Fido (DVD)

Dir. Andrew Currie, 2006



I've been mulling for a while over what to write about this film, obviously, since the timestamp reads May 31 and I'm actually writing this on June 5. I mostly just started this because I am anxious to write about the next film and I want to finish this review first. Actually, that pretty well sums up how I feel about the film.

The film begins with a sort of cheesy newsreel recapping the last few years of history, when a giant radioactive cloud from Outer Space! came to earth and started re-animating dead people. It led to a giant, epic war, wherein small safe zones were created, surrounded by chainlink fence, to keep the zombies out, and the living people in. Meanwhile, one of the great minds of our (their) time created a way to make good use of zombies by turning them into domestic servants controlled by electronic collar. Rumor has it that he had a hard time giving up his deceased, re-animated wife. The newsreel ends, and it is an elementary school class presentation. There is a guest speaker, the new chief of security at Zomcon, the company that controls and manufactures the zombie servants. This guy has a prim, intelligent and outspoken pretty young daughter who catches the eye of what we can only assume is the main kid character: a Culkin lite without the acting chops who thinks that Zomcon is stupid.

The setting is pretty intelligent. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the filmmakers and assume that it was their idea to make this post-apocalyptic society more like the 1950's (complete with car styles, dress and bold hues) to replicate the post-WWII society that emerged once everyone felt that the threat of the end of the world was over. Actually, I'll go a step further and say that it must have been intentional because it's pretty brilliant to have the illusion of security of the post-war society, when really there is a second war going on, the "cold war" if you will, of man vs. zombie, but on a smaller setting. There is a sense of paranoia and disquiet in this community, because people do not trust the elderly and infirm, and would prefer that they removed themselves from society to prevent accidental zombie outbreak.

I might also be giving the filmmakers too much credit. Anyway.

Discount Culkin's mother (Carrie-Ann Moss) chooses the day that the new chief of security moves in to acquire their first zombie servant, Fido (Billy Connolly), even though she knows that her husband (Dylan Baker) will not approve, as he also thinks that Zomcon is stupid. CAM is tired of being the only family on the block without a zombie, and that new family has four! Dad completely distrusts the zombie, which we learn is because he had to kill his own re-animated father. Turns out, the electric zombie collar can go haywire if repeatedly struck by a blunt object, returning the zombie to its natural state. This, of course, happens to Fido, and madcap comedy ensues.

Well, not really. I couldn't with all certainty say how gory the movie actually was, since I saw it on television, on Fear.net, which I suspect edits its films. Regardless, what I did see was reasonably bloody, and somewhat humorously ironic, thought it didn't seem to commit enough to it being either a comedy or a horror movie. I was also pretty distracted a lot of the time by how much Carrie-Ann Moss looks like a darker version of Elizabeth Mitchell:



Wow!

The reason the "other" comedy zombie film, Shaun of the Dead works so well is because of its commitment to the medium. It is both satire and homage, thoroughly researched and well written. I have the feeling that Fido tried to make something that was terrifying, touching, hilarious, and somewhat socially relevant without the script being good enough or doing enough research. There were some sweet, though extremely predictable moments of obvious self-sacrifice. There is one really, really good joke which I will not ruin for anyone who actually wants to see this. But this filmmaking team is just not as clever or funny as the Shaun team, and the comparisons just cannot be avoided.

It's hard to say whether this film was trying to go along with a fairly conventional 1950's suburban society storyline with an ironic culture, or if it was trying to be entirely novel by turning conventions backwards and putting an otherwise very futuristic scenario in a very vintage setting. I would say that the first option is most likely, though neither of them seems to have been particularly successful. It made a valiant attempt, and overall, the performances were enjoyable, that one joke was really very good, and there was clearly care put into the appearance of the film. But it was just not enough. There are hints of homage to the ill-fated romances from Douglas Sirk films, and the tragic heroes of war films, but it is so very superficial.

As I've been writing this review, my opinion swung from being impressed with what I thought the filmmakers were trying to do, to ultimately deciding that they were not quite so clever as to successfully pull off a cross-historical, ironic horror/comedy. If it turns out that they had every intention of creating irony by putting the zombie apocalypse in the cliche 1950's idyllic lifestyle, then I congratulate the brains behind that operation, and feel sorry that they didn't manage to get the whole picture in their heads before actually making the film. If they were actually trying to make Shaun of the Dead 2.0, then I am disappointed that they didn't try hard enough.

Casino Royale (DVD)

Dir. Martin Campbell, 2006



I was kind of composing this in my head, and really, all I could think was to compose it in terms of top-5 lists. Which is to say that, in my opinion, Casino Royale is definitely one the 5 best James Bond films. I have difficulty really ranking things in order of preference, because I feel that it really does change day to day, according to my mood or what I have seen more recently, but there is no doubt about which would be in the top.

Goldfinger
You Only Live Twice
Live or Let Die
Casino Royale
Die Another Day

I would venture to say that this is a perfect Bond film. It is stylistically spot-on; the Bond girl is both stunning and interesting; Daniel Craig is smoking hot and has the right wry persona to seem like both a credible spy and badass; the theme song is really good; the plot is convoluted, but understandable, and socially relevant without being instantly dated; and the humor is ever-so-slightly more highbrow than past Bond films, which, to me, makes it funnier. (I might be a humor snob. I will further investigate this claim.)

I love the Bond franchise. Somehow, it just appeals to me, and I have seen every single film, even the ones that are out of character or context, like On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the first Casino Royale, though of some of them, I remember little. I love the slick, improbable action and the corny humor, even though you could easily fault these films for being ridiculous and cheesy. Casino Royale just works so well for me because it just upped the ante on all the components of the formula.

As far as a reboot of the series, the decisions that they made are quite intelligent, though I'm not entirely a fan of all of them. I think the idea to reboot it at all was particularly brilliant, even though Pierce Brosnan was a good James Bond, because it had become extremely stale. The 40-year story arc, which, even though it is not explicitly admitted to be so, was dated. The kind of battles that spies theoretically would be fighting right now are not large-scale Cold War or even North Korea conflicts anymore, even though it is still a concern to foreign policy. The real "war," much as I don't like it, is the ever-present war on terror, which has been taken on by a variety of Western governments. It doesn't make sense to follow the patterns of obvious national enemies, because like the Vietnam War on a larger scale, anybody could be a terrorist, and the inherent distrust and frustration that stems from it makes for some more realistic cinema.

The film begins with James Bond's second kill, which elevates him to the rank of 00. Bond 2.0 is cold, brutal, and not quite as smooth or funny as the previous Bonds, but his humor is much drier, his wit far more acerbic. He is the perfect action hero, who is credible as being as bad-ass as any variety of muscle-bound heroes, but still smooth enough to wear a tux, order a mixed drink, and kill someone without letting an entire room full of people notice. He goes on to try and catch a supposed bomb-maker in Madagascar, proving that he is not only a perfect action hero for this generation, but skilled at parkour, which should make him a hit with the indie kids of today. He catches this delinquent, then violates the Geneva convention by shooting him in his own embassy on camera, and M does not hesitate to give him all kinds of crap for it.

The plot is obviously just a vehicle for an exposition of muscle and beauty, brilliantly choreographed fight scenes, tender/sensual love scenes, and of the new set of life-preserving toys that Q must have prepared for him, though he does not actually appear in the film. Rumor has it that Q will not appear in the next Bond film either, which is disappointing because some of the best humor was the banter between the ever-impatient Q and the goofy side of Bond. I agree, however, that it was not in the spirit of the film to have this interaction, and would have disrupted the pacing, but I did miss it. However I feel that John Cleese, the replacement Q of the last Brosnan Bond film, would have been too silly for the new Bond. Desmond Llewellyn would have done nicely, but, unfortunately, he died in 1999.

I think what ultimately sets this over the edge is its dedication to the Bond genre throughout its revision. The silly, nude-women in silhouette opening credit sequence is a completely ridiculous and dated device, but still used, though interspersed with interesting graphic effects. Plus the theme song is a little more hard rock than all the previous ones, contributing further to the new Bond persona. Additionally, because I have seen the entire canon, I know about the Bond back story, how he met a woman that made him let down his guard, only to have that taken away from him so brutally that he could "never love again." In the original films, it took the parenthetical 1969 On Her Majesty's secret Service to show this to the world, while this time, they just start it off right away. The circumstances change in this one, however, because rather than the love of his life getting killed, she betrays him and kills herself, which more understandably hardens Bond into the unfeeling womanizer that he becomes.

Die Another Day, which as mentioned before is one of my top 5 Bond films, I believe tried to breathe some life into the series by setting new records (the first time Bond is portrayed having sex with a Bond girl, the first time the singer of the theme song [Madonna] appears in the film itself), but they are things that few people really cared to see except for already die-hard fans, who were more interested in catching all the references to past Bond films, which they did to commemorate the 40th anniversary of James Bond. To rework it and change the rules altogether worked to re-engage the movie-going public in the franchise, and to refuel the interest of pre-existing fans. While some key components were taken out completely, like Q, there were some that were rejected humorously, like Bond's lack of interest in whether his martini is shaken or stirred. Such amendments are both fresh and interesting to catch, for both kinds of viewers.

To sum, I was impressed, entertained, excited, and engaged by the idea of the new direction that Bond is going. I've seen the film twice now, I believe, and for the first time, I am actively looking forward to the next in the series rather than merely being happy to see it once it does arrive. I expect Quantum of Solace (what a name, though, eh) to be a good time, and if it is anywhere near as good as Casino Royale, it would become, for me, the best action franchise that is currently in the works.

The Band's Visit

Bikur Ha-Tizmoret, Dir. Eran Kolirin, 2007



There is something that I feel a lot of critics tend to have difficulty discerning, and it is the difference between supposed intent of a film, and what it actually achieves. Because of this, there are some awful films, mediocre films, misguided films, or underwhelming films that are so highly critically acclaimed, merely because they hint at something very socially conscious, or at a unique idea that is not actually carried to term.

This is what I feel about the critical reception of The Band's Visit, an ultimately decent film, but one that does not stir anything special in me. It is not a bad movie, but it is not a great one. What it does do, it does well, which is to paint a portrait of a group of (I cringe to use this phrase, but that's what they are) unlikely characters who end up in the same space and get to know each other, reflect on their differences, and have some sweet, funny, or sorrowful moments. And that's it.

It is mostly set in a small town in Israel where a small police band from Egypt accidentally ends up due to errors in pronunciation of the foreign tongue. They believe themselves to be in Petah Tikva, where there is an Arab cultural center, but are actually in Beit Hatikva, where there is "no culture, not Arab culture, not Israeli culture." The buses run only once or twice a day, so the band members will have to stay in this cultural wasteland for a whole night! They are split into three and taken in by a female proprietor of a small restaurant, Dina, someone else she presumably knows who lets them stay in the restaurant itself, and an out-of-work family man whose wife resents him bitterly.

There are nice moments. One of the band members, a tall, blue-eyed Lothario, Khaled, who is blamed for the botched whole mishap, ends up with the lieutenant of the police squad, Tawfiq, in Dina's apartment. They are all three very different and probably sort of hate/are intrigued by each other, and so everything they do and say to reveal to each other their relative humanity is both amusing and kind of cute. Dina takes a night out with Tawfiq, where they talk about things, offend each other, and then open up to each other in the formula typical of the fish-out-of-water scenario. Khaled hitches along with a youngster from the town on an ill-fated date, teaches him a thing or two about seducing women, and hilarity ensues.

This film isn't really about the plot, obviously, as you can pretty well figure out what's going to happen. The acting is very good, the music is interesting, the cinematography is very Wes Andersonesque with a touch of Wim Wenders, so it's quite pleasing to look at. The characters are varied, quirky, relatable, and it is really nice to see them interact. That is what I enjoyed about the movie, is experiencing the culture clash and the inevitable acceptance by and of the characters. It doesn't happen with everyone; the unemployed family man's family was not at any time pleased with their visitors, and the band members themselves seemed eager to just get out of there. But it's set up so that this day that the police band took the wrong bus to Beit Hatikva was probably one of the most memorable days in the lives of all involved.

And I think that the analysis ends there. I know that there is a heavy assumption that this is a commentary on Israeli-Arab relations, but I don't believe that it was actually addressed. Perhaps when you make a film about Arabs in Israel, or Israelis in in any Arab nation, that degree of social commentary is implied. But implication does not a political movie make. They could just as well have been Mongolians in Israel. They weren't however, and that's the point. But there has to be more commitment to this social commentary in order for the filmmaker(s) to take credit for it.

I do not need an idea beaten over my head. I am not one of those people. I knew that there would be an issue for all Israelis in the movie to be housing and feeding a group of broke Arabs, and that some of them would get over it and some of them wouldn't. To this day, some of my own family cannot conceive of thinking something good about Muslims. It's just how people are. But in this film, there is no growth. It takes place over such a short time that the people who were going to be accepting of the Egyptians in the beginning, were so in the end, and those who were not, were also not in the end. There doesn't need to be growth in a film, and it can hardly be expected for one that takes place over the course of about 24 hours. But rather than it being a commentary on Israeli-Arab relations and building some sort of bridge between the two cultures, showing that we are all human and this is all just one big messy misunderstanding and can't we all get along, blah blah, it is a snapshot of what some people can think about each other, right now.

The big realization that any of the characters have is of their own selves. Among the Egyptian policemen, the lieutenant Tawfiq and the young buck Khaled both realize that the other is not a stuffy automaton and a mindless sexaholic, respectively. They learn to respect each other, and this is catalyzed by Dina's presence, but probably would have happened even if she were not Israeli. At the home of the unhappy family man, one of the police officers was stuck with a symphony that he had started writing long ago, plays it for the family man who is amazed and thinks that it's a great piece. They have a conversation about how sad each and the other is, and when the family man walks out of the room, the policeman hears the baby's lullaby mobile and gets the inspiration to finish his piece. This is hardly personal growth or cultural awareness. It's plagiarism, if anything. But for all I know, it's an Israeli lullaby which he would have never heard had they not taken a wrong turn, and so hooray for cultural differences?

Perhaps I expect too much from films. I expect my political commentary films to have something to say, not just ride the wave of cultural expectation. It seems like an easy way out to have Muslims in a Jewish land and for them to get along. That's as easy as it is to make an edgy, gutsy film, apparently. No edge, no guts, just riding on the tension that the audience expects from such a set up without actually creating it. It's lazy filmmaking, really. If the exact same film were made with the same plot but with the Egyptians getting lost in, say, Russia, nobody would call out about its supposed message about resolving centuries-long cultural conflict. There are some who certainly will not agree with me, but I feel that this is merely an adequate movie.