Pseudo documentaries, and their bastard cousin the “found footage” genre, usually come in two varieties. There are comedies like the work of Christopher Guest and (to a lesser degree) Sacha Baron Cohen, and there are horror films like the Paranormal Activity cash-cow and vastly superior [rec] films. They also range in quality from the highs of Man Bites Dog and This Is Spinal Tap to the lows of The Devil Inside and Apollo 18.

What you don’t find a lot of though are angry, cautionary tales about peace-loving hippies being hunted by officers of the law.

The Movie:

“It has been stated as fact that there are more color television sets and automobiles owned by black people in the United States than in all of Russia together.”

A group of young men and women are loaded into a truck and driven out into the Southern California desert. At the same time, another group is led into a tent and made to stand before a tribunal of older men (and a woman) who are most definitely not their peers. What follows is a fictionalized documentary that moves back and forth between the two locations offering a glimpse of an alternate and exaggerated America where political dissenters are treated like hardcore criminals.

Group 637 are unloaded on a flat, hot expanse of desert and given a simple set of instructions. They have a finite amount of time to make their way to an American flag on the other side of Bear Mountain Punishment Park. If they succeed they’ll be set free, but if the officers recapture them they’ll be returned to serve out their prison sentence. What should be a simple test of endurance becomes a nightmare run for their lives when an officer is killed and the remaining police and National Guardsmen begin a hunt fueled by a thirst for revenge.

Group 638 meanwhile are just beginning a trial to determine their collective and individual guilt. One by one they’re seated before the tribunal, questioned, restrained and judged. They defend themselves and argue their stance based on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution as well as ones of basic humanity and decency, but they’re met with derision. If they’re against the war doesn’t that mean they’re against America? How can they justify refusing to defend their country and trying to dodge the draft instead? Why are they encouraging race wars against the whites? How can they justify wealth redistribution and environmental/labor restrictions on the factory floor? The end result appears to be a foregone conclusion, but both sides offer spirited and heartfelt debates. Unfortunately, only one side has the power.

Writer/director Peter Watkins’ Punishment Park is a ‘what if?’ scenario that takes the reality of a turbulent late sixties America and tweaks it ever so slightly. But even with that minor exaggeration the film manages a substantial degree of believability in its treatment of supposed enemies of the state. The arguments at the trial are legitimate and heartfelt on both sides, and while the film clearly leans left it never places empty words or values in the mouths of the accusers. Their concerns for their country, families, and jobs are honest, but their reactions are excessive and clearly over the line.

But is there a line during wartime? The tribunal here, empowered by the US government, doesn’t seem to think so. Real world activities have already revealed the line between freedom and security being teased by Homeland Security and friends, and when you combine that with the recent trend of beating, pepper-spraying and otherwise over-reacting to protesters by law enforcement you can almost see the slippery slope just around the next corner.

While the film is clearly a work of fiction, Watkins incorporates historical inspirations in some very direct ways. The trial of the Chicago Seven had occurred just two years prior, and in addition to arguments for the right to protest and disagree with one’s government we also see one of them treated similarly to Bobby Seale’s experience in Chicago. The sole black man of what was then the Chicago Eight, he was bound and gagged during the proceedings thereby preventing him from speaking, and that abuse of power is recreated here. It’s touches like that (along with the guy who looks like Abbie Hoffman) that serve to remind viewers that the movie has one foot in very real world.

The faux-documentary style works well in Punishment Park as most of the events are shown with an impartial eye, but when events heat up the unseen interviewer begins to challenge the police brutality and a real sense of menace takes hold. There’s the old quote that evil only needs people to do nothing in order for it to succeed, and it holds especially true when the evil in question is enacted in the name of good. “It’ll happen again as log as we got this element to deal with,” says one of the officers towards the end of the film. He’s right, but it can only happen (again) if that element allows it to. And that element is us.

The Blu-ray:

The new Masters of Cinema Blu-ray looks good, but it’s obvious the full-frame presentation is of a forty year old film originally shot on 16mm. As such it’s far from an HD reference disc while still having a clear image and vibrant colors. The disc is region-locked meaning you’ll need a region B/all-region player in order to enjoy it.

The disc also includes a handful of special features:

• Newly restored high-definition transfer (shot on 16mm, Punishment Park has been remastered from a new 35mm print struck from the restored 35mm blow-up negative held in Paris)
• 30-minute video introduction by Peter Watkins
• Full-length audio commentary by Dr. Joseph A. Gomez (author of the 1979 book Peter Watkins)
• Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing

I was sent a disc-only review copy of Punishment Park, so I can’ t speak to the physical extras included in the release other than to list them. They include:

• 40-page booklet with two essays and reprints

Bottom Line:

Punishment Park was a shocking and controversial film upon its release in 1971, and it apparently received an extremely limited release because of it. Unfortunately, even a cursory glance at world news covering the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay and our own Occupy Wall Street movements show the film to be as timely a cautionary tale today as it was four decades ago. Elements that may have seemed far fetched at one time now look believably and sadly commonplace.

Buy Punishment Park on region B Blu-ray (and region 2 DVD) from AmazonUK

In May 2011, the Alamo Drafthouse hosted “Day of the Apes,” an epic 8-hour marathon of all five Planet of the Apes films on 35mm. Above all other things, this should be celebrated as one fine event. Every single Apes film in glorious 35mm? What could possibly improve such a situation? How about a brilliant set of posters from some of Mondo’s sinister cabal of artists, the likes of Ken Taylor, Martin Ansin, Phantom City Creative and Jason Edmiston. In an unprecedented exclusive that spans across four of the web’s most popular film blogs (and also Film School Rejects), the poster set, created to commemorate the event, is finally unveiled to the public with each film tackled by a different artist.

First, lets have an exclusive look at Ken Taylor’s Beneath the Planet of the Apes print:

Click below to view the other exclusive posters at io9, Movies.com, Collider and Badass Digest.

And finally, here’s a look at Jason Edmiston’s limited edition lithograph:

Here’s the specifications on the line-up:

PLANET OF THE APES
Artist: Martin Ansin
Size: 24” x 36”
Edition: 415

BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES
Artist: Ken Taylor
Size: 24” x 36”
Edition: 390

ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES
Artist: Rich Kelly
Size: 24” x 36”
Edition: 320

CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
Artist: Phantom City Creative
Size: 24” x 36”
Edition: 370

BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES
Artist: Florian Bertmer
Size: 24” x 36”
Edition of 345

GO APE*
Limited Edition Lithograph
Artist: Jason Edmiston
Size: 24” x 36”
Edition: 295

*Only available with purchase of the full poster set.

The posters, created in partnership with Sideshow Collectibles, will be sold as a set on Thursday, January 26th for $230.  The set will also include an exclusive print “Alamo Drafthouse Wants You To Go Ape!” This limited edition lithograph is a variation of the famous 20th Century Fox poster created for the 1973 re-release of all five films in theaters, where the artwork “aped” Uncle Sam.  The “Go Ape!” lithograph will only be available with purchase of the full set.

The prints will be sold as a set on Thursday, January 26th for $230. Any remaining individual prints will go on sale on Friday, January 27th.  Follow @MondoNews for on sale announcements.

It would be foolish to deny that there is a certain kind of “Sundance romance” film – minor affairs that chronicle the beautiful and directionless as they stumble through the motions in an attempt to find something real. Most of the time, these films take place somewhere in East Los Angeles (Echo Park, Silverlake, Los Feliz), and usually there’s someone in a band. There is always a bevy of navel-gazing that occurs. Meeting those criteria for this year’s festival is Michael Mohan‘s Save the Date. The film centers on a pair of sisters (Lizzy Caplan and Alison Brie) who have very different expectations of and desires for love. Caplan’s Sarah is a commitment-phobe who is about to move in with her long-term boyfriend (Geoffrey Arend as Kevin), while Brie’s Beth is about to marry Kevin’s best friend and bandmate, Andrew (Martin Starr). Cue conflicts.

While Kevin is certifiably crazy for Sarah after two years together, she remains oddly standoffish, even as they set up a home together. Meanwhile, Andrew is cagey about finalizing wedding details with Beth and, in turn, Beth feels unsupported by everyone around her. When Kevin proposes to Sarah in the middle of a show with his band (Wolfbird), with Andrew amusingly trying to stop him from behind his drum kit, she freezes up due to equal parts shock, embarrassment and utter dismay. And then she bolts. Sarah’s commitment issues have finally reached their dramatic (and inevitable) conclusion, and Kevin sets off on tour with Andrew, heartbroken and alone. Not so heartbroken, Sarah almost immediately takes up with a sexy customer from her bookstore, Mark Webber as the charming Jonathan. All the while, Beth looks on disapprovingly, resentment for her sister eating away at her.

It’s not quite as dramatic as it sounds, but it’s also not very funny or light. The cast of Save the Date has a solid working chemistry with each other – Caplan and Brie are believable as sisters, Starr and Brie work quite wonderfully as a couple, and both of Caplan’s suitors’ ardor for her feels genuine – and that certainly helps the film clip along. But all of the film’s stars are best known for their copious comedic talents, and all of that natural ability is all but totally wasted here. Mohan seems instead to be going for honesty with Save the Date, and he makes a few choices that smack of real-life decisions and consequences, but none of it is particularly compelling or engaging.

The film briefly touches on different dramatic situations that might have given it more weight – such as the revelation that the girls’ parents are separating, or that their mother isn’t interested in helping Beth with her wedding, and the issue of the boys constantly going on tour – but none of those are ever appropriately mined for their obvious worth. Beth and Sarah are both presented as is, and we never understand why they are the way they are. While their characters are not exactly one-dimensional, neither of them is especially deep, and Save the Date suffers because we never know the stakes of anything we’re meant to want to save.

The Upside: Lizzy Caplan is an engaging lead actress and she strikes up appropriate chemistry with both Arend and Webber. The film frequently feels honest and true, and doesn’t go for the most traditional of choices.

The Downside: Despite a strong comedic cast, the film isn’t particularly funny. Save the Date is a typical Sundance romance that doesn’t ever set itself apart from its brethren.

On the Side: All of the film’s original artwork is by Jeffrey Brown.

—

Snuggle up with the rest of our Sundance 2012 coverage

Though his older brother Chris Hemsworth jumped a bit ahead in terms of fame factor after starring as Thor in the Marvel Comics movie of the same name, it’s starting to look like younger brother Liam Hemsworth is poised for a comeback. He’s all set to play Gale Hawthorne in the sure to be ridiculously high profile The Hunger Games as well as join forces with a bunch of action movie legends as Bill ‘The Kid’ Timmons in The Expendables 2 coming up in 2012. And, you know what they say in Hollywood (not really), with great notoriety comes great castability, so Hemsworth is now seeing some offers for starring roles coming in as well.

According to THR, the young up-and-comer is currently negotiating with Relativity Media to take the lead in their upcoming drama Timeless, which is about a man who is struggling to develop a scientific method of turning back time after the death of his wife. You know what that means fellas: all this one needs is some shots of Hemsworth’s handsome face looking sad, some swelling music, and a declaration of never letting love die in the trailer, and your girlfriend is going to absolutely force you into the theater to see this one.

The good news is that the experience might not be so bad for you, because Bill Kelly, the guy who wrote Enchanted, wrote the script for this one as well. Enchanted managed to be pretty fun despite the fact that it was way, way girlie, so maybe he could go two-for-two. Phillip Noyce is set to direct, and I really only know him from doing political type espionage stuff like Clear and Present Danger and Salt, so I don’t know how to react to his involvement. Maybe Timeless will have a couple of action sequences too? Fun for everybody!

Following Steven Soderbergh’s career has been a winding road full of ups and downs as of late. First he was going to make The Man From U.N.C.L.E., then there was a long period of juggling actors on that film as he tried to nail down a cast, then that movie got cancelled completely. There has been talk of retirement, talk of pushing off retirement to do more things, and generally just a lot of confusion. Things seemed to have reached a moment of stability a week ago, though, when it was announced that he was going forward with his next film, a thriller called Side Effects, and that it had funding stemming from a partnership between Annapurna Pictures and Open Road Films.

That’s all up in the air now though, and apparently it comes down to the all too familiar casting woes. Variety is now reporting that Megan Ellison’s Annapurna Pictures has pulled out of the deal, leaving Soderbergh and Open Road to find additional funding on their own. Variety gave no reason as to why the deal fell through, but The Playlist is claiming to have sources close to the situation that say Ellison and her people don’t like the casting of Blake Lively in the lead role. She apparently is set to play a drug addict in the middle of a love triangle between her husband (Channing Tatum) and her doctor (Jude Law).

An additional wrinkle gets introduced as news of this loss of funding comes nearly concurrently with a report from Deadline Loogootee that says Catherine Zeta-Jones has signed on to play another of the depressed, drug addicted young woman’s doctors. That’s a lot of questions that are now up in the air. Will the Zeta-Jones casting really be able to happen unless they find new funding soon? Will Lively still star, now that doubts have been cast on her abilities to pull off such an important lead performance? Are The Playlist’s rumblings that actresses like Rooney Mara, Michelle Williams, Imogen Poots, and Emily Blunt are already being looked at to possibly replace her true? Nothing at this point is certain, and it will all probably remain that way until another studio steps in to lend this project some cash.

Just another day in the lively world of making a Soderbergh movie. Maybe he’ll decide to retire again.

Despite opening to generally poor reviews due to its been there, done that approach to joke crafting and storytelling, The Hangover Part II still got a ton of people out to the theaters and pulled in record amounts of money. You know what that means: The Hangover Part III is now as inevitable as death and taxes. And, sure enough, THR has a report that the principal cast are negotiating as a team to get a deal for a third film in the books.

Because of Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, and Bradley Cooper’s all-for-one attitude when it comes to negotiating, getting this deal together has taken longer than usual. Their united front is allowing them to demand quite a bit of money to get a third Hangover movie made, and of course the studio has been doing whatever they can to drive that number down. They’re not really in any position of power, however, as a third Hangover is pretty much guaranteed to bring in truckloads of greenbacks, so the actors’ demands that each of them bank $15m a piece to come back and get drunk again are looking like they’re going to be met. Comparatively, each only made $1m for doing the modest budgeted original film.

In addition to all of that good financial news for the actors, there was a small bit of good news for fans of the series sitting at the bottom of the article as well. Apparently WB is keen on breaking the now familiar formula of recapping a night of blacked-out excess and plans on taking the story in a new direction. If they can get a good script together, The Hangover Part III could trump the second installment by being a success both critically and financially; and then we’ll probably be talking about how all of the actors are getting $1b dollars for Part IV. Maybe that one can have some sort of Occupy Wall Street plot line.

Based on the article, Seeing A Sex Surrogate, The Surrogate takes you into the life thirty-eight year old Mark O’Brien (John Hawkes) who has lived with polio since the age of six. Only able to be out of his iron lung for a few hours a day, Mark is otherwise stuck inside with just his thoughts, poetry, and faith. Most would resent a life like this, but Mark finds the humor in his situation, always putting those around him at ease and never letting the fact that he can barely move his head from side to side limit his ambition. Having graduated from the University of Berkeley, Mark now has even bigger aspirations in his life – he wants to lose his virginity.

Mark takes a shine to one of his aids and while it seems she seems to return his affection, when he expresses it, she gets scared and runs away. Mark jokes to his priest (William H. Macy) that he tried to go about his sexual revolution the “proper” way, but now he has another option he is considering – a sex surrogate who specializes in helping the disabled not only have sex, but teach them the tools and skills to have their own sexual relationships.

While the situation sounds strange (and let’s be honest, it is), it is handled with grace and dignity by Mark’s new aid, Vera (Moon Bloodgood), Carmen (Jennifer Kumiyama) whose home he uses (since he does not have a bed), and most importantly, Cheryl (Helen Hunt), Mark’s sex therapist. Cheryl approaches the situation as a therapist, being both clinical and caring and making it clear that she is simply a teacher and nothing more. But no matter what the situation, when sex is brought into any relationship, it’s hard for feelings to not get involved as well. The Surrogate explores not only Mark’s development, but almost more importantly, how he affects those around him and influences their lives as well.

Director Ben Lewin succeeds in crafting a film that takes on a difficult subject matter in a way that portrays even the most awkward moments with humor and honesty. Hawkes literally transforms into Mark from his (limited) mannerisms to the intonation of his voice to his sense of humor and all the while keeping that undeniable charm that had us wanting to join his cult in Martha Marcy May Marlene last year and not be too intimidated by Tear-Drop in Winter’s Bone. Hawkes performance is most impressive because he is not only able to develop these natural relationships with the different women that come into his life, he does so in a way that is believable and you never once think these women’s affection for him is born out of pity.

The Upside: While losing his virginity and gaining sexual awareness is certainly a big part of the narrative, it is Mark and his unshakable desire to try and constantly push himself to live life to the fullest is the true story here.

The Sownside: While Hunt delivers an impressive performance as Cheryl, her Boston accent (when it would flare up) was always distracting and felt forced.

On the Side: But really, is there anything Hawkes can’t do?

—

Snuggle up with the rest of our Sundance 2012 coverage

Sy-Fy‘s Being Human made its second season debut last week, recussetating the nerd tv quotient in my life exponentially. Yes, I watch True Blood, and as you now know all-too-well, if it’s on PBS or BBC America, I’m on board. But there isn’t much I watch that I’m wholeheartedly embarassed to admit to, with the exception of Being Human. Well, FSR readers, I’m coming clean. Yep, I’m a SyFy watcher, and semi-proud.

Being Human, for those of you not in the know, is the story of three unlikely roommates, a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost. I mean, totally believable, right? Of course not, but if you’re looking for believable TV, then stick to the Law and Order franchise. It’s across-the-pond counterpart appealed to me after popping up in my “recommended for you” Netflix queue so often that I finally succumbed, plowing through a couple of discs in a matter of days. So you can imagine my delight when SyFy’s incessant bus shelter/subway stop/public transportation domination campaign alerted me to an American reboot. With Jungle 2 Jungle‘s Mimisiku!

Yeah, I ate it right up. The adorable Sam Huntington aside, the US adaptation’s actors appealed to me on a far greater level than their Brit bretheren. Sure, the acting reeks of Canada on a Degrassian level, but Being Human makes the best of its source content in a way that True Blood doesn’t. That’s not to say that True Blood isn’t a show worth watching – it’s insanity is at oftentimes beyond entertaining, in seasons one and two especially. But once you start really looking at TB, you realize that at its heart, it centers around some of the most irritating characters in all of television. Sookie Stackhouse? Tara Thornton? Bleh.

Nope, Being Human is more, pardon the pun, human, at its heart, and that’s what draws me to it. There are ghosts, Mimisiku werewolves, vampires, and even a poor, poor man’s Ralph Macchio involved. Oh, and somehow the Amish are involved at the epicentre of a vampire underworld, but BH’s supernatural stars aim to… be human, and that’s what comes through. Werewolf Josh has relationship troubles that (despite their often lupine origin) are as awkward and real as those of the rest of us. Vampire Aidan just wants to give up his bloodsucking ways and become one of the yuppies gracing the streets of their Bostonian setting. Ghost Sally sees her fiance get over her death too quickly, prompting a rage in her that many are likely to experience. OK, so maybe she manifests her fear in the form of a poltergeist, but still… these are real problems, people!

When Josh’s pretty nurse girlfriend Nora gets pregnant, what does he do? He freaks out, as any late-twenties man not expecting it would do. If this scenario were to take place in the realm of Bon Temps, LA, there would undoubtedly be some sort of meat statue sacrifice, curated no doubt, by Lafayette himself. This season, even more problems face Being Human‘s triumverate, as power plays, ghostly transcendance, and even an unfortunate scratching incident that leaves poor Nora a fellow werewolf for life plague the gang. Sally struggles with the transition from ghost to full-fledged dead girl in a vein similar to an adolescent looking for that inevitable transition into adulthood. And Aidan strives to fit into two worlds simultaneously, succeeding at neither. Oh, these freaks. They’re just like us!

This isn’t a groundbreaking show, and the likelihood is that you won’t be seeing it take home any accolades any time soon. But for the mild sci-fi fan in all of us, Being Human is one that gets it right.

Check out more Channel Guide here

My first memory from this morning is turning over to find Eric D. Snider mooning at me and asking me what my plan for the day is. Then I checked my email to find a link to this story from my pal, Moviefone’s Mike Ryan (who is becoming a frequent hero of these daily wrap-ups), regarding the true story behind Compliance. When we saw the film together yesterday, he grabbed my notebook halfway through the film to scribble “Nobody is this stupid!!!” He titled his email “okay, I was wrong.” Then I ate muffins in bed. It was the best morning at Sundance yet.

I made a quick run to the press ticketing office at Sundance HQ, looking for a ticket for The House I Live In for tomorrow and for Smashed on Friday. I’m anxious to see both, and ticketing alleviated my stress by sending me a confirmation email for my tickets before I could even sit down and settle in. Service!

My first film of the day was a 12:15 screening of Keep the Lights On at Eccles. It’s the largest venue the film will play at during Sundance, and while the theater didn’t sell out, it was about two-thirds full, and those in attendance seemed to eager and excited for the film. A relationship drama from New York filmmaker Ira Sachs, the film charts the slow collapse of a long-term relationship between two men in Gotham, mostly do the heavy drug use of one of them. It’s wrenching and a touch too slow for my tastes, but fans of Sachs will be all over it.

After that, it was a quick run to the Yarrow Hotel for the day’s sole real meal – a salad and a bowl of chili, wolfed down while finishing up my Save the Date review. Glamour, I tell you. I meet Snider at the Fresh Market (pictured above) to gather supplies for tonight’s annual Bloggerati Condo Gathering.

Next up is Oslo, August 31st. After Keep the Lights On, it’s tough to see another film about drug addiction and regret, but Oslo is beautifully lensed and wonderfully nostalgic. Review to come.

Third film of the day – Price Check at Eccles. I’ve been a fan of Parker Posey since Party Girl, so I was excited to check her out in a Sundance flick at Eccles. Unfortunately, Price Check is not a good time – it starts off slow and innocuous, a boring trifle, before going the one place it shouldn’t. The rest of it is a slow slide into muck. Review to come!

The final (Sundance) film of the day? Anothology horrof flick V/H/S. Most of our condo roommates came with, many of them lured by not only the film’s good buzz, but the promise of observing Allison and I losing our shit over a horror film, live and in person. Oh, you don’t know about our track record? Now you do.

The last film of the day, the last true film, is set to be MacGruber. Why? It’s become a bit of a Sundance tradition for most of us film bloggers to gather for one night to watch MacGruber and drink some of Utah’s finest beer together. I write this from the thick of the party. Currently here? Katey Rich, Matt Patches, Raffi Asdourian, Eric D. Snider, Allison Loring, William Goss, John Lichman, Dan Mecca, Jordan Raup, Ben Pearson, Matt Goldberg, Katie Calutti, Jenni Miller, Brian Kelley, Rudie Obias, Ethan Anderton, Alex Billington, Brandon Rohwer, and Germain Lussier. We’ll likely get kicked out of the hotel tonight. With bottles popping behind me, Patches singing “Moves Like Jagger,” and the promise of a MacGruber showing, I must sign off.

Tomorrow: Work, work, work, The House I Live In, and the the third “real meal” of the entire festival.

—

Snuggle up with the rest of our Sundance 2012 coverage

There’s something great about the female-centric advertising coming out of a generic comedy based on an advice book for mothers about to deliver a bun fresh from the oven. The marketing team has faith in the women, and Lionsgate has faith in a woman-driven adult comedy. It’s clearly propelled by the success of Bridesmaids, but the more perverse secondary effect that that raucous comedy had on the studio math world is that crass women now equal box office gold.

And thus, the posters for What to Expect When You’re Expecting. Again, it’s great to see women used so overtly for marketing without oversexualizing them (or, using their image months after their being sexualized?), but shoving bad lines with buzzwords in them reeks of desperation to appear edgy without actually having to be edgy.

They won’t set back the women’s movement or anything, but they’re at least 10% heinous. Check them out for yourself:

The one featuring Jennifer Lopez is so innocuous that it almost doesn’t belong with the others. Then there’s Elizabeth Banks‘s pretend cursing complete with #$&#$*&#$s and Cameron Diaz talking about her rack and getting “knocked up”, but the worst offender might be Brooklyn Decker flirt-smirking into the camera as if to ask, “Hey, did you notice the word Horny right next to my face? Did you? It’s there…isn’t it sexy?”

Real women can be edgy without being cutesy or pointing out how edgy they’re being.

On the bright side, these posters act as a warning: an adult human being says “Plus I’m, like, crazy horny,” in it. So maybe it’s best to stay away.

Also, the marketing team and the producers should know they’ve just alienated anyone who’s ever had trouble peeing on a stick and remained sensitive about it.

This bad boy from Lionsgate shoots out the birthing canal and into theaters May 11. On the optimistic front, it’s from director Kirk Jones so either he’ll be able to infuse his talent into the proceedings or it’ll be a tragic case of the man behind the brilliant Waking Ned Devine slumming it in something vile. So it goes.

Source: iVillage

Fresh off of making one audience member pass out and another one puke into a bucket at Sundance, V/H/S has found a home with Magnolia, and it’s a matched made in hellacious heaven. The horror flick is both an anthology, which seems to be a rising trend, and a found footage movie that has many critics claiming that it refreshes the genre considerably.

It’s made up of vignettes from writer/director David Bruckner (The Signal), writer/director Glenn McQuaid (I Sell the Dead), writing/directing team Radio Silence, actor/director Joe Swanberg (Autoerotic, The Zone), writer/director Ti West (House of the Devil, The Innkeepers), director Adam Wingard (A Horrible Way to Die, You’re Next), writer Simon Barrett (A Horrible Way to Die, You’re Next), and writer Nicholas Tecosky.

The story focuses on a team hired by a mystery person (or persons) to break into a broken down house to steal a rare VHS tape. Horror ensues.

So it’s a found footage horror film with an interstitial device of people looking for found footage. Already off to a good start. This is another ear on the necklace of the You’re Next team of Wingard, Swanberg and Barrett who will see that film released in October of this year as well. Thank god that V/H/S will be seen outside of Sundance. These are the kinds of horror filmmakers that deserve to blow up big. Personally, I can’t wait for the inevitable George Lucas mash-up trailer, V/H/S 1138.

And how do filmmakers celebrate a sale like this? By jumping:

Let’s all take a minute to appreciate the mad ups of Swanberg, the karate styling of Barrett, the midriff-baring jump of McQuaid, and the general leaping skills of actors Tyler Gillett, Matthew Bettinelli-Olpin and producer Roxanne Benjamin.

According to Deadline Arish, Steven Spielberg is close to signing on to make a film where a brave man helps save a lot of Jewish people from incredible persecution. Sadly, it’s the Schindler’s List: Electric Boogalo sequel we’d all hoped for. Unsadly, it’s Spielberg making a biblical epic on a massive scale with Warners. If the deal goes through, the goal is a shooting date in early 2013.

Gods and Kings has been likened by their insider to Braveheart, and it tells the story of Moses from his birth down the river on down to Revelation probably. We’d previously reported that Spielberg was interested, but this news story almost assures that he’ll be taking this project on. And why not? It’s absolutely in his wheelhouse both in subject matter and scope.

The question is whether this kind of story can still be a blockbuster moneymaker and a prestige film at the same time. It’s not the 1990s anymore. The other question is whether you want to see what essentially sounds like The Ten Commandments re-done by Spielberg.

People were up in arms Tuesday after the announcement of nominees for the 84^th Annual Academy Awards. So many seem to forget that every year they are disappointed with the nominees and every year there is some film or performer who was left off or included on the prestigious list. I may have spent the final weeks of 2011 lamenting my utter ennui with last year’s films, but I never in a million years expected some of the Oscar outcomes. No Supporting Actor nomination for Albert Brooks, whose performance in Drive unnerved audiences to the core? Or the blatant disregard for solid documentary filmmaking in The Interrupters, Buck, or Project Nim, three entries into filmmaking that will forever impact the way we view the world around us? No, the Academy seemed to forget the impressive and daring offerings in favor of an adorable dog in a silent film. What is this, 1920? Last I checked The Jazz Singer pushed us into the land of the talkies.

I could spend all day gnawing my tongue over which films shouldn’t have been included in this year’s awards recognition, but just like arguing the virtues and evils of the MPAA, our time is better used talking about some of the sexy pieces of work that the Academy felt were too provocative to include (for reasons I have completely made up in my mind. Hey, they have their prerogative, I have mine.). Going along with the Academy’s new voodoo math rules of deciding the appropriate number of Best Picture nominees (something about getting 5% votes and then jumping a broom after falling off a cliff), I have picked out nine salacious films ignored for what we can only assume is their brave use of sex, sexual orientation, Ezra Miller’s hips, or worldwide punishment for one woman’s ill-timed infidelity.

As The Rock so eloquently asked for in the cinematic masterpiece Fast Five, let’s start with the veggies. The veggies in this case are the less obvious and therefore easily forgotten entries. Dee Rees’s Pariah is one of those incredibly simple yet thought provoking films the Academy loves to ignore. They see “black,” “lesbian,” and “inner city” in the summary and instantly the monocle-wearing older gentlemen running “things” mutter to themselves “well, who would want to watch that type of film? Didn’t we already try being edgy with Precious?” Well, it turns out the Sundance darling is actually an engaging and inspiring piece of film that focuses just as much on lead character Alike’s (Adepero Oduye) sexual awakening and as it does on her acceptance of self. She is a prime example of a character moving forward from the heartbreak of a sexual coming-of-age, and Rees’s perfectly sculpted script would have been a shining beacon amongst the worn out drivel (Bridesmaids aside) competing for Best Original Screenplay.

Another daring and controversial film ignored in the Best Original Screenplay category is the tight, brutal, and sexually-charged Bellflower. Now, I know suggesting rookie Evan Glodell’s story of what happens when love goes wrong may seem a little out there (remember, we Rejects are champions of all things Medusa), I want to point out that the script is one of the more surprisingly realistic offerings of 2011. Last year was full of films uncovering the darker, sadder parts of love, and Bellflower was courageous enough to compare the destruction of love to the terror of the Apocalypse—but with sexier people. Fortunately we will see more from both Rees and Glodell in the future, but it’s a pity these two sexually daring scripts won’t get the same stamp of approval as the nearly silent The Artist.

I know you might be ready to jump down to read (again) about Michael Fassbender’s boner in Shame, and I promise you I haven’t forgotten about him, but before we do that let’s talk about a film genre near and dear to my heart—documentaries. Director Errol Morris released the hilarious and unnerving documentary Tabloid last summer, a film chronicling the sexual delusions of a woman who would eventually become one of the most notorious subjects of tabloid fodder. What Tabloid introduces, besides a crazy woman, is the well-accepted notion that a woman cannot rape a man. This may have not been Morris’s intended theme, however it is one that is blatantly clear once the story of former Miss Wyoming Joyce McKinney’s obsession and abduction of her Mormon boyfriend begins to reveal that she forced herself upon him while keeping him against his will.

McKinney recounts the story for Morris, who does not shy away from the satire the subject lends herself, and in each passing scene her sanity is questioned along with the audience’s understanding of what constitutes rape. Unlike the narrative The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, rape in Tabloid almost comes off like a joke. As if it is something only humor can remedy. And regardless of how sensitive the subject, the lighter touching of rape in this documentary actually proves that McKinney is a nut job. This year’s Best Documentary nominees cannot hold a candle to the inspiring filmmaking Morris is capable of doing even when he’s not trying to make a serious film.

Infidelity, like rape, is something the Academy enjoys primarily seeing when the victim is being punished for being just that, a victim. Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion absolutely deserves no accolades for its uneven portrayal of a world-wide epidemic, however composer wunderkind Cliff Martinez does deserve a nod for beautifully narrating the nearly world-ending catastrophe brought on by one woman’s ill planned affair. Along with Alberto Iglesias’s moving score for Tinker Tailor Solider Spy (thankfully sitting high on the nomination hog), Martinez’s Contagion score perfectly captures the foreboding feeling the ensemble cast feels as their story unfolds. Without the use of a slutty trumpet or a saucy drum roll, Martinez hinted unobtrusively to the dire consequences infidelity can have on more than just the two parties involved, even if we really should be blaming the bat-pig.

Our last five rudely neglected films feature performances audiences will remember well beyond some of their would-have-been competitors. Don’t worry; I’m not putting the shirtless Channing Tatum into this bunch. Starting with the Best Supporting Actor category, two sexually daring (confusing?) performances were forgotten. First was the sexy-creepy Patrick (John Hawkes) in Martha Marcy May Marlene, a man so sexually compelling he had an entire cult of lost Urban Outfitter models following him along on morally conflicting excursions. Hawkes is quickly becoming the Judy Greer of the indie scene, and the Academy’s exclusion of him in the Best Supporting Actor category once again proves they just don’t get it (and maybe they need to get some).

Meanwhile, another scene-stealing background performer whose name was not called yesterday was Patton Oswalt. Young Adult was entirely forgotten this year, and it is an insult that Oswalt’s sexually misidentified Matt (a character who accepts he is sexually undesirable but doesn’t let that define himself) would not get recognition for falling in love with the emotional succubus that is Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron). It’s easy to say Matt is naive in thinking Mavis won’t crush his soul after she seeks sexual comfort from the tiny chubster, but Matt is so much more than that. He is weak and strong, something a real person can identify with. He knows Mavis is a wretch of a human, and he sleeps with her not thinking it would make her fall in love with him, but maybe actually help him fall out of love with her. Unfortunately Young Adult is not Matt’s story to tell, and we are left uncertain as to Matt’s final outcome once he realizes Mavis has fled. It is obvious Oswalt was Matt at one point, and that makes his lack of nomination sting even more.

The ladies didn’t have it any easier this year, as two impressive women were left off the final list of Best Actress nominees. Both Tilda Swinton (We Need to Talk About Kevin) and Kirsten Dunst (Melancholia) submitted performances that were rooted in the evils or solace of sex. Both characters saw the adverse effects of their sexual decisions. Justine’s (Dunst) need for sex with a stranger the night of her wedding grants her a few fleeting moments of feeling something other than manic, but in the end she is living a sham of a life and wants others to accept their mortality on the cusp of the end of the world. Dunst’s performance is erotic in her unflinching bearing of herself, both physically and emotionally, yet it’s one of those performances where a beautiful person is not made ugly on the outside, but her overwhelming sadness destroys everyone watching. Dunst creates a character with such crippling melancholy that we cheer her on in ever poor decision she makes with her body.

Swinton’s Eva is a woman struggling to keep her unraveling marriage together as her terror of a son, Kevin (Ezra Miller), torments everyone from his younger sister and mother to his fellow students. Swinton is a chameleon, and she once again loses herself behind Eva’s perfectly manicured life. Hiding behind Swinton’s black eyes you can see the sadness of a woman whose sexual longing for her future husband Franklin (John C. Reilly) results in a real-life Damien, while she flashes back on how if she hadn’t given into her own desires her life wouldn’t been in the hellacious ditch it currently inhabits. Yes, Swinton already has an Oscar of her very own, but Eva is arguably one of the more underappreciated female characters of last year thanks to the film’s uncomfortable, ugly, and intense story; which is a shame of immeasurable proportions.

Ah! See what I did there? Shame? Yeah, okay you did. Shame is a film about a sex addict that almost feels like it needs less attention, and maybe in a way Fassbender’s Oscar snub is a direct result of championing a film too much. Fassbender bared not only his junk but also his character Brandon’s soul in Shame, completely immersing himself in a man whose sex appeal is actually his emotional undoing. Brandon could be anyone and have any addiction, but he is a rich white man with a little talked about addiction to carnal pleasures. He is sexy and disgusting, and Fassbender’s willingness to hold nothing back while in Brandon’s expensive shoes only proves that the Academy is afraid of sex for pleasure and wants to only reward actors engaging in sex on screen when the consequences are clear cut and easy to understand.

What other sexually proactive, engaging, or disturbing films and performances do you think the Academy failed to recognize this or in previous years?

Explore more on-screen sexuality

If you want to be spoiled on the new character created by Peter Jackson and company for The Hobbit, read on. If you want to be spoiled on what happens in The Hobbit beyond her character, read “The Hobbit.”

That new character is an elf played by Evangeline Lilly. When Jackson announced it, he was quick to point out that there would be no romantic relationship between her and Legalos, that her name was Tauriel (which is not the ingredient in energy drinks), and that her name meant “daughter of Mirkwood.”

Now, Lilly has given a few more details on the character to Entertainment Weekly, and they’re more than a bit revealing with a small note on plot and a lot on how much this new creation will be featured in the films.

“EW: Speaking of small and little, I’d be remiss not to bring up The Hobbit. You’re playing a new character named Tauriel, who’s a Mirkwood elf, and that would lead me to believe that she is a warrior of some kind. Did you have to learn archery and swordplay?

Lilly: Yes, she is a warrior. She’s actually the head of the Elven guard. She’s the big shot in the army. So she knows how to wield any weapon, but the primary weapons that she uses are a bow and arrow and two daggers. And she’s lethal and deadly. You definitely wouldn’t want to be caught in a dark alley next to Tauriel.

EW: So then Tauriel must be involved with the dwarves being captured…

Lilly: I think basically what you’re asking is if she’s in the film very much. She’s not in the first film very much. She comes into the first film near the end, and has a very small part to play. Her role in the second film is much more involved. Although, I have to say, when I first read the scripts and took the job, she had a lot less going on in the second film. I think the role is becoming a bit more demanding than I had expected it to be. There’s a lot more for me to do now, which is a lot of fun, but it’s a little more pressure.”

If the role is becoming a bit more demanding, she’s undoubtedly going to be featured more in the second film, There and Back Again, than in the first – but it goes to prove that she’ll truly be a female lead. So, her character was either invented to give a romantic angle to everything (even if it’s not with Legalos) or it was invented to add a woman into the cast (that isn’t Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel).

Interesting.

What say you?

Why Watch? Like the title suggests, Denis Chapon drew 12 drawings everyday for 3 years. That also means he made 1 second of his movie every day. He did this without a definite plan, but he was clever enough to include a title sequence in his work.

The result is a piece of dedicated doodling that seems to come alive from the guy in class bored by the science lecture. It’s half-accident, but it’s full of imagination and a playfulness aided by Chapon’s use of scratch paper and a fluid style that lends itself to one image dissolving into the next. If you don’t already have a smile on your face and an awe for three years of hand-drawn hard work, get ready for both to overtake you.

What will it cost? Only 4 minutes.

Skip Work. You’ve Got Time For More Short Films.

By now, you should probably have realized that we will never reach the final destination, since we’re already a destination past that with more on the way. Likewise, you should probably have a pretty good handle on how these things happen. A kid gets a vision of a totally awesome and very lethal disaster, which prompts him and several others to leave the danger zone, abandoning hundreds of others to die. Death, not liking the idea of being cheated, then kills all of the survivors through an elaborate series of accidents. And for the most part, it’s all good.

So recognizing all that, for the fifth installment of the franchise you can just plug in all the new names and faces with the scenario suspension bridge collapse. While there isn’t much new, Final Destination 5 manages to be an entertaining entry in the series, providing plenty of gruesome kills – in three dimensions!! OOoOoOoOoOoooOOOooOoOOOo

Kills

The Final Destination franchise is well known for massive body counts and for showing most of them twice. This is no exception. One would assume the bridge collapse kills several hundred people and we see at least 8 specific deaths. Throughout the rest of the film there are at least 10 individual deaths. Conservatively you’d have to put the overall death total somewhere near 400, though that includes disaster.

Ills

Here is where the film really delivered for me – gruesome kills. There are several impalements, some delicious rebar through the face, bodies are cut in half, heads are smashed, people are crushed, eyeballs are popped and squished, guts and limbs go flying, a wrench gets embedded in someone’s face, and there are gun shots and a rotisserie spiking. All of that pales to my personal favorite death though – gymnastics accident. BOOM. STUCK THE LANDING.

Lust

A big, fat, disappointing zero. Seriously, film, what the efffff?

Learning

You can’t escape death. Duh.

Review

It’s not a great movie, in fact, as a film, it’s probably like a C-level average, but once you factor in the gore and the amazing opening credits sequence, it gets a significant bump. The ending was also a clever and satisfying surprise. You see it coming maybe two minutes in advance, but it still tastes just as sweet.

If there is one thing this movie, and the franchise as a whole, have really gotten a handle on, it’s false foreshadowing. We all know someone is about to die, the only question is – how? Director Steven Quale does an effective job of building tension right before the deaths, especially in the gymnastics sequence. There are, as SpikeTV says, a thousand ways to die, and in some of these scenarios, you can identify all one thousand. Every loose bolt, exposed wire, or creaking piece of lattice could strike the fatal blow. Once death has reared its head, you’re on edge. Trying to out-guess him. Sometimes you do, often you don’t and it’s splattertastic.

For those of you looking for something smart or new, look elsewhere. For those of you that have fun with the Final Destination movies, gear up and give this one a shot. It’s definitely not the worst installment, and based on a pure fun level, it’s probably second or third.

Michael Walker’s feature directorial debut, Price Check, starts off innocently enough, sort of a twist on Office Space if Lumbergh was a nice guy who wanted his unmotivated employees to succeed. Eric Mabius stars as Pete, who lost his dream job in music and is now forced to work in a regional pricing and marketing division for a failing division of a multi-brand grocery store company. Like most people these days, Pete is concerned about finances – he’s the only breadwinner in the house, and he and his wife have credit card bills to pay and a three-year-old to raise and probably a new car to get – and the recent departure of his beloved boss isn’t helping matters much. Who is going to replace him? And how is that going to affect Pete and his life?

If this plotline doesn’t sound just a bit boring, that’s okay, it is. But instead of beefing up his film with great lines and performances from more than just Mabius’ co-star, Parker Posey, Walker decides to go for some cheap switcheroos that left the audience at Eccles Theatre (where the film premiered) groaning.

Pete’s new boss is a mini-marketing guru who’s been in the grocery store game for “her entire life,” and who is determined to turn their failing chain around no matter what it takes. Susan (Posey) is unapologetically in love with her job – she’s so pumped on her first day, in fact, that it’s almost slightly terrifying, particularly to her employees, none of which seem to care even half as much about their jobs as she does about hers. But Posey is game as ever, and even as Susan’s management techniques slide from “questionable” straight to “illegal,” it’s easy to see why her previously-bored employees are so excited to go along with her. Susan quickly picks Pete out as her favorite, not deterred by his apparent interest in returning to music (though Pete never seems to listen to more than one song, and Mabius just seems down and morose about everything, even when he’s talking about getting back to his supposed dream profession), and takes him under her wing as they embark on an aggressive strategy to revitalize their stores.

For about its first half, Price Check toddles along, somewhat funny and a little innocuous, a gentle workplace comedy about loving what you do. Posey somehow pulls off Susan’s wild character deviations, and it’s easy enough to go along with the film and its story, and even to find some humor in the whole thing. Unfortunately, what could play as easy and sweet gets turned on its head somewhere in Price Check‘s middle. Walker seems unconcerned (or even unaware) of how jolting the film’s tone change is, particularly because it involves both Pete and Susan acting in ways that go completely against their character (even when it comes to the wacky Susan). Suddenly, Price Check is a dark dramedy about getting what you want, no matter the cost – but by the time that change had taken hold, I’d checked out of the film almost totally, not wanting to spend anything on a film that doesn’t even know itself.

The Upside: Price Check features a solid comedic performance from star Posey, off-kilter and weirdly riveting as ever.

The Downside: The film is laughably uneven, and when it makes its second-act tone and plot change, it’s severe enough to give its audience cinematic whiplash. The audience at Eccles groaned when Price Check revealed its true colors, a strange rarity that will likely repeat itself if the film ends up with a theatrical release.

On the Side: Read up on some grocery store marketing tactics that Pete and Susan might have utilized.

—

A good beginning credit sequence is really all it takes for me to like a movie. That seems like a really stupid thing to say – but when you think about it, while not all good movies have creative credits, almost all creative credits belong to good movies. It shows that the filmmakers actually cared enough to do something meaningful with their title sequence as opposed to just throwing out some stock effect… After all, the beginning credits are the opening number to a film – the handshake – and if it doesn’t make you excited about what you’re about to watch then there really isn’t a point is there?

Here are a collection that got be friggin’ pumped right from the start.

14. Inside Man (2006)

There’s nothing particularly flashy or exciting about this credit sequence – it’s just really, really solid. Clive Owen’s beginning monologue instantly hooks you into the film, as does Spike Lee’s choice in music – Chaiyya Chaiyya by A. R. Rahman. But I think what really got my attention more than anything was Matthew Libatique’s amazing cinematography throughout the sequence. You would know LIbatique’s work from such films as Pi and Requiem For A Dream – pretty much every Darren Aronofsky film – also he did Cowboys and Aliens for some reason. Anyway, if there was every a perfect example of his talent, these credits are certainly it.

13. Watchmen (2009)

Well anything to Bob Dylan’s “Times They Are A-Changin’” is going to be rather effective from the start – especially when the sequence’s timeline expands two generations. There’s something fascinating about the alternate reality portrayed in these credits – the idea of taking US history and sticking in superheroes is great, but it’s the result of that addition that really sticks. They start with the expected glory days of crime fighting and bring it all the way to the inevitable downfall that such a system would meet – something that most superhero films fail to recognize. After all, the thought of Superman is neat until you realize that his presence would limit your freedom.

12. Halloween (1978)

So simple, so effective.

You really get a clear idea of the kind of menace you’ll be facing throughout the film just from this one shot – slowly pushing in on a delightfully generic-looking jack-o-lantern with the same repetitive piano tune we’ve all grown to fear over the years. The Halloween theme has that same quality that the Jaws theme has; it’s simple and it escalates. Much like the shark from Jaws, Michael Myers is inevitable – he plows toward you at a slow but steady rate, much like his theme music does as well. It’s only a matter of time before you have to stop running.

11. The Shining (1980)

Speaking of simplicity – while the cinematography and music is quite impressive, this sequence really takes the prize for most basic titles ever. Why is it all scrolling up? What is that, sky blue? Kubrick, you are weird. I could have banged these titles out in less than a minute at my local public access station – and yet, why are they so damn awesome? I think the answer is that because of how awkward and basic they are, it almost gives off the impression that he is getting them out of the way, that the real star here are the visuals of the car driving through the mountains along with Wendy Carlos & Rachel Elkind’s incredibly sinister opening title music. It should be noted that Carlos is also responsible for the theme to A Clockwork Orange – which makes all sorts of sense when you compare the two styles.

The brainchild of producer Brad Miska, horror anthology film V/H/S features five shorts (and one wrap-around story) from a variety of genre directors, writers, and actors handily proves that the found footage genre is far from dead and there’s plenty of new material to bleed. The film’s “wrap-around” section features a group of Jackass-inspired wankers who get their kicks by filming mayhem and destruction. Dispatched by a mysterious person to break into a house and steal something, they agree – partly for the laughs, partly for the pay-off. The item they must procure? A simple, singular VHS tape. The actual mission? Multi-level and rife with unexpected complications.

When the boys reach the house they must search to find the alleged tape, it’s appropriately creepy. And when they reach a room filled with tapes and screeching, staticky television sets, it’s even more nail-biting. Of course, they do the only thing that makes sense to dudes who don’t give a crap – they start searching the house and popping in tapes. This is the conceit of V/H/S’s anthology style, and while a film like V/H/S demands a wrap-around storyline to bring everything together, its logic is by the far the weakest part of the film. On a basic level, just how did some of the shorts get put to VHS (one is from an online video chat, one is from a pair of glasses with a camera stuck inside), and just why does the house’s inhabitant have them? And just what is that tape they’re meant to steal? If audiences overlook these lapses in judgment, and enjoy the atmosphere of Adam Wingard‘s wrap-around piece, the rest of the film will prove to be, forgive me, a scary good time.

David Bruckner‘s section, Amateur Night, opens the film – a tale about some college-age dudes who got out for a night on the town with one of them sporting glasses with a camera inside to capture their antics. They pull some chicks and head back to their hotel room, and that’s where things just get…messy. Bruckner’s short takes a while to unfold, but its worth the terror of its final five minutes.

Following Bruckner is Ti West‘s devious little short, Second Honeymoon, also mainly set in a hotel room. The section tracks a young married couple (Sophia Takal and Joe Swanberg) on a road trip across the American West. When a stranger knocks on their door in the middle of the night, they can’t shake the feeling that there’s something not quite right about her. And there’s not.

The third film of the anthology, Tuesday the 17th, sticks with a vacation-gone-wrong storyline, but sets it mainly outdoors, in some appropriately spooky woods that are home to a sick-looking lake and a ton of secrets. Director Glenn McQuaid has a lot of fun with his tale, using some standard tropes (teens gone wild! scary places! premonitions!) to lull his audience before flipping everything around. Seriously – everything.

V/H/S’s penultimate section, Joe Swanberg and Simon Barrett‘s The Strange Thing that Happened to Emily When She Was Younger, is by far the most amusing and the one most likely to illicit audience response. A twisted tale of a couple who speak via webchat, and the nasty thing that keeps popping up behind the couple’s female half, it’s hilarious and gruesome and wonderfully weird.

The film’s final short comes to us from YouTube sensations, Radio Silence (Matt Bettinelliolpin, Tyler Gillett, Justin Martin, and Chad Villella), and continues with the giggles that Swanberg and Barrett’s work first pulled from the audience. A haunted house story set on Halloween, the film follows the dudes as they go to a party in a big, creepy house, not realizing they may have just picked the world’s worst address. It’s a perfect way to end V/H/S – well-made, hilarious, and terrifying.

The Upside: V/H/S has something for every horror fan – jump scares, beasts, mythology, blood, technology monsters, gore, kills kills kills, haunted houses, ghosts, twists, turns – along with a wicked sense of humor to go along with it. Everyone will walk out of the theater with a favorite short.

The Downside: As with any anthology film, certain sections won’t appeal to certain moviegoers. The beginning and the first short are particularly slow, but worth getting through for some serious pay-off. The Wingard-directed wrap-around section works to engage, but it really doesn’t make a lick of sense when pondered.

On the Side: Oh, look! The film has already been picked up by Magnolia!

—

Snuggle up with the rest of our Sundance 2012 coverage

“There becomes this idea, this narrative that says, ‘Well, it’s going to be 13-30-year-old white men which is the target. Because we want to open.’ Because everyone makes their money opening weekend. Well that’s actually not the audience. There is an audience for all of this. We’ve just forgotten it.”

That’s George Clooney discussing the condescension inherent in the mindset of some executives in the studio system. His comment comes after a question to newly minted double Oscar nominee Viola Davis (The Help) is asked in the Newsweek Oscar roundtable why this is her first starring role. The answer?

“I’m a 46-year-old black woman who really doesn’t look like Halle Berry, and Halle Berry is having a hard time,” said Davis. A clever turn of phrase underlining the reality that there are few roles for women of a certain color and a certain age. It’s certainly a complex issue with any number of historical, social and artistic causes, but the numbers are certainly there.

The Daily Beast’s Allison Samuels parses this section of the dialogue (that also included Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Tilda Swinton, and Christopher Plummer). Her take away is a kind criticism of Theron for interrupting Davis with a well-meaning compliment that ultimately missed the point and shifted the conversation off of the weight of Davis’s claim. Samuels asserts that its the particular brand of naivete that Theron exhibits there that’s part of the problem. It’s hard to argue against that considering Davis’s polite response.

As to the bigger issue, Clooney’s ultimate villain in all this is Hollywood Math. He argues that the broader mindset in the studio world (and he uses “we” here) is that there is no influential audience outside of teenage and twentysomething males.

It’s a reflexive, self-sustaining argument. Put out a movie aimed at young men, make a billion dollars, (profit), and cement that catalyst for the next green light. What’s ironic is that it takes more people than young males to spend all that money, but studios have yet to understand how to release large films aimed at anyone else (unless it’s a built-in audience rooting for Team Edward). That inability colors judgment. After all, if you and the marketing team have no idea how to sell something, and are unwilling to take on the challenge of learning, approving a movie becomes highly improbable.

What’s fascinating here is that this all might be another symptom created by The Blockbuster Mentality. Admittedly, the issue cannot be reduced down, and it might be impossible to prove any sort of speculation about what causes it, but it’s not hard to imagine a world where the sentiments growing out of the Civil Rights Movement never had time to grow to fruition in a Hollywood that formed at the end of the late 70s as a factory of large-scale projects. All of the sudden there was a formula for making movies that placed minorities in secondary roles, and breaking out of that comes at the perceived risk of losing millions if not billions. If Movie A works that well, and Movie B looks exactly like it, why wouldn’t it succeed too?

It’s this kind of thinking that poisons the well of creativity and innovation. It also, presumably, could block out anything that isn’t the norm.

This comes out alongside the open letter from Red Hook co-writer by James McBride called “Being a Maid” where he outlines the irony in our first black president giving the state of the union on the same day that Davis and Octavia Spencer were nominated for Oscars as maids – the same role that won Hattie McDaniel her Oscar for Gone With the Wind 73 years ago.

The letter must be read in its entirety, but here’s the money quote:

“But this kind of cultural war puts minority storytellers – Blacks, Asians, Latinos and people of color – at a distinct disadvantage. My friend Spike Lee is a clear example.   Three days ago, at the premiere of  Red Hook Summer at The Sundance Film Festival, Spike, usually a cool and widely accepting soul whose professional life is as racially diverse as any American I know– lost his cool for 30 seconds. When prompted by a question from Chris Rock who was seated in the audience, he blurted out a small, clear truth: He said one reason we did Red Hook Summer independently was because he could not get Hollywood to green light the follow-up to “Inside Man” – which cost only $45 million to make and grossed a whopping $184,376,240 million domestically and worldwide – plus another $37 million domestically on DVD sales. Within minutes, the internet lit up with burning personal criticism of him stitched into negative reviews of “Red Hook Summer” by so-called film critics and tweeters. I don’t mind negative reviews. That’s life in the big leagues. But it’s the same old double standard. The recent success of “Red Tails” which depicts the story of the all black Tuskegee Airmen, is a clear example. Our last film, “Miracle At St. Anna,” which paid homage to the all-black 92^nd Division, which fought on the ground in Italy, was blasted before it even got out the gate. Maybe it’s a terrible film. Maybe it deserved to bomb. The difference is this: When George Lucas complained publicly about the fact that he had to finance his own film because Hollywood executives told him they didn’t know how to market a black film, no one called him a fanatic. But when Spike Lee says it, he’s a racist militant and a malcontent. Spike’s been saying the same thing for 25 years. And he had to go to Italy to raise money for a film that honors American soldiers, because unlike Lucas, he’s not a billionaire. He couldn’t reach in his pocket to create, produce, market, and promote his film like Lucas did with “Red Tails.”

But there’s a deeper, even more critical element here , because it’s the same old story: Nothing in this world happens unless white folks says it happens.”

It’s important to note that what McBride is doing is another form of Hollywood Math – something that reduces the effect down to either one or not nearly enough causes to get a meaningful idea of why a movie works or does not. However, it’s tough to argue with him about the reactions to Lucas and Lee. Maybe Lee invites this kind of scrutiny because he’s a powder keg of quotable anger, but they’re both essentially saying the same thing: Hollywood studios weren’t interested in a military action movie about a bunch of black airmen/soldiers.

Even though studios are gun shy over dishing out $58m to finance a movie, why not this one?

Obviously it’s a deep, cultural question that can’t be answered easily, but it’s still important to discuss. In a world where 2 out of 10 Actress Oscar Nominees is black, are we still fundamentally rooted in the world of 1939?