PHILIP BARRETT: Let me get one thing out of the way; this is going to sound like I hate Edge of Darkness. I don’t, and truth be told it’s not a terrible film by any stretch. The true enemy of this movie is Warner Bros. marketing department which wants this movie to be Taken 2. The film itself acts like it wants to be, too, and without the success of Taken we wouldn’t have realized it, but it’s not an action film. Will that disappoint the audience going into it remains to be seen, but that’s the main reason this picture left me cold.

Plus1: Edge of Darkness reminded me of last year’s Clive Owen flick – The International, in that they both started slow and built toward a WOW factor with a “I can’t believe they did that” ending. Both movies used real-world drama as the backdrop to help shape the world the stories took place in. If anything, the Warner Brothers (and their sister Dot) are marketing the movie as a detective/action flick where in fact it is an intelligent suspense thriller.

PHILIP: Which it is, and for the first forty or so minutes that was fine. The movie never takes off like it promises and is really selling one particular scene completely wrong. The ending Alex mentions to me felt like it belonged in an different movie altogether. Without giving too much away, it’s the point where the film finally decides it wants to be what the ads promise. It’s out of place, complete with cheesy music to compliment it.

It is a suspense thriller, unquestionably, and maybe if I’d gone in there expecting that I’d have been more pleased with it. I like Martin Campbell, and the man is an artist in how he lends his films an exotic look while still being able to tell a story. He’s not really to blame, as the other culprit is the script by William Monahan and Andrew Bovell (adapted from the TV series by the same name, which was also helmed by Campbell.) It becomes too convoluted for its own good, when it would have worked better had things been kept simpler.

Plus1: : To me, the ending that was used fit and I’m not sure if that was the same ending from the BBC mini-series. However, I’ve watched enough BBC programming to recognize that the ending used was a BBC series-style ending. If anything, I felt that there should have been one more scene after that last scene with a news story detailing the fallout from the events that unfolded and giving some closure to the political thriller that we had just witnessed. I think American audiences are going to feel the same way… a bit let down on the overall closure of the story and not the main character of Tom Craven (played by Mel Gibson).

As for the style and direction of the movie, I thought Martin Campbell did a good job in Americanizing the story while still keeping the BBC feel to the overall product. If I had to complain about the script it would be that they tried to cram too much into a two-hour film. There were a few scenes that seemed out of context early on but made sense later in the movie. The same with Craven’s remorse and sadness over the death of his child…his inner monologue wasn’t able to really be expressed in the short time frame given.

PHILIP: They did, and it over-complicated things that didn’t need to be over-complicated. It’s ok if it’s not Taken 2, but the direction the screenplay went made it seem like it was the “most serious film in the history of everness” when we didn’t need so many twists and turns along the way.

I will say though, Mel Gibson was perfectly cast as Tom Craven. It’s hard to tell whether they cast Gibson just because or if they molded Craven like him, but only crazy Mel (the best kind of Mel, by the way) could be able to pull this one off. He’s enjoyable even when the film drags or also gets too goofy. His demeanor is priceless, surpassed only by his just as goofy Boston accent.

Plus1: Casting a movie like this is just as important as the story itself. Get the wrong actors and no matter how good or great the story is, the acting will take away from the words. Casting Mel Gibson was a stroke of genius. He brought an aged toughness to Tom Craven that gave realism to the character. I’m not sure what was worse…Mel’s mush-mouth Boston accent or the hard to understand Boston/British accent Ray Winstone used as Jedburgh. With that being said, Jedburgh was a character straight out of any BBC drama or American political thriller – the fixer brought in to clean up the mistakes of others. I liked how Craven and Jedburgh shared an unspoken admiration for each other, knowing what each did and looking the other way.

I don’t know if Campbell tried to make this the “most serious film in the history of everness” but he did manage to make a thriller that had me captivated the entire time. Not once was I taken out of the story because of some sappy piece of music or ill-timed musical crescendo, an unneeded action piece or larger then-life-explosion, or worse…the cute kid that ruins all movies.  Everything he did made Edge of Darkness come across as a “this could happen in real life” movie just as he did with 2006′s Casino Royale and from what I could tell from online research, kept true to the original source material.

PHILIP: Winstone was pretty much perfectly cast as Jedburgh, and he’s having a pretty fun time, even if his character is one of the over-complicated matters at hand. Winstone doesn’t try to play one or other, and only a veteran could handle it as well as he does here. The rest of the cast fills in decently, with Bojana Novakovic doing a solid job as Gibson’s daughter. There’s really no problem with the rest of the cast, even rent-a-bad-guy Danny Huston does good, although it appears he’s trying to set a record for how many unintentionally homosexual villains he can play (between this and X-Men Origins.)

Plus1: I liked Edge of Darkness and thought it was a very intelligent movie that didn’t talk down to me. It had a wonderfully executed story that built from a slow beginning to an amazing ending and not once during the movie did the subject take itself too seriously. My only concern is that the moving going public is going to go in, like Philip did, and expect more then what they are given. This isn’t Lethal Weapon and that isn’t an older Martin Riggs. You’re not getting a fast-paced action flick with car chases, gun fights, and loud explosions. You’re getting a stylized political thriller that will make you think and I think that is what many people don’t want when going to the movies. They want to check their brain at the door and relax in a fantasy world for a few hours to escape reality. And as much as I liked Edge of Darkness I don’t see this being on heavy rotation in my DVD collection in a few months.

PHILIP: Pretty much that. It’s not a discredit to the movie that I misplaced my expectations in wanting an action/revenge tale and instead received a mystery. I liked the film enough that I will give it another try on Blu-Ray with this in mind. That said, I think I did enjoy the goofy parts more than the more serious stuff with said expectations. This isn’t a terribly made picture nor is it even a bad picture. It just left me cold because I wanted something else, and what was given wasn’t working for me. It’s a fairly decent little thriller in its own right, and maybe audiences will get more out of it than I did. I’d be more inclined to recommend “checking the brain in” if the movie didn’t fire off such mumbo-jumbo of who’s turning on who. In the end, Edge of Darkness is just a middle-of-the-road thriller that has a nice return for Mel Gibson.

Philip’s Rating –

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

The good news about 2009 was that it wasn’t as horrendous as some previous years. In fact, when the good films came to us, they were often truly great pieces of work sprinkled with decent efforts in between. Then of course you had those nuggets of crap that would get through the grinder and remind us that bad movies and filmmaking unfortunately still exists. It seemed for every two Hurt Lockers or Inglourious Basterds there was a Post-Grad or Year One that followed it. Or maybe this year, with all it’s great films, made the dookie stink even more than we’re used to. Instead of posting on my Twitter page ninety times a day about how much I don’t like these films, I’m going to take this opportunity to present the Ten Worst Films of 2009:

10. TAKING WOODSTOCK

Horrid, horrid, horrid doesn’t begin to describe this piece of donkey manure. When it’s not being anti-Semitic, the film pummels us with a useless plot about a completely unlikable lead while also not actually being about Woodstock itself. Ang Lee might say he was trying to be artful, but his real goal was punishing his audience for getting political about Brokeback Mountain and absolutely hating The Hulk. Congratulations sir, you’ve accomplished your revenge. The film also randomly goes into split-screen mode, for no reason other than just to do it. The trickery doesn’t serve the story, but it does serve the purpose of killing braincells.

9. POST-GRAD

Y’know what? I’m just going to go easy here and let a scene from Sin City describe how I felt after this atrocity against cinema:

8. YEAR ONE

This movie is legally retarded, even if it tries to tempt us by having Olivia Wilde in it. Michael Cera continues playing Timid Nerd and Jack Black plays Annoying Fat Guy, at least I assume those are their character names as I could care less to remember them. I’d also like to forget this pile of fly excrement that the once solid Harold Ramis bestowed upon us. It took at least three viewings of Ghostbusters to remind one self that Ramis still has some decency left in him, but this one really, really burns the soul. It also causes great worry for the upcoming Ghostbusters 3, as the screenwriters for this picture are rumored to be scripting it.

7. X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE

True, I knew going in this was going to poop the bed, and yes expectations for this where as low as you could possibly get. Then an interesting thing happened when the lights dimmed and this movie started for me. Instead of make an honest to goodness decent X-Men film, Gavin Hood made his intentions with this film clear, that he was out to achieve the impossible. Not content with renowned hack Brett Ratner making the worst X film, Hood and his team of clowns sully a franchise that was already reeling. Everyone involved with this film not named Hugh Jackman, Liev Schrieber (who sadly has two films make this list) and Ryan Reynolds needs serious jail time.

6. FAST & FURIOUS

I absolutely hate this franchise, even more than the dreaded Twilight Saga. This has to do with the fact the first film in this sorry, despicable franchise completely steals every beat from my favorite film of all-time and doesn’t even care that it’s doing so. This entry is the least offensive of all four films, and free looks at Jordana Brewster are always welcome which is what’s saving this movie from appearing higher. Regardless, it still has asinine writing, acting, and almost terrible directing. Almost terrible, because Justin Lin seems to at least be giving a modest effort. Shamefully, it won’t be going to a better, more original, less criminal franchise.

5. MISS MARCH

If you’re going to do a comedy about Playboy and the Playboy Mansion, you’d better show what made that magazine famous in the first place. Miss March fails at that, as it does to even evoke any sort of laughs out of anyone with fully functioning common sense. In fact, rumors are swirling that anyone who purchases this DVD or Blu-ray are asked if they’d like a complimentary pistol-whipping or clubbing with a baseball bat. Seventy-two percent of idiots who bought it chose pistol-whipping as it somehow makes them come to their senses about the piece of crap they’ll be injecting into their players.

4. I LOVE YOU, BETH COOPER

When a fellow critic is the funniest thing in the movie theater because of the comments he’s making, you know you’re in trouble. Normally, there’s an unwritten rule of critics not making comments during a picture, but dang it if I Love You, Beth Cooper just didn’t ask to be made fun of. One wonders if the film would have been more entertaining if they showed the IMAX version of Avatar on that ginormous forehead of hers, or how many times between takes Paul Rust poked her eye out with his nose. Director/Torture Master Chris Columbus said he wanted to make a “throwback John Hughes film” only failing to realize what made those watchable.

3. ALL ABOUT STEVE

Sandra, oh Sandra. While I didn’t hate it, The Proposal wasn’t my cup of tea but I could understand the appeal of yet another romantic comedy with a suave Ryan Reynolds, so our relationship wasn’t damaged. Then came wind of the terrible accent in a film about a Baltimore Raven in The Blind Side and that’s when problems between us started. And then came this marvel of idiocy, and we were through. This movie is the epitome of everything wrong with comedy, and lets women know it’s ok to stalk a man, even if he’s on the job. Reportedly it was shelved for two years and only saw release when Bradley Cooper’s The Hangover generated good buzz. This is one side-effect that should have stayed forgotten.

2. THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON

Pass. Just, pass.

1. JENNIFER’S BODY

Forget that this film is a pure girl power movie, and forget that there were outcries it wasn’t popular because of it. This is just a piss-poorly made film that absolutely deserves to be called the worst film of 2009. This is the one that finally exposes Diablo Cody for the terrible writer that she is and while New Moon promotes domestic abuse, Cody takes it one step further and proclaims that date rape is a wonderful thing and all women should aspire for that. Add to that the horrendous dialoge the film tries to pass off as ‘chic’ coupled with the outright stupidity of almost every plot point and this is a film that doesn’t even want to redeem itself. It’s perfectly content with being the suckfest that it is as it thinks it’s the cool kid on the block. You’re not, as you’re uncompromising douche who needs to just run away from cinema as far as you can.

But wait, there’s actually a film that’s so crappy it’s actually worse than the ten films I’ve listed. It’s just recently been released, which kind of defeats the old proverb “save the best for last.” I present to you…

Does it count because it was direct-to-video? Who cares, but somehow Wrong Turn 3 managed to be decent. This…wow. I don’t think there’s any word in the human, xenomorph, or Na’vi dictionary that describe how horrendous this movie is. Action is poorly framed, the acting just doesn’t exist, and the plot rips off Die Hard just as bad as Fast and the Furious sullied Point Break. Anyone who thinks Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or Land of the Lost is the worst experience known to man has yet to encounter this piece to terrible. Argue with me if you will about what shouldn’t and should be on here, but let’s all agree this trash needs to be taken out and burned.

And that concludes it. Hopefully none of you had to suffer as much as I did this year, and let’s hope 2010 doesn’t bring us anything nearly as horrid. As usual, tell me how wrong I am below.

As an added bonus, who can guess how many 20th Century Fox films made this list? I don’t have a vendetta against them, but they need to fire Tom Rothman and stop putting out crap year after year.

Up is still in my top three films of the year. Even now with it’s release on Blu-ray, the gut-punch still gets me and it’s still a marvelous film to watch. The Blu-ray is also no slouch in it’s pristine presentation of the film, it also features a nice batch of extras that go into great detail about how and why the film was made. In honor of this release, I was able to participate in a virtual roundtable discussion with both Docter and Peterson. Aside from being dressed in obscure outfits (Docter in a bunny suit, Peterson as Amelia Earhart,) both seemed to be very proud of the work they did. They should be as the film is incredible.

Who came up with the idea to cast Ed Asner as Carl?

Bob Peterson: Once Pete and I had arrived at the idea of doing an Old Man movie, the thought of Ed Asner came fairly early on. Good casting at Pixar is an exercise of balance. Woody in “Toy Story” could have been perceived as unappealing when he was jealous of Buzz if we had the wrong voice for him, but Tom Hanks brings such a natural appeal that he balanced any of Woody’s negatives. The same with Ed Asner. Ed’s soulfullness balanced his curmudgeon side. When Ed saw the small statue of his character when he came in to read for us he said “It looks nothing like me!!!” In a cranky (tongue in cheek) way. We knew from that, that Ed was the perfect voice for Carl!!

Other than the trip to South America, what inspired the story of UP?

Bob Peterson: Various things – the lives of our grandparents. For example, I had a grandfather who always wanted to go West from Ohio, but never got the chance. I had the foresight to videotape my grandparent’s home after they had passed 20 years ago. There are the side by side chairs – one soft and one hard which absolutely paralleled who the were as people. Many of our life experiences with our wives and children were put into play in the script, and of course living with our dogs gave us great insight into dog behavior!

Who or what was the inspiration behind Charles Muntz?

Bob Peterson: Charles Muntz in story terms is “Carl Fredriksen at the end of the line.” In other words, if Carl had made it to Paradise Falls without accepting others into his life, then he would have gone crazy, wallowing in his unfinished quest. Carl is represented by a square shape. So as far as shape language, Muntz is a “collapsed square.” He end up having more diamond shapes as if a square has collapsed upon itself. From real reference, we looked at the grand adventurers of the last century including Lindbergh. We looked at Howard Hughes, being a sort of inventor/adventurer. We also looked at photos of Errol Flynn and even the dapper photos of Walt Disney in the 1930′s with his pencil thin mustache.

While Docter was on hand as well, he didn’t answer the questions we gave him. Nor did he answer the question my partner in crime Shane MacDonald of Eye Crave Network, but Bob Peterson was. Shane was gracious enough to let me use his question for this piece, so if you could, give him and his site a visit. I promise he won’t steal your girlfriend.

When you release the final film is it like watching your kids go off into the world? You’ve shaped it, guided along, then you have to let them go and see how they do.

Bob Peterson: Yes. It is interesting watching the movie for the first time at our Wrap Parties with our crew. We don’t ever get to see our movies like a regular audience member because we lived through the creation of the film and see the memories brought forward by each shot and movement we see. When I look at my 14 year old (who I don’t want to grow up and go to college!!!) I see her as a 3 year old at the pumpkin patch, the the 5th grader at the spelling bee.Those memories are there. When our movies leave us we hope we’ve given them enough love and sense to do great things in the world!!

Up is available now on Blu-ray and DVD, but quite honestly, grab the Blu-ray. Better deal, and it comes with a DVD of the film that has some nice extras.

Seven out of ten times, I’m going to come out enjoying a film that operates on its own terms. It’s the first and best thing I can say about Michael Mann, which just adds to my fanboy nature when it comes to his work. As a more recent example, the Coen Brothers’ A Serious Man just acts as its own entity from beginning to end, and never makes any apologies for it. While not as brilliant or as great as that picture, The Men Who Stare at Goats is that kid we all knew in high school. You’re not really sure who he is or what he’s about, but you know that when you spend time with him, you’re going to be entertained.

So why won’t this appeal to the masses? Very simply because of the script, which goes off the rails midway through the picture. Screenwriter Peter Straughan has some interesting ideas at work here, he just doesn’t know where to end it. Nor does he know where to take these ideas to turn them into a coherent story. Straughan likely read the book by Jon Ronson and came away so super excited over the material he decided to use it to write a script. Somewhere along the way someone forgot to tell him to go back and rewrite the film. It strives to be satirical, and many times almost gets to that point.

Director Grant Heslov doesn’t fail in making sure the movie stays entertaining at least during its brief runtime. He’s aided by a goofy-as-can-be George Clooney who acts like a kid on a roller coaster ride. It’s unclear what his Lyn Cassidy was written as, but Clooney takes him for an overconfident buffoon who feels he’s superhuman. The result is pure comedy, and a performance that guides one through the picture when it begins to get too outlandish for its own good. Clooney’s counterbalanced by a moody and glum Ewan McGregor who does a fine job as Bob Wilton, and plays off of his mustached partner elegantly. McGregor needs a film like this to get him back out there and this is a good jumping point.

Both are supported by Jeff Bridges who’s coasting by on his ‘Dude’ persona from The Big Lebowski. Obviously, that’s not a bad thing as he’s particularly great at it but he doesn’t really do anything we haven’t seen before. Kevin Spacey’s Larry Hooper is in a battle with Cassidy but not because they’re rivals like the story tells us. Spacey seems to be trying to one-up Clooney for “Goofiest Person In A Film”. While the edge might go to Spacey by the end, it never feels like Verbal Kint takes it too far. Stephen Lang also pops up, although it’s never clear why he’s there… but no matter. Lang’s always a joy to watch, as is Glenn Morshower, who’s in Transformers mode here. Again, never a bad thing.

Heslov does deserve credit for keeping all of these elements reigned in. He’s daunted with the task of trying to tell a coherent story amongst all the chaos, and he just goes with it. Heslov doesn’t hold anything back and doesn’t let any of his actors feel restrained by their roles. Instead of taking the “how can I save this?” attitude that directors sometimes  leave on their pictures, Heslov’s attitude toward this material is laid-back and fun. He’s perfectly aware things have gone up in smoke once the third act has arrived and does nothing to stop it from doing so. Maybe he’s smiling and laughing along with Cassidy and Hooper as they run rampant through an outpost.

This is what The Men Who Stare At Goats asks you to do. It cares if you like it, but at the same time it’s not afraid to just gleefully throw everything it can at you. Truth is, you’re either with this film from the opening frame, and just accept it in spite of itself when the later acts come, or you’re weary and far gone by the time said acts arrive. With that said, this film is tough to recommend to those on the fence. People interested should definitely give it a try, but the film isn’t for everyone and knows it. And sometimes, we need films like this that play by their own rules and offer up mildly entertaining exploits.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

Saw is starting to become more of an event than a film, which is actually ok. Why shouldn’t there be a horror series that gets released every Halloween just to stay in the spirit of things? And hey, at least Lionsgate seems to put effort into these movies instead of make them cash-ins. With Saw VI coming, we here at Atomic Popcorn want to give you the hook up, of course that’s if you live in San Diego. Listen, the economy’s tight enough as it so we’re giving away free passes to see the film. That’s right, you and a guest can enjoy that cute li’l Jigsaw doll and his twisted games.

Don’t live in San Diego, and still want some swag? Well, we have you covered there well. We’ll be giving away six (6) prize packs that include:

-Saw VI T-shirt
-A syringe pen
-Saw VI Lollipop

Live in San Diego and curious to how do you enter? Well, just e-mail me here with your name, address, and “I WANNA SEE SAW VI” and tell me the craziest thing you’ve either received trick-or-treating or the wildest thing you’ve ever done on Halloween. Winners will be selected and notified within the next week so don’t waste time. Besides, I’d also like to continue to give you guys free stuff. I mean, you guys want it, right? RIGHT!?

More Than A Game hit me a on a personal level. No, I didn’t spew hate all over it because it involves a Cleveland team nor did I walk out of the theater cursing Kristopher Belman for being a Clowns fan or supporting LeBron James. No, his film impacted me in the sense that I have been there and seen what basketball players go through thanks to the adventures of my father’s days as a basketball coach (he still coaches, so the adventure is far from over.)

It likely won’t have the same impact on other movie-goers, but the themes of brotherhood, family, and pursing your dreams should touch anyone. Belman’s crafted a film that uses basketball as a means to show all of these themes, and doesn’t require knowledge of the game to enjoy it. He also wisely chooses not to keep the focus all on LeBron James but rather Coach Dru Joyce and his journey with these young men. Too soon? Maybe, but the story and themes are there and Belman has knocked it out of the park.

Recently, I had the pleasure of having a conversation with Mr. Belman as we discussed how well made his film was, how much his film hit me, and of course, I couldn’t resist giving him grief for being a Cleveland Clowns fan. I even dressed in my Steelers attire for this particular interview, and as always, had my Terrible Towel with me.

But enough of this, onto the meat…

What as a filmmaker and not a fan of Cleveland sports attracted you to this story?

Originally, the thing that I was really drawn to was the friendships. It started out as a ten-minute class project for a class I was taking in college and I’d read about what these guys were doing on the court. I had read an article that four of the guys had played together since they were in fourth grade and they made a pact that they would go to the same high school together. And that’s pretty cool that these guys are thirteen years old and making a heavy decision together, especially because the school they chose wasn’t an obvious choice for them. Four African-American kids from the inner city going to a school that’s predominately white. It’s a private, Catholic school like ‘Wow that’s real interesting.’ Through further research I found out that the reason they went there was because it was their best chance of staying together. I thought that was a really mature decision for kids 12-13 years old to make. It’s really unbelievable. I was really drawn to that and thought the friendship aspect was unique. As a storyteller, I thought the most interesting thing was the friendship.

The other thing I liked about it too was that you didn’t focus just on LeBron James, which is what I thought when I saw the trailer. I understand you gotta market it like that.

That’s actually one of my fears now. LeBron’s a double-edged sword now. He’s definitely going to bring people in, but my fear is that we won’t bring in the non-sports fans. I really feel that there are people who don’t like basketball that could really relate to the themes in the film y’know? I’ve screened the film in Singapore and London where basketball isn’t appreciated. I remember a lady in Singapore saying ‘I didn’t understand what was going on on the court at all. But I loved the film. I cried when these themes of brotherhood came up.’ To me that’s speaks volumes of the themes. Y’know, you just related to what your dad went through and you could see that. Because there’s six characters in the film, I feel like there’s a character everyone can relate to. I hope everyone is excited by the idea of LeBron but I hope it doesn’t limit us. I really want non-sports fans to see this too.

The thing for me was that it wasn’t about LeBron, but Coach Dru’s journey with these characters and how he was the assistant for a while and then he became the head coach. I just wondered if that was your intent to have it with Coach Dru as the main character and the five players are his supporting cast.

I’m glad you say that, I’m glad you picked up on that. Coach Dru really was the main character in the film, and that wasn’t the original intent. That’s something that evolved as I got further along in the process and got to know the boys. Originally I wanted to focus on the five players as one of the main themes. But as I spent more and more time with the team and the coach, I realized how important those boys where important to him and how important he was to them. It was kind of incredible really because he didn’t start chasing his dream ‘til he was in his mid forties. The film really is about dreams, and y’know his boys and their dream for the championship. The fact he was able to achieve his through them is really incredible. He didn’t come up as a basketball player, he had to learn through books and what not. That was pretty amazing, the things he was willing to go through to achieve those dreams. It evolved over time and it wasn’t the original intent.

Well the same thing with my dad. In his basement he had shelves, just bookshelves upon bookshelves about coaching basketball and videos.

Really? Just learning it all? That’s great. I think whatever you’re doing, it’s the person who says “I know-it-all” or they’re done learning, I think that’s when you fail. Coaches have to keep doing that. As a filmmaker, hopefully I’ll never stop learning. Otherwise I’ll have to retire and lose the passion or whatever. But that’s cool, that’s very true.

I’m a filmmaker too so I know what you mean.

Oh great, see? Yeah, you’re always learning. I think there are some filmmakers out there that think they’re done learning and that’s when they get full of it.

Every project, you gotta learn something. At least that’s how it is in my experience.

Yeah, exactly. I hope so, I hope we all do.

So did Coach Dru ever yell at you?

(laughs) I’m trying to think. (pause) I don’t think so. You know what? There was a policy where if you swore on the court you had to do push-ups and I think I might’ve sworn once. I don’t think he made me do them, but he jokingly threatened push-ups. And I realized I had to clean-up my act at that point. Coach Dru’s just not the yelling type. He’s very inspirational. As you see, one of my favorite scenes is half-time at the National Championship game. You expect an inspirational, giant rah-rah speech. But he went in there, it was almost like a sermon in a way. It was very reflective and I think that’s the reason they won the game. He broke it down to the off the court things that where important and I think that’s what resonated with those boys. So, he’s no the yelling type but he definitely gets his messages across.

So did he grant you a lot of access to the team?

I did once they gave me the green light. Originally, I joined the team and they weren’t necessarily keen on the idea of having me around because it’s a high school team and they want to keep things low profile. Y’know, camers around the school they weren’t sure it was a good thing and they didn’t know what to do. And so I told them ‘Hey, this isn’t about LeBron (who was becoming an emerging star) and I’m just trying to get an A on my project. I’m from Akron and I’m doing a homework assignment.’ They thought that was cool and so Coach Dru gave me access to one practice. So I came and I was immediately blown away by these characters. Obviously the things they were doing on the court were phenomenal but I was blown away by these characters and I had to come back. I went home and I listened to the footage and heard him tell the guys practice was at 7 A.M.. Ok, I’m going to show up at seven and see what happens. So I just roll in like I don’t belong there and no one says anything to me. Practice comes and goes and I filmed several hours and I’m like ‘Ok, I’m going to come back tomorrow too.’ So I showed up again and it was just a weird thing where they never gave me the green light but they never gave me the yellow light either so I saw it as yellow and I tend to run the yellow light when I’m driving so I just went with it. After months and months in they accepted me as one of the guys on the team but couldn’t play basketball for anything and I was cool with that. So the access at that point it was kind of self-imposed and they said ‘Alright we trust you, and we’re going to let you be a part of this.’ I think it’s because  they knew I didn’t know what I was doing. I had the camera, I wasn’t sure, I was always messing with focus, I didn’t know what I was doing originally. So it was my first semester with the camera and they sensed that about me so honestly, sometimes we’d be in the edit room and ‘Ah, hold on that shot longer’ or ‘My gosh that shot’s out of focus you don’t know what you’re doing. I get really angry, but I realized those same things that were detriments where the reason I was allowed to be a part of it. They didn’t see me as a threat. They probably never thought they’d even see the footage let alone see it cut together like this. So it really allowed them to be who they are and natural.

So how long was it between their high school career and when you started interviewing them again?

I did interviews all throughout my journey with them. And at the end of the day, the interviews I was able to get toward the end where just so much more emotional and I think because so much time had passed. The interviews you’re getting out of them are not just factual, but they’re emotional. It’s not talking about growing up without a father, it’s taking about what it was like growing up without a father. It was my last year with them, they were in high school and graduated in 2003, I went back and interviewed them all in the fall of 2007. So about four years. It was interesting because at that point they had a life perspective and they have a maturity. It goes back to that speech I referenced where Coach Dru says ‘what you guys have now you won’t understand until later in life.’ He was right in a sense, and they were able to expand on those ideas and reflect on them. Four years had passed, and I think it was meant to be that kind of time.

Let’s get back to how this was marketed as “The LeBron James Show”. Did you have to fight with anybody and say ‘we can’t have it like this?’

The marketing aspect of it? Not really, y’know I had mixed feelings about it. Overall I’m happy to be working with Lionsgate because they really do great jobs with specialty films. They know how to take a film like a Tyler Perry film or a Saw movie and really hit the audience and really pull that in. So I was excited working with them. It’s almost how I direct when I finally worked with the crew. Once I partner up with someone, I’m going to trust them. When I have a DP shooting for me, I’m going to trust them. He knows what he’s doing. I have input, we’re doing to back and forth, but at the end of the day he’s there because I don’t know how to light. He’s there because I don’t know how to do this. I’m going to put that trust in him and I take a long time making that decision to bring that person on, but once I do, this is what they do. That’s how I felt with Lionsgate. I’m not gonna go in there and fight about how they market the film, I trust them and I think they’re doing a great job and that’s how I am with my editor and DP.

What about when you were trying to get it made?

Yes and no, it was a fight to finally get financing so there it was tough to get someone to believe in the vision I had. I spent two years literally taking the same meeting. And the meeting was always the same result, ‘Hey, we’d love to cut you a big check about your LeBron footage’ or ‘we’d love to pay you to direct the LeBron portion of the movie but we’re not interested in those stories, they’re not marketable.’ The Coach Dru character, at this point I knew he was the main character but people saw that as the biggest mistake ever and said ‘you can’t market him.’ I literally had two years of that meeting and that was tough because I’m out of college at this point, student loans are kicking in, I’m working at a coffee shop and I don’t think about taking that check. But at the same time, you start getting a little bit depressed because you think ‘This is the industry I’m trying to get into and these people are telling me the story’s not good enough?’ Like, that hurts. When you come out of college you’re very impressionable, so it hurts a little bit. That was the fight, but when I finally paired up with someone, I met a man named Harvey Mason, Jr. who wasn’t in film. He was a music producer and he also coached his son in basketball and he really related to the stories. And I didn’t have to fight with him because he said ‘you know what, film’s not my world. I wanna support what you’re doing, I think you’re doing it the right way already and I wanna give you the means to do it right.’ And he was really hands-off in a way, and at that point it was fine. And LeBron and all those guys, they always respected the fact that it was the same story. LeBron never wanted it to be more about him. He loved the fact that the same thing I set out seven years ago was the same thing that’s on the screen now. I think they respect that a lot.

This was originally a school project. Did you actually shoot ten minutes and turn it in as a project?

Yeah, I turned it in as a project. I got a B+.

PHILIP BARRETT: What’s ironic about Where the Wild Things Are happens to involve a conversation I had with fellow critic Anders Wright of San Diego’s City Beat before the film. I kindly asked him what his expectations for the film where. “You know, Philip,” he said, “I’ve learned not to set the bar too high or too low for anything to avoid being disappointed.” After Spike Jonze’s latest venture ended, I started to wish I’d listen to him. While an admirable effort, Where the Wild Things Are is missing something that makes it worthy of the pre-buzz it received.

MATTHEW SNIDER: My expectations were set so high on this film to begin with, nothing could of met them. I wanted something to change the way I viewed the world around me, the way I relived my childhood from time to time. The movie flopped, ONLY due to my expectations being so high. As Philip said, I should of gone in with a set of lower expectations and been suprised, rather than wanting to say 7 out of 5 and in reality being disappointed. While the movie was somethings pecial, it was missing a few key things to make it exceptional. But how does one take 10 sentences of a children’s book and stretch it into a 91 minute movie without missing something?

PHILIP: And that’s the thing, they do honor the book well. This isn’t a cheaply made cash-in, in fact you can tell there’s a lot of love going on here. The heart is in the right place, but there’s something missing. Is it boring like some have claimed? I wouldn’t say that, but the film does drag and follows it’s own structure. Again, that’s fine but it offsets the pacing of the entire film. Yet that’s not my biggest complaint. There’s something else at work that’s really keeping me from proclaiming “BEST MOVIE EVAAAAR!!!***!!!!”

MATTHEW: The pacing is my biggest issue. Minus the last twenty minutes, I was wanting more. I wanted more from the film based on the beloved book. I wanted this film to become a beloved film based on a beloved book. This is not the case in my eyes. This movie IS something special, the Wild Things are an awesome feat from Jonez. But the story lacks what the Wild Things bring. The portion of the story NOT surrounding the Wild Things is dull and lacking any substance. The portion of the film with the Wild Things drags on in what they are trying to accomplish with Max as the king.
Sitting here I have no idea how to fix a 91 minute movie and its pacing, but that is my biggest issue. I wanted to leave the theater asking for more, but was ready to leave when it was over.

Mind you what was in front of us IS something special. The Wild Things are done very very well and they jump to life right from the pages of the book. The directing, the cinematography, the sets/locations are all done very very well. It’s only downfall is the pacing. Something I can’t see a fix for.

PHILIP: It’s certainly one I’ll come back to in IMAX (and eventually Blu-ray) because the story is there. Ironically, the film could have shaved off a few minutes and maybe the pacing would have been fixed. Yes it would have brought the runtime down to around 85-88 mintues but great films don’t need to be six and a half hours if they’re told right. I disagree with Matthew and say that the portions before the Wild Things help to build Max’s character and his relationship with his mother and sister. In fact, it’s touching yet heart-breaking to see Max destroy his sister’s room and break something he made her. It also doesn’t hurt that Max Records is absolutely perfect as a kid trying to find his place in life.

MATTHEW: Blu-ray will be a must purchase for me. I honestly will need to see this movie a few more times before a final verdict is put in. I have had issue from the start of the movie till now on what I wanted to say about the movie and it still is odd for me to make decisions on only seeing it once.

I do agree that the story of max and his family issues is necessary, I thought it was jumpy and sometimes strong and other times very week in actual story telling. The destroying of the Sister’s room was necessary and well done, but the story behind his costume, his outbursts, the way he treats his mother, the story behind the stories he tells and more could of been visited ever so breifly to round out the story more.

PHILIP: I actually feel they give us enough, as the themes of family continue one he gets to the island with the Wild Things. Afterall, all of the Wild Things are really an extension of Max, which is the right way to take Maurice Sendak’s story. As for the start of the film, I loved how it had writing over the studio cards as well as just a straight cut to “WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE” with a close-up on Max.

I also want to say that this isn’t a kids film, although kids may enjoy it. This is an adult film that has a kid as it’s leading character.

MATTHEW: Overall I would recommend this movie to most adults. No children at all. This ia deep, darker movie than what is portrayed via the trailers and even the TV Spots. This movie is somethings pecial in many ways, it just falls flat in some areas that may make it less appealing to more than the average moviegoer.
I look forward to seeing it again and hopefully admit I was wrong in some areas.

PHILIP: I still recommend the film to everyone as well. Reactions are all over the map which has to say something about what this film is. It’s an admirable effort no doubt, and there’s much that it’s going to mean. The film is shot incredibly well and I was really taken with the visual style and overall story. At the risk of hyperbole, don’t be surprised if Max Records receives an Oscar nod for his performance. Yet still, something was lost, be it the pacing or something that keeps this from being the ‘instant classic’ we all wanted it to be.

Philip’s Rating –

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

Pretty much, this is my reaction to the Toy Story 3 trailer, at least the beginning of it. Point is, my generation (and I say that with confidence) has grown up with these characters and love them just as much as Andy loved teaming up Buzz and Woody to take down Mr. Potato-head. Pixar knows this, and they’ve embraced that in the story by having Andy’s connection with them lost. Well unlike Andy, most of us still hold that connection, which just makes the first half so gut-wrenching.

Then the second half shows up and lets us know the comedy will be there as well to relief the heartbreak. Maybe I’m in a minority, but I am slightly amused by a Spanish-speaking and dancing Buzz Lightyear.  I’m still still interested to see how much of a role Slinky will be or who will replace him.

The teaser is now in HD here at Apple Quicktime.