And To Think, Mattel thought Toy Story Would Be a Flop

10 Things You Need to Know Before Seeing Toy Story 3

1. It's a character driven movie.
   The reason Toy Story 3 exists can be found in a single line of dialogue from Toy Story 2: "Do you really think Andy is going to take you to college, or on his honeymoon? Andy's growing up, and there's nothing you can do about it."
   
   Even though Toy Story 2 ends on an up-note, we can't shake the feeling that someday, eventually, Andy would grow up. He would tire of his toys eventually. This is the beginning of Toy Story 3, where we catch up to the characters 10 years on, and find out how they confront this situation. All the characters we know and love are here, so we get to jump directly into the plot.
   
   That being said...
   
2. The plot is kinda weak.
   There are two types of movies, the kind that feature great characters, and the kind that feature great adventures. Typically, the kind featuring characters get sequels that transpose them into awkward new scenarios in an attempt to liven them up. This is what Toy Story 3 is.
   
   There's a lot of recycled elements here regarding the Pathetic Fallacy. So much so, I couldn't help but feel Pixar was ripping off The Brave Little Toaster, simply replacing appliances with child's playthings. I would list examples, but I'm trying to be spoiler free. There are lots.
   
3. ...But the last ten minutes redeem it all.
   I'm critical of Toy Story 3, but that's only because Pixar has set themselves upon a plateau practically unreachable by anything short of monumental filmmaking. As such, the dark comedy premise of Daycare being equated with Prison fails to reach the apex, despite its grand comical execution.
   
   But this is hardly Pixar's fault. As mentioned, the movie exists to finally and precisely answer how Andy says goodbye to his beloved toys. But, this plot offers twenty minutes maximum of potential story. As such, the movie needs to be padded out. And that's what Sunnyside Daycare delivers, enough drama and comedy to make the final goodbye even more worthwhile.
   
   The final ten minutes, where Andy ties up the loose threads and makes good to Woody, Buzz and the rest is exactly what Pixar promised, what we the audience expected, and what the characters and franchise deserved. I don't want to give away too much, but this tearjerker of an ending will satisfy all. It was the perfect ending to the franchise.
   
4. The marketing is Really Overselling the new characters.
   Look at the poster. How many characters are jam packed in there? Could they possibly fit more in, maybe a few plastic army men in the crevices? That's not even the worst part. The worst part is marketing has lead us to believe each of these characters is equal in importance to the story. The truth is, with the exception of Lotso-Huggin-Bear and Ken, these characters are barely characters at all. They're just there to fill the role of "Other toys." They have no personality, and could easily be replaced with no impact.
   
   Even more ridiculous, Pixar made the common animation mistake of hiring big-name celebrities to voice these characters. How many dollars could John Lasseter have saved if he didn't hire James Bond to voice Mr. Pricklepants? Did Whoopi Goldberg really need to voice Stretch the Octopus? She had three lines, and was never mentioned by name.
   
   Thankfully, a lot of these minor characters are voiced by professional voice actors, or Pixar staff. But still, half of the characters on this poster are glorified extras, and the marketing staff is hoping franchise opportunities don't care either way.
   
5. Pixar tries two-tier storytelling, and succeeds.
   In Toy Story, Woody wass the main character with Buzz as the secondary. In Toy Story 2, it was the opposite. Buzz had all the major scenes while Woody had several existential crises. In both films, one character stood in the foreground while the other stayed on the sidelines, supporting them. One had the action, while one drove the plot.
   
   In every Pixar movie up until this point, plots have been straight and narrow. This isn't a bad thing, but the Toy Story franchise very clearly has two, equal protagonists. There should be opportunities for both Woody and Buzz to share the limelight. Well, Toy Story 3 tries this and succeeds. There are moments where Buzz and Woody separate, each taking a portion of the plot, each meeting their respective conflicts and fulfilling them to their own abilities. When the two diverging paths reconnect, the movie as a whole benefits. It's an advanced narrative technique, and for a first attempt, it's executed masterfully.
   
6. Andy finally gets some development.
   In Toy Story and Toy Story 2, Andy is little more than a plot device. A MacGuffin. The characters are toys, and Andy is the child who plays with the toys. We know little about the child, other than he has an equal appreciation for cowboys and astronauts, and is not above integrating his sister's Barbie dolls into his playtime routines.
   
   While we don't get a full biography of Andy in Toy Story 3, he at least evolves past his previous niche as a prop. We see how much Andy cares about his toys, viewing them as more than possessions or playthings. He has actual emotion invested in them. He realizes he has no use for a Mr. Potato Head or piggy bank at college, but he can't bring himself to detach them from his life.
   
   Andy's toys are an extension of his soul. His existence is equally defined by them as they are by Andy. We don't learn a lot about Andy (after all, it's not his movie), but we do learn everything we need during the film (especially the finale). Also, college-aged Andy is voiced by the same actor who voiced Young Andy in the first two Toy Stories. A great detail further driving home the point.
   
7. Sid returns. Sorta.
   I was really hoping Sid appeared in Toy Story 3 as an adult. Preferably as a psychologically scarred individual who goes into a mental frenzy after seeing Woody crossing the street.
   
   It doesn't happen this way, but Sid does indeed return (I know it was him, he's listed in the credits.) It's not an obvious cameo, so you really have to look for him. But he's there, and he winds up pretty much exactly where you'd expect a kid like Sid to end up.
   
8. It's not getting the Oscar.
   Toy Story 3 was great, I thoroughly endorse it, and it is a great finale to the franchise. But it's not getting the Academy Award.
   
   As much as it pains me to say it, Dreamworks really upped their game this year, and How to Train Your Dragon is the better film.
   
   Edit: Hah ha! Boy, was I wrong about this one!
   
9. Don't bother with the 3D.
   Toy Story 3 went down the same path as Clash of the Titans. The 3D was shoehorned in, and the film suffers. Not one critic recommends spending the extra two dollars on the 3D version, and I agree with them.
   
   It's just not a 3D film. Things don't pop out at the audience. Up had moments where the 3D gimmick was a benefit, but the majority of Toy Story 3's action was designed for, and executed well in glorious 2D.
   
   Besides, those glasses never work properly with people who wear prescription lenses.
   
10. Toddlers really are frightening, terrifying creatures.
    Way to endear yourself to your target demographic, Pixar. Although I do agree with you. Toddlers are quite literally the human equivalent of maggots. They're young, wriggly, disgusting, and they secrete ooze.

Going Against the Family

There has always been one scene in Fight Club that I found particularly engaging. Amidst the scenes of anti-consumerism, neo-facism, psychological debate, nihilism, bitch tits and bouts of fisticuffs, there is a scene where Fight Club begins to grow in popularity and notoriety (despite this being a direct violation of Fight Club's first two rules). In doing so, Fight Club is visited one night by a local mob boss. I don't care enough at the moment to look up his name, so I'll simply call him Johnny Mafia. It doesn't matter, anyway. Johnny Mafia senses opportunity in Fight Club, and he hopes to persuade Tyler Durden into seeing things their way, but Tyler wants nothing of it.

In the Chuck Palahniuk novel, there are two unwritten rules to Fight Club never mentioned in the film

A) Nobody is the center of the fight club except for the two men fighting.
B) Fight Club will always be free.

The very fact that Johnny Mafia wants to violate both these ordinances by assuming control of Fight Club and capitalizing it is in direct conflict with Fight Club's ideals and purposes. We've all seen the film, so we know what happens next. Tyler refuses the offer, Johnny Mafia starts beating the shit out of Tyler, then Tyler goes bananas and starts screaming, drooling and spitting blood on the Italian American gentleman's face. Reasonably disturbed at the batshit craziness in front of him, the mafia disappears from the film and is never mentioned or heard from again.

It wasn't until recently that I realized why this moment has stuck with me. This wasn't just a throwaway scene to demonstrate Fight Club's presence in society, or a punctuated illustration of Tyler Durden's unstable nature, this was a cinematic changing of the guard.

Before 1999, the manliest man movies possible were westerns, war movies, cop films, and mafia movies. By this time, westerns were distant memories, war movies were transitioning into Oscar Bait, and cop movies were little more than 90-minute cliches. As such, the most adrenaline fueled, testosterone pumping, ball-scratching pieces of cinema were laced with references to mob bosses, families, and made men. Basically, everything by Quentin Tarantino.

But the 90s changed things. While the decade opened with Goodfellas (in my opinion, the best mafia film ever), culture norms began shifting. The word 'Gangster' no longer elicited images of beefy Italians in pinstripe suits. Gangsters were street thugs. They were Crips or Bloods, they lived in the inner city. They didn't have number games or heists, they mugged people, murdered people, dealt drugs, and were concerned with street warfare over family honor.

This was indicative of the 90s as a whole. As the decade progressed, people were less concerned with formality and regulation. People just wanted to be people. They couldn't be bothered with full-on commitment. Technology and lifestyles created a mindset of speed and impulse. Everything was sample sized. This even rippled out to the latent proto-anarchist impulses of society. In films about crime, audience didn't want an entire history spanning back to the old country. We wanted hedonistic bad dudes blowing shit up and creating mayhem.

Returning to Fight Club, released at the tail end of the 1990's, let's examine the previously mentioned changing of the guard. Giving into societal pressure/demand/disinterest, we have Tyler, the personification of 1990's hedonism and impulse squaring off against Johnny Mafia, a caricature of the soon-to-be-retired mobster motifs. It begins with Johnny telling Tyler to give up; he owns the town, he made the rules, he has power and influence. But Tyler just shrugs it off. Tyler is younger, stronger, and better connected to the people Johnny erroneously believes he governs. More importantly, Tyler just doesn't care. He's a nihilist. Johnny's power of persuasion and deliverance of physical harm is completely ineffective as Tyler beams his blood-soaked teeth, terrifying and emasculating the once proud Don.

Movie audiences made it clear; we don't want long monologues about character and honor, we don't debates about respect and obligation, we don't want redemption and justice. When we want crime, we want criminals and fuck all else. We want brash, we want bold, we want cocksure, we want arrogant. We want small time crooks forced into big situations. We want nice guys forced into bad decisions. We want people knocking over liquor stores because they want money, not because the shopkeeper didn't pay for protection.

We just want somebody to hit someone as hard as they can.

Neon Angels on the Road to Ruin

After seeing The Runaways at SXSW (yeah, I'm still name-dropping that), I gave it a review of 3/5. I'd like to amend that.

Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart are two of the finest young actors working in Hollywood. Possibly the two best under 21. While both appeared together in some little-known Vampire franchise, possibly a SyFy channel original, here is where they display their acting prowess in full force.

Both Fanning and Stewart, together, in their primes, should be admired and acknowledged by even the mildest of movie fans. I say without hyperbole Kristen Stewart's portrayal of Joan Jett is Oscar-caliber. And while Dakota Fanning's depiction of Cherie Curie gets overly dramatic in the third act, it hardly sullies an otherwise fine film.

My other large problem with The Runways was the implementation of the standard musician biopic formula. Practically every film documenting a musicians life follows the three-and-a-half act formula:

1) I'm Nobody
2) I'm Famous
3) I'm on drugs
3.5) I'm dead/I'm clean/I'm nobody again.

This isn't the fault of The Runaways, and the film shouldn't shoulder the blame. It's inescapable. It's an overused structure because so many musicians invariably fall victim to this lifestyle. While it is a tad tiresome projected on the big screen for the 822nd time, it's at least honest and accurate. Would it be better if the third act began with Joan helping Cherie kick her drug habit, then swearing off vice altogether, traveling the country warning young girls of the dangers of drugs and alcohol?

As a result of my recent softening, I hereby redact my previous rating of The Runaways from 3/5, and replace it with 4/5.

But why now? Why wait three months to change my mind? Simply put: The Distributor fucked up. Of all the SXSW films, very few wound up getting distributed. Even fewer would be distributed to theaters. As mentioned before, Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning are very talented actresses, but more importantly, they're popular. Popular means bankable. Bankable means returns. Returns means profit (take note, Underpants Gnomes).

All over SXSW, I saw posters and heard buzz about The Runaways. It was one of the headlining films. People wanted to see this movie. When The Runaways made its way to my homestead, St. Louis, I heard nothing about it. Nothing. With the exception of a listing in the movie timetables of the newspaper and a poster inside the theater in which it was currently playing, The Runaways received no press.

And who is at fault for all of this? None other than Apparition, a newly-formed distribution company and subsidiary of Sony Pictures Worldwide. Focusing on arthouse cinema, Apparition completely dropped the ball concerning The Runaways. With the legion of fangirls who would empty their piggy banks for the privilege of seeing a new film starring Fanning and Stewart, regardless of content, the film would have retaken it's 10 million dollar budget in a single weekend.

But that's not all. In addition to catering to fangirls, the film would also appeal to audiophiles with its depiction of one of the most famous, game-changing rock bands in history. It also had great writing, powerful acting, and a strong feminist undertone. The Runaways should have been widely released. It should have been a Summer release and surprise blockbuster. It should have had magazine ads, and radio ads, and TV ads, and trailers before other blockbuster films. Instead, it played on a total of 244 theaters. It barely grossed 3.5 million.

Has Apparition heard of marketing? The process of attracting consumers and informing them of a products existence and quality?

Circling back to my original point, The Runaways needs all the support it can get. Apparition doesn't know anything, including how to distribute a film. Audiences barely had a chance to know the movie existed. And critics, like myself, were probably too harsh concerning the genre and its pratfalls. The Runaways does not deserve the hand it was dealt, and while my efforts may be futile at this point, I'm at least making an effort to espouse the quality of a good movie. Which is more than Apparition can claim.

B D D E E A Ab A Ab A Ab D D E E

Here is Why I'm Looking Forward to Iron Man 2:

I have my tickets to see Iron Man 2 this week. Hell, I'm seeing a double feature; Iron Man followed immediately after by Iron Man 2 (the refillable popcorn bucket pays for itself.) Like all superhero movies, I go in with the rosiest of glasses. Superheroes are my weakness; anything remotely related to superhuman powers utilized to fight evil gets my adrenaline pumping. I even have nice things to say about Daredevil.

Because Iron Man is one of the premiere examples of the Superhero Movie, a sequel utilizing the same director and actors will assuredly be just as miraculous. Right?

Here is Why I Should Be Worried About Iron Man 2:

Like any blockbuster sequel, lightning rarely strikes twice. Filmmakers forget what it was about the original that made it such a legendary film, skimp on storytelling and narrative, and instead use the dramatic increase in funding towards spectacle: fighting scenes, special effects and actor paychecks. Look at all the trailers and commercials; Scarlet Johansson doesn't have a single line of dialogue, she just wears leather and does a choreographed fight/dance down a sterile hallway. What could she possibly have to add? Gwyneth Paltrow barely did anything in the first film, but her screentime seems to be ramped up considerably for the sequel. And Samuel L. Jackson is there too. For those not in the know, the film world is planning to tie together every Marvel Superhero film into a giant diegetic universe with Jackson serving as the crossover element until the final Avengers denouement, but no one seems to realize the repercussions of having so many A-list actors eternally on retainer.

In addition, there's the seemingly mandatory element that must be observed by every superhero sequel: Double the villains. While the first movie is reserved for the strongest, infamous or most iconic villain in the hero's rogue gallery, the sequel has to compensate by dividing the plot between two lesser foes. Here, we have Whiplash and Justin Hammer each vastly different in operation and execution. Plus the American government is attempting to terminate Tony Stark's night job, serving as a third antagonist to an already bloated story. But Iron Man 2 goes one step further by doubling the heroes. Along with Iron Man, there's War Machine, who is exactly the same as Iron Man in every way, except gray and piloted by a marine.

All this, plus Iron Man 2 seems to take itself less seriously than its predecessor. Iron Man goes skydiving. Iron Man goes to Monte Carlo. Iron Man goes to the VMA's. The original Iron Man was written by the same guy who wrote Children of Men. The sequel is written by the guy who wrote Tropic Thunder. The differences show. I'm not saying the film about the guy with a nuclear reactor in his chest who puts on a suit of armor with a built in jet-pack to blow up terrorists should be grounded in reality, I'm simply stating that the filmmakers should be aware of where the line is drawn.

Here is Why I'm Not Worried About Iron Man 2:

Trailers give away way too much information. Instead of trying to entice audiences, trailers summarize and compress the entirety of a film into a two-minute synopsis. Comedies give away the best jokes, action films give away the best scenes, and the ending to romances can be guessed before the announcer says "From the people who brought you..." I've only seen one exception to this in recent years: Pixar. Think about it; Wall-E's trailer revealed it was a film about a little robot cleaning up the Earth, but made no mention of the anti-consumerism rhetoric. It never even showed the Axiom. Up made mention of Carl flying to South America in his house via thousands of balloons, but you would never guess a majority of the plot had to deal with poachers. And you can tell Toy Story 3 is going to have more to it than Woody and Buzz surviving a daycare center.

Iron Man 2 seems to follow the same formula. We see Iron Man dicking around with his superpowers because that is totally what the hedonistic Tony Stark would do. Until Whiplash shows up at Monte Carlo and strikes some sense of responsibility into him. I'm guessing the entirety of what we've seen in the trailers only occurs in the first thirty minutes. After that, we have free range for an entire plotline. Who knows what it will be. Maybe it'll be epic, maybe it will suck. Either way, it will at least be worth seeing.

Plus Nathan Fillion gives it his personal endorsement, so that has to be worth something.

Veronica Mars

I like television, but when it comes to actually watching new shows, I fall criminally behind. I first noticed this flaw when the series finale of Battlestar Galactica aired, and I realized I had yet to watch a single episode. It made the Battlestar Galactica finale party quite awkward.

As such, I periodically interspice my steady stream of home-delivered cinema from Netflix with entire seasons of the TV shows I've missed. This past week, I've been watching Veronica Mars.

For those like me who missed out the first time around, Veronica Mars is the story of a southern California teenager who moonlights as a private investigator. Using her father's professional detective equipment, her journalistic skills, and connections to access both clandestine and criminal information, Veronica is tasked with solving any number of crimes and cases that cross her path.

Each episode features two different mysteries, one unique to the episode, and one encompassing the entire season. It's a delicate balance giving equality to each story without ever sweeping the other under a rug, but from what I've seen so far, the show does it very well. Never is the season-long story arc forgotten amidst the mystery-of-the-week arc, but never does it take unnecessary screentime.

I didn't watch Veronica Mars when it originally aired for two reasons: It debuted in 2004, and it was on UPN. In case you don't remember, 2004 was the peak year of America's 21st Century Imbecility. Bush was in the white house, Larry the Cable Guy was becoming popular, and Ashton Kutcher was everywhere. Such notions as taste, intelligence and culture were being swept away in favor of easily marketable pablum extolling shallowness, greed, narcissism, and pride in being ignorant. It was a three-way race between the proud-to-be-a-redneck bumpkins, the bleached-blonde Aeropostale boneheads, and the 'I can't distinguish between culture and heritage' urban ghetto crowd.

The WB was the worst offender at the time, a mantle soon adopted by MTV and VH1. But UPN was almost as bad. It's hard to pit The WB against UPN precisely, as both were always on the periphery of the mainstream, never quite making a blip on the cultural radar. Even if Veronica Mars was a good show, a good show on UPN was the equivalent of a mediocre show on Fox.

It's amazing how perception has changed, especially after only six years. While Veronica Mars looks comparable to modern society, there are still small, almost unnoticeable details indicating this is the product of another era (including a notable cameo in episode two by she who must never be named). I recant my original stereotype of UPN, as several worthwhile shows actually did emerge, Veronica Mars being the crowning glory. It stands up against the test of time, and I imagine it will continue to do so. It's well-written, well-acted, and engaging. If you have the means, check it out.

That's a Fair Gloopy Title

A few months ago, I watched A Clockwork Orange for the first time. I liked the film, but there's one thing about it that pisses me off.

Every single source I've come across labels this film as Science Fiction.

I don't get it. I watched this film intently, and except for a few pieces of mis-en-scene, this film cannot justifiably be called science fiction.

Before I begin this lengthy diatribe, let's establish what science fiction is exactly. Science fiction is a branch of speculative fiction, wherein fictional worlds exist with their own fictional rules, and in these differences from our normality, drama lies. In order for a particular piece of speculative fiction to be considered science fiction, a storyline must contain one or more of the following:

• A setting in the future, or alternate timeline that differs from or contradicts historical facts.
  
• A setting in outer space, or other alien world.
• Technology or scientific principles that violate the laws of nature.
• Extra-terrestrial creatures.

So let's break it down a bit: A Clockwork Orange takes place in 1970's era London, has no space travel, and has no aliens. So the final remaining element that could possibly qualify it as sci-fi is futuristic technology. And what's there? Not much. As mentioned, there are a couple futuristic, mis-en-scene elements but all are negligible.

The Korova Milk Bar is the first such example. It's where the film begins, and the first lines of dialogue refer to it. The milk in question is infused with recreational drugs, totally legal, and even sold to minors. I haven't read the original novel, so I don't know the full importance of this aspect, but in the movie, it's mentioned and forgotten. It has no bearing on the plot, and for all intents and purposes, might as well have been plain old milk.

Second; the decor. Fusing a 1950's amalgamation of pop art with 70's era glamour, Kubrick tries to create a retro-futuristic setting. This is abundantly clear in all scenes set at F. Alexander's home (the writer). But more than anything, the architecture, hairstyles, wardrobe and general demeanor just scream 1970's London. What may have looked sci-fi back then might as well be a period piece, now.

Next, the brainwashing. This is the central plot point of the film, and it's probably the best argument for the sci-fi nature. There's only one problem: It's not science fiction, it's just science. Brainwashing and other forms of psychological manipulation have been documented as actuality. It's totally possible to coerce someone away from violent behavior using operant conditioning, the people in the film just used a very roundabout method. By this logic, The Manchurian Candidate would be science fiction.

Finally, the notion of dystopia. Many film and literary experts include dystopian novels and films among the ranks of science fiction. And while a number of science fiction stories do in fact take place in dystopian societies, it's not an automatic signifier. In my personal opinion, dystopia does not a sci-fi film make. It's just another segment of speculative fiction. Dystopias are characterized by totalitarian rule, a lack of personal freedoms, and constant military force. That's not science fiction, that's China!

There are probably other aspects I'm forgetting, but I believe I've made my point clear. A Clockwork Orange is a great movie with great art direction, great directing, great acting, a great score, but is nowhere near a science fiction film.

So what is it then? I'll call it a surreal crime film. Good luck establishing an entire shelf at Blockbuster with that name.

SXSW Part 4: The Final Chapter

22) Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil
Yet another midnight film using the VS naming structure. Only here, it doesn't work. Luckily, this is the only grip I have about the movie. T&DVsE is destined to be another legendary horror/comedy in the vein of Shaun of the Dead. It's equal parts hilarious and gruesome. If The Pink Panther were about a serial killer, it would be like this. It also addresses one of the most common horror tropes that pisses me off: Why the hell are all the college students fucking douchebags? Here, we see a group of eight going camping in the woods. All eight are materialistic, airheads, and judgmental of the Appalachian populace around them. After a couple of misunderstanding with Tucker and Dale, a pair of woodsmen refurbishing a long-abandoned cabin, a series of accidents begin to transpire. And of course, because Tucker and Dale are the outsiders, they shoulder the entire blame. Tucker and Dale try to figure out what the hell is going on while trying to avoid any future calamities. Alan Tudyk is great as Tucker, and Tyler Labine is sure to be thrust into prominence with his portrayal of Dale. The entire film is about communication and judgments. We're quick to assumption, especially in moments of fear, and we forget that even off-looking people are still people. Except frat boys with popped callars and shell necklaces. They suck.
Final Score: 5/5
In a Word: Doozy

23) Waking Sleeping Beauty
This was the last film I saw at SXSW. I stayed an extra half a day in Austin just for this one film. As a result, I had to drive through an ice storm on the way home. I nearly crashed three times. But was it worth it? Probably not, but I enjoyed the film nonetheless. Waking Sleeping Beauty is a documentary concerning The Disney Animation Studios, particularly from 1984 to 1994. During this period, Disney animation went from an absolute low to the strongest juggernaut in Hollywood. The director stated he wanted to take a new direction in documentaries by avoiding two major pratfalls: First, no talking heads. Second, no old people reminiscing. It's probably my already biased opinion towards the subject matter, but this new technique worked. I loved every single moment, and it never left me dissatisfied. It even reinforced my personal dislike of Jefferey Katzenberg, and how he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near animation. It did stop right after The Lion King debuted, which started a slippery slope again for Disney, and it did paint Michael Eisner a little too Messianic, so it's not the absolute truth. But I still enjoyed it, regardless.
Final Score: 5/5
In a Word: Colorful


...And that's my SXSW experience. It was absolute heaven, and one of the greatest weeks of my life. Assuming things go well in the upcoming year, I will be returning. Until then, I'll spend my time detoxing and acclimating to movie theaters which do not deliver beers and hamburgers to my seat.

SXSW Part 3: The Search For Spock

15) Crying With Laughter
I toss around the words "Black Comedy" a lot, but what can I say? Filmmakers like Schadenfreude. Crying With Laughter is a Scottish film concerning memory. Our hero and villain are old school friends who reconnect after several years. Our antagonist is tortured about an incident he can't forget and manipulates our protagonist, who can't remember, into rectifying the problem. All the while, the narrative is driven by the protagonist's creepily honest stand-up routine. The tragedy and horrors of a suspense thriller, abduction, senility and child abuse are literally turned into joke fodder. Unfortunately, trying to attempt this tangent on perception and perspective drowns out the original theme of memory as a subjective force. Still, it's exciting and paced perfectly.
Final Score: 4/5
In a Word: Memorable

16) Barry Munday
This is a film for all the Apatow fans. Titular character Barry Munday is an unashamed womanizer, living his life vicariously through his penis. After hitting on the wrong girl, Barry finds himself castrated in a fit of rage by a jealous boyfriend and his trumpet. Yes. A trumpet. Prior to the unwilling removal of his testes, Barry inadvertently knocks up Jennifer, played by Judy Greer, who looks and acts exactly like Kitty from Arrested Development (I was expecting her to rip off her shirt in anger and reveal two askew nipples). Due to these two new events, Barry is forced to radically change his life, accepting his new role as a father and disowning his sexually deviant ways. The film is absolutely hilarious. With the exception of a few cringe-worthy awkward moments, the film is comedy genius from beginning to end. If you enjoy this type of comedy, join the grassroots movement to get this distributed.
Final Score: 5/5
In an Image:

17) Barbershop Punk
A film with a name like "Barbershop Punk" could be about any number of great things. In this case, 'Punk' refers to dissidence and rule breaking while 'Barbershop' refers to the A Capella musical genre. This is a documentary, following Robb Topolski, a software engineer who blew the whistle on Comcast's violation of internet autonomy. Certain individuals (read: Big Business) were given priority concerning connection speeds while other individuals (read: People standing up to the man) were routinely denied service. Robb was uploading barbershop quartet music to the internet. He, like other pirates, were frequently denied reliable internet service because of their actions. By doing so, Comcast was called out by the government for fraud, violation of privacy, accepting bribes, and attempting to hide the entire ordeal from the public. This is a film about rights to privacy and the privatization of the internet. Piracy is only a small portion of the film. Yet the piracy issue never fades away. The film knows where it wants to go, but never actually gets there. It's interesting to watch, especially to fellow pirates and computer geeks, but it's more explanatory than informative. Basically, net neutrality is good. That's the movie. Plus Robb owns a minimum of three pairs of Crocs, which makes him an asshole, no matter how noble his endeavors.
Final Score: 3/5
In a Word: Neutral

18) This Movie is Broken
Very rarely does a movie come along with a title as applicable here. This Movie is Broken is supposed to be a concert video of the Canadian band Broken Social Scene (who are awesome, by the way). Instead, the movie is a puree of a Broken Social Scene concert vid, and a lame plotline poorly ripping off Before Sunrise and Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist. Just when I think the movie is going somewhere important, they interrupt with the band playing a song. And just when I'm getting into the band playing, they interrupt with the plot. The plot, by the way, is terrible. Boy loves girl, boy is too chickenshit to tell girl, girl finds out anyway and tells boy off for not being honest, boy has completely inexplicable and unexplained gay experience, boy gets girl anyway despite girl finding other boy in bed with first boy. It's stupid and it ruins what was supposed to be a great concert film. This Movie is Broken most certainly is.
Final Score: 2/5
In a Word: Portmanteau

19) The Runaways
First, let me dispel all fears: They did not ruin the Runaways story. Second, let me just say this was a very good half of a movie. The biopic of Cherie Currie and Joan Jett's game-changing rock band, The Runaways, is a semi-honest portrayal of punk rock that follows all the stepping stones of the musical-drama genre. Kristen Stewart is, for all intents and purposes, Joan Jett. She completely becomes her character and it almost makes me forgive Twilight... Okay, it doesn't even come close, but she's terrific nonetheless. Dakota Fanning is less impressive. She plays her part with disinterest, hamming up the film halfway with overly-dramatic deliveries and halfway with blank stares. Michael Shannon, however, steals the show with his performance as manager Kim Fowley. Whenever he is onscreen, magic happens. As far as I'm concerned, this film gets punk rock dead-on. Wearing a black t-shirt does not make you punk. Getting blitzed, having random sexual encounters, erupting in spontaneous violence and ending the night covered with a minimum of four bodily fluids makes you punk. For that, I love it. It's no-holds-bar punk rock goodness, and the cast delivers on all accounts... for the first half. As I said, it's a great half-movie. Near the midpoint, the film slags as it follows Cherie's descent into drug abuse. It's the standard musical-drama formula. Again, we have to endure a long, long exposition of "Oh, I'm a genius, but I'm destroying myself." The movie becomes less about entertaining and more about wrapping up the loose ends to coincide with history. For example, when Joan gets the idea to form The Blackhearts, you can all but hear the metaphorical light bulb go "ding." The Runaways is a great idea and a great execution, but it's nothing new.
Final Score: 3/5
In a Word (more or less): Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-cherry bomb

20) The Parking Lot Movie
Following in the style of TV shows 'Ace of Cakes' and 'American Gun,' The Parking Lot Movie is a cinema-verite documentary about the employees of a workplace and the unassuming events they encounter. While the escapades of parking lot attendants doesn't sound like great cinema, you'd be surprised at the entertainment value present. This film is a nugget of 1990's era Slacker-dom temporally dislocated by fifteen years. It combines cultural apathy with consumer rage, and produces one of my favorite films from the entire festival. It touches on subjects including cars, license plates, class struggles, capitalism, anger, justice, drunkenness, and existence. It also holds the distinction of being one of the few films I wish was longer. If you have ever worked a menial McJob, this film is a must see.
Final Score: 5/5
In a Word: Enterprising

21) Saturday Night
Saturday Night is a documentary helmed by James Franco, following the creation of a single episode of Saturday Night Live from start to finish. From 2000-2005, Saturday Night Live was my favorite TV show (I lost interest in college when I made friends and finally had something to do on Saturday nights besides watch TV.) I read a book on the production of the show, and had a pretty solid understanding of the process. That being said, the process brought to life was still an incredible revelation. The level of dedication going into one episode of a TV show often maligned for its low quality is astounding. While my admiration of SNL is still in the highest regards, seeing the inner workings raises my respect to astronomical heights. My only grievance was the final composition of the film. To me, it seemed less like a documentary and more like a DVD extra feature. At any rate, the film was captivating, entertaining, and assured me that the unsettling terrors gleaned from the Empire Carpets jingle are totally normal.
Final Score: 4/5
In a Word: J'Accusi

SXSW Part 2: SXSW Harder

8) American: The Bill Hicks Story
This documentary about one of the most underrated stand-up comedians was one of the few must-sees for me. I was expecting it to be a by-the-numbers documentary about Hicks' private life, his struggle with alcohol, and his battle with media. But it was actually engaging and informative. While it did play the Walk The Line "Oh, I'm a genius, but I'm destroying myself" route, it portrayed Hicks' entire career from his teenage origins to his rise to (if you can call it that) prominence. As is the nature with documentaries in which the subject is deceased, an overwhelming portion is comprised of stories and laments from close friends and family. But breaking up the tired monotony is animation consisting of hundreds of photographs of Hicks throughout to life, bringing the monologues to life. Overall, very informative and entertaining for any fan of Bill Hicks and his game-changing comedy.
Final Score: 4/5
In a Word: Vitriolic

9) MacGruber
The second-most hyped film at the festival, MacGruber is the first film based on a SNL sketch since the string of laughably unfunny travesties from the early '00s (Night at the Roxbury, Superstar, The Ladies Man). Will Forte brings the MacGyver not-quite-a-parody parody to excellent heights. The film is funny, paced just right, and is sure to be quoted incessantly by high-schoolers for the next several years. My only qualm about the film is nothing really astounded me. This is a big problem for comedies. The jokes get me in the door, but unless there's something else, I don't want to hear the exact same jokes again later. It's funny, but not legendary funny. At the very least, people will stop telling me how much they love lamp.
Final Score: 4/5
In a Word: Celery

10) Erasing David
A documentary about the pervasiveness of surveillance and the subtle Big Brother nature of the modern world. Filmmaker David Bond decides to drop off the face of the world for one month, and hires two private investigators to try and find him. Tracking him using credit cards, mobile phone records and other technology, the chase is on for David to escape the watchdogs. While he does hide out in a grass hut in the countryside for two days, this isn't an experiment about disappearing, this is an experiment about privacy. Throughout the chase, David interviews experts on privacy, surveillance, safety and bureaucracy about why information about us perpetuates eternally, why it's collected, and who has the ability to find it. It's terrifying how little things we take for granted are being compiled and waiting to be used against us. It's a real wake up call for everyone in the digital age, whether you're tech-savvy or not. It's half 1984, half The Fugitive, and it's all non-fiction. I highly recommend.
Final Score: 5/5
In a Word: Startling

11) Harry Brown
Michael Caine is awesome. He looks like my grandfather, he's smoother than Rupolph Valentino, could outcharm Hugh Hefner, and now he proves he could kick Jet Li's ass. Harry Brown uses the blueprints of Gran Torino, but makes a unique prefecture. An old man sullied by the decrepit nature of his environment decides he has had enough. Using his military training and forty years of pent-up frustration, Harry Brown sets out to rid the streets of gangs, teenage asshats and drug runners. Travis Bickle couldn't do it better himself.
Final Score: 4/5
In a Word: Stabby

12) Trash Humpers
I... I have no clue what this is. The press billed this as a horror film, but... I don't know what the hell this is. It's insanity captured on a VHS tape. Four elderly people go about stomping radios, eating pancakes, lighting fire crackers, reading bad poetry, shrieking like banshees, hitting things with hammers, and humping trash cans. It's absolute insanity. It's experimental, I guess. Think of it as Tim and Eric making a film without jokes. I laughed at times, I cringed at times, and when I wasn't looking at my watch wishing it to be over, I guess I was entertained. It's hard to say. Entertained the same way someone is entertained by a snuff film. Again, I really have no fucking idea what the hell this was. It's trying to emulate Found Art via a video cassette of grotesque imagery. Think of it as Rubber Johnny stretched out to 78 minutes. I can't accurately score this because of the confusion, so I'll give it a score of:
Final Score: Banana/5
In a word: ....?

13) World's Largest
This documentary focuses on roadside marvels, particularly of the gigantic variety. Towns facing bankruptcy give one final financial hailmary by constructing the "World's Largest _____" in an attempt to get passing motorists to stop and visit. Amidst all the examinations of tourist traps is the tragic tale of Soap Lake, Washington. One of the poorest towns in the state, Soap Lake is at a crossroads whether to hunker down and hope for the best, or go nutso and create the World's Largest Lava Lamp. We see all sides of the issue; do we put all our money into a silly adventure? Will people actually stop and see this thing? Is this lava lamp going to cheapen the image of our township? Is this even a feasible idea? Quite honestly, the film never takes a stand. It presents all ideas, but the rhetoric is absent. It's an objective, unbiased documentary, and that's its weakest point. It doesn't have anything else to say beyond the standard "America's Small Towns are in trouble" lament, which frankly has been done to death. It criticizes big box stores, but in an unnoticed irony, Target donates the resources to construct the Lava Lamp. If nothing else, it is a great composition of the artistic oddities which could only originate in America. An interesting film, but with nothing to say.
Final Score: 3/5
In a Word: Shantytown

14) Music Videos
I'm fudging a bit calling this a movie, as it's just a collection of music videos. But what is a music video but a short film completely choreographed to a one-song soundtrack? Plus, it brings me back to my high school days when I would watch FuseTV for hours on end because nothing else was on. No review here, just a list of the videos shown. I'm sure you can find them on YouTube or Vimeo. My five favorite are noted.
- Heypenny, 'Copcar' (Director: Joey Ciccoline & Paul Padgett) (My Second Favorite)
- Grizzly Bear, 'Forest' (Director: Allison Schulnik)
- Writer, 'Four Letters' (Director: Brad Kester)
- Hunter Cross and the Strays, 'Twisty Ties' (Director: Paul Ahern)
- P.O.S, 'Drumroll' (Director: Todd Cobery & Scott Wenner)
- Chris Garneau, 'Fireflies' (Director: Daniel Stessen)
- The Diagonals, 'Clones' (Director: Nick Smith)
- N.A.S.A., 'Spacious Thoughts' (Director: Fluorescent Hill)
- Man Branch, 'The Gym Is All She Has' (Director: Matt Leach)
- Truckers of Husk, 'Person for the Person' (Director: Casey Raymond & Ewan Jones Morris)
- Passion Pit, 'To Kingdom Come' (Director: Mixtape Club) (My Fourth Favorite)
- Kevin Devine, 'I could be with Anyone' (Director: Ray Machuca & Sherng-Lee Huang) (My Favorite)
- These United States, 'Everything Touches Everything' (Director: Maxwell Sorensen)
- Fatback Circus, 'Brain Damage' (Director: Rodney Brunet)
- Socalled, '(Rock the) Belz' (Director: Kaveh Nabatian)
- Fires of Rome, 'Set in Stone (M83 Remix)' (Director: Matthew Lessner)
- BRONTOSORUS, 'Amy' (Director: Pete Scalzitti) (My Third Favorite)
- Cinnamon Chasers, 'Luv Deluxe' (Director: Saman Keshavarz) (Winner: Best Music Video)
- WHY?, 'These Hands/ January Twenty Something' (Director: Ben Barnes)
- Height, 'Mike Stone' (Director: Justin Barnes)
- Apes and Androids, 'Golden Prize' (Director: That Go - Noel Paul & Stefan Moore) (My Fifth Favorite)

SXSW Part 1

Greetings from Austin, Texas, a slice of Hipster Nation in the center of Bush Country. I'm attending the South By Southwest (SXSW) 2010 film festival. I get to see an onslaught of independent films before their distribution, and all for the low, low price of 375 dollars! My goal is to see a minimum of twenty films to somewhat offset this steep, steep, steep admission price. Here's what I've seen so far:

1) Skeletons
An English film, but I don't hold that against it. A black comedy about a private corporation who expose the metaphorical skeletons in their clients' closets. It's marginally sci-fi, but deals mostly with intrapersoanl and interpersonal relations. While this film has some fine moments and some good chuckles, it's all over the place. At some points, it's trying to be Ghostbusters, at others it's Little Miss Sunshine, at others its Persona. There are three independent subplots throughout the film, and while they all originate from a single starting point, there's no real cohesiveness between them at the end. It's like someone tied a braid, then got bored and walked away. The effects were nice and the pacing was fine, but the largest achievements here were camerawork and sound. All in all, it was okay, but would have benefited from another once-over during the screenwriting process.
Final score: 3/5
In a word: Disjointed

2) The Thorn in the Heart
This documentary by Michel Gondry chronicles the life of his aunt, a schoolteacher from small-town France. The film is a personal project for Gondry, so don't expect it to be a wild spectacle such as Eternal Sunshine or The Science of Sleep. It's uplifting, but also sad, and utilizes the stereotypical filmmaking credo: "It's a story that needs to be told." There are some moments purely Gondry, though. Animations and scene constructions occur occasionally through the nonfiction narrative. Bloopers and behind the scenes footage are integrated into the film for entertainment value. The shattering of the fourth wall reminds us that his aunt's life is a celebration, and is being heralded by the film, not mourned. The only downside is, as is the case with all films of this nature, no matter how well-constructed the film, the subjective feelings concerning the subject can never be fully amplified and shared with a mass audience. No matter how we feel about Gondry's aunt, we will never feel the way he feels.
Final Score: 4/5
In a word: Heartstrings

3) Cannibal Girls
This lost classic from Ivan Reitman has resurfaced thanks to the efforts of his son, Jason Reitman. Jason claimed he was attending SXSW not as a director, but as a film fan this year. In his words, "it's the perfect way to relax after going 0/3 at the Oscars." Cannibal Girls is just as the title suggests. A young couple traveling in the country stop in a small town and are at the mercy of three sisters who like to eat flesh. Also, the entire town abides by this quirk, with many meat-related incidents injected throughout the seemingly ordinary town. Andrea Martin and Eugene Levy of SCTV star. Eugene Levy spends the entire movie looking like Gene Shalit, which to me is hilarious. Unfortunately, the film has all the pratfalls of typical B-movie schlock. It's gory, and has rampant black humor, but also plot holes, storytelling faults, bad acting and contrived narrative gimmicks. It has a certain entertainment value, but in the end, it's really stupid.
Final Score: 2/5
In a word: Jewfro

4) Richard Garriott: Man on a Mission
You may know Richard Garriott as the man who created the Ultima video game franchise. But this film shows him as the eccentric video game mogul who spent 30 million dollars on a space voyage. As a suburban white boy and a fan of all things outer-spatial, any film combining space adventure and video games is okay by me. Garriott spends the entirety of the film dealing with the psychological and physical demands of becoming an astronaut, working with the Russian space program, and spending two weeks aboard the ISS. Garriott is a real character, the kind you don't mind following around. He apes for the camera, but always has something wise, relevant or important to say. Most important, he shows that space travel and other such technological adventures are slowly becoming a reality. If you can afford it.
Final Score: 5/5
In a word: Rat-tail

5) FutureStates
FutureStates is a collection of six short films, each created by different filmmakers with the intention to show a possible future. Not science fiction per se, but as it possibly would happen. Three of these films concern conservation, one details illegal aliens, one biogenetics, and one the housing crisis. Needless to say, the six films are depressing. During the Q&A I asked one of the directors whether they were personally pessimistic about the future or if dystopian futures just make for good drama (the question got some laughs, which surprised me because I thought it was a completely serious question). Long story short, it's just more fun to see the future in shambles. That way, when the totally middle-ground future arrives, our preservation efforts paint ourselves as saviors rather than imbeciles fucking everything up. All in all, the films were enjoyable. Mister Green was the worst of the bunch, but still really good. Tent City was the best.
Final Score: 4/5
In a word: Guilt

6) Elektra Luxx
This was a sequel to a film that debuted last year, which surprised the fuck outta me, because I never heard about it. The film stars Carla Gugino as Elektra Luxx, a retired porn star forced into the public sector after discovering she's pregnant and some other vague events covered in the first movie. Going in with no knowledge of the original wasn't completely jarring, but I felt there were certain elements left unexplained. I can't complain about that; it's my own damn fault. According to the director, the film was created to give female actors strong, smart, powerful characters, and that's exactly what it delivers. The women are objectified, but in all the right ways. The film is hilarious and weirdly personal. My only grumble is the pacing seems more akin to a television show than a movie. We follow a couple of supporting characters completely independent of the main story, for no other reason than jokes. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but an odd choice for a film.
Final Score: 4/5
In a word: *Porn soundtrack wah-wahs*

7) Jimmy Tupper Vs The Goatman of Bowie
After a night of heavy drinking and pot smoking, Jimmy Tupper is driven into the woods and abandoned by his friends as a prank. When Jimmy goes missing, his friends go out searching for him. Deep in the woods of Bowie, Maryland, they find Jimmy: scathed, shaken and disturbed. Jimmy claimed he was attacked by a creature in the night; the infamous goatman. Now a laughingstock of his social group, Jimmy heads out into the woods again ready to find the Goatman, prove it wasn't a drunken hallucination, and clear his name. Eleven years after The Blair Witch Project, JT Vs TGM utilizes the same "found footage" format. Unlike its predecessors, JT Vs TGM has a certain level of randomness and pacing that suggests this may actually be non-fiction. The first third of the movie is a completely asinine log of drunken partying, Jackass-type stunts and mugging for the camera; the kind of shit you'd expect to find on an amateur's tapes. But that's part of the charm. It creates the reality, and once we begin the second and third acts, it all seems worth it. This film is intense, and entertaining. We know there's no Goatman, but seeing Jimmy Tupper's pride degrading into slow, drunken insanity makes for damn fine cinema.
Final Score: 5/5
In a word: Paced