A Serious Man is going to put a lot of people off. That’s just it’s unrelenting nature, as the film doesn’t care if anyone likes it or not. Essentially what the Coen brothers are doing is asking the audience to laugh at one man’s misfortunes. They’re also taking a serious look at the Jewish culture as they have fun with the lifestyle in a way only the Coens could concoct. Yet, while not as brilliant as No Country for Old Men or even ranking with their best works, the Coen’s have crafted another glorious film to add to their repertoire.

Whether one likes the film will not depend on who “gets it” or not. Folks are surely to pick up on it and still be put off by it’s style or where the story goes. The best mentality to take is to go into the film trusting that the brothers Coen know what their doing and let them take you on the ride. Any pre-conceived notions are likely not going to be in sync with what the brothers have delivered. For this watcher though, the ride was enjoyable that doesn’t poke fun at the Jewish culture as much as it does have fun with it.

The Coen’s wisely chose to cast widely no-names, and that proved wise. Michael Stuhlbarg leads the pack as Larry Gopnik, the hapless individual who endures through all this struggle. From his appearance on, Stuhlbarg is perfect as the bumbling idiot who suffers misfortune after misfortune, seemingly just because. Many might complain he’s too much of a wuss to be considered a strong lead. These people are wrong, as the Stuhlbarg carries the film through and through, and really his passive nature is part of the point.

He’s aided by a fine supporting cast that includes Sari Lennick as his wife Judith. She provides the right amount of attitude to come off like a true witch, as well as giving off controlling vibes required to balance Larry. Fred Melamed plays true “serious man” Sy Abelman, and comes off as the perfectly smug bastard that Sy truly is. Given his appearance, it’s also humorous to consider Judith would cheat on Larry with Sy. The children, Sarah (Jessica McManus) and Danny (Aaron Wolff) are serviceable, with Danny being the better of the bunch. Wolff is completely at home being a conniving runt, much like his mother, and handles his rather large role well. McManus is another matter but certainly she’s not bad. She tends to take more after Larry, but she can be a little bit too whiny at times. It’s her character sure, but McManus tends to oversell these bits. Rounding out the Gopnik family is Richard Kind as Uncle Arthur. It’s a refreshing change for Kind, who’s playing Paul Lassiter if he ever developed a conscience. He’s more subtle than we’ve seen, but actually shows some good acting chops to get one invested in him.

While the rest of the performances are on par, I can’t help but appreciate how well a film the Coen’s have crafted. Long-time Coen’s editor ‘Roderick Jaynes’ (figure that one out) has once again expertly edited the picture with some superb cuts and some impeccable sound design. The opening credits for instance are brilliant, with names flying across the screen as Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody To Love” kicks up. The brothers once again use the services of Roger Deakins to give them some stunning imagery. Most of the picture is shot with a blue hue, assumingly used to capture the melancholy life Larry leads. His images are sharp and detailed, in addition to having a unique sense about them. Praise should also be given to the sound design that only the word immersive will describe it. I’m not sure why I chose that specific word off-hand, but I assume surreal would be another off-kelter choice.

But this is still the Coen brothers show, and they run it like true captains. They trust the audience enough to let them steer things their way with a few bumps along the way. They’ve also left a lot open to the public, which any way you cut it is a work of art. Does that necessarily make it good? That’s up to anyone who has the pleasure of watching it to decide, and likely most will be put off by this picture. Which is fine, because I sincerely doubt the captains behind care who or what likes this film.

I haven’t addressed the themes or story of the film because quite honestly it should be up to the viewer to take what they want out of it. Out of the showing I attended, various people walked out interpreting very different things and after discussing it with others this still holds true. Anyone interested in the picture should give it a chance, and trust the Coen’s enough that they’ll deliver another solid film to their already tremendous library.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Academy Award winner and jack of all trades actor George Clooney is going back in front of the camera once again starring in Anton Corbijn’s “The American”. Focus Features’ most recent suspecnse thriller begins filming in Italy, which is actually based off of a novel called A Very Private Gentlemen.

Alone among assassins, Jack (played by Mr. Clooney) is a master craftsman. When a job in Sweden ends more harshly than expected for this American abroad, he vows to his contact Larry (Bruce Altman of this fall’s Peter and Vandy) that his next assignment will be his last. Jack reports to the Italian countryside, where he holes up in a small town and relishes being away from death for a spell. The assignment, as specified by a Belgian woman, Mathilde (Thekla Reuten of Focus’ award-winning In Bruges), is in the offing as a weapon is constructed. Surprising himself, Jack seeks out the friendship of local priest Father Benedetto (Italian screen and stage veteran Paolo Bonacelli) and pursues romance with local woman Clara (Italian leading lady Violante Placido). But by stepping out of the shadows, Jack may be tempting fate.

Focus senior vice president, production Kahli Small and creative executive Michael Pruss are supervising the project for president of production John Lyons. The latter feature’s cinematographer and editor, Martin Ruhe and Andrew Hulme, respectively, are rejoining Mr. Corbijn on The American; Mark Digby and Suttirat Larlarb, both of Slumdog Millionaire, are production designer and costume designer, respectively.

Mr. Schamus said, “The combination of a visionary artist of the stature of Anton Corbijn with the great George Clooney is, for all of us at Focus, a movie marriage made in heaven.”

Anton Corbijn has been on the scene for years, his most notable work involves his vast array of music videos more so the ones he did for bands like The Killers, Coldplay, U2 and Depeche Mode. The international director’s recent feature is the 2007 biopic Control, based off of the life of Joy Division singer Ian Curtis. No sold release date for this Clooney feature has been set, but keep on here for more news on this and everything happening in Hollywood here at Atomic Popcorn.

How does one begin to approach a film they wanted to like?

Before viewing 9, the film had a lot of things in its favor, the first being absolutely stunning visuals. That looked to be aided by a strong, possibly original premise about a stitchpunk (my gamer side tells me to stick to “Sackboy”) being the key to humanity’s salvation. Factor in that Tim Burton’s producing, as well as Timur Bekmambetov who dazzled screens with Wanted, and you have what should be a pretty decent animated film.

9 makes sure you know it’s not going to be decent midway through. The plot borrows from every story ever written or filmed about the unlikely hero who is the savior of the universe. Understandably, the trailers did hint that this would be the central driving force but they also pretended that 9 was going to do something interesting with it. It doesn’t, and borrows very, very heavily from The Lord of the Rings and Burton’s own Edward Scissorhands. The filmmakers even go so far as to rip off the ending to the Mortal Kombat film (for the record, if you have to borrow from Paul W.S. Anderson of all people, you need your filmmaking privileges revoked.) Bottom line, Pamela Pettler and Ben Gluck’s screenplay plays it too safe and is definitely relying more on the looks of the characters to make audiences forget they didn’t bring it with a story. The pacing is also off for a film that runs under an hour and a half. Quite honestly, it feels longer than some other three hour films I’ve seen this year that moved along briskly.

Too bad 9 isn’t a very likable being. He’s described as “always willing to risk his life for others” and without giving too much away, the opposite is always happening to him and the others(there’s even a scene that explicitly shows this.) In fact I can’t recall a scene where the title character ever risks his life to save another, as everyone is always bailing him out when he’s not putting their lives at stake. Even if he’s voiced by Elijah Wood, it’s still tough to find things to like about him. Nine times out of ten he’s getting bailed out by 7, voiced by Jennifer Connelly. Who is she? The movie doesn’t explain, but she sure can take down metallic beasts stylistically. Connelly doesn’t know with the role, and comes off unnatural.

Only two of the sackpersons…I mean stitchpunks have any sort of backbone to them; Crispin Glover’s not-so-subtle Holocaust victim 6 and an ‘evil’ dictator 1 portrayed by Christopher Plummer. First Glover, who is the most likable of the bunch. He might be crazy, sure, but Glover handles the part exceptionally and who better than George McFly to play the part. Plummer’s a different matter as he’s sort of accustomed to playing the villain in animation films this year. While Charles Muntz had considerably more development, Plummer does his best to make 1 three-dimensional and succeeds with grace.

9 isn’t a complete bust though, as Acker does succeed at creating absolutely gorgeous visuals. Often times one will get so lost in the visuals and assume they’re looking at an actual landscape instead of computer generated images. Even the cartoonish designs of the humans look like physically deformed individuals. Every little stitch is detailed on the characters, as is every spec of dirt and rust on the items left behind comes in crystal clear. Praise should also be given to the designs of the the machines that inhabit this world. The Burton influence is definitely felt, but these machines are particularly terrifying in the way they look and operate. The Seamstress sticks out the most, as she toys with her prey before snatching them up. From the doll head to her snake like movements, she’ll likely crawl into children’s minds and scare them.

Of course that’s assuming children want to see the film. Where Burton’s other animated ventures has a certain charm to them, 9 alienates itself by being overly dark. Again, that’s also fine provided you have a solid story and relatable characters (see: Coraline.) While the visuals are certainly pristine in 9, it severely lacks everything required to make a solid film. The story is bland, an unlikable lead, pretty visuals and meh characters do not a good film make. Yet, this movie’s biggest problem is who will it be marketed for? It can’t marketed for kids as it’s too dark with no charm, and adults will likely lose interest quick due to the awkward pacing. Maybe that’s a blessing in  disguise, as this film doesn’t really deserve Up numbers.

Do make sure you check out our 9 giveaway while you are here!

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆ 

Vampire movies, thanks to a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad film that shall remain nameless, look like they’re here to stay for a while. Yeah, true, they might’ve always been with us but the craze is on another upturn which means up-and-coming filmmakers who have a vampire in their script will likely see it produced. Trouble is, eight out of every ten vampire pictures end up as crap. Seldom do these flicks present a decent idea or tell an engaging story to admire. Dracula is obviously an exception, as is Kathryn Bigelow’s terrific Near Dark. More recently, Let the Right One In did a solid job of being everything that film we will not mention wasn’t. Park Chan-wook’s Thirst also breaks the mold and becomes an interesting and fresh take on vampires while still remembering everything it takes to also be a good film.

The interesting ideas start with Song Kang-ho’s Sang-hyun, a priest who volunteers at the local hospital to send patients to the afterlife. He also volunteers  to go to Africa to be a medical experiment to combat one Emmanuel Virus (EV), which no one has yet survived. Sang-hyun becomes the sole survivor of EV and returns home a legend. He’s treated like Jesus Christ, as people flock to him to have their ailments cured. Mr. Park is even gracious enough to show Sang-hyun float in front of his audience only to have them fawn over him. True, his adoring public is unaware of what he is but that doesn’t matter. Mr. Song plays Sang-hyun sympathetically, even when he’s viciously murdering victims. He doesn’t want to do these things, and when he gives in, Song performs with the same gracious sympathy he started with.

Opposite Mr. Song we find Tae-ju portrayed by Kim Ok-vin, a woman sick of her life as (essentially) a slave. She offers up a more complex dame than the usual inhabitant in a vampire film. Tae-ju wants out of her life, and finds that solace in Sang-hyun, especially after he shows off his newfound powers. Ok-vin works wonders with the different faces she has to tackle. One minute she commands sympathy while the next she invites nothing but hatred. One could make the argument she takes out years of frustration on her husband (Ha-kyun Shin) and his estranged mother (Hae-sook Kim), yet does she take it too far? Are she and Sang-hyun justified in their actions? Certainly, it can be debated.

What can’t be debated is that there is an actual love story beating at the center of this piece. Park Chan-wook does some great work experimenting at balancing different genres here. He’s also terrific at nurturing the complexity of these characters. The title Thirst really is a play on Sang-hyun’s rebellion against the church as he falls in love with a woman. For Tae-ju, its meaning is more literal as it pertains to her longing for a better life. These are characters you absolutely hate because of their actions, yet you can’t help but feel they’re somewhat justified. Yet this is what’s compelling about their relationship, all of this involuntary actions madness. For at least one of them, there’s a real guilt for what they’ve done and you feel it. Park, continuing his already wonderful legacy, plays the entire picture like an opera.

Unfortunately, Thirst does have one gigantic problem that plagues it. Wonderful as it all may be, the picture does drag on by the third act. Fifteen minutes could have been easily dropped to tighten the whole thing up. In addition, the pacing of the film is off a notch. While it doesn’t move as slow as a crawl, Thirst does take its time with its scenes and gives time to establish its relationship. That doesn’t become a fault for the film until we get to the third act. Various scenes drag on when they could have been ended two or three minutes beforehand. There’s a perfect ending moment that could have kept this tight.

Yet in the end we’re still left with a wonderful picture that explores the interplay among themes of religion, sexuality, and love. Even at his worst, Park Chan-wook is still better than eighty-five percent of all directors out there. Thirst will, in the end, just go on to improve his stature. He’s taken the vampire myth and given it a second shot in the arm. It may not be perfect, but the film deserves attention for being able to tell a truly tragic love story with panache and grace. Brainless morons can have Twilight while the more intellegent individuals can have Thirst: fair trade.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

“Hans Landa would have loved this movie.”
-Scott Marks

For those wondering, Mr. Marks is a pretty good friend of mine who often shares a radically different opinion than my own. Generally, I’ll come out singing the praises of Watchmen whereas he’ll yell at me for being wrong and rip the film to shreds. I can’t remember the last film I didn’t like that Scott loved, but the point has more than been made; unless it’s a classic piece of cinema, we don’t usually see eye-to-eye. Taking Woodstock should be considered an achievement just in that the two of us agreed completely on a movie. Shamefully, neither of us can raise our glasses and salute Ang Lee for making a great film. Truthfully, he’s done just the opposite and made what we agree is a horrendous picture.

What’s so offensive about Taking Woodstock isn’t any of the lack of filmmaking on display. In fact this film’s biggest crime is why I chose to begin this critique a little differently than normal. Ang Lee has decided to throw everything out that entails making a good drama and has instead littered it with every single stereotype he can dig up. The Jewish community gets the worst of it, with Imelda Stauton and Henry Goodman portrayed as the biggest Jewish caricatures likely ever put to screen. Now, I’m not Jewish and find it quite entertaining when a film plays on its stereotypes. This movie doesn’t do that and tries to make the stereotypes full-on characters.

The Jews may get it the worst, but Lee hasn’t forgotten the typical trolls who inhabit these stories. Aside from not being able to carry a picture to save his life, Demetri Martin’s Elliott Teichberg is the typical “miracle boy down on his luck.” Rooting for him is difficult when he (and the film) instill absolutely no more desire in the audience than to grab the complimentary hammer theaters will hand out to those who buy tickets and beat their own heads in. Emilie Hirsch, usually reliable, just floats in and out when the lack of a plot calls for him. Hirsch’s Billy is the “crazy Vietnam vet” that’s been done and done better. The hippies, led by Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff), feel anything but authentic. As for Liev Schreiber, he should be ashamed for playing a character like Vilma. He, she, or it isn’t funny. It’s outright disgusting.

None of the cast get any help from Ang Lee, who has decided that instead of a film, he wanted to make a sleeping pill. Lee has managed to take one of the most exciting events of the 1960s and turn it into a snoozefest. Lee’s reliance on split-screen to show us two different things happening in the same room serves no purpose at all and wears its welcome out quick. He’s not alone in creating a full-on forward assault of suck, thanks to his partner in crime, screenwriter James Schamus. The man’s scripted a film without any identity. Drama won’t be found here, nor will laughs, and excitement didn’t even get an invitation. Schamus also forgot to call a friend that all good screenwriters use: relatable characters. Instead, he opted to show us everything that makes bad cinema, for his lack of a story and lack of character development. His next assignment after this should be writing for the next studio-produced kids movie if he’s going to be so lazy with his methods.

If there’s a purpose to Taking Woodstock I couldn’t find it. This film is so terrible that it almost doesn’t want to be recommended. While most bad movies sometimes have good intentions, Ang Lee goes for the opposite and seems to be set out to make one of the worst films ever put to celluloid. Can’t say he and James Schamus aren’t successful, as together they’ve made an earnest abomination. In fact, the only people who have any business watching this film are insomniacs who have constant sleeping problems. Five minutes in, their problem will be solved and they won’t have to endure this offensive, lurid piece of something.

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆ 

If you survived this review and are somehow still interested in the film, check out our giveaway.

Still being active with boosting up Shane Acker’s 9, an upcoming film from Focus Features starring the voice talents of Elijah Wood, Jennifer Connelly, Chrisopher Plummer among many others, here is another contest for you to go after!

A few weeks back, the Scientist was forcibly removed from his laboratory and interrogated. Upon returning to his lab, the Scientist realized that the Chancellor’s men had seized a collection of designs vital to his research. One of these designs holds the key to his next phase of development.

The designs have been shredded… torn into 9 pieces, scattered in 9 secret locations. We must find all 9 pieces and put them back together to reveal a secret alchemical code. Only the typewriter on www.9experiment.com can help decode the hidden message from the designs. Those who find all 9 hidden pieces and use the typewriter to decipher the code will be treated to another fantastic piece of 9” movie art, and can enter for a chance to win a pair of the Limited Edition 9” Shoes from Pony, as well as other great 9” movie prizes. If you need any additional help, look at the webpage from Facebook that will help give you clues on the search for all the pieces.

Well, what are you waiting for? Get to work on it before I do and take the prizes (ha-ha!).

And then the marine layer parted to reveal the sky above the San Diego Convention Center and there emerged…Friday’s schedule. That’s right, practically 24 hours later, we get one of the more coveted pieces of the schedule. The always official Star Wars day (girls, get your slave leia costumes ready) will include such awesome things such as Warner Bros. Pictures presentations on the remade Nightmare on Elm Street, Jonah Hex, Sherlock Holmes and others.

"..and so God said to me 'My son, make The Terminator'."

There are many other panels, including more television shows like AMC’s The Prisoner, 24, Caprica/Battlestar Galactica, The Big Bang Theory and more you can check out. Of course, you cannot forget all of the special panels centered on Lucas’ Star Wars universe for all of you wannabe wookies. There is always the Cup O Joe (or as I call it, the Joe Quesada show), Focus Features on 9, a panel on District 9 and many many others. Enough jabbering on, check out the Friday schedule here.

Note to the wise, and what seems to be a historic pairing, Entertainment Weekly is holding their Friday night Visionaries panel that will include James Cameron and Peter Jackson. I’ll be attending it, and if your going to the Con I would recommend it too!

Cheri is under the impression it’s a play with cameras watching it. Missing are the set changes in favor of editing to the next scene but the exchanges between the characters feel like they’re on stage rather than trying to emulate life on film. Director Stephen Frears brings it in terms of set design and production value, but something feels lost when it comes to the narrative and the acting. The film presents an interesting tale, and it wants to be great but it falls well below it’s goal.

Cheri stars Michelle Pfieffer and while she’s in full Catwoman mode, she gives one of her best performances in a good while. She gives Lea life, and plays her subtly as a woman fearing her latter days where her sex appeal has worn off. She’s takes things as they happen, and Pfieffer hits all the right notes. When she’s crying over the loss of her dear Cheri, it feels like raw, pure emotion she’s giving. She’s also believable as a sex icon and never comes off as awkward or out of place. Yes, it’s Catwoman-like but that’s the point of her character.

Too bad the rest of the cast isn’t up to snuff. Rupert Friend portrays the title character as someone who just stepped out of a My Chemical Romance concert. He’s too distant when he’s ignoring everyone in his life, which is what the character needs. However, when it comes to his interaction with Lea, Friend is too much like the child he’s trying to grow out of. When the end of his arc finally arrives, one wonders if he turned up MCR prior to it. The worst of the bunch though is Kathy Bates. She’s out of place as Cheri’s mother and her line delivery is way off. Bates seems to be talking at her fellow actors rather than to them.

No, I don't have the Catwoman suit anymore.

Another negative factor is the film’s script which keeps the focus squarely on Lea and not enough on the supporting members. The supporting cast is supposed to be built around the lead, yet it feels no one has any sort of spark to Lea. Even when Lea and Cheri are engaged in scenes it can come off forced and stilted, carried only by it’s actors. Everyone else around her is uninteresting, and seem to show up and come out only when the script wants them to. The audience never gets to know them, and the film might be aware of this as they try to make them as obscure as possible. No matter, we never spend anytime getting to know them or their names and their gone just as quickly as most the men in Lea’s life. To be fair though, the set and production designs are stellar. This is a living, breathing France of the 1920s that’s colorful and lively. The costumes as well are very elegant and all of this is complemented by some stellar camera work from Darius Khondji.

If this review has seem uninterested, then I apologize but that’s how the film comes off. Cheri, save for its two leads, has uninteresting characters and somehow manages to marr a dull plot. Cheri aspires to be a great film and falls well short of that mark. Pfieffer dazzles, but the rest of the cast seems out of touch with their characters. Again, it has wonderful set design and costumes but like most summer blockbusters, it’s all for nothing if you don’t have a good characters and an interestingly told story.

Rating: ★★½☆☆