Year: 2010
Director: The Strause Brothers
Screenplay: Liam O'Donnell, Joshua Cordes
Starring: Donald Faison, Eric Balfour, David Zayas, Scottie Thompson, Brittany Daniel
Synopsis is here
Skyline in my eyes is either one of the funniest movies of the year or one of the worst. Take your pick. This expensive Sy-Fi channel piece of trash had me laughing almost as much as some this years comedies I sat through this year. The problem is the po-faced acting and the (admittedly) grand-standing effects; suggest that it actually wants to be taken quite seriously.
Unfortunately, when your film is ridden with trite horror film cliches, poor logic and naff homages nabbed from other films by better film makers (stand up War of the worlds, District 9, Cloverfield) I'm not going join you on your plight. This is a film in which poorly developed lead characters are quick to dismiss the choices of their significant others before turning tail and having the same characters stating a moment later "I'LL NEVER LEAVE YOU BEHIND!" Seriously? As if your 20 minutes of bitching didn't happen? Ok then.
The Strause Brothers (also behind tonally imbalanced AvP2) have once again brought about a film that relies on belief over a half baked premise over anything that comes near decent storytelling. It's great that they can create effects like that for so little money, but their lack of giving us anything that approaches interesting characters or entertaining set pieces reminded me where a cluster of modern mainstream Hollywood films are going. Skyline is all premise first, little else second with almost nothing to keep someone like myself interested in apart from it's patchy narrative turns had me cackling in the screen louder than one of the Macbeth witches. By the time L.A is nuked in a bid to destroy the aliens with their fishing line lights and their reaver like features, I was past giving a damn.
It also seems that these FX masters don't give a damn about directing their T.V actors. Now there's nothing wrong with T.V actors but when you are in a film where you really mean nothing compared to the effects on show then you in trouble. It doesn't help when your state of the art of effects don't even compare to the likes of Cloverfield or District 9. Hell even the back to basic feel of Splice works better, mostly because Vincenzo Natali wishes to make a movie based on well...you know; interesting themes, story and stuff. But like I said, there's plenty to laugh about with the biggest giggles coming with the nuke set piece and the ending of the film which despite what it involves comes across as very brainless.
It's very obvious that Independence Day is a clear influence on this film, and as a fan of that movie (even with it's overt patriotism and cheese) I can see what it wishes to do. The problem is quite simple is there is no feeling of fun with this movie. Watching ID4 I always sense that I'm laughing WITH Roland Emmerich. I spent far too much time laughing AT Skyline and there lies the difference.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Sunday, 14 November 2010
Review: Due Date
Year: 2010
Director; Todd Phillips
Screenplay: Todd Phillips, Adam Sztykiel, Alan Freedland, Alan R. Cohen
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan, Jamie Foxx
It's taken me ages to write up my thoughts about Due date for the simple reason it's one of those annoyingly frustrating middling movies that fill up many a viewers film file. While everything you watch can't be masterpieces; there's nothing worse than a middling film. When a movie gives you an extreme reaction good or bad at least you know how to feel about it. Films like Due Date are more agitating as their mediocre moments can sometimes leave you emptier. Your asked what your thought afterward and you can hardly be bothered to answer: "it was ok". At least when a bad film has pissed you off your angry about it.
Due Date plays like Planes, Trains and Automobiles' miserable younger brother. Whereas John Hughes' 1987 comedy is zany, slapstick and yet warm. Due Date plays out like a misguided adolescent who wants to rebel. It's ruder than anything Hughes would ever do and yet at times still wants to be loved the same way. A few reviewers have mentioned that film is quite mean in moments (nearly every conversation Robert Downley Junior's douchy Peter has is needlessly confrontational) and while I agree I'm not too bothered about such things (big fan of Kenny Powers here). What I am bothered about is the Jekyll and Hyde aspect that comes out because of this. A scene involves Peter gut punching an annoying kid gave the nasty side in me a bit of a giggle. However, with the knowledge that this man is trying to get home for the birth of his own child it makes you fear for the unborn slightly. The same goes for Zack Galifianakis' Ethan who is clearly the Doofus to Peter's straight man. Why do we have an awkward scene where the Ethan nearly humiliates Peter for not truly knowing his Dad? This is particularity troublesome when the film wishes us to feel for Ethan for losing his own father. The cake is on the table and Due Date is mighty hungry.
My issue with the film is quite simple: there is no warmth. Planes, Trains and Automobiles worked because the two people you were watching are likable people. Yes, it's Steve Martin and John Candy but the enjoyment is in the character. Due Date has two one-note, ignorant, self-involved travellers that annoy each other (and sometimes the audience) and yet want us to state that all is forgiven because the reason for their travels are noble. It sometimes takes more that just dropping sympathetic scenes within a movie to make me give a damn. If you want to make us care about Peter's plight, why don't you give him and his wife Sarah (Michelle Monaghan) an actual relationship? Bland chat over the phone is something I can do with far away family members.
There is humor if you search for it. The wish to have those"edgy" gags that all comedies post-Farrelly/Smith/Apatow (delete where appropriate) gives us an amusing Danny Mcbride cameo, a surreal, throwaway Malcom X joke I rather enjoyed and a few Galifianakis that aren't two bad (despite the fact that the film tries to gain humor from the fact that he's simply portly and bearded). To add to this, Robert Downley Jr can do a great douchebag on que. But despite the hyperbole the ads have lavished upon Due Date, the real outcome is merely some post Hangover outtakes and some tirades between two not very pleasant people. Todd Phillips can and has done better.
Director; Todd Phillips
Screenplay: Todd Phillips, Adam Sztykiel, Alan Freedland, Alan R. Cohen
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan, Jamie Foxx
It's taken me ages to write up my thoughts about Due date for the simple reason it's one of those annoyingly frustrating middling movies that fill up many a viewers film file. While everything you watch can't be masterpieces; there's nothing worse than a middling film. When a movie gives you an extreme reaction good or bad at least you know how to feel about it. Films like Due Date are more agitating as their mediocre moments can sometimes leave you emptier. Your asked what your thought afterward and you can hardly be bothered to answer: "it was ok". At least when a bad film has pissed you off your angry about it.
Due Date plays like Planes, Trains and Automobiles' miserable younger brother. Whereas John Hughes' 1987 comedy is zany, slapstick and yet warm. Due Date plays out like a misguided adolescent who wants to rebel. It's ruder than anything Hughes would ever do and yet at times still wants to be loved the same way. A few reviewers have mentioned that film is quite mean in moments (nearly every conversation Robert Downley Junior's douchy Peter has is needlessly confrontational) and while I agree I'm not too bothered about such things (big fan of Kenny Powers here). What I am bothered about is the Jekyll and Hyde aspect that comes out because of this. A scene involves Peter gut punching an annoying kid gave the nasty side in me a bit of a giggle. However, with the knowledge that this man is trying to get home for the birth of his own child it makes you fear for the unborn slightly. The same goes for Zack Galifianakis' Ethan who is clearly the Doofus to Peter's straight man. Why do we have an awkward scene where the Ethan nearly humiliates Peter for not truly knowing his Dad? This is particularity troublesome when the film wishes us to feel for Ethan for losing his own father. The cake is on the table and Due Date is mighty hungry.
My issue with the film is quite simple: there is no warmth. Planes, Trains and Automobiles worked because the two people you were watching are likable people. Yes, it's Steve Martin and John Candy but the enjoyment is in the character. Due Date has two one-note, ignorant, self-involved travellers that annoy each other (and sometimes the audience) and yet want us to state that all is forgiven because the reason for their travels are noble. It sometimes takes more that just dropping sympathetic scenes within a movie to make me give a damn. If you want to make us care about Peter's plight, why don't you give him and his wife Sarah (Michelle Monaghan) an actual relationship? Bland chat over the phone is something I can do with far away family members.
There is humor if you search for it. The wish to have those"edgy" gags that all comedies post-Farrelly/Smith/Apatow (delete where appropriate) gives us an amusing Danny Mcbride cameo, a surreal, throwaway Malcom X joke I rather enjoyed and a few Galifianakis that aren't two bad (despite the fact that the film tries to gain humor from the fact that he's simply portly and bearded). To add to this, Robert Downley Jr can do a great douchebag on que. But despite the hyperbole the ads have lavished upon Due Date, the real outcome is merely some post Hangover outtakes and some tirades between two not very pleasant people. Todd Phillips can and has done better.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Review: Let Me In
Year: 2010
Director: Matt Reeves
Screenplay: Matt Reeves
Starring: Chloe Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins
Synopsis is here:
It's very interesting that David Cronenberg gets no shit for his remake of The Fly. In fact when you ask some people, they probably don't even know it's a remake due to the fact that Cronenberg did such a great job with his version. For many his film is the one to be celebrated. The same could be said (depending on who you speak to) for Christopher Nolan and Insomnia (remake from a 1997 Scandinavian feature). I do believe John Carpenter gets almost nothing but props for his remake of The Thing from Another World (1951). The Thing is considered one of his best movies. And as for Invasion of the body snatchers, well you can take your pick of the four different versions of the material (1956, 1978, 1993, 2007).
Yes, when it comes to remakes we do get fussy don't we? These days our horses are never higher then when we hear of a film being redone, remixed, reimagined or rebooted. I was pretty much told that I was wrong to enjoy The Departed over Infernal Affairs, while those who know me know never to mention The Omen 666 within close proximity to me. We love those original ideas the way they were, and who the hell are Hollywood to be stealing ideas and gussying them up? Well considering that the first remake was The Great Train Robbery (1903) they're only doing what the medium has been doing since the beginning.
Which brings me on to Let Me In. A remake of the very successful Let The Right One In (2008), Let me in was quickly pushed into development much to the outrage of many fans of the Swedish vampire flick. I can see why many are so angry. The issue with remakes these day are of course time, volume and knowledge. If Let the Right One in was a little known 50's film from New Zealand then no one would give a damn. Unfortunately it's not. It's a critically revered vampire drama released not even two years ago as I write this. Because of such a short turnaround, a high volume of material being remade and so many people knowing (and liking) the original, this makes Let Me In feel more than a tad unnecessary.
The dirty little secret is however, Let Me In is quite good. In fact there are certain changes within the film that are accomplished better than the original film. One is a stunning, one shot, car crash set piece that not only replaces a botched changing room incident but does so with terrific aplomb. Another is how Matt Reeves displayed the strained relationship between Mother and Son within the film. Reeves use of long shorts, opaque glass and generally obscuring the mothers face in conversations with Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) enhances the isolation the character feels within the film. That strained relationship is of course within the original film, however it's not as strongly implemented.
Such moments hit harder as Let Me In is a more slightly more aggressive film than it's counterpart. However films need balance and the films more "bombastic" aspects sway the movie slightly. Let The Right One In is a film of poetic beauty with much of it's power coming from being so understated. Let Me In reminds you that American movies (particularly now) are more about reference and clarification than anything else. The opening segments involving Owen seem to evoke Hitchcock's Rear Window (1954) and Psycho (1960), while the singular scene involving Owen's father is no longer a quiet meeting but a telephone conversation with dialogue to push the development. If there's one thing that Let the Right One in does well it's tell the story with it's visuals. Let Me In is a "louder" affair with it's overwrought score, extra dialogue and more explicit violence. It's filling in the holes, telling you a little more than you need and taking away the ambiguity.
This reaffirms something that I believe some American features suffer from; which is, lack of faith in the audience. It's very slight but the aforementioned elements shows a reluctance from Reeves to just run with things. He has two brilliant child actors to work with (Smit-McPhee and Moretz are grounded and believable and intensely watchable here) and both have these wonderfully evocative faces to utilize, and for the most part he uses them well. However in the need to make the film it's own entity, Let Me In simplifies it's narrative (the bullies are harsher, but no cryptic crotch shots) to make everything feel more palatable. There's also certain choices that help morph the film into more of a "thriller" than the coming of age drama, vampire hybrid Let The Right One In happily straddles.
But lets make things clear here. Reeves coming off Cloverfield (a film I consider an extraordinarily well done genre piece) has made a beautifully shot and entertaining film which despite a few side steps still manages to maintain that emotional core relationship and does not offend the source material. What it lacks in subtly it makes up in balls. I did not have that same rush I felt after watching Let The Right One In but I did find myself more than satisfied with the end product. I will suggest you watch the original film but there is nothing wrong with this film being a noisier cousin.
Note: I stated in my original review of Let The Right One in that the movies score was obtrusive. After a second viewing this week and watching this I can safely say I was wrong.
Director: Matt Reeves
Screenplay: Matt Reeves
Starring: Chloe Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins
Synopsis is here:
It's very interesting that David Cronenberg gets no shit for his remake of The Fly. In fact when you ask some people, they probably don't even know it's a remake due to the fact that Cronenberg did such a great job with his version. For many his film is the one to be celebrated. The same could be said (depending on who you speak to) for Christopher Nolan and Insomnia (remake from a 1997 Scandinavian feature). I do believe John Carpenter gets almost nothing but props for his remake of The Thing from Another World (1951). The Thing is considered one of his best movies. And as for Invasion of the body snatchers, well you can take your pick of the four different versions of the material (1956, 1978, 1993, 2007).
Yes, when it comes to remakes we do get fussy don't we? These days our horses are never higher then when we hear of a film being redone, remixed, reimagined or rebooted. I was pretty much told that I was wrong to enjoy The Departed over Infernal Affairs, while those who know me know never to mention The Omen 666 within close proximity to me. We love those original ideas the way they were, and who the hell are Hollywood to be stealing ideas and gussying them up? Well considering that the first remake was The Great Train Robbery (1903) they're only doing what the medium has been doing since the beginning.
Which brings me on to Let Me In. A remake of the very successful Let The Right One In (2008), Let me in was quickly pushed into development much to the outrage of many fans of the Swedish vampire flick. I can see why many are so angry. The issue with remakes these day are of course time, volume and knowledge. If Let the Right One in was a little known 50's film from New Zealand then no one would give a damn. Unfortunately it's not. It's a critically revered vampire drama released not even two years ago as I write this. Because of such a short turnaround, a high volume of material being remade and so many people knowing (and liking) the original, this makes Let Me In feel more than a tad unnecessary.
The dirty little secret is however, Let Me In is quite good. In fact there are certain changes within the film that are accomplished better than the original film. One is a stunning, one shot, car crash set piece that not only replaces a botched changing room incident but does so with terrific aplomb. Another is how Matt Reeves displayed the strained relationship between Mother and Son within the film. Reeves use of long shorts, opaque glass and generally obscuring the mothers face in conversations with Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) enhances the isolation the character feels within the film. That strained relationship is of course within the original film, however it's not as strongly implemented.
Such moments hit harder as Let Me In is a more slightly more aggressive film than it's counterpart. However films need balance and the films more "bombastic" aspects sway the movie slightly. Let The Right One In is a film of poetic beauty with much of it's power coming from being so understated. Let Me In reminds you that American movies (particularly now) are more about reference and clarification than anything else. The opening segments involving Owen seem to evoke Hitchcock's Rear Window (1954) and Psycho (1960), while the singular scene involving Owen's father is no longer a quiet meeting but a telephone conversation with dialogue to push the development. If there's one thing that Let the Right One in does well it's tell the story with it's visuals. Let Me In is a "louder" affair with it's overwrought score, extra dialogue and more explicit violence. It's filling in the holes, telling you a little more than you need and taking away the ambiguity.
This reaffirms something that I believe some American features suffer from; which is, lack of faith in the audience. It's very slight but the aforementioned elements shows a reluctance from Reeves to just run with things. He has two brilliant child actors to work with (Smit-McPhee and Moretz are grounded and believable and intensely watchable here) and both have these wonderfully evocative faces to utilize, and for the most part he uses them well. However in the need to make the film it's own entity, Let Me In simplifies it's narrative (the bullies are harsher, but no cryptic crotch shots) to make everything feel more palatable. There's also certain choices that help morph the film into more of a "thriller" than the coming of age drama, vampire hybrid Let The Right One In happily straddles.
But lets make things clear here. Reeves coming off Cloverfield (a film I consider an extraordinarily well done genre piece) has made a beautifully shot and entertaining film which despite a few side steps still manages to maintain that emotional core relationship and does not offend the source material. What it lacks in subtly it makes up in balls. I did not have that same rush I felt after watching Let The Right One In but I did find myself more than satisfied with the end product. I will suggest you watch the original film but there is nothing wrong with this film being a noisier cousin.
Note: I stated in my original review of Let The Right One in that the movies score was obtrusive. After a second viewing this week and watching this I can safely say I was wrong.
Monday, 1 November 2010
Review: Burke and Hare
Year: 2010
Director: John Landis
Screenplay: Nick Moorcroft, Piers Ashworth
Starring: Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, Isla Fisher
Synopsis is here
To describe Burke and Hare? Jaunty. It's a very silly mish-mash of Ealing-lite themes and efficient Landis direction that brought a smile to my face and a lovely feeling in my heart knowing that although this is no way near the best the filmmaker has brought us (where do we start?), he can still pull something out of the hat to tickle in the right place.
This is not to say that every joke works as well as it could, for every big laugh there's a few more titters. While it doesn't feel like that much of a hodge-podge, it's clear to see that every so often that Landis' film somehow slips into a more "American style". Don't ask me how, if you've read more than one of my rambling posts it clearly shows that I'm a mere mortal in front of gods (I urge you to watch Trading Places). But there are moments in structure and gags through out that just feel not so much out of place, but...odd. This is despite the fact that the screenwriters hail from these isles. There's a feeling that with someone else the film could be darker, more gruesome, more British, more....Ealing.
This however does nothing to ruin Landis' enthusiasm to the piece(s), there's some nice moments that give that Ealing vibe (many stem through that wonderfully expressive Serkis face) while you can why the dastardly duo appeal to Landis who doesn't mind nearly portraying them as less musical but just as entrepreneurial blues brothers. If those guys were sent from Heaven then Burke and Hare must have been from the other place. Landis still manages to enthuse his trademark energy into certain sequences which while some don't completly pop, they still manage to crackle/cackle (delete where appropriate).
The cast are clearly game also. It should get tiresome of saying that Andy Serkis is great to watch (it doesn't) while Simon Pegg isn't brilliant with accents but not too shabby with giving his character enough humanity to allow us to latch on to this wicked twosome. A weak link unfortunately is a very underused Isla Fisher while Jessica Haynes (nee Stevenson) can easily do more but has fun with whats given. There's also nice small roles for Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry and Ronnie Corbett who don't stretch too far but don't have to. There's also a truck load of silly little giggle-some cameos.
I won't say you couldn't do more with Burke and Hare. The trailer says 'orrible and gruesome but the outcome is a slightly more tame than one could imagine. There's also a tiny issue of the film's final act not coming together as well as it could have, with the final outcome aiming for quite a bit of bittersweet emotion, but missing the mark. Burke and Hare looks almost set to obtain middling reviews (see Robbie Collins or Boyd and Floyd on the BBC radio five podcast) but for myself I enjoy it more than enough to warrant another look when it crops up on television.
Director: John Landis
Screenplay: Nick Moorcroft, Piers Ashworth
Starring: Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, Isla Fisher
Synopsis is here
To describe Burke and Hare? Jaunty. It's a very silly mish-mash of Ealing-lite themes and efficient Landis direction that brought a smile to my face and a lovely feeling in my heart knowing that although this is no way near the best the filmmaker has brought us (where do we start?), he can still pull something out of the hat to tickle in the right place.
This is not to say that every joke works as well as it could, for every big laugh there's a few more titters. While it doesn't feel like that much of a hodge-podge, it's clear to see that every so often that Landis' film somehow slips into a more "American style". Don't ask me how, if you've read more than one of my rambling posts it clearly shows that I'm a mere mortal in front of gods (I urge you to watch Trading Places). But there are moments in structure and gags through out that just feel not so much out of place, but...odd. This is despite the fact that the screenwriters hail from these isles. There's a feeling that with someone else the film could be darker, more gruesome, more British, more....Ealing.
This however does nothing to ruin Landis' enthusiasm to the piece(s), there's some nice moments that give that Ealing vibe (many stem through that wonderfully expressive Serkis face) while you can why the dastardly duo appeal to Landis who doesn't mind nearly portraying them as less musical but just as entrepreneurial blues brothers. If those guys were sent from Heaven then Burke and Hare must have been from the other place. Landis still manages to enthuse his trademark energy into certain sequences which while some don't completly pop, they still manage to crackle/cackle (delete where appropriate).
The cast are clearly game also. It should get tiresome of saying that Andy Serkis is great to watch (it doesn't) while Simon Pegg isn't brilliant with accents but not too shabby with giving his character enough humanity to allow us to latch on to this wicked twosome. A weak link unfortunately is a very underused Isla Fisher while Jessica Haynes (nee Stevenson) can easily do more but has fun with whats given. There's also nice small roles for Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry and Ronnie Corbett who don't stretch too far but don't have to. There's also a truck load of silly little giggle-some cameos.
I won't say you couldn't do more with Burke and Hare. The trailer says 'orrible and gruesome but the outcome is a slightly more tame than one could imagine. There's also a tiny issue of the film's final act not coming together as well as it could have, with the final outcome aiming for quite a bit of bittersweet emotion, but missing the mark. Burke and Hare looks almost set to obtain middling reviews (see Robbie Collins or Boyd and Floyd on the BBC radio five podcast) but for myself I enjoy it more than enough to warrant another look when it crops up on television.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Review: Catfish
Year: 2010
Director: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost
Starring: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost, Nev Schulman
WARNING: I don't mention explicit plot moments, however, my review may reveal more than one may like to know about the movie.
An old work colleague passed away last year, and a friend asked me and others who knew her to change our facebook profile picture to the last one she had in her memory. It's a small action, but an affectionate one and many of us obliged. A few days into this I received a facebook message from an American who lets just say, wanted to "get to know me better". It doesn't help that my first name is Leslie despite the masculine spelling and my middle name being Byron. A brief e-mail exchange soon had the horny youngster was back on his way. Possibly off to look for more "sexi gals" or whatever.
Now if my mindset was a more dubious one, I could have easily seen how deep the rabbit hole could have been. I mean, my privacy status on FB is high so I could have easily toyed with this guy by merely sending messages pretending to be a girl.
This leads me to the main aspect of Catfish, a film in which a privileged New York photographer (Nev) develops a correspondence with an 8 year old girl (Abby) on facebook. She likes one of his photos and asks if she can paint it. As odd as this sounds right now, it's ok because Nev is also contacted by Abby's mum Angela. Nev accepts and pretty soon he begins a pleasant and harmless internet relationship which evolves around their respected artforms. Nev is then introduced over facebook to Abby's older sister Megan and a more intimate relationship develops. However, they have yet to meet...
Catfish was the most talked about documentary at Sundance and it's misleading trailer hints that the films final 40 minutes are something much more sinister. The outcome however, is a much more heartfelt affair. The deceptive marketing actually works towards Catfish's advantage, as does all the "is it real" talk that some more disapproving critics have been landing at it. While I can accept certain moments have a certain "unauthentic" feel, and the frightening amount of tech that should reveal the truth much quicker than it takes, like my aforementioned story in the first paragraph it becomes clear that the dream over comes the reality. Like joining a cult, we believe we're far too intelligent to fall for anything like that and forget that we are actually more susceptible. I do wonder how many people will be quick to debunk this but not look at their favorite reality shows with the same amount of skepticism.
For me Catfish is all about the story itself and whether or not the film is "true" it manages to encompass the fears and worries that social media has brought, and tells us in an disturbing, funny and heart felt manner. The Social Network tells us that one of the most powerful tools to impact our social landscape since the telephone was conceived by someone deeply unsociable. Catfish expands on this showing us in it's low-fi approach how slippery our "second personalities" have now become. We can connect to people far easier than ever and these personas not only allow to do and say things we'd never dream of in reality but we do so with an alarming disconnect. The final scenes show us two people who would probably never speak to each other in other circumstances coming together and remind us of how important and powerful face to face talking can be.
Note: The screening I went had a Q&A session with Henry Joost. I asked the question on if he values human connections even more. He responded with "Definitely, this is what the film is all about". It's also important to know that while many who have been using the internet are aware of many elements within Catfish. The film clearly notes with it's constant zippy CGI imagery that now more people use the internet and with the tech growing rapidly and those still in the dark are not that likely to look as smugly as our net savvy counterparts. Think of it like all those mothers who are still sending people chain mail.
Director: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost
Starring: Ariel Schulman, Henry Joost, Nev Schulman
WARNING: I don't mention explicit plot moments, however, my review may reveal more than one may like to know about the movie.
An old work colleague passed away last year, and a friend asked me and others who knew her to change our facebook profile picture to the last one she had in her memory. It's a small action, but an affectionate one and many of us obliged. A few days into this I received a facebook message from an American who lets just say, wanted to "get to know me better". It doesn't help that my first name is Leslie despite the masculine spelling and my middle name being Byron. A brief e-mail exchange soon had the horny youngster was back on his way. Possibly off to look for more "sexi gals" or whatever.
Now if my mindset was a more dubious one, I could have easily seen how deep the rabbit hole could have been. I mean, my privacy status on FB is high so I could have easily toyed with this guy by merely sending messages pretending to be a girl.
This leads me to the main aspect of Catfish, a film in which a privileged New York photographer (Nev) develops a correspondence with an 8 year old girl (Abby) on facebook. She likes one of his photos and asks if she can paint it. As odd as this sounds right now, it's ok because Nev is also contacted by Abby's mum Angela. Nev accepts and pretty soon he begins a pleasant and harmless internet relationship which evolves around their respected artforms. Nev is then introduced over facebook to Abby's older sister Megan and a more intimate relationship develops. However, they have yet to meet...
Catfish was the most talked about documentary at Sundance and it's misleading trailer hints that the films final 40 minutes are something much more sinister. The outcome however, is a much more heartfelt affair. The deceptive marketing actually works towards Catfish's advantage, as does all the "is it real" talk that some more disapproving critics have been landing at it. While I can accept certain moments have a certain "unauthentic" feel, and the frightening amount of tech that should reveal the truth much quicker than it takes, like my aforementioned story in the first paragraph it becomes clear that the dream over comes the reality. Like joining a cult, we believe we're far too intelligent to fall for anything like that and forget that we are actually more susceptible. I do wonder how many people will be quick to debunk this but not look at their favorite reality shows with the same amount of skepticism.
For me Catfish is all about the story itself and whether or not the film is "true" it manages to encompass the fears and worries that social media has brought, and tells us in an disturbing, funny and heart felt manner. The Social Network tells us that one of the most powerful tools to impact our social landscape since the telephone was conceived by someone deeply unsociable. Catfish expands on this showing us in it's low-fi approach how slippery our "second personalities" have now become. We can connect to people far easier than ever and these personas not only allow to do and say things we'd never dream of in reality but we do so with an alarming disconnect. The final scenes show us two people who would probably never speak to each other in other circumstances coming together and remind us of how important and powerful face to face talking can be.
Note: The screening I went had a Q&A session with Henry Joost. I asked the question on if he values human connections even more. He responded with "Definitely, this is what the film is all about". It's also important to know that while many who have been using the internet are aware of many elements within Catfish. The film clearly notes with it's constant zippy CGI imagery that now more people use the internet and with the tech growing rapidly and those still in the dark are not that likely to look as smugly as our net savvy counterparts. Think of it like all those mothers who are still sending people chain mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)