Um, yeah. So, Gummo sure is a movie. If you got 100 people drunk to the point where they became “philosophers,” and then showed them this film, then allowed them to discuss it with one another, World War III would erupt. People seem to either violently like it or violently hate it.

Gummo implants you in to a town called Xenia, Ohio after a tornado has devastated it, killing a lot of the residents (and their pets according to the half assed narration).  We watch several different characters as they meander through life, and I assume dealing with their losses, some more outwardly than others. These people are poor, filthy and some demented, the latter possibly a result of the aftermath of the tornado. The film is a bizarre mix of “home footage,” live action, and some folks even directly addressing the camera. There really is no plot as such; we are simply taken for a ride through this miserable existence, and left to glean whatever we like from it.

The global conflict mentioned in the first paragraph would stem from some people’s inability to derive some kind of entertainment from a movie with no kind of structure. In addition to that, there is a fair amount of depravity and disturbing behavior that some people cannot enjoy. I wouldn’t call it shocking to a seasoned movie goer, but if your idea of a good time is 13 Going on 30, you would be on the “against” side of the war. I get the “point” of this film. Showing us a side of America that is quite uncomfortable in a fashion that attempts to pull you in despite that discomfort is fine. And I was pulled in to an extent, but a lot of things bothered me. I had a huge problem with the multiple methods of shooting I mentioned. The film will switch back and forth from 3 or so small groups of friends or families, but is interrupted by home video footage which I assume was shot before the tornado. Not only that, but some of the characters that we are following address the camera, and some actors actually mistakenly look at the camera. All of this sort of made the documentary feel of the handheld camera less effective. The photography of the film was done quite well. The look of it was just as grimy and dirty as these people’s lives and added that much more depth. There were some scenes that were clearly improvised, but the improv had died and then some awkwardness ensued. Despite this and the questionable acting, if the film had simply been a stream of consciousness thing that did not alternate camera style, I would have enjoyed this film a lot more.  Harmony Korine, who wrote and directed this, also wrote Kids. Kids was a fine film and quite shocking. It also, was a glimpse in to a small part of the life of some disturbing characters. It however, stayed on the course it opened with, spanning the events of one day, never leaving the characters and focusing on the narrative as we were following it. While the “point” of that movie was quite a bit more obvious, Gummo would have been far more effective if it followed that same formula. Now, I have no problem with a director doing what was done here. I just don’t think it worked for this movie in particular. This movie had a very relevant story to tell and it was buried in flashy (albeit seamless in some spots) scene transitions. The movie is “good,” but I am also going to have to call it sloppy (who knows, that may have been the point).

There are a ton of people who dislike this movie for it’s subject matter alone. Do not buy in to that shit. If J Lo isn’t in the picture, then those people can’t be bothered to watch it.  It is a decent attempt to tell an interesting story, but I feel that it falls just short of the mark.

A few episodes ago, PBF and I talked about movies inspired by true events and I was rather dismissive of this film. Yes, The Blind Side is at its core a film more oriented towards female viewers that goes over the top with sentimental gestures of faith and love. But it does feature football and statistics have shown that approximately 94% of men either love or are interested in football. So, how does a sure-fire date movie turn into a Best Picture nominee?

Michael Oher is a wayward young who has bounced from home to home after being separated from his mother several years earlier. He comes to study at the Wyngate Academy, a private Christian school attended mostly by the families of upper crust in society. His presence is an annoyance to his teachers due to his academic challenges and he stays mostly isolated from his affluent, caucasian classmates. After Michael is befriended by her young son, Leigh Anne Tuohy realizes that Michael has nowhere else to go and brings him home. Over time, the Tuohys and Michael become a close-knit family while Michael makes a name for himself on the school’s football team.

Normally these types of movies are not my bag as there seem to be dozens of uplifting, sports-based movies with any conceivable combination of elements (wimpy kid/underdog team/etc. seeking redemption or validation of their efforts). While you might believe (that is unless you have never read up on any other movie inspired by true events) that everything here is totally factual, it seems that there was some tomfoolery played with the narrative and the events themselves. This is not a bad thing necessarily as films exist to make money and the truth may not always be as compelling as what these facts can be spun into. Just a cursory glance at the film’s and the main character’s Wikipedia pages though indicate that some things did not play out as displayed in the film such as the real Tuohys took Michael in after he had started playing football. Again, there is no real problem in changing events and dressing them up for film but it is worthwhile to note at least.

The general consensus regarding Sandra Bullock’s Best Actress nomination and subsequent victory was primarily that it was undeserved for this film in particular but more of an award for her achievements over the past fifteen years or so of her career. I agree with that line of thought, not because Bullock did not perform well but she did not perform well enough here to warrant those accolades. Overall, the bulk of the performances were good but nothing to shower with praise compared to some of the other nominated pictures from last year. Mostly Quinton Aaron as Michael and Jae Head as SJ have the best performances as often times they are playing off of each other to which you can sense a natural relationship between them. Bullock has her moments of greatness though, particularly with Michael as she and the rest of the family push him towards greatness.

I will not lie and say that this is not a heart-warming and inspiring tale even though that might hurt any street cred I have for being cynical and sarcastic. Some of the things in this movie would seem outlandish if they were not based on reality (some form of it at least). But as many times as we see the fish-out-of-water-with-significant-economical-and-societal-obstacles tale told with the backdrop of sports, the film works by creating realistic and sympathetic characters that you invest in throughout. The drastic change from a homeless kid with one solitary polo shirt to a renowned student on the football field while improving his demeanor and academic performance is done well so things do not seem forced or unrealistic. The one element common to this genre I was happy at its exclusion was the evil human interference. We had a bit of this with the teacher and the NCAA official but I expected either the husband or the daughter over time would have a change of heart and push for Michael to leave only to later embrace him and his struggles. Again, this may or may not have happened in the real events but it is not only a clichéd point of conflict but it would have also brought down this otherwise universally positive tale.

The film does manage to touch on topical issues such as racism and poverty but these were fleeting glimpses, not plot points driven too much into the story. Mostly it boils down to one young man’s struggle in life and the love and support that he received from virtual strangers to succeed. Is it sappy? Absolutely but the end result is a good movie about incredible events and the strength of conviction. Is it Oscar-worthy? I say not but movie-goers cannot live on a diet of overblown, depraved horror movies forever.

As we had discussed in a previous episode, I had a general distaste for movies that were Best Picture nominees as they seem to be pretentious and boring, much like another George Clooney movie that I did not care for. This movie, much like the director’s previous effort Juno, make me rethink this position but with reservations.

As we are introduced to Clooney’s Ryan Bingham, we are thrust into his world of constant motion. He works for a contracted firm to break the bad news to workers that they are now unemployed. This job requires frequent traveling to the point that a vast majority of his time is spent in airplanes and hotels. He is for all intents and purposes a voluntary vagrant and he enjoys it. This is all threatened when fresh graduate Natalie Keener tries to revolutionize his industry by telecommuting and saving all of the travel expenses. As Ryan takes Natalie on the road to show her what she is getting into, he meets Alex, another wayward traveler with the same penchant for loose relationships in various locales. As Ryan mingles with the two ladies, he begins to question his life choice to stay distant.

This movie worked well on a number of different fronts. I have never refuted the belief that Clooney is not only very charismatic but a very good actor. Even in his other efforts, even if I did not like the overall film, he delivered a good performance (obviously, Batman & Robin excluded). Even here, this is a character that in lesser hands would have been the bad guy as he is fairly dismissive of family and relationships and also fires people for a living. While the effect that this job takes on him is not really addressed (that is reserved for Natalie), he does not come across as the smug, arrogant asshole that we’ve all sat on the other side of a desk with. His counterpart with a vagina Alex, played by Vera Farmiga, is equally compelling but we are left in the dark as to her story or life before she and Ryan connected.

The real standout though was Anna Kendrick playing the young ideologue. I would argue the film is really her character’s as Natalie is the only one out of the three who really have a full character arc. The script, written by director Jason Reitman, almost cleverly sidesteps the weight that the story would normally carry as it is certainly more relevant now than in the mid 2000s when it was developed. But Natalie acts almost as the moral check to Ryan who has been doing this for the better part of a few decades. The thing that I did not expect was the lack of change for any of the other characters. In a way, you could say their futures are ‘Up in the Air’.

In a typical film, you would expect Ryan to abandon his fleeting ways to settle down with his equal. And while ||| SLIGHT SPOILER IF YOU’VE NEVER SEEN A MOVIE BEFORE ||| that doesn’t happen, the path the characters take lead you to believe everything will end happily with love and flowers and champagne and all of that standard bullshit. Ryan, who also makes a killing on giving speeches advocating the abandonment of family and relationships and anything that might tie you down, does have a slight change of heart especially as he interacts with Alex and his neglected family. And I must say it is quite touching to see two people so isolated from the world other than on airplanes and hotel lobbies get together essentially throwing out the rules and dictates from the past some-odd years of their lives.

So far, so good right? The direction by Reitman was quite good, proving that just like Juno (I haven’t seen Thank You For Smoking) that he can create fairly realistic characters and situations that are quite entertaining. For a movie that is more or less people conversing and reflecting on their lives and their pasts, the film as a whole was quite enthralling. The problem comes from the same place that I had with Juno. While I can see the obvious benefit to this movie as a whole, after watching it I cannot say I have any real desire to see it ever again. Now, to be fair this does not mean I would actively avoid it. But only if I caught it on a midday TNT screening could I see myself watching this film another time.

It is not a bad film at all. It has good acting, good direction, and hell … even Jason Bateman and Zach Galifianakis. But, like Juno, it does not seem to carry any real weight to it beyond it’s seemingly pretentious acclaim. While I feel it tries, the film does not convey the eye-opening undertones of something like American Beauty. I would fathom this is not a movie destined to be highly regarded in the next decade. Like many others before it, it was a good movie for the time but it will fall out of flavor within the next few years. Jason Reitman will still continue to make great movies. George Clooney will still have a very commanding on-screen presence. And, if she can ever get away from that sparkley-vampire series, Anna Kendrick will be one of the great performers to watch in the coming years. Maybe yet another viewing would change this but I can’t say I am really in a great rush to revisit.

Welcome to a new series on Movie Scum aptly titled Mini Scum. Here, we discuss and review a movie in 100 words or less because it does not warrant a normal random review.

I’m not adverse to a movie that takes the slow approach toward its resolution. What I am not a fan of is movies that ride along for two hours (!) before a hastily written ending which does not make a lick of sense. Syriana has the star power with Clooney and Damon especially but they are fairly dull and just small pieces of the boring cog of the story. This screams to be an important Oscar movie and with two awards it succeeded. But being acclaimed does not make it a good movie. Stick with Jack Ryan instead for political espionage.

While this is not quite so random after the airing of our last episode, it was almost serendipitous that this film was begging for me to watch it on Netflix the night of filming. It was quite random that it came up at all from PBF and I discussing Chuck Norris’ Sidekicks. As a child, I was involved in martial arts and devoured a number of cheeseball movies, a shocking number of which starred Sasha Mitchell. This however was the best of the best (I know, that was dumb).

Eric Roberts stars as Alex Grady, a former champion in martial arts who has since been forced into retirement due to injuries, as he and others attempt to prove themselves as … well, I was going to quote the title but nevermind. The film progresses as each of the members are chosen and must undergo the arduous training of sit-ups and James Earl Jones barking at them to challenge the victorious South Koreans in a martial arts tournament. In the process we see their home lives, their struggles and challenges, and their relative victory as they combat their personal demons.

Now, in the above sentence, I say they but I really mean Roberts and co-star/producer Phillip Rhee. Even though the team is five strong, only Roberts and Rhee are really given anything to do other than take place in a montage or get sweaty in a ring fighting. For a film which has directly on the poster “A team is not a team if you don’t give a damn about one another,” this movie really jettisoned the team to focus on the two leads. Now, this is not a bad thing per se as they were the only members of the team with a real backstory or any real reason to care for them. Although Chris Penn’s character has a fairly large but very understated character arc as he goes from being a selfish ass to being a caring member of society, the other two are worthless and were rightly cut out for the sequel.

Acting wise, this movie was nothing special. But considering it had a theatrical release and had some fairly renowned stars, it was a bit of a let down. Roberts has been in the shadow of his uglier sister for quite some time and it seems like only now has he began to break out from dreck like Sci-Fi (or SyFy) originals or the like as he was quite atrocious and over the top in this. Rhee (according to the Bible: IMDB) has not been in anything else since the end of the Best of the Best franchise and I really cannot say we are missing too much. Even the normally good James Earl Jones (Exorcist II notwithstanding) is merely a caricature of other hardass sports coaches who do nothing but yell and dictate until the inevitable change of heart in the final reel. The rest are barely worth mentioning besides Chris Penn who did a passable, but still laughable job with the random Texan from Miami. Sad to say, I think Kane Hodder out acted them all.

I will say it was quite engrossing to watch the five misfits transform into a team through their personal differences and begin to respect one another. One minute we are in a gym in LA for tryouts and the next we are in yet another gym as the team begins to bond, work out, train, and do all sorts of stuff like that. It is in the middle that we get the beef of the movie as we learn Alex is holding onto this opportunity as salvation of sorts out of the blue-collar life he leads now and Tommy (Rhee’s character) is fighting the man who killed his brother in the same league years before. This is where the leads show off their acting chops … or completely overdo it in my opinion. But it is still nice to have some sense of characterization other than a fighter driven to win.

The ending though is where the movie really comes together. An hour of build up leads to some pretty good fight scenes between the Americans and their Asian counterparts battling for supremacy. This gives us a break from the mediocre acting (save for a classic Eric Roberts moment) to focus on people kicking ass. While it is unfortunate that the South Koreans ending up winning, we all win as the victors shuffle over to their challengers to commend them for their good effort and showmanship. As I said, if you’ve ever seen any underdog sports movie before, then you can merely substitute karate for football or the Mighty Ducks and you have a good idea of what this movie is about. Just add James Earl Jones.

Peter Jackson’s directorial career has been one strange roller-coaster ride. I became aware of his work in the late 1990′s when I and several of my friends discovered his early gore-fest movie Dead Alive (also titled Braindead) and became instant fans. My classmates in high school were always yelling lines like “He’s got, THE BITE!” in between classes. It was like the first drop on a rickety old wooden monster of a coaster; rough, and a little nauseating, but a hell of a lot of fun. After that I road the shaky turns of Bad Taste and The Frighteners still enjoying every minute. Then, in 2001, I sped into the smooth, polished, metal loops of a whole different monster with The Fellowship of the Ring. Don’t get me wrong, it was still a great ride, just a different kind of ride. After that trilogy concluded, the coaster started to slow down with Jackson’s somewhat underwhelming remake of King Kong and then the coaster sunk into a dark tunnel with his most recent feature, The Lovely Bones.

I wanted to like this movie. I really wanted to like this movie. It should be good, shouldn’t it? It’s Peter Jackson adapting and directing a supernatural tale with unique, quirky characters played by talented actors with visuals produced by the effects artists at Weta-freakin-Workshop. It should be glorious! The story starts of with a young girl named Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) living a typical suburban existence with a somewhat typical suburban family, until she is brutally murdered by her less than typical psychotic neighbor George Harvey. (Stanley Tucci) After that is where the film starts to fall apart. Basically, the narrative forks into following Susie’s soul hanging out in some strange waiting-room dimension between here and heaven, and the rest of the Salmon family as they try to come to terms with Susie’s disappearance. The father, Jack, (Mark Wahlberg) obsesses over finding Susie’s killer. The mother, Abigail, (Rachel Weisz) can’t deal with her husband’s obsession and abandons the rest of the family to become a migrant worker somewhere. The Grandmother, Lynn, (Susan Sarandon) tries to hold the rest of the family together by moving in and… smoking a lot of cigarettes, I guess. In the midst of all this family trouble, mean old Mr. Harvey is trying to cover his tracks from the murder investigation and throw off Jack’s suspicions.

The problem with this whole set-up is that the audience sees all of this unfolding through spirit Susie’s eyes. She is able to observe her family and Mr. Harvey in the world of the living, but cannot really communicate with or affect anything in that world, so she feels like a passive player in most of the film. Near the end, she does cross back over and temporarily possesses the body of another young girl to have a creepy make-out scene with her would-be boyfriend, but the less said about that, the better.  When Susie isn’t spying on the living, she spends her time frolicking around in her postmortem wonderland, filled with whimsical sleigh rides and other such cheery crap. The cuts between these fantastical scenes and the harsh reality of her family’s turmoil were so frequent and jarring that I almost got whiplash watching this flick. Sure, all the scenes and post-production visuals are beautifully shot and rendered, but the tone throughout the movie changes so drastically from scene to scene that it seems like two different movies are fighting for the same screen time. I feel like the pieces of a good movie are all present and accounted for, but it’s just not put together properly. The whole thing feels rushed, so maybe if the editor would have had more time, I might have had fewer problems. I am also not familiar with the structure or pacing of the original novel by Alice Sebold, but the movie should be able to stand on it’s own. Unfortunately, The Lovely Bones, as it stands now, just falls apart.