Wylie Writes’ Ten Worst Movies of 2013
By: Addison Wylie
As the Oscars approach this Sunday, the time is finally here to reflect on 2013 through a pair of lists – my picks of the best and the worst. Let’s get the duds out of the way to make way for the flicks that’ll be remembered for years to come.
2013 introduced me to a new type of “bad”. It was a sub-version spawning off of the type of hatefulness I only save for my bottom three choices. These films treated its audience like imbeciles and expected us to lap up what they were serving and laugh our faces off – no questions asked. Instead, they were either smug or flat-out negative. You can expect to see those soiled diapers at the end of this role call.
Even though I have a main “bottom ten”, I made sure I included some dishonourable mentions in order to cover those who thought they were saved by the odd late entry. However, there were plenty of stinkers that fell off that additional listing as well. So, let’s talk about them.
I appreciate filmmakers wanting to be brave with how to tell their film’s story, but some approaches left me befuddled. In The Wagner Files, someone thought it was a good idea to portray composer Richard Wagner’s life through a broody soap opera with CSI inspired cutaways. With Thursday Till Sunday, the idea of realistically showing a crumbling family through a mundane road trip backfired immensely because, well, it made the film a bore as well.
Mainstream films took weird chances too, thinking the audience would applaud their efforts to connect to movie goers. “Audiences loved Wedding Crashers and adore the Internet, so let’s make a movie called The Internship and have Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson work at Google. Hilarity is bound to ensue, right?”
This logic also applied to smart aleck genre bending films. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters flopped because it wanted to have its cake and eat it too by offering audiences a parody of what movie goers would expect and balancing it out with Resident Evil inspired action sequences.
Funny or Die’s iSteve, an attempt to make a satirical biopic about Steve Jobs, was amusing for the first few minutes, but soon ran out of steam as each joke was pounded into submission.
Children weren’t safe either. Disney’s haphazard cash-in on the Cars franchise Planes was a wreck without a single sign of creativity in sight. From Up on Poppy Hill had the visual zest of a vibrant family film, but managed to lull it’s audience into a nap with miscast dubbing and laboured storytelling.
I won’t lie. I kind of wished my list would have a Lindsay Lohan triple play. It would just make matters a bit more interesting with an added novelty. Unfortunately, I saw worse things than Paul Schrader’s confused drama The Canyons. Lohan does, however, make two appearances on my bottom ten.
So, without further wait, let’s take a look at the worst of the worst. Just remember filmmakers, this was a year where James Nguyen made a sequel to his unintentional cult hit Birdemic: Shock and Terror. Notice how I haven’t mentioned Birdemic 2: The Resurrection until now? Nguyen made a better movie than all of you. Think about that for a moment.
Overrated Movies:
The Broken Circle Breakdown
The Conjuring
Fast & Furious 6
Frozen
When Jews Were Funny
Dishonourable Mentions:
#15. Pain & Gain
#14. The Great Chameleon
#13. Jack the Giant Slayer
#12. The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology
#11. InRealLife
Wylie Writes’ Ten Worst Movies of 2013
Trying to piece together the film after watching it is a mission in itself. Trying to follow it as it unfolds on screen is damn near frustrating.
Nikola Curcin’s romance is unjustifiably cruddy and a cross between a travelogue and a family vacation home video circa 1992.
#8. Peeples
Peeples is an atom bomb of a comedy and one of the worst Tyler Perry productions movie goers have seen yet.
#7. Scary Movie 5
Scary Movie 5 is not a funny movie. I have a hard time justifying this rush job as “a movie”.
Getting a deservedly short theatrical run, The Frankenstein Theory is an uninspired and stupefyingly obvious play-by-play of 1999′s The Blair Witch Project.
#5. Fondi ’91
I feel embarrassed for Fondi ’91 and for all who were involved with its ill-fated production. This is a prime example of a movie that needed more rehearsals and more pre-production planning before heading into its slapdash shooting.
#4. After Earth
Hollow and wooden, with very little to latch on to. I can’t comprehend After Earth and I’ll never understand it.
#3. Grown Ups 2
Grown Ups 2 has a neanderthal brian. It’s another one of these movies where it eventually turns into the cinematic equivalent of Sandler looking at himself in the mirror and winking.
#2. Identity Thief
Identity Thief is a recipe for disaster – and the movie has no idea. Who thought it would be a good idea to generate laughs from an irksome, hoarding, annoying, selfish sociopath?
Infomercial spokesperson Vince Offer has somehow managed to weasel his racist tirade into cinemas for the world to endure. Or, for those masochists who boldly seek ways to stress out their patience. It’s a movie that makes you angry at everyone involved. It’s not bold or audacious- just terribly crass and stupid.
If Movie 43 is the worst movie you’ve seen all year, then you’re not ready for InAPPropriate Comedy. And, I say that because I care about you.
**********
‘Ten Worst Movies of 2013 ‘ Artwork by: Sonya Padovani
Solo
By: Addison Wylie
Solo starts out on an “A” game, but ends up finishing with a generous “C” grade.
Isaac Cravit’s independent thriller is a straight-up campfire story – and, the filmmaker knows it. Gillian (played by former Degrassi: The Next Generation co-star Annie Clark) needs to prove herself to be a capable camp counsellor in order to obtain a summer job. The newbie needs to pull a “solo”, a two-night experience on a secluded island that will test her survival skills.
Cravit, directing and writing his first feature film, is having a lot of fun playing with the conventions of a campfire horror. The filmmaker even has fellow councillors telling Gillian rumours of haunted activity that took place on the island before she embarks on her trip.
These moments don’t feel like Cravit is pushing too hard for the audience to recognize what the film is trying to be and he sticks his landing well with these scenes of eerie dialogue.
When Gillian arrives at the island and is forced to investigate mysteries in the woods at night, Cravit nails the creepiness. As the camera slowly moves around a freaked out Clark, we can’t help but get sweaty palms as we feel ourselves growing more anxious. What’s better is that there aren’t too many of these moments, making these quiet pressure cookers enunciate strongly when they happen.
Cravit is also having a ball throwing red herrings at his audience, including possible antagonists that may have more to do with the island’s history than we realize.
Solo reveals more, including what’s overlooking Gillian. The routes the film travels on is all a matter of subjectivity. I watched Solo with my wife, who enjoyed where Cravit took his scary movie. I, on the other hand, thought these decisions made the film less effectively stimulating and increasingly mundane.
Without spoiling the main course, Cravit’s screenplay makes the right choice to make delirium the main evil in Solo. The problem is – for me, at least – he chooses the wrong type of crazy. Solo would’ve been better off as something more psychological than being so literal.
Solo is typical enough to get by. Some gory effects towards the end are appreciated and certainly help matters tonal wise. But, part of the joy of watching these smaller scale horrors/thrillers is finding steady specialties that make movie goers gush to others about the film – resulting in consecutive views. I just didn’t get that with Solo.
Human Rights Watch Film Festival 2014: In the Shadow of the Sun
By: Addison Wylie
I find myself in a predicament trying to review Harry Freeland’s documentary In the Shadow of the Sun. Prior to the film, I was oblivious to the subject matter and found myself perplexed by the harsh reality that stalks Tanzanian albinos.
In the Shadow of the Sun is a perfectly fine documentary, but I keep feeling as if I’m rating Freeman’s doc on the content represented rather than the film the material resides in. That isn’t the fault of Freeland’s wholehearted filmmaking, however. The subject is just that powerful.
After a rumour circulates claiming that albinos are a rare form of future fortune and wealth, impoverished individuals or those simply seeking a good luck charm set out to retrieve parts of albinos to keep – resulting in nasty slaughters and diminishing hope for those born differently. Besides the grisly tragedies, Tanzanian albinos are viewed as useless people who should be shunned.
You can see how it’d be easy to get sucked into this distressing situation, and shift focus away from the film itself. Fortunately, audiences will still be able to appreciate In the Shadow of the Sun’s picturesque cinematography and the valuable minimalist filmmaking.
It’s important to note that Freeland doesn’t shy away from any details. That description of the doc’s rawness shouldn’t entice you, but instead warn those who are faint of heart. Movie goers will see the lengths others will go through to obtain a piece of “luck”. Although, the uncensored look is helpful, these images are some of the most graphic content I’ve ever seen and will undoubtably make audiences queasy during their sympathizing.
The film’s core centres around Josephat Torner, an outspoken albino who wants to bring awareness to the effect this terrible rumour is having on his life and those around him. He bravely takes to the road and speaks to multiple groups about the issue. He gets them involved by asking questions and hearing them out before stating his opinion on the matter. Smartly, Freeman steps back and lets his camera roll on Torner and the crowds during these passionate talks.
The doc is a little too long as it reaches the homestretch, and – understandably – becomes a bit of a broken record as Freeman tries to figure out how to make the main message take forms that offer variety to his project.
Otherwise, In the Shadow of the Sun is clear, concise, and a mannerly marvel. Much like Josephat, Harry Freeman has made an meritable documentary successfully enlightening audiences around the world of these unfair circumstances.
**********
Catch In the Shadow of the Sun at Toronto’s Human Rights Watch Film Festival on Friday, February 28 at 6:30 pm at the TIFF Bell Lightbox.
The Lego Movie
By: Addison Wylie
In any other situation, The Lego Movie would’ve been used as a promotional tool to shill out a new line of toys to wide-eyed youth while parents have premonitions of their wallet getting lighter by the second. Luckily, filmmakers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller – who were responsible for the surrealist Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs adaptation and the hilarious 21 Jump Street reboot – to shut down that possibility completely.
If you attend a screening of The Lego Movie, you’ll be treated to vigorous animation, roaring jokes stemming from an astute sense of humour, and unexpected sentimental messages that don’t feel prying.
Lego has always been adamant on following instructions to assemble a mass product, and the filmmakers (along with Dan and Kevin Hageman) latch onto this concept to build their movie.
Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt) is one of many who abides by a ritualistic lifestyle. Everyone eats the same things, they drink the same expensive coffee, and everyone listens to the same upbeat tune that promises everyone that “everything is awesome”.
The Lego Movie is obviously simulating a society that’s been overtaken by materialism and consumerism that seems robotic but is ordinary and enjoyable to everyone – including Emmet. It’s a projection that is not only plastic on the outside, but litters the inner workings of every action in this happy community. President Business (voiced by Will Ferrell) holds the power over the city, and knows perfectly well how everything is – pardon the pun – another brick in the wall. And with this knowledge, he has bigger plans for ultimate destruction which will cause everything to never exceed being anything more than “normal”.
With that synopsis, there’s a slight worry that the film’s messages will hector us throughout The Lego Movie. Fortunately for us, Lord and Miller are wise storytellers who have a fantastic sense of how to speak to audiences without making matters too conspicuous. These pokes at shallowness go in for the kill in a humorous way, but stay away from being too flippant.
There was a moment where I held my breath. Emmet soon meets a group of individuals who are living “off the grid” that tell our unlikely hero that rules are not always a necessity. These moments made me scared that Lord and Miller were sprinkling anti-establishment ideas in the subtext during these vivid visuals and hearty laughs. It’s a silly claim to get worked up about, but I can’t help myself when this film is targeted towards a young audience who soaks nearly everything up.
Without spoiling anything from the film, The Lego Movie does fix itself. It doesn’t have a hidden agenda like some animated films shamefully tout (I’m looking at you, Lorax), and lets kids know that both their imaginations are appreciated while following guidelines.
Enough with the seriousness, however. This is a movie called The Lego Movie after all! If we look past the morality groundwork, movie goers receive a spry outing that both kids and adults can equally lavishly watch.
The story that features many Lego characters – old and new – always finds itself moving in a helpful direction, allowing any type of high-speed pursuit or quippy riffs to take the wheel for an appropriate amount of time.
The film itself has a super imagination. Franchise characters play pivotal roles in the film’s narrative and our heroes are always thinking about creative ways to get themselves out of a pickle. The Lego Movie is not trying to sell us any crummy puns or play sets. It’s here to educate viewers that playfulness and ingenuity is acceptable. Most of all, Lord and Miller want to entertain audiences. And, that they do.
By the final act, you’re satisfied with what the film has set out to do. However, some last minute punches are pulled. I try not to use the word “brilliant” too often for fear that the highly acclaimed word will lose impact. But, when a film goes the extra mile to provide a new risky layer to its structure and manages to pull it off, then it deserves the praise.
Phil Lord and Christopher Miller finish the film on an assortment of wowing inspiration, and manage to make their film much more than that film with “Lego” in its title or “just another kids movie”.
For me, The Lego Movie hits those same revolutionary tones the first Toy Story did in 1995. To not say this ingenious film is brilliant would be robbing the movie out of the esteem it deserves. Go. See. This. Movie. Now.
3 Days to Kill
By: Addison Wylie
3 Days to Kill pairs action veteran Luc Besson with the imperious directing efforts of McG. The two filmmakers have unmistaken love/hate relationships with movie goers, but it’s clear that these men have strengths in specific areas. Besson has shown audiences how action can be exciting with jaw-dropping stunts, and McG knows how to capture an explosion. The latter may sound underwhelming compared to Besson’s clout, but “flash” is McG’s forte.
Their newest cinematic contribution involves a secret service agent who’s long in the tooth within his career and can feel continual pulse-pounding palpitations while on duty. His poor health is contributed by an aggressive sickness that is slowly eating away at agent Ethan Renner (played by Kevin Costner).
He’s given an experimental antidote by his aggressively sultry boss Vivi (played by a foolishly directed Amber Heard) in exchange for one last job – to kill a conniving villain named “The Wolf”. Renner will, of course, have to keep his mission under wraps in front of his doubtful estranged ex-wife (played by Connie Nielsen) and his even more doubtful estranged daughter (played by Hailee Steinfeld).
3 Days to Kill sounds like the perfect vehicle for Besson and McG to bring out those referenced special abilities. Instead, the film only brings out the worst in both action devotees as this tedious tease focuses on the weaknesses these two both share – straight family sentimentality and comedy.
Audiences will be surprised by how little action there is in a movie titled 3 Days to Kill. I wouldn’t feel threatened to state that the grand total of casualties is under ten while McG’s explosion count stayed low at a measly one-and-a-half – two at the most.
For the most part, 3 Days to Kill directs its focal point on Ethan’s parental absence. It’s a film that is much more interested in worrying about why his daughter is unable to ride a bike than to distress about life threatening crime.
Whenever Besson wants to develop troubling families in his past work, it doesn’t last long. There’s just enough to convince audiences that these characters are human beings. In 3 Days to Kill, there’s nothing but those preliminary scenes where Ethan tries to have heart-to-heart conversations with his child, or tries to convince her mother that he’s changed.
This film doesn’t show any growth from Besson in regards to writing a realistic troubled family, and the talks between Costner and Nielsen feel like direct pinches from Besson’s Taken screenplay. He sure doesn’t get any help from his co-writer Adi Hasak either, who unconvincingly fleshed out another Besson story in From Paris with Love. Both men are also guilty of stupidly stereotyping races, especially Besson who has done this incessantly in the past. I don’t understand why he hasn’t put a stop to this. His cultural missteps are unfunny and could easily be offensive.
I tried to figure out what exactly would draw the hyper-active McG to a project like this. Then it hit me. McG has obviously realized just how imbecilic his last feature film This Means War was. This is his attempt to show audiences that his filmmaking can mature. He’s much more than women in bikinis and fiery combustions.
However, McG falls flat in a harsher way than how Rob Zombie did with Lords of Salem. McG has married so much attention into making a more adult project that he’s forgotten to add personality or oomph to any of his characters or scenarios. Scenes drift as bored actors try and stay awake amidst the wooden production and try to look alive when they’re bonded in feigned fodder; such as during a scene where Ethan teaches his needy daughter how to slow dance.
McG, along with Besson and Hasak’s uncooperative script, gets into a routine of setting up stirring situations and cheat the audience with lame outcomes. Ethan is constantly getting interrupted by his daughter during torture sessions with baddies. Just as Costner is about to prove his toughness, he’s knocked down by Steinfeld’s annoying pleas for attention.
This also opens the floor up for ill-timed comedy as Ethan uses his father figure persona to help save the day and to benefit his family. An unfathomable sequence featuring the rough-and-tough Costner trying to get his flamboyantly Italian hostage to help Steinfeld with a recipe for pasta sauce is when 3 Days to Kill officially hits rock bottom.
I felt trapped watching this stupefyingly awful movie. I couldn’t leave for fear I would miss a spurt of action, and I was never rewarded for my patience. However, 3 Days to Kill turns out to be Bathroom Break: The Movie. Every scene is expendable and as absent minded as the one before it.
The only other time recently that I felt invisibly braced to my seat was during this month’s Vampire Academy, and that still defeats 3 Days to Kill in a competition of deplorability. But, McG’s inane, extremely lacklustre, never-ending action-comedy-drama-whatever is a wreck and always found a way to repel any sort of concern or interest – big or small.
Pompeii
By: Addison Wylie
By definition, Paul W.S. Anderson is a filmmaker. In my eyes, he’s not a very good filmmaker, but he’s been able to create brainless successes.
His latest blunder Pompeii is by definition “mindless entertainment”. The film follows similar conventions that were used in his Resident Evil adaptations, and he crosses his fingers hoping people will eat it up all the same.
It’s expected people will walk out of Pompeii passively shrugging off the film as “dumb, but passable fare”, and be perfectly indifferent with it. For some reason, knowing that something is going to be “dumb, but passable fare” before going into the movie allows Anderson to do just that and not let down movie goers with those low expectations. It’s how he was able to get away scot-free with most of his action flicks, and why people consider his work “critic proof”.
As I stated in my steaming review of Resident Evil: Retribution, audiences deserve better – even if it is just surface-level escapism. Pompeii is another example of this filmmaker shafting movie goers in every single way, along with an added PG-13 rating restraining Anderson from showing any over-the-top violence.
The movie takes place in 79 A.D. preceding a monumental catastrophe. It’s to no surprise that Anderson’s drowsy directing leads to borrowing beats from more enthralling epics such as Gladiator, Titanic, and miscellaneous disaster movies. It never feels original because of these blatant rip-offs of other popular films. Even so, Anderson can never sell us on his second-hand saga because of how little effort everyone involved has put forth.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington takes the role of the film’s brawny protagonist, Milo. He fills out the part physically, but hasn’t done any further work to make this character into anything more than a cardboard standee. This is merely a starring role to test the cinematic waters of whether Harington convinces audiences nationwide that he’s a tough guy on a bigger screen. He may look the part, but with due time, he’ll realize sombre gazes and rippling abs don’t necessarily help develop a character.
The rest of the cast follows along similarly. They’ve been cast based on looks alone. The film’s logic behind its casting is that if you can look attractive while touting a wiry beard or filthy volcanic schmutz on your face, you can be a movie star.
The rest of Pompeii’s production is comparably unsubtle and shoddy. Whether it’s caking make-up onto an increasingly scantily clad Emily Browning as Milo’s love interest, or showing Keifer Sutherland’s credit as he enters the scene articulating a ridiculous accent with overacting theatrics. We’re constantly reminded that this is one big, loud, clumsy movie.
For a film carrying historical content, I at least expected Anderson to impress me with period detail. It appears everyone is costumed in proper garb, but Anderson flatly shot his film as if he’s wanting to emphasize that everything’s been shot indoors on a sound stage. There’s no movie magic here. Just a bunch of clanging effects mounted on top of artificial acting.
It goes to show paying audiences that no one behind Pompeii cared to make a convincing product. The general attitude was apathetic and as static as those inevitable post-screening shrugs.
It’s as if before a day of shooting, Anderson grouped the cast and crew together for a powerpoint rundown of “how to make a by-the-numbers money maker”. It’s a list of steps dancing around the fact that the end product will also be defunct of any legitimacy amongst the reactions on screen and in the audience. But, the filmmaker would remind his team that everyone would collect a hefty paycheque once the turkey was in the can – this would cause a cheerful uproar.
The steps on Anderson’s play-by-play include pausing the film to spill countless pages of spoken exposition, drawn out buddying between Milo and his oppressive cell mate Atticus (played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and silly romance with forced chemistry in tow between Browning and Harington. Plus, you can’t forget those choppy fight sequences that have been hacked to death by autopiloted editors, and their collection of odd pandering zooms to highlight intensity.
Of course, if you’re going to make a big blockbuster involving lots of flying debris from a natural disaster, it has to be in 3D. If Pompeii’s 3D is what counts as today’s standard for the groundbreaking technology, I’m in the wrong business. Apparently, in the case of Pompeii, all you have to do is make a few ashes float towards the viewer and have credits punch out. With an entire two thirds dedicated to droning dialogue in darkly lit settings, it’s the laziest and most unnecessary use of the technology since Thor.
Pompeii is the junk food everyone knows is loaded with carbs and sugar, but they give in because they’re jonesing for the occasional juicy treat. Trust me, there are better ways for those movie goers to indulge in mindless entertainment. If they’re patient, they can hold out for that movie that understands the trick to trashy thrills. Eager audiences shouldn’t feel the need to count on Paul W.S. Anderson’s stale bargain bin tidbits to get their fill.
Fly Colt Fly
By: Addison Wylie
Seen as a brave folk hero to some and a menacing nuisance to others, teenager Colton Harris-Moore outran police forces, bounty hunters, and watch dogs for nearly three years. He hitched rides, stole money, and was infamously known for stealing airplanes and crashing them on new islands to loot.
Fly Colt Fly marks the first feature-length movie from Andrew and Adam Gray and their documentary is out to chronicle Harris-Moore’s fugitive escapades through various formats. They use animation, live-action reenactments, and actual security footage to thread this retelling of the elusive “Barefoot Bandit”.
These switches in storytelling make Fly Colt Fly consistently captivating albeit a bit long in the tooth. The portions that have been furiously animated are appropriate since the events sound as if they’ve been lifted from a Saturday morning cartoon.
Fly Colt Fly is a docudrama geared towards a teenage crowd. Think A&E junior. The shape the doc takes is ultimately why it stands on its own legs, but also why it may segregate its viewers.
On one hand, Fly Colt Fly is always moving and baffling us with Colton’s anti-hero traits. It provides interviews, but doesn’t feel like another doc featuring “talking heads”. The filmmakers’ accessible debut is for a younger crowd who may have been having a hard time generating excitement for documentaries. The filmmakers deliver its content with fitting zest, making this a great example for that specific crowd. It shows clearly what the genre can provide.
On the other side of the spectrum are older movie goers, who are gong to think the story is interesting but also find a fair amount of the filmmaking to be hokey. It doesn’t gel for more doc-savvy high school graduates.
Live-action reenactments are very hard to pull off. In the case of Fly Colt Fly, Andrew and Adam have tried to replicate a video game feel to their shots. The camera often establishes environments by levitating behind “Colton”. The actor is always in a stance that suggests he’s ready to play. Older audience members are going to understand what the duo are going for, but are going to find they overkill the concept after the first couple of shots.
The animation is slick, but there’s no way of shaking the fact that it looks like a hyper episode of Carmen Sandiego. Perhaps that was the point, but it’s hard to build an emotional connection to these jagged, stylistic pictures. It’s a style that’s tailor made for a certain age group, which leaves the rest of us outside.
The filmmaking duo have a small amount of material to humanize a mysterious guy like Colton, but they attempt to do so through interviews with his mother, cohorts, and victims. The people who have a close bond with Harris-Moore hold back but offer thought-provoking suggestions about what made Colton tick.
Other friends offer insight that’s not as easy to buy; such as the explanation describing Colton’s burglaries as a troubled individual getting a feel for how a normal family lives. There’s too much stolen merchandise to believe this claim. Even if you remain skeptical, the brothers’ directorial open door policy to different theories is appreciative and shows they’ll look at a subject from all angles.
Adults will find most of the Gray brothers’ pizazz to be corny, but if you’re between the ages of 12 and 16, you’re going to think the Gray brothers put together a pretty cool movie. Though the film’s presentation won’t win everyone over, the story behind Fly Colt Fly is universally fascinating.
AKP: Job 27
By: Addison Wylie
When the only bad thing about your feature film debut is its marble-mouthed title, it’s a sign that your ambitious film is close to being sublime.
When you get past that weak title, AKP: Job 27 is a really good time at the movies. It treads trodden ground by being centred around a private hitman on a mission in unfamiliar territory (the territory being Toronto), but its Michael L. Suan’s vision of the story that brings it into a league of its own.
Suan takes a leap of faith by making AKP: Job 27 a modern day silent film. The closest the film gets to using dialogue are screams when our shadowy lead is on the clock and firing off his gun. As the writer/director, Suan gives himself the task of justifying why the film is void of dialogue – he does a good job with doing so.
Very rarely does it feel like the silence is unmotivated. Early group confrontations make us wonder why these people aren’t breaking the ice. Same goes for quick questionings when our no-named hitman is looking to be rightfully directed.
That said, Suan actually covers himself quite well. Music accompanies the feature ranging from instrumental tracks to classics to contemporary remixes. When our lead is asking questions, we see his mouth move but club music drowns him out. This shows us that Suan isn’t senselessly feeding his audience. He knows there will be skeptics out there, and he confidently wants them to relax.
Aside from the tastefully and artistically portrayed violence, the hitman is constantly haunted by a lost love that he was responsible for. He tries to fill in the personal gap, but is always reminded why those prior feelings are irreplaceable. He does start falling for a wayward prostitute, who strikes an uncanny resemblance to his departed beloved.
That’s Roxanne Prentice playing both the roles of the unspoken love and the prostitute. Prentice does a fantastic job at balancing both key parts, and has an array of expressions to flawlessly communicate to the audience. She’s a natural in the silent film genre.
Tyce Philip Phangsoa plays the hitman with preserved heartbreak while also maintaining focus on his acquitted tasks. It’s a performance that would be daunting to any actor. They have to convey a softer side while keeping their potent intimidation at the forefront. Phangsoa does so, masterfully.
Michael L. Suan’s flick starts off in Japan and fluently transitions to the Canadian environment. He doesn’t outdo himself with trying to make iconic Toronto landmarks evident, but is wanting to show that this crime underworld can be easily hidden and can exist anywhere. Movie goers will often forget that AKP: Job 27 takes place primarily in Toronto – that’s a good thing.
The film briefly gets carried away with itself. For example, the film’s look is stunning, but every so often the inky mood will make the visuals too dim. And, Suan (who is also the editor, along with Biko Franklin) could’ve trimmed some sequences. There’s ten minutes scattered in AKP: Job 27 that could’ve been easily shaven. Luckily, these instances always find a way to move onto stronger material.
I hope AKP: Job 27 isn’t the only project we’ll get to see from this filmmaking newcomer. Suan shows that he’s perfectly capable of representing hard-edged fortitude and tantalizing sexiness without overvaluing his talents. To make a silent film like AKP: Job 27 takes courage and stylistic spunk. Suan has succeeded with these attributes in – what’s sure to be – one of the greatest independent films you’ll see this year.
Money for Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve
By: Addison Wylie
Personally, my knowledge of the Federal Reserve goes about as deep as a mall fountain collecting pennies and dimes. Naturally, Jim Bruce’s documentary Money for Nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve should be the perfect vehicle to educate people like me who need a bit more information about its history and the possibly bleak future it has ahead of it.
Jim Bruce seems like the right filmmaker for the job seeing that he’s previously worked on The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, a fantastic documentary that includes everyone in the audience. Money for Nothing marks his directorial debut.
As much as Bruce has tried to make the content in Money for Nothing accessible through visual examples and interviews with financial intellectuals, he loses his audience too many times. During the first third, the filmmaker slows down his doc so everyone can catch up. However, he forgets who he’s pitching his film towards and gradually moves faster – leaving confused movie goers in the dust once again.
At one point, Bruce gets so far ahead of himself, that it’s almost as if he ignores the fact that his audience’s interest is dwindling. He shrugs his shoulders and takes off full speed ahead. Meanwhile, I’m trying to follow as best as possible, but sense a disconnect between myself and the content.
On that level, the doc fails. The main purpose of a documentary is to educate and inform. When the documentarian doesn’t show signs of compassion and gives up hope on rustier movie goers, the project becomes one-sided as it talks directly to those who have a clearer understanding of the topics at hand.
Even though I realized this doc may not be for me entering into Bruce’s film, I was an open book when I started watching. I’ve gone into documentaries before knowing very little about the topic at hand, and have finished those films feeling enlightened. With Money for Nothing, I feel embarrassed to admit I was led astray many times. Instead of filling my mind with new thoughts and opinions, it just reminded me about how little I know about this financial world, which in turn makes me feel glum and dumb. I can imagine other movie goers who are like me will feel the same.
What Jim Bruce’s doc has going for it though is its clean-cut presentation. Interviews have been shot competently, animated segments and the usage of different clips to generate comparisons or allegories are much appreciated and add a fresh change of pace, and Liev Schreiber’s narration is fitting and doesn’t draw attention to the celebrity.
At the end of the day, what matters most is the information to which the doc is built on. Bruce may have it locked down, but he unwieldy delivers it to his spectators.
For those viewers who are bonkers for dollar bills, you may find yourself enjoying what Money for Nothing has to offer – though most of this may be old news to you. Everyone else, however, may be finding themselves drawing nothing from the money they spent on admission.
An Apocalypse at Toronto Youth Shorts’ T24
By: Addison Wylie
The T24 project – a challenge in association with the Toronto Youth Shorts Film Festival – asks filmmakers to create, produce, edit, and hand in a short film within 24 hours. Teams are given a lengthy essay question about the chosen theme, and are then sent off into the city.
I remember the days of attending T24 screenings and feeling excited to tell others about the great shorts that screened. With prior screenings, teams have shown supreme amounts of creativity while impressing movie goers with their filmmaking techniques.
This time, I sat in the University of Toronto’s Innis Town Hall watching the disappointing collection of shorts and I felt disheartened. There’s something that’s been lost in translation between past teams and this new class of corner cutters.
The filmmaking wasn’t lazy. The audience could see these teams went the distance to find excellent locations and stay consistent to their atmospheres. Also, the shorts that really focused on the more technical side of their production impressed with special effects and funky lighting. This was evident with Adrienne Knott’s Hinterland and Maikol Pinto’s Futurity Lost. There were some really gorgeous shots in these two.
When it came to the overall finished product though, each short reeked of easy filmmaking – too easy.
The theme this year was “the end”, which meant lots of teams took advantage of shooting at night on the desolate streets of Toronto. This choice did make for a fairly effective post-apocalyptic mood and it also helped that on this particular day, there was a drizzle of ominous snow.
However, the shorts didn’t go any deeper than that regarding the doomed, end-of-the-world essence. For the most part, it felt as if I was watching lots of people shuffle around emptiness with “poetic” narration accompanying them.
The aforementioned Hinterland and Futurity Lost may have looked good, but the shorts were the equivalent of that hippity-dippity guy who brings his acoustic guitar to house parties. There was a level of self-proclaimed significance.
The filmmaker who executed the “walking around a silent purgatory” approach correctly was Greg Fox with his short Peaches. Fox was the only one who was able to bring development to his characters and to his narrative. It’s a bit too anti-climactic when everything quickly wraps up, but Hannah Gordon’s performance anchors each scene well.
Two other filmmakers that tried to bring emotion to their work but ended up slipping up were Anne Phitsanoukanh and Jacky Vuong.
Phitsanoukanh’s Stiffilis took on a fictitious pandemic causing people to freeze on all fours. It brought insight as to how social media would look at a situation like this, which was an interesting idea. However, these instances didn’t necessarily go anywhere other than being brief references to pop culture. And, was it Phitsanoukanh’s intention to make the overall message about this post-apocalyptic society sarcastic and cynical?
I like Vuong’s The Drought, but I wanted to love it. I think the mumblecore approach served the short and its actors well, but this film severely needed an editor or a multi-camera setup. As characters try and figure out a widespread libido disappearance, the scenes roll on with no end in sight; which triggers the scrambling performers to start talking like no person would. Hourmazd Farhadi made me giggle sporadically, but there’s no way anyone would talk to bedroom partners like he does.
Jamie McMillan, a T24 regular, returned with yet another strange short that’s a bit hard to fathom or embrace. With Gag, McMillan showed he still has skills regarding his shooting style and he certainly isn’t afraid to make the audience deliberately uncomfortable. I just wasn’t too hot on the script that was lacking a purpose, and the leading scientist character was too awkward to muster. It was also another short that left the audience with a cynical, off-putting aftertaste.
An example of a short film that suffered from way too much melodrama was Ryan Liu’s All We’ve Got. I thought some of the camera angles were well composed – including everyone in the lens without making the shot look crammed. However, Liu has his actors overacting and beating every hint of fear into the ground. I would like to see how leading man Paul Dods performs with different material and sensible direction. He’s got the goods!
I’ve left my least favourite short – Chelsea Chen’s Apocalypse Now? – for last because I don’t want to spend too much time on it. I’m pretty sure after juror Bern Euler’s public dismemberment of the film’s questionable title, Chen knows her short wasn’t exactly a winner.
To give the filmmaker the broad strokes of my criticisms: Apocalypse Now? was a silent film with title cards that needed more screen time, and the audience could never jive with the humour since the film never opened itself up to the notion of others finding it funny, other than to those involved with the project. As a filmmaker, Chen needs to apply more thought towards her audience. Maybe then she’ll find a way for her work to, well, work.
I’m being rough with the latest T24 challenge because I know what this project is capable of. It bothers me to see others pitch away an opportunity loaded with possible career growth and produce something that hardly qualifies.
Another thing that bugs me is when people use the 24 hour deadline as a crutch. I can understand if some of the continuity is choppy because of rushed scheduling, but it doesn’t take long for a filmmaker to add variety to their shot list or give an actor a bit more motivation. If these filmmakers realize how to think on their feet and nimbly expand their creative horizons, they’ll eventually see progress.
**********
Visit the official Toronto Youth Shorts Film Festival website here!
Check out the Toronto Youth Shorts Film Festival blog here!
Do you tweet? Follow these tweeple:
Toronto Youth Shorts Film Festival: @TorYouthShorts
Henry Wong: @HCMWong
Sky Wylie: @SkyBaby5
Addison Wylie: @AddisonWylie
Wylie Writes 