With deeper immersion comes less accessibility I suppose.
![]() |
| If she's growling and decomposing, shoot her! |
[Lots on GLEE & more WALKING DEAD after the jump]
We've Moved. Please visit THEFILMEXPERIENCE.NET
![]() |
| If she's growling and decomposing, shoot her! |

01 Girls really like the Silk Spectre costume - Or maybe it's that they know the boys like seeing them in the Silk Spectre costume - either way, I saw about twenty different ladies wearing the slutty bumblebee ensemble from Zach Snyder's adaptation of Alan Moore's seminal comic book. The film hadn't come out yet when the last Comic Con happened here in NYC - in 2009 NYCC happened in February, while they moved it into October for 2010 (a permanent move), and Watchmen came out in March 0f 2009 - so I don't remember seeing the costume last year, but it was literally - literally! - everywhere you turned this time around. Does this make Malin "Baby Girl" Akerman a geek icon?
04 The family that geeks together, is adorable together - I wish my parents had dressed me up like a Jedi or Baby Yoda and taken me to these sorts of things. So I could immediately fall asleep. Damn you, parents!
08 M Night Shyamalan, amiable dude - I defended M Night for a very long time, well past when most people had bailed ship - I liked The Village, and I liked parts of Lady in the Water - but the one-two punch of that book about him and The Happening (shudder) kind of killed any arguments I could make anymore. So I only sat through half of his panel by happenstance, in order to get a good seat for the panel following him (on AMC's The Walking Dead, which looks epic by the way). But he came off really well! It was for the 10th Anniversary of Unbreakable, a terribly underrated film, and you could tell he really loves the film and that its negative reception put him into a bit of a tailspin. He came alive showcasing the storyboards for the train scene at the start of the film - you can say a lot of things about him, but I don't think you can argue about the meticulous craft on display. And he was fascinating to watch in discussion of that.
.I didn't think it was a movie about Facebook. I thought it was a movie that had themes as old as storytelling itself: friendship and loyalty, class, jealousy, power -- these things that Aeschylus would write about or Shakespeare would write about or Paddy Chayefsky would write about. Luckily none of those people were available so I got to write about it.I don't know if I quite buy into the "it'll win Best Picture!" mania that's spreading (it's only September 25th, after all. We don't even know how it will fare with the public) but I 100% believe that Sorkin has a very strong shot at taking home whichever Screenplay category he ends up in.

<--- Yay. It's P&A. The filmmaker and his only real male muse have reunited. They've started shooting The Skin I'm In (2011). Here they are on a break.MARCEL THE SHELL WITH SHOES ON from Dean Fleischer-Camp on Vimeo.
My favorite part is the 'lint puppy'. I would've teared up if my ducts worked properly. One of the undeniable truths of our modern online world is that it has blown out whole new walls as window. There's just so much creativity from so many folks to discover.
Finally, remember that unusual zombie movie I told you about that won the Nashville Film Festival? It's called Make-Out With Violence and if you're curious about it you can now "save it" to your Netflix queue.
JA from MNPP here, wishing the actor Jeremy Renner a wonderful 39th birthday. May this year be the best, most Oscar-nominated one yet!
I think a lot of people dismissed Dahmer as one off the many redundant serial-killer exploitation flicks of the decade - post-Seven cinema's been littered with 'em after all. One of the Aughts' many somewhat questionable exploits - become a serial killer, get your own semi-sympathetic movie! It certainly worked wonders for Charlize Theron's career (not to knock Monster - I am a big-time defender of that entire film and her performance therein). But Dahmer came and went in 2002 with hardly a mention - it actually wasn't even until a couple of years later that I saw the film. But when I did, wham - Renner's take on Jeffrey Dahmer is no bull about it one of the the decade's finest performances, period. He not only makes you understand the hole at the center of Dahmer that led to such horrors, but he nails the disturbingly over-charged sexual angle as well. It's a disturbing film for a lot of reasons, but not because anyone ever lets Dahmer off the hook for the things he did - no, it's that Renner's performance is just so captivating that he burrows his way right into you from the screen. A star-making role that took seven or so years to take, I guess.
And then in 2007 he starred in another under-appreciated film, 28 Weeks Later, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's sequel to Danny Boyle's smash zombie flick. I actually prefer the sequel to the original, for a lot of reasons, but I stand somewhat lonely on that front I do realize. I think most people took the film from too face-on a point-of-view, when it begged to be viewed from the side, as a sort of metaphorical fairy-tale - Poppa Bear's turned into the Big Bad Wolf and he's gonna gobble those kids right up. But aside from the film itself's worth, once again Renner popped off the screen to me as sort of the - if we're gonna continue looking at the film as a fairy-tale for the moment - Hunter figure that comes between Little Red Riding Hood(s) and the big mean wolf monster. It also serves as sort of a precursor to his role in The Hurt Locker in at least an exterior fashion, since he's a big serious soldier-man here too.



. 

I don't know how many of you remember my Nashville Film Festival coverage from early in 2009, but the narrative feature winner was a local zombie picture called Make-Out with Violence. Referring to it as a 'local picture' doesn't do its justice because it definitely looks like there was a budget... even if there wasn't. Referring to it as a 'zombie picture' doesn't do it justice because it's definitely its own thing. Being your own thing is a neat trick that too few movies perform.
If you're in the Alhambra area or within driving distance (how close is LA?) the film screens for free Thursday night (that's tomorrow). And if you take the chance, I'd love to hear back. E-mail me and maybe I'll even share your film experience right here.
on The JonesesThis satire of consumerism starring Demi Moore (at TIFF with her man, left) and David Duchovny as parents of a fake family "cell" placed into suburbia to sell their neighbors on various products is about as stale and 'blah' as that plot description sounds. The screenplay leaves both leads grasping at straws to fill in the holes of their characters and it's awkwardly indecisive on a tone; the softball-satire "jokes" clash with the stabs at relevancy and pathos (including a "what have we learned here" climax), and none of the actors ever finds a consistent pitch. I'd be surprised if it gets theatrical distribution. (C)on The Hole
While I didn't get to see the entire film (the fire alarm was pulled twenty minutes before the film was over!), I feel like I got the gist of this 3-D Poltergeist throwback from Joe Dante. The movie, which intends to be a horror film for family audiences (PG-13?), alternates between groan-inducing dialogue, family drama backstory and jumpy B-movie scares (e.g. a creepy clown doll that keeps reappearing in inconvenient locations). It’s not up to snuff with Dante’s Gremlins but what is? If you have any 8-to-12-year-old kids who like being scared, take them along. That said, you’d still probably be better off with a DVD of Coraline. (C+)On Perrier's Bounty
On A Serious ManDerivative of films like In Bruges (without the emotional heft) and Snatch (without the emphasis on style), this Irish crime comedy flew under the radar of most festival-goers, despite starring well-liked mick stars Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson and Jim Broadbent. Though it doesn’t bring a ton new to the well-worn genre, it boasts clever dialogue, fun performances (particularly Gleeson as the crime boss) and surprisingly off-kilter sources of humor, such as violence in the name of one’s affinity for dogs and dislike for homophobes. Seems a sure bet for small-time US distribution. (B+)
I can’t really be trusted when asked for my opinion on a Coen Brothers film. I’m more than a bit biased: for well over a decade, I’ve espoused the belief that they’re the best filmmakers working and I think even their worst movie (yes, The Ladykillers) is still pretty great. That said, even I was surprised at the level to which I was knocked out by their latest, which is supposedly their most personal film. It's about a much put-upon Minnesota university professor (Tony-nominated Michael Stuhlbarg) and how he attempts to grapple with the innumerable trials and tribulations in his life, most prominently via advice from the rabbis in his life.on George A Romero's Survival of the Dead
Man recalls Barton Fink but definitively possesses its own unique identity. The film is consistently very, very funny but proves surprisingly weighty, too. A Serious Man depicts life as basically, ‘one fucking thing after the other,’ and espouses a supremely bleak worldview in an entirely original, oddly moving manner. While it possesses the Coens’ trademark immaculate filmmaking and shot composition, this is probably one of their most esoteric and least commercial films. It’s also, in my opinion, one of their three or four best films and in serious contention for my ‘best movie of the year’ title. (A+)
I appreciate the effort, but the guy should really give it a rest. I seemed to be one of the few in attendance who thought this was (mildly) more watchable than his last effort, Diary of the Dead. At least it featured a handful of fun, gory moments, and characters I didn’t want to instinctively murder. Overall, I think my reaction can best be summed up by my sold-out midnight audience’s behavior: they gave Romero a standing ovation when he showed up to introduce the film, and shuffled out of the theater as the credits rolled with their heads hung low -- not even bothering to stay for the Q&A with their hero. (C)Whoa. High praise for the Coen Bros. After No Country For Old Men (my #2 of 2007) and Burn After Reading (#11 of 2008), both top-notch efforts, it's clear that they've jumped whatever hurdle they were struggling to clear in that weird mid-Aughts patch (The Ladykillers, Intolerable Cruelty). Well done.
Fin de Cinema France's young actor Yasmine Belmadi (Criminal Lovers, Who Killed Bambi?) dies.It is not a new concept to me. Not at all. Men have been imitating me for as long as I can remember. In fact, most of the impersonations I have seen have had a five o'clock shadow. I imagine, when or if Johnny should portray me, he will succeed.While you've been reading this post, I've been sitting in a screening room watching Meryl Streep do Julia Child. More soon...
In my weekly column over @ Towleroad I've declared next week "Neil Patrick Harris Week"... pass it on! The hilarious Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (pictured left co-starring Nathan Fillion) comes to DVD on Tuesday* and then NPH hosts the TONY Awards on Sunday. He'll basically sing for you all week if you want him, too. The column also features a quick bit on two gay winners from Cannes, Bruce LaBruce's plan to make another explicit zombie picture and more...
Everett's character Francesco Dellamorte apparently takes a lot of showers and apparently he's used to getting attacked by zombies -- just part of the job. But on this night they come earlier than expected. The lights go out in the shower, he sees one approaching in shadow (shower curtains = scary in movies), and then the zombies, in what looks like boy scout uniforms -- tee hee -- begin to attack. He begin to shoot them in the head. The most hilarious thing about the gorey sequence is that Rupert is attacked in the shower but when he fights back he's suddenly wearing pants. How did this happen? Zombies move slowly but slow enough for their victims to slip on a pair of pants before finding a weapon? It's not for some no nudity clause either -- both Falchi & Everett get naked elsewhere in the movie.
NaFF ~ Day Five
On the plus side it has a few really terrific moments, solid visual ideas, beautiful cinematography (it doesn't often look like a low budget indie) and an extremely creepy and well performed twist on the notion of "zombies". In the minus column, it struck me as quite messy: too many characters (two of whom could have been extracted from the picture with very minor script changes), dropped implicated plot threads and an overly repetitive structure. But most problematic I thought was its absolutely bizarre sense of pacing. Nick told me he actually liked its arrythmic feel but it didn't work for me. Initially I gave this film a B- but it linger well. So I'm bumping it up to a B. I am a tough grader [sigh]. I think people who tend to respond to unusual takes on horror or dreamy takes on privileged kids (there's a teensy bit of a Sofia Coppola feel going on within the cinematography) will like it a lot more than I did. I hope some distributor picks it up and asks for another round of editing because the Deagol Brothers have something here but some fine tuning never hurt.