The Bourne Ultimatium Rocks My World. Film at 11.

Here is one of the year's smartest, energetic films, a ball of fire into a year of action and adventure films that has given us promises without delivering the goods. In a year where The Transformers spins everything into a blender and gives us a smattering of computer graphics and when John McClane can't even utter an F-Bomb in a Die Hard sequel where he's supposed to Yippie Ki Yay, Motherfucker, it's simply wonderful to see a movie as synthetic, appropriately stylized and downright FUN as The Bourne Ultimatium. This is every bit as fresh and exciting as The Bourne Identity and then some.

What makes these films so exciting is that we identify with the character of Jason Bourne, a man who is trying to find himself. He's in an uphill struggle to find identity in his life. In the first film, he lost his memory and was amazed in how his primal instincts would kick in when even he didn't realize it. His slow realization of the Treadstone project with the Central Intelligence Agency led him to the people responsible for his brainwashing and eventual training as a "$30 million dollar killing machine."

In The Bourne Supremacy, he was still battling with his past and the Treadstone project, and several fleeting images of his training were coming back to haunt him. He became more aware of who he is and his surroundings, all the while battling the CIA, the Kremlin and even Eomer from "The Two Towers" chasing him down a freeway tunnel in Moscow.

In Ultimatium, Bourne is finally putting all the pieces together. Clues are starting to become known about how he became who he is now. In the end of the last film, he was given the name David Webb, and in the first chapter of the film he gets classified information from a reporter (Paddy Considine from My Summer of Love, who even in a small part is wonderful.) Clues lead him from Paris to England and even back to Nikki (Julia Stiles), who has had a small part in Bourne's life previously and is more of a main player in the story here.

Bourne is "on the run", but if you watch him carefully you'll see him more walking fast than lifting his feet up and down. He's always on the move, always breaking down the problem and solving it quickly. How he's able to move around surveillance, agents and various bad guys unharmed is part of his training. Credit must also be given to Matt Damon, who flawlessly makes us believe in this character and his physical ability. When Bourne gets in a car crash late in the film, some audience members at my screening scoffed that "Well of COURSE he's okay." I wanted to shout out "Well of course he's okay...he's Jason Bourne. He's built to survive that crash you silly beans!"

Ultimatium is what Roger Ebert would call a "Bruised Forearm" movie, where you're grabbing the arm of the person who is sitting next to you. The film's pace never lets up, giving us nearly two hours of a pure adrenaline rush. But in this particular case, it makes deep and resonating sense, and even though there is so much globe-hopping in the film that you wonder when these characters sleep, it is all told clearly and faithfully by director Paul Greengrass.

In what is quite possibly one of the best action sequences I have EVER seen, we follow Jason, Nikki and an assailant through the streets, alleyways, staircases and rooftops of Morocco. What's amazing about this sequence is how Greengrass and editor Christopher Rouse are able to carefully cut and blend these three elements in such a way that we're completely in control and keeping in touch with all the perspectives of the hunter, the hunted and the guy you better not mess with.

I was so energized and so "there" with the film that I kept bumping the arm of the gentlemen sitting next to me at a screening of the film, and he did just the same. I think the key is in Greengrass' and cinematographer Oliver Wood's terrific use of hand held photography; while many people have complained about the "shaky cam" and the unsteadiness of the image, I think it's absolutely essential to the story. When Bourne is running, so should we.

Is "The Bourne Ultimatum" the best of the Bourne series? Possibly. There are elements of this film that I admired the most, which is the same way I feel about "The Bourne Identity". I still recall seeing that film in 2002 and breathing a sigh of relief at the film's end credits, happy to discover that we're still getting well-made espionage thrillers in a sea of remakes and sequels. That a sequel in 2007 that can perform with just as much high octane energy and adrenaline is a delight to behold.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Oh, and I want to apologize to anyone out there who reads this blog on a regular basis. VERY sorry for the lack of updates lately. I've been a bit exhausted, not feeling well, working on other writing projects and also, I'll admit, procrastinating. If you've read this blog before, my thanks, and I'm hoping to return full time soon. -- JW

Once is a freaking masterpiece. Film at 11.

a
So rarely these days when at the cinema do I find myself transported directly into the screen, unaware of my theatrical surroundings. This is a feeling that home video can rarely, if ever, duplicate and I'm forever thankful of the theatrical experience, so we can see films like Once every now and then.

Watching Once, I disappeared into the moment. This is a beautiful film about love that transpires through music and the musicians that communicate their feelings through it. A man (Glen Hansard) is singing some soulful music on the sreet when he meets a woman (Marketa Irglova). They talk and connect. She finds out he fixes vaccum cleaners on his day-to-day, she's married (but only 18 years old) and they both share a passion for music.

In quite possibly the most beautiful moment I have witnessed in a motion picture this year, we watch our two lead characters as they get to know each other in a music shop. One of the many right notes is how director John Carney gets both participants to sing the song "Falling Slowly". In a lesser movie, these two would just start singing in perfect harmony, but the man teaching her the song slowly brings her in, teaches her the notes and then try out the song.

The shots last forever, the framing is loose but simultaneously concentrated and the lyrics speak so deeply about the connection that is about to happen. I felt a small tear dash down my cheek as the two of them ever-so-lightly looked at one another, although Carney didn't linger on those moments. These are the kind of scenes you show people when asked why you love film so much.

These two are connected at this point in each of their lives where they are about to take a next step. For the man, he has deep musical talent and needs to go to London. For the woman, she has a past that she decides to live up to. What's great about the film is that it deals with these problems honestly and the film's finale is unexpected and deeply moving.

Once left Victoria recently but is rumored to be picked up at the Star Cinema and Cinecenta, and I'm hoping anyone out there reading this takes interest in this lovely and unique film.

Also, La Vie en Rose is a mess. A glorious and beautiful mess of a motion picture. This is a good thing, since the life story of Edith Piaf is one of illness, drugs, madness and triumph, and not all in that order. Since Piaf is so all over the map in her life, director Olivier Dahan has told the story in this manner, jumping to and from her childhood, young adult life and all the way until her ragged out death. The film is playing for one final week at the University Cinemas 4.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

The Top 10 Films of 2007...So Far!

I finally found some free time in my crazy schedule and published my annual mid-year Top 10 on efilmcritic.com. This has been one hell of a great year so far for movies, and I look forward with great eagerness to see what the rest of the year holds in store.

The best films of 2007 so far:

1. Grindhouse
2. The Lives of Others
3. Paris Je T'aime
4. The Wind That Shakes The Barley
5. Knocked Up
6. Bridge to Terabithia
7. Vitus
8. The Lookout
9. Breach
10. Away From Her

Worst films: 1. Because I Said So, 2. Love and Other Dilemmas, 3. Wild Hogs, 4. The Reaping, 5. The Ex.

This list is current until June 15th. I really wanted to showcase Away From Her which is a knockout film from Ms. Sarah Polley. Ratatouille opens on Friday and will give this whole list some shaking up. Not to mention a LOT of press later this week.

Click HERE to read the whole article.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

It's just an AFI list, people.

The folks down at the American Film Institute have updated their "100 Years, 100 Movies" list with a new Top 100 based on critics and filmmakers who have voted for their favorite American films. Citizen Kane has taken the cake, as it has in the past (and should), and all I'm thinking is "What, no GRINDHOUSE?"

Of course I'm kidding. But since people are more drawn to complain rather than to embrace, this list has immediately drawn fire from people who automatically think that since THEIR movie isn't on the AFI list, immediately the list is worthless. "How can they put X movie on there when Y movie is better?" Then along comes someone else going "How can they put Y movie on there when X movie is better?" It reminds me of the Oscars, where everyone suddenly thinks they're the authority on the awards, everyone disagrees and nothing is resolved except for a lot of useless pissing and moaning from people who secretly like to detest film. The act gets old and tired pretty damn quick, and people forget that we all bring our own attitudes towards film. We should be asking ourselves what we love about this medium if all we do is be so cynical.

This reminds me of why I enjoy going to the Vancouver Film Festival every year. No one agrees on anything. "Paris Je T'aime" and "The Lives of Others" were my favorites of VIFF '06, yet you could find as many people who detested it as much as people who adored them. The annual visit to this festival is a powerful reminder to think for yourself and not to let someone "higher" in power sway your opinion. You just think differently than they do. And that's good.

When I saw the AFI list back in 1998, I didn't need to agree with it. What I took from the show was its underlining power: "Hey, here are some good looking films that I need to go check out on DVD!" And I did. And for any aspiring film students or avid filmgoers who are looking to see some better movies in this day and age of Shrek The Third, this can be a great benefit. It is also a benefit to have interviews with established filmmakers, writers, actors and film scholars to give their reasons for why they adored each film.

If anything, the AFI, -- which in itself is a great film institution -- does a lot of good (I have a few friends enrolled there currently), and I think these lists and shows that air on TV are a good thing. If I can offer a critisicm, however, I really feel that the shows should stay as far away from giving away the endings to a lot of the movies being profiled. The clips for Citizen Kane, for example, explains Rosebud and plays the very last shot of the film. Offensive, to say the least.

For wit, here is my personal Top 10 Favorites of All Time and how they stack up on the AFI list:

#1. Apocalypse Now - AFI #30
#2. 2001: A Space Odyssey - AFI #15
#3. The Apartment - AFI #80
#4. Stop Making Sense - N/A
#5. Woodstock - N/A
#6. Grave of the Fireflies - N/A, since it is a foreign film
#7. Network - AFI #64
#8. Grand Illusion - N/A, since it is a foreign film
#9. The Godfather Part II - AFI #32
#10. Magnolia - N/A

Haven't seen any of those? Well, start renting some DVD's!

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Ratatouille is a freaking masterpiece. Film at 11.

Ratatouille is a freaking masterpiece.

I have just returned from seeing yet another Pixar film that has leapt off the screen and into my heart. This is the kind of gem that its production company, Pixar Films, is known to deliver, but there's something wonderfully fascinating about a rat that can communicate his love for life through the love of cooking. It comes as no surprise that it comes from one of our best storytellers, Brad Bird, who is a bit animated himself. Here is not just a great piece of animation, but also one of the best films of the year.

Remy, who sounds a bit like Paul Giamatti (but is instead wonderfully voiced by Patton Oswalt) loves to cook. He adores the creation of food and the serving of it, as we first witness with Patton and friends outside of a small house in the french country. When Remy is washed away into a sewer, he comes across a famous restaurant in Paris that takes pride in its all-important star rating.

Quickly, Remy is hooked. He wants to cook. But what is a rat to do? Simple: he will befriend Linguini (voice of Lou Romano), the "garbage boy" who is vulnerable and doesn't want to get into any trouble. Remy eventually befriends Linguini and convinces him that he can cook, so the two bring together a plan: Remy will provide all the work by staying on Linguini's body, while Linguini does all the show.

Ratatouille is two-fold: it is about the love of food and the creation of it, but it is also about someone who fights to do what he loves despite adversity. In this case, Remy is a rodent, he knows this and accepts that he is not human. But that does not stop him from forging a relationship with a human, who himself wants more out of life than what he has. Remy and Linguini's stories are fairly parallel, and their interplay as they each fault and stumble through the film is fascinating to watch.

These themes are brought carefully by Brad Bird, who with his team of animators and storytellers use sublety and careful storytelling to their advantage; it reminds me of the storytelling of Hayao Miyazaki, who is known for accurately balancing his characters and their situations instead of trying to wow us with computer animation. Mr. Bird is no exception; his 1999 film "The Iron Giant" is one of the best animated films of all time, and his 2004 film "The Incredibles" is a joy that will last generations.

Ratatouille may be his best work, however, as he is at the top of his game in how he tells this story. Nearly the entire film takes place in the restaurant, especially the kitchen, where Remy belongs. Mr. Bird reveals things slowly, taking his time to let us savor the experience, much like a good meal. I don't want to reveal much of the film's final act, which was something I was not expecting, and was blown away at Bird's audacity at how far he takes it. It brings everything to such an emotional high that I floated out of the cinema happy as a clam, and I'm still on cloud nine as I write this.

Which reminds me of a point that I have made time and again: animation is supposed to look animated. During the end credits for Ratatouille, there is a statement that guarantees that no motion capture has been used to animate any of the film whatsoever. This is a curious remark, as motion capture can be wonderful in its own right (see "Monster House") but Pixar's approach to storytelling is to take you out of the bounds of reality and let you loose into their own world. And there's nothing quite like it.

Ratatouille is a glorious entertainment, the kind of animated film that we should be seeing more often. It is a film for everyone, not just kids or the parents that accompany, but for every man, woman and child who loves a great story and the filmmaking that goes with it. This year has been a three-knockout punch for the mouse house known as Walt Disney Pictures; with Ratatouille, Bridge to Terabithia and Meet The Robinsons all stellar films, I have no doubt that we will be seeing great things in the future. Disney just isn't a cool new logo; with new people in charge of their filmed entertainment division (including Pixar head honcho himself, John Lassiter), they are quickly earning back their reign as the best in their game.

****

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Grindhouse should have had an intermission.

Before the freakin' SIXTH time (I'm addicted) I was about to sit down and partake in the Rodriguez and Tarantino Double Feature (this time at UVIC Cinecenta), a staffer at the cinema approached the audience and told us that there would be a brief, two minute break in-between the shows, as they wound Planet Terror and Death Proof onto separate platters. "Cool", I said to a nearby filmgoer as we chatted briefly about what we were going to see.

Planet Terror came and went as per usual, and what was interesting was how the projectionist simply let the film tail out of the projector, letting every last frame of film dance through the projector. For the kind of scratched, banged up film this was, it was kind of a cool effect. (Not only that, the "faded white stock" that was seen in-between all the trailers at the start of PT was repeated at the end of reel 6, but it's been cut out of every print I've seen to date.)

Only about two or three minutes passed as I again talked to the nearby filmgoer, adjusted in my seat and stretched. A few people got up and made a quick run for the bathroom and made it back. To help matters, Cinecenta was smart enough to attach a trailer for one of their upcoming movies before the "Fake trailers" and DP began.

None of this would be worth mentioning if not for the fact that the audience participation was dramatically improved because of this. The few minutes of breathing room gave them a bit more time to adjust and they sat through the dialogue sequences with nary a twitch. And those final, insane twenty minutes of Zoe the Cat going nuts on Stuntman Mike drew applause and cheers (mostly from myself) much more so than my previous screenings.

This is my only minor criticism of the otherwise miraculous Grindhouse experience: there's no intermission and there should have been. All 12 reels have been ordered by the filmmakers and studio to play out straight, forcing anyone who chooses to hit the commode to go at the "fake previews" and miss half of them. And there's no cool down from PT, either, which is unfortunate. For exhibitors, this could be a godsend for anyone who wants to hit up some refills at the concession stand.

I'm not saying that ALL longer films should have an intermission; Magnolia needs you to hold on for those 189 minutes, for example. But since double bills in these old Grindhouses gave you a quick break to pee and load up on goodies, they should have figured out a way to include a five minute rolling stock clip ("Let's all go to the lobby!") or split the film onto different platters, as this cinema did tonight. The quick break made the film even better than it already was.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Hey Mickey!

From now on, I think that every G, PG or family oriented film should have an animated short before the feature begins.

I was at the Roxy (an improving grindhouse in the Victoria area) tonight for a screening of Meet The Robinsons and was treated to the delightful, fully restored 1938 Mickey Mouse short Boat Builders, featuring Mickey's friends Donald, Goofy and Minnie. They're all together to build a cute little boat that seems to be made out of sticks, and they quickly learn that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

It was quite interesting to see the short attached to a computer animated, whiz-bang feature that sees the future as if the film is set in 1954. I found "Robinsons" to be a delight; it is somewhat of a return to Disney's charm and apt storytelling that sort of lost itself when Pixar came to the game over a decade ago. With this and Bridge to Terabithia, I am now pleased to see the Walt Disney logo before a family picture. This is both suitable for children as well as adults, with or without child accompaniment.

As for Boat Builders, I am pleased that Disney went back into their vaults and fully restored the short back to its three-strip technicolor origin and remastered the sound. I was blown away by not only the entertaining short but the fact a studio would add this to their new film to complete the moviegoing experience. Disney does do this on occasion with their features, but I do feel that they should be doing this much, much more often.

And other studios dealing with animation could join the concept: Warner can run a Looney Tunes before a Harry Potter flick, for example. And for those that don't have a past in animation (Dreamworks), how about creating a short film to run before your feature starts? In a time where attendance is going down and exhibitors are trying to get people back to watch movies in a cinema, here is a good start.

Jason

efilmcritic.com

The BATMAX Experience!

When I first heard that Christopher Nolan was taking on the Batman franchise a couple of years ago, I was blown away. Batman is my favorite comic book character and I enjoyed the movies -- but didn't adore them -- and it was about time that someone made a REAL film on the Dark Knight. Nolan succeeded in 2005 and Batman Begins was #5 on my list of that year's best films.

The wait for the upcoming The Dark Knight is already a long one, especially after seeing recent glimpses of Heath Ledger easily fitting into the shoes of The Joker. Nolan clearly knows what he's doing, so I have total faith in this film. And now it's getting even bigger.

Scott Bowles of USA Today fame has reported that Nolan will be shooting four segments of The Dark Night in the 15-perf, 65mm IMAX format, one of which includes the entrance of the Joker (which now means I should probably avoid all of the trailers for the film which are sure to reveal these).

Since Warner is a big gambler in the IMAX, DMR blow-ups, do we think that a great step has been taken towards, I dunno, shooting an ENTIRE FEATURE FILM THIS WAY? Or at the very least in the Super Panavision 70mm format, which would also allow cinemas to project this superior, stronger film format and allow easier transfers to IMAX/DMR prints?

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Fuckin' A, Stuntman Mike!

As excited as I am about the prospect of getting to see Death Proof on its own in a director's cut, in another way I'm a bit saddened to think that the great version that exists as the better half of the Grindhouse experience may be ignored after this comes out. It won't by me, that's for damn sure.

Thankfully, Mr. Snake Plissken agrees. He's in Cannes promoting the director's cut and isn't too happy with the reaction to the film over here. Here's the news feed from IMDB Pro:

Source: WENN

Kurt Russell has warned U.S. cinemagoers [and Canadian s too!] they will regret not savoring the recent Grindhouse movie because there will never be a cinema experience like it again. The double bill helmed by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez aimed to replicate the grindhouse experience of the 1970s by showing fake trailers between the two movies - but the films will be released separately for its European theatrical release after a poor showing at the U.S. box office earlier this year. And Russell, who starred in Tarantino's installment Death Proof, is saddened by the audience's response. Speaking at Cannes Film Festival, he says, "There will be no movies made in the next five years like Planet Terror and Death Proof. These two movies are going to go off with a life of their own, but my prediction is that 20 years from now, you'll want the Grindhouse experience. You won't want them separately. For the full effect, the other experience is something bizarre that I've never experienced before and I like the short version."

I've seen Grindhouse five times. I'm one happy repeat customer, and will go check out the 192-minute, 12-reeler with all the missing reels, scratch marks and watch Zoe the Cat until I get sick and tired of it all (which is a long way's away). I'm more than positive that the director's cut of Death Proof will be great, but we can't ignore what is already there.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Shrek The Third: Most Useless Film of 2007?

Have you ever go to a party you're invited to and not have a good time? We've all had those parties that we go to and just something isn't right about it. Maybe no one is talking about anything interesting. The booze isn't that good. The only people you know are off entertaining others. So you sit there, bored out of your mind, as everyone else is laughing it up.

It's just like those movies you go to and everyone else around you is yukking it up (kind of like earlier this year where I sat in aghast over an audience full of giggling goofnuts at a pre-screening of Wild Hogs) while you sit there wondering exactly what everyone is laughing at.

I'm just not getting it anymore. I've had it with sequels and cash-grab summer movies. I've had it with audiences lining up to see the same shit over and over again while other good films get the chop. At my local 10-screen megaplex in Victoria, NINE of the screens are devoted to sequels while current "lesser" releases like Waitress, Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont, Paris Je'Taime and Inland Empire (among many others) refuse to even enter the city.

Shrek The Third may go down in my personal history books as the most useless film of 2007. The party where I sat and sulked in the corner. I see no reason for this motion picture to exist other than to rake in an insane amount of money and try to debunk Spider-Man 3's opening weekend. "Will it make more money?", "Will it enter the highest grossing films ever?", "Will that Antonio Banderas cat make the sad eyes again?" (I'll save you $10, he does) are the questions being asked to me by many at work and prior to last night's screening I attended. Who flippin' cares? We're just turning the gears...

Which is not to say that Shrek The Third is downright awful...well, okay, yeah it is. I will admit that I laughed on a few occasions, one in particular where a tricked-out Snow White sings a song directly used from the original classic film. And guess what...no one else laughed.

Why couldn't have a filmmaker used that joke in a completely new film, a new concept? A spinoff movie for the Snow White character, perhaps? Why is it that we have to sequel the crap out of something just to get people out to watch it? The demand for more comedies and less action films in the past few years has worked, but why not the sequels? Why aren't people voting against this by not spending their dollar?

Do people really think that all they want is to see the exact same film, over and over again? It reminds me of that classic Simpsons episode where a new Malibu Stacy doll is brought out onto the market with a new hat. Lisa is quick to point out that it's the exact same Malibu Stacy but just with a hat on it. To which Smithers retorts "But...she has a new hat!" as the exact same Stacy's fly off the shelf.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

When Teenagers Took Over: The IMDB Forums

I'm a subscriber to IMDB Pro, just because it's easier to get around and it has industry contacts. It helps out when I'm covering film festivals, and it's pretty reasonable for a one year subscription. And yet there's just one element of it that exists in both the Pro and regular versions that just irks me...those bloody message forums.

If you've never visited the forums at IMDB...don't. It's basically an endless amount of teenagers and young adults running around to various movie and actor pages giving ignorant, uninformed opinions about the movies that they saw. Many claim to think they are true film fans yet only go see about 5-10 films a year, all of them major blockbuster flicks and seem to be obsessed with box office numbers. It pretty much goes like this:

SuperDisturbiaFan6969: OMG! I saw, like, Disturbia and it was like SO scary i like screamed out soooo much it wasn't funny
AntiMovieLover: you suck it wasn't scary ripoff of rear window ur gay
SuperDisturbiaFan6969: omg beep you i like scared out of pants mmm cookie

I'm sorry, you're not a real fan of film if all you do is come on and whine about how much something "sucked" or all you care about is if Shrek The Third will beat Spider-Man 3 in the box office. I suppose because the place is so under-moderated that all of this garbage is permitted.

A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon the movie page for Disturbia. I was adding the film to my 2007 Film List and needed a reminder on who the cinematographer was. I don't know why, but I then clicked on the message forum (probably to laugh at the teenagers who liked the film, I suppose) and not only found the same run-of-the-mill, but I also found a few threads on people who had seen the film out of frame and were seeing those "boom microphones" in the frame. "Simple framing error," I thought, "I'll explain it to them and provide a link!"

It's a basic thing, people: depending on how a film was shot, if the film showed a boom microphone or any other piece of camera equipment, the film was run out of frame in the film's projector. I wrote about this and posted a link to a British DVD/filmmaking page that proved everything I said was correct. Yet as much as I tried to explain this, absolutely no one listened and continued to blame the editors and the filmmakers for this "stupid goof", even though editing and filmmaking has nothing to do with it. The projectionist framed the film wrong. This is a FACT, and yet still no one listened.

What is going on here? Since when was someone coming along and TRYING to help understand a situation slammed down on a message forum? Then I realized that with so many people running amok here, threads get bogged down by other, more important threads, and since people have so much to track, they're spending less time about thinking before posting. Either that or they're so in love with their own opinions that they won't let anyone else's in. If that's the case, then why are they even there?

I used to run a message forum for actress Julia Stiles and 3/4 of the battle was closing all the redundant topic headers, booting stalkers and desperately trying to keep people on the topic of conversation. It was a horrible job at times, but nowhere near the scum and awfulness of this place.

If there was a way you set up the forum filter to delete anyone's post under the age of, let's say, 16 or 17, then I'm all for it. Either way, it's time for a change, to either moderate the lousy talk-back of this great website, or get rid of it altogether.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Why telling the manager about bad moviegoing experience is sometimes a good thing.

I have this weird addiction to watching the end credits of a movie. I'm weird, or so I've been told. I suppose it's part of my life dedication to watching motion pictures, or that I'm a film critic, or I love listening to the music, or what the film was photographed on...it goes on and on. On my weekly jaunts to the cinema, I also usually have time to do this before I catch my commuter ride home.

It's not a popular opinion, as the current majority of people get up and run out of the cinema as soon as the first credit hits the screen, although I once dated a girl who was also an end credit stickler, so there's a few non-critic folk who also support it (and the fact she works 7 days a week is the reason we're not dating anymore, but that's another story).

The reason I bring this up is because here I was at the Saturday evening showing of the IMAX version of "Happy Feet" at the National Geographic IMAX theatre in Victoria, BC. Sweet theatre, has one of the largest 'max screens I've come across and they do things pretty much on the right side. You can also buy an annual pass for $39 here which takes care of your 'max viewing pretty nicely every year.

So here I am, watching the closing credits for the Happy Feet, killing time before a bus ride home and having a chat with some nearby credit watchers as the credits progressed. The film was on a busy and late schedule, and there was a next show scheduled for just a few minutes afterwards, but the show still had to end.

While the long and Cinerama-style credits for the Feet were on screen, a staffer approached me and asked me if I was staying for the next show. I responded "no" and the folks next to me said the same, to which he then says "Okay well I need you all to exit the theater as quickly as possible for the next show" as he quickly runs to clean up the place for the next show. "No big deal," I thought, "As soon as we're done watching these credits I'm outta here." I still had 20 minutes to kill before walking a block to catch my bus anyway, so five minutes less in the cold works for me.

A minute or two pass, and then the same staffer approaches us and in a strongly aggressive tone, goes "FOR THE SECOND TIME, if you are NOT staying for the next show, please LEAVE immediately through the exit doors." which basically meant that to them, the end of the movie was when "Directed by George Miller" appeared on screen. "I'm watching the credits, I will leave as soon as they're done," I said, to which the staffer somewhat frantically (and carelessly) goes "I'm sorry, but we need everyone to leave so we can get the next show in. We're behind on our schedule". "I don't care", I said, "I'm watching the credits. I paid my ticket price which includes the right to watch them. Back off." The man was still persistent and distracting me, so I finally turned to him and said "Give me a refund. If you're not going to let me stay and finish the film, I want my money back." Then he said something that I never thought any staff member would say. "Well how do I know you're not sneaking in to see the next show?" The current movie was still running, and the next film was a IMAX short which I had just seen prior to Happy Feet. Also, I have an annual pass which gets me tickets to any show I want, so why would I sneak into a show that's already sold out?

I then asked again for a refund on my ticket, to which he offered to let me speak to a manager, which they always do (and wouldn't have been much help considering they were so busy, behind schedule, which was apparently our fault), and I finally walked away from him as he offered me a pass to see another show. At this point, he thought he had won by pushing me out of the theater, but as soon as his back was turned I and the two other folks stopped in our tracks and watched the final bit of the credits as Robin Williams said "Gracias" before we left the theater.

If you're in the theater business, you know that there's some legal on your contract with the studio that says that anyone who pays to see a movie at your theater has the right to watch the film right up until the final studio logo has appeared on screen. If they turn off the movie or ask you to leave, they're in breach of contract with the studio. It's part of the movie. Some of you might think that this is all silly and why I would even bother, but it's part of a growing trend that I've been seeing in cinemas: staff treat customers like cattle and want them the hell out to convenience them and not their patrons, and there are still people who like to stay, enjoy the experience and talk about the movie with others. You may not agree with it, but it's our right and we're sticking to it.

Anyways, I was pissed. As many know, I'm really supportive of good cinemagoing habits and showmanship, and the fact that someone tried to kick me out of the theater before a movie was over and then accuse me of theater hopping was deeply insulting. The folks I was talking with a moment before were also very angry about this. "We love watching the end credits," the man said. "If they wanted to kick us out, why didn't they just shut off the projector?" as we stood in the corner and watched the end of the creds tail out, still thinking we'd have the jerk staff member come and yell at us again.

And here's what you do instead of talking to a busy manager...instead, go home and find a "Contact us" form on a website or find someone in corporate. Which is exactly what I did. I used the feedback form, sent my message and the general manager responded the next day, profusely apologizing about the situation and assuring me that he would speak to the staff member and have their operations manager talk about these policies with their staff, and even said he would follow up in a few days. I was offered a few passes, but since I only paid a few dollars to attend the screening (you pay a small $3 surcharge if you have a pass) I politely declined. The more important thing is that my complaint got to the right person, and it did, and problemo solved.

There are still people out there who care, even in a day and age where everything moves faster and the moviegoing experience is going by the wayside. The customer isn't always right, but don't let staff members rush you out of the cinema just to serve themselves. You're not cattle.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

The Oscar Nominations are in, so let's start our annual pissing and moaning!

With the Oscar nominations upon us, the next 33 days until the live telecast where Ellen Degeneres will stutter and make crow sounds will be a mind-numbing endeavor. Why, do you ask? It's the time where the entire internet lights up with disapproval, criticism and negativity over the nominations, to the point where I pretty much just leave the moobynet and go watch some new movies. Also having the Victoria Film Festival in two weeks helps as a distraction.

What is bizarro is how people get wrapped up in the prestigous awards and how personal it all gets. Already I've heard people bitch about Little Miss Sunshine getting so many nominations, Dreamgirls not getting a best picture nomination, "Where's Jack?" and "Is that movie Babel really as good as people say?" Suddenly, everyone's a critic, second-guessing the nominations and think they're the authority on the Oscars.

And you know what? It doesn't fucking matter people. The voting members of the academy nominated these people and these are results of the added up numbers, so it's their fault that you didn't get what you wanted. And even if you did, there's a million people who disagree with you and think otherwise, so nobody wins by endlessly bitching.

Last year was probably the worst year of public reaction when Crash won best picture, and all of a sudden the film was a veiled piece of shit that was hated by the general populace. It made Roger Ebert's Best of 2005 list, I gave it a four star rating and it had an extremely high critic count on Rotton Tomatoes, but that didn't stop the hatred because (insert film title here) should have won instead.

So perhaps "The Departed" shouldn't win Best Picture. It's a film I love, yet if it does win there will be some weird public outcry because they thought "The Queen" should have won. Or "Babel." In the end, it doesn't really matter what you think, or what I think. Get over it and enjoy the telecast.

I'll soon be posting my list of favorite performances and technical achivements in this blog. These are who I consider the winners in cinema last year. I don't need the Oscars to tell me that.

Jason
efilmcritic.com

Why are people afraid of subtitles?

Here's a new one for you movie-theatre etiqutte folk:

So a buddy and I are at a Saturday afternoon show of the ridiculously awesome "Pan's Labyrinth" (which I probably shouldn't have seen on the same day as Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima" because too much cinematic awesomeness can overload your circuits) and see that there's a good amount of people in attendance. Translation: people are here to see two hours of a girl in a fantasy world and are disappointed when it turns out that it's set against the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War and there's lots of "above ground" activity in the flick.

But anyway, as the previews unspool and the feature begins with the subtitles on screen, an actual conversation takes place between what I assume is a father and son behind me:

Kid: Is this movie subtitled?
Dad: No, it's dubbed.
Kid: How do you know?
Dad: When they start talking it'll be in english.

And then, the movie begins and they're talking in Spanish. Immediately I thought the two were going to get up and walk out of the theatre, which I have witnessed in the past. What I also didn't get is why the dad dismissively said that the movie was dubbed because that practice hardly EVER happens anymore (remember Pinocchio?) and the advertising, theatre marquee and common sense would tell you that this film is in its original spanish language with english subtitles. I also heard an audible groan come from the back of the theatre where several teenagers were in attendance (was "Stomp The Yard" sold out downstairs?).

I have never understood why people are so against seeing a movie if it's in a foreign language and can read subtitles. You can read this, right? Well then, you can read subtitles. Like anything else, you get used to it and it's not a problem for the rest of your life.

Perhaps it's because I see over 100 movies at the Vancouver International Film Festival every year and over two-thirds of them are subtitled that I question why anyone who can read would have a problem reading subtitles. Still, if you won't see a film because of this, you're an idiot. Think of all the cinematic experience you can have just by reaching out there and not going for the typical megaplex blockbuster, but "nooo, there are like words 'n shit on the screen...somebody find my "Pirates of the Caribbean" DVD dang nabbit!"

I should also mention that KIDS WERE AT THIS SCREENING. For a 14a movie (US folk: that's like your PG-13, but you have to have an adult with you if you're under 14 unlike the "All ages admitted" moniker of the American rating) that is wall to wall with explicit gory violence and violent imagery. But you know, they see a young Spanish girl on the newspaper ad in the foreground and a costumed creature in the background...that can't be bad for kids at all, can it?

Jason
efilmcritic.com