Our wise overlord Cole Abaius recently pointed out one of the most burning questions in Hollywood this year: will The Hunger Games be the next big thing? It’s a question I’ve been asking myself ever since the project was announced. The fanbase is there, but doesn’t come close to matching the Twilight nation. And an even bigger question is whether this adaptation will reach non-fans, which will remain up in the air until the film’s released.

The trailer was a mess and I can’t see this run-of-the-mill poster (courtesy of Moviefone) catching the eye of anyone who doesn’t obsess over the books. However, even if the marketing continues to rely on this image of Jennifer Lawrence looking like a plastic doll, my main hope will remain intact. It’s been over eight years since Gary Ross’s last film, so it’ll be nice having him back, franchise hit or not.

EW also released this still of Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson, teasing the pivotal scene where they join the General Zod youth group:

They say to truly be happy you should, “Do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life,” but what does it mean to take something you love doing and try and make it your career? Or at least something you dedicate the majority of your time to? Those who are writers or make films or music usually get into it because they love reading/writing, movies and music, but there is a caveat to this idea that people do not always realize. Even if you are “pursuing your dreams,” at the end of the day, work is work. It may be more exciting and different than your average 9-5 cubicle life, it is still a job with deadlines, pressure, and stress.

Indie Game: The Movie follows three sets of video game creators (Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes, creators of Super Meat Boy; Phil Fish, creator of FEZ; and Jonathan Blow, creator of Braid) each at different points in their careers (and the games they are working on) to show not only the process of being an independent game creator, but what happens when you pour yourself into something that you eventually have to leave up to other people to determine its success. None of these creators are in it for the money (although there is certainly money to be made here), but rather all three started making games because they loved playing them as kids and wanted to make their own. Each comes from a generation that grew up gaming and really becoming a part of that world from drawing sketches of their favorite characters to figuring out how to put together their own rudimentary games making the next logical step becoming game creators themselves.

Being independent has many advantages – it allows you to be endlessly creative, explore any and all ideas, push boundaries, and create your ideal gaming experience. However the downside is the lack of funding to make your game and when you do have funding, staff and running up against deadlines set by your backers to get your game out. Indie Game takes viewers inside this experience as McMillen and Refenes work to get Super Meat Boy out to the public under their distributor’s timeline while Fish has been in development for so long, he fears the public has forgotten about the initial hype for his game, FEZ. Blow faces different challenges as his game Braid was a commercial success, but that success came with some backlash as he tried to interact with his players too much and also has to live up to his success with his next game.

While Super Meat Boy, FEZ, and Braid are all different games that offer different gaming experiences, the thread that seemed to run through all three was this idea of vulnerability after creating something so personal and then allowing others to not only experience it, but interact within it. Each of these creators put personal experiences into their games whether they were working out personal demons or creating their idealized world. Of course many artists do this whether through film, music or writing, but with video games players can actually go into that experience and react to it – good or bad.

Just as Sundance itself is a reminder that independent filmmaking is alive and well, Indie Game shows that thanks to the Internet and digital distribution, more and more developers are able to take their creative ideas into their own hands rather than being forced to rely on someone else to get their vision out to the public. While this makes for an exciting time that is allowing different visions and voices to take to the marketplace, Indie Game shows that no one is an overnight success and these games are tirelessly worked on by their creators who probably think their vision is never quite done, but have to let it go at some point.

Lisanne Pajot and James Swirsky create a moving documentary that not only sheds light on what exactly it means to be an independent game creator, but how that experience can be both rewarding and isolating. Both video game fans and casual gamers should find this documentary not only interesting, but compelling as you watch these real life stories unfold and experience the various emotions that come with creating something from scratch and then releasing it into the world.

The Upside: Indie Game succeeds in not only showing a behind the scenes peek at what it takes to make a video game (no small feat!), but the people who bring these creations to life. It is a personal journey for each of these creators and it is impressive to watch their sketches and ideas come to life through their games.

The Downside: If you are looking for a more game-heavy narrative, you may be disappointed here as the film focuses more on the personal stories of the creators than the games themselves.

On the Side: Who else wanted one of those plush toys Edmund’s wife, Danielle, made? Is she on Etsy?

The absolute worst thing you could say about Steven Soderbergh’s latest film is that its lead, Gina Carano, is consistently out-acted by Channing Tatum. On its surface and for obvious reasons that’s a pretty damning statement.

But when viewed as a whole performer instead of just an actress you quickly realize that Carano has a very particular set of other skills. Skills she has acquired over a very long career. Skills that make her a nightmare for people like Tatum, Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor and other male stars with recognizably pretty faces.

A nightmare for them, but entertaining as hell for the rest of us.

We first meet Mallory Kane (Carano) sitting in the snow as she monitors a small, Upstate New York diner. She eventually heads in and meets Aaron (Tatum) for a short and cryptic chat, but mid-sentence he throws a cup of hot coffee in her face, slams her into the counter and proceeds to pummel her with his fists.

The poor guy doesn’t even realize he’s already lost the fight.

Mallory makes her escape with the aid of a young man (Michael Angarano) and fills both him and the audience in on what brought her to this point. She’s an ex-Marine and mercenary of sorts under the employ of an ex-boyfriend named Kenneth (McGregor) who contracts odd and dangerous jobs with powerful men in high places (including Michael Douglas and Antonio Bandaras). Flashbacks reveal that her most recent job in Barcelona began as a simple extraction but ended with her being charged with murder and hunted by both sides of the law.

She’s been double-crossed and set-up and is now forced to run and fight back if she wants to prove her innocence… blah blah blah. We’ve seen this story before, and plot-wise director Steven Soderbergh’s Haywire brings nothing new to the table. The destination is clear, we have a pretty good idea of who’s to blame and what’s going to happen, and none of it is going to be very surprising. Lem Dobbs’ script keeps things simple and generic (even if it does occasionally become far more convoluted than necessary), and it wouldn’t feel out of place in a direct-to-DVD title starring Dolph Lundgren or Steven Seagal.

Except this action isn’t about one-liners and old men desperately clinging to their youth. This is about the birth of a brand new action star. Better still, Carano is a believable female action star which is something that has previously only existed in Asian flavors. Until now, Hollywood’s version consisted of bony-ass actresses like Angelina Jolie or Zoe Saldana who look good shooting guns and taking PG-13 rated showers but never for one second felt convincing as ass-kickers.

A punch or kick from Carano looks and feels like it has real weight and power behind it, and the impact is a visible and visceral experience for the audience as well as for the poor guys onscreen. There’s plenty of running and gunning in the film, but the highlights are several one on one fights between her and her male co-stars. They’re quite possibly the best looking Hollywood fisticuffs since the Bourne films, but Soderbergh even one-ups Paul Greengrass by showing the combat in wide shots instead of tightly edited exchanges. He also chose to let the fights play out without a score, so the only sounds are those of grunts, groans and breaking furniture. The fight between Carano and Fassbender in particular is a brilliantly executed back and forth that bruises the screen with its intensity and ferocity.

It doesn’t hurt that Carano is an attractive woman even when she’s not wrapping her thighs around your neck. She resembles a less forgiving Rachel Weisz, which is its own particular brand of sexy, and carries herself with confidence whether she’s standing still or kicking ass. Her acting can only improve however as her delivery is consistently flat, and she works too noticeably hard on mannerisms and expressions that should appear effortless.

The rest of the films’ actors all give fun and lively performances, and it’s clear they’re having a good time with the roles. (Fassbender and McGregor share a scene at a table, and given both men’s penile reputations it’s no surprise that our own Robert Fure has wondered aloud at the potential swordplay just below frame.) The film is slickly shot as it moves through various European and American locations and consistently looks good, and it moves a solid pace that never sits still for too long. It’s mostly well-crafted action beats broken up with exposition, but Soderbergh does manage some exciting set-pieces that don’t rely on fighting for their appeal including a menacing three block walk done in real time and a subsequent roof chase.

Haywire basically exists as a demo reel for Carano’s fighting skills and charisma and a promise of what her cinematic future may hold. Surrounded by a cadre of talented, well known actors she stands out as the weak link, but unleash her on them and she quickly becomes a mesmerizing blur of action, bad hats and leg locks deserving of even bigger and better exploits. Bring on Haywire 2 I say… even if it does mean she’ll also get sucked into The Expendables 3.

The Upside: Gina Carano is an action star; hand to hand fights are exciting and beautifully choreographed; fantastic cast getting the crap kicked out of them; oddly but enjoyably paced; score-less fights are wonderfully effective

The Downside: Gina Carano is not an actress; more convoluted than necessary; little too generic at times; not enough Bill Paxton

On the Side: The film’s original title was the even more generic-sounding Knockout.

Please note that in the full-length version of this picture, Rob is totally playing with winter apparel and a cell phone. It’s very Sundance-y. No, really. 

By now, we’ve covered how much work even the most fun Sundance Film Festival can be for those working it but, by and large, it might just be the hardest for the scades of publicists that hit Park City armed to to the teeth with clipboards, press kits, and whatever it is that’s replaced Red Bull. Need to set up an interview with an emerging filmmaker in a Starbucks? Publicist. Need a ticket to a public screening for a film you just have to review right now please, please, please? Publicist. Need, you know, like a clipboard or something? Publicist. But as glamorous as that might all sound – wait, who are we kidding? It’s not. And most publicists, get this, don’t even have the time to check out movies while at Sundance. I know, I know, it’s a lot to handle.

So what then of those true film geek pubs? Dreamers, those kids, dreamers like Rob Scheer, publicist for a big-time NYC-based PR and marketing firm, who has dreamed of the snows of Sundance since he was a but a wee lad. And he’s finally made it to the festival – to hand me a clipboard and listen to me beg for a ticket to Keep the Lights On? No! To answer ten questions about the festival!

How many times have you been to Sundance?

This is my first time at the dance.

What Sundance films are you most anticipating this year?

A toss-up between Benh Zeitlin’s Beasts of the Southern Wild and Antonio Campos’s Simon Killer.

What is your favorite Sundance film you have ever seen?

Jesus, this is tough. American Psycho, Forty Shades of Blue, and Capturing the Friedmans are all up there, but put a gun to my head, and I’d have to go with You Can Count On Me.

What are you most looking forward to at Sundance 2012?

Getting to work with talented filmmakers in a setting/environment I’ve read/heard about and envied for over a decade.

What tips have people given you for your first Sundance? 

(1) Hydrate constantly, (2) Don’t expect to actually get to see any movies

What piece of cold weather apparel will you be clinging to the most? 

Any earmuffs I see laying around, since I forgot to bring mine.

What venue are you most excited about seeing in person?

Having read coverage of Sundance since I was a very nerdy middle-schooler, and having heard about innumerable legendary screenings at the Eccles, that’s the one I’m most primed to check out.

What else will you be doing  in Park City when you’re not at Sundance? 

…not …at Sundance…? I’m pretty sure that will be limited to eating/sleeping.

What other festivals do you enjoy going to?

Toronto International Film Festival, New York Film Festival, Maryland Film Festival, BAMCinemaFest, Philadelphia Film Festival, Tribeca Film Festival. SXSW and Cannes are still on my festival bucket list.

Why do you think Sundance is important?

For many reasons, but chiefly, I think it’s great that there’s a place to launch exciting/ambitious/challenging works in an ideal environment of people open to embracing and appreciating them (frequently resulting in distribution deals). There are innumerable “difficult” but brilliant films that distributors would have likely taken a pass on had they not seen that there was indeed an audience for them.

—

Snuggle up with the rest of our Sundance 2012 coverage

The premise of the new CBS sitcom ¡Rob! is only interesting if you’ve never heard of Fools Rush In or Guess Who or the Meet the Parents trilogy or perhaps if these are the only movies that you’ve ever truly enjoyed. After a six-week courtship, Rob (Rob Schneider) has eloped with Maggie (Claudia Bassols), having never met her mother and father. Being introduced to the in-laws under these circumstances would probably be distressing for most people but it is particularly so here because Maggie is Mexican-American and Rob…isn’t. Awk-ward! What’s worse, Rob is apparently unable to have a normal conversation with someone whose ethnic background is different than his. “I’m a huge fan of Mexican culture,” he says, trying to endear himself to his father-in-law Fernando (Cheech Marin). He continues: “This dip is excellent. I believe it’s called guacamole.” Was this the kind of woo he was pitching when he first met Maggie?

Unlike so many people, I’m not predisposed to thinking that everything with Rob Schneider’s name attached to it is bound to be crap. My sense of humor was formed while watching mid-‘90s Saturday Night Live—I was that weird 10-year-old, entertaining (aka annoying) everyone with her Richmeister “makin’ copies” routine—and, as a result, I have an odd kind of allegiance to Schneider who got his start on the show. (Yeah, I did actually pay actual money to see both Deuce Bigalow movies in the theater, so if you’re looking for someone to blame for the longevity of Schneider’s career, I’m perfectly comfortable with you looking this way. But then, of course, you should  look over at Adam Sandler because he probably played a much larger role.) I’m incapable of simply dismissing him or his work—I give everything he does a chance—and despite its inane punctuation, ¡Rob! (which, I’ll just be referring to as Rob, from here on out, if that’s OK with you) was no exception.

Here’s the thing: Rob isn’t horrible. Or at least it’s no worse than Rules of Engagement, which is on hiatus until Rob finishes its 8-episode order. But it isn’t great either. It’s the kind of uninspired, middle-of-the road fare that it isn’t uncommon to see on CBS. If Schneider didn’t have such a questionable record and high profile, Rob would have immediately been on track to follow in the barely perceptible footsteps of past CBS comedies like Yes, Dear and Still Standing—you know, somehow lasting for years without anyone noticing. This show’s biggest problem, then, is that its producers are apparently content with it being not un-entertaining—that is to say, they’re fine with easy laughs and forced jokes.

Fish out of water Rob has only been in his in-laws’ house mere minutes before he finds himself in a compromising position with his wife’s abuelita. Him: pants around his ankles. Her: bent provocatively over a bed and wailing. (Ah, so this is the sort of cross-cultural, exclamatory situation that the show’s title alluded to.) The pair wound up this way after a bit of slapstick resembling a Rube Goldberg machine in its complexity and involving toppled votive candles. “There’s a simple explanation,” Rob (or I suppose now unequivocally ¡Rob!) says after his wife and her parents run to investigate the commotion. “I poured hot wax on my genitals.” This is hysterical, the laugh track assures us.

Rob is all premise and no character development. There’s no substance. I can’t for the life of me figure out why Maggie would want to marry Rob, especially after only six weeks, when his defining traits seem to be his knack for always saying or doing the wrong thing and total befuddlement when faced with a culture that is not his own. “So, Selena. That was sad huh?” Rob says, struggling for conversation with his in-laws. I get the humor and would be willing to accept it if this man had indeed never had any real contact with Mexican-Americans or if he was just a jerk, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, so his lack of social grace makes no sense. HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm, like Rob, revolves around its protagonist’s constant faux pas. But Larry David’s character has been clearly delineated from episode one. The situations on that show are contrived (as really any situation in any comedy is) but as a viewer you can understand how someone as contrary as David would alienate almost everyone he comes in contact with. What’s Rob’s excuse? If this series does continue beyond its 8-episode order—and that does seem likely since its ratings are fairly solid, so far—the goal should be to achieve some kind of depth. Rob doesn’t have to be super deep or poignant or anything—this is Schneider we’re talking about—but it should be more than just a parade of caricatures.

Click here for more Channel Guide

For a project that’s been over two years in the making, the ambition of those who created this sweded Star Wars seems to have paid off. I’ve yet to watch the whole thing, but I’m already struck by the fact someone, that someone being Casey Pugh and many contributors, spent so much time sweding every single scene from Star Wars. Talk about dedication, right?

Some of these 15 segments are hit and miss, but don’t let that detract you from watching this thing of nerd beauty:

Source: Star Wars Uncut (go to that site, if you want more info on the project)

We know that Danland will end with a wedding – we know this from the start, as Alexandra Berger‘s debut film opens with our titular Dan Leal (or, as we will very soon come to know him, “Porno Dan”) nervously standing before a glitzy chapel, a veiled lady waiting in the wings. But just who will become Mrs. Porno Dan? Such is the question of the film and the quest of Leal, amateur porn performer and producer, sex addict, salesman, co-dependent, and hopeless romantic. Danland sounds quirky and a bit overstuffed, but that would perhaps be a knee-jerk reaction to indie cinephiles skimming its synopsis, because there’s another facet to Danland and the bizarre world it charts that might not be evident from first glance.

Dan Leal is a real person and Danland is a documentary.

Leal’s entire life hinges on his profession as said amateur porn performer and producer. When we first meet Leal, he’s running his company out of his own home – that is, running every single element of his porno business out of his own home. Yes, that includes the actual filming of multitudes of amateur porn titles, many of which he stars in, all of which are without plot, production value, or any kind of real sexiness. Amaetur porn is staggeringly easy, but it’s not pretty. Danland provides a true peek behind the curtain, as director and co-writer Berger doesn’t flinch from anything that she’s putting on screen – sex, nudity, drinking, kink, sex toys that would make the most experienced of porn stars blush, general debauchery, horrendous fashion decisions – it’s all there, and it’s all a part of Danland.

Yet despite his apparent success in his area of expertise, Leal is desperate to go straight and settle down. He tells it plain – he’s “in love with the concept of being in love.” And Leal’s heart belongs to just one woman (though his penis seems to belong to anyone who shows him even the most modest of interest). The object of Leal’s affection is his law student ex-girlfriend, Emily, who is consistently built up within both the framework of the film and Leal’s near-obsession with her. Of course, as Danland is a documentary and is about real people, unleashing vitriol on one of its subjects who appears for less than a quarter of its runtime is sticky business, but Emily really comes across as just awful. Grating, drunk, potty-mouthed, uncouth, she’s like a reject from Jersey Shore. But more than that, she’s just awful for Dan, and their renewed relationship sets the stage for his slip back into the worst parts of the amateur porn business, and with less gusto and pull than he’s ever had before.

As horrible as Emily is, she’s what ultimately kicks the somewhat meandering Danland into high gear – Leal, once king of his modest empire, is left with virtually nothing in the wake of their blow-out break-up, and he’s desperate to recapture whatever it was that made him happy (no matter how strangely sad and empty it looks to the audience) before Emily. While the first half of Danland is relentlessly entertaining simply because of how interesting Leal’s world is and how totally weird it is that he’s carved out an existence in it, the second part of the film becomes a much closer character study of a man whose life has completely crumbled (and who is oddly reticent to admit as such).

The Upside: Immensely watchable, Danland is a great slice of life doc about an regular dude and his not-so-regular profession.

The Downside: The film takes too much time to get to its real thrust, dabbling too long in the juicy and salacious bits before buckling down to the real goods.

On the Side: The scads of average people who do amateur porn “on the side” will make audiences wonder if anyone they know is secretly hitting the mattresses for pay. What, that’s just me?

Day one. Well, day three for everyone else, but day one for us. Weeks ago, I thought the worst thing about this day would be waking up at 3:30AM to catch a 6:20AM flight to Salt Lake City. I was wrong. So very, very wrong. The worst thing about this day would be getting to the American Airlines desk, ready to check my bag, only to realize that I am without my Driver’s License. And worse yet, I have no idea where it is. None.

Jump cut to me standing in front of the TSA, begging, mewling, pouring out the contents of my wallet. They let me through. How, why, I don’t know, but I took it. Only to find myself (and interpid Allison Loring) in what surely must have been the set of a cheapo horror flick – a temporary “departure lounge” with walls rattling thanks to bizarrely howling wind and rain in Los Angeles. It was little comfort to hop onto our tiny plane – 3 seats across, 16 rows back, drinks service but a gentle dream. Was this The Grey? Was this a test? Would we even live?

We lived! We lived! Barely, but we lived. Arriving an hour late into Salt Lake City, we hit Park City just before noon. The snow was coming town and traffic was at a crawl. Would things ever turn around for us? They did! Checked in, refreshed with coffee, we hit the glamorous Sundance HQ, a jumping hotbed of activity where Britta water bottles are given out like free candy and our press badges awaited our arrival with as much glee as things made out of plastic and paper could muster.

It would be boring to name everyone we saw before we even saw a film – Sundance publicist Brandon Rohwer, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, /Film’s Germain Lussier, Wizard World’s Kevin Kelly, Film.com and MSN Movies’ William Goss, GeekTyrant’s Ben Pearson, filmmaker Bobby Miller, Moviefone’s Mike Ryan and Mike Hogan, various demands of hugs and greetings via “the Twitter,” so many friends, so little time. Meanwhile, Twitter was exploding with talk of a Compliance Q&A gone wild.

But it’s movies you want, right? My first film screening of the festival, Robot and Frank, took place at Sundance favorite, the Eccles Theatre, a festival mainstay and home of most big premieres and first showings. The film, from director Jake Schreier, stars Frank Langella as an aging man in “the near future” who comes into possession of a robot caretaker who changes his life. Turns out, Frank is a former cat burglar, and his nimble-handed robot pal didn’t come with any sense of morals or laws pre-programmed into his mainframe. The film is mostly charming and gracefully straddles different genres – buddy flick, heist film, emotional tale about aging, exceedingly dry humor – and was a generally solid crowdpleaser. It was a solid start to Sundance, and a review will most certainly be forthcoming.

Post-Robot, it was straight to the Holiday Village Cinema to kick it in the fabled press tent, a warmish, drippy, cattle pen-like enclosure where Sundance’s press huddle as they wait for their next P&I (press and industry screening). I was there to see Detropia, a documentary about the crumbling communities and economy of Detroit. A beautifully shot film, Detropia has a big story to tell, but it never fully came to be for me. After Detropia, I made a quick trip to the Fresh Market (Park City’s only grocery story) with James Rocchi to pick up a new toothbrush (another essential item I neglected to pack).

You want food? You got food! It seemed wise to end the day with a real meal before diving headfirst into churning out fresh and original Sundance content for Film School Rejects. Real meals are served at Main Street Pizza and Noodle, amid the glitterati of Sundance (relatively speaking). And there is no one better to eat Pizza Noodle with than Popular Mechanics’ own Erin McCarthy (hi, Erin!). A quiet dinner between McCarthy, Loring, and Erbland turned into a mini-event, with cameos from Rohwer, Film.com’s Eric D. Snider, The Film Stage’s Dan Mecca, Rudie Obias, and Collider’s Matt Goldberg. And then I blacked out because I ate too much pizza and was already having anxiety about penning something fun for you to read.

I end the day, typing away at this missive from our lovely condo at the bottom of Main St., diligently tapping out words while in the company of Loring, Mecca, and Obias. Tomorrow is another day – one that will hopefully have no need for any sort of proof of age. I am still young, Sundance. For now.

Tomorrow: Arbitrage, Wrong, Red Lights, The House I Live In, and a special event featuring The Civil Wars.

—

The Sound of Small Things makes it clear early on that sound is as much a character in this film as the leads themselves opening on the sound of sheets rustling as a couple wakes up in bed together. Sam (Sam Hoolihan) and Cara (Cara Krippner) are newly weds who have just purchased their first home together and are settling in to life as a married couple. Sam and Cara play the role with the excited and cautious emotions you would expect from two people just starting out on their lives together. Cara looks at Sam with loving eyes when he talks to his friends and Sam is always aware of making sure Cara is comfortable and happy.

While they are the picture of normal newlyweds in many ways there is one aspect of Sam and Cara’s relationship that is unique – Cara is deaf. She does not use sign language to communicate instead opting to read the lips of the person talking to her. This allows things like Sam (an amateur drummer) to practice at all hours without disturbing Cara since she can only feel the vibrations of his playing making her condition seem like one of the ways their relationship works.

When two of Sam’s friends come to visit, we begin to actually hear about Sam’s relationship with Cara (and their sudden marriage) rather than just seeing the couple together. Cara became deaf due to an accident that happened not too long ago, but Sam knows few details beyond that since she doesn’t like talking about it. His friends react as most people would, slightly confused about why someone you tied your life to would keep you slightly in the dark about something so pivotal. His friends react as most friends would, asking enough questions to get Sam (and the audience) thinking about their situation while not pushing the issue.

When a past girlfriend comes back into Sam’s life, his relationship with Cara starts to take some slight missteps and the limits to their communication starts becoming more and more obvious. He takes phone calls out of the room or while shielding his mouth to keep Cara from figuring out what he is saying or who he is talking to and it is clear when Sam meets up with his ex that the one thing he is longing for is conversation.

Director Peter McLaran takes a voyeuristic approach to his film looking in on these people’s lives through windows or around corners working to give the subconscious impression of having to observe situations when you cannot hear what is being said. While the film is slow moving it catches you by surprise in the end when the almost unassuming, documentary style filmmaking gives way to a bit of a twist that leaves you questioning the entire film up until that point, but more importantly, how we observe and communicate with people.

The Upside: The Sound of Small Things highlights how sounds affect communication from simple conversations to a phone or doorbell ringing or a smoke alarm sounding and makes you question what it would be like it you had to live without these sounds.

The Downside: The film’s voyeuristic style and unusual focuses on inanimate objects can grow tedious (and edge on the side of boring), but the payoff in the end made the narrative worth it and had me wanting to watch it over from the beginning with new eyes.

On the Side: What was the deal with Cara’s ear tattoos?

If Jake Schreier‘s Robot and Frank is too believed, the near future is very similar to the present – just with more hipsters enamored of things they don’t understand and more robots consigned to help with everyday tasks. Both come, oddly enough, to a head in Schreier’s feature debut about a man, his robot, and the things that bond them (including a distaste for said hipsters). The film is a wily mix of genres - Robot and Frank is a buddy comedy, a fish out of water story, a heist film, and a drama about aging in its many forms – and it mostly delivers on its immense promise when it works within the bounds of dry and clever comedy. But when the film allows itself to slack, it slumps almost irrevocably, and it never quite recovers from an unsatisfying and overemotional middle.

Veteran talent Frank Langella plays Frank, an aging huckster and cat burglar living out his twilight years in a cluttered house in upstate New York. Frank doesn’t have much time or interest for other people – his social world consists mainly of daily walks to the local library to speak to the one person he does seem to have interest in – town librarian Jennifer (Susan Sarandon). Otherwise, Frank’s in a bit of a haze – it’s understood early on that he’s got issues with memory and cognitive ability, and his relative isolation and cluttered house are but signposts of that. It’s Frank’s condition that sparks his son Hunter (James Marsden) to purchase him a top-of-the-line robot (voiced quite well by Peter Sarsgaard) to help clean the house, feed Frank, and monitor his health.

Frank, of course, reacts poorly to such an intrusion, balking at the robot’s new place in his life and his inability to turn his “appliance” off. Until Frank realizes that his caretaker robot doesn’t have any settings that prevent him from breaking the law, or even from really understanding it. A sidekick with nimble hands and no morals? Suddenly, Frank’s back in business. His target? A hip “consultant” who is taking over Jennifer’s library, as people are interested in re-experiencing books – by way of not actually touching any books. As Frank and his robot bond over their new endeavor, Robot and Frank finally catches its stride – dry, clever, crowdpleasing, just wonderful stuff.

But as their plans (of course) spiral out of control, the film goes too dark with little in the way of real emotional pay-off. The middle of the film sags under the weight of Schreier and screenwriter Christopher D. Ford ceasing their clever genre play, giving over to simply piling on too many threads and too many messages. It’s a shame, though, because Langella, Schreier, and Ford effectively capture Frank’s mental state in ways that don’t feel cloying or false. That and the hilarious (and weirdly touching) friendship between Frank and his robot get muddled on the way to an unsatisfying ending that doesn’t really benefit anyone.

The Upside: Schreier’s future is well-crafted and imagined, a world with just slight tweaks that make it believable as a time just a few years from now. Clothing is a bit more structured, cars are a touch smaller, phones are flatter and clearer. And, when Robot and Frank is charming and dry and funny, it’s very charming and dry and funny.

The Downside: When Robot and Frank is not charming and dry and funny, it lags and sags and loses its eager-to-be-pleased audience.

On the Side: The question on everyone’s lips at the post-screening Q&A – “where is the robot?” Schreier answered, somewhat upsettingly, “in a comfortable storage facility somewhere outside of Los Angeles.” Who treats a star like that?!

—

As Kate mentioned, we here at FSR are looking to not only provide you with reviews of the various films we are planning on seeing (I believe we are currently at around 20+ each because, yes, we are both insane) but to also bring you into the Sundance experience. How might we do that? By mixing up our coverage with some slightly more personal pieces (yes I am friends with the following interviewee, yes I am admitting this to the world) which will not only give you an idea of who attends the festival (and help make those long lines and long nights of writing bearable), but what the festival means to them and what keeps them coming back for more.

As a veteran of the Sundance Film Festival, we turned to fellow critic Eric D. Snider for advice on how to navigate what can be a grueling eleven days while still having fun, lying to “celebrities,” and most importantly, what he is most looking forward to seeing this year. I met Eric for the first time at last year’s Sundance and he was not only a constant (and needed) source of humor (he photobombed me within minutes of having just met), but was also a great go-to if you had a random question only someone who had been to the fest before could answer (and yes, it helped that we shared a condo last year, making him a stone’s throw away at any given time.)

This year Eric will be covering the festival for Film.com and Movies.com and has yet again agreed to stay in the same condo as yours truly (more reports on the goings on in our bloggerati condo of dreams assuredly to come).

How many times have you been to Sundance?

This is my 13th! Let’s pretend I was only 15 years old the first time I went.

What is your favorite Sundance memory?

In 2005, two journalists got into a fight over a seat in a full-house press screening. This one lady had taken a guy’s seat while he was in the restroom, even though he had left his jacket on the chair in the traditional fashion. I guess she just shoved his stuff on the floor and took the seat, like a savage. So then he came back and was baffled that this was actually happening – that this woman had stolen his seat. What I remember most was him saying over and over again, “Who ARE you?” – not like, “Who do you think you are?” or “What is your name?” but like, “Who DOES that? Who, in a civilized society, throws someone’s jacket on the floor and takes his seat while he’s in the restroom?” Eventually the man sitting next to the woman gave up his seat and left, which gave the victim a seat … a seat right next to the woman he’d just had a huge argument with. We hoped they would either fall in love or kill each other during the movie, but they didn’t.

What is your favorite film you’ve ever seen at Sundance? 

Probably Memento. It was 2001, my second year covering the festival, and I saw it at a pre-fest screening in Salt Lake City. I was blown away. I remember thinking: “This movie is something special. I need to tell everyone I know about this movie!” And I did. And now Christopher Nolan is making Batman movies! YOU’RE WELCOME, NOLAN.

What other festivals do you enjoy going to?

I love me some SXSW and Telluride. Fantastic Fest is a really good genre festival. Tribeca is in New York City, and I like going to New York City. I’m hoping to experience Cannes for the first time this year.

What are you most looking forward to at Sundance 2012?

The weirdos who made Il Divo and Rubber both have new films at the fest (This Must Be the Place and Wrong, respectively), so I’m curious to see those. I’m also kind of jazzed about the Tim & Eric movie, which I’m confident will either make me laugh till I cry or will be the worst thing I’ve ever seen. There’s no middle ground with those guys.

What are your tips for those going to Sundance for the first time?

First of all, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. You gotta pace yourself. You can’t watch six movies a day, every day, for seven days. You will explode. Also, when you’re scheduling time between movies to get from one venue to another, you should plan on it taking about 30 minutes longer than you think it should take. Also, look out for Old Man Redford. They say he haunts these woods.

What is your favorite venue at Sundance and why?

The Egyptian Theatre, way up at the top of Main Street, is lovely, the kind of old theater with ornate ceilings and fancy doodads on the walls and stuff. I always like going there. Truth be told, though, the venue I like the most is the boring answer: Holiday Village, because it’s an actual movie theater with stadium seating and comfortable chairs and modern restroom facilities. Quaint is nice, but not for 12 hours a day.

Is there something you must always do (or go see) while at Sundance (besides movies)? 

Since reasonably priced food options are scarce, I find myself at the same ordinary restaurants over and over again. Burger King is a constant. Meanwhile, there are some strip-mall places that change every couple years, so it’s always exciting to return to Park City and see, for example, that the burrito place is now a sandwich place, or whatever. But mostly that Burger King. That damn Burger King.

What is the craziest thing that has ever happened to you at Sundance?

One time I lied to Pauly Shore. He was hanging around because he had a movie playing at Slamdance, and I happened to run into him on Main Street. For some reason the only thing I could think to say to Pauly Shore at that moment was, “I liked your movie!” But I hadn’t even seen his movie, and I doubt I would have liked it if I had. So I don’t know why I said it.

Why do you think Sundance is important?

As much as we joke about it becoming too commercial and too Hollywood, the fact remains that most of what Sundance shows are independent films that may or may not ever see the light of day again. So it’s a great marketplace for those movies to find distributors, in addition to being a fun, hectic place for movie lovers to watch them.

—

You can read Eric’s work at his website (home of “Snide Remarks”) and Film.com as well as listen to his weekly podcast, Movie B.S. with Bayer and Snider and of course his hilarity on Twitter, @EricDSnider.

Vampires are still on the menu when it comes to nice sized box office morsels, as Underworld: Awakening, the fourth film of the franchise, sunk its teeth in and made its mark on the weekend take, the film series, and January openings as a whole. The only of these lists Awakening‘s opening of $25.4m tops is chart for this weekend. That’s a return for the series, whose third entry, Rise of the Lycans, debuted in the #2 spot behind Paul Blart: Mall Cop, and who can really contend with Kevin James? I mean, really?

Awakening came in with the second highest opening of the Underworld series, just under $1.5m short of Underworld: Evolution‘s impressive $26.8m pull back in 2006. It also debuted in the 12th slot of the all-time January opening chart behind Evolution, but this is indicative of January openings than the Underworld series in any way. That is saying something for Evolution, though, which didn’t have 3-D or IMAX in its arsenal to help bump the numbers. What it says for the series as a whole could be that fans are growing tired of seeing vampires kick tail out of werewolves. It could be a minor speed bump for the franchise, which saw the return of its main, leading lady, Kate Beckinsale, this time around. With some longevity, Awakening could find its end domestic take around $60-65m. Evolution, which tops the franchise in overall, domestic takes, ended its run with $62.3m domestic/$111.3m worldwide.

Red Tails wasn’t the return to box office royalty for George Lucas, who served only as executive producer here, but the $19.1m it made this weekend was anything but disappointing. Quite the contrary. It’s certainly a better opening than Lucas’ past side project that featured neither giant spaceships or Harrison Ford in a fedora. Radioland Murders opened in 1994 to $835,570, a number that had some believing George Lucas would give up the film making game completely. Red Tails‘ reported budget is $58m, not an impossible number to overcome and get into the black. When you consider all aspects, though – marketing costs, splitting the gross with theaters, and foreign markets – you see the film has a lot of work ahead of it. Not an impossibility, but Ne-Yo probably shouldn’t hold out hope for fast-tracked sequel.

The same could be said for Gina Carano and Haywire. The Steven Soderbergh film came in under double digits for the weekend and behind Extremely Tedious and Incredibly Sappy. Carano may not become a force in the acting world, but fans of the director much know that wasn’t Soderbergh’s intent. Even still, with its straight-lined story – the film is very accessible for action fans – and well-built cast, Haywire should have performed better. It isn’t like it had a limited run here. Nonetheless, it finds itself in the area of disappointment when it comes to similar films, films like The Long Kiss Goodnight and its $9m weekend take in 1996 and License to Kill, which, at $8.7m in its opening weekend, very nearly killed the James Bond franchise in 1989.

We’ve been tracking for the past few weeks, paying very close attention to Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. This weekend it finds itself even closer to topping the franchise, beating out the $215.4m domestic/$546.3m worldwide take Mission: Impossible II claimed in 2000. Ghost Protocol topped $534m worldwide this weekend. Though its weekend drop was notable, it continues to bring back decent numbers. Ghost Protocol may not beat out Mission: Impossible II‘s numbers by next weekend, but it looks to do just that before its theatrical run is done.

Beauty and the Beast‘s weekend proves not every Disney re-release is going to be as profitable as The Lion King. At this point in that film’s re-release, the first of the slate of 3-D re-releases had generated an additional $61.4m to add to its 1994 haul. Beauty and the Beast 3-D finds itself with just over half that. The other films Disney has on the docket may prove more successful. As beloved as Finding Nemo is, it’s sure to find an audience that not even Beauty and the Beast could bring in. Still, a 51.8% drop in its second weekend is surprising for the Disney classic.

Here’s how the weekend broke down:

1. Underworld: Awakening – $25.4m NEW
2. Red Tails – $19.1m NEW
3. Contraband – $12.2m (-49.9%) $46.1m total
4. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close – $10.5m (+11,474.2%) $11.2m total
5. Haywire – $9m NEW
6. Beauty and the Beast in 3-D – $8.5m (-51.8%) $33.3m total
7. Joyful Noise – $6m (-45.9%) $21.9m total
8. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol – $5.5m (-52.6%) $197.3m total
9. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows – $4.8m (-44.1%) $178.6m total
10. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo – $3.7m (-43.7%) $94.7m total

That brings the total weekend to $104.7m, the lowest weekend of the new year, but it’s early yet. 2012 is bringing out better numbers than 2011, which saw the last two weekends in January make $88.8m and $92.4m respectively. Underworld: Awakening and even Red Tails are far more compelling moneymakers than films like The Rite and No Strings Attached.

Once again, we have a slew of new releases to look forward to in the coming week. The Grey, Man On a Ledge, and One For the Money all drop wide with The Descendants expanding its theater count to around 900. At face value, it looks as thought any of the new, wide releases could come out on top, and Awakening still has another weekend where it could potentially take the #1 spot. But, as any box office battle has proven, rules and tradition mean nothing when Katherine Heigl is involved.

We’ll be back later in the week to see how the weekend is shaping up.

The premise of That’s What She Said sounded like it could be funny enough, with a trio of seemingly oddball women coming together for a day of slightly mad-cap adventures throughout the streets of New York to get Bebe (Marcia DeBonis) ready for her big date that night. Things start out amusing enough with clearly neurotic Bebe constantly calling her probably still drunk from the night before best friend Dede (Anne Heche) to plan their day. Bebe is already primping at 7:30am while Dede (yes – these are their names) barely notices when she falls off her own bed making it clear that the two are polar opposites, but you get the sense that they have been friends long enough to know (and put up with) each other’s less than favorable traits.

The day gets off to a bad start with Dede already in a bad mood (although it seems she is always this way) and Bebe having taken a very upset (and constantly crying) Clementine (Alia Shawkat) under her wing. Clementine has just gone through a breakup and is not shy about sharing every (every) intimate detail of her now defunct relationship. Dede is the picture of constant support and symphony while Bebe could care less, until a sudden near run-in with an ex of her own causes the idea of Clementine joining their group the least of Dede’s concerns.

With the group now complete, they attempt to make Bebe’s various grooming appointments all over town, but run into issue along the way from sudden rain to a run in with the law to having to settle for having Bebe’s hair done at a salon in China Town (and a stylist who clearly misunderstood her instructions.) And those don’t include the gross incidents! These women do not hold back, talking about any and everything with one another, but the shock value of it wears off quickly. No matter what issues they face throughout the day, instead of really trying to help one another, each only seems to enable their bad behavior or lash out at one another when they hit a brink of frustration. Clementine complains that she gets upset when she is around people fighting and it becomes clear that Bebe and Dede were the wrong pair to get caught up with if this is the case.

Beyond the increasingly insufferable main characters and the ludicrous situations they get into, the most jarring part of the film was the constant theme of painting woman in a negative light. Hardly a single man is featured and when one is referred to, they are made to sound like the root of these women’s problems (while also being the one thing all three obsess over.) Finally at the end of her rope, BeBe laments, “Why does it always have to be so hard?” (hence the innuendo joke of a title) and rather than sympathizing with her, it just sounds like whining.

The Upside: Heche does succeed in playing unhinged with a good dose of humor (at least for a while.)

The Downside: Playing into the stereotypes of women that are either desperate to be loved or bitter from rejection, That’s What She Said leaves its main characters almost completely unsympathetic by the end of the film.

On the Side: Oh Maeby Fünke– what happened here?

—

Rapper Ice-T looks into the origins of the rap game in his first film about the genre that made him a star. At the root of hip-hop are the impressive lyrics, crafted by master wordsmiths, that make up these songs and Ice-T gets to the bottom of what it takes to create these intricate rhymes.

The title of the film suggests that rap came from nothing, but the truth is rap began when those without access to instruments turned to what they did have, the record player, and turned that into an instrument. Rap was a reinvention of this music, throwing rhymes and lyrics over the instrumentation rather than completely starting from nothing. As Grandmaster Caz states in the film, “Hip-hop didn’t invent anything, hip-hop reinvented everything” giving new life to these songs and bringing them to a new generation.

The one thing each artist, no matter their style, noted as being most important was creating lyrics rooted in honesty and personal experiences. Good lyrics should tell a story or paint a picture in the listener’s mind. Developing one’s own original voice and style helped each artist find their identity and what kind of lyrics they would create whether it be an MC getting people excited at a party or show to someone looking to inspire to someone looking to shed light on their own experiences.

It is clear that the artists who create this music are extremely talented, but rap and hip-hop still does not get the same respect as jazz or the blues. Most agreed that the issue lay with them and hip-hop’s image of artists hating on one another instead of having respect for each other, causing others to view the genre (and their work) negatively. Considering a lot of rap was born out of rap battles and using lyrics to prove their skills in front of a crowd, it is not too surprising that this tendency exists (KRS-One got his start in the game after randomly getting called out in a battle he just happened to be watching). Hip-hop also brings issues and a view of life on the streets to the mainstream making those less than comfortable with this lyrical content to also have a negative view of the genre. But it is important for these stories to be heard to expand that awareness and keep those still in those situations from feeling alone.

The slightly choppy filmmaking gives way to an interesting story told by someone who not only understands this world, but is also a part of it. Clocking in at almost a solid two hours, the film would have benefited from some tighter editing with shots of Ice-T trying to get people on the street to leave him alone so he could finish an interview added a touch of reality to the narrative, but better served as an extended or deleted scene. Regardless, The Art of Rap succeeds in giving audiences a look inside this world and the true genius and talent of those who create the music that fill it.

The Upside: Ice-T is given the unique advantage of getting honest and real stories from each of the artists he interviews as he already has a rapport with most or was an inspiration to others.

The Downside: Because of these relationships (and Ice-T’s clear love of the genre), almost every artist gets the time to spit a flow directly to the camera. While impressive, the various one-to-two minute long raps ended up slowing down the narrative rather than adding to it.

On the Side: It is scary impressive how quickly Eminem spit a rhyme. Scary impressive.

—

When Gene Robinson became a bishop of the Episcopal Church’s New Hampshire diocese in 2003, it was a watershed moment for organized religion, to be sure. Yet to merely deem the election of the first openly gay non-celibate priest in the history of major Christian denominations a “watershed” is to understate the rather extraordinary significance of a single act that overturned a millennia-old tradition of intolerance.

Macky Alston’s documentary Love Free or Die is a film worthy of that momentous event. It follows the courageous Bishop Gene as he faces a wealth of hatred and distrust. He is excluded from the Anglican Church’s once-a-decade Lambeth Conference, and he faces death threats, cruel hecklers, and more while fighting for full-fledged equality in his church and a newfound understanding of the Bible’s most controversial elements.

Robinson, a folksy native Southerner with charm to spare, is a relentless advocate for LGBT rights, adept at interpreting scripture from that vantage point in a positive and forward-thinking way. Beneath his good-humored exterior, though, is the steel-eyed focus and unbending will of a man who knows he’s on an essential crusade for justice and won’t stop until he gets it.

Sure, we meet the bishop’s husband and his daughters and learn small blips of biographical details. We watch as he wins over skeptical parishioners. But the movie is not some quirky piece about an unlikely clergyman. It’s a story rooted to the here-and-now, an exploration of the most-essential front in what remains the last great civil rights issue. A certain understanding of religion, of course, is at the heart of homophobia. Change that paradigm and you’re on to something massive.

Love Free or Die is also an effective chronicle of a church in crisis. Alston incorporates conflicting, passionate testimony from Robinson’s colleagues to starkly illustrate the enormous schism facing the Episcopal communion. From a dramatic standpoint, the filmmaker has the good fortune of capturing the seminal 2009 Anaheim convention, at which the questions of ordaining gay bishops and officiating at gay marriages were conclusively addressed amid heartfelt public testimonies and a heated debate.

At the center of it all is Robinson, leading the charge that must be led and fighting the fight that must be fought. He’s put a great amount of trust in Alston here, in a sense signing over custody of the cause to the filmmaker. The best thing that can be said about this fine enterprise is that it befits the unsung American hero at its heart.

The Upside: This is a fine documentary, a nicely-observed character study/activist piece. Bishop Gene Robinson is quite lovable, really.

The Downside: Some of the most compelling moments in the film highlight Robinson’s conflicts with his Church and fellow bishops. It’d have been nice to see more of them.

On the Side: The movie premieres at Sundance tomorrow. I’d be shocked if we aren’t hearing about a distribution deal soon thereafter.

—

Last year’s Sundance Film Festival featured a break-out hit with J.C. Chandor’s Margin Call, a taut and talky tale of investment bankers trying to chuck bad money and bad books in the early days of the financial crisis. Chandor’s film has been cleaning up nicely on the awards circuit, and it’s surely paved the way for screenwriter and documentarian Nicholas Jarecki‘s feature film debut, a sexier sister to Margin Call. 

Arbitrage brings out the big guns to tell its twisted story – starring Richard Gere as hedge fund magnate Robert Miller attempting to sell his family business, with Susan Sarandon as his charitable wife Ellen, Brit Marling as smarty-pants daughter Brooke, and the ever-solid Tim Roth as a police detective steadily cracking open their rarefied lives. Here, Jarecki has crafted great atmosphere – we understand the Millers’ lifestyle and relationships within mere minutes, and the film holds that tone and that feel throughout its perhaps slightly-too-long runtime. Arbitrage is slick and watchable, well-made and with some nice surprises, but it’s void of any sense of humanity, and seeing rich people doing bad stuff doesn’t amount to stick-to-your-ribs cinema.

The film plods along interestingly enough for its first act, masquerading as a financial drama with domestic undertones before an accident (striking and dramatic enough to be viewed as a twist) turns the entire film (and all of its characters) squarely on their heads. It’s a bold bait-and-switch, and Jarecki makes it mostly work, adding intrigue and drama to a plot that was previously going a bit stale.

Robert has enough at stake anyway – his company books are, well, just not quite right, and he’s scrambling to make things look copacetic to ensure that the company’s sale will go through. The “twist” adds a similar level of drama to his personal life, leaving Robert both desperate and ever-devious. Gere is good here, Sarandon is solid, and even Marling works up to a passably smart performance, but it’s hard to ever feel for any of the Millers, so the stakes of Arbitrage never feel quite high enough, no matter how good it all looks.

Of note, as Robert’s mistress, temperamental artist Julie, Laetitia Casta turns in one of the few false performances in the entire production. She’s distractingly bad, completely unable to lift an already thinly drawn character to any sort of believable dramatic levels.

The Upside: Arbitrage is a slick, atmospheric, and polished thriller that features some solid performance work and a nice end-of-act-one “twist” that refocuses the action in an intriguing and sustainable way.

The Downside: The film hinges on the tension of the possible fall-out from Robert’s copious mistakes, but even Gere makes it impossible to care about his character as a human being, and we learn too little about the rest of the Miller clan to care about their lives either. Arbitrage is filled with bad people doing bad things, and it’s engaging precisely in the same that way gossip magazines are.

On the Side: Fun fact! Marling worked in the financial sector before she hit it big with last year’s Sundance selections.

—

Snuggle up with the rest of our Sundance 2012 coverage

Like many a warm-blooded American male who spends a little time here and there on the Internet, I can’t say that I haven’t been witness to the world of adult entertainment. And like any major money-generating form of entertainment, there’s a wide array of such films, videos and images out there in the world. Some is classy and sexy, while some involves animals. Ewww.

That said, like the mainstream world of film, even pornography has its superstars. And even those superstar personas have real (or mostly real, at least physically) people behind them. So when a documentary seeks to explore what’s happening in the minds of those who would disrobe and perform a wide variety of sexual acts on camera for money, it’s hard not to be just a little bit interested. When such a documentary presents a trailer as sleek and classy as that of Deborah Anderson’s Aroused: The Lost Sensuality of a Woman, one that goes beyond the titillating and promises something insightful and perhaps substantial, the film critic in me taps the red-blooded hetero male in me on the shoulder and proclaims, “yeah, we should keep an eye on this one.” Because perhaps it could be interesting on both intellectual and provocative levels.

Watch the trailer for yourself below:

Aroused features a look at the lives of s0me of adult film’s most recognizable stars such as Jesse Jane, Belladonna, Katsuni, Allie Haze, Kayden Kross, April O’Neil, Francesca Lé, Lisa Ann, Brooklyn Lee, Alexis Texas, Asphyxia Noir, Teagan Presley, Ash Hollywood, Tanya Tate, Lexi Belle and Misty Stone.

The film will be available to audiences in Spring 2012. More information can be found at TheArousedProject.com, a slightly NSFW website, or on the slightly less NSFW Twitter @ArousedProject. Hat tip to April O’Neil on Twitter for (a) pointing me in the direction of this project and (b) featuring an awesome Twitter background that includes The TARDIS.

If you’re reading this review, then I’m going to assume that you’re already familiar with Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim, the talent behind shows like Tom Goes To The Mayor and Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! With each iteration of entertainment they’ve produced, it seems like things get more off the wall and strange, and Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie is no different. It steps across every boundary you can imagine, and then some.

The premise behind the film is that Tim and Eric have been given a billion dollars by the Schlaaang Corporation to make a movie, and the film opens with a screening of that film, which is only three minutes long and stars a Johnny Depp impostor (they thought they had hired the real Depp) as Diamond Jim and sporting a suit made entirely out of real diamonds.

Between that and the makeovers they gave themselves (capped teeth and deep body tans), helicopter rides to the office, and a $500,000 weekly salary to their guru Jim Joe Kelly (Zach Galifianakis), they’ve squandered it all. And due to the fact that they didn’t read their entire contract, Schlaaang, headed by Robert Loggia (looking incredibly like the Cryptkeeper in this film), can demand all of that money back. Which they do.

In dire straits, the two of them go on a drunken bender full of drugs, body piercings, and more, which culminates in them seeing Will Ferrell in a commercial playing at the bathroom urinals offering the chance for someone to come and run the S’wallow Valley Shopping Mall and Pizza Court to make a billion dollars. With their salvation upon them via piss-soaked urinal cakes, they head out to run the mall and make their bill.

Once they get to the rundown, ramshackle, and rodent-ridden mall, it’s a far cry from the lush and thriving version pictured in the commercial. Bums make their home here, a wolf roams the pizza court, and stores like “The Used Toilet Paper Shop” are the lone tenants. But Tim and Eric take it in stride, adopting Will Ferrell’s nephew Taquito (John C. Reilly) as the caretaker, and they set out to turn things around.

Of course, in typical Tim and Eric fashion, what results isn’t a standard business plan, and a cavalcade of the extreme spews forth. Literally. There’s a very lengthy scene involving four young boys firehosing diarrhea from their asses onto Wareheim in a bathtub while being presided over by Ray Wise as the head of a Scientology-esque company in the mall. That sparked at least a dozen walkouts at the premiere. There’s also strap-on sex, an inappropriate relationship between Tim and a little boy, and more.

It all leads up to a climactic showdown with Schlaaang, including a heavily armed Loggia and William Atherton, who serves as Loggia’s second-in-command. When it’s all said and done, you’re left with a film that is part hilarious, part disgust, and about 30 minutes too long. The film opens with an infomercial starring Jeff Goldblum as “Chef Goldblum” who explains the wonder of Schlaaang’s Cinema Seating, which involves IVs, leg-spreaders, and an automatic popcorn machine. When that is one of the best parts of the movie, you wonder why they didn’t make the whole thing a collection of vignettes, much like Awesome Show, Great Job!

Hardcore Tim and Eric fans will likely enjoy this, but it’s fairly hit or miss. Wait for the video, and make heavy use of the fast-forward.

The Upside: When it hits, it’s hilarious. There are enough hardcore laughs out of this movie so that you can string together many minutes of enjoyment. The fake commercials are the best part of the movie.

The Downside: There are 30 unnecessary minutes in this movie, and it would have been a lot tighter if they had trimmed the fat.

On the Side: Love it or hate it, the movie will be available via On Demand on January 27, and in theaters on March 2. Direct to you from the minds behind Funny or Die.

Click here for more from Sundance 2012

Wrong. The titles serves as both mission statement and admonishment, as Quentin Dupieux‘s latest project exists in a world where the irrational and irregular reign, where clocks tick over from :59 to :60, where the concept of “appropriate” behavior doesn’t seem to exist to anyone, where palm trees turn into pine trees overnight, where typical horror film clangs and bangs ring out at the most odd of moments (giving everything a strange sense of danger). But the world of Wrong is a more focused one than fans of Dupieux might be used to, and the film has more of a standard plot than Dupieux’s previous film (2010′s new classic Rubber), though it’s still unreservedly absurd.

The film ostensibly follows Dolph Springer (Jack Plotnick, ever-engaging and just plain game), a somewhat reserved young gentleman whose best friend is his dog, Paul. When Paul goes missing one morning, Dolph falls down the sort of cinematic K-hole that only Dupieux could create. Dolph’s already very strange world suddenly becomes populated with a lovestruck pizza girl (Alexis Dziena), an inept French-Mexican gardener (Eric Judor) who is incapable of explaining what happened to that wacky tree, and a private investigator (Steve Little) whose reasons for being terrible at his job might be less his fault than meet the eye.

But all of Wrong’s secondary characters are small potatoes compared to William Fichtner as the inscrutable Master Chang. As the mysterious dog-loving Chang, Fichtner finally admits what we all know is true – he’s nearly unstoppable in quirky, irreverent character roles. Paired with Plotnick, they’re a study in tongue-in-cheek, superbly dry absurdism and how to do it absolutely right. We may have no idea what the hell is going on, but Plotnick and Fichtner give Wrong a strong center.

Yet Wrong is best viewed and enjoyed by audiences willing to participate in a big game of pretend. Much like Rubber, it’s often hard to know what is real and what is pure imagination. The film’s final act in particular veers off course to dangerous, bloody territory that doesn’t sit well with the rest of the film’s generally light-hearted and enjoyable tone. Chalking it up to bizarre Dupeiux make-believe helps it go down much easier.

Wrong is a film not quite suited for a review, as so much of it hinges on audience reaction and involvement, and it all but begs for a very certain kind of viewer with a very certain kind of sense of humor and disposition to enjoy it. Many will surely deride the film, writing it off as nonsensical or lazy, but Dupeiux doesn’t do things on accident, and he seems quite assuredly in control throughout the entire film. Wrong will be a hysterical joy in the right hands.

The Upside: A more polished take on absurdism from Dupieux, Wrong will please fans of Rubber with its more coherent plot, winning lead, and zinging one-liners.

The Downside: The film’s final act falls short, too stuffed with weirdly fulfilled prophecies and an off-kilter (and, when it comes to a film like Wrong, saying something is “off-kilter” is really saying something) wrap-up to a side plot that just doesn’t jive with the rest of the film.

On the Side: Could we really not get a Rubber tire cameo?

—

Snuggle up with the rest of our Sundance 2012 coverage

Rodrigo Cortés returns to Sundance after 2010′s Buried with another film about confinement and restriction – but one that turns those attentions to the human mind and its limits, instead of the body and its own absolutes. In Red Lights, Cortés sets his sights on the world of paranormal investigations, but in a way wholly different than we’ve come to expect from horror flicks that mine similar territory. Red Lights centers on Drs. Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) and Buckley (Cillian Murphy), who work to disprove paranormal activity. The pair split their time between teaching at a university (to packs of eager students) and traveling to presumed paranormal occurrences (to debunk them).

Both Matheson and Buckley maintain that they’ve never seen true paranormal activity that cannot be explained in one way or another (most often due to simple lies and farce), but they’re about to be challenged by an old foe of Matheson’s who appears to break all the boundaries the pair set. Simon Silver (Robert De Niro) was once a famous blind psychic, who retired amidst whispers of behavior that led to the death of his greatest critic – and now, he’s returned.

Red Lights works for most of its runtime as a reasonably well-crafted paranormal thriller, complete with massive revelations and earned scares (beware of birds). Yet, it’s never fully absorbing, and its middle drags on, both too wordy and too unimportant. The film is, however, an intriguing spin on a buddy flick – Weaver and Murphy work quite well together, and their characters reflect that nice, natural ease. Murphy in particular is fun to watch here – finally getting a chance for a performance that allows him to be a regular leading man, not some creep leering around corners (which has too often been the case with his work as of late). The first half of the film feels a bit like Ti West’s The Innkeepers, a workplace drama with lurking terror at the edges.

However, the majority of the film’s other performances are severely lacking. Sundance darling Elizabeth Olsen is decidedly nonessential in her role as Matheson and Buckley’s student, serving no purpose other than to occasionally think of something smart-ish and to comfort Buckley. All of her work could have been farmed out to other characters. Toby Jones plays his usual sniveling jerk as Dr. Shackleton, who seems less and less interested in the truth as each minute ticks by. But perhaps the worst offender here is Robert De Niro of all people, who plays his Simon Silver so to that hilt that his performance is most comparable to a ham sandwich. De Niro replaces real acting with repeatedly yelling the same lines, getting less believable with each bray.

The film has already been the subject of derision at Sundance, with an elongated ending that has not played well to crowds. While the tone and feel of the film’s final twenty minutes don’t quite fit with the rest of the film, Cortés certainly uses that time to take a risk and to make Red Lights speak to a more universal emotion than paranormal activity control tests would yield on their own. It’s assuredly bold, but it’s pulled off so poorly that it plays as laughable, so silly that it detracts from the rest of an otherwise intriguing film.

The Upside: Cillian Murphy breaks out and proves that he’s more than capable of not playing a villain, while the film offers an interesting world to explore and some solid initial scares.

The Downside: Wasted supporting characters, a sagging middle, and an ending that play so silly that it’s already brought the laughs at Sundance.

On the Side: Has Joely Richardson ever looked as evil as she does here? Has Joely Richardson ever looked evil ever?

—