Well That's Cool

Watching a childhood favorite as an adult is a dangerous venture as you seem destined to either collapse into crippling nostalgia (no, sweetheart, I will NOT call you Atreyu) or shuffle through depressing, shattered illusions (why does Falkor look so fake move so weird?). After going to this flick, suggest galloping down memory lane with someone whose excitement matches a penchant for dirty jokes.
For those not privy, this Wolfgang Peterson masterpiece is the tale of alonely child who escapes into a book henabs from a creepy bookshop. The “neverending” element relates to the paralyzing fear that the battle of growing up will destroy the glorious treasure of imagination that fuels the younger years. The music is cheesier than a Frenchman’s sockdrawer and Atreyu is one of the most melodramatic warriors to ever grace the plains, bit all scoffs and petty jokes (an upright plethora) are born of admiration, not disdain. We all know the terror of lost imagination. If you put your sad hat on, you’d probably find

this guy still scares the shit out of us

it’s the cause for more than half your committed drinking. But what avenue is there for full-on “grown” folks? In theory, our minds have already been devoured by a faceless cloud, leaving only bumps and chunks of land behind. Joke as we may about people in a state of perpetual childhood, we’re really referring to a post-pubescent realm far out of reach from unicorns in math books and the endearing scampiness of stealing or trespassing. So we get obliterated, piss on the remains of other people’s glowing genital structure, and wait to shake the last few golden grains of sand from our shoe.
SEE movies like this. Make foul jokes, mock the bad ass theme song, and scream like Bastian on the way home (I know someone out there knows the name — help a sister out!). In light of all the rest, please, act an ass — it’s the noble thing to do.

Three cheers for the Bama Theater for bringing this gem back to the big screen! Warmed my heart to see kids enjoying a movie NOT fueled by fart jokes and castrated rap. Look forward to seeing what other “youth movies” are coming next.

Popularity: 15% [?]

I know our usual film reviewer is the lovely Dosty Glory, but after seeing a movie I had been anticipating for quite some time, I decided to finally make use of my Critical Film and Television Studies degree and review it.  As you already know because you clicked on the link, the film I’m talking about is Super 8, which was directed by J.J. Abrams and produced by the American union equivalent of Senor Spielbergo, Steven Spielberg.

The film tells the story of a group of friends trying to make a homemade zombie movie in a mundane Ohio steel town in 1979.  One member of the group, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), is still strongly affected by his mother’s death in a freak accident at the steel mill.  His father Jackson (Kyle Chandler), a sheriff’s deputy, has a strained relationship with his son and does not understand the boy’s willingness to go running around with his friends making crazy movies.  One night, the director of the film, Charles (Riley Griffiths), gets the crew to sneak out and film some shots at a local train station.  They are aided by the slightly older Alice (Elle Fanning), who naturally catches the eye of all the boys, specifically Joe.  If you’ve seen the trailers, you know that while the kids are at the train station, a derailment occurs followed by some pretty big explosions.  From there, things just start getting worse as all sorts of weird things occur in town.  Something has escaped from the train, and that something is rather angry.

A lot has been said about how Super 8 is J.J. Abrams’ homage to the Steven Spielberg movies of the 1970′s and 1980′s.  It is pretty easy to see the influence of Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind and E.T., straight down to a shot that mirrors a key scene early in that film.  Still, below the surface, the film touches on something that Spielberg and Abrams’ have both covered in their previous work: Strained family relationships revolving around the father.   After the death of Mrs. Lamb, Joe and Jackson can’t see eye to eye on a lot of things, including Joe’s fascination with Alice due to the fact Alice’s dad was indirectly responsible for the death of Mrs. Lamb, or so Jackson believes.  Alice’s relationship with her father is also severely strained from the effects of alcoholism and guilt.

With that in mind, though, the main point of the film, at least in my opinion, comes through.  The whole film is about letting go and moving forward.  Joe clutches a locket that belonged to his mother for the whole film.  Jackson blames Alice’s dad for the accident, thus banning Joe from seeing Alice.  Even the creature has these same issues.  He can’t let go of what’s been done to him, and the government literally can’t let him go to live in piece.  I don’t want to say too much about the creature as the film is not so much about a pissed off alien causing havoc, but it’s about an incredibly strange situation in the most normal of towns.  The attention to detail, the characterization, especially the kids acting like normal kids, and the atmosphere presented gives you that feeling throughout the film.  The actions of the creature serve as the catalyst for all our characters to make the necessary decisions about letting go and moving forward.

On a personal note, I did rather enjoy the interaction shown between the children in the film.  As mentioned before, they act and talk like normal kids meaning they curse, insult each other, and constantly try to one up each other.  Some will definitely see shades of the dynamic shown in “The Goonies”, well, at least I did.  Goonies never say die.

The film is not without faults as it does lose steam during the last act, but it’s a small criticism.  We’re still dealing with a summer film that has a lot of heart and intelligence behind it, and that’s a rarity this time of the year.  Do yourself a favor and go see this one.  I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Let’s leave aside the obvious (who would choose to work for James McAvoy over Kevin Bacon??) and focus on the necessary: badass people with bad dialogue and awesome powers!

I love these movies – from the Marvel flipping comic page logo to the last lame sweep-shot. They have their faults. More than goofy dialogue (“Mutant, and proud!”) but also in areas that could have easily been fixed if someone would take five minutes to review the material. Like – Sebastian Shaw speaks all these languages, and is presumably German, but he speaks as if he’s from Ohio. Or, why is Moira the only person in most scenes not in period dress? My most obnoxious complaint, for the millionth time: why the blip does Dr. X’s chair look like that?! I know, later on in the saga, sure, get yourself a fancy set of wheels. But initially? You might as well make it out of plexi-glass, fill it with gold fish, and blame it on the times.
Obviously it’s a bit obscene to expect some type of realism from a comic book film. The plot, afterall, does focus on a new (to my knowledge) explanation of a world event. Still, I’ve got my standards, and one of them is the idea that fans deserve to be treated like they have some cinematic sense, even if they don’t know it. These nit-picks aside, the movie mainly falls prey to the flaws of most origin stories — too much jumping around to cover all the bases, too much attention to explaining things that can respectfully be taken for granted. A lot of this gets back to giving credit to your fanbase. I’m not suggesting film makers should act like the movie is a giant inside joke and everyone not in the know can just flip off. A little a mystery is a good thing and, when used right, can spark desire to investigate deeper from those unfamiliar while providing a fun treat for long termers. It’s all about balance, a space between bottomless insider references and walking the viewer through like a newly toddled child.
In the end, these are more complaints for the genre at large than this particular flick. I’m not a reader of the books so it was fun to learn new things, while also enjoying little gifts for those who’ve seen the other films. It’s fun, it’s exciting, and I can’t wait for the next one (hurry, hurry, hurry).

Can’t finish without saying a word about the wicked performance by Nicholas Hoult, portraying my own favorite X-Men character (who I shamefully didn’t recognize initially). His subtlety as an actor continues to astonish me, I hope they keep him on for the next film (seriously, there better be another film, and soon). In the meantime, I’ve moved the other X-Men flicks to the top of my Netflix queue, if only to enjoy how Holt’s characters make-up SHOULD have looked.

Popularity: 16% [?]

While there has been considerable acknowledgement that this is a potential game changer for women in comedy, the frequent description of this as the “female Hangover” risks undoing the gravity of this potential progress. Aside from raunch and a wedding I fail to see the correlation. This movie is about what it means to be a woman. When it comes to this exploration, we normally don’t get beyond body issues featuring characters who normally weigh in at a stick and a half, and accepting single hood so that you can finally end up with an awesome man. What we have here is the crisis that is expectation, the whole package of what are women are supposed to be. And all this is not simply an issue of the big bad studios not willing to tak e a chance on material like this (though if you have time I could speech a treatise about the way particular points in cinematic history have fueled our present situation). Scapegoating the media is a pathetic cop-out. To paraphrase Lewis Black, media isn’t a bunch of robots running around and doing shit, it’s people. We can argue all day over how the percentages work out, but the fact remains that society and “the media” feed off of each other, not one inflicting itself on the other without mercy.

The most potent element of this film is the acknowledgement of female sexuality which normaly is not depicted beyond an ability to fulfill male desire. Though Kristen Wiig is the central figure, when it comes to figuring out the balance of how large a part a man should play in ones life, it’s Melissa McCarthy who really shines. The way she’s portrayed in the trailer seems to peg her as the pathetic comic relief like Zach Galifinakis in “Hangover” (keeping with that obnoxious comparison). Instead, she has a brutal confidence that we should all be so lucky to possess. To compare with other conventions: she’s not fat best friend, not butch comic relief, and most importantly, is not the chubby girl who somehow finds a man who can see past her awful appearance. She is in CONTROL and remains unshaken throughout the film, not in an attempt to show that beauty is magically on the inside, but showing that beauty, and awesomeness, simply is as is.

Finally, to touch on the claims made by some tv spots, though guys will probably enjoy this film, I venture that this isn’t a flick “finally enjoyable to both men and women!” Personally, I relished the occassional discomfort of the guys in the audience at the sneak preview. The humor can be exclusive at times, but that’s what a “woman’s film” should be — targeted to the people it’s about, not two-dimensional and obnoxious, and not agony for those of the opposite sex (aside from a few jokes and again, that was brilliant).

Popularity: 12% [?]

Folks — not only was the Goslabi Challenge a huge hit, but looks like the Well That’s Cool fundraising total has come to $3,397.70!!!

Big thanks again to all our sponsors, to all of you who put in your pennies, Little Willies, the Deadfingers, Uri and the Howlies.  So, uh, when we doing this again?

Popularity: 13% [?]

Wellthatscool.com is proud to host “Tuscaloosa Abides: A celebration of all things Lebowski” Friday, Feb. 11th at the Historic Bama Theatre.
The celebration of all things Lebowski  will feature, a listening of the soundtrack, Wii bowling, White Russian specials and and a costume contest hosted by Mamma Dixie from the The Pink Box Burlesque.
Not to mention – The Big Lebowski on the big screen! Dude,  this is where you want to be. Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 27% [?]

Showing Feb 1 at the Bama Theatre at 8pm.

As foolish as this film looks in its summary, Marwencol actually quickly reveals itself as an amazingly deep piece tracking the break down and then rebuilding of the human mind.  What’s particularly compelling is that the focus of the narrative is not on the destruction of Mark Hogencamp but on what he does with his life afterward.  His accident is something for the background.  Yes it was traumatic and vital to what came afterward, but it isn’t what defines him.

Most often, documentaries model themselves in the journalistic vein, stating their case in the beginning and establishing evidence as the tale spins forward.  In this piece, the narrative unfolds like an onion or, more appropriately, the way a person unfolds naturally as you get to know them.  Sympathy, therefore, is built not because of pity for a fallen man, but because of a gradual building of understanding.  Like him or not, he is a fascinating figure, committed and creative in ways that go beyond playing with dolls, as we may initially chuckle.

In a larger sense, we can see the possibilities of art as a means to find a new meaning in life, a therapy that goes beyond finger-painting your experiences under observation.  This work has great power, it allows him to reclaim his life, to deal with tragedies, old and new, and even propels him into a new career.  Sharing his work with others, of which he was hesitant at first, even leads him to publicly embrace parts of himself previously hidden away, revealing the heart of his accident and getting to the real core of this man as a human being.

Funny, charming, and deeply moving, Marwencol is worth at least double the admission charge.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Ladies and Gentlemen — the time has finally come!

After a month of fundraising, the Well That’s Cool team will be gathering this Saturday, Jan 29th at Little Willies, eating wasabi for the benefit of Duchene Muscular Dystrophy.  Sad news for the more sadistic among you: turns out we can’t do a spoon for every $50 raised as planned.  We joke, but actually don’t want to send any of our stellar fundraisers to the hospital.  But don’t worry — there’ll be plenty of tummy clutching!

To help us commemorate the event we have the Deadfingers and the Howlies!!!  And, special guests Darius Weems and some of his pals from the documentary that started all this, Darius Goes West.

Still haven’t seen the flick?  Why not come by Canterbury Chapel (corner of Hackberry and University – don’t be afraid, you sweet heathens) this Thursday at 7pm?  No admission charged, donations (as always) heartily welcomed.  Or you can check out our review at http://wellthatscool.com/darius/

Saturday’s festivities start at 8pm, $2 at the door going toward the cause.  Can’t wait to see you there!

Popularity: 12% [?]

Once, down at the Pub, I was introduced to a group of film students because, with good intentions but limited understanding, people see me and think, “here are some film people, you should talk to them!”  Quite quickly I ran into my expected issue in these situations, “I actually make films, mainly documentary.”

Judge me as you will – I don’t like documentary.  I like narrative, I like thematic struggle and development and what have you, I’ve learned about the docu form, I find it interesting, but I don’t want to sit and watch something that runs more than thirty minutes.  Not wanting to annihilate the attempt at small talk, I admitted that I didn’t watch documentaries much but mentioned a few I greatly enjoyed (I know The Kid Stays in the Picture was one, can’t remember what else).  His response?  A cold hearted, “Oh, yeah, those are very cinematic.”  My response?  “Go suck down another overpriced beer, you pretentious bleep.”(editors note these people are also known as pretentious asshats)

Okay, not really.  I blow at confrontation, so really it was just an awkward grin, let him talk a while, then slipped away which offered no protest because, well, I was just an ignorant movie watcher, not to be taken seriously by these high brow production types.

Here’s the point of this wayward story: how do you judge, critique, analyze (whatever you want to dub it), a film that is part of a genre you normally despise?  Or, in a milder sense, find pretty boring.  Answer: very delicately, trying to balance as much open-mindedness as you can handle without letting your brain fall out, and, in my case, searching for the “cinematic” (you, buddy, can bite me).

I went to the screening of Darius Goes West with average timidity.  Didn’t know anything about it beyond what the poster looked like and that our department was sponsoring it, which I find serves me best for non-fiction films.  Meeting the director lowered my already nonexistent hopes.  He was a good friend of the guy who was the subject of the film.  He and his buddies had never made a film before.  Never taken a class.  Trial and error, raising money in the community, and so on.

Without sounding too sappy, I say: imagine my shock.  Aside from staying engaged in the story, I wanted to grab the director/editor afterward and shout, “holy crap man, this is what you do without training?!  Screw this raising money for medical research thing (okay, not really, it’s good work, this was just initial passionate response) and make more movies (I’ve, uh, got several script outlines at home if you’re looking for inspiration).”  Don’t get me wrong, this was no work of explicit technical genius, but it did clearly show someone who, despite not having formal training or experience, did have a keen eye for what he was doing.  Marveling at that helped the viewing.  Bolstering this technical aspect was the fact that the movie didn’t pity its subject (a young man with muscular dystrophy on a road trip across the nation with the hope to get his wheel chair pimped by MTV). More importantly, they makers didn’t draw attention to this lack of pity as so so so many films about medical issues do.  I.e., look at us, we see him as simply a regular person, aren’t we wonderful?  No, not at all.  There were a few scenes speaking with researchers, disability advocates, and families who have experienced the disease, but this acted merely as greater conditional context.  The main focus remains a fellow and his crew motoring across the nation, and that’s plenty.

Only poor point: loose the sappy keyboard tracks.  But really, that’s just a small element of beginner’s-schmuck. (editors note. This movie really touched us here at wellthatscool.com and if you’d like to borrow a copy just email us at wellthatscool(at)gmail . we have several copies)

—Dosty Glory

Popularity: 9% [?]

Telling the story of George Hardy, one of the stars of Troll 2, the sequel to nothing, with not a troll in sight (“we called them Goblins”), this is a documentary that probably entertains more than the mo

vie it references.  The film uses Hardy’s participation in the project, filmed twenty years ago when he was working as a new dentist in Utah, as a jumping point to explore the affection that a surprisingly large group of people have for this odd, straight to video, piece of cinematic history.  The viewer is able to go with George as he discovers the depth of the fandom that surrounds this work, from annual viewing parties to film inspired games and a couple who sculpted their own goblin masks.

Though the film is interspersed with many clips from the movie, the underlying theme is not so much the wonder that is Troll 2, but instead the unique experience that an audience has with any type of movie, even those of the supposedly worst caliber.  George remarked before the documentary began that he considered this project a love letter to Alabama, since it included many snap shots of his town and the people he is close to.  It would be more accurate, I believe, to call this a love letter to the movies.  Such a letter would be too banal if it centered on some outstanding work that was lauded so often that praise becomes another element of white noise, alienating the general public.  By focusing on this movie, we are able to strip away the pomp and circumstance of cinematic classics and see instead the simple, raw way in which a movie can grip on to people, to speak to something in them that doesn’t need fancy scripts, good acting, or even a rational plot.

The director of Troll 2, a swarthy Italian who can barely communicate with his former actors (though apparently his language skills are much better now than they were twenty years ago, a fact that is most likely the reasoning behind each bizarrely performed scene), is at times a comic figure, and not comic by his own desire.  He does not see his film as bad in any way.  He honestly believes that what he made is a genuine portrait of the American family, a deep look into the things that threaten togetherness in the modern age.  And, from the perspective of his wife and the film’s writer, the inherent evils of vegetarianism.  As I said, this seriousness puts him in a comical position since even the deepest fans comment on the horrible state of his work.  In the end, however, his foolish stance is vindicated as he explains that the heart of movies is how they reach the heart of the viewer, by whatever method, whatever story, whatever mark of quality the critics put on it.  The fact that the movie garnered so much love, regardless of what the actors may complain about now (these “dogs” as he dubs them), makes it a success, makes it a classic.  This is the signature of the cinematic love letter, the summation of what the movie going experience is – sincerity of expression, if not necessarily tantamount skill.

Loftiness aside, it was great fun, with a previous familiarity of Troll 2not required.  The only low point that I saw was in the treatment of Margo Prey, the woman who played the mother in the movie, which made me exceedingly uncomfortable.  I’m not sure what the intention of the filmmakers was, but it seemed that Margo’s life after her appearance in the movie was handled with great jest even though it was clear that she was suffering in some way, though we weren’t privy to what exactly her problem was.  This comic level was acceptable in the overly earnest director, but seemed highly disrespectful with her.  This of course could be a flaw in my own sensibilities.  Such complaint aside, Best Worst Movieis without a doubt one to see.

As for Troll 2…..

Obviously, after learning so much about the behind the scenes work and the adamant following afterward of this film, it is hard to resist seeing it for yourself.  In my case, I have to admit that I had Nilbog overkill fifteen minutes into the film.  It truly is terrible, accented by the fact that you’ve just watched an explanation of the extremely convoluted plot and seen many clips of the most hilarious parts.  Perhaps if I’d waited a few days to follow up I’d be a serious fan too, though more likely is the fact that “bad films” just aren’t my thing.

Two things that can’t go unaddressed when you’re talking about Troll 2: homoeroticism and vegetarianism.  The men are always shirtless, sleeping close together in small spaces, and one boy won’t be accepted by his girlfriend’s family because he “spends too much time with his boys.”  In fact, the only women in this film, aside from the queen of the goblin people and a few zombie-faced goblins, are the mother and the daughter, one of whom we barely see and the other who is flat chested and lifts weights in her bedroom.  The most poignant bit of homoeroticism comes in a seduction scene where the goblin queen “pops corn” with one of the human boys, letting their sexual heat explode the kernels as the two gnaw on an obscenely phallic ear of corn.

The evils of vegetarians are what drive the entire plot.  These evil creatures don’t believe in the consumption of flesh, unless that flesh has been transformed into a chlorophyll-spewing carcass after consuming foaming broth or eating green sandwiches (sorry, should that have been spoiler alerted?).  There’s not much to say about that angle aside from now we finally know how to defeat these leaf eaters.

Thanks for that backpack, Grandpa Seth, we owe you one.

–

“Trust your own instinct.  Your mistakes might as well be your own, instead of someone else’s.”  — Billy Wilder

–Dosty Glory

Popularity: 6% [?]