Aperature/Anti-Hero/Sundance/Comic

[Casablanca]

Hello; over the time I have been gone, I have read all of these films and wrote reviews. I am on a vacation now, and just finished reading the last one; just wanted to say two things. A. I will be sure to post the reviews right when I get back tommorow (I actually meant and thought I did post them, but whatever); B. and also, I think I am just going to do it in this one thread, so anything that is currently out; by tommorow (afternoon, but it may be towards nightime, depeding on when I get home) will be here.

[jomo]

Apertures*

Thank you for reading my scripts. I really appreciate it.

[Casablanca]

Well, here is one to "Apertures". I always save things as weird titles (such as "dsgsdg"), so I will post as I find them. When I finally get through all the files, for the ones that are not there, I will just type new ones to. HEre is one, anyways.

“The Apertures”

[/I][/center][/color]

“The Apertures” (which, doing my research, I discovered meant a series of holes in which light can pass) is something of a quasi-mystery, quasi-drama, piece which paints a distinctive portrait of, not only a man, but also a history. Starting off rather singular, the story soon encompasses many tales, all equally as interesting, which concern a sister, a father, a mother, and further. Narratively intriguing, the film adopts a, for the most part, non-linear timeline, as we first see Russ as a married man, and then jump back, and see what made him the person he is. Dealing in part with my favorite topic a film can center around- reflection- it is as complete, fascinating, heartfelt, and exhilarating a character piece as I do believe I have seen on this site- surely the most enigmatic and avant-garde of the lot. It is a wonderful look at redemption in an uncharacteristic form. There is no bombastic hellfire, or the consuming chaos of warfare or violence; but still, it is as exciting a story as those, and with as much action. The difference lies in the fact that here, this action takes place inside of the character’s minds. It takes the time needed to slow down and look at a person as a complicated piece of work- with memories, pains, guilt, and horrors. Furthermore, it is a film that is bound to put many off, scare half the audience away with its meticulous pacing, and send a quarter more of them leaving due to its serious and rather gloomy subject material. Those who stay, though, and lend their minds (as well as emotions), to the film; will experience a film that is more intelligent then the average drama, more moving then the usual character piece, and more enthralling and cinematically exciting then the next action saga.

The film is not a film for those who demand answers; and want every syllable, every minuscule, handed to them with a detailed explanation. No; this is for someone who is okay with being in the dark, for the most part; those who can handle the weaving of a story as more a mosaic, then a tale. Despite this, the film does have something haunting over it, which serves as one of its few flaws, and that is that the opening, and the early, writing seems like it could have been condensed. I do not mean to say any of it is unnecessary, but it feels as though the jumping back and forth really does not give any clear reason for why it is doing so, until you have accepted it; not until the middle, for me. Of course, it pays off magnificently at the end (I mean the talk with Michael, more so then anything else)- but at the start, it seems as though there could have been a way to make it pay off more then it did- or, at least, to make it as interesting as the storylines that involved reality. The surreal writings that appeared, and the (meaningful, I am aware) occurrences that happened, were fascinating until I got them jumbled up. I found myself going back- and while this is fine for a script, I like to imagine things as if on a screen; and in this case, it might be nice if another element was added to the story; maybe more meetings with people from his past early on, besides later. Even a meeting with himself would be fine; I just would have liked some form of communication in those segments. (Another idea could be his sub-conscious narrating)

However, besides all of that, if there were an award for “Newcomer of the Year”, I would give it to this director. Having read his one script so far, “Sanders Vs. Toberts”, I am absolutely sure, without a doubt, that this is not only a man who can write a nice script, but someone who knows how to write “cinematically” more then many, many people do. My mind was flooded with images reading this film; and the way they piece together allow for the reader to conjure up images. It gave the film such a visceral feel, as though we were watching a truly un-pretentious piece of film- there wasn’t anything catering to the audience, nothing tossed in to make the film an easier read- it is something which feels created as a result of its self- not people’s expectations; and this makes it a fearless film. Even from a start, I doubt anyone reading denies that they are in the hands of a radical experimenter who is ready to try new things without warning.

One thing I would like to make note of, though- since it is really one of the film’s strongpoints, is how emotionally satisfying it can all be. The bits involving the dad, especially, are so well crafted, that it feels human to the touch. It is those warm bits of compassion, amid a sea of coldness, obscurity, and ambiguity, that rises the film above any other surrealistic portrait of an individual (as though there were any to compare it to). One scene sticks to mind, as it probably is the best scene in the film; when Russ confronts his father, and coolly rejects him. That, and the sub-plot about Elizabeth’s sadness concerning her mother issues are the two things that really struck a chord, I thought. It was the reminder I wanted (but surely did not need), that while the many rooms, the clocks, the near-empty books were fascinating- this film is, above anything else, an empathetic drama about life, reflection, and how little events (or not-so-little, I suppose) engrain themselves in one’s psyche, and form who they come out to be. Russ’ life story is a tragedy on a grand scale.

Overall, it has been a while since there was a film that I enjoyed so much. I am not necessarily talking about quality alone (though that is a huge degree, as well). I am talking about the bold stance it takes, and the relentless manner it persists and persists to move forward, despite how gloomy things are getting, and how emotionally draining the events of Russ’ life are. It is a truly compelling journey that I would love to take again; as well as further proof that the director here has some real talent (and a hell of variety in him, I tell you!). But still, nothing amazes me more then how I have just witnessed ninety-nine pages of film, and every single minute was dedicated to character and nothing else. That, in my view, is storytelling of a noble power.

[jomo]

I really couldn't ask for a more in-depth review. That you so freakin' much. I'm ecstatic you liked it.

[Casablanca]

No problem Jomo; I remember my initial response, when I read it, as being so excited at how differen tit was; but, at the same time, how it did what any great film does- painted such a vivid image of a lifetime. I like your writing quite a bit.

Found "Sundance", but one of the shorts is missing, but I explained in the review.

“Sundance, I Love You”

[/I][/center][/color]

As an introduction, let me just say that if this was an article, or perhaps an essay for its own separate review; I would label it, “A Criticism of Sundance”. Now, that is not necessarily a stance on the quality of the short, in specific- I will get into that in a second. It is a stance on my opinion of these multi-story projects. I suppose half of me wants to say “disregard this, as it will make me seem biased”, but let me put it straight, I am not a fan of these type of things. I think that, especially when it is concerning a location, such as this, what the original intent is aiming for, is largely missed. Instead, as was the case here, we got a series of films which took very different stances on a city, and did not fulfill I was hoping it would do. But, I will explain more throughout the reviews.

“Electric Ladyland”

The writer and director, Laurie Acker, of the short film “Electric Ladyland”, ends the project with the words, “to my own Lucy”, and throughout the film, I had a feeling as though it was to her, and to nobody else. It is not so much a coherent story as an open-ended inside joke that goes over your head, filled with chalky and ram-shackle rambling, to a point where the whole thing comes off as disjointed, disorderly, and, literally, a mess. Self-contradictory, the characters say one thing, and then back it up with something else- lying about their past for no plausible reason, “yes, I have reservations…no, I don’t”; all of these and more add to one of the most mind-bending conversations I have ever heard, where the characters act as though every sentence they say came fresh out of a blender. Do not get me wrong, either; I was a fan of “Morgan gets a job”, and I am known to like my humor absurd, but this film dropped everything the former had, and tried to ride solely on whatever silliness it can formulate, and that is not nearly enough to propel a film, let alone move it from the runway. Added to two terribly developed characters, and you have a mercifully short few pages which, afterwards, bears striking resemblance to whatever you can find in your garbage- a little of this, a little of that- none of it worth savoring. One of the characters, named Alice, states that when she gets nervous; she says things that are “cringe-worthy”. She must have been very nervous throughout the entire piece, in that case.

I believe Laurie Acker to be a writer with capability and with some potent talent for the absurd; and do still think that. It is perhaps then, tragic, that she chooses a vehicle as such to showcase what I have seen her do prior to this short. There is nothing here that sticks in the mind, and even now, after finishing it, I am dumbstruck as to if I read a short film, or a three-picture long comic strip in the back of free newspaper. If you were ask me the story, I would be struck clueless; if you were to ask me the emotions or ambitions the film had, I would chuckle at you; if you were to ask me what the characters were like, I would begin to talk about utter nonsense, and then, abruptly, end my sentence and spew out whatever twaddle pops into my head first- I would then turn to you, and say, “something like that”.

Structurally, the phrase, “left something to be desired” comes as the understatement of the century. There were scenes, segments, and many moments which I felt could have been cut entirely- and when you are talking about a few-page short, that is bad indeed. For example, a minimalist could declare that Joel’s scenes needn’t be put. They could also argue that anything, with the exception of Alice’s concert and the preceding conversation with Lucy (bar some small moments) could be sliced, diced, and made into compost. If that were the argument, and it came to me, I believe that minimalist could be right.

Overall, after the refreshing blast of ocean-breeze known as “Morgan”, and an unsaid promise for better things to come, this, sadly, was a huge letdown, since it really didn’t say anything. There was nothing to their relationship, nothing to the plot, and nothing to walk away with; not even a chuckle, which, personally, hoped, and expected, to find. But, as I do not believe I have said yet, one must recount that this is, indeed, a short project- a trifle-, and I do hope that, from this talented director, there is more better, and ambitious, things to come in the future.

“Junction”

What we have here is, simply put- a rapturous, beautiful, and moving story that proves great things can be done with the short narrative genre. Daz has created a straightforward account that seems like a fairy tale. It is not a film of great complexity, not one of real depth, and not one of compelling plot; but instead, it focuses all of its energy on the more human aspects, and creates two characters who are as heartfelt lovers as any a full length film can conjure. Mixing elements of the mysterious, and tragic, and the romantic- it has something to appease everybody, and something to make everyone open their heart for the events to unfold. It may be one of the most universal films on the site, since I cannot picture a soul who is not taken away by its gleefully effortless ride. It is an inspiring piece of work that, like a butterfly, floats into the chambers of your heart, and light itself up; creating a warmth. A short film to love, not to analyze- a piece to treasure, not discuss structure. Purely emotional- it is not great writing (well, technically it is- but I hope you follow), it is just great feeling.

Perhaps contradicting myself, though, the way the film is put together is nice indeed. It starts with a rather nice man named Christopher, picking up a shy girl named Zoe; and throughout the film, their places reverse, allowing the film to almost be split into two pieces. In one, we learn the inner turmoil that faces Zoe, Christopher in the next- that is, until an almost tragic turn of events, that, luckily, leads to a final scene that is as dramatic and sentimental as any I have seen. If you did not have tears in your eyes, then by Gosh, you must not have been reading the screen!

As I said earlier, though- this is not a film about plot, it is one about characters, and here is an example of when the story and events do nothing but build those characters, and contribute to the already=present humanity that shines from them. These here are two natural humans. They are the people you see walking the street, driving cars, waiting in grocery lines- in a few short pages, Daz has created people with past lives, predominant fears and guilt; and, more so, a future to contend with. With every conflict, or every tragic reveal; I did not ask; “so, what happened?”, I asked “how will this effect the character’s future, and how will they deal with this issue?”. Especially, Christopher, I believe- is someone I will remember whenever reading Daz’ work. It is the epitome of his power to make emotions, I think. All one needs as evidence is when he goes to Zoe’s parents house and informs them what Zoe truly believes. Again, as above; a scene to wet your eyes (to be precise, drench your eyes).

Going back to what I said in my brief introduction; this is the first short in the bunch (have yet to see the video one), which truly does what each one should in these multi-story projects I do not care for. It handled “Sundance”, not as a literal location, where a story happens in; but as an idea, a subject. Sundance means a lot to both of the characters, and Daz has made a simply fictional place stand as a symbol of regret and turmoil. That, with the exception of the genuine sincerity of the film, is what impressed me most; and also made me realize how pointless these projects can be. Where as you can have many different shorts focus around a common place, it is impossible to instill the same symbolic reference to the city, or to handle it in the correct manner as it should. Of course, one could say; “well, that just shows that everyone is applying their own views to it.” Yes it does that; but I gained nothing from reading these three stories simultaneously (well, viewing one of them). As shown here, the idea of Sundance must take a personal, distinctive, and ambiguous meaning for every character- and no two stories will ever truly compliment each other.

Overall, though; Daz has again raised the bar, by proving to me my ignorance. I was, (I am sure) one of the many, who did not give the short story enough credit; but here, within a length that I never would have believed in, the most extraordinary and noble things happened- a indisputable, authentic, and true fictional account of love and redemption came out of shelter, and moved me incredibly. It is good that this film does not demand a full length review, as what else could I talk about? I am speechless about dialogue (which is excellent), or anything else so technical- as what I walked out of, from this film, was not like that at all. It almost sneered at the cynicism of academic, paint-by-the-numbers storytelling, by balancing itself strictly by sentiment. I cannot give an unbiased opinion of its merit, but what I can do is give testament to how enjoyable it is.

“Orcus”

I am terribly sorry, but this is the only one of the series I have not yet seen, because; as was the case with an earlier film, my video does not work. Tomorrow, I go back to school, though; and I will leave early so I can watch this on a computer. I will add this review tomorrow, then.

[Dale]

dude, words do not comprehend how awesome you are. and how invaluable your insight has been to i'm sure, not just my own work but to a lot of people that have passed through here. you're confidence and kind words (and not to mention metaphors) have always made me want to write better, so i can continue to surprise you. you put so much effort and thought into this reviews and always pick up the little nuances that we as writers so carefully )or heavy handedly in some cases) try to place into our work. you just get it and whilst i can pass comment briefly on how i feel about things, you just absolutely nail it paragraph after paragraph. and i don't think enough people really thank you the way you should be fact.

no idea what brought this little comment on, other than the fact that it's just good to have you around.

[larah]

damn. i got torn a new one. in good news, i won't be writing anything dramatic or romantic ever again XD

but thanks casa, i love you and your reviews, you charming man. sorry for the suckage of electric ladyland and i hope you'll forgive me for that, hard at work on morgan 2 ;D

[Casablanca]

Sorry that this one is coming late, but I had a computer crash. I did post all the reviews I had, though, which is, sadly, less then I hoped. I am going to have to rewrite the ones I did not get to yet, but I should have it done very shortly.

Thanks, Daz - I am glad you liked the review, as I was wondering how my stance would come off that your short was much more emotionally inclined then technically inclined. I had an absolutely wonderful time reading it, though- however, I could have told you that early on, as you must be one of the most humanist directors on the site, you always make such great, great characters. Not to mention, one of the few writers who can bring tears to my eyes with some writing.

And, no problem larah- it was interesting to read, anyways. Look forward to what you are writing now.

Also, I am terribly sorry to whom it concerns, but I didn’t get that video done yet. I have so little time at school (a lot less then I thought), and I will get to it as soon as possible. Just hard for me to do videos and not scripts (which I can print off and read on the bus ride to college.))

“The Definition of Anti-Hero”

[/color][/I]

It has gotten to the point, I suspect, where any discussion of a film by Braedon Kay must begin with its maker. This director (as I suspected with “Apertures”, and was proved correct here) is, for my money, the most diverse on the market. He has done drama in an innovative and bleak manner; entertainment on an innocent and refreshing scale; and now, he has attempted a fusion of adventure and comedy- in guise of a superhero actioner- perhaps his weakest film, as of now- but still an enjoyable motion picture with a few elements which rise higher then the average “comic” story. It is a film served well by its subplots, which, despite all expectation, always churn out an interesting twist on the central focus- it really gives the film a fluid sense of continuity; and not nearly as choppy as this movie should be. It does have its issues though, particularly in the first half, where it feels as though the director is trying categorize his film somewhere. Even when it picks itself up in the later bits, there remains a bit of “fanfare-itis”, but it is nothing a nice story, well-done characters, and fascinating themes cannot overshadow.

One thing that I did take note of, when reading; is that this film despite how fluid I mentioned it of being, is really a film that gets better as it progresses. It starts off with a tap and turns into a stomp- when we open up, it is not really clear where the film is heading, and, for a while, seems like a simple parody. It is not until a few plot changes occur, and a few new characters are introduced, does the film really get a handle on the situation, and turn into a pretty appealing concept. The introduction of Donovan, especially, was the first turning point of the movie, as it gave a delightful factor of suspense and mystery to a, as of that point, one-note film. From there on, whether it is the idea of bringing in a girl named Alyx, superheroes battling to fill a replacement, or a struggle for recognition- the film managed to create layer after layer of events to unfold, and turned an otherwise flat story into something more special; and, maybe, my favorite of the superhero parodies I have seen (granted, there have only been a few).

To begin with the characters, however, while they may not be a masterstroke in depth, there is no doubt they fill their purpose. Brandon, the major character, for example, is the epitome of the term “loser”. You take that type of personality that is joked about so often, the lazy, weak, want-to-be superhero, middle aged man- and I bet no film has done that role better. This is the one screenplay that actually develops that, usually one-dimensional, caricature; and, what is even more then that, makes him feel noble. I like to think of this film, not as an adventure tale, but a story about bringing oneself to do something for the sheer knowledge that it is the “right” thing to do. You have these characters working at a dead end job, not doing anything with their lives- and through the coarse of the film, they come to disregard all hope of fame and glory- and instead, only focus on what they feel morally obliged to do. In this aspect, the story is a nice tale, with a message. A simple fable that brings up an age-old notion.

The dialogue here is all very fitting. It moves the story, for the most part, and adds in a type of humor aimed at the type of people who would, predominately, be interested in this film. I cannot define it better then o say- if this story suits you, then its writing should suit just as well. The only problem I had with it, and perhaps the one real flaw with “Sanders Vs. Toberts”, is, what I often call, “fanfare dialogue”. What this can be defined as, are those long conversations which delve on unimportant matters for the sake of either lightening the film’s atmosphere, adding a fun conversation, or giving a nod to the clichés of the genre. These types of exchanges are everywhere, and not always just in comedies- but I do take notice when I see them. Brandon and Calvin, in this film, for example, occasionally have a series of long conversations that, at times, feel expanded, and trivial- doing nothing for the film, except giving it a jolt of enjoyment and letting the characters ramble about whatever they may be thinking at that moment. Especially when we are introduced to the best elements of the film, the question over if or if not Donovan is the supervillian they think he is- all of the mingling sometimes slows down what could be a concise thriller (of sorts, naturally). With that rare exception, though, the dialogue really does fit in the other films by this director as a nice mixture of wit and charm, intelligence and a down-to-earth frank realism (as good as it is, though, it is the spinning of stories, and the multiple sub-plots which this director does best.)

Another thing, besides what was just mentioned above, this director really succeeds in, is the combination of well-played structure, and a free-form leisure. All of his films have this uncanny sense of unconventional, for lack of a better word, quirkiness- but despite this, they all have a very nice structure that holds them together, cinematically. “Apertures” was an innovative, non-linear piece of reflection; “Sanders” was a nice story that grew wider and wider with each passing scene; and this film is one that branches out to feature more and more ideas and events throughout. This director really can be quite cinematic, I believe! He may not always do a flawless scene after a flawless scene (though “Apertures” was one the best viewings I have had since the Reelies), but he sure knows what makes a film, and what the audience wants to see.

One final note, before I come to an end; I would like to reiterate the idea stated earlier, at how this film seemed to expand with more and more subplots as pages flew by. Coming rapid-fire after another, and not always at the ending of the one prior; the film kept a consistent mystery (or suspense) long enough to never bore and or become uninteresting. In this, it succeeded nicely.

Overall, this started off as a simple story that didn’t enthrall me as much as I expected it to; but as it went on and on, I found more reason to donate my attention, and more reason to, frankly, care what happened. The story took a moral turn, and I enjoyed, very much, to see these low-life characters deduce what was right to do, and disregard fame or recognition. It is the same way the film, itself, worked- starting off as a run-of-the-mill parody, then finally learning that it was best to serve its characters justice, and let them show more development then the prior option would have allowed. It may not be as good as “Apertures” or, maybe, “Sanders”; but it still is a stepping stone in this director’s career, and not a stone that sank into the river (granted, “Apertures” was more a leap, then a step). This director’s “Career” is one I will remain fascinated by, though, due to the wide variety he can work in, and also at the consistent quality of his pictures.

[jomo]

Thank you for the review.

But, I'm quite a bit curious on what you didn't like about the film. You said you didn't like the dialogue, but that wasn't very long lived. I'm really quite curious on why you think this is my weakest film.

I know it's quite obscure to ask for more criticism, but I would really like to use your criticism to make it better. That's what I did with Sanders vs. Toberts, the draft I posted on here isn't half of the draft that currently exists. In quality of course, not length.

I'm not offended you think this film is my weakest, I personally don't think this is my strongest script either. I would however, like you to go in detail on what was wrong. It helps me, it really does.

Thanks again, Casa. I would also like to say that I take a lot of pride in being able to write engaging comedy pieces, as well as drama. I accomplish this because of the fact that I've always been funny, and because of how much I researched dramatic pieces/story structure in the past. I'm glad you recognized it. I do, however, prefer drama more. I believe drama leaves more of an effect on the reader. Which is why, now, I'm mostly doing drama.

[indy42]

Casa, great to have you back!