Recent Release Reviewed!!! Moon

First, a word of explanation. Over the next week or so, the blog will publish a few reviews from over the summer, which were written before Cold Weather, Hot Coffee, Warm Kino was offering central heating and genre discussion. A couple of these will be vaguely relevant, as they are just emerging onto DVD, but some will be a little late (A special apology for the tardiness of the Drag Me to Hell review). However, these films are very much on the CWHCWK agenda, so we hope you will enjoy reading them!.
So, without further ado, here's the review of Duncan Jones' Moon

MOON


Starring: Sam Rockwell, Benedict Wong, Matt Berry, the voice of Kevin Spacey
Screenplay: Nathan Parker, Duncan Jones
Director: Duncan Jones





Science fiction has always been a broad, inclusive genre. There’s room for brainless explosions, heart-stopping terror, and philosophical musings. Duncan Jones’ Moon falls squarely into the latter category. It’s also essentially a one-man show, with star Sam Rockwell once again proving that he is one of the finest actors working today.

On lunar mining facility Sarang Sam Bell (Rockwell) is two weeks away from finishing his three-year solo stint. He’s also starting to lose his grip on reality, seeing figures that he knows can’t possibly be there. He’s talking to himself, the live communication feed to Earth is down, and his only company is the station’s robot Gerty (Kevin Spacey). As Bell says in a recorded message to Earth, “Three years is a long haul…it’s too long…”. After crashing his lunar rover, Sam wakes up in the infirmary with no memory of what happened. Seeing that one of the harvesters is broken, he goes out to investigate and finds…well, that’d ruin the film.

Jones bravely plays the twist card very early on in the film. Although the trailer made it look like a “What’s going on?” movie, it’s in fact more of a “So, this is what’s going on, what are we going to do now?”. It’s also decidedly lo-fi, something of a relief after the summer’s CGI-reliant blockbusters. A combination of well-crafted miniatures and wonderfully detailed, grimy sets, Moon brings back memories of old-school science fiction such as Alien and Silent Running. The lunar base is dusty and grimy, and Gerty has a “kick me” post-it note stuck to its back. Sarang actually looks like one man has been living in it alone for three years.

Of course, Moon hinges on its leading man. It’s difficult to talk about Rockwell’s performance in too much detail without spoiling the plot. When we first meet him, his hair and beard are unkempt, he’s snapping at Gerty, and having visions of a dark-haired young woman. This isn’t our usual sci-fi hero; this is an actual person. Bell is also committed to his job, possibly because to relieve the tedium, possibly because he actually cares. We are given some clues that he agreed to take the job after arguing with his wife who sends him occasional video messages showing him his young daughter. Bell can’t wait to return to Earth, but we also get the feeling that life may not be that much easier at home. Jones reportedly wrote the role for Sam Rockwell and the actor makes it his own. It’s a performance that is both heartbreaking and wryly funny.

Special mention must also go to Kevin Spacey whose vocal performance conveys a strange benevolence while simultaneously hinting at concealed motives. Meanwhile the shady company executives are only seen on grainy video footage, ably played by Benedict Wong (Sunshine) and Matt Berry (Garth Marenghi’s Dark Place).

The script keeps the surrounding circumstances deliberately vague and it’s a wise choice. There’s no plodding exposition, largely because there aren’t any supporting characters. We find out only what’s vital to Sam. It’s refreshing to see a sci-fi that’s not about saving the world but more about one man trying to save himself.

Moon isn’t flawless. Occasionally the script throws in a couple of lines that ring a little false but it’s an excellent little science fiction film. It’s also a surprisingly touching sci-fi drama that provides a welcome antidote to the brainless, heartless spectacles that have made up the vast majority of the summer’s entertainment. Moon marks director Duncan Jones as a talent to watch and confirms Rockwell’s place as one of the most underappreciated actors working. On the basis of this he should be given leading roles much more often, and I can’t wait to see what Jones does next.

Moon is out now on DVD and Blu-Ray

Ramblings and Retrospectives: Another Top 5 Openings

Well, Ben suggested I give my top 5 openings in order to try and generate some interesting discussion. It did get me thinking. What makes a great opening? For my money, a great opening should set the tone for what's going to follow. If you make the opening the best thing about the film/record, what follows is going to be a let-down. The opening should grab our attention and let us know what we're in for. With that in mind, here are my Top 5 Openings.
I should also warn you that I'll change my mind about these as soon as I publish this post. So be prepared for a few openings more in the near future

1. Snot Boogie, The Wire

David Simon and Ed Burns' masterpiece has too many memorable scenes to include on this list, but this opening scene is a classic. It introduces us to our "hero" Jimmy McNulty (the fantastic Dominic West), and shows us the pointlesness and tragedy of gun violence. It also balances tragedy with a dark sense of humour, one of the key traits of the show.

2. As I Sat Sadly By Her Side, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, No More Shall We Part (2001)

Choosing a favourite Nick Cave opener was a tricky one. After all, we've got The Mercy Seat, Dig Lazarus Dig, and Papa Won't Leave You Henry (the latter nearly beat the song I chose). But for my money, As I Sat Sadly sets the tone perfectly for the Nick's melancholy masterpiece. The Mercy Seat is clearly the stand-out of the album Tender Prey, the only song that comes close to matching it is Deanna. On another day I would have chosen Papa Won't Leave You, but there we go. On this Thursday afternoon I'm going for melancholia over fury!

3. Blink, Doctor Who (2007)

Blink regularly features in lists of the best Doctor Who episodes, and with good reason. Namely, that it's damn scary. The weeping angel statues and Stephen Moffat's ingeniuous (although plot hole-ridden) script create a taught, nerve-racking episodes. This opening shows Carey Mulligan's plucky Sally Sparrow uncovering a message written on the wall of an abandoned house telling her to duck. Seriously duck. Why the hell doesn't she duck!

4. Halloween, dir. John Carpenter (1978)

Yes indeed, the granddaddy of all slasher films also has the best opening sequence. John Carpenter's creepy synth music and the wonderful first person viewpoint lead to one of the most surprising revelations of the film. The opening perfectly sets up Michael Myers as the boogeyman himself, even without the aid of Donald Pleasance's Sam Loomis. And there's almost no blood.

5. The State I Am In, Belle and Sebastian, Tigermilk (1996)

I'm more than willing to admit that my Belle and Sebastian fixation is a little unhealthy, but the fact is that they're one of my top five bands. Yep. There it is. Anyway, this first track on their first album sets out their stall: it's sad, funny, and dream-like, matching lyrics like "So I gave myself to God/There was a pregnant pause before he said OK", and "I kicked the crutches from my crippled friend". Back when Stuart Murdoch still wrote all the songs, before Stuart David went off to Looper and his novels, and Isobel Campbell went solo, Tigermilk is arguably their best album, with an emotional honesty ("Oh love of mine/would you condescend to help me/cause I'm stupid and blind") that was sorely lacking from their last album The Life Pursuit. I should also mention that I came very close to replacing this track with The Stars of Track and Field from their equally superb second album If You're Feeling Sinister. Maybe next time.

Recent Release Reviewed!!!! An Education

An Education


Director: Lone Scherfig
Screenplay: Nick Hornby
Based on the memoir by Lynn Barber
















We complain a lot about the state of British cinema. And the state of British television, but that's for another time. Let's face it, we do have a lot to moan about. One of the most frequent complaints is our apparent addiction to that fluffiest of sub-genres: The period costume drama. Now, it's arguable that An Education is very much in that vein. It's certainly drama, the actors are wearing period clothing, drive around in vintage cars, and yes, it's definitely set in the early sixties. Oh, and it stars such seasoned veterans as Emma Thompson, Olivia Williams, and Alfred Molina.



But the whole enterprise has a wonderful sense of energy and vigour to it. This is in no small part due to the performance from Carey Mulligan in the lead role of Jenny. Jenny is in her final year at school, studying hard for her Oxford exams under pressure from her parents Jack (Molina) and Marjorie (Cara Seymour). One day she meets David (Peter Sarsgaard), a suave older man who gives her a lift. David quickly introduces her into a world of wealth and, perhaps most importantly, fun. Before long Jenny is going to Oxford, and even Paris. Her parents are far from unsusceptible to David's charms, and are easily won over by his charisma and apparent connections. But even as things seem to be going perfectly, Jenny slowly realises that David may not be quite who he says he is. Soon she has to choose between a chance at Oxford, and the glittering world David may be able to provide.



I must admit that, no matter what Carey Mulligan does, I will always see her as Sally Sparrow from the fantastic episode of Doctor Who, Blink. She was fantastic there and she's fantastic here, giving Jenny the right mix of innocence and intuition that allows her to look beyond the less pleasant realities of David's way of life in order to keep exploring the world he offers. Jenny does occasionally run the risk of becoming unlikeable; she's a little pretentious, but also genuinely insightful. But we keep rooting for her largely because of Mulligan's wonderful performance, and because, to paraphrase a Kramer quote from Seinfeld, her "unbridled enthusiasm".


Coming back to that period costumed drama theme, one big difference is the casting of Peter Sarsgaard as David. The actor is undoubtedly talented, and while it seems a little strange to cast an American as the male lead, he works. His accent wanders a little, but for the most part he's excellent; narcissistic, smooth, but also desperately insecure. He also plays well off Dominic Cooper (who would have been pehaps a more obvious choice for David, given his looks) and Rosamund Pike, who play his companions. Cooper shows some range as the David's "business partner" Danny, who's more frank about their work. Pike is especially hilarious as the dimwitted but affable Helen, who pleads with Jenny not to go to Oxford because she'll become "spotty and speccy". She also gets to wear some wonderfully garish costumes, contrasting with the grey and brown that permeates the world that Jenny's become used to. In Scherfig's film, Twickenham is a grey, rainy dead end. Jenny dreams of Oxford and Paris, and, accordingly, the director shoots the two cities as sunny, dreamy heavens.


A review of An Education wouldn't be complete without a few gushing sentences praising Alfred Molina's performance. The scenes that he shares with Mulligan the underrated Cara Seymour are wonderfully written and performed. We are quickly convinced that the last push towards Oxford is what Jack has been waiting for since Jenny was born, and the pressure he puts her under comes entirely from love. But he's also more than willing to accept David as his daughter's suitor, as he believes he can take care of her financially. He's as excited as Jenny by the dashing David, with his expensive cars, Goonies impressions, and connections. Cara Seymour is superb as Jenny's more permissive mother, who is both pleased with her daughter and terribly melancholy thanks the lifestyle she and Jack have to lead in order to support her. Olivia Williams is also excellent, investing the "stern teacher with a heart of gold" with depth and a not a little sadness.


Scherfig shows a surprising sense of what life was like in London at the time for a Danish director, aided by Hornby's canny script. If one thing works against An Education, it's that it's all a little predictable. But this was never going to be a film with twists and turns. From the moment David shows up in his flash car, firing chat-up lines, we know he's sure to turn out to be a bad 'un. I must also mention that I thought the scenes with Emma Thompson's matter-of-fact headmistress were a misstep. A lot of what works about the film comes from the nimble, clever script. But when Jenny has her two confrontations with the teacher, subtlety is set aside in favour of "telling the audience was the film is about". But when a film is as enjoyable, and well-shot and performed as this, predictability and a couple of scenes that don't really work aren't really too big an issue.

7.5/10

Rantings and Ravings: Ten Characters played by...Martin Donovan

MARTIN DONOVAN

First up:

You're going to notice that a lot of the films on this list are directed by Hal Hartley. I remember that my Hal Hartley obsession began when my brother told me to rent the film Trust a few years ago. As usual, my brother's cinematic recommendation was bang on, and I loved the dream-like mixture of soapy emotions and over literary dialogue. But a big part of my admiration for the film stemmed from the peformances given by the late Adrienne Shelly, and Martin Donovan in the two leads. Donovan has been plying his trade on film and television for fifteen years now. He performs just as well in the lead as he does in supporting roles, and his understated, measured performances show a range and talent that deserves to be more widely appreciated. I've excluded some of his more recent efforts, including Insomnia (good), The Sentinel (terrible), and Wind Chill (so-so). The ones listed are what I feel are Donovan's finest turns. So, let's start with his first.

TRUST: MATTHEW SLAUGHTER

"He's dangerous...but sincere"

"Sincerely dangerous?"

Prone to outbursts of violent temper, Slaughter is the the hero of Hartley's sophomore film. He's cursed with an innate ability to fix computers and televisions, despite loathing technology. He lives with his father, who punches him in the stomach when he doesn't clean the bathroom properly. He doesn't get drunk, no matter how much he drinks. He also keeps a live hand grenade in a drawer in his bedroom. Oh, and he puts his boss' head in a vice. Then he meets Adrienne Shelly's Maria, and so begins, as the poster says, a "slightly twisted love story". As their relationship develops, Matthew learns to depend not just on himself, and to have others depend on him. Donovan's balance of rage and vulnerability helps make this an essential film for lovers of independent cinema.

SIMPLE MEN: MARTIN

"I can't stand the quiet!"

Hartley's third film gave Donovan a much smaller role. He's a very Hal Hartely kind of comic relief: potentially violent, intimidating, foulmouthed, passionate about music, and oddly philosophical. He misinterprets a discussion about whether Madonna, and other female musicians, are exploited or are exploiting others, and instead lists his favourite rock bands. It's a small, but memorable, part. Oh, and he gets to be a part of the Godard-esque dance sequence. Hot fuckin' Tuna indeed.

AMATEUR: THOMAS LUDENS

"Are you going to tell me who I am, and what's going on around here, or what?"

Amateur was Hartley's first real attempt at a different genre, namely a thriller. The film starts as we see Donovan's character lying unconscious on a pavement surrounded by broken glass. He wakes up without his memory, and wanders into a café where he meets Isabelle Huppert's character. Huppert plays an ex-nun who was kicked out of the convent for being a nymphomaniac, despite the fact that she's a virgin ("I'm choosy"). Thomas enters her oddly chaste-yet-sordid life with a wide-eyed curiosity. However, Thomas is being looked for by a threatening consortium who know his true identity. Donovan balances goodness with the potential for malice here, and plays wonderfully off Huppert.

NADJA: JIM

"We can't get a drink here, Jim, this is a coffee shop"

Produced by David Lynch (who also cameos), Nadja is a very strange vampire movie from oddball indie director Michael Almereyda. Shot in grainy black and white, Nadja is set in New York in the present day. Jim (essentially Jonathan Harker) bails out his uncle Van Helsing (Peter Fonda, enjoying himself), who has just killed Dracula. The pair get very drunk, little realising that the Count's daughter Nadja (Hartley regular Elina Lowensohn) and son Edgar (Jared Harris) are also in the city, and Nadja is determined to resurrect her father. It's odd stuff, and very much of its time, but it's well acted and strangely hypnotic. Admittedly, Donovan actually has little to do except react to Peter Fonda's ramblings, and dialogue like "It's my sister....she's on an aeroplane...dying....for a cigarette"

FLIRT: WALTER

"Maybe I ought to shoot you?"

Donovan took another small but memorable part in Hartley's contrived, three-short-films-with-the-same-story experiment. He's in the first, and best, segment set in New York. He plays Walter, who's wife has left him. Bill (Bill Sage), the lead, has the misfortune to wander into the bar in which Walter is drinking a bottle of whiskey and trying to load a pistol. Bill is the titular flirt who may or may not have tempted Walter's wife away from him. Bill learns a valuable lesson: Don't try and hug the man you cuckolded when he's drunk and holding a loaded gun.

THE BOOK OF LIFE: JESUS CHRIST

"Who are the Mormons again?"

Yep, it's another Hal Hartley movie. This time, Donovan takes on the role of JC himself, debating whether or not to open the Book of Life on New Year's Eve, 1999. Aside from being Hartley's first full-length dalliance with digital, the script is very witty. Hartley enjoys playing with Biblical names and New York types (a law firm is called Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehosoaphat) PJ Harvey is surprisingly good as Jesus' loyal companion Mary Magdalene, and Thomas Jay Ryan (Henry Fool) gives excellent seediness to the Devil. It's not a showy Donovan performance, more quietly sympathetic, appropriate to a thoughtful, and ultimately optimistic, little film.

THE UNITED STATES OF LELAND: HARRY POLLARD

"You want a story? Go and talk to that kid's parents! Ask them how they raised a monster!"

This flawed, but interesting, little film starred a young Ryan Gosling as Leland, a troubled young man who kills the mentally handicapped brother of his ex-girlfriend. The film is a bit all over the place, trying to be insightful and touching. It manages both, but never at the same time. The cast is excellent, including Jena Malone, Kevin Spacey, Michelle Williams, Don Cheadle, and Lena Olin. Donovan is superb as the distraught father, desperately trying to cope as his family deal with their grief almost silently, Harry is a terribly affecting character

SAVED: PASTOR SKIP

"All right! All right! Who's down with G-O-D?"

Saved! showed that Martin Donovan could be funny. The underrated film tells the story of Mary (Jena Malone), who realises that her attempt to convert her gay boyfriend has left her pregnant, and that the religious school she attends will be unlikely to accept that she did it because she thought God wanted her to. Donovan plays the funky Pastor Skip, who flips onto the stage, talking about G-O-D, JC, and Mary's posse being on the front-lines for Jesus. But Pastor Skip is also having a spiritual crisis of his own. Despite being separated from his wife, he can't divorce her because it would be a sin. Meanwhile, he's falling for Mary's mother Lillian (Mary-Louise Parker). This is definitely worth a watch.

WEEDS: PETER SCOTTSON

"Take them to dinner and profess my love? That's how I took down the Santiago brothers"

I'll be honest, I really went off Weeds once they went to the coast. But in the beginning they nailed the combination of comedy and drama, as Mary-Louise Parker's widowed Nancy Botwin started dealing weed to pay her bills. Donovan appears towards the end of the first series as single dad Peter, who Nancy promptly falls for. Shortly afterwards, she discovers that he's a DEA agent. Donovan lends some much needed threat to the early series of Weeds, and temporarily scared the shit out of the complacent Nancy.

MASTERS OF HORROR: RIGHT TO DIE: CLIFF ADDISON

"What about her soul...."

Masters of Horror was a very hit-and-miss series, but Rob Schmidt's Right to Die was one of the clear high points. Donovan plays Cliff, whose wife burns almost to death in a car accident. Cliff is given the choice to stop life support on his wife. He's in favour of the idea, but realises that whenever his wife flat-lines, she appears as a very angry ghost, bent on revenge. Right to Die is very different from everything else on this list. It's gory, silly, but it's geniunely spooky and is helped no end by an excellent performance from Donovan, who slowly clues the audience in to the fact that Cliff may not be a very nice person.

So there you have it. Ten Martin Donovan performances. There's no sign of any massive mainstream acclaim for the man any time soon, but each film and show on this list is worth seeking out. Who knows, maybe he'll do a Richard Jenkins in a few years and get an Oscar nomination. He certainly deserves it.

P.S. If anyone is wondering why The Opposite of Sex isn't on this list, it's because I haven't seen it. I hear it's great!

Ramblings and Retrospectives: Top Five Openings

Just something light for a Monday afternoon - hopefully, it'll generate some discussion between the few people that actually read this blog. Nothing too complex about this, just list your favourite openings to books, films or records - that should help get this blog out of its movie-fixation.

5) M, Fritz Lang (1931) - 7:50

Not much happens for the first few minutes in Fritz Lang's greatest film - A mother waits for her children to return from school, a girl plays with a ball, a man buys the girl a balloon. After a brief shots of empty locations, the ball stops bouncing and the balloon floats away. The effect is absolutely devastating. The lack of a score adds to the effect. In presenting the action onscreen so ordinarily, so plainly, M succeeds where many 'slice of life' films fail. It genuinely feels real and because of that, it is truly horrifying.

4) Yes, Manic Street Preachers, the Holy Bible (1994) - 4:59

Kicking off one of the angriest records ever made is this odd 5 minute long track (bizarrely, it gains 13 seconds on the American edit). Now, I am of the opinion that the songs present on the Holy Bible are some of the finest ever committed to record, but for years this song didn't seem to fit in for me. Unlike its brethren, it isn't particularly loud, fast or self-loathing. It didn't have an politicking imbued in its lyrics either. When I rediscovered this record about a year ago, everything seemed to click into place. This track acts as a rabbit hole, a gateway into the depravity and rage contained with the remaining tracks. It is the only time when lyricist Richey Edwards dedicates an equal amount of bile to both himself and society. Obviously, a pretty grim picture is painted, but it is an equally powerful and intoxicating image.

3) A Matter of Life and Death, Powell and Pressburger (1946) - 6:33

Ah, one of my favourite feel good films. It is rare that I watch this and not shed a tear by the end of the first scene. 'You're life June and I'm leaving you' - what a line! And to say it without any fear or hostility or regret? You've got to admire the guts on David Niven's Squadron Leader Peter Carter. Truly, the whole open segment is beautifully shot - the technicolour is a thing of marvel, wonderfully acted and just a joy to behold.

2) Sunday Morning, the Velvet Underground and Nico, s/t (1967) - 2:59

I just read that originally song was written to be a big hit with Nico singing. To be honest though, nothing beats Lou Reed's lethargic take on this seminal 60's tune.

1) Once Upon a Time in the West, Sergio Leone (1968) - at least 10:00

So long, it doesn't fit on one YouTube video
There's not much I can say about this one that hasn't already been said a thousand times previous. All I will add is that I saw this again at the cinema a couple of weeks ago with my girlfriend, who hadn't seen it before. I loved that the beginning still works perfectly - laughs in all the right places, winces too - and unlike some portions of the film, it never drags. Not once have I ever looked at my watch whilst watching this. It is absolutely perfect.

Recent Release Reviewed!!!: Avatar vs. Inception

***Disclaimer: Okay, just to stress, this article is about the trailers released so far for these two films. I have not been blessed enough to see any more of these two than any other human being is able to. Nor am I reviewing some crazy mash up of the two – though that would be pretty tantalizing.***

Now that’s over.

Like most film-fans, I’d been waiting with some anticipation for the return of Jim Cameron. Titanic aside, this was the man responsible for some of my best loved childhood movies (True Lies, Terminator 1 & 2 – what that says about my childhood, I’ll leave you to decide) and I was keen to see his famous temper fly with a new set of actors. Also, I was hoping for him to re-cast Michael Biehn in something. That man doesn’t get used enough. So after rumour upon rumour of a live-action remake of Battle Angel Alita, Mr Cameron throws a curveball and sends Avatar our way.

Simultaneously, also working off the bat of one of highest grossing films of all time (hur hur), Christopher Nolan has decided to let us in on his new work, Inception. Not much mind, the whole affair has been pretty hush hush, especially considering the dizzy heights reached by his last movie and therefore the increased interest. Despite the similarities these two directors have in regards to their previous films, the two couldn’t be travelling down more differing paths if they tried. Overall the sentiment leaked by both these films from the studios is that, in reward for their successes, they’ve been let off the leashes, allowed to take us to places only limited to their imaginations. I think that it’s incredibly interesting that, not only that two filmmakers are getting this extremely rare chance at the same time, but that we get chance to really see what these two personalities are really about.

James Cameron’s latest Avatar trailer opens with Jake Sully, our protagonist, wheel-chair bound, being told of a great opportunity off world. Cue an incredibly detailed, awe provoking shot of said planet. A voiceover begins where Jake tells us of his desire for a cause ‘worth fighting for’, whilst we feast our eyes on some bizarre pastiche of Aliens and the Lion King. In case you couldn’t see where this story is heading, some very nice military men are present to bring us up to speed. This planet is Pandora, it has floaty rocks and the local people, the 10 foot tall, bright blue, not the most realistic looking Na’vi, are pretty darn tough to kill apparently. This is unfortunate because they live on top of a resource which the military find very lucrative. What are the chances eh? So what’s the military’s plan? Well, they’re going to let Jake take control of a genetically engineered version of a Na’vi and send him in to infiltrate the camp. Apparently doing this will ensure that Jake gets his real legs back. From here things get a bit Dances with Wolves and Jake becomes accepted as one of the tribe, choosing them over the military. What’s made him decide this? Well, there is love involved, presented to us using some shots very reminiscent of the ‘Can You Feel the Love Tonight?’ scene in the Lion King – this time with bigger cats’ eyes. From here on out, we witness battle scenes akin to the Ewoks vs the Imperial Guard from Return of the Jedi, but with both sides jacked up a notch. In fact, the military here seem like a direct evolution from the destructive force from Apocalypse Now. After some confusion in the middle of the trailer as to which side Jake is playing for, the trailer ends with confirmation that he is with the Na’vi. Cut to title. End.


Summing up the Inception trailer is much easier. For a start it’s barely a minute long and, unless the movie is just a collection of unrelated images, it gives nothing away to its plot. Opening with the sort of themed adaption of the Warner Brothers’ logo that we’ve come to expect with its high profile projects, Inception takes place in a big city – looking quite similar to the Dark Knight’s Gotham. A spinning top spins, Leonardo DiCaprio looks out of a helicopter window, Cillian Murphy (at least, I think it’s him) gets dragged away, gravity goes a bit weird, Joesph Gordon Levitt (*sigh*) runs at some one, Leo looks at the skyline, gravity continues to be odd, Joseph Gordon Levitt continues wrestling in said gravity, Leo wakes up, titles appear in an overhead view of a city. That’s pretty much it. I don’t think I’ve left anything out, though, given the cryptic nature of the trailer, if I have, it may just unlock the whole puzzle. Joking aside, it doesn’t reveal much but it has mystery to it. Overall, it is a very enticing trailer.

It has been greatly amusing and also surprising to read the quotes from the respective filmmakers about their projects. Both of them are shaping the direction that Hollywood films are heading down, even if James Cameron is the only one shouting about it. Despite all of Avatar’'s grandiose designs on representing the future in how blockbusters look and its grotesque budget ($500mil anyone?), it’s actually the more intimate project. Cameron has deliberately kept the sizes of his crew small in order to keep ‘consistency’1 with the work. Even on the current hot topic of 3D in cinemas, Nolan agrees that it is more ‘intimate’.2 Ironically, a $500 million film is James Cameron’s idea of a personal project, where as a small, intelligent film coming off the success of the Dark Knight, represents ‘grandeur’ and a ‘larger than life’ approach to filmmaking.3


Quality wise, there is no contest between these trailers. With respect to Mr. Cameron, his desperate attempts at ‘photorealistic’ images have really disappointed here. Sure, when looking at any shot of Avatar, your breath can be taken away quite easily with the amount of detail crafted into each landscape, however, compared to the detail of an IMAX camera, it looks nothing but cheap and, more importantly, fake. I personally cannot submerge myself into this world because it never suspends my disbelief. Considering that Cameron has been away for so long working on this film, the Na’vi themselves look beneath anything Pixar has put out during the last 5 years. However, after years of supporting Nintendo over Microsoft, Sega and Sony (I think I was one of the only people in my town with a Gamecube), I’m well versed in the argument that looks aren’t everything; in fact my main issue with Avatar is far more fundamental.

After Titanic, James Cameron has effectively been give free licence to make whatever he wants. Whatever story fascinated him, held his attention, made his imagination fly, he could bring to the screen and not one executive at any studio would have stood in his way. He chooses to bring Avatar – what does this say about him? Granted, I have not seen the film, but based on the information presented in interviews, soundtrack listings and the trailer, this looks like a bland and insipid motion picture. For all his attempts to present it as high art (3 hour running time), it looks just as shallow as any Michael Bay robot destruct-a-thon. One feels that, although like Guns N’ Roses’ Chinese Democracy, the level of hype is set so high that Avatar could not possibly live up to it, it wouldn’t hurt if it didn’t look so rushed. To me, the attitude that the trailer gives off is one of indifference. I’m well aware this is not the case, but in my mind I could quite easily picture James Cameron spending the majority of his 10 year sabbatical playing video games and then suddenly remembering that he had to make another film – which is my only explanation as to why this film looks so much like Halo.

My feelings looking at Inception are quite different. Here we have a filmmaker at the very top of his game, presenting us with a story that he obviously wants to tell. More importantly, he can tell us it in a way such that we want to hear it. Herein lays the difference. Christopher Nolan has our appetites whetted and he knows it. By forcing himself and his cast into a vow of silence, he is actually trying to make the film itself a new experience – something that Avatar desperately wants to be. By the time Avatar comes out, all its secrets will no doubt have been revealed to be not very spectacular at all, whereas Inception will be an enigma. This is of course only my two cents, but come December 18th, I’ll be surprised if people are queuing up to see anything more than big battle scenes, predictable storylines and hammy acting, all in “glorious” 3D.


1) http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31191
2) http://www.collider.com/entertainment/article.asp/aid/8567/cid/13/tcid/1
3) Ibid.

Recent release reviewed!!!!: Fantastic Mr. Fox

FANTASTIC MR FOX (2009)

Director. Wes Anderson

Written by: Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach

You know you're watching an idiosyncratic movie when a stop-motion human character, who is quite obviously Jarvis Cocker, is told off for "bad song-writing". Such is the spirit of Wes Anderson's oddball version of Roald Dahl's classic children's book. Any staunch fans expecting a faithful adaptation should really save their money and their blood pressure. This is not Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's Wes Anderson's Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox, and either you embrace that, or you're going to have an infuriating 90 minutes.

The plot of this film? Well, Mr. Fox (George Clooney) is having a mid-life crisis. Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) just wants the best for her family. Their 12-year old (in Fox years) son Ash (Jason Schwartzman) is having difficulty reconciling his physique with his athletic ambitions. Matters are made worse for Ash when his athletic, meditation-practicing, cousin Kristofferson comes to stay. Meanwhile, Mr. Fox has set his sights on robbing the three mean local farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean (Michael Gambon). The farmers aren't going to take this theft lying down, however, and lay seige to Foxy's tree. Throw in a dim-witted but loyal opossum called Kylie, Fox's lawyer Badger (Bill Murray), and a psychotic Southern rat (Willem Dafoe), and that's the story in a nutshell.

Essentially, it's a Wes Anderson film. This is made abundantly clear in the opening seconds as we see the familiar bold yellow chapter headings, and chapter plots laid out in the book. The Fox family seem could be the Zissous or the Tenenbaums with only a few minor tweaks and changes. Meryl Streep even sounds a lot like Anjelica Huston! The "crazy eyes" from Life Aquatic are lovingly recreated ad nauseam. And the Anderson regulars are (mostly) all here, with Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Gambon, Owen Wilson in a small role as Ash' gym coach, and Adrien Brody in a smaller role as a fieldmouse. On the villainous front, Gambon has a great time voicing Bean, the nastiest of the three farmers. Meanwhile, Dafoe gets to do a voice that sounds like Hannibal Lecter's impression of Clarice Starling while calling Mrs. Fox the town tart. Both are alternately funny and frightening. The family issues are given more of a foreground than they ever were in Dahl's book, but this is what Anderson is good at. And it works. Mr. and Mrs. Fox's relationship is handled sensitively, perhaps too sensitively for a children's movie. At one point Mrs. Fox tells her husband "I love you. But I shouldn't have married you."

But Anderson is also clearly enjoying subverting the ususal expectations for a kids' film. Around halfway through, Mrs. Fox gives Ash the "We're all different" speech, concluding "And isn't there something fantastic about that?" As she leaves, Ash sniffily tells her "For you, maybe. I want to be an athlete." There's also the "cussing" issue. Anderson has replaced every swearword with "cuss", leading to some creative dialogue. "You cussin' with me?" "The cuss you are!" "What the cuss was that?", "What a clustercuss", etc. That's not to mention the funny twists on redemption "He redeemed himself!" and bullying ("Are you a bully? You're beginning to sound a lot like a bully.").

I must admit that I've got no idea what children would make of this film. I'm always wary of saying that adult humour goes over kids' heads, but Anderson's sense of humour is so odd and particular that it probably will miss the children's funny bone fairly often. That said, the interplay between Ash and Kristofferson is fun, and Fox's dimwitted by well-meaning sidekick Kylie is funny enough for the little 'uns too. With regards to the animation, it's different enough to stand out. The stop motion is pretty seamless, and there's a hand-made quality to the animals that is very appealing.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is both a pleasingly sharp alternative to a lot of the kids' movies out there at the moment, and another excellent movie from Wes Anderson. Do you like Wes Anderson movies? Then watch this.

Rantings and Ravings: Cannibal Cinema

As is often the case, I’m sitting on a train four hours prior to an interview, 24 hours prior to an assignment deadline and I’m thinking about films. I’m sure that if you’ve actually stumbled across this blog, then this is a problem that you’re no doubt already familiar with - however will we manage? Fanaticism wasn’t invented by Hollywood and it certainly isn’t exclusive to movies either, but it definitely preaches it. One thing that has been made very clear from a (albeit short) lifetime of movie-going, is that cinema is a huge fan of cinema.

Apart from the films made at the beginning of motion pictures, I can’t remember the last time I saw a film that didn’t reference another in one way or another. Even then, it can be argued that the works of F.W. Murnau are just as influenced by Reinhardt and Munch as Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds (2009) is to Sergio Leone. Is this a necessity of cinema? What makes it so different to any other art form?

An obvious argument would suggest that, as cinema is in fact an amalgamation of different technical processes (visual, sound, writing, etc.), it has been in debt to various art forms since birth. Surely it is just a natural progression from painting to photography to cinematography, and each should be highly influenced by each other? I believe that cinema differs to anything else, as it is more likely to make its homages and references resonate emotionally. Consider this example; imagine seeing a photo trying to replicate Picasso’s Guernica by using pre-existing photographs. No matter how accurate or inventive the photographer may be in achieving this, it would be nothing more than a dry exercise. It may be very clever and it may be very pretty, but its emotional effects are lost in comparison to something akin to the finale of Cinema Paradiso (1988). During this film, not only does Giuseppe Tornatore get to highlight and praise some of his favourite films as a youngster but also create a unique and powerful moment completely out of pre-existing footage from other films.

Cinema is very prone to referencing its own history, utilising the viewers’ knowledge of pre-existing works. This was the case even as far back as Citizen Kane (1941), where Orson Welles allegedly set up marathon screenings of John Ford films for the purpose of employing his techniques. Like any other art form, exploiting and/or breaking old conventions can create wonderful experiences for the audience, however, some films are prone to feeling like a history lesson or a who’s who of cinematic techniques and innovations. That is the only way I can describe the career of Brian De Palma. Playing games with the existing rules of cinema can also yield great results, to which the filmography of Jean Luc Godard shows.

Film usually goes one step further than the other art forms – in that it doesn’t suffice to just examine its own techniques, but frequently dissects and assesses the methods of creation. Honestly, I think that a list of ‘movies about the making of movies’ would be longer than the wait for the next Kubrick film. What does impress, however, it’s the percentage of those films that rate as some of the greatest works in cinematic history. Just a quick glance will raise such varied and prestigious titles as Sunset Blvd., The Player, Mulholland Drive, Shadow of the Vampire, Barton Fink, Adaptation, 8½, and Camera Buff. It makes sense that literally hundreds of film makers and screen writers would “stick to what they know” when formulating ideas for their works, but the sheer consistency of insightful and imaginative films on this subject astounds. Who’d have thought that anything could eat itself for so long and not only keep living, but grow stronger as well.

Rantings and Ravings: How Paul Rudd makes cinema better.

My good friend and blog co-author came up with an interesting theory regarding the popularity of Paul Rudd. Apparently Mr. Rudd is some kind of Superman villain waiting to use our admiration for evil. No human could be this likeable. If we discount this theory, then why is it that we all like Paul Rudd so much? Why is he so likeable. You know, I don't think I've met anyone who, after being told who he is, promptly tells me that he's terrible. It's not as if he hasn't been in bad movies. Some really bad movies. But while most of the other Apatow troupe have come in for some backlash (Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Steve Carell, Will Ferrell). What's the deal? Well, for starters, unlike some of the Apatow crowd, Rudd's been working since 1995. Unlike, say, Jonah Hill, he wasn't suddenly presented to us as somebody who's hilarious.

Rudd first came to audiences' attention playing Alicia Silverstone's love interest in Clueless, and "Dave Paris" in Baz Luhrmann's caffeine-addled Romeo and Juliet, not to mention grown-up Tommy Doyle in Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers. He continued paying his dues in rom-coms (The Object of My Affection), misguided indies (200 Cigarettes), and popped up in a small role as Charlize Theron's fiance in The Cider House Rules. He even appeared with bleached hair as the American guy in the "Hong-Kong-action-cyborg-gone-awry" movie Gen-X Cops 2: Metal Mayhem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAwxdMKlTog

Then people seemed to realise he was funny. He starred in the cult comedy Wet Hot American Summer as Andy, the asshole boyfriend to end all asshole boyfriends. He throws kids out of moving vans, calls his girlfriend a dyke, and dumps the girl he's cheating on his girlfriend with by telling her that "You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore." Oh and he has the finest double take ever. He also popped up in a small guest appearance on Amy Sedaris' wonderfully scabrous TV show Strangers with Candy, a sure sign of growing appreciation among fellow comics. In 2002 he went mainstream by starring as Phoebe's boyfriend and eventually husband Mike in Friends. We're willing to forgive him for this, because we know that some people really like Friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZZ2d-x6o2I

In 2003 he starred in Neil LaBute's underrated drama The Shape of Things as the haplessly manipulated Adam, who's convinced by his new art-student girlfriend (a never-better Rachel Weisz) to give up his friends, change his personality, and even get a nose-job. The twist is crushing. Rudd is excellent as the well-meaning but weak-willed Adam. His next role could not have been more different. 2004 saw the release of Anchorman, the first of the Apatow/Ferrell/McKay movies. Its runaway success meant that Will Ferrell could pretty much do anything he wanted, but Rudd is also hilarious as mustachioed, Sex Panther-wearing Brian Fantana. He gets his fair share of the best lines, including "60% of the time, it works every time" , and the memorable notion of naming one's testicles. He also had a small role as Laura Linney's ex-addict brother in Dylan Kidd's P.S. (also underrated).

2005 saw the release of Judd Apatow's directorial début, as well as Steve Carell's first starring role, The 40 Year Old Virgin. Here again was Rudd, in a supporting but hysterically funny role, showing that he could not only stand out in an ensemble (the "you know how I know you're gay" scene is still hysterical), but work to make the ensemble group funnier (which is impressive, given it's made up of the not-unfunny Romany Malco, Seth Rogen, and Jane Lynch). But unlike fellow cast-mate Rogen, there was no sudden jump to major box-office leading man. He popped up in funny cameo roles in Night of the Museum (big success) and Fast Track (big failure). He made The Ten with the Wet Hot American Summer gang that didn't recreate the previous film's cult popularity (despite a better-known cast). He guest starred on Veronica Mars and Reno: 911, and starred opposite Michelle Pfeiffer in quickly forgotten rom-com I Could Never Be Your Woman.

He got better reviews in Judd Apatow's second movie, Knocked Up. In some hands Rudd's character could have been a thankless role. He plays Pete, Katherine Heigl's brother-in-law, who's grown unhappy in his marriage and sneaks off in the middle of the night to play fantasy baseball. Rudd manages to create a character who's likeable, not in spite of his pettiness, but almost because of it. In what is essentially a very optimistic film, Pete and Debbie (the excellent Leslie Mann) show what is sometimes inevitable in life. Things don't always work out. "The biggest problem in our marriage is that she wants me around". Oh and he's funny in it too.

After Knocked Up Rudd became a lot more visible, and his appeal more obvious. The reason why his John Lennon is so funny in Walk Hard is because it's so brazenly awful. He's a welcome comic relief in the overlong Forgetting Sarah Marshall. And, to be honest, we can just about forgive Over Her Dead Body because hey, it's not like anybody actually saw it.

It's with his last two lead roles that Paul Rudd's finally found the acclaim he deserves. Role Models sounded like a pretty lazy Hollywood pitch: two slackers have to do community service with kids. But the script (co-written by Rudd) is clever, and most importantly, funny enough to make the film consistently watchable. The film is hilarious, with Rudd's misanthropic Danny playing off Seann William Scott's upbeat Wheeler to great comic effect. What also makes the film work is that, unlike many comedy characters whose cold exterior melts to reveal a warm fuzzy character, Danny actually comes across as believable. We've all been pissed off and frustrated at the things and events that cause himto vent spleen. We just don't react to them as wittily. "Really? It's called a venti? Who calls it that, Fellini?" Role Models deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, because it's just as funny without the lengthy sentimentalizing. Of course, there is some, courtesy of Danny's relationship with Elizabeth Banks, but it's done with a sense of humour and it doesn't add an extra 40 minutes onto the film.

I Love You, Man billed itself as a bromantic comedy, and it really is the best way to describe it. This is mainly because it has the exact same structure as a romantic comedy. John Hamburg's comedy does assume that it's novelty means that it can get away with following formula, but it's certainly worth a watch. The film is especially funny during the first act, as Rudd's Peter Klaven realises that he has no friends. A series of excrutiating man-dates ensue, as Rudd attempts to bond, be cool, and avoid getting French-kissed by a man. The embarrassment is so effective because Klaven is such a likeable character. And there's that word again: likeable!

What we can see by looking at Rudd's career is that he's paid his dues in some less than loveable movies, done excellent dramatic work, been a part of excellent ensemble casts, and proven that he can carry the burden of a lead. And the answer to our question? Well....I think he might be a Superman villain.

Ramblings and Retrospectives: Funny Ha Ha

Funny Ha Ha

I bought Funny Ha Ha using a well tried and tested method of my teenage years. In fact, it's something I've begun to utilise more now I'm older, especially with wine - I judged on the label.

I'd just like to point out that I am fully aware that this technique has its flaws, in fact it's provided me with some absolute stinkers; Brand New's Deja Entendu, Spike Lee's Summer of Sam. Funny Ha Ha, however, definitely falls into the favoured category, with My Bloody Valentine's Loveless and my favourite bottle of plonk.

Funny Ha Ha (2002) is the debut feature from Andrew Bujalski, an American director, currently working on his third film. If you pay any attention to the message boards on IMDb, you'd probably come out with the opinion that this was the most offensive film since Pasolini's Salò. This is definitely not the case. At the core of the schism between forumers is a very simple slice-of-life piece.

Marnie (Kate Dollenmayer) is a young twenty-something post-grad, waltzing her way from one temp job to another. In between these dull employments, she hangs out with her more grounded friends; Rachel (Jennifer L. Schaper), Dave (Myles Paige) and Alex (Christian Rudder) - the boy who she is harbouring a crush on. Alex has a girlfriend, but oh wait, they've broken up, he needs a shoulder to cry on - cue Marnie. Yes, I'm aware that this sounds like a very plain and mundane rom-com, however, upon viewing the first scene, it is very easy to see that things are not so clear cut.

Primarily, Funny Ha Ha, is not very funny, well, unless you enjoy laughing at the unfortunate emotional situations that some people find themselves in. In addition, it is a very distinctive film, shot on 16mm and synced with mono sound, which can challenge the more conventional viewer. Thanks to the efforts of Bujalski and Dollenmayer specifically, this is a wonderfully engrossing drama about the aimlessness of young adult life in our generation, each character stuttering and stammering their way through it. We know that each character is well educated and we never look down on them as idiots or as the butt of a joke, yet we can witness and sympathise with their lack of direction and interest in the world around them. An obvious comparison is to Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979). Whereas, in Manhattan, each character is jumping over themselves to deliver the next witty reference, here we are presented a far more realistic world. A world where not everyone is an expert on Bergmann. Here we directly see a generation that knew that their future security and, allegedly, happiness was dependent on them securing a place at college, however, they simply had no interest in it.

Andrew Bujalski skillfully directs his cast of non-actors headlong into the plights of emotional and professional ambiguity and, although you never feel like you're watching a grand thespian performance, the impact is definitely greater than watching a friend's home movies. The script itself (yes, there was a script and despite all the stutters, it is alleged that it was quite strict) does well to subvert standard Hollywood templates, first through Marnie's relationship with Alex and then later with her colleague/would-be boyfriend Mitchell (Bujalski himself). That isn't to say that the film feels like a wry, Godard-esque exercise, winking knowingly at the audience at each deviation from the road more travelled. A huge part of the film's appeal lies in how unpretentious it is.

Visually, the film is successful too. As mentioned previously, it is shot on 16mm, thereby lacking the sheen of larger budget films, but it is also missing the precise look of the similarly priced Primer. Bujalski plays this to his advantage, using the high saturation colouring to present the film in a similar manner to Scorsese's Mean Streets. We hope, almost knowingly that Marnie will end up on her feet, but the really drama lies in how she'll manage this.

The film is almost a feminist parable, Marnie's quest towards control in her love life. Throughout the film, she is taken advantage of by the men in her life, first Alex, then David and finally Mitchell. She isn't even in control of the brief fling she has at a party. Alex consistently takes her out with dubious purposes and even towards the end of the film, it is clear that he has strong romantic feelings towards her. Despite his newly married statues, he still turns up to her flat in the middle of the night and utters such stupid sentimental drivel as 'I think the world of you Marnie...' and she allows herself to taken along this ride. Dave kisses her at a party despite his enviably secure relationship with Rachel. From the framing of the scene, Dave is completely the dominate character, taking up most of the screen and it is clear that Marnie allows her self to be kissed without resistance, though that is not to say that she wants to kiss Dave. It is almost like we are watching a girl with so little self-respect that she simply kisses Dave because he wants to kiss her. Never before or after this shot is there anything that could remotely be described as sexual tension between the two characters, save for some leering glances from Dave.

Finally, the final act with Mitchell is also rather telling in this fashion. His obvious attraction to Marnie stems only from her 'beauty', which he comments in his own mumbling fashion throughout each of the scenes he takes part in. It is also clear that Marnie has no interest in him, but she either naively misunderstands his intentions or just puts very little effort up to stop him. Finally, during the blink-and-you-miss-it finale, Marnie stands up to Alex and lets him know that she won't tolerated that sort of ambiguous behaviour from him anymore ('No dice...'). Part of the greatness of Dollenmayer's performance and the overall pacing of this film is that this moment isn't delivered in a Network-style explosion. Instead it feels like a natural progression for the cool, yet timid character in a similarly cool, yet timid film.

Recent Release Reviewed!!!!!!!!!: Trick 'r' Treat

Well, Halloween's gone now. All we're left with is the slow realisation that the fake blood probably won't wash out of the white shirt, and what to do with that jack o'lantern...it's going to rot.... Anyway, here's one last little Halloween themed post.

TRICK 'R' TREAT

The path of Trick 'r' Treat to any sort of audience was not a simple one. Due for release in 2007, the film was finally released straight to DVD just in time for Halloween this year. Despite the fact that the few early reviews were universally positive, the film kept getting pushed further and further back. Interesting marketing strategy, eh? Whenever I'd hear something about it my interest would be piqued. Then I'd get to the end of the article or review and I'd see that the film had been pushed back...yet again. But now it's out, and I've finally seen it. And it's very good.

The film is similar in structure to the classic George A. Romero/Stephen King collaboration Creepshow, or the less classic Tales From the Darkside Movie, in that it has several interlocking stories. Unlike the older films, however, all the characters are involved in all the stories, rather than having one narrator, and it all takes place on Halloween night. It opens with a couple (Leslie Bibb and Tahmoh Penikett) debating whether or not to get rid of their Halloween decorations, with impressively gory consequences that set the tone for the film. School principal Steven (Dylan Baker) decides to teach a jack o'lantern-trashing kid a lesson he won't forget, Laurie (Anna Paquin) feels pressured by her older sister to find a date for the big party in the woods, a group of kids decide to find the remains of a schoolbus full of murdered special-needs children, and cranky shut-in Mr. Kreeg (Brian Cox) is tormented by a violent supernatural monster that may be linked to his past.

In the studio's defence, it's easy to see that the film is almost impossible to market for anything other than a niche audience. Given that the closest point of comparison is Creepshow, how do you get a Saw audience to watch this? Too scary and gory for the PG-13 crowd, and too funny and strange for the torture porn fans. For fans of older horror, however, Trick 'r' Treat is a definite treat (Oh yes, that pun's intended). It's clever and funny enough to be a reference-filled Scream sort of film, but it never actually goes into parody. Writer/director Michael Dougherty balances the laughs with some genuine scares and some nasty gory shocks. The script is also full of excellent little twists and turns that subvert expectations rather than cheat them.

It helps that the film is cast superbly. Anna Paquin plays the Little Red Riding Hood of her group, and it's strange to think that the film was made before True Blood as a man in a vampire suit stalks her through the forest. Brian Cox has fun as the cranky hermit, all straggly hair and muttered curses. The children in search of the lost school bus are also excellent. Best of the lot, though, is Dylan Baker. Playing the creepy killer school principal, he carefully treads the line of over-the-top mugging and genuinely scary. It's a reminder that he's an underrated actor, and deserves more than the meager screen-time he's often given.

The problem with Trick 'r' Treat is that it's all over a little too quickly. Arguably, it's a good thing that we're left wanting more. However, it would have been nice to give the characters a bit more time (Baker is short-changed, as is Paquin). But it's funny, scary, and it's everything that a Halloween movie should be. Dougherty has said he'd like to make more with the film's mascot Sam as the returning character, and hopefully they'll let him. Seems unlikely.

Creepshow trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oFRi2D7Ph8

Tales from the Darkside Movie trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_V13CAyumU&feature=related