January was a crazy month. It saw the end of CriticPlanet, the continuing of my wife’s pregnancy, the aftermath of the holidays, and coming to grips with the new year. The movie report has taken on different forms through the years and this year is no exception. Let me know how you like the new format and, if all goes well, I’ll continue with these capsule review movie reports. I look forward to your comments!

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

Rating: 4/5

Some have compared The Adjustment Bureau to Alex Proyas’ 1998 effort, Dark City. While some similarities exist, this tale of mystery and paranoia follows a different path and, due to great onscreen chemistry between Matt Damon and Emily Blunt, the film proves itself to be worthy of a couple’s night in.

Another Earth (2011)

Rating: 2/5

Another Earth is a strange film. A girl, Rhoda (Brit Marling), leaves a party and crashes into a family sitting at an intersection, which puts the father into a coma and kills the wife and child. After serving a prison sentence she tracks down the father and poses as a worker for a house cleaning service. The father doesn’t recognize her because she was a minor at the time of the accident and her identity was never made public. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where the story goes from there. Meanwhile, the titular Earth, known as Earth 2 is coming ever closer. I won’t delve into the specifics of Earth 2, but Rhoda enters to win a trip there in an effort to get away from her past. The film is boring, the characters are uninteresting, and Earth 2 serves almost as an deus ex machina that does little for the film until the last few seconds. Much like the insufferable Sucker Punch (2011), Another Earth would do well to be split into two films, one focusing on Rhoda and John’s (William Mapother) story and a second addressing all the ins, outs, and what-have-yous of Earth 2.

Barney’s Version (2011)

Rating: 4/5

I’ve been a fan of Paul Giamatti since I saw him play Howard Stern’s excitable boss in Private Parts (1997). Much like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Giamatti has proved himself as one of the few average guy types who can carry a picture just as good, if not better than, the usual Hollywood pretty boys. It’s easy to feel sorry for Giamatti as Barney, a TV producer who suffers through backstabbing wives, backstabbing friends, and even a murder charge. Barney’s Version is a difficult film to peg. The trailer is misleading and it wasn’t until the flood of positive reviews arrived that I was convinced I wanted to see it. Yes, the inclusion of Dustin Hoffman is a drawing point, but then again, he’s been in a few sub-par films in recent years. There is enough humor to get through the tough times and while the film is often bleak in its outlook there is a shimmer of hope encased within the films hard outer shell.

Contagion (2011)

Rating: 4/5

There have been enough pandemic movies to create a genre all its own, but with Contagion, director Steven Soderbergh and writer Scott Z. Burns have delivered an pandemic film that rivals the best of them, and instead of ending where I expected it to, Contagion charges on and explores events taking place after the credits have rolled on similar films. Much like a real worldwide pandemic, Contagion takes no prisoners and even its A-list cast isn’t safe. If you’re a germaphobe, keep a bottle of sanitizer nearby, you’ll need it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Rating: 5/5

After a mishap in journalism leaves Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) broke and almost without a job, he is contacted by retired industrialist, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), to find the person who murdered his niece 40 years ago. During his research Mikael is paired up with Lisbeth Slander (Rooney Mara), the titular girl in question, to solve this 40 year mystery. With films like Se7en (1995), Fight Club (1999), and The Social Network (2010), on his resume, director David Fincher has proved himself a master of his craft, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo further cements this claim. The film looks great, which is no surprise since Jeff Cronenweth (Fight Club, The Social Network) is behind the camera. Also, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross return, after churning out an Oscar winning score for The Social Network, with a stunning score that fits Fincher and Cronenweth’s imagery perfectly. In the midst of all this greatness, the real diamond in the rough is Rooney Mara, who delivers one of the greatest empowered female characters in cinematic history. The character of Lisbeth is played on a razors edge between bad-ass and victim. This isn’t Angela Jolie dodging bullets in a tight leather outfit, instead, Mara makes Lisbeth believable as a person who has suffered—and continues to suffer—at the hands of others while remaining strong and often fearless. My only criticism comes from the handling of the last 30 minutes or so of the film, I won’t go into it here, but you’ll know what I mean when you see it. It’s not a crippling problem, but it’s a rough patch in the films transition in the story line. Regardless, this is a must see and if I had seen it in December it would have ended up on my list of best films of 2011.

The Last Circus (2011)

Rating: 4/5

I like clowns, especially ones with weapons. The Last Circus is possibly the only film you’ll see that has two rival clowns fighting over the same woman in a battle that drives both men to the edge of sanity—and beyond—as they hack, claw, bite, and shoot their way to the woman they both desire. After seeing his father—who played the happy clown—become a POW, Javier sets out for a circus as the sad clown, because, as his father tells him, he’s seen too much sorrow and pain to be the happy clown, that is, unless he seeks revenge, only then can he truly embody the happy clown. At the circus, the happy clown is a dick who abuses his girlfriend and tells the ringmaster how to run things. The film is graphic and even daring at times in its content. There were several moments when I felt uneasy—something few films can pull off these days—which was a welcome reaction that made the film more effective. One of the few directors who can pull off this genuine quality of unease is Gaspar Noé, it appears that director Álex de la Iglesia possesses a similar talent in his style of film-making.

Paul (2011)

Rating: 4/5

While traveling to various sites of reported alien encounters across the US, two British sci-fi nerds (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) encounter a real alien and assist him on his journey home. Despite having a good cast and director, I didn’t have much hope for Paul—In the trailer it looked too silly and obvious. While the film is silly—and yes, it is somewhat obvious—Paul is an enjoyable lighthearted comedy that pays tribute to a number of other films.

Rubber (2011)

Rating: 4/5

When I heard there was a movie about a tire that explodes people’s heads, I was both confused and intrigued. I wondered how the filmmakers were going to pull this off, and I expected the film to be little more than another exploitation film. I was surprised to find that Rubber not only works as a film, but it is much more than an exploitation film. The meta elements in Rubber are evident from its opening scene and continue to play a major role in the film. As a matter of fact, the head exploding tire is used to prove a deeper point about cinema and the way we view and think about film.

Steve Jobs: One Last Thing (2011)

Rating: 3/5

This serves as a good introduction to Steve Jobs and Apple, but if you’ve read Walter Isaacson’s biography on Steve Jobs, you won’t gain much insight here. For avid fans of all things Steve Jobs and Apple related, there are a few interesting interviews, so it’s worth checking out for those.

Super (2011)

Rating: 2/5

Much like Kick-Ass the year before, Super takes on the idea of a regular guy becoming a superhero vigilante, only with even less effectiveness. There are things to enjoy about Super, but they are too few and scattered throughout the film. The acting isn’t an issue, but the characters felt thin and under developed. The fact that writer/director James Gunn saw fit to make Rain Wilson’s character a religious conservative only served to hold his character back. Ellen Page is a delight as Wilson’s sidekick, however, again, more time should have been spent on her character. The movie doesn’t know what it’s trying to be, it’s too depressing and disturbing to be a comedy and the levels of gory violence are a tell-tale reminder of Gunn’s Troma background, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it makes the film feel like it’s only a few steps above Troma production values, while it’s a few steps below in its enjoyment. There are great moments, like when Wilson starts bashing criminals in the face with a pipe wrench, or when Page is getting a feel for being a superhero and almost kills a guy in a moment of ecstatic vengence.

Tabloid (2011)

Rating: 4/5

The compelling story from the 1970s of Joyce McKinney, the ex-beauty queen who kidnapped the man she loved and believed he was brainwashed by Mormons. While McKinney’s tale is a great subject for a documentary, this film suffers because the love interest, Ken Anderson, was not willing to be interviewed and McKinney’s partner in crime, Keith May, died in 2004 of kidney failure. Despite these setbacks, Tabloid still manages to hold interest and even provides a curve ball near the end about McKinney and her dog, Booger.

Four Lions (2010)

Rating: 2/5

The story of four potential terrorist in the UK who can’t do anything right and end up being a greater danger to themselves than to the people they wish to terrorize isn’t as good as it sounds. While I like the idea of Four Lions—using a comedy vehicle to poke fun at terrorists and see them as regular people with doubts and fears—the film fails to entertain beyond a few chuckles. Full of explosive potential, Four Lions is a dud.

The King’s Speech (2010)

Rating: 5/5

Call it Oscar bait if you will, but The King’s Speech is still a great film. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are in top form as they act out the tale of a stuttering king and his unorthodox speech therapist. The film is emotional, entertaining, and educational.

The Losers (2010)

Rating: 4/5

Set your suspension of disbelief to 11 as you enter The Losers. In the vein of Jonah Hex (2010) and Piranha (2010), The Losers isn’t meant to be taken seriously—it doesn’t even take itself seriously. From its wise cracking villain—you’ll never believe it’s Michael from The Lost Boys (1987)—to its beyond ridiculous explosions and lack of bullets making contact, The Losers isn’t even a popcorn chomper, it’s a laugh out loud riot. I could tell you it’s about some military guys who attempt to abort a mission but are instead framed by some super-villain, which leaves everyone convinced they’re dead. I could also mention the ridiculously too thin hot chick wants to help the guys get revenge on Max, the super-villain, however, all that is boring. All you need to know is Chris Evans is hilarious and Michael is no longer hanging out with vampires, although, he might as well be one in this film.

Love and Other Drugs (2010)

Rating: 3/5

Love and Other Drugs is one of those films that is mostly good, but has enough bad mixed in that it can’t be fully recommended. Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a drug rep. for a big pharmaceuticals company, and one day while peddling his wares at a local hospital he meets, you guessed it, the love of his life in the form of Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway), a sexy young woman who has first stage Parkinson’s. The love story follows many of the patterns common to this type of romantic comedy, and while the on screen chemistry between Gyllenhall and Hathaway isn’t the best I’ve seen, it’s believable. The film has a few gold nuggets to offer, the most notable one is Hathaway’s nude scenes, a little less notable is the great performance from Josh Gad as Gyllenhall’s brother. Following in the footsteps of the many “fat funny guys” who have come before him, Gad puts on a show that makes the bloated two-hour run time a little easier to swallow.

You Again (2010)

Rating: 1/5

[Full Disclosure: I missed the first 20 minutes or so of this travesty of a paycheck movie because I was in the shower when my wife started it, I'm including it in my report because I don't feel like I missed much and I wanted to warn others to avoid this movie at all costs! P.S. My wife also thought it sucked.]

Basically, Kristen Bell’s character was bullied in school by Odetta Annable’s (formerly Odetta Yustman) character, and, oh, terror of all terrors, Bell’s brother is marrying the wench! What will she ever do!?!?! This movie sucks enough on its own, but it gets even worse with the inclusion of Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver as the respective mothers. Even Betty White couldn’t save this turd. The jokes are not funny and this is the worst paycheck movie I’ve seen in a while, and I just saw It’s Complicated!

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010)

Rating: 3/5

I’m an unapologetic Woody Allen’s fan. I like nearly all of his films, and love many of them. I admit my tendency to be biased when it comes to Mr. Allen’s films, but I do my best to be honest as that is what helps you, the reader, make the best possible selection when it comes to your viewing pleasure. While I found most of Stranger to be entertaining—I really enjoyed the plot twists—the film began to falter in the third act. The characters were all breaking down into tirades that I found more annoying than interesting and the end of the film leaves so many loose ends—albeit purposely so—that the film turns into spaghetti by its conclusion. I’m not saying you shouldn’t watch the film, after all, most of it was enjoyable, but go into it with a word of caution and don’t expect it to make it into your top 10 Woody Allen films.

It’s Complicated (2009)

Rating: 1/5

Instead of writing a capsule review I’m leaving you with the notes I took during this horrific turd. Enjoy!

At first I wondered, why is John Krasinski in this film? His first few appearances are painful to watch, but later, when his character has something to do other than smile and look awkward, he becomes the best thing about the film. It’s a paycheck movie, we’ve seen it before, and this time there’s nothing interesting. Upper class white people problems, wake me when it’s over, how the hell will I ever relate to these people. I’ve seen less head wiggling from a wall of bobble-heads. This is a crappy version of Something’s Gotta Give (2003) [also directed by Nancy Meyers]. If you wish to die from alcohol poisoning before this two hours of pain ends, take a shot every time Meryl Streep takes off her glasses. Steve Martin hasn’t been funny for a while, he’s no exception here. Frazzled giddy women struggling to keep it together annoy me. Everyone with the last name of Adler in this film needs a slap in the face. I want my two hours back.

Southland Tales (2006)

Rating:4/5

Some people have referred to Sucker Punch (2010) as a train wreck that they still managed to enjoy. While I believe that only the first part of this is accurate for Sucker Punch, I can say that I share this sentiment for Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales. It has a great cast and I enjoy Kelly’s apocalyptic time travel movie that has Mandy Moore saying, “Cockchuggers 2?!”, but it feels like something went wrong along the way. Regardless, watch it for the great cast and maybe you’ll come away with a better understanding of the film. If you do, please elaborate in the comments section.

Cruel Intentions (1999)

Rating: 4/5

If you told me there was a good drama/romance/thriller from the 1990s starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, and Reese Witherspoon, I would immediately question your judgement, and your knowledge of my taste in film, however, my wife did just that and convinced me to sit down and give Cruel Intentions a chance. Based on the French novel, Les Liaisons dangereuses (The Dangerous Liaisons), I’m told that Cruel Intentions is The Dangerous Liaisons lite for a teenage audience. The characters are all exaggerated, but not to the point of annoyance, it brings the film closer to theater acting and works well with the subject matter. Selma Blair is one of the most underrated actresses in Hollywood, you have to see her in other roles to truly appreciate her overselling as the goofy Cecile.

Office Space (1999)

Rating: 5/5

For someone who hasn’t had a middle-class job in years, Mike Judge has his finger on the pulse of middle-class life in the workplace. I’ve never seen a more accurate, or hilarious, portrayal of life as a middle class working stiff. Office Space rivals Airplane! (1980) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974) in its entertainment and quotability from start to finish.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Rating: 5/5

This film is what turned me on to the life and writings of Hunter S. Thompson, the father of gonzo journalism and one of the greatest writers of our time. Terry Gilliam, Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro, and everyone else involved, come together to not only produce a great film, but a film that is as accurate a visualization of Thompson’s autobiographical novel as anyone is ever going to get. The film is relentless, aggressive, and in your face to the point that you have to fight against your brain as it tries desperately to get you to leave this terrible place. But for those who see it through the reward is great.

Return to Savage Beach (1998)

Rating: 3/5

If you have a taste for exploitation films, I highly recommend the films of the late Andy Sidaris. The man knew how to do one thing and do it well. He managed to bring into this world a collection of 12 films that are all basically the same film with a few tweaks and enough casting  and character changes to drive the most faithful film scholar mad. Return to Savage Beach signifies the end of a film career spanning over 10 years. This film contains what might be the most bizarre ending to any of Sidaris’ films, but don’t let that worry you, everything else is in place, guns, sexy secret agents, jacuzzi’s, confusing plot lines, Rodrigo Obregón, remote control vehicles strapped with bombs, hunky dudes, and most importantly, sexy topless women.

Good Will Hunting (1997)

Rating: 5/5

It’s difficult to go wrong with a film like Good Will Hunting. It has a cast and crew of people who have impressed me through the years and an insightful story that digs deep into what makes us who we are. On the surface the story is about Matt Damon’s character, but Robin Williams is the one who truly shines here. I don’t often give weight to Oscar wins and nominations, but Good Will Hunting won two Oscars (screenplay, supporting actor) and was nominated for seven more.

Day of the Warrior (1996)

Rating: 3/5

Day of the Warrior is Andy Sidaris’ next to last film and basically all you need to know about it is included in my capsule review of Return to Savage Beach.

Army of Darkness (1992)

Rating: 5/5

Sam Raimi’s classic finale to his Evil Dead trilogy, Army of Darkness is more campy than the previous films in the trilogy, but stands up against the other films as a worthy end to the series. Initially I saw the trilogy in reverse order, which really didn’t hinder my viewing experience, as each film is able to stand alone.

Barton Fink (1991)

Rating: 5/5

I have a habit of selecting difficult and perplexing films for Mancave Mondays, but so far, all of my selections have received a positive response. Barton Fink is an odd duck of a film that spends most of its time traveling in one direction, only to present a twist in the third act that gives the film a boost into greatness. John Turturro and John Goodman are never better than they are here in this odd couple buddy movie. The story of a struggling writer in Hollywood who lives in a hotel next to Goodman’s “common man” is specific enough to hold your attention, but vague enough to keep you thinking about the film long after the end credits.

Miller’s Crossing (1990)

Rating: 4/5

Another Mancave Monday selection, Miller’s Crossing isn’t part of my list of essential Coen Brothers films, but I do recommend it for fans of the gangster/film noir genres. I’ve seen the film four or five times to date and while I always enjoy it, it feels like there is a key element absent from the film, but I’ve never been able to single it out. The complexity of the plot and fast-pace witty dialogue make it difficult to catch everything the first time through, which makes repeat viewings rewarding, which is common of the Coen’s work.

Raising Arizona (1987)

Rating: 5/5

The Coen Bros. second film is much more comedic than their crime thriller debut, Blood Simple, however, the Coens know how to balance a film, even when it’s heavy on the comedy, because really, all of their films are crime capers, some are more crime, while others—like Raising Arizona—are more caper. This tale of a husband and wife who are unable to have a child of their own—and decide to take one from a family that has “more than they can handle”—is both comedic and touching. This is a must see for anyone who has kids or is thinking about having them.

Blood Simple. (1984)

Rating: 5/5

The Coen Bros. debut film about crime, betrayal, and murder in the open lands of Texas, is one of the most powerful and entertaining debuts from any directors working today. M. Emmet Walsh is fantastic in his yellow suit as a private eye who also does work that’s “not exactly legal” if “the price is right”.

Rating: 4/5

Every once in a while a short film comes along showcasing the talents of someone who truly understands the medium in which they work. This is the case with Grzegorz Cisiecki’s short film, Smoke (original title: Dym).

Smoke does not have a narrative per se, Cisiecki describes the film as “the story of the person who became the captive of surrealistic madness” and while I’ve read a couple of interpretations of the film, I’m not going to tackle one here. The film lacks dialog, but this is not a hindrance, as the film unfolds it’s easy to get sucked in by the surreal images that are carefully moved along by the score provided by Aleksandr Porach and Rashid Brocca.

It’s safe to say that the works of surrealist director David Lynch are an influence to Cisiecki. The overall tone of the film is very much in the style of Lynch, from the characters, to the sets and the music, but with the help of cinematographer Dawid Rymar, Cisiecki lends his own vision to these surreal moments. Cisiecki is certainly an up and coming director to watch out for. More could be said about Smoke, but I think it’s best to jump right into this seven minutes of surrealism.

Director: Grzegorz Cisiecki
Writer: Grzegorz Cisiecki
Cast: Katarzyna Dalek, Grzegorz Golaszewski, Hubert Jarczak
Runtime: 7 minutes
Country: Poland

Rating: 2/5

I’m not a big fan of comic book super heroes, nor the films based upon such heroes, and although a few good ones have slipped through, most fall under the category of Sunday afternoon fodder. Captain America: The First Avenger, I’m afraid, falls under the latter. It’s not that Captain American does anything wrong, it’s that it does everything right, textbook right. It’s a boring film and is the most generic super hero film I’ve ever seen.

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is the textbook definition (like everything else in this film) of the 90-pound weakling (who resembles a Chris Evans bobblehead). It’s the midst of WWII and young Rogers wants to serve his country, but despite changing and falsifying information on registration forms in a number of cities,Rogers is unrepentantly label 4-F and unable to do the one thing he desires most.

Enter Dr. Abraham Erskine—played by the great Stanley Tucci who never disappoints and is channeling a bit of Dr. Strangelove in his performance as the man who is to make little Stevie’s dreams come true, or so he thinks.

Erskine’s intentions are good and we find that Rogers has been chosen not for his ability to fight, but for his character. You see, the strange blue stuff that is never fully explained (and why should it be) brings out the best or worst of you—depending on if you’re the villain or the hero—when Erskine confesses this is not his first time conducting this experiment, we find that we have a real yin and yang at work.

There are really no surprises in Captain America.Rogers falls for the girl, his costume is ridiculous, there’s fire, explosions, and of course, slow-motion. The fight scenes fail to excite and I really had little concern or care for Captain America.

Apart from Tommy Lee Jones—who plays the same character he always plays as Col. Chester Phillips, but plays it so well that I forgive him for it—and Stanley Tucci, the best thing about Captain America is when he is first transformed and thinks he’s going to save his country by kicking some Nazi ass, only to find that the brilliant American government has other plans; plans that lead to the newly Rambo-ized Rogers being dressed in a cloth Captain America costume and repeatedly punching out a fake Hitler on stage as he travels from town to town with a group of chorus girls in an attempt to find recruits for the U.S. military.

Meanwhile, CaptainAmerica’s budding relationship with Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), well, continues to bud. Hey, at least he gets to kiss a hot blonde against his will, you’d think that would get Peggy to step it up a notch, but in this kind of movie, the great kiss can’t happen ‘til the end, if at all.

The moment I couldn’t contain myself and I laughed out loud AT the film, was when Johann Schmidt’s (Hugo Weaving) minions first gave him their version of the Nazi salute, the easiest way to explain it is by saying it’s the first half of a pull-up, or I guess I could say it’s a double fisted Nazi salute.

I’m told there’s an Avengers scene after the credits, but I didn’t bother to stick around for it, on the upside, this film boasts one of Stan Lee’s best cameos yet, so it has that going for it.

It’s a shame when a group of good and great actors get together on a film that is so beneath their level of talent. Captain American: The Last Avenger may appease comic book fans (although the comic book fan sitting next to me was shaking his head and covering his face in disgust and disbelief throughout the film), but it lacks anything that will make it stand out 10 years from now, or even 10 minutes.

Director: Joe Johnston

Writer: Christopher Markus (screenplay), Stephen McFeely (screenplay), Joe Simon (comic book), Jack Kirby (comic book)

Cast: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, Tommy Lee Jones,Stanley Tucci

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action.

Runtime: 124 minutes

Country:USA

Rating: 5/5

My Dog Tulip is a vivid account—taken from the pages of J.R. Ackerley’s memoir—of the 15 years spent with his “ideal friend”, Tulip, an Alsatian (commonly known as a German Shepherd) he rescued from an abusive and neglectful home when she was 18 months old. Dog owners will be moved, possibly to tears, by this story of love and companionship between a man in his autumn years and his loving, energetic, and often unruly, dog.

After a series of bad vets, Ackerley (Christopher Plummer) happens upon Ms. Canvenini (Isabella Rossellini), a soft-spoken and friendly vet who not only understands Tulip but informs Ackerley that he’s inadvertently the cause of Tulip’s difficult behavior. About the time things seem to be going good, Ackerley’s sister, Nancy, shows up needing a place to stay. After the passing of a year, Ackerley and Tulip are both sick of Nancy. Ackerley is brash in his depiction of his controlling and defiant sister. Initially it’s difficult to believe that Ackerley’s abrasive grumblings about his sister are deserved, but once Nancy attempts to win Tulip’s affection away from Ackerley, the dog owner in me cheers him on, while hurling a few off-color insults of my own. This, and other failed attempts at friendship with other people, as well as dogs, eventually leaves Ackerley and Tulip to face the fact that they are indeed each other’s ideal friend.

What is great and enduring about Ackerley is his willingness to understand Tulip while working to better understand himself. As a dog owner, and more specifically, an owner of two often neurotic dogs, I sympathize with Ackerley when he reveals that Tulip is seldom invited to friends houses once, and never twice. No one understands a dog like its owner and, likewise, no one understands a person like their dog.

Ackerley holds nothing back, he goes into great detail about situations all dog owners encounter, but seldom discuss, such as bowel movements and attempts at mating. This, combined with Ackerley’s grumbling yet loving old man persona, separates this dog story from all the rest. Christopher Plummer’s voice lends itself to the stern yet loving tone of Ackerley, who keeps us at arm’s-length while opening the door to his sometimes conflicted emotions. It’s as if he’s saying, “Here’s my heart, but don’t get to close, observe from a safe distance.”

Directors Paul and Sandra Fierlinger, who reside in Pennsylvania with their own dog, spent over two years bringing My Dog Tulip to life. The film looks and feels like traditional animation, but My Dog Tulip is entirely hand drawn on a computer. No paper is used in the animating process. While most scenes are in color, some are mere sketches on a blank background or lined yellow legal pad. John Avarese’s score fits perfectly within the confines of Ackerley’s world and while Avarese’s sound effects bring every moment to life, there are some less-than-pleasant moments that make one wish the sounds were dulled.

There has never been a more accurate or loving tale about a dog and her master. Whether consciously or subconsciously, everyone is searching for what Ackerley calls, “the ideal friend”, but time and again I have found in my own life, and in the lives of others, that dogs truly are man’s best friend.

DVD Bonus Features

The DVD features a short, but informative, “making of” documentary that provides insight into the creation of the film as well as exploring the filmmakers themselves. Also included is a still gallery, theatrical trailer, and a collector’s booklet featuring an essay by Ackerley biographer, Peter Parker.

Director: Peter Fierlinger, Sandra Fierlinger

Writer: J.R. Ackerley (book), Peter Fierlinger (screenplay), Sandra Fierlinger (screenplay)

Cast: Christopher Plummer, Lynn Redgrave, Isabella Rossellini

MPAA Rating: Unrated

Runtime: 83 minutes

Country: USA

Rating: 5/5

I prefer to go into films blind—knowing as little about the film as possible before viewing it—I want to take in the experience as the director intended. Often, trailers—and sometimes reviews—reveal too much about the film and dull the experience. Thankfully, the trailer for Midnight in Paris gives away nothing so I had no idea what I was in for, which made for a richer film-going experience. If you want the full surprise of Midnight in Paris, see it without any further information.

With that said, Midnight in Paris is about nostalgia. The longing we have for any golden age—as we’ve created them in our minds. Gil (Owen Wilson) is a Hollywood screenwriter working on his first novel. He’s joined his fiancée, Inez (Rachel McAdams), and her right-wing Republican parents, on a business trip to Paris, where they bump into Inez’s friend, Paul (Michael Sheen)—a pompus psudeo-intellectual—and his significant other, Carol (Nina Arianda).

While Inez is captivated by Paul’s “intellect”, Gil is captivated with Paris. Eventually Gil breaks free from the torture of being in Paul’s presence as Inez joins Paul and Carol for a night of dancing. After walking the streets at night seeking inspiration, Gil slouches on a set of stone steps. As the bell tolls twelve, Gil is greeted by an auto from the 1920s full of drinking passengers who encourage him to join them. Gil is then magically whisked away to Paris in the 1920s—a time that Gil believes to be the golden age of Paris—where he meets several icons from the era, including, Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston), his wife Zelda (Alison Pill), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), and Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody). There’s even a cameo by Carla Bruni—the First Lady of the French Republic—as a museum guide. The characters are wonderfully portrayed and Allen adds an element of humor by writing them as we imagine them, not necessarily how they were—with the exception of Dali, who even Allen admits was every bit a crazy as he is in the film.

Woody Allen made an exceptional casting choice with Owen Wilson. There’s an underlying melancholy to him that is only hinted at in his other work, but comes out here in a way that only Allen’s neurotic prose can do. There’s not question that Gil is an Allen surrogate, but Wilson adds a layer of charm and optimism to the negative realism so common to Allen’s lead characters.

As I’ve watched Allen’s films and read interviews, I’ve learned that Allen takes a hands-off approach and allows his actors to act within their environment. This has paid off well in the past and it pays off here. There is no better cast for Midnight in Paris. Michael Sheen is quickly becoming a favorite actor of mine and Rachel McAdams is growing on me as well (her acting isn’t the only thing that shines in Midnight in Paris as Allen’s camera isn’t shy about guiding our eyes toward Ms. McAdams’ derrière in several scenes).

Midnight in Paris asks, “Is there really a golden age?” Woody Allen pointed out in a recent interview that while you may want to go back to Paris in the 1920s and have lunch, you wouldn’t want to go to the dentist. And that’s the key to any golden age—we remember the great things to come out of that era, while we conveniently set aside the negatives. The easiest way to see this is to look at your own childhood. Many people I know say they miss their childhood and they’ll go on and on about how much better things were. Well, guess again. Really think about your childhood, it wasn’t all golden, I guarantee it. Would I want to go back and revisit my childhood? You bet! But I’d want to come right back after a few rounds of Super Mario Bros. and watching Spaceballs (1987) with my cousin.

The more you know about art and literature from the 1920s, the more you’ll enjoy Midnight in Paris and the more you’ll get the jokes. One critic rightly called it Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989) for liberal arts majors. That’s probably the best description anyone could give. Woody Allen did what all filmmakers claim they do, he made a film that is for himself and a small cross-section of the movie going public. In doing so, Allen has made a wonderful film that resonates with an audience that often gets the shaft by the summer blockbusters.

Midnight is Paris is not for everyone, but if it’s for you, it’s a great time at the movies where you can kick back and dive into your own golden age of the cinema.

Director: Woody Allen

Writer: Woody Allen

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen, Kathy Bates, Corey Stoll, Tom Hiddleston, Alison Pill

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some sexual references and smoking.

Runtime: 94 minutes

Country: France

Summer’s here and women are outside wearing short-shorts and bikinis while I’m inside watching a documentary about a guy who plays with dolls. Well, that’s the life of the critic and I welcome it. After all, there are plenty of nude ladies in the movies, so I don’t feel like I’m missing out on too much. I have a few good movies to share with you this month as well as a few duds (a couple of which are worth watching regardless), so grab a slice of cold pizza—and that lukewarm beer you’ve been nursing—and sit back as I do my best to convince you to stay indoors this summer.

13 Assassins (2011)

Rating: 5/5

“Did Kurosawa raise from the dead to direct a tribute to his 1954 masterpiece, Seven Samurai?” That’s the question I asked myself while watching Takashi Miike’s 13 Assassins (I later learned that this film is actually a remake of Eichi Kudo’s 1963 film, The Thirteen Assassins, which is based on true events). Everything, from a battle scene viewed through the eyes of a dying samurai to the films climax, is excellently executed and a must-see for fans of the genre.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Rating: 5/5

Midnight in Paris is one of the most enjoyable films in recent memory. As an avid fan of Woody Allen, I was anxious to see this acclaimed feature. Even people who normally aren’t into Allen’s films are enjoying Midnight in Paris. Feeding on our universal love of nostalgia, Woody Allen presents Owen Wilson as the surrogate Allen character who is magically transported to Paris in the 1920s while roaming the streets of modern day Paris at midnight. The cast is great as we are greeted by writers, artists, and intellectuals from what many perceive as a golden age of art, literature, and culture. Those who are aware of Rachel McAdams best physical attribute, will be pleased as Allen’s camera finds it way to McAdams’ derriere more than a few times.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Rating: 3/5

There has been a lot of gushing and hype surrounding Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Critics, for the most part, love it and have been comparing it to Kubrick’s masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Audiences, however, are divided on the film, many of them having difficulty with it’s non-narrative and plotless style. I saw the film twice in the theater. My initial reaction was, “This is the most pretentious piece of shit I have ever sat through.” My desire to be an honest and reasonable critic, mixed with some coaxing from a fellow friend and critic, led to my second viewing of The Tree of Life. My second viewing was more rewarding, but I still don’t believe the hype. Malick’s film is well shot and acted, but what makes the film great or terrible for audiences is their connection (or lack there of) to the material. Most people connected with the family, the relationship of the the children with their father and/or the relationship of the brothers growing up. I, on the other hand, connected with the scenes of space, our oceans, and microorganisms. These scenes, for me, translated how insignificant, yet complex, we are in the universe. With that said, I fall into a minority, because I feel that The Tree of Life is neither great or terrible. It’s a film that will be great to those who connect with it and terrible to those who do not. For me, The Tree of Life is an average film that contains as much beauty as it does pretension.

Another Year (2010)

Rating: 2/5

I can’t tell you that Another Year is a good film or a bad film, but I can tell you that it’s mostly boring with a couple great characters and some interesting scenes. The film attempts to tackle the topic of getting older and how a group of longtime friends deal with the realities of mortality. Most of it is depressing and nothing gets resolved. Sure, you can argue that it’s called, Another Year, and maybe nothing gets resolved in that year, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit through two hours of a year in your life where very little of interest happens.

Marwencol (2010)

Rating: 5/5

After a brutal beating, Mark Hogancamp is brain damaged—left without his memory and forced to relearn everything from walking to writing. When therapy funds run dry, Hogancamp provides his own therapy in the form of a fantasy world in which he is the main character—a character who overcomes obstacles and gets the girl in the process. This documentary should be seen by everyone. It’s an inspiration for artists and an education for those who fail to see the healing power of fantasy and art.

Predators (2010)

Rating: 3/5

Not as bad as everyone says it is, this continuation of the Predator (1987) story sees our heroes(?) being dropped on a mysterious ‘live game preserve’ planet that sets them against the predators. It’s not as good as the Schwarzenegger starred original, but it’s better than AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004).

Vampires Suck (2010)

Rating: 3/5

Another one that’s not as bad as everyone says, Vampires Suck has enough laughs to make it worth checking out on a boring Sunday afternoon, but doesn’t pack the punch it should. Partially because it doesn’t venture far from it’s Twilight base to include other vampire fare that is ripe for parody, and also because the filmmakers have yet to learn what made Airplane! (1980) and The Naked Gun trilogy so great: They played it serious. Don’t wink at the camera and don’t give us music queues, make it appear that you’re making a serious film (it wouldn’t hurt to get a few serious actors in there too). I would like to add that Jenn Proske nails Kristen Stewart’s annoying mannerism, while being more pleasing to look at. Also, Ken Jeong (who rose to fame with his appearance in the The Hangover films) is brilliant as Daro.

Couples Retreat (2009)

Rating: 3/5

I like Vince Vaughn. He can only play one character, but he plays it well and I enjoy it. Couples Retreat, however, is another one of those, lazy Sunday afternoon movies that will garnish a few laughs but not enough to seek it out. The rest of the cast fill the usual rom-com roles, although Jason Bateman and Peter Serafinowicz bring more to the table than expected.

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism (2009)

Rating: 4/5

As a critic, I love that this documentary exists, however, I’m saddened that it took me two years to learn about its existence(!). If a film critic didn’t even know about this film, how in the hell is anyone else going to know about it!? It covers the full spectrum of American film criticism, but at 80 minutes, it only touches briefly on each element. The film isn’t just for critics, as it provides an understanding for how critics work, their relationship to Hollywood, audiences, and each other.

My Sister’s Keeper (2009)

Rating: 3/5

The picture alone is enough to let you know what you’re getting into, and while this Lifetime-esque tear-jerker of a film succumbs to meladrama, it’s a compelling story with a strong cast, including, Cameron Diaz, Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine, Zombieland), Alec Baldwin, and Sofia Vassilieva (NBC’s Medium).

Youth in Revolt (2009)

Rating: 4/5

After seeing both, Youth in Revolt and Cedar Rapids (2011), I view director Miguel Arteta as a less quirky version of Wes Anderson. Youth in Revolt boasts a crazy cast, including, Michael Cera (Superbad, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Portia Doubleday (nothing you give a shit about), Jean Smart (mostly chick flicks, but you’ll recognize her), Zach Galifianakis (The Hangover and a bunch of stuff you never knew he was in), Erik Knudsen (it doesn’t matter that he’s in Saw II or Scream 4, what matters is that he’s Crash, of Crash and the Boys in Scott Pilgrim), Adhir Kalyan (apparently he’s in stuff I’ve seen), Steve Buscemi (yeah, Steve fuckin’ Buscemi!!!), Fred Willard (one of the “It’s that guy!” guys), Ari Graynor (she’s hot, and apparently she’s in Whip It and Mystic River), Ray “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster” Liotta, Justin Long (this seemed like a good idea until I got into it, now it’s kinda sucking), Rooney Mara? (Erica Albright from The Social Network? What the fuck? I have no idea who the hell she was in Youth in Revolt). Mary Kay Place (It’s that chick!), and one of my favorites, M. Emmet Walsh (“Gimme a call whenever you wanna cut off my head. I can always crawl around without it.”).

Are you still reading this?

People say that Michael Cera is a one trick pony and that he’s played out, but films like Superbad (2007), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010), and Youth in Revolt prove that it’s merely a matter of getting Cera into the right material. He’s an awkward puzzle piece, but when he fits a character, there is no one else who can pull it off like he can. I’d like to end this rant by stating that Portia Doubleday is HOT in a bikini, and when she says to Cera, “You get arroused easily?” I thought she was talking to me.

Rule of Three (2008)

Rating: 4/5

A low-budget indie crime/thriller, set in a hotel room, that utilizes the story editing techniques popularized by Pulp Fiction (1994) to create a satisfying film that keeps you guessing right to the end.

The Room (2003)

Rating: 1/5

Don’t let my low rating fool you, because The Room is one of the funnest times you’ll have at the movies. Are there words that can do justice for something like The Room? Writer, director, producer, and star, Tommy Wiseau, is a modern day Ed Wood. The story of Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) and his unfaithful “future wife” Lisa (Juliette Danielle) is all but lost in the antics surrounding a viewing of this masterpiece of bad cinema. Everything about this movie is terrible, right down to the re-usage of footage from an already vomit-inducing love-making scene earlier in the film, as well as the overused full-pan shots of the Golden Gate Bridge. Seeing The Room with an audience whose already hip to the film is a must—if you see people wearing tuxedos, tossing around a football, and handing out plastic spoons, you’re in the right place—as you’ll be treated to a experience reminiscent to a live taping of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988-1999).

Earth vs. The Spider (2001)

Rating: 2/5

I happened upon this late one night on TV. What drove me to watch this, you ask? Two things: the title, and the inclusion of Dan Aykroyd. Aykroyd is listed as a starring cast memeber, when really he’s a second teir co-star, but it’s still fun to see the guy acting. As for the movie, it’s better than I expected, but all the budget went to some good spider make-up and effects—and getting Aykroyd on board for this cheesy sci-fi outing.

The Red Violin (1998)

Rating: 4/5

As you might expect, The Red Violin is a story of… a red violin. What makes the story unique is the telling of the travels of the violin through the hands of collectors and players through the ages, and yes, Samuel L. Jackson is in it too. The story is told and given weight in it’s editing as the film jumps from a present day auction to vignettes telling of the trials and tribulations dealt to those who possessed the violin through time as well as the origin of the red violin.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

Rating: 3/5

Returning to the form that worked in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and getting away from the what made Temple of Doom (1984) a disaster, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is better than Doom, but not as good as Raiders. The father and son chemistry between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery makes the film worth watching, but I’m still scratching my head about the technical side of this film. Was Speilberg and his director of photography asleep during the production? There are many scenes filled with poor lighting choices and awkward shots that feel out of place. And what’s with Jones desecrating graves? For a guy who thinks everything should be in a museum, he sure is sloppy and careless. I’d like to add that Dogma (1999) is now even more hilarious after watching Last Crusade.

Armed and Dangerous (1986)

Rating: 2/5

Starring John Candy and Eugene Levy, with the always sexy and spunky Meg Ryan and co-written by Harold Ramis, what’s not to like about Armed and Dangerous? Sadly, quite a lot. I laughed more at the movie than I did with it. Back in the 80s, when I first saw the film, I remember laughing with it, but, despite solid performances from a seasoned cast, this comedy-turned-crime-caper couldn’t be saved from it’s lackluster script. Do yourself a favor and fastforward to the porno shop scene—pay close attention to the reflection in the glass of the peep-show booth—and the climactic chase scene with enough car crashes to make John Landis proud.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Rating: 2/5

The above photo is an accurate depiction of how I felt while watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The film is too violent for it’s target audience and parents will find the borderline devil worship a bit much. Also, parents won’t enjoy it due to it’s excessive clichés (ex. the typical whiny woman and a to-smart-for-his-age Asian kid), plus it requires a suspension of disbelief that only a child can manage. Add these shortcomings to the sub-par script and acting, and Temple of Doom becomes a feast for the eyes with little for the mind.

D.C. Cab (1983)

Rating: 2/5

Is it good? No. Is it entertaining? Hell yes! D.C. Cab is one of those films that make me wonder how it ever got made, but makes me glad it did. There are as many reasons to watch this movie as there are to avoid it, but the amount of inappropriate racial and sexually comments—mostly care of Gary Busey—make D.C. Cab a train wreck that’s difficult to turn away from, there’s even music by Giorgio Moroder. Oh, and did I mention D.C. Cab is written and directed by Joel Shumacher? Be sure to stick around after the credits for an entertaining cameo from Timothy Carey.

The Verdict (1982)

Rating: 4/5

A courtroom drama starring Paul Newman and directed by Sidney Lumet, The Verdict follows the path of a washed up defense attorney as he gets a case that can turn around his career as well as his life. Films like this take on a new importance and level of emotion during times when similar high emotion cases are in the news.

Van Nuys Blvd. (1979)

Rating: 3/5

What Van Nuys Blvd. lacks in production it makes up for in entertainment value and nudity. Van Nuys Blvd. is what you might expect from any B movie of the 1970s, except this one was made with the intention of being funny. This saves the picture from falling into the so-bad-it’s-good category (which should have it’s own genre), because it’s actually a good film, sort of. The lack of experience in the cast and crew is evident—except the score, which features several groovy disco compositions—but by not taking themselves seriously, they get more sympathy from the viewer and it’s easier to go along for the ride (a lot of which has nothing to do with vans). The nudity doesn’t hurt either. I’m anxious for Jason Coffman to cover this film in his Crown International Files, as I’m certain he’ll have great insight and humor in regard to Van Nuys Blvd. Now I’m trying to figure out what went wrong with William Sachs between Van Nuys Blvd. and Galaxina (1980).

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Rating: 4/5

I’m an admited and unabashed admirer of John Carpeter. I love his self-composed 70s synth-scores, his cheesy dialog, and especially his inclusion of badass no-nonsense characters (best when embodied by Kurt Russell). Everyone else loves Halloween (1978), but given the choice, I’d rather watch Escape From New York (1981), The Thing (1982), or The Fog (1980). Assault on Precinct 13 can now be added to the aforementioned list, as it’s inclussion of all the nessecarry ingrediants for a great Carpenter film—Darwin Joston fits nicely into the role that would go to Kurt Russell in Carpenters subsequent films—make for a sure-fire winner at your next B movie marathon.

Chinatown (1974)

Rating: 5/5

I didn’t care much for Chinatown when I first saw it a few years ago, but like any good critic, I gave it a second change, and I’m glad I did. Upon my second viewing, I realized that I had the wrong expectations of the film initially. Based on the title and what little I had seen and heard of Chinatown, I expected a dark and gritty Blade Runner-esque looking film-noir taking place in Chinatown. That’s not at all what it is, instead, it’s a great movie that has little to do with Chinatown, but a lot to do with great acting, directing, and script. Which is what one should expect from a film directed by Roman Polanski and starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway.

Murder on the Orient Express (1974)

Rating: 5/5

Everyone agrees that this is a good movie, but I say it’s a great one. With an all-star cast, a great story by the the legendary Agatha Christie and screenplay by Paul Dehn, director Sidney Lumet makes the most of a complex story, set in a cramped environment, for an experience like no other.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Rating: 5/5

The classic horror film that introduced the flesh-eating zombies—originally known as “gouls”—as we know them today. This viewing of Night of the Living Dead was at a midnight showing. The audience had a few laughs, but what will stay with me forever is when the final shot rang out—I won’t spoil it, but those who have seen the film know what I’m referring to—someone in the crowd shouted, “What?!” It remains one of the best endings, ever.

Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Rating: 4/5

A romanticized account of the real-life outlaws, Bonnie Elizabeth Parker, Clyde Chestnut Barrow and their gang, Bonnie and Clyde boasts an outstanding cast, breakneck pacing, and visually shocking violence for its day. You may be surprised by some of the players, including the beautiful Faye Dunaway.

Django (1966)

Rating: 4/5

A spaghetti western in the vein Sergio Leone’s The Man with No Name trilogy, Django is as entertaining as it is clever. The amount of torture and double-crossing in Django makes it an easy to see why Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming spaghetti western, Django Unchained, pays omage to this film. Even the opening theme song is Tarantino-esque.

Moonrise (1948)

Rating: 4/5

Moonrise could be counted among the worth-watching films from the tomes of 1940s film-noir, but the inclusion of cinematographer John L. Russell takes the film to a new level with his usage of light, shadow, and camera. Russell later went on the be the director of photography on Alfred Hitchcock’s masterful thriller, Psycho (1960).

Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Rating: 4/5

Possibly the best of the original Universal monster movies from the 30s and 40s, Bride of Frankenstein boasts high production value, a good story, great (over)acting, and homosexual undertones that were ahead of their time in the cinema.

Coming up quickly in the ranks of the cinema, Rhoda Jordan is more than a pretty face from music videos and horror B movies. With credits including: actress, writer, producer, teacher, singer, and ghostwriter, Rhoda Jordan has covered a lot of ground in a relatively short amount of time. I recently had the opportunity to ask Jordan a few questions about her career as well as her collaboration with husband, writer/director Eric Shapiro, that resulted in the indie thriller, Rule of Three.

Justin Smith: Can you tell us about your transition from music videos to B movies to working on your own projects?

Rhoda Jordan: Well, I love acting, and I moved out to L.A. to pursue it, but its main drawback is that you can’t control the content. So I found myself involved in a lot of projects that I really felt no connection to. As an actor, you get so excited and pumped up when you book something. I’d feel so thrilled to be getting parts in these music videos and B movies, but after each project, I found that I was incredibly unfulfilled with the lack of depth. So my husband, Eric, came up with the narrative for Rule of Three, and I wrote the screenplay with a mind toward having strong, complex characters, including one for myself [laughs].

JS: What was the inspiration for the concept and characters in Rule of Three?

RJ: Eric came up with the main story beats, and then it was my job to figure out the characters’ psychology and specific behavior. For budgetary reasons, we could only use one location, but we didn’t want something simplistic with two people in an apartment, so Eric figured we’d use a hotel room, which gave us the chance to have different occupants moving in and out. Once we had a general sense of who the characters were and what they’d be doing, I had to fill in their behavior, speech, and little idiosyncrasies. It was fun because, in the abstract, they’re B movie characters—deviants, rapists, neurotics—but in our film, they get handled with A movie attention. Instead of just seeing a couple have a threesome, you see them discuss and plan and negotiate the threesome. Instead of just seeing the rapists attack people, you see them planning the action, discussing what wine to drop the roofies into, and discussing where they’ll be standing when the victim walks in. So I got inspired turning these types into three-dimensional people, and making it into what we’ve been calling an “arthouse grindhouse” movie. It’s got the lurid, lowdown characters but they’re brought to full life.

JS: One of the many impressive aspects of Rule of Three is the cast. How did you and Eric acquire such a good cast for a low-budget indie thriller?

RJ: Half of them were friends of ours. I’d worked with Tiffany Shepis before in a film called Death Factory (2002), so she was accessible. But a lot of the main roles required a casting call. We got literally thousands of headshots and reels, and spent a couple full weeks sifting through them, to find the most exciting people possible. We knew we wouldn’t have time for fancy camera moves or two dozen takes, so we needed warriors, and that’s who we got our hands on.

JS: There are a lot of opinions in regard to exploitation and empowerment of women in cinema. What are you insights in this matter? Can they co-exist, or are we fooling ourselves?

RJ: They can definitely coexist. A lot of the misconceptions in this area separate female attractiveness from female power. We live in a male-dominated society, so our concepts of power tend to come from masculine ideals. Being hard and tough and stubborn, et cetera. But feminine power has its own design. The female body is powerful. Female magnetism is powerful. Rule of Three is generally about men who are afraid of women, and therefore need to control them. Without giving anything away, when you finally see sexuality onscreen in the film, the male actor keeps his distance from it; he’s in awe of it. The power is too much for him.

JS: How was it working with your husband/director, Eric Shapiro, on Rule of Three? Any good stories you’d like to share?

RJ: We were really scared going into it because we’d never collaborated before. He’s a fantastic horror/sci-fi author, and he was always working on his projects, while I was attending to my acting. Rule of Three was the first time we put our heads together on something. Our main difference was that I’m a huge reviser, and I’ll do a dozen drafts of something, but he likes to avoid that because once he hits a strong emotion, he doesn’t want to revise it too much ’cause he thinks it’ll get flat. So that was our conflict: He thought I’d never want to finish, and I thought he’d be willing to finish on a sub par draft [laughs]. But we learned a lot from each other; I taught him to be more patient, and he taught me to be more proud of what we were getting in the short-term. Then by the time we rolled, we were a unit. The thing was ours together.

JS: On the subject of working with family, have you worked with your brother, jazz guitarist, Stanley Jordan? I read that you were interested in singing when you were younger.

RJ: Wow, you’ve done your homework! Yes, I did used to sometimes accompany him on vocals while he performed guitar, back when I was a teenager! Stanley’s such an amazing musician, and I was so fortunate to be able to do that with him. I’m a huge fan of jazz music.

JS: In addition to being a writer, producer, and actor, I learned that you are also a meditation and yoga teacher, tell us about that.

RJ: My husband and I started taking tantric meditation classes in late 2007. Tantra is all about being in the moment, and embracing what you can call everything-ness—opposites, paradoxes, contradictions, light and dark, fear and joy—all in the course of experiencing bliss. I loved it so much that I became certified to teach it, and have been doing that while working on new film projects. It all goes together; the tantra is very chaotic and creative, and it promotes a kind of expansiveness in our work.

JS: Can you shed some light on the ghostwriting company you have with your husband?

RJ: Funny use of words, in terms of shedding light, since it’s such a secretive industry [laughs]! Eric and his partner offer custom writing to private clients, and I freelance for them on different jobs. We do fiction, nonfiction, scripts, speeches, memoirs, everything. The company has been going strong for about nine years now.

JS: Do you have any current projects in the works?

RJ: Right now, we’re developing a new feature, which we’ll hopefully be able to spill more on in the next few weeks. We also shot a short film adaptation of a short story by Jack Ketchum called Mail Order, which is going to be wild. We really got a chance to break free visually on this one. The editor, Randy Stoudt, just referred to it as “Oliver Stone on ether.” [laughs]

JS: What is your advice for aspiring writers and/or actors and actresses?

RJ: The way things are now, it’s all about just making what you want to. I was reading about Edward Burns shooting a feature for nine thousand dollars, and he said it perfectly: “There are no more excuses.” You want to write movies, act in movies, direct movies, then you can actually make it happen without having to wait. Rule of Three is an example of that: one room, ten actors, really to the bone. But we got into huge festivals and landed a great distributor, and the film managed to infiltrate Netflix and gain legitimacy. We didn’t have a million bucks or a matinée name, but we were compelled to get it made and get it out there, and anybody who dreams of doing that can do it. And then hopefully get the million bucks for a future project!!

(This interview was arranged by my good friend, Robin, at Flickfeast, and is reprinted here with his kind permission.)

Rating: 4/5

Have you ever wondered what took place in a hotel room before you arrived? Maybe you found a relic from a past guest? What if you could peek into the past, and found something sinister? Rule of Three is an indie thriller that gives the audience a peek into three events that take place in the same hotel room, and eventually ties them together in a clever way.

After the disappearance of his daughter, Lo (Rhoda Jordan), Jon (Ben Siegler) makes multiple visits to hotel room 155, where Lo was staying before her disappearance. While Jon is waiting for what he hopes is a clue to his daughter’s whereabouts, the story takes us back to the night in question, where Lo and her boyfriend Jake (Cary Woodworth) are hatching a plan for a threesome with Jake’s friend Dana (Tiffany Shepis). Interwoven with this story is an earlier event featuring a nervous schlup, Brian (Lee Schall), who’s waiting on a drug-dealer (Rodney Eastman) to arrive so he can make sure this night with his special lady-friend, Sara (Cerris Morgan-Moyer), goes as planned.

As with most films of this nature everything goes wrong for everyone involved. Writer/director Eric Shapiro and his wife, writer/actress Rhoda Jordan put the pieces together in such a way as not to give the audience many clues to what’s ahead.

For a film boasting an indie budget, no big name actors, a first time director, and a first time writer, Rule of Three packs a punch and leaves an impression. Another hurdle gracefully crossed by Shapiro and crew is the inclusion of B movie hot chicks who can act. Beautiful women may be a dime a dozen in films, but the ones who can act (and write) are a rare breed. Jordan holds her own as Lo, the sexy girlfriend who’s seemingly open to new experiences, while Shepis delivers an eye-catching performance as the sexy and confident Dana. After checking out her acting credits and personal quotes on IMDb, I think Shepis may be my new favorite actress.

But let’s not forget the guys in Rule of Three; the amount of rage exuding from Siegler turns his whole body red, even his bald head, and the chemistry between Schall and Eastman keeps their scene going to the point that it’s easy to forget there’s more to the story. It would be easy to watch these two fumble about for an hour without checking the time. Eastman is especially strong as the “helpful” drug-dealer who knows exactly what to do in situations like Brian’s.

Without getting into spoilers, I can say that my two main concerns with the film involve the ending. As much as I enjoyed the ending, it feels like the story ends about 20 minutes too soon. Also, the films touches on one of my movie pet peeves; a voice-over is used to remind the audience of something that was said earlier in the film. While this technique has it’s place (like in the final scenes of The Usual Suspects (1995)), it’s unnecessary here. It feels like the audience is being spoon fed the punchline to a joke. Maybe I’m overreacting, but like I said, it’s a pet peeve of mine.

Despite these two minor concerns, Rule of Three is a solid film that will surprise you with its wit and ability to keep you guessing right to the end.

Director: Eric Shapiro

Writer: Eric Shapiro (Story), Rhoda Jordan (screenplay)

Cast: Ben Siegler, Rhoda Jordan, Cary Woodworth, Tiffany Shepis, Rodney Eastman, Lee Schall

Runtime: 85 minutes

Country: USA

Doug Claybourne may not be a name you recognize immediately, but he has a list of films to his credit that should make him a household name. In addition to producing many well-known films, including The Fast and the Furious, The Mask of Zoro and Ernest Saves Christmas (I’ll get to that later), his name can be found scattered across the credits of director Francis Ford Coppola’s Vietnam war epic, Apocalypse Now. Not only has Doug endured trials and tribulations—and come out the other side a successful film producer—but he’s also a heck of a nice guy.

Justin Smith: How’d you go from production assistant to 1st assistant director and all the other jobs you took on with Apocalypse Now?

Doug Claybourne: I think it was attrition, Justin. [laughs] I went over thinking I was going for eight weeks and I came back maybe a year or so later. There was a typhoon and a lot of people got sick, people were fired, people left because they had other jobs. It just so happened I went over just to find out if film was something I was going to be interested in rather than going to school for four years and then deciding that wasn’t something I wanted to do, and the two Italian assistant directors weren’t working out so they left, then two assistant directors from the United States came in, and six or seven months later they were still filming. I think they went in thinking they had 14 or 15 weeks, or whatever it was, 16 weeks of filming. And that was March 20th or something, it was ’76 when they started and the filming didn’t end until May 21st in ’77. Course nobody ever thought it was going to take that long. [laughs] By that time I had started as a PA—I knew something about helicopters because I’d flown a little bit when I was in Vietnam, I was a helicopter door gunner, I had volunteered to fly Army helicopters as a door gunner when I was in the Marines, and so I was helping out on those—they moved me up to an assistant director on the 2nd unit and Steve Burum, who was a director of photography, tought me how to be an assistant director really. So I did that for several months while Jerry Ziesmer and Larry Franco were doing assistant directing in the 1st unit. So when they had to leave, I guess it was Christmas of ’77, they kind of looked around and said, “Well, who’s gonna do the first unit when [everyone] comes back?” [laughs], and they pointed at me and said, “What about Doug?” [laughs] I had a relationship with the company–by that time I had been there months, since April–so I stepped up and said, “Sure, why not?” They tought me how to do a board [laughs] and I jumped in and did it.

JS: You mentioned your Marine training and you did a tour in Vietnam, is that correct?

DC: Yeah, in ’68 and ’69 I was actually drafted, I had missed a meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma and they sent me off to Japan and then I volunteered to go to Vietnam because my best friend who had gone with me was sent off the Quang Tri in a helicopter unit, so I didn’t want to be left behind. I was kinda stupid, I was 21 and I didn’t really know any better. I didn’t want to be left behind in Japan, so I volunteered to go to Vietnam and ended up Chu Lai.

JS: How would you say your Marine training and time spent in Vietnam worked to help you keep your sanity when you were filming Apocalypse Now?

DC: The good news is nobody was shooting real bullets, you know. I think it was, for me, about volunteering. I had volunteered [in Vietnam], I really wanted to see the country and get a sense of what was going on in Vietnam, so I volunteered on my off hours. I was really a truck driver, I drove explosives and jet fuel, and fueled phantoms F-4 jets at Chu Lai, but I really worked 24 [on] and 24 off so I volunteered in my off time to fly as a door gunner, so I could really see some of the country, that was the idea. So, to answer your question, making a movie, and how I got to the Philippines was about volunteering, to work for nothing, to get a sense about the movie business, so it was all that idea of if you want to do something you take risks, you volunteer. A lot of people are against that idea, I’ve always been for it, if you want to learn something in life you gotta take risks you gotta step out of your comfort zone, so that’s always been my theory of getting ahead or doing something different or learning in life is getting out of your comfort zone and doing something that you’re not quite comfortable with, that you don’t know all the answers and that’s the way you learn and that’s the way you progress. What I learned in the Marine Corps was doing just that, taking that extra risk to learn and that’s exactly what I did on the movie, I didn’t know how to be an assistant director, I just stepped up, had the confidence, and did it, and the Marine Corps is what gave me the confidence to do that.

JS: You always hear of all the disaster the went along with Apocalypse Now, any good memories that stand out?

DC: I never saw Apocalypse Now as a disaster, it was all good memories for me, because it was my first movie, everything was a learning experience. The only disaster was the natural disaster, there was a typhoon, which destroyed all of our sets and put me personally in the hospital and a lot of other people, it was the largest insurance claim in the movie business at that time, several million dollars. I’m sure there’s been bigger ones since then, but that was a disaster and a lot of people’s lives were lost. We had to rebuild the sets and start all over again. “We got in over our head.” I think was Francis’ words. So that was the natural disaster of the movie that effected us, and of course Martin Sheen had his heart attack when we were filming in March of ’77 and then we had to scramble to find work to do, and I had taken over as assistant director, so that was a challenge for all of us because we had to figure out what to do. You saw [Hearts of Darkness], we had to figure out work to do while we were waiting for Martin to come back, of course there was no guarantee he was going to come back, [laughs] but we had to finish the movie, so it was a strain, and that was certainly, I guess you could call it a disaster. Any movie is a controlled disaster is what I’ve found since then [laughs] You know, it’s just chaos, controlled chaos, whether it’s a $10,000 movie or a 100 million dollar movie, it’s controled chaos. [laughs]

JS: Do you find that a more chaotic environment produces a better movie and when things are going smooth the movie comes out it doesn’t go over as well, or is that not necessarily the case?

DC: It’s funny, I’ve heard people say that the tougher they are the better they are. I don’t know, I’ve certainly worked on all kinds, I don’t think there’s any rule for it. I’ve worked on some movies that were enjoyable to work on and they come out to be pretty good films and then I’ve worked on movies that were really challenging like Apocalypse that came out to be great movies as well. So, I don’t find that there is any particular rule, you don’t know when you’re working on a really good movie and you certainly don’t know when you’re working on a really bad movie. There’s that rule that nobody sets out to make a bad movie. At least I’ve known anybody that said, “Okay, lets really make a really shitty movie.” Really set out to do that, you know. That might be fun sometime, just to say, “Okay let’s really try to make a really bad movie.” It’d probably turn out just the opposite, everybody would go and say, “Wow, let’s go see this movie.” [laughs]

JS: Right, might be the best one you ever did. [laughs] When I was looking through your producer credits I saw a lot of movies I really enjoy, like Rumble Fish and The War of the Roses but one thing that really caught my eye was Ernest Saves Christmas.

DC: [laughs]

JS: Not only because it was different from the other films, but I grew up in the ’80s and loved Ernest. When I’ve gone back to the films since then I’ve found that Saves Christmas I still enjoy, so I was wondering what gives it the staying power.

DC: I don’t know. I’ll tell you why I made Ernest. I have a daughter, named Signe and she had said to me, “Gee dad, I want you to make a movie about Santa Claus” [laughs] And I said, “Well, Okay.” You know what’s funny about life is be careful what you ask for, because you’re gonna get it. I kind of put out in the universe I want to make a movie about Santa Claus, and the next thing I know I get a call from Disney and they said, “Hey, we’d love you to work on this movie with John Cherry, we need somebody on there to be a creative producer, help work with him and help bring quality to the movie, and your buddy Gailard Sartain is in it.” Gailard is an old friend of mine from Tulsa and I just adored John he’s a lovely guy and he’s really funny and I wanted to make a movie about Santa Claus, so I decided to make the movie to give it to my daughter as a gift for her birthday. I liked Ernest, I thought it was a sweet movie, it had this kind of sweet message, that was one of those movies that was really enjoyable to work on, it was fun, it had a good sweet sense of humor, it had a purity to it that I really liked. Funny, I rented a screening room at Universal and invited a bunch of her friends for her birthday present. So, for me, that was a good enough reason. and I loved the people in it, that’s another good reason to make a movie is making it with the people you want to work with.

JS: When I looked at your website, I noticed you’ve been painting and writing poems, could you tell me a little about that?

DC: Yeah, I started painting when I was a kid and I’ve always loved [it]. I graduated from University of Tulsa with a commercial art degree, I wanted to be an art director, which is how I met Francis actually, I got a degree in commercial art went up to Art Center College of Design in 1974. I like painting, but I always though, “You can’t make any money as a painter so I’ll get into commercial art and be an art director.” I became an art director for about 15 minutes when I graduated in Tulsa, and then I decided I wanted to go to Art Center because that was kind of cool, I could learn something, then go back to Tulsa. I went to Art Center for a couple of years then a guy named Mike Salisbury called me and said, “Do you want to go up and work with me in San Francisco for Francis Coppola as an art director or assistant art director on City of San Francisco Magazine?” and that’s really how my whole connection with Francis, and the whole movie business, was through art direction, that was how we met. But I love painting and poetry, I’ve written about 20 to 25 books of poetry, only one of which have I kind of self-published, but I write everyday. I try to write a poem a day.

JS: Do you have any plans to release the rest of those?

DC: It’s something I’m working on, I’m going back and editing the books that I’ve written. If I can get them to where I feel like they’re publishable [laughs], then I will. A lot of them are personal, but I think some of them are interesting enough to publish. I’m going back now and re-editing some of the books and putting them all together and if I can get to that point, I would probably try to publish them. But it’s something I do because after 30 years in the movie business, with a poem or painting, you don’t have to go to 25 executives to ask permission to change the ending, you just go change it. [laughs]

JS: That’s one thing David Lynch has said about his artwork, that it’s just him, it makes it easy.

DC: I didn’t realize that when I was doing it in college, When I was in Vietnam, when the first rocket attack hit, I was thinking, “Wow, if I can just get through this I’d like to be back in that little art room, do my sculpture and do my paintings.” [laughs] Like Lynch, you realize when you’re working with so many people, a lot of the time 150-200 people and then executives at studios, you have to go through so many layers of bureaucracy to get things changed that it’s nice to sit down, look trough a window and write a poem and then come back and change it and revise it the next day, and there’s really nobody you have to answer to but yourself as an artist. It’s funny, that’s where I began, I’m an artist. [laughs] You know, I’m not just a movie producer, I come from art. It’s weird to even say it because I’ve been producing movies for so long, you’re a producer and the artist is the director, which is what I learned from Francis is servicing the director and trying to bring his or her vision to the screen, which is really important as a producer. When I get to painting, when I write my poetry, then I have to put that different hat on and that’s important to be able to do that too, cause when I put my producer hat on I can better serve that other artist.

JS: Do you have any kind of advice for people who want to get into production or film in general?

DC: Yeah, go to school, finish college, study everything you can, read everything you can, write. I really think it’s imparative to write scripts, because that’s what we all look for as producers. Pick a number of scripts that you want to write, a script a month, every two months, every six months. Get into the movie business any way you can, but don’t stop writing. Believe that you can write, everybody has an original voice, And I think it’s important that if you can write, write. Because it’s all based on the script. The experience of writing, and understanding the process, the structure. Understanding the writer will help you whether you end up a producer, director, grip, gaffer, or editor. Whatever area you end up in, if you understand the writer, the material and the dramatic structure all that will inform everything that you do in the business, so I’d say write, take risks, get in the business any way you can. Love whatever you do. That would be my advice.

(This interview was arranged by my good friend, Robin, at Flickfeast, and is reprinted here with his kind permission.)

Rating: 3/5

Who’s There? is a short film with its strengths on the technical side of production, but suffers a few bumps along the way, while showcasing a cast and crew with potential.

After the opening scene—in which an escaped mental patient has a run in with a cop that turns fatal—Who’s There? turns to Ashlee (Irene González) and Natalie (Ewelina Lukaszewska), two friends on a camping trip in a nature preserve. After Natalie suffers a disturbing nightmare and the girls meet a friendly stranger (Pau Masó) in the woods, things turn sinister.

Who’s There? has a lot going for it; it’s shot well—looks like a digital camera was used—the location is equal parts beautiful and ominous, and there’s an impressive special effects moment during Natalie’s nightmare involving Ashlee’s face. The actors and actresses aren’t bad, especially if you consider their lack of acting experience, and Irene and Ewelina’s sexy accents are to die for.

Oh, but wait, you wouldn’t know what they sound like, unless you’ve watched the interviews with them. That’s because due to complications with recording audio outdoors all the actors voices had to be dubbed. According to the interviews, Irene and Ewelina were only available for a limited time, so alternate talent was used to dub the voices. This hurts the film more than anything else. The line delivery is cringe worthy at times and if you listen closely you can hear the echo from the room in which the voice recordings were made, which is distracting when the character is standing in the middle of the woods. If possible, director, Pau Masó, should have had Irene and Ewelina record their dialogue elsewhere and send it to him. Not only would this have helped with the line delivery, but viewers of the film would then be treated to Irene and Ewelina’s sexy voices.

All things considered I look forward to seeing more from Pau, Irene, and Ewelina.

Director: Pau Masó

Writer: Pau Masó

Cast: Irene González, Ewelina Lukaszewska, Pau Masó

Runtime: 28 minutes

Country: Spain