End of Watch ★★½

The Found Footage Genre Applied To A Buddy Cop Movie Proves Ineffective

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

An up close and personal look at the lives of two hotshot police officers patrolling South Central, End of Watch is about as gritty as it gets. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña star as Brian and Mike, two Los Angeles cops who get more than they bargained for on an almost weekly basis. Brian is taking college classes on the side, one of which happens to be a film course. For one of his projects, he decides to outfit himself and Mike with mini-cameras so that whoever watches his finished film will get a first person perspective of their daily routines.

The interesting stylistic choice on the part of writer/director David Ayer, who has an obvious affection for the found footage genre, is abandoned midway through the movie. But it's not unwelcome, considering within the first twenty minutes or so even the criminals that Brian and Mike are chasing have cameras, the reasons for which are never explained. Once the switch occurs, you're immediately aware of it and it takes away from some of the film's emotional impact; you no longer believe in the vision of South Central Ayer set out to show us. Instead, you realize that this is just hyper stylized world that is nothing more than the creation of a gifted filmmaker.

This is not to say that the film doesn't have certain things going for it. Gyllenhaal and Peña have terrific chemistry, so much so that even when Ayer is is making mistakes stylistically you still believe that these guys are actually cops. Gyllenhaal's Brian is tough and brazen, pushing the limits of his job a little too far, while Peña plays Mike equally as assertive as Brian is, albeit with a more level head on his shoulders. You immediately see why these two are not only partners but best friends, and they keep you invested in their story.

That story is one that leads to a lot of dead bodies, mangled cops and the Mexican cartel, all of which seems like a little too much over the span of time that the movie covers, which seems to be about a year, maybe two. While both leads are good, Ayer, for all the realism he's going for, doesn't seem to have a grip on reality. He's too chaotic for a movie about chaotic circumstances and too indecisive to stay with one style. The result is a film that happens to have solid performances from its actors but falls short of being anything memorable.

Looper ★★½

Time Travel Just Isn't What It Used To Be, Or Will Be

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

The new film Looper has about as much plot as you'd expect in a time travel movie and then some. The story focuses on Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt), who is known as a "Looper" (a hitman in the present who kills men that have been sent back from the future). As we're told in Joe's opening narration, time travel is not invented until thirty years down the road, and when it is, it's immediately outlawed. The only people using it are the mob who, instead of killing these men in their time (apparently disposing of bodies in the future is quite difficult), send them back to the present to be executed. There's one rule among Loopers: never let one's target escape for any reason. It seems an easy enough rule to follow, until Joe's older self is sent back to him and he gets cold feet. For those still with me, it's never a good idea to hesitate when your older self is played by Bruce Willis.

Once the older Joe escapes the film enters into its very slow second act and introduces the characters of Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon). Both characters are crucial to the plot in ways I suspect many viewers won't be expecting, but they're also the weakest element of the film. Any screenwriter will tell you that the second act in any story is the hardest to write; it has to keep the story going with all of the elements introduced in the first act and lead into the resolution of the third act. Unfortunately, Looper ends up being an example of a film with an unsuccessful second act.

It's not so much that taking the time to discover who Sara and Cid are is bad, or that learning more about young Joe doesn't benefit the story, it's that neither is all that interesting nor does it seem to fit within the story. We've learned enough about Joe (both young and old) from the first act of the film, so it's unnecessary when the second act almost forces the audience into believing that young Joe is a hero of some kind. He's not really, which is not to say that Joe isn't an engaging character despite his flaws. It's almost as if the writer/director Rian Johnson thought the dystopia he was creating was too dark and, as a safety measure, decided to make Joe more heroic. 

Despite it's second act, there are elements in the film that work. Aside from Gordon-Levitt, who always does a good job no matter what movie he's in, the breakout performance for me came from Jeff Daniels as Abe, the mob boss in charge of all of the Loopers. Daniels plays him so perfectly; so chillingly matter-of-fact that every scene he was in worked so well. It's a very small role, but one that has stuck with me. It illustrates what a great, understated actor like Daniels can bring to a part, big or small. In Looper, you know Abe means business, even if he talks to you like he's your best friend.

That point is made clear in a scene where Abe persuades young Joe to give up his best friend and fellow Looper, Seth (Paul Dano) for letting his older self (Frank Brennan) escape. It's a pivotal scene in the film because it achieves two things: it shows us just how bad of a man Abe is and why he's the man running the game, and it illustrates to us the consequences Joe will face if he does not kill his older self. It's perhaps the most disturbing sequence in the film in that we see young Seth's fate through his older self's scars and vanishing appendages.

Scene's like that emphasize the craftsmanship of Johnson, who has a knack for being very original, both in story and tone. His first film, Brick (his and Gordon-Levitt's first collaboration) was a dark film noir set in a high school that had elements of horror, comedy and drama mixed into it. It worked very well and proved that Johnson wasn't the kind of storyteller most are used to. His second film, The Brothers Bloom, was more light hearted and polarizing with audiences. I was one of the people that thoroughly enjoyed it because it did for me the same thing Brick did, only in a different genre. With Looper, we get that same originality but instead of his usual mixed tone, it's a consistent one, which ultimately hurt my enjoyment of it. The second act just felt too safe and conventional, especially for Johnson.

This intriguing time travel film loses itself in its seeming desire to be mainstream, which is disappointing for a movie by such a gifted filmmaker. 

Side By Side ★★★★

Polarizing, Captivating; A Reminder Of Why We Love Movies

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Unlike 2011, a year in which many documentaries failed to make nearly every critic's top ten list, 2012 is shaping up to be the year of the documentary. This theory of mine is illustrated beautifully in the new film Side By Side (directed by Christopher Kenneally), a documentary investigating the increasing popularity of digital filmmaking and its impact on film itself. The interviewees include directors, cinematographers, editors and a variety of other post-production talents, each with their own opinion of why shooting on film or digital is a better method for making movies.

The man interviewing these legends of cinema is the last person I would expect in a film like this, Keanu Reeves. While this is a documentary, I have to say that this film is Reeves' best work. He displays a wealth of knowledge on filmmaking processes and is terrific as an interviewer. He doesn't just ask question after question, but instead has a conversation with these people, allowing them to talk and challenging them, when necessary, to provide examples proving their argument.

On the pro-film side of moviemaking is Christopher Nolan, the titan of brilliantly staged and choreographed action all within the camera, and the perfect person to make the case for shooting with film as opposed to digital. He argues that digital filmmaking is not true filmmaking, and uses the example of the chewy cookie - made to look, feel and taste like it was fresh out of the oven - being a fake, and lesser version of the original. In other words, the use of digital photography is hindering directors and cinematographers from knowing their craft, limiting their understanding of how movies are actually made.

On the other side of the argument are David Fincher and James Cameron, two men who, for very separate and equally valid reasons, believe digital photography is the only way to make movies. Fincher is a man known for shooting close to 100 takes for a given scene to ensure a perfect mise-en-scène, and as a result, enjoys the ability to immediately view scenes that were just shot to do so. With film, he points out, directors have to wait until the following day for it to be developed and then watch the dailies. He considers this method a backward way of filmmaking, as a director cannot see if mistakes were made until the scene or sequence has already wrapped. Conversely, James Cameron states that film died for him years ago because could not shoot in 3D and that digital effects were and still are the future of modern filmmaking. Examples from the technology he used in The Abyss and Terminator 2: Judgment Day are shown to illustrate how shooting in digital has made Mr. Cameron's dream of creating his own worlds come to life.

Every time someone talks about being in favor of film, several disadvantages to it are mentioned. Similarly, the disadvantages to digital are brought up when someone shows their preference for it. One could argue that Side By Side seems to argue in favor of digital but I found it to be unbiased one way or the other. It's made clear that each method has its benefits and its problems, but it also makes a clear case that at this time, one cannot seem to exist without the other. Even if a movie is shot digitally, film preservation (as opposed to hard drives) is still the preferred and more reliable method for storing movies. What is made abundantly clear is that film has reached the best of its potential and that digital is in its beginning, pointing to the necessity for filmmakers like Mr. Nolan to embrace the new and remember the old fondly.

I have to admit that prior to seeing Side By Side, I was pro-film entirely. While directors like Mr. Fincher continue to impress me with digital cinematography, I still found something nostalgic and original in using film. Now, however, it's become clear that there's not necessarily one method that should be used in all movies, but instead, depending on the film and what a particular director is going for, one method may work better to tell that story than the other.

This is a debate that proves to be equally (if not more) polarizing than which political party one identifies with. Side By Side isn't out to tell us that we have to believe in one method or the other, it simply shows us both arguments (as the title implies) and allows us to choose for ourselves. It is an important film for cinephiles like myself, as well as anyone in the arts who wants to learn more about the craft of composing images. As The New York Times film critic, A.O. Scott said in his review, "It is worth a year of film school and at least 1,000 hours of DVD bonus commentary."

Side By Side is very personal for me. I grew up watching movies that my parents gave me, learning what I liked and what I didn't. I went to college to study film and to learn the skill with which all of my favorite movies were made. Hearing how these directors and cinematographers - many of whom have worked on movies that I love - talk about their craft so passionately reminds me why I love going to the movies in the first place. It emphasizes the importance of movies as cultural artifacts, and proves that no matter how many movies someone has seen or made, there's always something new to learn.

V/H/S ★★½

If You Thought You Had Some Weird Home Videos...

Written by Matt Giles

Edited by Erin Accomando

Horror films seem to follow trends for several years until people get tired of knowing what to expect. We've seen countless slasher films, ghost stories and demonic children, each appealing to a different type of horror audience. Most recently, the "found footage" stories have been resurrected, especially since the release of Paranormal Activity in 2009.

The new film V/H/S relishes in this type of horror genre with six unrelated short films, each dealing with a particular filmmaker's take on horror. It's an anthology of shorts, with one main storyline that tries (but doesn't really succeed) to bridge all of these films together. Documentary-like "footage" is used to tell these stories and each one pays homage to a different horror genre. Some of them work, some don't, but you can't help but admire the craftsmanship in each one. 

Tape 56 ★

This is the main story arc that introduces to several truly despicable men. We're introduced to them through a series of acts, one involving them finding a woman in a parking lot and forcibly lifting her shirt up to flash the camera as they hold her boyfriend back. They're thieves of some kind, as one of them tells the other that they're supposed to break into a house and steal a VHS tape. When they arrive at the house they find it deserted, except for an old man, apparently dead, in a recliner chair. There's a television in front of him with a VCR. One of the guys stays behind to watch one of the videos while the others go and search the rest of the house. 

Each film is introduced in this way, each time a different member of the group returning to the living room with the previous member now missing (this doesn't seem to bother any of them). The creepiest element to this story is the old man in the chair. We know that he's probably not dead and that something bad is going to happen. Obviously something strange is going on since one member of the team disappears after one video is shown. 

Overall, this is the weakest of the films. Say what you will about the horror genre, but I at least want some emotional investment in the characters on screen. As the main arc of the film shouldn't we at least want to root for these guys? There's not one redemptive quality to any of them and thus we hope that they'll be killed off quickly, which may be the film's point. For me, however, I would have preferred actual characters as a through line for the whole film as opposed to these idiots. 

Amateur Night ★★½

The story here centers around three college guys - Shane, Patrick and Clint - eager to meet women, so much so that they've attached a camera to Clint's (the nerdy do-gooder of the group) glasses to document their conquests. In other words, they want to make an amateur porn video with Clint taping it. They end up meeting some girls, one of whom takes a particular interest in Clint by repeatedly whispering to him, "I like you." Something is off about this girl - she doesn't look quite right and as the night progresses, she seems more and more otherworldly - and the camera-operating Clint suspects this but chooses to ignore it. I won't give away what happens, suffice it to say that of all of the entries in this anthology, this one is by far the most grisly. If your definition of true horror means a lot of blood and carnage, you'll probably enjoy this installment. 

For me, this one almost works but, like Tape 56, falls short with its characters. Clint is the voice of reason and is quite literally the audience to the events taking place. His two friends, however, are moronic drunks who like to take advantage of women, once again emphasizing that the approach here is to root for death over survival. 

What I like in this film is the use of the camera as an attachment to Clint's glasses. It gives us a fun, first-person perspective with some inventive angles and very disturbing character interactions. Overall it's a film to be looked at for style over substance; a lesson in finding new ways to tell the same story over and over, this time making the camera an actual character within the story. 

Second Honeymoon ★★½

Of all the entries, this is the only one without supernatural elements to it, and yet it is the one that disturbed me the most out of any of them. It focuses on a couple, Sam and Stephanie, taking their vacation out west in celebration of (as the title suggests) their second honeymoon. They've been documenting their trip via hand-held camera, interviewing each other about the day's events thus far. One night at their hotel room a woman knocks at the door asking Sam for a ride the following morning. He's disturbed, but ultimately thinks it's no big deal. That night someone else turns the camera on, recording them as they sleep. 

I doubt this entry will disturb anyone else as much as it did for me, but there's something about the voyeuristic nature of this film that gets to me. I like that it tried to be different from the rest, relying solely on human interactions to tell its story. It's also the first one that provides likable characters in the lead roles, which furthers the suspense when the intruder enters the room.

Where it falls short is in adhering to the rules laid out by the previous and following films in having something supernatural as part of the story. Yes, this is a series of unrelated films, but every single one of them do something different within the supernatural found-footage genre. Had this been a short film that just existed on its own, it may not have felt so out of place. 

Tuesday the 17th ★★★

Friday the 13th fans, this one is for you. This is the first film that blends style and substance in the right way: A group of twenty-somethings enter the woods, only to be picked off one at a time by an unseen killer, but the killer is a creation within the camera itself. The members of the group include Wendy, Joey, "Spider" and Samantha, who are on their way to to Wendy's hometown for a weekend trip. They end up stopping to go for a walk in the woods and Wendy cryptically tells them that they will all die.

Once again these characters are not all that likable, but the killer that the filmmakers decided to create here is inventive and terrifying. It uses the hand-held camera as a method with which to actually see when the killer is about to attack, allowing for originality and quite disturbing imagery. It's grotesque, over-the-top and utterly ridiculous, yet it works at delivering all the frightening elements that classic horror film fans will surely love.

The Sick Thing That Happened To Emily When She Was Younger ★★★

Living in an era where using Skype and vlogs for communication are evermore present, it's amazing that no film in recent memory has used the two-person screenshot via video chat as a method for delivering genuine fear. Making the story feel of its time and place, while also creating a tale straight out of The Twilight Zone, The Sick Thing works on a variety of levels.

The story itself is about Emily and her boyfriend, James, talking through video chat about Emily's increasing paranoia that she has ghosts living in her apartment. She misses James and eagerly awaits his visit in the coming weeks. As each night passes, Emily tries to make contact with the entities she claims are with her, while James skeptically watches through the computer. As is usually the case, everything is not what it seems. Those who use Skype regularly might think twice about what goes on behind them when chatting with a friend after seeing this film. They also may decide that using the laptop camera to examine paranormal activities where they live may not be the best investigative technique.

This is the second film that features a lead character (Emily) that is worth watching and not just another slab of meat for a killer. Emily thinks she's going crazy and we the audience, of course, know this to be false. You want to cry for her, especially when the twist is revealed and her fate seems certain. As a diehard Twilight Zone and Rod Serling fan, I found the writing here to be spot on and the twist to be a classic left fielder.

10/31/98 ★★★

Ending this anthology with a bang is the film that (finally) pays homage to the Sam Raimi Evil Dead series, with four friends, Tyler, Paul, Matt and Chad, driving around trying to find the Halloween party they've been invited to. When they find the house, no one appears to be home, yet they enter anyway.

I'll put it this way: This is not a house I would ever want to be stuck in for any length of time. Thankfully, this film gives us a group of guys who actually do the right thing but ultimately pay a steep price for their chivalry. Around Halloween there are dozens of places that host supposed haunted house tours. This film illustrates exactly what those people are going for - only this time it's real. This is by far the most supernatural of all of the installments in V/H/S, making 10/31/98 is a worthy ender to an otherwise mixed bag of tricks.

V/H/S, as a whole, has it out for women; many of the lesser installments objectify them, while others prove that if a man is actually decent enough to help a member of the opposite sex, she'll most likely kill you. I hope this is not a trend that continues in modern day horror films, as it was dated even when horror films were part of mainstream movies, but only time will tell. Overall, V/H/S almost works as a collection of inventive short films, but the lesser installments weigh it down. If there's a way to catch them individually, that might be better than sitting through two hours for about 30 minutes of good filmmaking.