Ed Burns’ new movie, Nice Guy Johnny, can be seen starting this Friday, April 23, on Tribeca Film Festival Virtual and you can pick up your Premium Pass at www.TribecaFilm.com/virtual/.

Cinema Verdict was lucky enough to be on a Q&A conference call with him, and is excited to share it with you.

Q: What inspired you to write this film, Nice Guy Johnny?

A: A couple of things, but primarily I would say about a year and a half ago I had meeting with my new agent, and I would say every couple of years I had a meeting that was similar to this where my team would encourage me to stop making small, personal films and put myself up for what they call open directing assignments at the studios.

Given, I guess, what I do they thought I could very easily land a studio romantic comedy directing job. I never had any interest in that, not that I think they’re bad films necessarily, but I only aspired to be a writer/director. My heroes were Cassavetes and Woody Allen and Truffaut, and that’s all that I ever wanted to do.

However, two years ago with a couple of kids and a couple of mortgages I thought maybe it might be a smart financial move to at least entertain the thought

So I read a bunch of the scripts; I took a bunch of the meetings. I have to admit it was a very tough decision because there is potentially a lot more money to make doing that than doing what I do. At the end of the day that’s not why I got into the business. I had to sort of stick with what my original purpose was and what my original dream was.

I left that final meeting after passing on this particular project. Me and my producing partner were talking about it and what are we going to do now? We said “You know what, let’s write a script about what we just went through. Let’s think about what kind of character is faced with that kind of decision when you have to stick with your dream when everyone is telling you, whether it’s your parents or your friends. Or, do you take the more fiscally responsible job with benefits? Most of my friends are in the arts and all of them wrestle with this very thing, especially as we get older and are starting families

That’s how kind of Nice Guy Johnny came about. He’s a 24-year-old sports talk radio host who dreams of one day getting a big broadcasting job. He’s not making any money; he’s about to get married and his fiancée has suggested he come home to New York to take a job that will triple his salary and give him benefits. It’s the story of how this kid makes that decision.

Q: I wondered if any of the characters were based on real people.

A: Maybe my character is loosely based on a couple of guys that I grew up with and even know today. Uncle Terry is an aging womanizer who is hell bent against his nephew getting married, especially at the tender age of 24.

I definitely still know guys who are deep into their 40s who are holding on to bachelorhood with everything they’ve got. I didn’t want to judge it at all, but we kind of took a look at sort of the funny side of it and then maybe a little bit of the pathetic side of it.

Q: Your character is Uncle Terry, do you see him as the antagonist of the film or do you see him as someone who is helping Johnny reach his goals?

A: He’s sort of like – he’s a mentor of sorts, but it’s almost like the devil on one shoulder and the woman he meets on this journey, played by Kerry Bishé, as sort of maybe the angel on the shoulder.

The interesting thing is like I think my character is a mentor that is always – he’s sort of the dumbest guy in the room. He’s always giving this kid terrible advice, but only at the end of the journey when he comes through and you see these decisions he’s made you realize like, oh, maybe the idiot knew something after all, if that makes any sense.

Q: You wear many different hats in this film, you’re an actor, a director; you’re a writer. How did you manage to balance all those different aspects?

A: You know when I made my first films 15 years ago I was barely out of film school, no money, and trying to make a movie for $25,000 so I knew that it was my script obviously, I was going to direct it. I did not know any film producers and couldn’t have afforded one anyhow, so I had to produce it on my own. Then the acting was just a case of, when you’re not paying actors it’s very hard to get them – it’s very hard to get a guarantee that they’ll actually show up. I had done some acting in my student films so I put myself in the first film and have just kind of kept with it now, nine films later.

Q: Of the things that you’ve done, the acting, the screenwriting, the directing; if you could only concentrate on one for the rest of your career, if you had no choice about this, which one would you choose and why?

A: Hands down, it wouldn’t even need to make a decision, it would be writing. I started as a writer; it’s what I love; it’s what I do every day, so that’s a no-brainer.

Q: Since Nice Guy Johnny is about people pursuing their dreams at a cost, what did it cost you to get into acting in the first place?

A: You know, acting—I guess it forces you to thicken your skin. Definitely while it can be great for your ego, there are certainly a handful of films I have and the reviews that have followed that are pretty bruising to your ego. There is that. But as far as like what it cost me? I don’t know that it has. I was very lucky when I made my first film; I was 26 years old and it got picked up for distribution. Fifteen years later I’m still making my little personal films so I’m, I think, one of the lucky ones.

I know a lot of indie filmmakers out there – it’s kind of like bands, you know, you struggle and you fight and you get that first film made and you get some attention with it. Then you make the next one and then that’s it. To still be doing it after 15 years I’m definitely a lucky guy.

Q: This film is fundamentally, of course, about the cost of pursuing your dream at all costs and subsequently being asked to give up on said very same dream. In reflection, at any point in your life, have you yourself ever been asked to give up on a dream of any kind, at any age?

A: I am 26 years old, I’ve already shot and cut Brothers McMullen, I’ve submitted it to a number of festivals, producers, agents, distribution companies, and I have a stack of rejection letters to show for it. I’m $25,000 in debt.

My mother comes to me one day and says, “If you’re willing to get a haircut, I will buy you a suit and then you can go get a real job.” Thank God, I did not take her up on that deal because six months later the film got into Sundance and all that. That conversation with my mother definitely was at the forefront of my mind as I was writing this film.

Q: Did you find yourself at such a low point ever that that idea of getting out of the business really became a serious consideration? And what was it – was it something or someone that inspired you to continue to living your dream and continue to go for it and not to conform to what everybody else was saying?

A: The low point probably was before we got accepted into Sundance I remember I had printed up my first resume since I had gotten out of college and gotten my first production assistant job. I had been a PA for four years at this same television show but, if you’re a PA for four years you’ve been a PA for three years too long probably.

I had put together a resume; I had taken a couple of scenes from my short films and from Brothers McMullen and kind of put together a reel and I was about to apply for a job at Comedy Central directing these things called bumpers, which is little things in between shows. That was probably the low point where I was like all right, this movie didn’t work. I’m out of money and I can’t – I’ve got to get a real job now, I’m 26 years old.

There was that. I always said to myself even if McMullen didn’t work the best bit of advice that I got was from my dad one day. I was pissing and moaning and complaining about all of the rejection letters and he said, “What’s the problem?” I said, “Well, nobody likes the movie. Nobody wants to buy it.” He goes, “You told me the 12 days that it took to shoot the film were the 12 best days of your life.” I said, “Yeah.” He goes, “Well, do it again. Just figure out a way to do it again.”

That was a real eye-opener for me. If anything sort of kept the dream alive it was that. I kind of said to myself I will keep trying to make these little $20,000 to $25,000 movies every three or four years until I’m 35. I figured I could make like three more of them. If one of them doesn’t work by the time I’m 35 then I will give up the dream. Fortunately we sold Brothers McMullen and here we are today.

Q: Do you think if you had made The Brothers McMullen today it would find the same success that it did at Sundance or do you think that the independent film market and audience has changed too drastically?

A: There is no shot we would be as successful today. I can’t speak to whether or not it would play at Sundance. When we submitted it to Sundance 16 years ago it had gotten rejected from every other film festival as not being edgy enough. We just kind of got lucky by the time it got around to Sundance because we were sort of coming out of the post Reservoir Dogs as the major sort of indie film influence. There was this glut of like Tarantino rip-off films and the kind of pendulum had just swung back the other way that the timing was kind of right for Brothers McMullen. I definitely benefited from that.

As far as, let’s say we were lucky enough, we get into Sundance, it gets picked up for distribution, it’s interesting. I don’t even know that we would get picked up for distribution. I can’t remember the last film that I saw – an indie film that got picked up and was given a real theatrical release that had a completely unknown cast.

Back then you had Slacker and then after Slacker you had Metropolitan and then you had Clerks and then you had McMullen but after that you don’t see too many of those. I definitely have not seen any in the last couple of years. I’d say, maybe Primer.

Q: Talking about Brothers McMullen 15 years ago, and 15 years of movies in between, the camera work, the directing that you do, how has it changed from that very first time behind the camera to now?

A: The camera work in McMullen was as basic as it gets. Again, we had a three man crew, no dolly, no steady cam and it was just about trying to get that story captured on film. We weren’t thinking about moving in the camera, we weren’t thinking about shots because I knew going in there is no way I can compete with Hollywood on that level.

If I try and do a more complicated shot or spend a lot of time trying to light something in a very specific way, it’s going to look like what it would be the poor man’s version of it. What we did on that film was just, all right, let’s focus on these characters and the acting and try and make this as honest a representation of the world that I had come from.

However, since then, with some increasing budgets, again I still haven’t made a movie for more than $5 million, but I have at least gotten some dolly track and a couple of steady cam shots and fortunate enough to work with a great DP.

I think the two films that I’m probably most proud of with the overall look is a film I did called Purple Violets, where we do these gorgeous like what we call moving masters. It’s sort of one long take that covers a three page scene and Woody Allen is the master of those. We kind of adopted that style on that film and I think we really did a great job executing it.

Then Nice Guy Johnny, it’s the first film I shot using the RED camera and it gave us a different type of mobility and there are some images in this film that are just breathtaking.

I think the RED camera is going to be a game changer for indie cinema. You can – they’re small; they’re not terribly expensive compared to a film camera. You can go out with almost no lights and make a pretty great looking film. We’ll see if I’m right about that.

Q: If you were to compare Nice Guy Johnny to your previous works, what are some of the elements that stand out that really speak to how much you’ve grown as an actor, writer, director, and producer?

A: Acting-wise I’d say it’s my best performance in one of my films and I say this kind of there are three reasons for that. One is I kind of wrote it toward my strengths I think as an actor and kind of wrote a part for a part of my personality that maybe I haven’t explored in my films before for me to play.

The second reason is I’ve just been doing it longer so kind of like any muscle the more you work it I think the more command you have over it. Primarily the biggest reason is in the film it’s about a bunch of 24-year-old kids and we wanted to find unknown actors. I kind of wanted to go back to whatever the magic was I was able to create with my cast in Brothers McMullen.

There was an enthusiasm on that film that I never sort of captured again or never felt on set again. With this film we went and we found Matt Bush, this actress Kerry Bishé and Anna Wood, and then even some of the supporting players who really had very little experience in front of the camera.

They’d all gone to acting school and stuff like that but what I found, for me as an actor was their enthusiasm and their love and appreciation for getting to act, to be in a movie, to be on set, it was infectious for me as an actor. Every scene I have I’m opposite this kid Matt Bush and he’s coming at you with everything he’s got and with such enthusiasm and love for it that there was no way – he was pulling like the best stuff out of me. I would credit him with that.

Writing, I think it’s my – say my most honest and personal film since The Brothers McMullen. I just kind of wanted to go back to like not really trying to be funny, sort of writing about people that I really knew intimately. Then as a filmmaker, again, it’s almost like the acting the more you do it the more confidence you have, the more you know what you need and what you don’t need. I think I’ve been working now with my DP Will Rexer, this is our fourth film together.

He and I really, I think, have grown together and I have a lot more faith and trust in him than I’ve had with any other DP. I kind of allow him to sort of push me now in a way that maybe I wouldn’t or didn’t in the past.

Q: You have an extensive body of work as an actor in general, and you’ve worked with a lot of living legends like Steven Spielberg, Sir Ben Kingsley, Robert De Niro. From all those experiences in your acting, how can you say that might have translated into your being a better director?

A: Probably if you’re smart and you check your ego at the door when you work with one of those legends you use it as an opportunity to go to school. I think I’ve done that every time when I’ve gotten lucky enough to work with one of these guys. Spielberg, hands-down the most influential experience I’ve had to date. Watching not only his decision-making process but also how he communicates with his crew, but mostly how he communicated with the cast.

The one thing I took from him that changed how I deal with actors is we’re like two weeks into the shoot and he’s giving us two and three takes to do a scene and giving us no comments or notes after any of them. He was just like, “Okay, great, moving on.” Finally, after two weeks he finally after a third take asked us to do something different, after a fourth take, fifth take, sixth take. Finally at lunch we asked him like why today? How come you were sort of directing us today? He goes, “Well, today you didn’t know what the hell you were doing.”

He explained to us that especially given an ensemble he hires people that he knows what they do and expects them to do what they do on the day. He will give any actor three takes to figure it out. Some guys nail it on the first, some guys nail it on the second; most people find it by the third. If by the third you haven’t given him something that he likes then he’ll step in and sort of steer you back on course.

I know for me when I was making my first couple of films, I thought the director needed to direct so after every take I was giving the actor any kind of note or any kind of encouragement. Only since that experience did I realize, you know what, let them do their thing, they will figure it out. That is usually the case, I’ve found.

Working with De Niro or Hoffman, you just pick up little things like how they respond to a director and how they like to be spoken to, and the best way that they might receive a bit of criticism or when someone suggests just change. That was pretty informative to just kind of watch, Ah! I am not going to do it that way when I have to deal with an actor I’m maybe going to do it this way, the way that guy did it. So you learn those kind of things as well.

Q: What movies have had the greatest influence on you and your work?

A: I mean by far Woody Allen, the major influence, and primarily his films that deal with just that. A film like Hannah and Her Sisters; Crimes and Misdemeanors, Husbands and Wives; when he’s dealing with people and how we deal with one another.

A big film for me when I was in film school was Marty based on the Paddy Chayefsky play. The Last Picture Show, that Peter Bogdanovich film. Truffaut was a big influence on me; Louis Malle. Those filmmakers that dealt with real people in a pretty honest way. That’s what I’ve been trying to do and I think even when I look at my films, when I get away from that is when the films don’t work.

Q: Considering the kind of films that you make now, do you ever see yourself maybe 10 or 15 years down the road actually making a film with a $250 million budget and all these whiz bang special effects?

A: You know, I really don’t. I have one script that we tried to get made a couple of years ago that was a sort of big period film set in turn-of-the century New York City. That’s something where I would have needed a lot of CGI but not the kind of effects that you would need if you’re going to be making an Ironman per se. I love those movies; I go to see a fair amount of them, but it was never – some guys write symphonies, some guys write folk songs. I think I write folk songs.

Q: The Tribeca Film Festival is really doing something groundbreaking going virtual, how much more it will drive people, particularly film students into wanting to participate and understanding the need for small films?

A: I only hope. It’s funny, you know, when I was in film school that’s what we loved, whether it was Jim Jarmisch and Hal Hartley, or looking further back Truffaut and Louis Malle, or De Sica. We wanted to tell small personal stories. I think now the – at least it appears to me the kids that are really into film are into sort of maybe more like genre films whether it’s comic book stories or horror.

I don’t really know. Maybe all these things are cyclical and maybe it’ll just be a matter of time before young film students fall back in love with the small personal film. I don’t really know, but I hope so because that’s all I really enjoy watching.

Maybe what’s going to happen is given studios are focused on the giant tent-pole movies and that’s kind of all that they seem to be doing right now, and they will dominate the multiplexes with those, and I think deservedly so. You go to see Avatar and that is a pretty incredible experience in the theater.

Maybe now people are going to be watching movies on their iPads and their iPhones and a lot of people have flat screen TVs, or you can watch it on your laptop. You know, maybe the only place for those small personal films will be kind of this kind of virtual thing or home viewing or via the Web, which will force people to – if you’re not going to be financed by the studio you’re going to have to make a very low budget film. The genre that works best when you have no money are small talky films, so who knows, maybe this will start a little, a mini movement.

Q: With Nice Guy Johnny kicking off the Tribeca Film Festival Virtual, what do you think of these new distribution methods, including iTunes as a way to reach more people?

A: I love them. I think anyone who is still interested in making small films has to fall out of love with theatrical distribution. When I was in my 20s, me and my friends, and if you were into indie film, you went down to the art house theater or the specialized movie theater and you made sure that you saw that film its opening week.

Today I think it’s a little different and you can watch a film on your phone, on your computer, even now you can get them on You Tube, so I don’t think the theatrical component is as important as it used to be. If you allow yourself to fall out of love with that I think you can reach the people that will love your film.

I mean, I think the tricky thing that everybody is trying to figure out now is how do we monetize that? I think if you keep your budgets really low, I think we’re going to find a place where you can make low-budget personal films and at least break even or make enough that you can go make the next one. I think that’s where we’re going to be in a couple of years.

Q: You must be excited about the film festival going virtual so more people will be able to see your film.

A: You know, for me, I have always tried to embrace how indie films, or how indie cinema is going to make use of the Internet. We saw maybe like in ’06 indie films sort of stopped finding the same sized audience for the ten years prior to that. You saw a lot of companies like Paramount Vantage closed, Warner Brother Independent closed; Miramax just recently went under. We knew that the audience still liked the films they just weren’t going to see them theatrically.

A couple of years ago I tried it with this film Purple Violets. We released it onto iTunes and we got a great response from the people that like my movies.

I tried a Web series last year as a way; again to how do we find the people that like this? How do we get this material or these stories to them in a different way. When Tribeca brought this up we immediately said, “Absolutely.”

As a kid who got his start as a film festival and now is someone who loves film festivals, it’s great that now a kid in Kansas City can attend the Tribeca Film Festival, at least in some fashion and see those movies that he might be reading about on sites like yours or other film sites.

Q: Since your film is being featured in the Tribeca Festival, both the virtual and being screened as part of it, it seemed only fitting that the city of New York play a role in your film as this one it does. What was the best and worst part of filming there?

A: You know – I think I’ve shot – yes, I guess I have; every film I’ve made I’ve shot at least a handful of scenes in New York. There really isn’t a bad side to shooting in the city. You have just great crews available to you. I’ve always said the best co-star any actor can have is New York City. There is nothing but great locations. Every street has another story to tell. For me, the number one thing that you get in New York City is this enormously deep pool of actors.

With this film, given that the story revolves around a bunch of kids in their early 20s, we wanted to find those New York actors that were just on the cusp of breaking out. I told my casting director, “Who are the kids that keep coming in and keep losing out on that great part because they’re not a name yet?” Then we kind of set that as our goal, like let’s find those kids that are going to be household names one day, they just don’t have the body of work yet to get the big part. That’s who we found.

The two leads, Kerry Bishé and Matt Bush are incredible and Kerry, I don’t – maybe she had done one small film before. This other young woman, Anna Wood, was another great find, who I don’t think had ever been in front of a camera before. For me that’s what New York gives you which is why I stay here.

Ali Larter visited WonderCon 2010 in San Francisco last weekend to promote her upcoming action flick “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” and here’s a brief video interview I shot before the film’s panel.

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” was shot using the Fusion Camera System, so I had to ask Ali how challenging it was to shoot this thing. I also wanted to know what fans can expect from her character, and what it is like for her to work with Paul W.S. Anderson.

“Afterlife” opens in theaters Sept. 10, 2010.

Actress Milla Jovovich visited the 2010 edition of WonderCon in San Francisco this weekend to promote “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” and here’s a brief video interview I shot right before the film’s panel.

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” was shot using the Fusion Camera System, so I had to ask Milla how challenging it was to shoot this thing. I also wanted to know what fans can expect from her character, and what WonderCon was like for her.

“Afterlife” opens in theaters Sept. 10, 2010.

Director Paul W.S. Anderson visited the 2010 edition of WonderCon in San Francisco this weekend to promote “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” and here’s a brief video interview I shot right before the film’s panel, at which he showed the first trailer again in 2D. The 3D version premiered Friday night.

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” was shot using the Fusion Camera System James Cameron used for “Avatar,” so I had to ask him what the process of shooting a movie like this is like. I also wanted to know what fans can expect from this fourth film, and I asked him to share his feelings about it with the fans.

“Afterlife” opens in theaters Sept. 10, 2010.

As the 2010 edition of WonderCon comes to a close in San Francisco, I decided to sneak out the Moscone Center and write up my thoughts and feelings about this year’s convention. For me, this was my first visit to WonderCon, and even though people told me this year’s attendance didn’t seem to be as high as usual, I was still impressed by the large crowds storming the exhibition floors and panel room. If attendance is down indeed, I think it’s pretty safe to say it’s because this year’s WonderCon took place during Easter weekend.

My journey started early Friday, which turned out to be a very quiet first day. I decided to check out the booths downstairs in the exhibition hall, and to tell you the truth, it did get pretty busy in the afternoon. The Kick-Ass and Capcom booths seems to be the most popular ones down there, but the Dante’s Inferno gaming section ended up attracting large crowds as well. The highlight of the day was Kevin Smith’s Q&A session, which I had to miss because I headed over to the AMC Metreon for the premiere of the Resident Evil: Afterlife trailer.

Paul W.S. Anderson, Ali Larter and Milla Jovovich stopped by the theater to introduce the 3D trailer and answer a bunch of questions about the film, which was shot using James Cameron’s 3D Fusion Camera System. Anderson said Cameron was kind enough to show him a big chunk of Avatar last year, and consequently, Anderson went to Sony and asked for more money to shoot Afterlife in RealD 3D. To tell you the truth, the trailer does look amazing in 3D on the big screen.

You can read all about the Q&A Session right here.

The second day was by far the busiest. Saturday kicked off with press conferences for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and Jerry Bruckheimer, Jake Gyllenhaal, Nicolas Cage, Mike Newell, Jay Baruchel, and Teresa Palmer all showed up to chat about their upcoming films. I will have the full interviews from the press conferences online soon.

Disney hosted its big panel first, but I had to skip it to interview Paul W.S. Anderson, Ali Larter and Milla Jovovich, who were kind enough to talk to the press and tell me all about how much bigger Resident Evil: Afterlife will be. I also asked Anderson about the process of shooting in 3D using this system, and I will have the video interviews online for you to enjoy later today, so stay tuned. Needless to say, all three of them were incredibly nice.

Warner Brothers hosted a panel in the afternoon, and they presented The Losers and Christopher Nolan’s Inception. I had to miss this one as well because of more interviews, but the huge applauses and loud footage breaking out of the panel room gave me an indication of what the atmosphere was like in there. The afternoon session wrapped with the Lionsgate panel for Kick-Ass.

I moved on to my roundtable interviews with the cast of Kick-Ass, and to tell you the truth, it was definitely the most enjoyable experience of this WonderCon. Aaron Johnson, Clark Duke, Chloe Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, screenwriter Jane Goldman and comic book illustrator John Romita Jr. all stopped by to chat about their fantastic film, and even though they had been running around doing press interviews all day, they still had enough energy to joke around. I will have those interviews up soon as well.

There is not much to report about the third day. I stopped by briefly to check the atmosphere, but it was rather quiet. Of course, it’s Easter Sunday, and that pretty much explains why it’s much calmer over there than yesterday.

Overall, my first visit to WonderCon was a success, even though I admit I was not entirely happy with the programming decisions on Saturday. Press conferences and panels overlapped, which made it hard to keep up with the program. Other than that, I have no complaints at all. Stay tuned for videos, interviews and more still images from the event, and feel free to share your own WonderCon experiences below.

For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism

OPENING: 10/10/2009

STUDIO: AG Films

RUN TIME: 80 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Today, film criticism is a profession under siege.

Opening Statement
Once upon a time, film critics were an integral part of the movie industry. Back then, filmmakers heard critics’ opinions and studios valued the positive buzz generated by a respected voice. So too, newspapers treated their critics as legitimate columnists, granting them the opportunity to comment on culture and politics outside the realm of film. Now, media outlets see film critics as an unnecessary expense and studio executives could care less how they assess last weekend’s blockbuster. For the Love of Movies, the first documentary to look at the history of cinematic journalism, is a love letter to a profession that may have outlived its usefulness.

Facts of the Case
Written and directed by Gerald Peary, film critic for The Boston Phoenix, For the Love of Movies chronicles the history of movie reviewing and considers the future of the profession in light of the current state of newspaper publishing and the proliferation of internet critics. Chronologically structured according to key eras, the documentary charts the history of movie reviewing from trade papers running short synopses of silent films to attract studio advertising dollars, through today’s plethora of recognizable names and faces — Roger Ebert, Elvis Mitchell, A.O. Scott, Lisa Schwarzbaum, Harry Knowles, and Karina Longworth.

The Evidence
In an age where everyone’s a critic and any blogger can express his or her opinion to countless readers, does film criticism matter anymore? Does anyone care what Vincent Canby said about The Empire Strikes Back or what Stanley Kauffmann wrote about Psycho? What about you, dear reader? Does my reaction to this film make a difference to you? For the Love of Movies tells us the voice of the critic once mattered once, reinforcing my personal belief in the medium.

For the Love of Movies works by giving viewers a well-researched history of film criticism, supported by a plethora of archival newspaper excerpts and a surprising number of clips, a handful of which I had never seen before. This is a documentary meant for viewers who appreciate the voice of critics. If you are such a person, keep a pen handy for jotting down suggested readings and viewings mentioned throughout.

Putting a face (and voice) to these reviewers gives us a sense of the personalities behind their opinions. In one especially interesting and amusing segment, Andrew Sarris recalls his battle for critical superiority with Pauline Kael during the 1960s and ’70s, serving as a reminder that everyone views film in a different way. While I’ve never really been onboard with Kael’s viewpoint, gaining a better sense of where she was coming from is certainly valuable.

The recurring theme heard amongst today’s critics is that they write about what they love — film — making it easy for us to relate to them as fellow moviegoers. We also learn to appreciate that each writer comes to a film with his or her own experience that informs and influences his or her take on it. Director Gerald Peary is more concerned with his peers — that dying breed of newspaper critic — and doesn’t quite know what to make of the new generation of Internet reviewers. While he acknowledges their role in the evolution of mass media, he stops short of embracing them.

Unfortunately, For the Love of Movies lacks the polish of slicker theatrical documentaries. The consumer grade video footage and the simply animated graphics lend it a do-it-yourself feel. Transitioning between sections, the film’s pacing suffers from an overuse of the fade to black. The interviews date back as far as 2001, when Peary began interviewing his peers at film festivals. Organizing the historical material by time period works well enough, but some of the contemporary sound bites don’t quite fit in. These quibbles with the style of a first-time filmmaker do not significantly distract from the informative and entertainment value of the material itself. Listening to the interviews is like gabbing with fellow film nerds — albeit paid ones.

At the time of this review, For the Love of Movies does not have a distributor, so Peary is taking it to film festivals himself. Consumers will find it is also available for purchase on DVD through the film’s official site.

Closing Statement
I’d like to think readers still appreciate the opinions of writers who are knowledgeable about certain genres, willing to sample little-known and unusual works, can recognize when a movie is commenting on political and social issues, and willing to call something a stinker when they see it. If you’ve ever sought out a modest independent film, given an obscure foreign film a chance, or skipped a Michael Bay movie because of a review you read, For the Love of Movies is for you. The presentation may seem a little rough around the edges, but the information is valuable and serves as a reminder that quality film reviews do matter. The difference between professional critics and the judges who write for the Verdict family of sites is that they make a living from it, while we volunteer our efforts. What makes us the same is a love of movies, an ability to express that passion in writing, and open a dialogue with readers about it. I hope you feel what we do is a worthy endeavor and you’ll confirm that with your feedback and support.

The Verdict
8/10

Kamui

OPENING: 10/05/2009

STUDIO: Shochiku Co. Ltd

RUN TIME: 120 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Live through it.

Opening Statement
The ninja movie genre gets a chance for a revival with Kamui, based on a long-running Japanese graphic novel series. Perhaps hoping to do for assassins in feudal Japan what Twilight has done for vampires, the new film features an attractive, young cast in a familiar story. Accordingly, it should be popular with audiences who aren’t aware of older but better examples.

Facts of the Case
An orphan cast out of his village, Kamui (Matsuyama Kenichi, Death Note) joined a ninja clan at a young age and became a deadly assassin. Now an adult, he’s grown weary of the ninja lifestyle, and leaving the clan commits an act of betrayal. On the run, Kamui finds refuge in a quiet village where a fisherman and his family take him in. When an old foe, Sugaru (Koyuki, The Last Samurai), recognizes him and suspects he’s there to kill her, she decides to finish him first. To make matters worse, the lord of the region is looking to punish the villagers for the killing his horse. Even if Kamui and Sugaru can settle their differences and protect the village from the lord’s men, both are still being pursued by the ninja hunters.

The Evidence
There are many elements in ninja films which explain its cult popularity — the period setting, the sword fighting, the stylized bloodletting, and the stories built around the theme of martial honor and loyalty. Fewer fans are attracted to the genre for the fishing. Yet, in Kamui a great deal of screen time is spent watching the protagonist, a reformed assassin, learn how to fish. Aside from a lengthy opening action sequence and the inevitable showdown between Kamui and his nemesis, the bulk of the story concerns the ex-ninja learning to adapt to village life. I could tell you how exciting those fishing scenes are (not very), but you’re probably more interested in hearing about the action.

Kamui‘s action relies heavily on CGI assistance, but the big surprise is how cheap those effects look. Mixing things up with a little wirework, characters fly effortlessly through the air. When they land on trees and other surfaces, it is glaringly obvious the actors are floating over a fake background (other times it’s fake actors on a real background). The resulting effect reminds me of clicking on an desktop icon and dragging it to another position. Computer technology has made this sort of elaborate action staging much safer and more fantastical, but when it looks this fake, you long for decent old-fashioned stunt work.

At first glance, the special effects might appear deliberately shoddy, the movie is meant as a parody. Hut there isn’t enough humor in the script to support that perspective. The movie plays it totally straight, even with the introduction of a pirate who looks like he walked right off the cover of a teen magazine. The final showdown has some respectably choreographed sword fighting, but I couldn’t say it was worth the wait.

While the younger cast members are game for the action and basic plot developments (such as the romance between Kamui and the fisherman’s daughter), they don’t feel very authentic. The script doesn’t afford any depth to the familiar archetypes. Viewers are left to make up their own back-story for Kamui’s rise in the ninja ranks and subsequent change of heart. Director Yoichi Sai leaves the story open for a sequel, which shows a lot of optimism for audiences’ reception, considering the main character is barely developed enough for a single film.

Closing Statement
Having never read the original manga series The Legend of Kamui (1964-71), I can’t comment on the faithfulness of the adaptation. As a fan of ninja, samurai, and other martial arts films, I found Kamui a disappointment, built upon a story and characters who didn’t capture my attention with its overall fake look.

The Verdict
5/10

Home

OPENING: 06/05/2009

STUDIO: Elzevir Films

RUN TIME: 120 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
A stunning visual portrayal of Earth.

Opening Statement
Home is an ambitious documentary project meant to bring awareness to the plight of our planet. Bankrolled by a conglomeration of international companies called the PPR Group, the filmmakers wanted to open the film in various formats (theatrical, home video, TV, online) around the world on the same day — June 5, 2009, World Environment Day — and even offer free showings in as many locations as possible. [ Note: Our review of Home (Blu-ray) is already posted at DVD Verdict. The Canadian premiere of the theatrical version screened at the Vancouver International Film Festival. ]

Facts of the Case
Aerial photographer Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s book Earth From Above has sold more than 3 million copies, since its initial publication in 1999. Making a motion picture of the same subject required three years of work that included 217 days of shooting in 54 countries. All of the footage in the film was captured using gyro-stabilized Cineflex HD cameras mounted on helicopters. Under the photographer-turned-filmmaker’s direction, the portrait of the Earth presented here is uniformly, gorgeously mesmerizing. The script, narrated by Glenn Close, is an accessible guide through no less than a concise history of human civilization.

The Evidence
Without a doubt, Home is a film with a big message to deliver. "In 50 years — a single lifetime — the Earth has been more radically changed than by all previous generations of humanity," we’re told in the narration. That shouldn’t be news, as we’ve been hearing this in one form or another for many years now. Support that statement with pictures and it becomes more meaningful. Now, instead of just a ground level scene of a farmer’s field, imagine a bird’s eye view of a transformed landscape stretching as far as you can see. Imagine the same expanse of land ripped apart by machinery and reshaped to suit luxury home developments. It’s a gradual visual journey from the farmlands of Africa to the incomprehensibly decadent beachfront properties in Dubai, but the fact that such an extreme exists speaks volumes about what is happening to our planet.

As a call for environmental activism, Home isn’t the didactic lecture of An Inconvenient Truth, but nevertheless presents a number of alarming statistics. Anyone who has even passively listened to the news of the environment will be familiar with much of the information presented in this film, but I discoverd some new information as well. For example, methane gas contained in the Russian permafrost can be released should the trend of global warming continue. Canada’s tar sands are still something of a mystery, but I now understand how the costs for retrieving oil from them far outweigh the benefits of the product extracted and the extraction process completely ravages the land.

The mood gets pretty bleak towards the end, as statistics about how we’ve made a mess of the planet pile on. Yet, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The film concludes with examples of worldwide government initiatives that promote conservation and sustainability. While I don’t recall mention of any programs in the United States or Canada, the implication that governments must lead by example seems more meaningful than suggesting my carpooling will make all the difference.

Environmental messages aside, Home is two hours filled with some of the most amazing photography of the Earth ever captured. Graceful aerial cinematography takes in the splendor of the natural landscape, dramatically charting the degrees by which humanity has expanded and reshaped the planet. Even those who refuse to acknowledge the effects of climate change will be struck by the images’ awesomeness. Watch it with blinders or earplugs, if you must, but watch it.

Closing Statement
Maybe one day environmental responsibility will be so ingrained in our culture we won’t think twice about making lifestyle decisions to preserve the planet. Hopefully, we’ll reach that point before it’s too late. To help the cause, I encourage you to see Home. Rent the DVD or watch it online. And if it happens to be playing at a theater near you, see it on the big screen to truly appreciate the beauty and fragility of the cities and natural landscapes that make up our home.

The Verdict
9/10

Beyond the Game

OPENING: 10/06/2009 (VIFF)

STUDIO: Films Transit Intl.

RUN TIME: 75 min

ACCOMPLICES: Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The battle between two living legends.

Opening Statement
The popular image of the gamer is usually limited to two stereotypes: the skinny, awkward nerd; or the fat, socially maladjusted basement shut-in. This documentary from the Netherlands takes a different approach, viewing its protagonists as something akin to professional athletes. They don’t have to push their bodies to the limit like real athletes, but there is a certain intensity and dedication when big sponsorship dollars are on the line.

Facts of the Case
The online game World of Warcraft boasts more than ten million inhabitants, but how many can call themselves professional gamers? How many bags of cheezy-poofs would you have to ingest before you’re ready to challenge the world’s best? The documentary Beyond the Game follows two formidable Warcraft III players, leading up to their big confrontation at the 2007 World Cyber Games competition.

The Evidence
Director Jos de Putter’s quiet, observational manner captures an intimate portrait of his subjects without casting any judgments. Whatever we might think of someone who dedicates himself to perfecting his gaming, it’s hard to deny that these players put serious effort into their vocation. Chinese player Sky devotes 12 hours each day to his game. Coming from a humble village life, Sky is making big money doing something his parents can’t quite fathom. Dutch player Grubby always has the game on his mind, factoring in how much time he can play before he has to run to the bus stop. When apartment hunting with his girlfriend, he is more concerned about the building’s Internet connection speed than the size of the bathroom. Seeing the intense focus that Sky and Grubby have for their craft, you can’t help but feel a little uneasy they’ve put so much effort into a skill with no direct real-world application. Though it’s never mentioned, the sponsorship and prize monies must be substantial, as the pressure to be the best at exercising such a specific skill is immense.

At the World Cyber Games, swarms of fans treat these players like celebrities. When Grubby quietly takes a seat at a gaming parlor to get some practice time, he’s immediately recognized. The film mostly foregoes the usual screen shots of game footage, to observe the real-world activity during the matches. As the stadium crowd sits with their eyes glued to the big monitors, the camera lets us watch the players pulling the electronic strings. Fingers dance furiously over the keyboards, as we hear the tap of plastic keys, the scrap of a mouse over the desktop, the whirring of the CPU fans, and the breathing of young men engaged in virtual combat. The camera patiently takes it all in, ignoring the animated pixels all other eyes are focused upon. It’s an unexpected method of presenting the “big game” moment, until you realize these are the only real physical actions taking place.

Closing Statement
This isn’t your typical look at video games, but these aren’t your typical video game nerds. They’re the best Warcraft III players in the world and that appears to account for a lot in this particular subculture. The film gives us a glimpse of life as a professional game player, and reveals it isn’t all that fun.

The Verdict
7/10

Up in the Air

OPENING: 11/13/2009

STUDIO: Paramount

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The story of a man ready to make a connection.

Opening Statement
The third film by filmmaker Jason Reitman (son of Ivan, Juno, Thank You For Smoking) Up in the Air establishes itself quickly as his best film to-date; very impressive, considering how strong his oeuvre is. The man has a knack for turning the simple into the profound, for releasing films timed so expertly with the mental climate of audiences. Up in the Air is a near-perfect balance of lighthearted comedy and bittersweet introspection, wrapped up into social and economical criticism, and received standing ovations during its screening at TIFF. This one is going to turn heads in November.

Facts of the Case
Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a “career transition consultant” – he fires people for a living. He lives his whole life out of his suitcase. He travels almost every day of the year. He spends more time in first class on airplanes than in his real apartment which he despises. For him, his home is on the road, in the endless suites of hotel rooms, in concierge lines being catered to. His company gets hired to go on-site and lay off dozens of employees at one time, listening to their moans, their threats, their tears with faux-sympathy and support. In an economic climate sliding further into the tubes, business is booming for Ryan.

He even meets like-minded travelers on the road, like the beautiful Alex (Vera Farmiga), who lives a life as perpetually on-the-move as Ryan. They try and coordinate their schedules to meet up whenever their paths cross for a late-night rendezvous, and Ryan enjoys the casualness of it all, of his entire life. Ryan is happy. All his emotional baggage has been stowed safely away. For him, total mastery of the business class lifestyle is his reason for living—and one day, he’ll even reap the exclusive rewards of logging over ten million miles as a frequent flyer, his scorecard to success.

But when his corporation hires a young hotshot graduate named Natalie (Anna Kendrick) who threatens to “revolutionize” the business by laying off employees via webcam, Ryan takes her on as an unwilling protégé to show her exactly how the job really works—the endless traveling, the tears of dejected and devastated workers losing their entire place in the world. By showing her exactly how isolated and mobile his life needs to be to succeed at his job, and by juggling increasingly romantic rendezvous with Alex, he veers dangerously close to developing real relationships for the first time. Suddenly, the ties that bind everyone else that seemed so onerous—mortgages, families, spouses, children—now act as spotlights, illuminating exactly how isolated he really is.

The Evidence
A marvelously enjoyable film, Up in the Air is a perfect example of how profound and powerful a filmmaker can be when he simply stops and listens to his audience. Here is a film that captures so perfectly so many anxieties, worries, delights and joys in modern America—a struggling economic climate, the constant anxiety of losing jobs and livelihoods, loneliness and alienation, the new emphasis to put career first and family second—all of it wrapped so effortlessly and enjoyably.

In Ryan, we find a man who struggles with his lot in life, not as a “mid-life crisis” so much as a culture crisis. Imagine his representation as an entire generation of American salarymen, eschewing family life and connections, binding ties and baggage in favor of a highly mobile and materialistic lifestyle. For Ryan (and for so many of us today) career comes first, at the exclusion of every other element traditionally embraced by our culture. Traditionally, one worked hard for their house, their family, their children, but for millions like Ryan, today, the work itself is the reward. All the other bits just weigh you down. Consider that for many of us up-and-coming children of Generation X, we are at an age still struggling with financial obligations, debts, immaturity and finding a career path that can support our dreams and aspirations. Flash back thirty years, and by our age, our parents had it all: a house, a career, a family and children, with not a care in the world. It must have been nice.

Up in the Air gets it, absolutely nails this anxiety on the head. If we live a life entirely devoted to the materialistic, to the mobile and modern lifestyle, eschewing the traditional values—what do we have at the end of the day? Ryan is happy as a clam with his life, and his ethos acts as nails on a chalkboard to everyone around him. Estranged from his own family, they have no understanding or appreciation of why he puts distance between them. His young protégé looks at him as if he is from another plant when he sings the virtues of total freedom of bonds. And it works for him, perfectly, brilliantly—right up until the point where it stops working. We watch it happen in a sequence of facial expressions on George Clooney, like bricks slowly tumbling out of a decrepit wall causing the entire thing to collapse. It is a heartbreaking moment.

A brilliant mix of comedy and drama, of loneliness and loss, heart and humility, Up in the Air feels so right, so profound, despite not really saying much of anything. Call it a populist film in subject and delivery; the film manages to speak at length on a variety of critical emotional, social and cultural issues, without really creating any debate on the issue. This is just a simple slice of one man’s life, and whatever we infer or take away from it is ours to decide. There is little challenge here. It is a gentle and kind film with its audiences, never too probing or solemn in its observations or critiques, but this casual approach works extremely well, in part because we can believe it. Ryan lives a lifestyle that most audience members would never choose to live, but in watching his own fiery pride flicker and burn out, his own ethos come heavily into question, we cherish and value our own relationships by proxy. His heartbreaks manifest as our own introspect.

Most films struggle trying to harmonize disparate elements, mixing and matching genres, but Jason Reitman appears to have quite the knack for it. As a writer, producer and director, he seemingly has an uncanny talent to attach to projects that span genres with ease. Up in the Air is equal parts social commentary, spiritual philosophy, romantic comedy and family drama. Like a Benetton commercial, all elements are in harmony. The jokes all land perfectly and are uproariously funny, the family elements are warm and approachable, the introspection never comes close to being preachy or manipulative, and the romance is tender and sincere. Adding to this, Reitman reveals himself as having some serious talent behind the camera. This is a beautifully shot film, full of quirky close-ups and exquisitely framed compositions sure to delight those who appreciate the finer technical elements of cinema.

Clooney delivers a wonderful performance as a man slowly coming into (or out of) his shell. The cool and calculated Ryan we meet at the beginning of the film peels away to reveal a man not unlike all of us—unsure of where his place in the world is, how he will pay the bills, lonely for affection but too proud to admit it. It is a marvelously nuanced performance by the veteran actor, and will no doubt earn him great praise. An unusually reserved Jason Bateman plays his boss, a corporate raider type satisfied with his lot and unsympathetic to his report’s plight. Vera Farmiga lights up the screen as the chromosomal counterpart to Clooney, a female Ryan with no hesitation or reservations. Watching the two fall into love is as satisfying of an experience as even the finest romances can offer. The hapless protégé, played by Anna Kendrick is plucky and spunky, full of big ideas and fresh out of school (as we all were once). By the end, she learns some unpleasantly hard lessons about how the world really works (as we all did). Her performance is quite good; funny and feisty and by the end, just a bit deflated, all very realistic. Small cameo appearances by Zach Galifianakis and the eponymous J.K. Simmons round out the cast nicely.

Closing Statement
Up in the Air captures almost every element about going to the movies that we love, balancing them equally and effortlessly into a single, simple film. Lighthearted but profound, heartwarming while distant, humorous and heartbreaking, you get the idea. The final product is a masterful contradiction, bittersweet and lovely and wholly enjoyable—absolutely one of the best movies of the year.

The Verdict
9/10