Entertainment – Film and Movies

Oscars 2011 Best Picture Nominee: The Artist

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments
Georges and Peppy's fates are sealed with a kiss in 'The Artist'.

Miss silent movies? Some of you are too young to know what silent movies are, never mind appreciate them. Anyways The Artist is a throwback to the days of the silent movie and it does a top notch job of it.

It’s 1927 and the era of silent films. Georges Valentin is the king of the big screen. The premiere of his latest release A Russian Affair is applauded greatly. He is quite the charmer with his debonair looks and his mall dog Jack by his side. Zimmer, his boss at the Kinograph Studios, loves him. Clifton, his valet, considers him his best friend. Outside he’s signing autographs when a young wannabe named Peppy Miller accidentally falls into him after dropping her purse. The incident is an event for photographers and even leads her to the cover of Variety magazine with the title ‘Who’s That Girl?”

Peppy and Georges meet again as she auditions as a dancer for his latest movie. He insists on giving her a role and even gives her a fake beauty mark for a competitive edge in Hollywood. It works as her fame is soon rising. Meanwhile Georges has a nightmare one night where he’s in a world of sound and he’s the only one who can’t talk.

It’s 1929 and Zimmer announces that Kinograph will now be doing movies with sound, or ‘talkies’ from now on. Valentin is unhappy feeling talkies are a passing fad. He stubbornly makes and directs his own silent film with his own finances. Unfortunately it opens on the same day as Peppy’s latest talkie release. Before the release, she’s being interviewed in a restaurant where she proudly talks of herself as ‘fresh meat’ and ‘out with the old, in with the new’ until she comes face to face with Valentin. Peppy’s movie is a hit while Georges’ silent movie is a flop. Georges’ wife kicks him out of the house and he takes up an apartment with Clifton. Meanwhile Peppy is a major Hollywood star. Despite her stardom, she never loses her thoughts and concerns for Georges. She even attends the premiere of his silent film.

Things turn for the worse for Georges especially after the stock market crash where it gets to the point he auctions everything off and fires Clifton who he hasn’t paid for a year. One day in a drunken rage, he burns all the copies of his movies save one. He’s trapped in the fire and can’t get out until Jack the Dog is able to attract a policeman’s attention. He’s rescued and taken to a hospital where Peppy soon takes him to her house to recuperate.

Georges awakes not only to find himself in Peppy’s house but to learn Clifton now works for her. Peppy then pleads to Zimmer to get Valentin to star in her next film, even going as far as threatening to quit Kinograph  if he doesn’t agree. Meanwhile Georges discovers all his auctioned-off items at Peppy’s house and then returns to his burned-out apartment. Peppy arrives at George’s apartment just as he’s about to commit suicide. It’s then when they reconcile and she persuades Georges let go of whatever pride is eating him and star in her next film. I won’t tell you how it ends exactly but it does end happily and on a surprise note.

It’s unique that it shows the swing from the silent world to the sound world as a personal trial of Georges Valentin. The world of silence made him a star, made him beloved and helped define him. When talkies came into play, silent movies went out of fashion and Valentin faded with them. Even despite his insistence of them being an art form, silent movies were not liked anymore. Valentin’s devotion to silence and his anger to his lost fame almost becomes like a source of pride for him as he even goes as far as neglecting the help given from those who act like ‘guardian angels’ to him: Jack, Clifton and Peppy. It’s only in the world of sound, a world Georges feared, that he’s able to recover.

Another thing this movie reminds us is that this world of disposable stars in Hollywood is nothing new. The movie does show a truth that a lot of stars popular during the era of silent films would lose their stardom during the start of talkies to a new era of stars. Does John Gilbert come to mind? And that line from Zimmer that: “The public wants fresh meat and the public is never wrong.” gives us a reminder of what Hollywood is about and always was about. Those who complain that Hollywood is not about the art of filmmaking and ‘all about the money’ are reminded in this film that it always was that way. Even while it has churned out some of the most classic and most beloved movies of all-time, it was still a profits-first system even during its Golden Age. The battle between ‘film as art’ and ‘film as entertainment’ still continues now.

Overall this was an excellent movie that is the brainchild of French director Michel Hazanavicius. He directs, writes and even edits the film. He also includes Jean DuJardin and Berenice Bejo who have worked with him in two of his past productions. Their performances on their own stand out as two of this year’s finest. Often one thinks that a lot of acting involves annunciation of words but a lot of acting is also done in silence too. In fact there’s even one completely mute performance–Holly Hunter in The Piano–that even won an Oscar. And we see the quality of the silent performances in this movie. Supporting performances from James Cromwell and John Goodman also add to the movie and stand well on their own. Also we have the dog Uggie as Jack the Dog who’s as much of a charmer as he is a scene stealer. The accompanying score from Ludovic Bource is also another top quality of the movie that adds to its highlights. The set design and costuming also work perfectly to set the time period. You’d hardly know this was made in 2011. Overall this is a well-organized film that’s as entertaining as it is artistically merited.

The Artist is a very charming throwback to the silent movie age. It retains the charm of silent movies and the era while maintaining an intriguing story and top notch acting. The big question is will its silence be golden on Oscar night? It’s heavily favored. We’ll just wait and see.

2011 Oscars Best Picture Nominee: Hugo

Jon The Blogcentric3 Comments

Hugo is a delightful movie based on the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. It’s a unique story about how a chance stealing by a young boy changed everything forever.

It all starts in a train station in Paris in 1930. Hugo Cabret has a life no child would want. He lives in the train station completely orphaned and with nothing but a bed and an automaton from his late father whom he hopes to repair. He ended up there after his widowed father was killed in a fire and taken by his alcoholic uncle who would look after the station clock. After his uncle died, Hugo steals food and runs the clock himself from revealing the death of his uncle. If the truth is found out, he will be sent to an orphanage.

One steal by Hugo of a toy part from the station’s toy store owner would change everything. Hugo was able to escape the station policeman thanks to his leg brace being caught in a train. Hugo however loses a book of animated drawings to the toy store owner. For Hugo to get it back, the toy store owner punishes Hugo by making fix his broken toys. The toy store owner is surprised to see that Hugo is very skilled at fixing toys thanks to his father’s teachings.

Soon Hugo catches the attention of Isabelle, the girl who frequently visits the train station. She is an orphan too who is being looked after by the toy store owner, whom she refers to as Papa Jacques. He notices the key she wears: it is heart-shaped. His automaton has a heart-shaped lock. Another link to the mystery. The two spend time together. She sees the clock area Hugo lives and the view of Paris. The two sneak into a movie theatre and see a movie, something Papa Jacques forbids her to see. Later Hugo uses Isabelle’s heart-shaped key on the automaton. The automaton draws a picture of the moon with a spaceship in his eye and the name Jacques Melies.

The two try and search further to see if Papa Jacques really is Jacques Melies. Upon a return visit to the house, they try to uncover the top drawer in his bedroom. Out comes a wide variety of imaginative artist images. Nevertheless Jacques is distraught to learn the children have learned of his secret. It’s only until the children bring a young film student to Jacques that Jacques finally reveals that he really is Jacques Melies, director extraordinaire of the early 20th Century. He explains to all why he became a recluse, because of his films failing as the First World War was taking place. He even burned most of the master copies of his films in a fit of rage during his downtime.  It is through Hugo and the film student that he’s able to receive an acclaim from a new generation of film enthusiasts. It is also where Hugo finally finds a family.

The movie is more than just a salute to Jacques Melies and his contribution to film in general. This movie is also a salute to moviemaking and movie watching. Movies achieved their greatness by making people’s fantasies come to life. They took them to worlds never before imagined. They took them to adventures and thrills they wouldn’t experience in their own lives. And to think it all started when a film of a train approaching the station made the audience duck for their lives. Nowadays movies face a lot of rivalry from many entertainment sources. Its biggest rival is now video games which allow the viewer to live the fantasy via an avatar, but movies still capture people’s attention and take them to worlds they never dreamed of.

Even though the movie is very much a salute to movies, it’s also a reminder that even then, great directors like Melies faced downtimes too. Jacques created hundreds of movies in his lifetime but as soon as most of the French public lost their liking for movies his fortune disappeared, his studio became useless, burned his films in anger and lived in obscurity for years. Nowadays we hear countless stories of people, especially greats, who had their moment but fade fast and die in obscurity without a penny. It happens to greats as often as it happens to ‘one-hit wonders’. Showbiz is cruel. Fortunately there does come a time long after their downfall when their achievements are recognized once again. It may be while they’re still alive or it may be post mortem but their greatness does become remembered and honored again.

Overall the movie was top-notch quality. That’s something you rarely see in most live-action family movies. There was no one acting performance that stood out or was spectacular but the performances of all worked excellently with the movie. Ben Kingsley was very good as Jacques. Sacha Baron Cohen who’s known for his comedic characters was great as the comic relief of the movie. The child actors of Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz did an excellent job in their lead roles. The story was very well-adapted and well-edited as it’s able to keep the audience excited, thrilled and interested from start to finish. Martin Scorsese did another excellent directing job. He’s tackled a lot of genres of film excellently and now he achieves another triumph in directing family movies. The score by Howard Shore fit the movie perfectly. The visual effects were also amongst the best of the year. The movie being shown in 3D worked. This was one of the rare times in which the 3D viewing appeared to be less in vain or for extra money and more for the delight of the crowd. It looked like Scorsese knew that if he was to have a movie in 3D, he should have the effects that make it work.

One thing that’s been unique in the film world of recent years is that a lot of well-renowned directors have started to make family movies. Seven years ago, Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire) released Millions: a story about a boy who encounters a bag of stolen money and consults patron saints for advice. Many years ago, Roman Polanski did his version of Oliver Twist to make a movie for his children who were twelve and under at the time. Two years ago, Spike Jonze directed the film adaptation of Where The Wild Things Are. Even Quentin Tarantino says he’s interested in doing a family film if the right idea comes around.

Now we have Martin Scorsese with a family movie out. It may come as a surprise since he has been renowned for his filmmaking of some of the grittiest legendary dramas. Nevertheless if Martin was to make a family movie, Hugo would be the perfect fit. The celebration of film in Hugo is something Martin would do well because Martin is known to have a love for film itself. Martin even did a documentary series for the BBC years ago where he narrated the history of film and its genres. In Hugo we see Martin’s love for film as much as we see the reasons why movies have become so beloved. Even Roger Ebert described the move as “in some ways, a mirror of his own life.” And the love of film started with Jacques Melies. Martin Scorsese does more than just make a family movie. He also makes a masterpiece that even adults can appreciate, especially those who love film. The film has been nominated for Best Picture and ten other categories at this year’s Oscars. It is the first live-action family movie since Babe to be nominated for Best Picture.

Hugo is a pleasant film not just in terms of family movies but all films. Very rarely is a family movie able to be referred to as a masterpiece. Very rarely does a family movie deserve to be referred to as a masterpiece. Hugo is that rare.

NOTE:  Usually around this time, I start my reviews of the Best Picture nominees. I have five more reviews coming. Best Picture nominees already reviewed are: Midnight In Paris, The Help and Moneyball.

2011 Movie Year In Review: Another Downhill Year

Jon The Blogcentric6 Comments

It seems with every movie year, it tells a lot of its overall successes and failures. However its overall total would be the big determiner if it was a success of a year or not. 2011’s movie year not only showed one year’s lack of success but Hollywood’s continually declining success.

2011 started carrying the burden of the not-so-good news of 2010. 2010’s total box office finished at $10.565 billion: $30 million less than 2009’s record-breaking year. At first $30 million doesn’t seem that that big of a loss but there was one additional sobering fact. 2010 sold almost 1.34 billion tickets: the lowest since 1996. Even Entertainment Weekly made note of that during January of 2011 and offered some tips in increasing movie turnout.

2011 had even more sobering statistics to tell. The year’s total gross was almost $400 million less than 2010’s: a dip of 3.8%. These two years in a row failing to outgross each other was the first such pair of years since 1990 and 1991. Ticket sales were also lower: 1.276 billion to be exact and the lowest since 1993. Not pleasant at all.

2011 was not completely bad news. The year still grossed over $10 million and became only the third year ever to do so. The months of January to March failed to outgross 2010. Mind you it was hard to do considered January and March 2010 had mammoth hits like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. That downtime ended in April as it managed to become the highest-grossing April ever at $948 million. Successes like the action movie Fast Five and animated family movies like Rio and Hop had a lot to do with it. May also managed to be bigger than 2010’s thanks to Thor and Pirates of the Carribean 4 but June was a setback of a quarter-billion. Movies with big buzz like X-Men: First Class, Super 8 and Cars 2 didn’t pan out as big as they hoped. July and August offered bigger grosses than 2010 thanks to Transformers 3, the last Harry Potter movie, Captain America, the Rise Of the Planets of the Apes and the sleeper hit The Help. Thanks to July and August’s success, the whole summer’s total just managed to squeak over the previous year’s total. September became the highest-grossing September ever, thanks in part to a 3D release of the Lion King but the last three months had lackluster box office results. Not even the latest Twilight movie, the second Sherlock Holmes movie or the latest Mission Impossible could help the last three months of 2011 outgross the previous year, nor lead 2011 to a higher box office total.

So who or what’s to blame for this? You could blame the theatres for giving such irritating increases in ticket prices. You could blame the lack of box office star power of today’s A-list stars. You have to admit the star power of Julia Roberts, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks and Will Smith isn’t as big as it used to be and there haven’t been any new ones to achieve the star power they once had. You could blame it on the lack of attractions at the theatres itself. That explains why a few theatres, including the Coquitlam SilverCity, have included an adults-only VIP lounge that includes alcoholic drinks. You could blame the lack of new winning ideas coming from Hollywood.

You could also blame it on a lot of external factors as well. First the economy. You have to admit that tough times don’t make for being able to afford a night out at the movies that often. You could also blame it on a lot of the new media functions and new ways to see movies. In the last five years, Youtube and Netflix have come about and it has changed a lot with people seeing movies. Even cellphone companies have movies in which one can download and watch on their cellphone, much to the displeasure of the likes of David Lynch. In fact that has led to a lot of changes in businesses such as video chains like Blockbuster and Rogers either going bankrupt or reducing its stores. Even local stores like Vancouver’s Videomatica–which specializes in hard-to-find DVDs like cult movies, indie flicks and a multitute of classic movies–had to close their main shop and relocate to a record store to keep business happening, especially for their most loyal patrons. It also explains why it’s next-to-impossible to have a single-screen theatre as I stated in my article about the closure of the Hollywood Theatre. In fact in my city of New Westminster, there will be a cinemaplex opening up with ten screens and a total seating of 1800: an average of 180 per screen. That’s the realities of running a movie theatre nowadays. Also we should remember that we’re now at a time when video games make higher annual grosses than movies. So people are finding other alternative ways to entertain themselves.

Despite all that’s happened last year and even happening now, 2012 has a lot of movies to show. Hollywood knows its demands and film festivals have their line ups planned. So hopefully 2012 should give you plenty of reasons to go see a movie this year.

Okay. Now I’m done the one and only ‘2011 in Review’ article I feel I need to right. Now I can go back to what I do best, which is review movies and the awards season. Golden Globes predictions tomorrow.

WORK CITED:

“Yearly Box Office Chart” BoxOfficeMojo.com. 2011. Box Office Mojo. Owned by  IMDB.com. <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/>

30th Year Of VIFF A Record Year

Jon The Blogcentric5 Comments

After sixteen days of showing films, welcoming crowds, making deals, and allowing directors to give Q&A’s to the audience, the Vancouver Film Festival ended its 30th year on Friday, October 14th. I had my excitement with volunteering and seeing seven different shows of differing variety. Those that volunteered, like myself, were treated to a Mexican style brunch at the Waldorf Hotel which consisted of some prize giveaways and small gifts. Almost a week later, the news hit that this year’s film festival achieved new records.

The 2011 Vancouver International Film Festival was the most attended and highest-grossing VIFF. Admissions totalled over 152,000, up from 148,000 from last year. Ticket revenues also hit a record with $1,178,811, breaking the record of $1,074,025 also set last year. Very impressive.  

One thing we learn about hosting film festivals like these is that the money from ticket sales are not enough. Although we hit a new high in ticket sales, the Festival itself costs $3.5 million to put on. The remainder of the baklance is covered by government support (about 10%), private sector sponsorship, and personal donations. One thing about this year is that there was a bigger expense this year in using the Vogue Theatre for showing movies. Although the VIFF used the Granville 7, Pacific Cinematheque and the VanCity Theatre as it did last year, the Park Theatre wasn’t used this year, opting for bigger crowds with the Vogue Theatre. The Vogue served as the Visa Screening Room for all the big premeieres and Gala events, replacing Theatre 7 at the Granville 7. It did pay off as film crowds were bigger for the Vogue.

The success of this year’s VIFF keeps its reputation as one of the Top Five film festivals in North America in attendance and films screened. Here are some of the numbers behind this year’s Vancouver International Film Festival:

-152,000 – total admissions

-633 – public screenings

-600 – industry guests

-386 – total films shown

  • 240 – feature length (60+ minutes)
  • 126 – shorts
  • 20 – mid-length films (20-59 mins)

-97 – Canadian Films shown

  • 39 – feature length
  • 57 – shorts
  • 1 – mid-length

-80 – countries entering films

-49 – North American premieres

-40 – Canadian premieres

-36 – media screenings

-30 – International premieres (first screeening outside home country)

-20 – World Premieres

-17 – entries in the Best Foreign Language Film category for this year’s Oscars shown

-16 – days of showing films

-10 – theatres showing films

Very imporessive numbers indeed and a hard act for 2012 to follow. Also for those interested in the award winners, here’s which film won what:

DRAGONS & TIGERS AWARD for YOUNG CINEMA

  • The Sun-Beaten Path  (China/Tibet) – dir. Sonthar Gyal

ROGERS PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD

  • A Separation (Jodaeiye Nader az Simin)  (Iran) – dir. Asghar Farhadi

VIFF MOST POPULAR DOCUMENTARY FILM AWARD

  • Sing Your Song (USA) – dir. Susanne Rostock

ENVIRONMENTAL FILM AUDIENCE AWARD

  • People of a Feather (BC/Nunavut) – dir. Joel Heath

SHAW MEDIA AWARD for BEST CANADIAN FEATURE FILM

  • Nuit #1 (Québec) – dir. Anne Émond

MOST PROMISING DIRECTOR of a CANADIAN SHORT FILM

  • Andrew Cividino for We Ate the Children Last (Québec)

NFB MOST POPULAR CANADIAN DOCUMENTARY AWARD

  • Peace Out  (BC/Québec) – dir. Charles Wilkinson

VIFF MOST POPULAR CANADIAN FILM AWARD

  • Starbuck  (Québec) – dir. Ken Scott

So there you have it. Those are the winners of this year’s Vancouver international Film Festival. Great to see the Festival end on a great note. I’m happy to have volunteered for the Festival this year. I hope to volunteer for the Festival again next year and I hope to see its records broken again. Will it be a marquee film festival in the future like Cannes, Sundance, Venice or Toronto? Only time will tell. Nevertheless I commend the VIFF for showing its huge variety of films, showing the most Canadian film and for promoting a wide array of films and talents from the up-and-coming to the established. Also I commend the volunteers for doing a good job with the crowds. Last year my uncle visited the Toronto Film Fest and he said the people thee get treated like cattle. So I myself comment the VIFF volunteers for treating the crowds right.

Here’s to the continued success of the Vancouver International Film Festival and to its success in the future years. VIFF 2012: Starting September 27th. Already I can’t wait!

Movie Review: Moneyball

Jon The Blogcentric4 Comments

We are all told at one point in our lives that we can no longer play the children’s game. We just don’t know when that’s gonna be. Some get told at 18, some get told at 40, but we’re all told.

I don’t know about you but I don’t understand the whole deal about sports and the dollar. One thing I do know is that the mix of sports and money has sure changed professional sports in the last 40 years. It’s the reason why a franchise stays in a city or moves. It’s the reason why stadiums and arenas are now named after corporations. It secures broadcasting rights and merchandising marketing rights. It’s led to numerous league strikes; two of which either prevented a season from happening or ended a season prematurely. Most of all, it has the biggest bearing on how far up the league a team excels. Major League Baseball player-turned manager Billy Beane was the subject of the book Moneyball on his experience as a manager and introducing the use of sabermetrics in managing the Oakland Athletics team of 2002. It’s been made into a movie starring Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman and it’s worth seeing.

The movie begins just after the Oakland Athletics were eliminated from World Series play in the 2001 American League Division Series by the New York Yankees; a team with three times the money as the A’s. After losing its three star players to teams with bigger money, general manager Billy Beane tries to assemble a winning team with Oakland’s limited budget but is irritated with his scouts’ decision making. Billy does have a personal issue with baseball scouts. When he was 18, he was scouted out as a phenomenal talent and was signed up with MLB, foregoing a promising college education. His career as an MLB player didn’t pan out and his promise was never realized. After retiring from baseball having played his last game with the A’s in 1989–ironically the last year the A’s won the World Series–Beane became GM of the team years later.

Upon visiting the Cleveland Indians, he meets Peter Brand, an economics grad from Yale with radical ideas in scouting baseball players but is very inexperienced with the business of Major League Baseball. Billy is so impressed with Pete’s thinking and choosing–including how Pete would draft Billy– he hires Pete as assistant GM. Pete’s assessment of players via sabermetrics, statistical analysis of players, and his ability of noticing qualities in players most MLB scouts overlook impresses Beane and helps him make some good player choices. However the scouts at the A’s and manager Art Howe are unimpressed with their use of sabermetrics and believe it’s effectiveness is trumpted by team play on the field. Despite it all, Beane has hope in Pete’s influence on his choices.

The beginning of the 2002 season does not look well. Oakland finds itself in the lower rankings at the early part of the season. Mostly it’s because Howe’s roster decisions conflict with that of Beane and Brand. Even as the A’s find themselves in last place in their Division, Brand still believes his prediction that the A’s will make a huge turnaround in July. This comes as a problem as Howe is still stubborn in his choices. This leads Beane to make tough trading choices for his more struggling players while Howe favors. Beane even gets Brand to tell a player he’s traded.

Now with the new set-up happening in Beane’s favor, we do see a turnaround. The A’s start winning, winning and winning. After winning their 19th straight game, they’re poised to break an MLB record for longest winning streak. One thing Beane notices is that whenever he’s at an A’s game, it’s bad luck for the team. This is the first game of the streak he attends. They have an 11-0 lead when suddenly things go wrong. Error after error happen and the game goes into extra innings. Nevertheless the miracle happens and the streak record is there’s. But it doesn’t stop there. The A’s find themselves back into the running for the World Series playing the Minnesota Twins in the ALDS. They hope it’s not a repeat of what happened to them against the Yankees the year earlier. This also appears critical since this could be whether Beane is kept on as the A’s GM. The game doesn’t go as expected and the aftermath doesn’t either as Beane rejects an offer from the Red Sox to stay with the A’s. I’ll wait for you all to see the movie to find out how much the BoSox offered Beane.

Without a doubt the biggest theme in the movie is money and how it’s changed the sport forever. It plays a role in how it makes certain teams excel further than others. It plays a role in how new players are selected and often enough it’s about their marketability instead of skill. When I saw that scene at the beginning when Oakland’s scouts are choosing players based on image, I asked: “Since when did playing sports become showbiz?” It plays a role in how players are hired, traded and terminated. It even tempts young players, like Billy himself back in 1979, into making an all-or-nothing decision where only time decides if it’s the right choice or not. Sometimes it pans out and sometimes, like in Billy’s case, it’s the deal with the devil. It even causes a power struggle between the managers and the coaches. Often the biggest team issues are more off the field than on the field.

As much as the mix of sports and money is the predominant theme of the movie, it’s also trying to introduce something new into Major League Baseball. Now Major League Baseball has to be the sports league most reluctant to change. While every other baseball league uses aluminum bats, MLB is still strictly wood-only. Drug testing was only introduced in recent years. Even decades ago, video relays and the lights at Wrigley Field caused huge debate. Now for Billy and Pete to introduce sabermetrics via computer into use on their team, even that comes into question with the men with traditional mindsets. I’m sure sabermetrics has attempted to make its way in before even without computers but it never really left much of an impact. Even after it helps the A’s break the winning streak record, it’s still debated after the A’s were eliminated from World Series play. Eventually it does become accepted by some, but not in a way expected.

Another theme that gets overlooked in this movie is about personal relations in such a cutthroat business. Billy has to be a cutthroat fiery worker if he’s to be a manager of a Major League Baseball team. Nevertheless in this fierce business, he’s able to befriend Pete. Interesting since Billy is fierce and cutthroat while Pete is shy and reserved. The movie is also about how Billy comes off as a father to his daughter. You can tell how much of a bond that means to him.

The best quality of the movie is how it’s able to make a story that’s very smart very winning on screen. It’s able to take a very intelligent and very popular topic and create a story about it that’s able to entertain audiences and keep them in suspense. It’s able to have an ending that’s different from your typical Hollywood ending and still come off well. Scriptwriters Steve Zaillan and Aaron Sorkin did an excellent adaptation to make a story thrilling with unexpected turns. Bennett Miller also did an excellent job of direction. Mychael Danna delivered and excellent accompaying score. However the movie’s best quality is its acting.  Brad Pitt did a very good job in paying a role that wasn’t your typical Brad Pitt role. Jonah Hill was also excellent in a role that was different from the ‘big goofball’ roles he’s been known for. Philip Seymour Hoffman again becomes the character in his latest role and again pulls it off excellently. It’s this type of work that has to make Moneyball the best baseball movie in years.

Moneyball is definitely this fall out-of-leftfield surprise winner. Even if you’re not a baseball fan, it will open your eyes about sports and actually get you hoping for the A’s. Even if you don’t like baseball, or movies about it, you’ll find something to like about it.

VIFF 2011Review: Black Bread (Pa Negre)

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments

On Friday October 14th, the Vancouver International Film Festival came to a close. The film shown at the Closing Gala in the Visa Screening Room at the Vogue Theatre, where all the festival’s awards were given out, was the French-language film The Kid With A Bike. The very last film to start running at the film fest was the 9:45 showing of The Kid With A Bike again at the Visa Screening Room.

However the last film to finish at the festival was the Catalan-language Spanish film Black Bread (Pa Negre). It was actually at the former location of the Visa Screening Room; Theatre 7 at the Granville 7. Fortunately for me, I had a ticket for Black Bread. I have to say I’m very glad I had a chance to see it. It’s an intriguing story of innocence lost and of the scarring of hard truths.

The film starts with a murder taking place. A man and his son are killed as their coach falls off a cliff led by their horse who had been slapped by a rock. The film’s protagonist, young Andreu, discovers the wreckage and sees the wounded boy utter his last words: “Pitorliua.”

We soon learn that the victims were Dionis, a bird dealer, and his son. Dionis was a bird dealer who raised and dealt birds with Farriol, Andreu’s father. Farriol is suspected of the murders by the town major. He’s an easy target for his Marxist beliefs and supported the Second Spanish Republic whom Generalissimo Franco opposed, and because he rivaled the major for the love of Florencia who’d eventually marry Farriol. Things take a turn in the family as Farriol flees across the border into France, Florencia starts working in a fabrics factory in another town and Andreu is sent to live with paternal relatives. The house he lives in consists of his grandmother, a widowed aunt who has a son slightly older than Andreu, an unmarried aunt who’s pressured into marrying a man she doesn’t love and Nuria, an orphaned cousin of his who lost her hand while playing with a grenade. He and Nuria would develop a friendship and it’s his time with Nuria that would most change his life forever.

Now Andreu is a smart boy with a very promising future but the surroundings he lives in are unpromising. His father is on the run, his mother works in a factory, the village teacher is an alcoholic who teaches the wrong things, and the relatives he lives with work as servants to the wealthy Manuben family. Soon over time, the first dark secrets about Andreu’s family would be exposed. His unmarried aunt is having a secret affair with a civil guard. Nuria is engaging in sexual games with the teacher. Meanwhile he also meets a teenage boy naked in the woods: a sickly boy living in a monastery who believes he has angel wings. Andreu befriends him and even sets food aside for him daily.

Soon Andreu accidentally learns his father was hiding inside his relative’s attic raising birds, instead of fleeing to France. The major eventually searches the house, finds Farriol, and imprisons him. Farriol tells Andreu to convince his mother to ask the Mrs. Manubens for help. Mrs. Manubens, childless herself, is impressed with Andreu and writes a letter to the major interceding for Farriol. When Florencia tries to deliver it, the major makes a sexual advance to her.

Soon a secret about his mother would be exposed with the unraveling of the truth about Pitorliua. Since the coach crash, Andreu had been told by villagers that Pitorliua was a ghost that believed to live in a cave. However there was a person many years ago who would be given the name Pitorliua after death. He was a delicate young man whom his mother befriended in her youth. When Andreu and Nuria go to Pitorliua’s tomb, they encounter Pauletta, the half-demented widow of Dionis. Pauletta exposes that the man known as Pitorliua was Mrs. Manubens’ only brother and a homosexual who was castrated in ‘punishment’ for his orientation. The two children discover the cave where Pitorliua was castrated and discover the names of the culprits on the wall: Farriol and Dionis. As Andreu confronts his mother, Florencia reveals that they were paid by Mrs. Manubens to scare Pitorliua off but things went too far.

Farriol is sentenced to death. Florencia and Andreu visit him the day before he is executed. Andreu shows him the bird he raised. Farriol tells Andreu to never forget his ideals and to go with his heart. After the execution and burial, Pauletta reveals to Florencia with Andreu listening that it was Farriol killed Dionis and her son. Farriol was instructed by Mrs. Manubens to get revenge on Dionis for blackmailing her. In return, Mrs. Manubens bought Farriol’s silence in exchange for Andreu to get an excellent education. Angry at all the lies he had heard of his family, this was the last straw for Andreu. He immediately rejects his family and even goes as far as trying to kill all his father’s birds. After, he and Nuria bury dead birds and Nuria’s severed hand in a box. They first plan to run away together but Andreu accepts the education offered at the expenses of Mrs. Manubens. Even as Florencia visits Andreu at the school, Andreu still hasn’t forgiven his parents.

The major theme of the film has a lot to do with children’s innocence being exposed to the dark secrets of their family and learning the truth about the lies adults tell. Andreu is a carefree child at the beginning of the film but the coach crash would signal the beginning of the end. It is upon meeting Nuria, already insane from the grenade explosion and her ‘encounters’ with her teacher, that Andreu would be lead into ultimately unleashing his inner monster. Even though Andreu is innocent enough to reject Nuria’s sexual advance at first, Nuria would lead Andreu along that path as she would lead him to the cave where Farriol killed Pitorliua. As each additional lie and dirty secret about his family and village is exposed to him, his innocence withers away. It is when Pauletta reveals the truth about Farriol and the coach crash that it’s finally all over and Andreu explodes in rage. In the end, Andreu’s heart is so hardened, he still can bring himself to forgive his parents or even associate in any which way with his mother. I believe the death of the children’s innocence is best symbolized with the burial of the box with the dead birds and Nuria’s severed hand. In retrospect, it seems as though the children, even the crazy and deluded ones like Nuria and the teenage boy, are more trustworthy than the adults.

The motif of birds is key in this film as it is birds or bird-like people that are linked to the unraveling of events. It is the last words of Dionis’ son ‘Pitorliua’ that would start the unraveling of truths to Andreu about his father and village. It is the father’s raising of birds that connects Andreu with his father in both Farriol’s life and death. It is the real Pitorliua who is the exposure of truth behind the myth claimed by the village and the truth of Farriol exposed to Andreu. It is how the crash where the boy uttered Pitorliua where the hardest truth about Farriol would be exposed to Andreu some time later. It is Andreu’s killing of his father’s birds that would symbolize his severing of ties with his family and his inner monster breaking out. Even the statement Nuria gives him; “That would be your portrait: portrait of a bird killer” would symbolize the dead innocence in Andreu. It is the teenage boy that resembles the spirit of Pitorliua that Andreu would be the one connection to Andreu and his innocence. It is when Andreu hugs the boy goodbye that symbolizes the end of Andreu’s innocence.

What adds to the film’s story is the political situation in the time set. This is the 1940’s. Catalonia lost to Generalissimo Francisco Franco’s Spain in the Civil War in the 1930’s and is under its tight rule. The Catalan language and culture is repressed under criminal punishment and Marxism is also grounds for arrest too. The rich Manubens not being punished for their role in the planned killing of Dionis and his son, and even paying people to carry out duties they wanted, can also be seen as something political too. I strongly believe director Augusti Villaronga is making a statement about the politics of the past. What made me nervous in the film was hearing the teacher teach the children “History is written by winners.” That made me nervous because Catalonia was on the losing side of the Spanish Civil War. I also feel Villaronga is making an additional statement as Farriol appears to be a Marxist to the end but is later revealed to be a murderer and one willing to commit acts of atrocity for a rich family in exchange for either payment or other favors.

The overall acting of the actors was excellent. Nora Navas and Roger Casamajor are excellent as the parents. Young actors Marina Comas and Francesc Colomer are also excellent and very believable in what is their acting debuts. Supportive roles from Marina Gatell and Laia Marull were also excellent. Augusti Villaronga did an excellent job in directing and adapting the novel to screen.

Black Bread already has a lot of buzz surrounding it. It was a big hit at the San Sebastian Film Festival. It won nine Goya Awards, Spain’s national film awards. Then the day before the VIFF began, news was made that it beat out Pedro Almodovar’s The Skin I Live In as Spain’s official entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category for this year’s Academy Awards. It’s especially ironic since The Skin I Live In was the film shown at the VIFF’s Opening Gala. Black Bread is one of seventeen films at the VIFF that are its respective country’s official entry into that category. It was the first time a film shot primarily in Catalan–the predominant language the northeastern region of Catalonia– was entered into that category As Spain’s official entry.

Black Bread was a great film to end my year at the Vancouver International Film Festival. It’s haunting story of innocence lost stays with you and leaves you thinking. The world does seem less truthful and less noble. The past seems more brutal and more chaotic than the images of peace and harmony that we often associate it with. A definite eye opener.

VIFF 2011 Review: Policeman (Ha-Shoter)

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Policeman is an Israeli film released this year. What’s unique about this film is not just to tell two different stories about two different characters but also to present a theme and an ending that will provide a lot of heated discussion amongst many Israelis and some thoughtful discussion elsewhere around the world.

 The film is actually two stories in one. The first half of the film is dedicated to following the life of Yaron: a member of an Israeli anti-terrorism unit. Yaron is a likeable character: dedicated serviceman, family man and supportive husband to an expecting wife. However he has to deal with an operation gone wrong whom is group is being investigated for. They’re planning to make a terminally-ill colleague their scapegoat in order to avoid suspension. He’s seen as a tough and rugged man on the job and with his colleague but a tender man outside of his work.

The second half focuses on Shira, a poetic radical. She too leads a group of radicals who want to protest the division of rich and poor in Israel. As noble as her group sounds, sexual tensions between the members including Shira cause friction. Shira and her group want to give their ‘justice’ to the rich, which means killing them. They plan to organize a hostage-taking mission over at a wedding of a rich businessman’s relative. Shira is seen as passionate towards her cause but very snake-like in terms of conducting her methods.

Then the heist. The group come to the wedding posing as guests. Right at the time, the hostage taking happens. The CEO, his father, mother and the married couple are now hostages. Yaron now has to be part of the group to stop the heist. They devise a plan in the back room with careful planning. Before they start, Shira shouts out to them a chant: “Policemen, you are not our enemies. Policemen, you are also oppressed.” Right at the end, the tense standoff brings the two groups together abruptly.

One thing about this film is that it shows a unique twist that would shock a lot of people in Israel. Their country has mostly experienced Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict. This is a case of Israeli vs. Israeli. It would surprise many who would think that all Israelis are allies when one Israeli attempts to attack another. This topic is bound to make a lot of viewers in Israel uncomfortable or even angry. Those that know Israel well would best know about the poverty Shira is speaking of. Even those of us outside of Israel could identify with some of the incidents happening in the film. Here in Vancouver, our city is full of young radicals looking to make their statement, even though they often make ‘attention whores’ of themselves. Despite it, there are a lot of people angry with the city’s divide of rich and poor. Even though Policeman takes place in Israel, I’m sure there are some people that feel the same way Shira does.

This film is actually the debut feature ever directed by Nadav Lapid. This is a very courageous effort for a beginning director to tackle such a hot button in his country. Outside of the topic itself, the film is also good in its way of presenting two different characters and their surrounding lives before the attack. Yaron lives day to day while Shira dreams up to that day. Both outlooks are intimate as they are personal. You learn of both their strengths and their flaws before the attack.

Already this film has received buzz. This film has already received praising reviews at the Locarno Film Festival and even won its Special Jury Prize. It is a multiple award winner at the Jerusalem Film Festival. It would also be shown a week after the VIFF at the New York Film Festival. As of now, it doesn’t have a distributor but I believe this film is loaded with promise.

Policeman is an excellent daring debut from a director who’s not afraid to tackle hot topics. If you’re looking for a film that makes you think or even challenges your thoughts, this is a good one to see. Even if you don’t live in Israel, you will leave the theatre thinking.

VIFF 2011 Review: Miss Representation

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

One of the most notable things about the VIFF is that it features a huge selection of documentaries both in the number of films aired and the variety of topics. Many documentaries are focused on topics revolving Canada. The documentary of Miss Representation is focused in the United States but one can see a lot the issues discussed in the documentary facing Canada in similar ways too.

Tired of your daughter trying to make a sex object of yourself? Tired of your daughter imitating the stupidities of reality show stars? Ever stop to think about how women are depicted on television? Ever feel a lack of female roles or smart female roles in movies? Tired of the lack of females in CEO positions or politics? While some people, including other women, overlook it, there are women that don’t and are unhappy about the state of things. This dilemma is well-stated in the documentary Miss Representation.

Miss Representation has an impressive lineup of women interviewed for this documentary from actresses like Geena Davis, Jane Fonda and Rosario Dawson to feminists like Dr. Jean Kibourne and Gloria Steinem to newscasters like Katie Couric and Rachel Maddow to politicians like Condoleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi. It does an impressive investigation of how women are portrayed in today’s media, in both entertainment and news. It highlights the negative depictions of them in ‘reality shows’ and misogynistic treatment in hip-hop videos. It shows how computer enhancements shorten a model’s waistline to an unrealistic width. It shows sexist depictions in television ads. It shows networks’ news shows hiring women for sexiness over professionalism. It shows the negative role models girls are given via reality shows and MTV. It also highlights how these images have affected their self-esteem, especially in terms of eating disorders, depression and even undergoing cosmetic surgery.

It doesn’t just stop at entertainment but also focuses on politics too. It points out the United States ranks 90th in the world in terms of the percentage of female politicians in office and noticed a decline in 2010 that was enough cause for alarm. It shows how American female politicians get more copy over what they wear than what they have to say in office. It shows how right wing conservative pundits and their ridiculing of female politicians also are part of the blame. Even conservative groups who hurl slurs at Hillary Clinton like “Iron my clothes” have their part in this. It also focuses on the business world, on how it’s like being a woman with a top position in a room full of men. It also talks of the lack of female CEOs. Funny how when we’ve made progress in the last 40 years, we learn there’s more to be done, and at a faster pace.

Mind you it doesn’t completely dwell on the negative. It also features messages of hope. It also shows of the efforts of young teenage girls in their own political pursuits. It shows a discussion with teenage students–both boys and girls– and how they feel about this. Just when you think teenage America is eating it up and enjoying it all, there are some teens that are concerned. It even talks of Miss Representation, the campaign. The documentary Miss Representation is as much a campaign as it is a documentary film. Its goals are to empower women and girls to challenge limiting labels in order to realize their potential. They are encouraging actions that lead to a cross-generational movement to eradicate gender stereotypes and create lasting cultural and sociological change. They are using various media outlets like girls using social media to speak their mind, a school curriculum to educate and encourage activism, community screenings where discussion is encouraged, and consumer empowerment to encourage the success of female-friendly entertainment.

The unique thing is that the film is done from the point of view from the director and the founder and CEO of the Miss Representation campaign. The filmmaker is Jennifer Siebel Newsom. She is married to former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. Siebel has a Masters Degree from Stanford, completed acting studies at the American Conservatory Theatre and had done environmental work overseas through Conservation International.  Her acting credits include films like Something’s Gotta Give, Rent and In The Valley Of Elah. Her television credits include Strong Medicine, Numb3rs and Mad Men. This documentary is her directorial debut. Miss Representation is as much a personal focus of hers as it is a documentary as she filmed it just after she had given birth to her daughter and wonders what type of world she would grow up in. Anyone else who has a daughter might want to question the same thing too.

I found this documentary quite intriguing. I especially took note of what they said about entertainment. Entertainment and how it’s delivered to various peoples is a big interest of mine. Interesting is during the film, they pointed out to entertainment in the early 90’s that took women’s roles in new directions, like Thelma & Louise and A League Of Their Own. It brought back memories back in the 90’s when women were defying convention in entertainment. We had the sitcom Roseanne where the star Roseanne Barr looked like an actual mother. We had A surge of female singer/songwriters whose intimate work helped spawn off the Lilith Fair festival. Nowadays you could say it’s a memory with profit-oriented entertainment more competitive than ever. We shouldn’t forget about entertainment sinking to new lows for the sake of new highs in profits. In fact I myself could even right an essay on how the improvement of women’s image and role in music in the 90’s suddenly grounded to a halt thanks to Britney and “Oh Baby Baby…” I could also write how Paris Hilton reversed the women’s movement. Or even my thoughts on Snooki. But I’ll save it for now. I’m sure you have your own annoyances too. I’m just glad Lilith Fair hasn’t been replaced by Tartapalozza.

It also got me thinking about how things are doing in Canada. I often feel that Canada is not as sexist as the US but I’m frequently reminded that there’s still work to be done. Even though wage parity between male and female workers is closer than its ever been, female workers are still paid less than male workers. Canada ranks 50th on the world scale of females holding political office. 70 on the 308 seats in the House Of Commons are women; 27 from the victorious Conservative party. Canadian teenage girls have done their share of idolizing Britney and other reality show stars. In fact it encouraged one Canadian magazine journalist, Anne Kingston to write an article that made the cover story for Maclean’s, Canada’s national magazine. For those who want to read it, here it is: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/10/outraged-moms-trashy-daughters/ Glad to see that while Americans mostly ignored this issue, one Canadian writer decided to speak up.

Miss Representation is a film that’s angry about the portrayal of women without having to ‘shout’. It shows stats and views to show its disappointment but also offers messages of hope. Jennifer Siebel Newsom put in a lot of effort and research to get her message across. I’m sure her frustration would not only be shared by mothers like her but fathers of daughters as well. For those interested in the Miss Representation campaign, go to: http://missrepresentation.org/

VIFF 2011 Review: i am a good person/i am a bad person

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

The Vancouver International Film Festival is very good at showcasing Canadian films. Some from directors who have establised themselves and some who are trying to make a name for themselves. The film i am a good person/i am a bad person is a film directed by Ingrid Veninger. Ingrid has already established herself first as an actress, then as a director in films like Gambling, Gods and LSD, Nurse. Fighter.Boy and MODRA. Her latest film i am a good person/i am a bad person is the latest film she directs and plays lead.

In this film, Ruby White is a married director who’s taking her daughter Sara to two film festivals with her as she showcases her latest release, leaving her husband and son at home.

Both are having problems. Sara’s dilemma is obvious as she is testing herself for a pregnancy. Ruby’s dilemma is less obvious emotionally but more physically as the strains of her marriage appear to be affecting her. Ruby is the more bohemian type as she enjoys partying and meeting new people at clubs and is unafraid of trying eccentric things for inspiration and solving problems. Sara is more reserved and often keeps to herself about her problems. Nevertheless their problems cause obvious friction in their relationship and their own lives during their first stop in Brighton. Ruby’s film is showed to a small audience unimpressed enough for one to ask her during a Q&A why she made the film. That leaves Ruby at a loss for words. Meanwhile Sara doesn’t know if she’s pregnant or not and it’s bothering her to the point she wants to leave her mother to visit cousins in Paris. Ruby agrees.

During their three days away, Ruby tries to assess herself as a person, as a wife and as a filmmaker in Berlin before her film opens. Sara meets up with the cousin in Paris and her beau and is able to take her mind off her troubles. Each try their own method in sorting out their problems. Sara is able to enjoy Paris and find it as a source of enjoyment and inspiration in her drawings and her photography. Ruby relies on a poster board sign she wears with “i am a good person” on the back and “i am a bad person” on the front. It is the input she receives from others that draws her insight. In the end, both make crucial decisions for themselves: Ruby for her filmmaking and marriage and Sara for her pregnancy. They meet up again back in Brighton and are able to return as mother and daughter with the satisfaction of their decisions made.

One unique thing about the film is how the alone time of three days helps to develop both Ruby and Sara. While in Berlin, Ruby contemplates herself and her relationship. While in Paris, Sara’s imagination and artistic dreams come alive. While both spend time with themselves and with others, they come to terms with making the huge decisions with their lives in the end.

Another unique thing about the film is that it is very woman-centered, unlike most movies out there right now. Ingrid Veninger directs, writes and plays the protagonist in the film and her daughter Hallee Switzer plays Sara, the main supporting role. The whole story revolves around these two women. It’s here in film festivals where female directors get their works best showcased. In an industry that is very much bottom line and almost completely run by men, it is through female filmmakers through independent companies being exhibited at film festivals where they have their best opportunities to showcase their works. This could lead to more female-based film works in the future. It’s film festivals like these that serve as a reminder that a lot of bottom line-oriented entertainment is missing something valuable.

 Of all the unique things about the film, the most unique thing about it is Ingrid’s shoot-as-you-go approach. For those who don’t know, this film was shot within a period of 19 days. Ingrid shot her scenes in Brighton and Berlin while she herself was out promoting her latest production at film festivals. During the time, she would use some of the film festival audience as part of the audience for this film, for what would be her follow-up. She would also use her interactions with other people as additional footage for the film. This capturing is very unique especially since filmmaking is frequently seen as something carefully directed and edited. I admire Ingrid for her courage to try something new and unique. Basically the only thing about the film that wasn’t that unique was that this is Ingrid plays the lead, as she does in most of her works, and includes her children–Hallie and Jacob–in the works. Here Hallie and Jacob play her character’s children.

This film I believe is meant more to be a personal film than it is to be a crowd-grabber. It is a very though provoking work that will cause some viewers to think as it does reflect on a lot of themes like a failing marriage, one’s career, sudden changes in life, and how to deal with what’s coming. I believe Ingrid did a very good job with her work. Some are calling it her best and most chance-taking work to date.

If you’re looking for a film out of your usual movie-going and are more interested in a thought-provoking film that your typical heavily marketed escapist fluff, i am a good person/i am a bad person is a good choice. At first you think the film makes no real sense but it comes together in the end.

VIFF 2011 Review: BumRush

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

The gangsta film BumRush played at the Vancouver Film Festival. I know what you’re going to say: “I’ve seen gangsta movies before.” BumRush is different. Firstly, it’s Canadian and set in Montreal. Secondly, it’s based off a sting and of events that really happened. Whether it can compare to other hood movies or gangsta movies of the past is one big question mark.

The film is set in Montreal in a strip club. In the past, the neighborhood of the club has had its dealings with rivalry from biker gangs and the Montreal mafia. Now comes a new messy chapter for the club as the neighborhood sees a crossfire between two rivaling street gangs. Soon they want to seize power over the club. This leads to a huge mess on all sides and the condition of the club in jeopardy. Soon the IB11 gang declares the club their property.

To end it all, the leader of the sting, Le Kid, finds an opportunity in five tough men who have had a brotherhood for many years. They also see it in Catherine, a girl who was imprisoned for her activity in relation for one of the gangs. She wants out of gang life but is having trouble with her criminal record being checked. Le Kid sees her and the brotherhood as an opportunity to get the gangs out of the club. It starts with a sting where Catherine gives the leader and his girlfriend spiked shooters. Later one of the gang members takes the drugged up girlfriend out to make out, only to have a cop videotape it with a phone and send it to the gang members. The video leads to more heated friction between the gangs. Then the brotherhood kidnap the two leading gang members to a mortuary to force them to tell the whereabouts of two men they’re after. This leads to an ending that has a small amount of action and some amount of cheeseball moments.

If there’s one strength about the movie, it’s that it shows a lot of forgotten truths that most gangsta movies or hood movies leave out or neglect. One often overlooked truth is girls involved with gangs like Catherine. Catherine’s role shows an angle of girls who want out of the gang system and start a better life. It also shows the ill misogynistic treatment girls get from gang members like the vulgar treatment of the strippers and the girl that was ‘gangbanged.’ That’s it with gangs. They think that because they have all the gun power they can treat women as mysogynistically as they want. That part happens to be the movie’s biggest strength.

Another thing is that it doesn’t show a completely happy ending. It shows the ugly reality that gangs have taken their street activities online and expanded their territory greatly. It’s a new truth that gangs have gone from just their own hood to anywhere online. There’s even talk on the news in Vancouver about gangs going online. That’s one thing that we often forget is that even after a sting is made, there’s still a lot of things left behind or things that don’t go away.

Another thing about the movie is that it features the final acting performance of Montreal musician Bad News Brown. He was famous in Quebec for being a harmonica-playing hip hop blues musician and was a opening act for many big name hip hop stars in Montreal, even accompanying some on stage. Brown was murdered in Montreal on February 11th or this year at the age of 33. This movie could possibly be English Canada’s first introduction to him and Quebec’s last time they’d see him on the screen.

Director Michel Jette did an excellent job in researching the story and creating a good script that was as smart as it was thrilling. He doesn’t rely completely on too much action or too much shootouts but rather focuses on the scenes leading up to the big moment and the people surrounding it. Nevertheless for all of the script’s intelligence, there were a few flat points and noticeable glitches. There were also some corny moments with the harmonica playing of Loosecannon. I often wondered if having a harmonica playing gangsta was such a good idea. The acting was imperfect and often overdone from some. Also the timing of this movie being out at a time when the popularity of gangsta movies have faded over time makes me question whether this would make for a good commercial release.

BumRush’s best quality is its truthfulness about gang activity and those around it. Its weakness is its lack of professionalism from many of the actors and a script that gets confusing over time. This one left me questioning its potential in the end, especially for English Canada.