THE BEAVER

Written by Kyle Killen

Directed by Jodie Foster

Starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin and Jennifer Lawrence

The Beaver: Everybody needs a friend, Walter, and you've got me.

Who does depression hurt? Everybody. Ordinarily, this would mean to include everyone directly involved with a person suffering from depression but thanks to Jodie Foster, now depression can also hurt everyone who comes to see her latest directorial effort, THE BEAVER, as well. While I’m sure she was well intentioned, Foster’s eager beaver preoccupation with rehabilitating the image of her maligned co-star, Mel Gibson, must have distracted her from seeing that the film’s lack of focus was ultimately gnawing away at its own foundation the whole time.

It is no secret that THE BEAVER is meant to be a prestige picture designed to remind the filmgoing public that they once loved Gibson for his talent and charisma, both of which have returned fully to form in THE BEAVER. While Gibson may successfully handle the material, this does not mean the material itself is doing him any good. Gibson is Walter Black, a family man with a successful career who just can’t seem to be happy. He is hopelessly depressed, as we are reminded frequently at the film’s onset, and he has tried every therapy known to man to fix himself save for one. Up until now, he has never considered giving into his depression and just allowing it to take over his life. Enter the beaver.

After an unsuccessful suicide attempt, Walter snaps and begins living through the beaver, a puppet that has seen better days but that now rests comfortably on Walter’s left hand and speaks in a delightfully chipper Australian accent. Apparently, the inherently playful nature of the beaver makes it possible for Walter to instantaneously shelf his bigger issues and function successfully again in society, despite society’s discomfort with his unorthodox manner of expression. Gibson goes back and forth between his two personas with impressive ease, finding himself in some rather uncomfortable predicaments. Still, the tone of the film gets confused – is this psychotic lapse meant to be jovial? The underlying quirkiness borders on offensive at times, as it undermines the seriousness of the situation at hand.

The beaver places a convenient wall between Walter and all he encounters, protecting him from hurt and pain. Foster’s oversimplification of the subject matter takes that same wall and puts it up between THE BEAVER itself and it’s audience. We are never allowed in to the movie, which makes some sense considering all the characters have their own metaphoric beavers to protect themselves as well. The insinuation though that if we would just let down our guards and allow people in, no matter how difficult that may be, is almost insulting to those of us who still walk the world alone. The fact that the advice comes from a puppet is what ultimately damns the whole thing.

THOR

Written by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz and Don Payne

Directed by Kenneth Brannagh

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins

Erik Selvig: It's not a bad thing finding out you don't have all the answers. Now you can start asking the right questions.

So I Thor-oughly enjoyed THOR. I’ll be honest; I was not expecting to. I certainly enjoy the occasional comic book film, be it about a boy with serious spider issues or a technology genius with a giant ego and a sharp tongue. That said, I’m hardly an enthusiast. Of late, I’ve felt like Marvel has been making anything they’ve ever drawn into a movie and when I first saw the trailer for THOR, I thought, enough already. The two mediums are not meant to be mutually exclusive and not every character deserves to be reinvented for the big screen. Fortunately though, director Kenneth Brannagh has proven me very wrong. Perhaps this might have something to do with Thor not being your typical superhero; Thor is a god and he is a mighty one indeed.

To be fair, Thor isn’t really a god. He was merely seen as one by Viking culture way back around 965 A.D. He is immortal though and I can see how that might be misinterpreted as god-like but no, Thor is just a man – from another galaxy, with super crazy strength, who can never die … and who has an insane body. Still, mistaking him for a god makes his fall from grace oh so much further. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is heir to the throne of Asgard and is on the cusp of inheriting the crown from his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) when he allows pride and selfishness to guide him down a path that leads his people into war. Odin banishes Thor to Earth and strips him of his power, including his infamous hammer, which some of you geekier readers may know as Mjöllnir. God or no God, everyone has their lessons to learn.

Once Thor is on Earth, the action cuts back and forth seamlessly between the mystical heaven-like beauty of Asgard, where magic and science are one and the same and this teeny tiny town in New Mexico, population next to nothing. While the setup that precedes this act is certainly densely weighted in mythology and mysticism, it gets decidedly lighter once Thor crashes to Earth from the heavens. This is in great part due to Thor’s interaction with the team of scientists he runs into, led by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and the quick witted repartee they partake in. Thor is now a strange demi-god in a strange land and Hemsworth plays his predicament with great resolve. He cannot help but be humbled by the damage he has done, his inability to rely on the strength he always has and the genuine caring he gets from Jane. The real chemistry between Hemsworth and a hilarious Portman plays a key role in grounding this otherworldly tale.

What truly cements this fantastical story as still undeniably human is the father-son struggle between Thor and Odin. Brannagh, with his extensive background in Shakespeare, both on screen and on stage, knows that the action in THOR is the easy part. That hammer gives him the strength to defeat armies practically on his own and so whatever action he gets himself into, it will take care of itself. But the heart of the film has to be relatable. Thor is but a boy learning how to become a man, learning to put the good of the universe before himself. Odin is just a father, waiting for his boy to find the inner virtue he knew all along to be there. We’ve all been there, more or less. And so, Brannagh becomes his own incarnation of Odin, providing the tools that make it possible for a comic book to grow into the movie it was always meant to be.

Black Sheep interviews Morgan Spurlock

THE GREATEST INTERVIEW EVER SOLD

An interview with Morgan Spurlock

In the creative world, there is one sin that is reviled above all others – selling out. But just what is a struggling auteur filmmaker to do in these crazy times of blockbusters and bottom lines to make sure his film is still seen? Heck, how is he even going to get his quirky little movie made for that matter considering the mounting cost of the supposedly independent film? Well, he could give up a tiny bit of creative control and allow a little product placement into his latest oeuvre, but how would he even know how to get to hell if he decided to shake hands with the devil?

Enter Morgan Spurlock; the infamous documentary filmmaker recently made his latest film on location in hell and he can tell you just how you can buy in before selling out. “If you’re going to make a big movie,” Spurlock tells me over the phone, immediately following the Canadian premiere of his third documentary feature, POM WONDERFUL PRESENTS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD at the prestigious HotDocs Canadian International Documentary Festival in Toronto, “you need all these promotional partners to drive awareness, to create a mentality around the movie, to make it bigger than life. We bought into this whole idea.” With this in mind, Spurlock set out to make what he calls the IRON MAN of documentaries, coining the term, “docbuster”.

Just like our virgin auteur though, Spurlock did not know where to begin on his quest. To make matters worse, said quest was extremely arduous. “We sat down with people from product placement companies,” he explains of the process. “None of these people wanted to help us.” This was not for lack of any effort on Spurlock’s part; there were other forces at play. “I immersed myself in ad speak to explain to people in a way that would get them excited to work with somebody who was potentially tainted or who comes with the kind of baggage that I do from a corporate standpoint.”

For those of you unfamiliar with any reason corporations might be hesitant to work with Spurlock, you have clearly not seen SUPER SIZE ME. The 2004 Academy Award nominated documentary put Spurlock front in center as the face of the film and found him embarking on a McDonald’s only diet for 30 days. His intent was not to lambaste the fast food giant but rather to look at the health issues associated with an all fast food diet. Regardless, the damage to one specific brand was fairly clear and Spurlock was subsequently branded himself, as an anti-establishment troublemaker.

On a related topic, Spurlock did contact McDonald’s about participating in THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD. It went a little something like this. “’Hey. It’s me, Morgan. It’s going to be really different this time, I promise. Please call me back.’ They never did.”

Once upon a time, it was only known as THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD. The brand above the title would depend on which company was willing to shell out the top buy in price of $1 million. Spurlock contacted hundreds of companies to obtain sponsorship partnering for the film but would only have successful conversations with about 3% of those. “Ultimately we had to reevaluate every day as to why we were doing this,” he confides without any hesitation. “People would say there is no way we are going to let you super size our business like you did that other company.” Abercrombie & Fitch actually asked if they had to spell out to him why he wasn't the appropriate half-naked body, I mean, face to represent them. Ouch.

Spurlock did manage to snag a grand total of 22 sponsors, including major sponsor, POM Wonderful – hence the name above the title of the film. Other sponsors include Old Navy, JetBlue and Sheetz, an American convenience store chain that would get Spurlock’s face on collectible soft drink cups, a first for any documentary. Obtaining those contracts make up the first part of the film and, while accomplishing this goal was difficult enough, what would follow would seem even more insurmountable.

Getting in bed with commercial sponsors, which is where every penny of financing for this film came from, means meeting the demands they make in exchange for their large financing contributions. Sure, Spurlock could fly around the country courtesy of JetBlue and could stay at Hyatt’s wherever he went but that meant he had to include actual commercial spots he made himself for these companies in the finished product. And how is this not selling out exactly?

“We pushed back any time anyone wanted approval or final cut of the movie, which ultimately made the film stronger.” This is Spurlock’s rationale for buying in. As long as you are still calling the shots, so to speak, and the movie you make is still your own, then you are buying in, not selling out. “This way it doesn’t feel like a 90-minute commercial.”

Transparency is a key issue for Spurlock and the film’s success. Applied to advertising, transparency allows you to be clearly informed when you are being advertised to. In the context of the film, that application is expanded to shine a light on the entire process in a more extreme fashion. “We pull the curtain back and when the film is over, it changes the way you look at marketing and advertising in the real world.”

And while this is a great feat, accomplished by a great film and filmmaker, there is one other thing Spurlock has noticed on the minds of filmgoers when they’ve finished with THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD. “When you walk out of the theatre, you also mysteriously have to have a POM right away.”

Money well spent, POM Wonderful, money well spent.

Black Sheep interviews Charles Officer

MIGHTY CHARLES

An interview with MIGHTY JEROME writer/director,

CHARLES OFFICER

In 2002, Toronto-born filmmaker, Charles Officer, was asked to be someone’s date to the Harry Jerome Awards, an annual event that honours excellence among the African-Canadian population. Although he knew the name going in – the late Jerome famously ran track for Canada – he did not know the incredible history that shaped Jerome’s legacy. He was inspired at the time but he had no idea just how great an impact Jerome would have on his life, let alone that he would become the subject of his second feature film, entitled Mighty Jerome.

Five years later, Officer would come face to face with the track star once again, when the National Film Board approached him to potentially direct a feature documentary about Jerome’s life. At that time, Officer had only directed a handful of shorts and had yet to focus his passion on filmmaking, coming from a background that included graphic design, architecture, acting and even professional hockey. He had not even begun shooting his first feature, Nurse.Fighter.Boy, which would go on to earn the writer/director 10 Genie nominations after a successful festival run. Suffice it to say, he was a bit taken aback by the NFB’s interest. Not one to cower though, Officer attacked the opportunity with the same fervor Jerome might have attacked a race.

“I had heard about this man before but I only knew that he was a fast runner, not what he actually accomplished,” Officer tells me when we meet just days before Mighty Jerome bows at the prestigious Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival. “I was nervous as hell but I just came at it from that naïve place. I was so nervous that I over prepared.”

Officer’s preparation would ultimately win him the job over a handful of other directors. Having never made a documentary though, he would now have to figure out just what that entailed. “I wanted to push the experience,” he says, with clear sincerity in his tone. “There are formulas that work but it really comes down to the story and how you’re going to interpret that cinematically.” Officer chose to do so in delectable black and white, breaking up his time between touching and engaging testimonials, extensive archival footage and striking recreations.

To become more intimately familiar with Jerome’s life, Officer began by interviewing the people who knew him best, from the coach that brought him back from the brink of oblivion, Bill Bowerman, to his surprisingly supportive ex-wife, Wendy Jerome. “This guy affected his friends in a deep way,” says Officer, clearly also impacted by their vast admiration. “Sometimes, before interviews even started, people would break down.”

While the interviews would shape Officer’s treatment for the film, it didn’t hurt that the story he was telling was so naturally compelling to begin with. Jerome broke out onto the international track scene in 1960 when he tied the 100-meter dash world record at the time. He instantly became a national hero and Canada’s greatest hope for a gold medal at the 1960 Olympics in Rome, Italy. When he failed to place there due to an injury, the backlash from the Canadian press was not only unduly harsh but it also exposed a Canadian attitude towards race that had prior to this been neatly hidden beneath a polite surface.

“What Harry experienced was paramount to how we saw Canadian politics with the civil rights movement at that time,” Officer states. “We don’t hear about certain elements of that struggle [in Canada] and we also don’t hear about how we’ve grown.”

Out of his hardships, Jerome would also grow to earn an underdog status on the world track circuit and we all know how much people love comeback stories. “It’s such a Hollywood story, dying so young, achieving all he did and the racism,” Officer gushes. “I was like, why hasn’t this already been made? Why haven’t I seen this already?”

One could argue that Jerome’s story was just waiting for the right person to tell it. Mighty Jerome is after all a fine piece of cinema. The uncannily natural arc to Jerome’s life might have made the structure of the film a little easier to piece together but it is Officer’s calculated and concerted effort to tell that story with distinction and respect that ensures it crosses that finish line triumphantly. And now that the race is over, “I am so hungry to dive in creatively now,” Officer exclaims, eyes beaming. “I just want to get to my next film.”

Just like an athlete, always thinking about the next race.

Mighty Jerome screens at Hot Docs on Friday, April 29, 9:30 PM @ TIFF Bell Lightbox, Saturday, April 30, 11:20 AM @ the Isabel Bader Theatre and Sunday, May 8, 4:30 PM at The Revue cinema. For more information, please visit Hot Docs online.

The film then makes it's way to the 27th Vue d'Afriques festival in Montreal before a Canadian theatrical run. For more information on the film, please visit NFB online.

This story originally appeared in Hour Community.

I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS

Written and Directed by John Requa and Glenn Ficarra

Starring Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor and Leslie Mann

Phillip Morris: Enough romance. Let's Fuck.

I suppose it is fitting that a movie about a man who never quite grasps who he truly is should suffer from the same issues. I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS is a rather ridiculous account of the life of Steven Jay Russell, an American con man with an uncanny ability to break out of prisons. On one of his fateful visits to the big house, he met the love of his life, Phillip Morris, and proceeded to break them both out of prison so that they could live happily ever after. His story has it all, from dangerous escapes to fraudulent scams to even gay prison sex but yet somehow, in the hands of writing/directing team, John Requa and Glenn Ficarra (CATS & DOGS), his life amounts to nothing more than a big old boring mess.

Russell was adopted as a baby. He grew up to become a police officer in a small town. He married and had children. He felt abandoned but aside from that gaping hole in his heart, he was content. He was at least until one day, when he got into an automobile accident and decided he had enough of living a lie. It was time for Russell to live as an out and proud homosexual. He divorced, moved to Miami and got himself a cute, younger boyfriend and, if you are to believe the incredibly tacky clichéd picture the directors paint, he also got too matching miniature dogs to parade up and down the street with said younger, cuter boyfriend. There was just one tiny problem; being gay is expensive and Russell had no skills that could afford him the lavish lifestyle he and his boy toy had grown accustomed to.

This is when Russell turned to insurance fraud. It is also the point where the film starts to get thoroughly lost. Russell is played by Jim Carrey, who is the first person who comes to my mind when I picture believable gay men strutting down Miami Beach in white cargos and a T-shirt that is two sizes too small. I guess the costume people wanted to make sure there was no confusion over his sexuality, just in case it wasn’t coming through in the performance. I personally think Carrey doesn’t get the credit he deserves for some of his dramatic turns but the trouble here is he can’t seem to decide whether this particular turn is meant to be dramatic or comedic. I’m sure he had no assistance from his directors mind you. There are some genuine attempts at touching moments in the film and Carrey handles them as well as he can but then the next scene will rely solely on Carrey’s humorous side, only without the actual humour.

And what of Phillip Morris? I mean, he is in the title and all. Phillip Morris is another minor offender doing time, played by Ewan McGregor, who is as swishy as he can be with his pretty blue eyes and horrifically dyed strawberry blond hair. The twosome meet in a library one day and it is love at first sight. Well, they stare longingly into each other’s eyes for no reason other than the fact that they are gay and standing next to each other so naturally I assume this is the great love it is meant to be. Once together, I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS doesn’t seem to know what to do with them or itself. Is it a comedy or a serious romance? Is this really the treatment of someone’s life story? Because if it is, it plays as though it were completely made up or implausible. More importantly, is the intended audience meant to be gay or straight? It shouldn’t matter but there are moments when it isn’t clear whether the filmmakers are laughing with or at their heroes. To that extent though, I guess it doesn’t matter who the audience is meant to be as I don’t see there being much of an audience for this film at all.

AFRICAN CATS

Directed by Alastair Fothergill and Keith Scholey

Narrated by Samuel L. Jackson

Do you know what is amazing about nature? For me, it is that, despite being so complex, it unfolds without any evident intervention and more often than not, without the notice it deserves. You might even say nature just happens “naturally”. You might not though if you a) had no desire to make anyone’s eyes roll back into their head and b) if you were the creative team behind Disney Nature’s third offering, AFRICAN CATS. Directors Alastair Fothergill and Keith Scholey are both gentlemen with backgrounds in nature photography – Fothergill even worked on Disney Nature’s EARTH and the wildly successful BBC series that film was based on, Planet Earth. There is no question that they do an incredible job capturing breathtaking shots of a lush savanna in southwestern Kenya and its awesome inhabitants but what they do with them is nothing short of manipulation.

Samuel L. Jackson tells us from the very beginning that AFRICAN CATS is the story of two mothers, a lioness named Layla and a cheetah named Sita, and their struggles to raise their cubs in the wild. My first thought was how does Jackson know their names? Had they been formally introduced? I was then told that animals on preserves, like the Maasai Mara National Reserve where AFRICAN CATS was shot, are given names. Fine, he had me there. And surely the experts on the preserve have been observing these majestic animals for years, therefore able to make educated assumptions about their behaviour patterns and motivations. When Jackson laments about one lioness’s sadness as she limps off into the sunset to die alone though, complete with heart-tugging string score accompaniment of course, it becomes a bit of a stretch to think anyone can get that deep into a lion’s head. That said, when the action on screen gets violent – and it does, Mom’s and Dad’s – Jackson sounds as if he might at any moment break into his famous PULP FICTION speech. Those lesser animals will know the lion is the lord when he lays his vengeance upon them alright.

Like any documentary, you cannot know how your subject matter will play out ahead of time. You have to pick what you think is going to be most compelling and follow it in hopes that it lives up to its potential. Plenty happens in AFRICAN CATS and it is engaging action. Empires are challenged and fought for; hunts happen regularly; there are even plenty of “Awwww …” moments between the cubs and their prides. The melodramatic elements of the script that are assigned to the action feel forced and thin though, binding nature too tightly to the story just often enough to throw the film’s authenticity into question. Did this really happen when it did or did they move the action around so that the narrative still made sense? We can’t know for sure so we have to take their word for it. When you dress something up as much as AFRICAN CATS does nature though, it makes me wonder how much of that word I can really take.

RAGING BULL

Written by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Starring Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Cathy Moriarty

Jake LaMotta: Hey Ray! Never went down man. You never got me down, Ray.

When Martin Scorsese’s RAGING BULL was released theatrically in 1980, it was actually not as well received as you might think. Scorsese’s sixth feature film is generally today considered to be one of the best American films ever made but at the time, it was a bit much for many. Today, we are accustomed to unlikable protagonists. In 1980, to kick back and enjoy a film about Jake LaMotta (Robert De Niro), a boxer who fights just as hard with himself, and the people in his life, as he does with his opponents in the ring, was likely just as jarring as any given boxing match would be for a non-boxing enthusiast. Shot in stunning black and white, Scorsese does not pull any punches with RAGING BULL, allowing all the abuse, violence and overall paranoia that consumed LaMotta’s life to take center stage on screen. After 10 crazy rounds, its hard not feel knocked out.

Jake LaMotta is a Bronx born fighter. He began his professional boxing career at the age of 19 and would go on to win the middleweight championship before retiring in the 1950’s. After leaving boxing behind him because of injuries, he went on to a life as a nightclub owner and moonlighted as an actor and comedian. In his entire life, he has been married six times and has four children. In RAGING BULL, his first marriage is essentially glossed over, allowing the majority of the focus to be placed on his second wife, Vikki (Cathy Moriarty) and their tumultuous time together during Jake’s boxing years. The film also focuses heavily on Jake’s relationship with his brother, Joey (Joe Pesci), whose character is essentially an amalgamation of Jake’s brother and his best friend, Pete, for simplicity purposes. While it may be based in truth, adapted from LaMotta’s own memoirs, it is definitely not a biopic in any traditional sense.

Scorsese has credited RAGING BULL and De Niro in the past for saving his life. It was De Niro who convinced Scorsese that he needed to kick the cocaine habit that had put him in the hospital in the late 1970’s after an overdose. It was also De Niro who convinced Scorsese that RAGING BULL was the perfect project to return to filmmaking with. And while Scorsese’s direction in the film is certainly some of his finest ever, in many ways, RAGING BULL is more De Niro’s triumph than anyone else’s. De Niro had wanted to make the picture ever since he read LaMotta’s book while making THE GODFATHER PART II and it is easy to see why. By playing a character as complex as LaMotta, De Niro is able to explore every facet of human emotion, from love and anger to pride and humiliation. He wears LaMotta’s demons like a second skin, even going so far as to put on sixty pounds to portray LaMotta in his later years. His passion for the project, which also included casting influence and uncredited work on the script, certainly paid off, as he took home the Oscar for Best Actor for his performance.

Of course Scorsese and De Niro were a team back then; RAGING BULL was their fourth picture together. (They would go on to make seven in total.) As good as De Niro is in the film, it is Scorsese’s deliberate filmmaking choices that frame the brilliant performance and make it into an iconic one. While Scorsese must have known the film would stand out just based on the violent nature of it’s subject matter, he chose to film it in black and white in order to further differentiate it from other boxing films in production at the time. The lack of colour is also more appropriate for the period and tones down the blood in the fight sequences. Scorsese also plays with the speed of the film at times, slowing down certain moments as if they are being burnt in LaMotta’s brain for all eternity. These moments range from a close-up of Vikki’s feet splashing in a pool the first time he sees her to the gloved fist of another fighter coming down on him during a pivotal match. The skill with which Scorsese brings this chaotic story to its close is unmatched by many even to this day and you can feel him fighting for it just as hard as LaMotta does at all times.

As unnerving as RAGING BULL is, it is a far more quiet and introspective experience than one would expect it to be. And as much as it is a boxing movie (albeit there is only truly ten minutes of actual fight footage), it is much more of a character study, and an unforgettable one at that. LaMotta, or at least his screen incarnation, is a small-minded man, afraid that he will go through life without getting his supposed due. He fights for notice and when he has it, he doesn’t know how to hold on to it without crushing it or fully abusing it. He wants to do everything on his own and, in doing so, ends up completely alone. And once a bull has stopped seeing red and finished running everyone out of the streets he has always known, what is he meant to do with all that pent up rage?

(Courtesy 20th Century Fox)

Best of Black Sheep: RABBIT HOLE

Written by David Lindsay-Abaire

Directed by John Cameron Mitchell

Starring Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart, Dianne Wiest and Sandra Oh

Becca: I like that thought. Somewhere out there, I'm having a good time.

There are times in our lives where we all find ourselves falling down a hole we didn’t see coming. We are just merrily making our way through the world we know when suddenly, and when we’re not necessarily paying attention, we find ourselves plummeting. While falling alone can be horrifying enough, tumbling down the same hole with your partner can be incredibly difficult and alienating. Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart play parents who have recently lost their young son, Danny, to a car accident, in the delicate drama, RABBIT HOLE. Fortunately for them, director John Cameron Mitchell is there to catch them before they hit the ground.

Mitchell made a name for himself when he first wrote, directed and starred in the film adaptation of his own Off-Broadway show, HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH (click title for review). His exploration of the marginally sexual not only continued its prevalence in his second feature, SHORTBUS, but it would go places most would never dare. In his third and decidedly most accessible work to date, RABBIT HOLE, Mitchell almost abandons sexuality entirely and turns his focus on grief and loss. I use the word, “accessible” loosely, as there is nothing easy about going down this particular hole. David Lindsay-Abaire’s adaptation of his Pulitzer Prize-winning stage play, looks at a couple suffering the unbearable loss of their only child, a story that we have seen a number of times before, and makes it feel like the individual experience it has to be.

Joining Kidman and Eckhart along their journey towards catharsis feels like a privilege, like we don’t really have the right to be there. Each of their experiences is so separate from the other’s, but you can always feel that they are fighting somewhere deep underneath their own hardship to find their way back to each other. Eckhart is strong as a husband who is struggling with doing everything he can not to forget but Kidman is just plain unforgettable. She is doing everything she can to heal, including reaching out to the young boy who was driving the car that killed her son, but she can’t tell if anything is actually working. After all, what level of sadness is needed to let go and see the world the way it once was? That’s the thing about rabbit holes though, both in metaphoric terms and in regards to this film, you’re not the same for having gone down them.

SCREAM 4

Written by Kevin Williamson

Directed by Wes Craven

Starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and David Arquette

Rachel: These sequels don't know when to stop.

Fifteen years after director, Wes Craven, and original writer, Kevin Williamson, scared the crap out of unsuspecting moviegoers initially, they have finally reunited to resurrect the SCREAM franchise. Original cast members, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and David Arquette have returned for SCREAM 4 as well and are joined by fresh faces, Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere, to name just a couple. With all this pedigree to back it up, this sequel / reboot / remake has a lot to lose and expectations going in will not be high considering how disappointing the third installment was. This might work to their advantage though because no one will ever expect SCREAM 4 to be anywhere near as good as it actually is.

There is no real need to divulge too much plot here; the element of surprise is key as you well know. I will say though that, a decade later, good old tortured Sidney Prescott (Campbell) – who for some reason still answers her phone – has finally turned her life around and published a book about no longer being a victim. Her promo tour finds her back in her hometown of Woodsboro, just in time for the anniversary of the original massacre. And you know Ghostface is not going to just let an anniversary go by without slicing up a few more fast-talking, movie-loving teenagers. The return to Ghostface’s home turf is certainly a welcome one. Not only does it allow for plenty of bloody nostalgia but it also removes the focus from the “Stab” film series, a film-within-a-film device that was taking all the serrated edge out of the actual series. Besides, all of Williamson’s delicious nods and winks to the original make SCREAM 4 an actual film within another, without obviously trying so hard.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about SCREAM 4 is that it actually exists. Craven began shooting on SCREAM 4 without a finished script because Williamson and producer, Bob Weinstein, couldn’t agree on some of the major plot elements. Before they were able to come to any conclusive agreement, Williamson had to return to honour his contract as a story developer on TV’s The Vampire Diaries. SCREAM 3 screenwriter, Ehran Kruger, was called in to smooth over the rough edges in Williamson’s script and even in the weeks approaching the release of the new film, Williamson had yet to even see the finished version. Still, all parties involved insist that the drama in no way took away from their support for the project. After all, SCREAM made Williamson a hot commodity, reinvigorated Craven’s career and put Miramax on the map.

The SCREAM series has always been about the rules, from honouring them to completely circumventing them. They now have an even bigger challenge – to reinvent the rules. Society has gotten a lot more violent and a lot more digital in the last decade and SCREAM has to keep up with the times. By incorporating more modern elements like video streaming and cyber-stalking into Ghostface’s bag of tricks, SCREAM 4 feels relevant and revitalized, like it needed to be made. How’s that for a new rule then? A successful horror franchise should only come back if there is actually fresh blood to be drawn instead of just to bleed it dry. Fortunately for SCREAM fans everywhere, the crimson corn syrup continues to flow freely from Ghostface’s blade.

Best of Black Sheep: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART ONE

Written by Steve Kloves

Directed by David Yates

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and Ralph Fiennes

Harry Potter: Blimey, Hermione!

Everyone who experiences the Harry Potter saga on film can be categorized into two separate groups – those who have read the books beforehand and those who have not. Those who have read them have likely read them several times. They know exactly what each film will bring, just not how it will bring it. For the rest of us, the young wizard exists only on the big screen and never has his world looked so great or been as engaging as in HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART ONE. No matter which group you belong to though, the Harry Potter film experience is entering its final chapter and the anticipation is palpable.

Director David Yates has outdone himself this time out. Despite the enormous amount of pressure on his back to bring one of film history’s biggest franchises to a satisfying and successful close, he seems to be flying through the Harry Potter universe with incredible ease after piloting the last three films. Yates also helms the second half of “The Deathly Hallows” but first he has masterfully and delicately handled this decidedly dark first half, where nothing is as it was. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his most trusted allies, Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grint) do not return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, like they do at the beginning of each previous installment. No, now this trio of role models to children the world over are officially dropouts, but with good reason of course. Harry must soon fulfill his destiny as the one who lived to vanquish he who used to not be named (psst .. that's Voldemort – Ralph Fiennes). I know how it sounds but if you made it this far, you must have bought into this already and it’s still surprisingly compelling.

I can only imagine that J.K.Rowling’s last book operated in much the same fashion as Steve Kloves’ screenplay. Kloves has written every one of the Harry Potter films and in HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART ONE, he oscillates between somber, dark, sometimes downright frightening moments and a warm, nostalgic yearning for seemingly simpler times. As the series nears its end, familiar faces, places and things resurface to honour both the history and the fans while new addition to the Harry Potter family, cinematographer, Eduardo Serra, lenses the Harry Potter landscape with depth and grandeur unlike anything I’ve seen in the first six films. The mounting magnificence of the Harry Potter films is infectious and to remain so fresh and relevant so many years later is some of the best magic I’ve ever seen.

For further Harry Potter Black Sheep reviews, just click the titles below:

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

12 ANGRY MEN

Written by Reginald Rose

Directed by Sidney Lumet

Starring Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, Jack Ward and Lee J. Cobb

Take twelve grown men and stick them in a room with no fans in the middle of a sweltering heat wave and you’re darn right, they’re going to get angry. Lock them in there while they debate an accused murderer’s guilt, potentially sending him to his own death, and that anger is bound to get blistering. As these twelve men sit opposite each other and the time wears on, patience wears even thinner. Soon, it becomes difficult to decipher whether it’s the heat or the pressure that is making everyone sweat. The room itself could implode from the amount of palpable tension in the air but yet somehow it doesn’t. Take all of this and put it on film in 1957 and you have 12 ANGRY MEN, an unlikely triumph from a then unknown director.

You would think only a finely honed director could maintain the kind of intensity 12 ANGRY MEN requires in order to be successful, but it is actually the work of a first time filmmaker. Sidney Lumet had worked in television for six years behind the camera when the producers insisted they would only go ahead with this project with Lumet in charge. (Incidentally, the producers are writer, Reginald Rose, and star, Henry Fonda.) Lumet would go on to helm such influential classics as NETWORK and DOG DAY AFTERNOON, but he started his illustrious film career with this incredibly daunting task of a project. To increase the tension in the room as well as make viewers feel as if they were actually in it, Lumet shot the film’s earlier scenes with wider lenses but the later scenes with much tighter framing. This draws the viewer in subtly and eventually claustrophobia is rampant. It is this kind of thinking that would earn him his first of four Academy Award nominations for direction and deservedly so.

Rose’s screenplay, based on his own original teleplay, is concise and calculated from the very start. He chooses not to divulge the trial details to the audience ahead of time. Instead, we learn about the trial at the same time as the jury picks it apart. The case at hand will decide the fate of an 18-year-old African American boy, who in 1957 was simply referred to as “one of those people” by a couple of the choice jurors. He is accused of stabbing his allegedly abusive father four times and leaving him for dead. A man upstairs heard a fight and the thud of a body hitting the floor while a woman in a building across the street saw the boy do it through her bedroom window. The evidence seems convincing and the boy’s history seems to point toward violent tendencies but it is the colour of his skin that connects all of these dots and proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for every juror in the room but one.

The sole holdout is Juror #8 (Fonda). He seems to be the only person of any true character in the room, or perhaps the only one brave enough to stand behind it. His inclination is leaning toward guilty but he knows something that no one else in the room does. He knows that everyone there accepted every supposed fact that was handed to them by the prosecution because the man on trial has black skin. He also knows that everyone had essentially made up their minds the moment they first saw the boy enter the courtroom. It becomes his personal mission to wake each individual juror up from their own prejudice without calling them directly out on it. To do so, he sheds light on each of the major points offered into evidence at trial and allows each person the opportunity to see that their judgment may have been unknowingly clouded. It’s only an open and shut case after all if you just shut it right away without opening it any further.

12 ANGRY MEN was not a success theatrically when it was initially released but is now considered by many to be one of the greatest American films of all time. The fact that it endures so well is a testament to its delicate craftsmanship and to the ideals it boldly stands for. Rose’s words are brave and resonate still to this day while Lumet’s approach allows for his audience to enjoy and participate in an experience not often had at the movies, a cerebral one. Sadly, 12 ANGRY MEN also still endures because if you were to take another twelve men and stick them in that same room today, I’m not sure the conversation would go so differently.