albert's subtle transformation from stubborn, diffident son of a King to confident, strong Royal Monarch is handled beautifully by the actor. I'll be very surprised if Firth doesn't pick up the award on the 27th. He's certainly not as much of a shoe in as Jeff Bridges was for 2009's Crazy Heart, but you won't find as much support, recognition, and general goodwill behind any of the other four nominees.
 
Out of the other performances I've seen (Eisenberg, Bridges, and Franco), I was most impressed with James Franco's work in 127 Hours. By far one of the most interesesting (and consistently great) actors of his generation, Fanco carried 95% of the movie on his shoulders. 127 Hours is practically a one man show, and the young, talented actor is all blood, sweat, and tears throughout it's 100 minutes.
 
I don't know how he did it, but Jessie Eisenberg turned a prick of a character into a fascinatingly watchable prick of a character. I have no idea what Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg is like in real life, but The Social Network's Mark Zuckerberg is one of the great acid-tongued characters of modern cinema, and the fact that Eisenberg made this vengeful, privileged Harvard preppie actually likeable is a testament to how good his performance is.
 
I haven't seen Biutiful and only plan to because I've heard Bardem is fairly amazing in it. I find director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's melodramatic meditations on misery to be barely tolerable, and Biutiful looks to be in the same vein as his previous 21 Grams and Babel. Bardem won't win, but apparently he's very deserving of the nomination.
 
Finally, Jeff Bridges picks up his second Oscar nom in two years, for his awesome portrayal of Rooster Cogburn in True Grit. He too will be denied a win, a big reason being because a lot of folks couldn't understand what Rooster was saying throughout most of the film. I can only assume these folks are hard of hearing.