It Follows (2015)

The theme of the horror film It Follows - that our personal demons will, inevitably, catch up to us - is nothing new. The execution, however, reinvents past tropes in such a unique way that it reminded me why I fell in love with the genre in the first place.

From zombies to body snatchers, from Jaws to Jason, the demonic Energizer Bunny has been the core of most horror films since inception - for good reason. Nothing is more terrifying than feeling completely helpless as a force (seen or unseen) is single-minded in its focus to achieve one goal: to fuck you up. It Follows is no different, but David Robert Mitchell's screenplay manages to strip away all the pretense and exposition from those earlier entries and gives us the barest version of the concept of relentless evil since the original Halloween's Michael Myers - a.k.a. "The Shape."

And boy, It Follows is not only a love letter to that film, but also an evolutionary genre-busting take on it (think Unforgiven vs. spaghetti westerns). Early on I felt I could be watching a film from the Halloween canon: the Carpenter-like synth, the long, steady cam shots of teens walking through their suburban neighborhood chatting about nothing in particular, and the filming of mundane domestic locations as if they were hiding... something. We are waiting for the first glimpse of the killer from the first scene, waiting for the jump scare that we are so very conditioned to getting (and from then on, over and over, in accordance with most modern horror). Thankfully, It Follows is better than that.

And this works to the film's benefit.  Oh, we get the killer alright, but not before we get the rules by which this particular menace presents itself. And the rules are, for the most part, presented simply and believably. Just as you start to question the supernatural elements, your head is spinning, contemplating the physical constraints. From then on, I was examining every inch of every frame, scrutinizing boundaries. How many exits are there? About how much time do they have? Just how creative is this monster, and how can the characters interact with it?

I had a ton of fun micromanaging my eyeballs during It Follows,  and Mitchell's camera perfectly exacerbates that feeling of unease. People move through frame, behind other characters, and there is always a glimmer of movement in the background. Even scenes that would exist only to pass on key plot points are framed so they are never taken for granted. In the opening scene, the lead character inexplicably drives to the ocean. When, later in the film, the characters find themselves at the beach again, it dawns on you "oh shit that's why!" It's a moment that really pays off, and I felt even more anxiety than they they did. I knew it was a horror film, and, sorry fellas nice try but it won't help and there is probably not a Rational Explanation for All of This.

The way the dread piles on to itself as the film goes on is wonderfully, uniquely oppressive. Similar to The Final Destination, "The Shape" here is also somewhat Shapeless but also bound to the real world in such a way that the characters have the illusion of agency. The aforementioned rules continue to remind you that there is really no respite from the inevitable, and, in the case of one scene, takes a creative mind to even try to break free of it. It's a cruel element of the screenplay that lulls us in to believing this thing can be beaten. You can decide for yourself if that actually works out at the end.

Sure, the movie works as a commentary on personal baggage, promiscuity, coming of age, and the things we are willing to do for the ones we love. But where It Follows works best is in its ability to turn the coldly mechanical in to the emotionally and physically draining. It's my favorite movie of the year and will go down as one of my favorite horror movies of all time.

Recommend: Uh, yeah, it's a horror film with 95% on RottenTomatoes. How often does that happen?
Gore factor: 3/10
Pants-shitting factor: 10/10

Windows Phone 7

I recently purchased the HTC Trophy that was launched on Verizon on May 26th. There are an abundance of in-depth reviews of Windows Phone 7 on the net (largely positive), so I won't go in depth here. I did, however, want to mention some of the big features that attracted me to the platform and why I ultimately decided to take the plunge on the underdog.

I tend to follow the innovation, not the brand. I owned an iMac for many years when XP was getting long in the tooth and Vista was not fully baked. I owned an iPod for a long time before the allure of the Zune subscription service pulled me away (unlimited downloads, $15/month), and I discovered that the Zune HD platform was a solid and viable alternative to the iPod. I jumped on Android at launch because of it's customizable interface, deeper feature set than the competition, and Google services integration. Then, I learned what Microsoft was trying to do with the WP7 platform, and I signed up.

The first thing you notice about the WP7 interface is how clean and responsive it is. Microsoft is trying to move away from using the OS as a bucket for storing links to applications, and the simple screen-after-screen of square icons that is so popular on Android and iOS. Arguably, they are presenting tiles in vertical scroll rather than a horizontal scroll, but there is more going on behind the scenes with the use of WP7 "hubs."

The vision here, though not yet fully realized, is that the user shouldn't have to click and launch multiple apps to view all of their "Pictures." With iOS and Android, you could launch the native pictures app, the Facebook app, a Flickr app, a Picassaweb app, etc, and have to keep track of where everything is located in the meantime. WP7 has a single "Pictures" hub that currently collects local photos, Windows Live/SkyDrive, and Facebook photos in one place. The idea is innovative and user friendly - IF the app developers play ball by integrating with the hub and not simply releasing their own branded app for release in the WP7 app store. It's not clear to me how third-parties would be incented to do this, but I definitely support the idea. (credit Paul Thurrot for the Flickr example: they recently released a WP7 app that does not integrate with the native Pictures hub).

Another, and probably better, example is the "People" hub. When clicked, the first thing you see is a Facebook status feed, and the contact list is fully integrated across your Facebook and Google accounts (as is the way on other platforms). What Microsoft is planning to do here is interesting, and something I've always wanted: full interoperability across social networking messaging services. If I get a Facebook message, I want to be able to do a one-click reply via text messaging or GMail. Also, as part of the Mango update, they are going to fully integrate Twitter feeds inline, which I'm sure will be a information presentation/design challenge.

I could go in to the many other pros (full Office integration, the best on-screen keyboard ever), and the few cons (no native Google Maps app) but overall I feel MS is at least trying something new, and since the mobile market is quickly settling in to a two-player world, I want to support anyone who is trying true innovation. I would recommend this platform to nearly anyone, especially by the end of the year when the app store is a bit more populated and Mango brings several more key features.

(The) iPad

So I had the chance to live with an iPad for a while. I'm considered an Apple-hater in certain circles, but I think I was able to evaluate it fairly. I'm a gadget-geek first and foremost, after all.

Let's start with the iPad's primary use case: browsing the internet. There, it is a solid experience. The iPad quickly became my go-to device for basic web-browsing and email, due to the combination touch-screen and the quick turn-on time. The internet-browsing experience is far from flawless, though. I did have Safari crash on me twice in a 1/2 hr browsing session, which is slightly annoying but not unacceptable. And Safari creates the illusion of tabbed browsing while not really fulfilling on the promise. I suspect the "tabs" are just a visual browsing history, because if  you click back and forth between tabs it loads each page anew. Again, annoying, but not a show-stopper.

The show-stopper is the old chestnut: lack of Flash support. I know this has been beaten to death, but I cannot describe how frustrating it is to have access to only part of the internet due to the iPad's lack of support for Flash. It's incredibly annoying to see a link to a video that really captures your interest, clicking, and being met with a blank screen. Sure, Steve may be right that 90% of video is not encoded using Flash, but 90% of that 90% is delivered via Flash, so you can't view it anyway. Oh, and forget browsing most restaurant web sites.

So, after browsing the net on the iPad for a while, it quickly became tradition to walk over to my PC to catch up on the content that the iPad couldn't deliver. Why didn't I start on the PC you ask? Simple: the couch factor is very convenient and is probably the iPad's biggest selling point. Yes, even over the App Store. I find the App Store to be a novelty more than anything. There are really only about 6 applications I use regularly on my Android device, so filling up an iPad with niche apps isn't my thing.

Video-watching was fantastic. I watched several hours on a recent vacation and had an ideal experience. The gain via headphones was great, and video played smoothly.

I also downloaded and tried a lot of games, and generally found them to be of high-quality and engaging. I'm curious to see what gaming innovation is coming our way for a tablet.

I found the iPad to not be particularly effective as an e-book reader. It's too heavy to comfortably hold in long stretches, and forget reading it at the beach. I find the low-glare screen of true e-ink to be much better for reading, and with the latest Kindle price drop you would be better suited to buy a single-purpose device for book reading.

If you have the disposable income, the iPad is a nice toy to have around. You WILL use it, and probably daily. But it's a concept that needs to evolve, and I wouldn't recommend most people invest in a tablet until some other competition hits the market. E.g.,There are display innovations on the horizon that could make tablets more appealing for avid readers. 

Winter's Bone

What the f*ck is up with Missouri?

This question kept popping in to my head as I watched Winter's Bone, starring relative newcomer Jennifer Lawrence as Ree Dolly, a 17-year-old girl who has assumed the role of caregiver for her two younger siblings and mentally vacant mother in a backwoods town in the Ozark Mountains. You see, the mother apparently lost her marbles because she was surrounded by some of the most vile, unpredictable, menacing men who dabble in methamphetimine production and really, really, really, don't like to talk to much about it. These guys are just as terrifying as your run-of-the-mill chainsaw-wielding Texan. No joke.

And as bad as the men are, they don't hold a candle to what the women prove they are capable of by the end.

But let me back up. Ree is barely keeping it together for her family. There is no obvious income source and they  usually don't know where their next meal is coming from, most days. They rely on the kindness of strangers (which, believe me, is few and far between) and old-school survival skills to get by.

One cold and miserable day (indistinguishable from every other cold, miserable day), a local lawman drives up to the house and informs Ree that her father has jumped bail and has gone missing. Daddy has gone and put their house up for bond, so if they don't track him down, the house will be taken by the state and Ree and her family will be homeless. The rest of the film is Ree's search for her dad, and her challenges in dealing with the hillbilly underworld of Missouri and the meth-cooking culture. Ree turns over rock after rock in search of her dad, much to the ire of those who would rather keep that information to themselves. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing in scene after scene of Ree trying to fake toughness in the face of some pretty intimidating people.

There is a scene about halfway through the movie where Ree visits a military recruitment center, having her eye on the $40,000 dollar signing "bonus" for new recruits. She has a brief conversation with the recruiting officer, who calmly explains her options and gives her real advice on what to do next. At this point in the movie, Ree has been met with so much adversity from every man around her, including her family, that the kindness and respect shown by this character comes off as if delivered by an angel from heaven. She thanks him at the end of the meeting, not because he gives her the answers she wants, but because she, however briefly, was treated with respect.

This is a powerful and beautiful film. As much as I loved the city of cards that Chris Nolan built with Inception, this movie is nudging it out on my list of best of the year, so far. Tonally, the film reminded me of Wendy and Lucy, another film that relies on the beauty and harsh reality of everyday life to create genuine tension and empathy for the lead character. Sometimes you have to blow up an asteroid hurling toward Earth. Sometimes, you just need a quarter to make a phone call. Ree could use that quarter.

For fans of: slow-burning indie dramas, quiet thrillers

Rating: A

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo / The Girl Who Played With Fire

I can't boast that I hopped on the Larsson "Girl" bandwagon at the beginning, but I picked up the book about 3 months after it started having dedicated real estate at Borders. I slogged through the first 20 pages describing, in great detail, the corporate workings of the Wennerstrom dynasty and thinking "how the HELL is this book so popular?"

When Miss Marple  Mikael Blomkvist arrived on Hedeby island, the defined number and cast of characters introduced, the dark crime described, and the (metaphorical) storm clouds rolled in, I proceeded to read in 50 page chunks. The book is nearly as ubiquitous as The Da Vinci code at this point, so I'm saying nothing new when I say that Larsson created a classic mystery with at least one of the most memorable and fully realized characters ever committed to pop fiction in Lisbeth Salander.

Noomi Rapace, a.k.a. "The Girl"

So, the book is great. I then went to see the Swedish film adaptation, and was equally impressed. Of course the movie can never capture everything in the book, but I felt that the decisions that the screenwriters made around what to include and what to abandon were pretty spot-on. For example, I don't think that the philandering that was so prevalent in the book would have necessarily translated to the screen, it would have added bloat, and it would not have had a cultural impact here in the US (we don't as openly fess up to our wife-swapping). And being able to visualize what was in the mind's eye while reading the novel is always interesting (Martin's basement was much more sterile than I pictured).

So, as is often the case, I had a big case of the Diminishing Returns when I read The Girl Who Played With Fire. I didn't find the story nearly as compelling, and for a while after I closed the book I literally had a hard time remembering anything high-level about the plot. With the exception of a couple of memorable moments involving a large blonde man who can feel no pain, it felt like a sub-standard thriller riding on the purchase of the amazing characterization of Lisbeth.

The film version of Fire is quite apparently an inferior interpretation of an inferior sophomore novel. The actors seem to be going through the motions this time around, and seeing the villains has a weird dual let-down: on one hand, seeing them in the flesh takes the supernaturally evil quality away, but at the same time, some of their qualities are so broad-stroke and exaggerated that you don't really buy-in to the reality.

I've elected to not read the third book, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, and to experience the story wrap-up in the theater when the third film is released in a few months. I have hope: I hear the third book is great, but there may be issues translating the tech-heavy aspects to the screen. We shall see.

The Iron Giant

I saw The Iron Giant in the summer of '99, by myself. I don't really remember what drew me to the film beyond the high praise it was getting from critics; maybe I was just bored on a Saturday. I remember not being terribly impressed with the opening 15 minutes of the film, lynch-pinned on a slapstick scene involving a squirrel. But by the time the lead character, Hogarth, settles down in front of his black-and-white TV to watch a 50s-era sci-fi film involving a living, man-eating brain on the loose, I knew I was hooked. The scene puts the film in a specific place in time - early in the Cold War - and foreshadows the humor and tone for the rest of the movie.

The basic plot of TIG is horribly derivative, and is nearly a clone of E.T. The Extra Terrestrial. What differentiates The Iron Giant is its deadpan sense of humor and the the way it uses Cold War paranoia to enhance the fish-out-of-water device. It was a masterstroke of Brad Bird (an unknown to this point) to set his story here, and allows him to pull in other pop culture devices (e.g. Superman's appearance in Action Comics) - not just to add era credibility, but to integrate those elements in to the story thematically. It would be as if Hot Tub Time Machine had actually used 80s excess to make a point or to drive a plot device, rather than to wink at the audience and move on. Another example are the shots and numerous mentions of Sputnik to comment on the fact that the "enemy" came from space.

Other than the endearing appeal of Studio Ghibli, I think of The Iron Giant as the last in the era of hand-drawn animation (which made a short-lived comeback with The Princess and the Frog). In fact, TIG wasn't strictly hand-drawn, and boasts the first-ever fully CGI character in a feature-length film (take that, Jar Jar). The CGI animators, incidentally, wrote a program that would add a slight "squiggle" to the outline of the Giant so it better integrated with the hand-drawn bits. The CGI effect is subtle, but really gives the Giant mass and a "space-age" feel.

My frequency of viewings of the film have increased from once a year to twice a week since I exposed the film to my 3-year-old son. And I have to admit, it gets me every time. ("You can fly!). No wise-cracking sidekick. No spontaneous music numbers. No jokes about body functions (ok, there is half a joke). Just classic story telling backed up by a mix of classic and new-age animation. Love it.

Amazon: The Iron Giant (Special Edition)

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)

I've seen all film incarnations of Jack Finney's book The Body Snatchers, and this is my favorite version and one of my favorite films. The body-snatching concept is as thematically fill-in-the-blank as are zombie films. It's been used to comment on xenophobia, communism, conformity, social upheaval, and political ideology. For me, it's the core concept - being betrayed by the person or people closest to you - that strikes a nerve, and Finney is brilliant for inventing a foundation from which writers and directors can develop their own spin.

Philip Kaufman is not a prolific director, and like Terrance Malick, he tends to make diverse films that explore differing genres and tones. (Kaufman is rumored to be developing the script for Indiana Jones 5, so god help us we may recover from Jones 4 after all) His approach to this Invasion was to build on the 1956 original narrative and characters, add a bit to the alien back story, and use 70s effects to show more of the snatching process on screen. He also brought a masterstroke to the Snatchers mythology: the piercing scream that the aliens emit when they identify a human in their midsts. (Used to excellent effect here, but bested by Meg Tilly's scream in Abel Ferrara's 1993 remake-of-a-remake Body Snatchers)

Another Kaufman trick is to use background or incidental imagery to unsettled the audience. Each time I watch the film I pick up on a visual clue in the background that totally creeps me out. Often it's just a handful of extras standing with blank stares; in one instance there is a man looking through a clouded glass window, staring at the main characters and tracking their movements. They only last a second or two, but it definitely creates a sense of overwhelming conspiracy. I was reminded of the way that Polanski uses sound to unsettle the audience in Chinatown, and, more recently, the way that Scorsese plays with the language of film editing and continuity in Shutter Island. I am always impressed when a director goes to lengths to add another layer to the experience.

If you haven't seen the film, it's a no-brainer to rent it immediately. Hell, I would recommend all versions of this basic story, even the Nicole Kidman movie The Invasion, just to see how each writer/director interprets the material.