Review: Black Rock

This review was originally published on January 24, 2012 as part of Film.com’s coverage of The 2012 Sundance Film Festival.

There are so many things wrong with Katie Aselton’s Black Rock that it’s hard to know where to begin. I’m a fan of Aselton and her husband Mark Duplass, I watch them both religiously in The League on FX. As such, I had high hopes here – Aselton directs and stars, while Duplass penned the script.

Let’s cut right to the chase, even though the movie doesn’t. It runs by at a brisk 83 minutes, but for some reason the excruciatingly slow beginning takes forever to pick up steam. We have three friends: Abby (Aselton), Sarah (Kate Bosworth), and Lou (Lake Bell). We soon learn Abby and Lou have been holding some kind of grudge for years. The gals meet a group of local hillbillies wandering the island. The gentleman used to be in the armed forces, but were let go after each received a dishonorable discharge. This is apparently enough information for us to understand that they’re no-good scum. They know one of the ex-soldiers so a paper-thin line can be drawn from the antagonists to the women.

What follows is one of the most generic and mundane hunter/stalker movies out there. It’s Deliverance-lite. Placing three women in this role (and having them fight against men) isn’t original, anyone who has seen a few horror movies knows that women have been dispatching male slashers and killers ever since the dawn of horror cinema. So when the trio of girls get the crap beat out of them (over and over) you never feel as though they’re in actual danger. Movies like this are only as good as their villain, and the antagonists here are downright terrible. They’re goofy and moronic. The two hillbillies in Shark Night provided more of a scare. At least one of those guys had the sense to file his teeth down into shark teeth so we knew he was a bad guy. The girls talk about the fellas like they’re trained killers, but the type of killing savvy these guys possess is stunningly idiotic, they’re completely inept at it.

Mark Duplass wrote this whole movie while on a “weather-induced layover.” When your movie turns out like this one, that’s nothing to brag about. Sure, Duplass has an ear for intimate conversational dialogue, and is one of the quickest when it comes to improvising on screen. Unfortunately, when it comes to the world of horror he’s out of his element. The screenplay is far too obsessed with the setup, and not at all concerned with making the villains even the least bit believable or scary.

SCORE: 2.5 / 10

Categories: Reviews

Tags: Black Rock, Katie Aselton, Mark duplass, Sundance 2012, Sundance review

10 Great Black & White Films From the Last 20 Years

The upcoming Spring releases of two much-hyped black-and-white movies – Noah Baumbach’s “Frances Ha,” starring co-writer Greta Gerwig as an aspiring dancer, and Joss Whedon’s barebones stab at “Much Ado About Nothing” – left us wondering what modern movies have succeeded without the benefit of a full palette. So, with that in mind, here’s a look back at ten gloriously colorless (or largely color-deprived) movies from the last two decades.

“SCHINDLER’S LIST” (Steven Spielberg) 1993

The most famous director of all-time has loads of classics under his belt, including “E.T.” “Jaws” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” but most critics view “Schindler’s List,” Spielberg’s deeply personal Holocaust drama, as his masterwork. Speilberg used color only sporadically through the film, most memorably on a small Jewish girl’s red coat as she attempts to navigate the chaos of the Krakow ghetto, and in the final scene as Schindler Jews are shown at Oskar Schindler’s grave site in Jerusalem.

“ED WOOD” (Tim Burton) 1994

Before he viewed powdering and propping up Johnny Depp as passable filmmaking, Tim Burton was was crafting some of the most entertaining movies of the late eighties and early nineties, including “Beetlejuice” and “Edward Scissorhands.” But Burton’s best examination of outsiderdom might have been “Ed Wood,” his biopic of the “Plan 9 From Outer Space” director, with Depp shining in the titular role. Burton returned to black-and-white with last year’s stop-motion fantasy “Frankenweenie” — a well-received return to form for Burton that was quietly one of the most fun-to-watch animated movies of the year.

“CLERKS” (Kevin Smith) 1994

In 2013, Kevin Smith has his fair share of detractors, and his directing career has proven to be a case of diminishing returns. But love him or hate him (and certainly you do one of those two things) Smith’s crudely acted, shoestring-budget debut “Clerks” has been hugely influential on the modern comedy scene, paving the way for mumblecore and the Apatow empire by making aimless dialogue about sex and “Star Wars” totally kosher, just so long as it’s entertaining. The movie also went on to inspire a (colored) sequel and a highly underrated animated television spin-off. Smith recently announced he will round out the “Clerks” saga as a trilogy, and make “Clerks 3? his final film.

“FOLLOWING” (Chris Nolan) 1998

Christopher Nolan’s first feature, made for a nearly unfathomable $6,000 dollars, feels like a $250 million universe from “The Dark Knight Rises.” But the twisty neo noir is still a Nolan flick through and through, featuring a meticulous plot, non-linear narrative, and obsessive characters with motivations you can’t quite pin down until the end. Nolan scores craftiness points not only for his clever story, which revolves around a shifty loner who begins to follow strangers, but also his ability to pull it off on an essentially non-existant budget.

“THE GIRL ON THE BRIDGE” (Patrice Leconte) 1999

Patrice Leconte is one of the few filmmakers whose range and restlessness might put Steven Soderbergh to shame. This glisteningly monochrome 1999 charmer about a knife-thrower (the great Daniel Auteuil) who uses suicidal young women as targets for his circus act plays like a mad French emulsion of a Federico Fellini film. Starring the gorgeously gap-toothed Vanessa Paradis as a girl with all the love in the world but no one on whom to pin it, this woozy romantic does more with shades than most movies could with a full Technicolor palette.

“THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE” (Joel and Ethan Coen) 2001

Buried in the shadow of three better-known Coen Brothers works (“Fargo,” “The Big Lebowski,” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou”), the often-overlooked “The Man Who Wasn’t There” is among the two-headed directing monsters’ best. As usual, the Coens were none too kind to their protagonist, sending the reticent Ed Crane (an exceptional Billy Bob Thornton) on a bottomless downward spiral following a failed blackmailing scheme. The neo noir throwback features appearances from Coen regulars Frances McDormand, Jon Pilito, and Richard Jenkins, as well some inspired villainy from James Gandolfini, and a pre-stardom Scarlett Johansson.

“SIN CITY” (Robert Rodriguez) 2005

Robert Rodriguez’s adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel was just as entertaining as it was uber-violent, and brought Mickey Rourke back onto the Hollywood map with his memorable turn as the murderous, damn-near unkillable Marv. The gory neo noir, which also starred Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro, Rosario Dawson, and Bruce Willis, opened the door for more R-rated graphic novel adaptations – including “The 300? “The Watchmen” and Kick-Ass” – to make it into theaters. The long-anticipated sequel, “A Dame to Kill For,” is due out later this year.

“GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK” (George Clooney) 2005

George Clooney established himself as serious filmmaker with “Good Night and Good Look” a behind-the-scenes look at hard-smoking, no-nonsense Edward R. Murrow’s toe-to-toe face-off with Joseph McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare. It didn’t hurt that Clooney put together an impressive cast that included Robert Downey Jr., Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels and an unforgettable David Straitharn as the stone-faced Murrow. Serving as a slick criticism of the Bush administration’s War on Terror, “Good Night and Good Luck” made a compelling case for television – probably our most sneered-at medium – to be used in an ongoing battle against dishonesty and injustice.

“PERSEPOLIS” (Vincent Paronnaud & Marjane Satrapi) 2007

Part coming-of-age tale and part exploration of the complex effects of United States interventionism, Marjane Satrapi’s animated adaptation of her autobiographical graphic novel suited the screen every bit as well as it suited the page. Satrapi’s tale of growing up amidst the political turmoil of 1980s Iran served as a touching reminder that while the grown-ups of the world grapple with religion and geopolitics, kids everywhere mostly just want to wear sneakers, drink a little booze, and listen to Michael Jackson. Strapi credits the movie’s black-and-white luck to her background in underground comics.

“THE WHITE RIBBON” (Michael Haneke) 2009

Michael Haneke is one of the few foreign directors regularly recognized in the United States, and for good reason: his work, from “Cache” to “Amour,” is consistently beautiful and wrenching. “White Ribbon,” his bleak examination of oppressive rural life in pre-World War I Germany, is just as haunting and heavy as his better-known works, and almost impossible to imagine in color. ‘The White Ribbon” went somewhat under the radar in the US, but took home the Palme d’Or at Cannes in 2009.

Editor’s note: I’d add “Tabu,” “Lake of Fire,” “The Day He Arrives,” and pretty much everything made by Béla Tarr and Guy Maddin. What are some of your favorites, or films that we’re forgetting? Let us know in the comments section below.

Categories: Features

Tags: Black & White, Ed Wood, Frances Ha, Much Ado About Nothing, Schindler's list, The White Ribbon

Twitter Fights Back Against the Racist Reactions to a Black Human Torch

Yesterday, the folks over at The Wrap revealed that director Josh Trank is considering the possibility of casting his “Chronicle” star Michael B. Jordan in the role of comic book superhero Johnny Storm — aka The Human Torch — in the upcoming relaunch of “The Fantastic Four,” which is scheduled to hit theaters in the summer of 2015.

Needless to say, fan reaction to this idea has been mixed, falling somewhere between “that’s cool” and “OMG IT’S ARMAGEDDON!!!!” on the freak out scale. The “problem” some fans see with the casting news? Jordan happens to be African-American, while Johnny Storm traditionally is not.

Now, this doesn’t really seem like that big a deal to us. Jordan is already one of the most highly respected actors of his generation, not only landing a major smash in “Chronicle” but also earning rave reviews for his work on the legendary HBO series “The Wire” as well as the breakout Sundance hit “Fruitvale Station.” And if there’s one thing that Marvel’s superhero movies have proven over the past five years, it’s that the quality of the actor is even more important than the quality of the CGI. Getting top talent is trumps all.

At least, to some people. To others… well, maybe not so much.

One thing that’s interesting about “The CheekyBrit’s” complaint is that it’s framed in terms of Jordan’s age. As it happens, Jordan is actually 23. More to the point, however, is the fact that in the comics, Johnny Storm was 16 when he became the Human Torch. A literally hot-headed teenager with super powers was the entire point of the character. So that argument seems a bit misguided to say the least.

Other protesters, however, just cut right to the chase when voicing their displeasure.

Honestly, we’re just glad we finally found out who poached the handle “BalloonMerchant” from us. That’s been bugging us for awhile.

But not, apparently, as much as the idea of a black Human Torch is bugging these guys. On one level, it’s kind of understandable only in the sense that comic fans are notoriously touchy about Hollywood screwing around with their beloved characters. Heck, there was a massive outcry when Jack Nicholson was cast as The Joker in Tim Burton’s 1989 version of “Batman” and he turned out to be the best part of the film. So fanboys definitely have a history of histrionics.

This, on the other hand, does feel a bit different, not in the least because, seriously, does anyone really feel that passionately about the Human Torch?

Luckily, there were other Twitter users on hand to put things back into perspective.

From where we’re sitting, both “artboiled” and “FreakishNerd” cut right to the heart of the question. The goal of any film, superhero or not, is to cast strong actors in well rounded roles. If you do those two things well, the rest of the movie will pretty much take care of itself. Does it matter that this new Human torch may be black? Well, it only matters insofar as Jordan’s performance makes it matter.

And frankly, “The Fantastic Four” has much bigger hurdles to face, such as the fact that screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith hasn’t exactly been setting the world on fire himself recently, as “ZacharyWhitten” so eloquently pointed out.

And for fans still clutching their pearls over the fact that the Human Torch might end up being portrayed by an African-American actor, we offer up these two final facts. Firstly, Johnny Storm only exists because the original Human Torch, who was an android named Jim Hammond, was completely revamped and reconceptualized to make him more appealing to modern audiences. And secondly, the “Fantastic Four” cartoon from the 1970's thought so highly of Johnny Storm that he was left out of the show entirely, replaced by the epically stupid HERBIE the Robot.

So the idea that Johnny Storm as Human Torch is some kind of inviolate trust that can never be changed? Yeah. Right.

Keep on fighting, Twitter.

Categories: News

Tags: Chronicle, Fantastic four, Josh trank, Matthew vaughn, Michael b. jordan

Director’s Cut: Shane Black and Kevin Feige on Customizing ‘Iron Man 3′

Phase Two of Marvel’s movie universe kicks off on May 3 when “Iron Man 3” rockets into theaters. This time we find Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), who is still traumatized by his near-death experience in “The Avengers,” forced to face a more personal threat when his Malibu mansion is destroyed and he embarks on a quest to find those responsible. As he fights his way back after his world literally crumbles around him, Tony is forced to consider if the man makes the suit or the suit makes the man.

We sat down with Marvel president and “Iron Man 3? producer Kevin Feige and “Iron Man 3? director-writer Shane Black to discuss what sets this “Iron Man” apart from the previous films, which Marvel character Feige feels most protective of, and if moviegoers can glean any information about “The Avengers 2? from the post-credits scenes like the one in “Iron Man 3.”

Read our review of “Iron Man 3? here.

Robert DeSalvo: Kevin, for Iron Man’s third stand-alone movie, what specifically did you want to do differently from the other “Iron Man” films?

KEVIN FEIGE: Well, the most important thing was to make a good part three. The curse of the threequel is something that people write a lot about, and I didn’t want to fall prey to that. One way to try to not fall prey to that was do something different and not rely on making things bigger, bigger, bigger. Although, ironically, this has some of the biggest action set pieces in any of our movies. But, knowing that it would come a year after “The Avengers,” we wanted to focus on Tony again. What we found in “Iron Man” and less so in “Iron Man 2? was that audiences really respond to Tony—as brash and egotistical as he is. When he’s knocked down a peg and he’s backed into a corner, they like watching him get out of it. With one of our first conversations with Shane, we said we want to metaphorically put him back into that cave and convoy from the first one. People see in the trailer the house coming down, and that is the start of a journey that I hope is very unique and unexpected for a superhero.

RD: Shane, your script is the best “Iron Man” yet—there is a lot of action, but there are great comic moments. Did your work on the first two “Lethal Weapon” movies influence any of the interactions in “Iron Man 3?? There is a similar vibe at times.

SHANE BLACK: There is a similar vibe and a similar pace—the notion of checking in with people and seeing as their lives are progressing as things start circling around them and the net gets tighter and tighter until they are in over their heads. There is tossing in of different characters like the ["Lethal Weapon"] Joe Pesci character… in this case we have the little boy. There are escalating set pieces until they are in the most desperate situation and have to pull out all the stops. So, yeah, the shape of it is not that dissimilar, but having this kind of a canvas to paint on with this much spectacle was pretty neat.

RD: Kevin, was Jon Favreau at all interested in directing this installment or did he only want to reprise his role as Happy Hogan?

KF: Early on, it was clear that he was going to go do other things right after “Iron Man 2? came out. That being said, he’s an executive producer on the movie, “Avengers” and the upcoming “Avengers 2.” He wanted to stay in the family and help. It was important to all of us that Happy be the catalyst that sends Tony on this mission. It’s certainly the best Happy performance and storyline.

RD: Shane, abduction is a recurring theme in a lot of your movies. Is there something you want to tell us?

SB: [Laughs] I think I try to stay away from it as much as possible. There was a version of the script where Pepper went along knowingly or unwittingly with these guys and was sort of just traveling with the bad guys at some point. Eventually, it came down to the simplicity that she is going to become subdued, so it became this abduction plot. We saw that coming—the damsel-in-distress potential—so we had to take the curse off. She doesn’t stay captive for very long.

RD: Kevin, out of all the great Marvel characters in all the big Marvel movies that you’ve produced, do you have a character that you love most and feel most protective towards?

KF: Well, I like to think that I’m protective of all of them because the truth is that when we got the financing to become our own studio—I was excited that we had Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, Hawkeye and Black Widow—I said, “I can’t believe this. This is great.” Then the “L.A. Times” said that we had the B-team and that Marvel was scraping the bottom of the barrel. I thought, these are all A-list—they just don’t know it yet. The fact that “Iron Man” is arguably bigger than them makes me pleased and even more protective of all of them, but certainly “Iron Man”  kicked it all off. “Iron Man” was the first movie we had the final say on—from the choice of Favreau to the choice of Downey and playing with real life like convoy attacks in Afghanistan—it was sort of all of our instincts wrapped into one movie. So I would say “Iron Man” is the most representative of the birth of our studio.

RD: Shane, Sir Ben Kingsley steals scenes in “Iron Man 3.” Did you have more laughs writing his dialogue or the banter between Tony Stark and the young boy?

SB: Those were all fun. Tony Stark and the boy were fun days because Robert and the kid had a chance to bond and you could really see it happen. Sir Ben was probably my favorite actor to have met and work with just because I’ve never met a more competent, effective and yet gracious and absolutely humble man. You hear stories about these actors that come in and have all these demands. From the beginning, this guy was just everything about the elegant, artful British actor.

KF: Sir Ben is an amazing human being. Often times when actors sign up for our movies they don’t read the scripts because either we’re being overly cautious and security-minded or the script hasn’t been written yet. I was in London at a press junket for “Avengers” and Sir Ben had signed up to do the movie. It occurred to me that he didn’t know what he was doing in the movie, so I went out to visit him and pitched him what the storyline was. To his credit, he got it instantly. He said, “Tell Shane that I get it completely and I’m completely on board,” including what to say and not say in interviews. He just overdelivered.

RD: Warner Bros. yanked “Gangster Squad” out of theaters and refilmed a theater scene because of the Colorado theater shootings. “Iron Man 3? involves terrorist bombings. Did you consider changing anything given recent events in Boston?

KF: I was never privy to any of those conversations if they were had. Our first thought was just Boston and is everyone OK. My wife and I were both born in Boston, I have family in Boston, so that’s all we were thinking about. The truth is that what happens in “Iron Man 3? is a very different thing.

SB: There were explosions and the word “terrorist,” but that’s about the sum of it in “Iron Man 3.” As opposed to, say, a shooting in a movie theater.

RD: Is there some connecting thread viewers should look for in the post-credits scenes that you will have with all the Marvel Phase Two films leading up to “Avengers 2??

KF: The tags certainly have less pressure as connective tissue because everyone knows the movies are connected now. We were educating the audience as much as anything else in the Phase One films, so I think we’re liberated to allow the tags to be anything if we do them at all. It all depends on when inspiration strikes. I would say that there is an overall arching theme to the movies, but it won’t become apparent until you see “Avengers 2.” I don’t think there is anything obvious in “Iron Man 3? that you can see, but it connects.

Categories: Interviews

Tags: Ben kingsley, Director's cut, Interview, Iron man 2, Iron Man 3, Kevin Feige, Shane Black, The Mandarin