Review: The DV Rebel's Guide

The DV Rebel's Guide: An All-Digital Approach to Making Killer Action Movies on the Cheap.

Author: Stu Maschwitz

Are you a DV Rebel? You might be if you know your way around a camera, NLE¹, Adobe After Effects, or any of the million CG programs out there. Or perhaps you've made, or were involved in making, a short film or low-budget feature. If so, you are a DV Rebel--and the DV Rebel's Guide is just what you've been looking for to make your next project even better.

The Guide is for anyone with a passion for good filmmaking, and the drive to learn and improve the final product. As Maschwitz puts it:

"It's for anyone whose cinematic ambitions extend beyond the self-imposed restrictions of standard indie fare. If the story about which you are passionate involves exotic locations, visual spectacle, weather, Kung Fu, or any other stuff that makes movies better than plays, then welcome to the book that won't try to talk you off the ledge."

Just because you don't have a big budget doesn't mean you can't make the film you want. Maschwitz says he hopes some of what you read in the book will make you "throw down the book immediately and go try it out." He was right. In fact, I constantly found myself thinking, Yes! That's what I do, or Holy shit! I never thought of that.

Rather than limiting your film to one location, shying away from interesting shots, or avoiding special and visual effects like the plague, Maschwitz encourages you to trust yourself to make the film only you can make. And The Guide has the tools to help. Included in the arsenal he provides are: where to find affordable and convincing prop guns (and how to make them appear to be fired); how to effectively light your set with lights from your local hardware chain; and how to dolly, slide, and steady your camera for under $100. In return, he asks that you don't skimp on three things: The camera ("for the Rebel, HD is an option; 24p is a must.")², a professional NLE, and Adobe After Effects. Four things if you include Photoshop.

Indeed Maschwitz's approach is "postproduction heavy," but that doesn't mean he advocates a fix-it-in-post style. In fact, it's the opposite. Postproduction begins during pre-production. The key to his approach is production value, "that nebulous quality that makes a film feel big." By using the resources at hand to their fullest, and acknowledging your limitations, you can make a film that appears you spent a lot more that you actually did. "[Y]ou won't be making Terminator 2 -- but if you stretch and strain and get really creative, maybe you can make The Terminator."

Also notable is Maschwitz's writing style. He addresses his audience as peers, in a friendly style that strives to motivate Rebels to make better films. He's indeed one of us, a Rebel. Barnes and Nobel is filled with filmmaking books that either dig so deep into a subject that it scares away most potential readers, or are so general you have to be a complete newbie to get anything from them³. But the DV Rebel's guide speaks directly to DV Rebels, and tells them exactly what they need to know about the craft. Sure, he could have written 300 more pages or separated the chapters into different volumes, completely dumping his brain onto paper, but that's not what The Guide is about. It's about getting out there to make films; not merely reading about it.

The book covers planning and storyboarding, shooting, effects, editing, and mastering--providing information essential to maximizing production value and keeping the recorded image as pristine as possible. Most of the chapter called Onlining⁴ digs deep into After Effects. The color correction section alone could make a newbie's head explode, but as a DV Rebel, I was exhilarated. I felt the book was written at my level of experience, filling many holes in my knowledge, but not spoon-feeding me stuff I already knew.

The Guide also comes with a companion DVD. The video portion has a short film called The Last Birthday Card that Maschwitz wrote and directed. It's a true Rebel project, and he uses clips as examples throughout the book. In addition to the film itself, there is a version with commentary, and an FX breakdown. The commentary is great. I do wish, however, that he included more in the FX breakdown. There were two major FX sequences in the film, a helicopter and a car crash, but the featurette only covers the helicopter shots.

Also included on the DVD are some Rebel tools for post-production. You'll find some nifty After Effects scripts, including a palette that will make you crave a cigarette when you're finished playing with it. OMG!

There are a couple of topics I wish he had expanded on further. Sound and lighting are, to me, the most neglected elements in low-budget films. Maschwitz does cover both of them, offering pointers, but I would have loved to see more detail on both. Of course, he admits he's no sound expert and doesn't want to come off sounding like one. I can accept that. And his pointers, dos and don'ts, are specific and direct in true Rebel fashion.

Lighting is covered in a little more detail, offering some great advice. But lighting is one aspect I feel needs more than just pointers; I feel the foundation should be laid out, even for Rebels. I've seen too many films where the lighting showed the DP's lack of experience. And nothing takes me out of a movie faster than when something doesn't look right.

But these are minor quibbles. I found The DV Rebel's Guide extremely informative in nearly every aspect of filmmaking. More than that, Maschwitz's love of the craft shines through on every page, which made me want to get out and make a great movie.

About the Author:

From the back cover: Stu Maschwitz is a commercial director and cofounder and CTO of The Orphanage, a San Francisco-based visual effects and film production company. Maschwitz spent five years as a visual effects artist at George Lucas's Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) and went on to create the award-winning Magic Bullet software, used in his 1999 short film The Last Birthday Card. Made with the very first DV camera for a budget of around $5000, Birthday Card shocked viewers with its high production value and killer effects.

Maschwits also publishes a blog called ProLost, and hosts a forum as a companion for the DV Rebel's Guide called The Rebel Cafe.

¹ NLE stands for Non-linear editor. The most popular professional NLEs are Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro, and Avid.

² The Canon HV20 is the first consumer-level camera (under $1000) that shoots 24p (with some tweaking when capturing). It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of prosumer cameras, but it has become increasingly popular--and seriously pimped out. More about the HV20 in future posts.

³ There are a lot of other good books on filmmaking. But sometimes it gets frustrating to sift through the mediocrity to find a gem.

⁴ Onlining is a term I'd never heard until reading the book. Maschwitz defines it as: "...a noun and a verb that refers to the process of creating the final, high quality version of your film."

On the Lot

Congratulations to Will Bigham!! You were my choice. I can't wait to see what you come up with for your first feature.

For those who don't know, On the Lot, sort of an American Idol for filmmakers, aired throughout the summer. Ordinarily I avoid reality shows at all costs--I think they represent the beginning of the end for American television--but this one I wanted to see. Some 18,000 filmmakers were whittled down to the top 50 that would be contestants. Each believing they deserve the big prize. But they had to prove it by making short films.

The first episode documented their attempt to pitch a film idea to the judges. The ones that impressed the judges moved to the next round. From that point, they had to produce short films that we as viewers would watch and vote on after the show. Sometimes contestants were assigned a specific genre like horror, action, or comedy. And sometimes there was only theme such as "Two worlds collide." In later weeks, contestants had access to professional crews and actors as well as their pick of locations. They were living the dream. Some films were really impressive, while others were God-awful. One of the early favorites--Danger Zone, created by one-time front-runner Zach--showed a domino effect of mishaps in a lab. It was filmed as one shot, and had some amazing effects.

Like American Idol, On the Lot had 3 judges that offered their opinions of the films. Each week, regulars Carrie Fisher and Gary Marshall were joined by a different guest judge. Among the guests were Wes Craven and Michael Bay. I loved the irony of Michael Bay pointing out a "groaner" in one film, and then explaining why it was a groaner. He really does know what it means. :lol:

But ultimately it was the viewers' votes that picked the winners. That was actually a good thing, because I felt the judges were a little out of step with the mainstream, and didn't get some of the cleverness of the filmmakers. Though, sometimes their experienced opinion was needed to make clear how bad a film really was.

I wasn't surprised that Will won. He was the most consistent throughout the competition. Every film he made was not only creative and original, but technically proficient as well. No other contestant could say that. Sure some of the other contestants were technically proficient, Jason, Adam, and Zach come to mind. Each had some great films, but others lacked originality or a coherent/complete story. Will, however, nailed it every time. In fact, one film (Nerve Endings) that the judges didn't like, but the viewers did (thank God), had a brain surgeon's assistant toying with a patient's exposed brain while the doctor was out of the room. That was one of the best films of the whole competition, but it almost cost him the contest because the judges didn't get it. They obviously don't watch dark comedies.

The final episode had Will meeting Steven Spielberg on the Dreamworks lot. That was really cool, especially since I wouldn't mind that happening to me one day. :) Will won a million dollar movie deal from Dreamworks pictures. I don't exactly know what that means once all the contracts are signed, but it sounds good.

It was a shame that On the Lot never really caught on. It had lackluster ratings throughout its run, picking up slightly at the end. I guess a reality show picking the next generation of filmmakers isn't as interesting to the general public as someone willing to eat live slugs for money. :shake:

Grindhouse

Reposted from my review on Horrortalk.

[rate 3.5]

Grindhouse, the collaborative effort of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino (R&T), pays tribute to the schlock and exploitation films of the 70's. It's broken into two complete films: Planet Terror, written and directed by Rodriguez and Death Proof, written and directed by Tarantino. Filmmakers Rob Zombie, Eli Roth, and others also contributed fake trailers that are shown in between the two features. The fake trailers alone are worth the price of admission.

The first thing I noticed watching Grindhouse was that R&T took great pains to re-create the nostalgia of the drive-in experience. They dug up old coming attraction promos and feature intros, complete with the corny music--imagine going to see "I Spit on Your Grave" introduced with music that sounds like a high school marching band.

R&T chose two different paths for their respective films. Rodriguez actually made a schlocky movie from the 70's with Planet Terror, while Tarantino made a Tarantino movie that captures the spirit of the time.

Planet Terror



Planet Terror's plot is simple, and perfect for schlock. A group of mercenaries, making a deal for some dangerous chemicals, use an abandoned military base two miles outside a small town to complete the transaction. But, naturally, things go awry. The airborne chemicals find their way to the town (why do they always pick on small towns?), and the good town folk start turning into--zombies. The sheriff (Michael Biehn) and his deputies are on the case, but seem to be out of their league. So, true to a schlock movie, it's up to a drifter (Freddy Rodríguez), his stripper...er, go-go dancer girlfriend (Rose McGowan), and an abused nurse (Marley Shelton) to save the day. To complicate things (sort of), the story has an "As the World Turns" style subplot that takes place in the hospital where the nurse works. Of course, if this were an actual movie form the 70's, the subplot would disappear mid-movie, leaving the audience confused. But this one actually makes its way to the end, and leads to a satisfying conclusion.

I liked Planet Terror a lot. It was fast paced, over-the-top violent, and extremely funny--all the elements of a good zombie movie. The gore effects were done in "Dawn of the Dead" style, but updated. Ironically, Tom Savini--who pioneered those gore effects, and played a deputy in Planet Terror--didn't work on the makeup (at least according to imdb, but he's probably proud of how it turned out.

The acting was perfect, at least for its purpose. While the film never takes itself too seriously, the characters very much do. They express a seriousness that suggests the actors are subconsciously winking at the screen. And that works here.

Rodriguez also added a ton of film grain to make the movie look old, and added jumps and splices, often at opportune moments.

For anyone that likes zombie movies and/or schlock, this segment is just right for you.

Death Proof



Tarantino took his segment in a different direction, one that Tarantino fans will love, but cult-horror fans may not.

This segment follows two different groups of chicks, as they go out on the town, and on the road. Jungle Julia (Sydney Tamiia Poitier) is a radio personality who needs to blow off some steam. She gathers her drinking buddies and they head for their usual watering hole. One of them catches Stuntman Mike's (Kurt Russell) eye and he follows, but keeps a low profile. For a while, the chicks have a great time. They drink, tease, flirt, and talk shit in a way only Tarantino could dream up. But when they leave the bar, Stuntman Mike has plans for them.

The next group, played by Tracie Thoms, Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, drives out to the middle of nowhere to find Zoe's (Bell) dream car, which she desperately wants to drive. Zoe is in from New Zealand to visit Kim (Thoms), a fellow stuntwoman. They convince the owner of the car, who's selling it, to let them test drive it (the argument between the girls on how to pull this off was hillarious), and they take off. Unfortunately for them, they run into Stuntman Mike while trying some daring stunts with the car. But, look out! These chicks don't take any crap.

I liked Death Proof about as much as Planet Terror, but for different reasons. It's more a film for Tarantino fans than cult movie fans. True to Tarantino form, Death Proof has snappy dialog performed perfectly by a first-rate cast. A better portrayal of realistic banter you will not find. The film also has a soundtrack that would make Scorsese jealous. I imagine Tarantino sitting his his house, a juke box filled with songs from the 60's and 70's next to him, blaring away.

Death Proof also has some of the best driving stunts and cinematography I've ever seen.

But there is little story to speak of. A man stalks two groups of chicks sums it up. Of course, whether or not character-driven stories have or require a strong plot is debatable.

Overall, I recommend Grindhouse, if not in the theater, than on DVD, where it's sure to have a lot of extras.

Evil Dead: The Musical

[rate 4]

When we heard someone had produced a musical based on Evil Dead, we couldn't pass up the chance to see it. So, six of us hit the trail to New York, and made a day of it. We rented a mini-van and left at about 9 AM for the 3 1/2 hour trip.

The play started at 7 PM, so we had time to take in some sights, particularly Madam Tussauds Wax Museum, which was awesome in itself (but I'll leave that story for another time).

When we arrived at the theater, in plenty of time to grab a couple of drinks, I noticed that the attire wasn't typical for a play. Instead of men wearing suits, and women wearing dresses, nearly everyone was wearing jeans and a black t-shirt (a movie t-shirt, at that). This was definitely a crowd you'd expect to see at Horrorfind, not Cats. And we fit in perfectly.

The theater was small, fitting about 400 people. We sat toward the left about mid-way back, with a decent view of the stage. I noticed that a plastic poncho rested on each seat in the first three rows (more on that later).

The opening scene, much like the opening scenes of the first two movies, has the main characters riding through a wooded area heading for a cabin. They instantly set a hilarious tone as we see five actors riding in a 2D jalopy probably made of plywood, each actor hanging out the side. Behind the car, prop masters slide 2D cutouts, attached to sticks, to show the car's movement. The gang passes by plants, animals, and even some road kill. This in front of a cartoon backdrop of a forest, the actors singing "Cabin in the Woods".

Once they arrive at the cabin, the full stage opens to reveal the cabin's interior. The set designers did an amazing job recreating the cabin's interior look in the films, down to the moose on the wall (more on the moose later). All of the other sets -- including, believe it or not, an airport -- are created with a backdrop in front of the cabin set. A tiny airplane attached to a cable flew above the set. There is also a forest, used to replicate the trees that attack Cheryl (as seen in the first film).

The story is a mixture of all three movies, Evil Dead (ED1), Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn (ED2), and Army of Darkness (AOD), taking most of the plot from the first two. Our hero, Ash, and his friends sneak into a cabin for some fun. They find a book of the dead and a tape recording left by a scientist. When they play the recording, Candarian demons are awakened in the woods and come after them.

Ash's sister, Cheryl, who is even more of a whiny pain-in-the-ass in the play, wants to leave. Ash takes her, but they're stopped by the the bridge being impassable (the bridge is, of course, a tiny Styrofoam prop with crime scene tape in front of it). So, they head back. Cheryl, still freaked out, runs into the woods by herself (the natural thing to do when scared, she says), and is attacked by the trees.

She returns to the cabin, bruised and bloody, but seemingly normal. Until she turns into a demon. That's when pandemonium ensues, and it's every man, woman, and demon for him/herself. The demon scenes led to some great musical numbers, such as "Look who's evil now", "All the men in my life [were killed by Candarian demons]", and my favorite "What the...[fuck was that]?"

They are later joined by the scientist's daughter (Annie) and her boyfriend (Ed). After finding the "bridge" out, they needed help to find the cabin. They run into a local named Jake, who, reluctantly, takes them. When they arrive, blood is all over the house, and they find Ash cutting off his girlfriend's head with a chainsaw. So, Ash has to convince them he's not homicidal, and encourage them to help stop the Candarian demons.

One of the funniest moments, also taken from ED2, had Ash arguing with the furniture, believing he's going crazy. He's particularly spooked by the moose head on the wall, which appears to be picking on him. Another memorable part is the song "Bit-Part Demon" in which Ed feels sorry for himself because he's a minor character that doesn't make much of a contribution to the story.

Earlier, I mentioned that the first three rows had plastic coverings. This is due to the gallons of blood that fly around on the stage when Ash fights the demons. It was impressive to see them pull off moments from the movies that I couldn't imagine being done on stage. For instance, Ash has a battle with his own hand. As in the movie, his hand has a mind if its own, and slaps him around, cracks dishes over his head, and flips him over several times. That was cool. Then, Ash grabs a chainsaw and cuts his hand off -- and the blood flies. But that doesn't compare to the carnage in the finale. We saw many folks after the show that had "blood" stains all over. They must have been too slow with the plastic.

The only flaw I found with the production was with the Cheryl character. I felt she was over-the-top whiny, and at one point she spews out a barrage of puns, which grew tiresome after a while.

The play as a whole was great fun, and non-fans will probably enjoy it, too. Though, it mainly caters to true fans. In fact, the audience cheered, and sometimes got to their feet, when Ash used a line from one of the movies -- particularly, "Groovy," which I think aptly describes the experience.

Best Picture Nominees Part V: Babel

[rate 3.5]

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/9R0WfYhwATU" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel is sort of an anti-Crash. Where Crash (last year's Best Picture) focused on one city's pent-up hostility between people of different races, Babel shows how well-meaning people from different cultures can fail to communicate.

Babel, like Crash, follows several stories that are interconnected by one incident -- in this case, a shooting.

Story one is about a Moroccan family that recently received a rifle from a grateful Japanese hunter (played by Koji Yakusho). The father gives his two boys (played by Said Tarchani and Boubker Ait El Caid) about a 5 minute lesson in target shooting, and then sends them to protect the family's heard of goats. Bored, the two boys decide to test the rifle's range and shoot at a tour bus passing by.

Story two is about an American couple (played by Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett), who apparently lost an infant recently and have been having problems dealing with the loss. They decide to get away for a while, and for some strange reason chose the Moroccan desert as their destination. While on a bus tour (are you getting the connection yet?), the woman is shot through the window. The trouble is that the nearest hospital is four hours away.

Story three is about the American couple's housekeeper (played by Adriana Barraza), who is unable to find someone to watch the couple's two children (while the couple deals with the shooting), decides to take them to Mexico for her son's wedding. Upon trying to return to the U.S., her intoxicated nephew driving, they have a run-in with the border patrol.

Story four is about the deaf daughter (played by Rinko Kikuchi) of the Japanese hunter. Troubled by her mother's suicide, and filled with teen angst, she roams around Tokyo looking for something to ease the pain -- and for her first sexual experience.

Babel is a completely believable study in misunderstanding and culture clash. As an American, I can understand how nightmarish it would be to be stuck in a foreign country, unable to speak the language, and my wife is injured. Even when the locals try their best to help, and they do try, it doesn't take away the frustration.

The same goes for the housekeeper's plight at the border. She wasn't trying to do anything wrong; she's lived in the U.S. for 15 years, and was returning. But her nephew, drunk and arrogant, made misunderstanding inevitable.

Babel's greatest strength is realism. Each culture is captured in all its beauty and ugliness, down to the smallest detail.

But realism is also its weakness. While there were a few tense, dramatic moments, such as the shooting itself, most of the film went at a slow pace. Scenes tended to be long, with many moments not related to the story. This can be a powerful tool for character development, but if overdone, as I believe was the case here, it can take away from the drama.

I also found the story in Japan to be too disconnected from the plot. It would be interesting on its own, perhaps as a separate film, but its connection was in theme only, and that wasn't enough for me.

Overall, I'd classify Babel as well-crafted, but not entertaining per se. It's more like watching a tragedy on cable news, seeing every possible angle of a story -- who was shot, the victim's family, the shooter and his family, and they guy that originally owned the gun. -- no matter how distant the relation.

Best Picture Nominees Part IV: The Departed

[rate 3.5]

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/VqKZ8ARPgC4" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

The Departed is the story of two men from South Boston who were raised within the sphere of Irish organized crime. Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) has a "connected" family but wants to get away from that life, while Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) is taken under the wing of Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), a major mob player, as a child.

Costigan and Sullivan join the police force with different agendas: Costigan to become a good cop and fight crime, and Sullivan to gain a position of power and feed Frank Costello information that keeps the cops out of his business.

Sullivan breezes through life as easily as he does through the police force. He's well liked, confident, and can't seem to make a mistake. Costigan, on the other hand, is insecure, and hated by the other officers (they know his family is "connected" and don't trust him).

Costigan, therefore, is given the option to go undercover and infiltrate Costello's gang. "You will never be a cop," they say to him. This is his one chance to make a difference.

Eventually, the police and the mob realize they have rats in their midst, and try to find them. Sullivan, as usual, is the lucky one. He's put on a one-man task force to find--himself. Costigan, however, is suspected of being the rat and kept under scrutiny.

Things get interesting when their paths cross.

The Departed is an enjoyable movie to watch, but lacks the style of Scorsese's earlier mob classics. In Goodfellas and Casino, we're exposed to the cultures within the New York and Vegas crime families, we see their camaraderie, their night life, even how they treat their wives. In the Departed, we only see Costello barking orders and behaving strangely. We barely get to know his crew.

What is also lacking is the witty, conversational dialog. A case in point from Goodfellas is the now famous moment when Tommy (Joe Pesci), believing he's being made fun of, confronts Henry (Ray Liotta): "You think I'm funny? I amuse you?" Henry doesn't know how to take that, and the situation almost comes to blows, but doesn't; though, there was always doubt in Henry's eyes.

There are moments in The Departed that attempt this conversational style, but those moments seem forced and insincere. For example, when Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) addresses fellow cops in a board room, he gets into a shouting match with one of them. They shout obscenities about each other's mother, or something. That seemed completely out of place and unnecessary.

I also found the climax disappointing. It was interesting, and got my attention, but it could have been more compelling. In a story filled with dramatic irony, the dichotomy between these two men, resorting to shock value is a real let down.

Where The Departed really shines, however, is the performances of Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. Both are believable in their roles, and both outshine Jack Nicholson (as it should be, since they are the leads). DiCaprio, of course, has the more challenging role as the introverted, angst-ridden Costigan, and he never loses his focus. I suspect his performance in The Departed will help his chances to take the statue for Blood Diamond.

Being that Martin Scorsese has never taken home a Best Director Oscar, my guess is that he'll take it this time. But I'd rather he had gotten it for Goodfellas.

Best Picture Nominees Part III: The Queen

[rate 4]

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/P8nD2KB0a_E" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

All that I heard about The Queen before seeing it was that Helen Mirren was superb playing Queen Elizabeth II. I definitely agree. I also believe that Michael Sheen was a perfect Tony Blair. In fact, all of the performances were first rate.

What surprised me, at least at first, was that a movie about a woman who reigned over England for more than 50 years, oversaw Prime Ministers such as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, and whose country went to war several times since 1952, was about how she handled Princess Diana's death. Why was a week of silence that angered her country more interesting than the other fifty-some years? Then I thought about it. Since biopics about her have already been made, including one this year also starring Helen Mirren, that wasn't the point of The Queen. The film wasn't really so much about Queen Elizabeth II as it was about how the world, particularly England, has changed in the 50+ years of her reign. And how little she has changed.

In the film, the royal family follows century-old protocols in dealing with Princess Diana's death. They consider it a private matter, so the Queen makes no formal statement to her subjects, and they do not travel to London to appear at Buckingham palace; thus, do not fly a flag at half-mast.

The public, however, seeing Diana's death as a tragedy for the whole world, disapproves of the Queen's behavior, believing it has more to do with her disapproval of Diana than protocol. This makes for a week of angst and embarrassment for the Queen, and the rest of the royal family, as they watch the public and the press rebuke them.

On the other hand, Tony Blaire comes off smelling like a rose. He runs interference for the royal family, and offers them advice on handling the public. The press praises him for this.

Ultimately, the Queen must decide whether to follow tradition or cater to the public.

The Queen was thoroughly enjoyable, filled with great performances and a realistic, if not a bit too light-hearted, portrayal of they royal family and Princess Diana's death. However, the movie lost its focus on the Queen at times, as it ran actual news clips of Diana. Though, I suppose that couldn't be helped.

HorrorTalk Reviews Dead Hunt

DJBenz over at HorrorTalk reviewed our latest film, Dead Hunt. Check out the review here. Then watch the trailer (below).

Update 4/5/2014: I had originally uploaded the full res trailer to Youtube years ago, but some douche with a personal grudge against one of our Timewarp folks had it flagged for inappropriate content and Youtube took it down. This version was uploaded by someone else, so the sound quality is a little over processed and tinny. But it's the only one up there.

Best Picture Nominees Part II: Letters from Iwo Jima

[rate 5]

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/_fGgkDGF2Ts" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

What a well-crafted film. Films like this are the reason I go to the movies, and the reason I want to make movies.

In the tradition of Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, Letters from Iwo Jima brings an introspective, human side to WW2. But this time we see war from the Japanese perspective. The film focuses on how the Japanese prepared for the American attack on the small island of Iwo Jima, ill equipped and undermanned. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe), a western-educated, academic takes command and finds he has his work cut out for him. While he prefers to use military tactics and careful planning to lead his men, many of his officers intend to use brute force and loyalty to the empire to keep men in line--and oh how these methods are incompatible.

Upon his arrival, he prevents two men from being beaten to death for disloyalty. One of them is Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), a drafted baker who is perhaps the worst soldier in the entire pacific theater. His crime: suggesting to his friend that the Japanese should just give this worthless hunk of rock to the Americans. Such undisciplined behavior was not tolerated in the Japanese army, but the new General knows they need every man for this battle, and wanted Saigo and his friend spared.

The film portrays the men on both sides as shades of gray, not black and white caricatures. We see die hard Japanese soldiers torture Americans, kill themselves rather than be captured, and shoot underlings for showing cowardice, but we also see an officer speak kindly to an American POW, soldiers care for a captured American, and honest discipline for irrational behavior. And we see the same benevolence and cruelty in American soldiers. Were we really so different? The movie says we weren't. I doubt, however, that a German perspective will be produced by Hollywood any time soon.

Best Picture Nominees Part I: Little Miss Sunshine

[rate 4.5]

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/VWyH_twcMl0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

In the spirit of Oscar season, I plan to review each of the best picture nominees. If I do actually manage to see them all before Oscar night (I have for the last three years), I'll post my pick for best picture.

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE

After last summer's vast desert of forgettable movies, Little Miss Sunshine was a true oasis, a real find. It was a light hearted satire that wasn't afraid to visit the darker side of human nature.

The Hoovers, a dysfunctional family if there ever was one, took a road trip across the country so their pre-teen daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin) can enter the Little Miss Sunshine beauty contest. That was the plan, and they all wanted Olive to go. But with the dynamic hodge-podge of personalities--A dad who's a wannabe motivational speaker, a mom who tries too hard to keep everyone happy, a son who took a vow of silence and hates everyone, a suicidal, homosexual uncle, and an I-don't-give-a-crap-I'll-say-anything-I-please grandfather--the trip was anything but "A to B".

Each obstacle they faced was harder to overcome, and funnier, than the last--with a climax that you have to see to believe. I laughed so hard, I cried.

What I really liked about this movie was that it didn't turn into a feel-good cliche where all the characters realize how much they love each other at the end. This movie is only about one thing: getting to the beauty contest at all costs, and not being a loser.

In addition to best picture, the screenplay, Abigail Breslin, and Alan Arkin were also nominated.