Film Review: Room 237 (2012)

"One can always argue that Kubrick had only some, or even none, of these in mind; but we all know from postmodern film criticism that author intent is only part of the story of any work of art, and those meanings are there regardless of whether the creator of the work was conscious of them."

Premise: In this documentary, various interpretations of Stanley Kubrick's film "The Shining" are explored.

Director: Rodney Ascher

Featuring: Bill Blakemore, Geoffrey Cocks, Juli Kearns, John Fell Ryan, Jay Weidner

Technical: 102 minutes

The people interviewed for "Room 237" offer various interpretations of Stanley Kubricks's 1980 film "The Shining". We only hear the voices of the interviewed, and the film's visuals are a mix of "Shining" clips, as well as relevant photographs and video. Some of the most prominent theories presented include "The Shining" being a metaphor for the Holocaust and the genocide of Native Americans. It's also theorized that the film is a confession of Kubrick's involvement in the Apollo 11 moon landing hoax. These ideas might sound slightly bizarre, but the theories are presented in an unbiased, intriguing, and sometimes convincing way.

Aside from being genuinely unsettling, the film really exercised my imagination, and stimulated my curiosity. The theories, fair and far-reaching alike, were interesting, and I was thinking hard the entire time. The film is all speculation, and yet still mentally riveting. One shouldn't go into the film expecting any definite answers, because there are none. "Room 237" is refreshing in that it forces the viewer to come to their own conclusion. The film is filled to the brim with theories, in an avalanche of information, but the running time flies by.

The commentary is a mix of thoughtful intelligence, clever observation, blurry guesses, and obvious stretches, but there is a good balance of it all. I think the only stinker among the interviewees is the smug Juli Kearns, the lone female, and annoyingly idiotic.

The music was terrific; eerie, frightening, and bizarre. The score is wonderfully different, and suits the film perfectly.

My only complaint (and it is a minor one) is that the film could have had more visual clarity. At the beginning of the film, the interviewed individuals' names come across the screen when they first speak. We never actually see the speakers, and their names are not shown again until the end credits. Aside from Juli Kearns, I was never quite sure who was speaking. It would have been helpful if the speaker's name was shown on-screen whenever they spoke. Because the film moves so quickly, and is so full of information, the speaker is next to impossible to identify.

I have never read Stephen King's novel "The Shining", nor have I seen Kubrick's film. This didn't affect my viewing experience at all. In fact, "Room 237" has inspired me to visit these two works.

I don't think "Room 237" fits into the classification of a documentary. This film is of the kind that defies classification, as it is neither objective nor subjective, but rather a conglomeration of ideas, theories, musings, factoids, and questions. In this way, the film is quite unique.

"Room 237" was a definite success.

(Unproduced) Screenplay Review: When The Street Lights Go On

"Becky and I became friends again during that Midwestern winter. We cruised around in my car beneath newspaper skies and smoke stained snow, listening to the Beach Boys."

Premise: In the 1980s, after a double murder in a small town, those close to the deceased try to go on living.

Written by: Eddie O'Keefe & Chris Hutton

Technical: 108 pages. June 29, 2011 draft.

The town of Colfax, Illinois. It's the summer of 1983.

Chrissy Monroe, seventeen, is secretly dating her school's young hip English teacher, Mr. Pulaski. One night they are in his car, and Pulaski is telling Chrissy that he is going to leave his wife, to be with her... when a man enters the back of the car, pointing a gun to Pulaski's head. He forces them to drive into a secluded forest, and then murders them.

Chrissy and Mr. Pulaski's bodies are found by fifteen year old Charlie Chambers. (An older Charlie is also the narrator.) The other main characters are Becky Monroe (Chrissy's younger sister), Ben Kirchhoff (star of the school football team; he was Chrissy's boyfriend), Detective Hoffman (he's investigating Chrissy's murder), and Casper Tatum (the town rebel, and lead suspect in the double homicide). The script follows these individuals, and their friends and family, as they try to make sense of the murders, and move on with their lives.

Casper is in a gang called The Hillbilly Wolves (ugh). Charlie writes for the school paper. Hoffman investigates the Monroe-Pulaski case, himself a sickening agglomeration of verbal-abuse, homophobia, deficient social skills, and perposterous behaviour. Becky and Casper - sister of the murdered girl, and lead suspect in the murder case - begin dating. But Ben developes feelings for Becky too, and has a serious rivalry with Casper. During it all, no one seems very bothered by the loss of Chrissy and Mr. Pulaski.

The first three quarters of the script is a sewage-quality wreck. The flashbacks, the voice over, the flashbacks with voice over.... it's all a mess. (Most of the time the narration just telling us.) It's way, way too overwritten. And it couldn't get any more trite:

The SOUNDS of July play over the following string of images: 

I. A group of CHILDREN play on a Slip-n-Slide. 

II. Two teenage GIRLS sunbathe on the hood of a newly washed Trans Am. Journey BLASTS from the radio. 

III. The high school FOOTBALL TEAM practices drills under the sweltering sun.

And talk about on the nose (here is one example):

CHARLIE
I was taking notes on football
practice for the newspaper. 

Charlie’s Father flips a page in his book. 

CHARLIE’S FATHER
Shame you can’t be on the field
like I was instead of reporting on
the drills. 

CHARLIE
I know, Sir.

Hoffman's dialogue is nonsensical, inappropriate, and unrealistic. For example, the way Hoffman speaks to the Charlie (who discovered the murder scene) doesn't make any sense. The first thing he says:

HOFFMAN
Alright Chambers, why’d you leave
your bicycle?  

CHARLIE
I dunno, Sir. I forgot about it. I
just ran home.

Or what about when Hoffman is questioning Chrissy's boyfriend, Ben:

HOFFMAN
How do you feel about the fact that your girly was tap assing with that faggy English teacher.

Or Hoffman at the PTA meeting:

PTA WOMAN #1
Why have no arrests been made?  

HOFFMAN
Because there is no one to arrest.  

PTA WOMAN #2
And what is the likelihood of the
killer striking again?  

HOFFMAN
Low. Murderers very seldom strike
the same place twice. We also have
cops patrolling the town up the
ass.

"When The Street Lights Go On" seems like it was written by guys who haven't had a lot of experience, who aren't very mature, who have never felt loss, and who have read too many Hollywood screenplays. Needless to say, the treatment of the subject matter is insensitive and puerile.

And it is just so poorly written. For example, Charlie's introduction:

Charlie looks like a young Spielberg. He wears an old bomber jacket and a pair of Coke bottle glasses. Thoughtful. Boyish, but cool. The kind of kid who’s had character since he could walk.

And:

NARRATOR (V.O.)
Our town was put under a dark spell in the summer of 1983. I observed it all from my Schwinn Sting-ray. It began with a fire and didn’t end until six months later when the Monroe sisters were finally dead--
[...]
--robbing us of our juvenescence and spreading unshakable anxiety like cyanide in the minds of those who remember.

A lot of the writing, especially the descriptions, just don't make any sense:

Ben leans against the Mustang parked in his driveway. He looks as cool as a drunk high schooler can.

Another example:

NARRATOR (V.O.)
In their moments of solitude each
yearned for the other. They counted
down the days till they could
reunite on a slate black chalkboard
in the back of their minds.

And people's reactions don't make sense. Like Charlie; for some reason he really wants to cover the murder of Chrissy Monroe for the school paper. He doesn't seem affected by the fact that he was the first to stumble across the murder scene (there are only, literally, two lines hinting at any sort of trauma, on page 22, when Charlie envisions Chrissy's dead body in the bottom of the school pool. But he doesn't freak out; he just wipes his goggles?)

No one in Colfax (that we see) really cares about the murders, except maybe Chrissy's parents. But other than that, the town isn't affected.

I have many more complaints, but I will just add this last one, because it is so bizarre: why, for no reason, do the characters sometimes became aware of the camera?

The hallway is now empty. We rapidly push in on Ben who is in
the distance chucking a tennis ball at a locker bay. 

BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. 

As we get closer, he turns to the camera and throws the
tennis ball straight at the lens. 

The glass SHATTERS.

The bottom line is that the writers don't take the script seriously, and it is tremendously lazy. Really, the carelessness is shocking. It doesn't seem like the writers put an ounce of effort in. Much of the script is unintelligible, and the writers are either unable or unwilling to clearly, concisely articulate their ideas. Any fleck of potential is lost amongst the deluge of weak writing.

---

Around page 80, Casper murders Ben in front of the entire town at the halloween carnival, Becky drops out of high school, and the quality of the screenplay improves dramatically. Like from an F grade to a B grade kind of improvement. Past this point it feels like a different script altogether (a great compliment and a great insult to the writer).

Whether you should read "Streetlights" depends on yourself. As usual, one cannot just skip to page 80, and read from there to the end. There will only be impact if one reads through everything prior to that. If you are really dedicated, the final 30 pages are, for the most part, quite spectacular.

O'Keefe and Hutton come off as jerks that are not writers, but just type the words for the money; the kind of guys who want to get as much as they can from as little effort as possible. Do not associate the names O'Keefe/Hutton with passion, integrity, intelligence, or sensitivity. They're children of Hollywood, but instead of being pimped out (as Hollywood's children usually are), they're prostituting themselves out, for as much money as they can carry.

---

About: "Streetlights" placed 2nd on the 2011 Black List.

(Produced) Screenplay Review: Mud

"Mud’s a born liar. That’s what makes him so likable. He makes people feel good about themselves."

Premise: Two boys befriend a homeless loner in hiding, who's trying to reunite with his girlfriend.

Written by: Jeff Nichols

Technical: 132 pages. Shooting script.

One day Ellis and Neckbone, both fourteen years old, are boating along the Mississippi river. They end up on the shore of a small island, and eventually find a 26 foot boat in a tree. They go inside it and discover that someone has been living there. They then meet that man, who calls himself Mud. The boys bring him back some food (as requested) and Mud tells them that he's waiting for his girlfriend, Juniper. He describes her to the boys, mentioning a nightingale tattoo on her hand.

One day at the store in town, Ellis spots Mud's girlfriend. Later, Ellis and his mother are stopped on a highway roadblock. And the state troopers are handing out pictures with Mud's photograph, looking for him. Ellis and Neckbone confront Mud, and he tells them that he killed a man that was abusive to Juniper.

Mud wants to get the boat stuck in the tree back into the water. He thinks it's his best chance of escaping, since he can't go by land, because everyone is looking for him. Ellis and Neck agree to help him get the boat down, in exchange for Mud's pistol.

But complications arise. The boys find Juniper, to give her a note from Mud, and walk in on a man beating her. Ellis tries to intervene, and gets hurt. Mud explains that the man's name is Carver, and he's the brother of the man Mud killed. Mud says that if Carver is nearby, then more men will be coming. Bounty hunters.


"Mud" is one of the worst screenplays I have ever read. It takes a person of a special calibre to write something this bad. It's absolutely soulless, and the very definition of artificial. "Mud" does not contain one moderately interesting or real character, nor an ounce of emotion. I despised it on every level.

Don't get me wrong: reading "Mud", I could very much see it being a movie. I could see the script being filmed and making money and attracting star talent. I could see it getting positive reviews. (The vast majority of reviews nowadays are so zanily inane and make so little sense, could one call them reviews? No, most of the dribble written has everything to do with ego-stroking, people-pleasing, job-advancing, and money-making, and nothing to do with cinema. They are not unbiased, brainwash-free opinions. Or if some are, than they are from individuals who should not be informing the public. The film "Mud" holds a 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Oh, and go look who's starring in it.)

The only genuine moment in the screenplay is the scene near the end, when Ellis confronts May Pearl, as well as the scene that immediately follows it. After this "Mud" switches gears, speeding into the most mindless, illogical part of the entire screenplay. The rest of the script is the usual unadulterated Hollywood dribble. The sappy, fake, contrived ending reads like it was written by the screenwriter's L.A. secretary. I lost count of the number of nonsensical cliches, and there are also about two dozen "payoffs" from earlier "set-ups". And of course the whole thing ends with shotgun-wielding hitmen closing in on Eliss' now-happy household (where a concerned Mud is visiting the bedridden Eliss). Mud joins the shootout, kills the bad guy, and fakes his own death. It all felt like "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" meets "Kindergarten Cop". I am still asking myself: did the ending actually happen? Forget jumping the shark; the ending of "Mud" jumps across a line of sharks, with rocket jet packs attached to the water skis.

Save yourself the time and don't read this script; nothing can be gained from it. "Mud" is a ludicrous, imbecilic, degenerate disgrace. A writer can't get much lower than "Mud", and damned if they try.

---

About: "Mud" was released in 2012, directed by Jeff Nichols, and featuring Matthew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan, Sam Shepard, and Reese Witherspoon.

Film Review: Catching Fire (2013)

"You ready to work?"

Premise: After winning the Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta have ignited a rebellion across the Districts of Panem, and the Capital wants them dead.

Director: Francis Lawrence

Written by: Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (based on the book "Catching Fire" by Suzanne Collins)

Featuring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson

Technical: 146 minutes.

Note: I read The Hunger Games trilogy just before the first film was released, so it has been a long time since I read the books. In the review I will be comparing the film to the novel minimally, and focusing on film itself.


After winning the seventy-fourth Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark return home to District 12. They go back to their old routine (kind of; they now live in the Victor's Village, and possess terrific wealth) with Katniss and Gale hunting together, Peeta baking and isolating himself, and Haymitch getting very drunk. Katniss shows major signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

President Snow pays an unexpected visit to Katniss' house. Apparently, because her and Peeta broke the rules to survive the Games, they have ignited rebellion in the Districts, against the Capital. Snow threatens everyone Katniss loves, and tells her that on the upcoming Victory Tour, her and Peeta need to convince the public they are in love. This will show the Districts that their stunt with the berries was out of love, and not in defiance of the Capital.

The Victory Tour is a disaster. The Peacekeepers are murdering and terrorizing innocents, and Katniss and Peeta can only helplessly watch it all, forced to praise the Capital. When they get back home, the violence and repression against the population only escalates. Then the bombshell: for the seventy-fifth Hunger Games (a special "Quarter Quell" Games is held every twenty-five years) they will reap from the pool of past victors. Katniss and Peeta are both chosen, and so they are going into the Games a second time, in a new arena, with a murderous batch of past winners.


I saw "Catching Fire" in IMAX during a pre-screening, and then again in IMAX the following evening, on opening day. I had been looking forward to the film for months, but I kept my expectations low. I am unhappy to report that "Catching Fire" is not the success that the reviews would have you believe. In the end it was a really, really lousy movie.

When I saw the initial previews for Catching Fire, the teaser trailer and the first theatrical trailer, I was aflame with excitement. But the film itself was flavourless, too tame, too watered down, and too rushed. For a movie about teens locked in an arena, forced to fight to the death... I don't think I saw more than a cupful of blood, drawn by a weapon. This is absolutely unacceptable, because the violence plays a very critical part in the source material's themes: the glamorizing of violence, present day desensitization to violence, and the sensationalism of modern entertainment, among others. But instead of exploring these and other ideas in the film, the gamemakers - sorry, I mean filmmakers - just watered down the politics, and everything else that might have induced too much thinking, to appeal to the widest audience possible. (I was speaking with someone about the film after we saw it, and he put forth the idea that perhaps the thinning of the material was fiscally strategic. He suggested that maybe if the film was too complex, it just simply would not translate well into other languages. Since overseas gross is a gigantic portion of blockbuster film revenue, I thought this was an excellent point, and true to some degree.) Among the other simplifications was the story of the rebellion, and even, just the barbarism of those in the Capital. These two things, detailed extensively in the novel, had barely any depth in the film.

The film was severely brought down by the godawful music, which was very poorly integrated. I lost count of the number of scenes, where it would have had much greater emotional impact without the added music.

"Catching Fire" was overproduced and rushed. The CGI in the film looked very phony. But they filmed on location in Hawaii, and had a massive budget ($130 million-double the budget of the first film) so why are huge chunks of the arena made of obvious-CGI? Other than for, say, the baboon creatures, there is no reason why this film should have the amount of CGI it does. The excessive effects took away from the film's authenticity, and feeling. "Catching Fire" looks like a expensive, overdone Hollywood product.


The same thing that happened with the first film, is happening with "Catching Fire". The first film was highly anticipated, released to critical praise, and made boatloads of cash. Then as time went on, people's opinion of the film went down. People started to admit that it wasn't that amazing. Meanwhile, the studio pocketed the profits, and fast-tracked the sequel. The hype for the sequel was insane, and then it was released. The second film received even more critical praise than the first film, had a bigger budget, and made more money. And I can guarantee, time will go on, and once people are not high on the hype, they will realize that the film isn't so fantastic. But it doesn't matter, because the studio is pocketing the profits, and now pumping out two back-to-back sequels....

Sound like a familiar pattern? Yes. Yes it does. It sounds a little bit like... "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012)? And so many other ballbusters. Sorry sorry, I mean blockbusters. This happens really, really often, and it annoys me.

All one must do to learn the truth about "Catching Fire", amongst all the biased, bought-and-paid-for, bullshit critics, and the delusional mooing public, is to observe. The truth can be gained from simple observation.

"Catching Fire" is slap in the face to any fan of the book. The sad irony of it all is that the crowds stuffing sold-out showings of Catching Fire strongly resemble the Capital citizens eagerly awaiting the latest Hunger Games battle. Meanwhile, the Capital elite - woops, I mean Hollywood - make obscene profit from it all, doing everything they can to make sure the current system stays in place...

TV Review: The Walking Dead - Season 4, Episodes 1-4

Cable television's #1 show is back... and deader than ever

Starting off in "30 Days Without Incident", the first episode of the fourth season, things are going well at the prison. The protagonists have taken the Governor's leftover followers under their wing, so now the prison is home to more people, living in multiple cell blocks. And in the time since we have last saw them, they've set up a garden. They're raising pigs for food. They have formed a council. And they have a stand outside where meals are handed out. It ain't no Bahavia, but everyone is fed and protected.

Alone in the forest outside the prison, Rick encounters a tattered, broken woman. She begs Rick to help take her catch back to her husband. Rick is hesitant, and as soon as he lets it slip, the woman wants to get her husband, and go live at the prison. Rick only agrees to meet her husband, but warns her: "You try anything... anything... you're gonna be the one who loses." Her haunting reply: "I don't have anything else to lose."

Meanwhile, some of the others (including Daryl, Michonne, Glen, and the now-established Sasha) go for a run at a supermarket. The military had set up base there, but now it's abandoned, and crawling with walkers. In the store, one of the new characters (Bob) knocks over a shelf of wine, and the noise attracts the walkers on the roof. The ceiling has rotted, so walkers begin raining-shooting-down through the ceiling. Visually, it's extremely clever, and executed in a grusomely terrific way. Also in this episode: Carol teaching the kids about knives, and how to use them (how disturbing). The new characters are all good-looking and boring. The show's portrayal of romantic relationships is a true weak spot, and always has been. It is the non-romantic relationships (the bond shared between Daryl and Carol, for example) that are the most fascinating. Rick's interaction with the woman he finds is tense, but predictable and pointless. And in usual Walking Dead fashion, everything in "30 Days Without Incident" is dragged out as long as possible. "30 Days Without Incident" was really, really bad. Highlights include Michonne's determination to hunt down the governor, and the supermarket scene.

In "Infected", the second episode of the fourth season, an advancing virus is turning the prison's inhabitants very ill, and people are dying. As a result, a string of walkers attack within the prison's walls. And outside the fences... the walkers are beginning to break through.

"Infected" was light years better than the previous episode. In this one, things are starting to pick up, very slowly. ("Infected" and "30 Days" should have been combined into the first episode of the season.) I do like how the show is introducing so many new characters, and then killing them off quickly and by the handful. It gives the show more suspense, makes it more dramatic, and keeps it unpredictable. Overall, "Infected" was a good episode... until about the last twenty minutes.

I am thinking of the penultimate scene when Carol finds Lizzie and Mika at the fence, after their father dies. The show's crew is trying (here, and in other places) to add so much emotion into the show... but most of the time it fails. And so, is there even a point to it? I am not suggesting that the characters should be two dimensional. But hello... it's a show about a zombie apocalypse. The show needs less coupling, less moral debate, and more conflict, more drama, more action. In the show's bleak, nihilistic setting and atmosphere, with such grim, desperate characters... the conditions are just not suitable for the emotional depth they are trying to attain.

The problem with most of the moral and ethical debates in The Walking Dead are a) they don't appear to be a metaphor for anything, and b) no one can really relate to the problems the characters face. What's the best way to kill the most zombies? How do we protect our shelter from the flesh-eating dead around us? The Walking Dead is just popcorn entertainment; and yet, the writers and directors are endlessly experimenting, trying to portray deeper concepts. Most of this ends up as romantic melodrama. And even the few moral dilemmas that real people can relate to (like how to approach the topic of guns, and self-defence, with children) are not handled very expertly. The Walking Dead needs to ease on the brake pedal and slam on the gas. Less schmaltz, more thrills. The highlight of episode two was seeing Michonne start to get a little more depth (Michonne became emotional when Beth tried to hand her Judith-I'm guessing that Michonne lost an infant at some point herself.)

In episode three, "Isolation", nothing really happens. I mean, more than usual. The only highlights were Rick rescuing Carol at the pump, and Daryl, Michonne, Bob, and Tyreese's escape from the crowd of walkers. The revelation that Carol killed Karen and David wasn't very shocking.

In episode four, "Indifference", Carol's explanation to Rick, of why she killed Karen and David, is really contrived. The Carol and Rick storyline was intriguing. But the other one, with Daryl and the others... God it was dull.

Over the four seasons of The Walking Dead, the quality has been inconsistent, ranging from horrendous to terrific. And yet, over time, the show's ratings have only continued to rise. This speaks volumes about the show, as well as the people who watch it.

In the past I have gotten sucked into watching crappy shows. I would watch a few episodes to see how it went... and then I would have to keep going. Maybe there was a character I wanted to follow. Maybe there was a mystery I wanted to see the conclusion of. But now, I have decided, I can no longer do this. There is too much good material out there to waste one's time with the bad stuff, hoping it will eventually pay off.

The biggest thing I was looking forward to, coming into the fourth season, was the conflict between our survivors and the Governor. And I know that The Governor will be back. But I won't be sticking around to find out what happens.