feed.angeli.ca

things i like:
rock'n'roll, country, punk & metal.
bands that combine all four successfully.
design, graphic & interior.
the intersection of philosophy & sociology.
ampersands.
andrew wk.
emergent gameplay.
cursing.
beards.
beer.
bbq.
cjlo.
deep fried everything.
americana.
making lists, including this one of my life's ambitions.

feedback: @angelidotca or ask me anything you'd like here.

i took a trip! read about it here.

evidence of my lame yuppie side on my (gasp!) house blog here.

July 29
(image via allmoviephoto.com) It’s hard to talk in detail about why you didn’t like a film, particularly when it will be pretty much universally loved by everyone else. When you seem to be the only one with your thumb down you start to wonder whether you’re really out of touch, and you hesitate to talk about it because you don’t want to take the wind out of anyone’s sails. That’s why I’d like to make the point that I have not read the comic on which the film Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is based. Based on the film, I’m not sure it would interest me, and I can say for certain that at least visually it doesn’t hold any appeal. For that reason, if you are a huge fan of the comic, you should probably stop reading now, since by all accounts you will probably love this movie for reasons that are totally independent and unrelated to why I didn’t, and you should be free to enjoy it without taking my crotchety commentary into account. What I liked: Overall, the execution of this film is brilliantly slick. The fight scenes are cleverly choreographed, and the film is entertaining from start to finish. When it inevitably airs on television at some later point in time, I will probably watch it again (even tho’ my overall opinion of it will likely not change), and that is a testament to the fact that it is entertaining without a doubt. The visual effects in the film are smartly done, with the comic book onomatopaeia being particularly strongly executed.What I loathed: Michael Cera is horrid. I find him completely unwatchable, and am seriously stymied by how much people seem to like him. His cutesy, wussy “aw shucks, it’s just me, Michael Cera” shtick is grating, and as Scott Pilgrim he adds a layer of emasculated douchiness that I didn’t think was possible to embody. I enjoyed him as George Michael Bluth and I’m not extremely opposed to him in principle, but the laughter and “awwww”s that he solicited from the crowd continually just left me totally confused. The film is fucking fast, with, as Simon from Sound on Sight commented to me, probably more jokes per minute than any film previously made. While that’s not a bad thing, I found the relentless pace of the film to be tiring overall, like an amped up version of some overstimulated kid’s show made for ironic ADD-affected adults. The videogame references got a little old for me, and the “touching final lesson” of the film fell totally flat for me as well. Above all, though, what really ultimately turned me off is not really a fault with the film, but a fault that comes with age, and that is related to the weirdly revisionist 90s feeling to the film. I know that kids today are enjoying aping the 90s like I did with the 80s growing up (and I realize now how fucking obnoxious that really is), but watching a jacked up version of what was once my life kept sending me into spontaneous fits of eyerolling. Stupid short haircuts in unnatural colors, Smashing Pumpkins tshirts, shopping at Goodwill, trolling the record shop, answering every statement or question with “whatever”… gah, I don’t look back on that with nostalgia at all. All it reminds me of is the awkwardness of growing up and trying to fit in during a period of time when irony ruled and the seeds for future hipster ultra-nonchalance were sown. As much as I didn’t like the film, I didn’t hate it. The things I didn’t like about it say more about me than about the film itself. Weirdly, my overall sensation while watching that film was of peering into something that while recognizable, was also in some way totally foreign, and my final impression was that everyone else got it, but I was left in the cold. Maybe I SHOULD read the comic? I dunno.

(image via allmoviephoto.com)

It’s hard to talk in detail about why you didn’t like a film, particularly when it will be pretty much universally loved by everyone else. When you seem to be the only one with your thumb down you start to wonder whether you’re really out of touch, and you hesitate to talk about it because you don’t want to take the wind out of anyone’s sails. That’s why I’d like to make the point that I have not read the comic on which the film Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is based. Based on the film, I’m not sure it would interest me, and I can say for certain that at least visually it doesn’t hold any appeal. For that reason, if you are a huge fan of the comic, you should probably stop reading now, since by all accounts you will probably love this movie for reasons that are totally independent and unrelated to why I didn’t, and you should be free to enjoy it without taking my crotchety commentary into account. 

What I liked: Overall, the execution of this film is brilliantly slick. The fight scenes are cleverly choreographed, and the film is entertaining from start to finish. When it inevitably airs on television at some later point in time, I will probably watch it again (even tho’ my overall opinion of it will likely not change), and that is a testament to the fact that it is entertaining without a doubt. The visual effects in the film are smartly done, with the comic book onomatopaeia being particularly strongly executed.

What I loathed: Michael Cera is horrid. I find him completely unwatchable, and am seriously stymied by how much people seem to like him. His cutesy, wussy “aw shucks, it’s just me, Michael Cera” shtick is grating, and as Scott Pilgrim he adds a layer of emasculated douchiness that I didn’t think was possible to embody. I enjoyed him as George Michael Bluth and I’m not extremely opposed to him in principle, but the laughter and “awwww”s that he solicited from the crowd continually just left me totally confused. The film is fucking fast, with, as Simon from Sound on Sight commented to me, probably more jokes per minute than any film previously made. While that’s not a bad thing, I found the relentless pace of the film to be tiring overall, like an amped up version of some overstimulated kid’s show made for ironic ADD-affected adults. The videogame references got a little old for me, and the “touching final lesson” of the film fell totally flat for me as well. Above all, though, what really ultimately turned me off is not really a fault with the film, but a fault that comes with age, and that is related to the weirdly revisionist 90s feeling to the film. I know that kids today are enjoying aping the 90s like I did with the 80s growing up (and I realize now how fucking obnoxious that really is), but watching a jacked up version of what was once my life kept sending me into spontaneous fits of eyerolling. Stupid short haircuts in unnatural colors, Smashing Pumpkins tshirts, shopping at Goodwill, trolling the record shop, answering every statement or question with “whatever”… gah, I don’t look back on that with nostalgia at all. All it reminds me of is the awkwardness of growing up and trying to fit in during a period of time when irony ruled and the seeds for future hipster ultra-nonchalance were sown.

As much as I didn’t like the film, I didn’t hate it. The things I didn’t like about it say more about me than about the film itself. Weirdly, my overall sensation while watching that film was of peering into something that while recognizable, was also in some way totally foreign, and my final impression was that everyone else got it, but I was left in the cold. Maybe I SHOULD read the comic? I dunno.

July 26

I know, I know, I’m behind on my Fantasia reviews… but that will have to wait until tomorrow. I took a day off from the festival tonight, but with good reason - I had to share a stage with Lamb of God. Here’s a bit of Black Label with the infamous wall of death.

July 23

Symbol trailer.

+

So there’s a movie called Symbol…

… and it’s about a man that wakes up in an empty, all white room. Only, it’s not completely empty. Nope, the walls and floors are littered with infant genitalia. Upon honking these genitals, trapdoors open and things fly into the room. Meanwhile, somewhere in Mexico, a wrestler is getting ready for an important match.

This is not a setup for a punchline. No, it’s the actual plot of an actual motion picture that I actually watched last night. It’s from Japan, naturally. And it’s actually pretty good.

Sure, the film is kind of a one-note wonder, but the gag surprisingly doesn’t really get old. The film remains engaging throughout, and frankly, the white room/baby genitals/trapdoors concept would make for a killer videogame. Seriously, if you can make a Desperate Housewives videogame, you can make one for Symbol. I would play the hell out of it too.

+

Into Eternity trailer.

+

Now let’s talk about true horror films…

… specifically the scariest film I have ever seen at Fantasia. Ever.

Some torture porn oeuvre? Some Japanese jumpcut thriller?

Not even close.

Into Eternity is a documentary about Onkalo, the repository for nuclear waste currently being constructed 5km underground in Finland.

The film is simple, sparse, and bone-shakingly profound. It’s a film about legacy, about responsibility in the face of the unknowable, about remembering to forget. It filled me with sadness, and a deep sick feeling, and I wasn’t alone. When the film ended, the audience filed out in a funereal march, not speaking, not breathing it seemed.

There isn’t too much else that I’d like to say about this film other than it screens again on Monday at 3pm, and it is worth leaving work early for. If you do go see it, let me know. I’d like to talk about it with you over beers.

+
photo via The Guardian Sometimes it’s hard for me to separate what I know to be true from mindless entertainment. I’ve never considered myself to be one of those easily-offended types, the ones looking for censorship at worst and a fight at best, finding grievous injustice in every beer ad, every magazine cover, every exploitation flick. Thing is, though, every once in a while, something sticks in my craw, and then I do something about it. Howeer, I’ve rarely been confronted with things that on some deeper level bother me, but generally amuse me overall. Until yesterday, that is, when I went to see Doghouse, and to be honest, I’m really not sure how to feel about it. This British zombie comedy follows a group of guys on their “mancation” (bleeechh) to a small English town. They expect to drink beers, hang out, and get laid, and instead are faced with a horde of man-hating female zombies out for blood. The good: the zombies are fantastic and cartoonish, with hilarious makeup (the fat goth with beachball sized implants who works at a magic shop was my personal favorite), some amusing survival scenarios and sight gags, and overall laughs. The not so amusing: there is an open, unabashed misogyny to this film… it’s somewhat of a gag, a bit wink-wink-nudge-nudge, and yet… there it is. It’s not so much in that it’s only men killing exclusively women. If it was that subtle, it would be easily forgiven, as is most of the joking, over-the-top misogyny. There’s just something about it that doesn’t feel right… Maybe it’s the fact that all the non-zombie women in these men’s lives are depicted as castrating bitches. Maybe it’s the fact that any critique of sexist attitudes within the film (one of the characters is routinely mocked for being a pig by his friends) is immediately undermined in some way or another. Bottom line, there’s an extremely juvenile, lad-mag quality to this movie, and that’s essentially its saving grace. Few people would take the advice in Maxim or FHM seriously, and it’s with that in mind that the film can be enjoyable. Of course, there’s another way to read the film… in the final scene, when all their hard work is undone by typical male ego and stupidity, I could only think to myself “pfffft, just like a man!”.

photo via The Guardian

Sometimes it’s hard for me to separate what I know to be true from mindless entertainment. I’ve never considered myself to be one of those easily-offended types, the ones looking for censorship at worst and a fight at best, finding grievous injustice in every beer ad, every magazine cover, every exploitation flick. Thing is, though, every once in a while, something sticks in my craw, and then I do something about it. Howeer, I’ve rarely been confronted with things that on some deeper level bother me, but generally amuse me overall.

Until yesterday, that is, when I went to see Doghouse, and to be honest, I’m really not sure how to feel about it. This British zombie comedy follows a group of guys on their “mancation” (bleeechh) to a small English town. They expect to drink beers, hang out, and get laid, and instead are faced with a horde of man-hating female zombies out for blood.

The good: the zombies are fantastic and cartoonish, with hilarious makeup (the fat goth with beachball sized implants who works at a magic shop was my personal favorite), some amusing survival scenarios and sight gags, and overall laughs.

The not so amusing: there is an open, unabashed misogyny to this film… it’s somewhat of a gag, a bit wink-wink-nudge-nudge, and yet… there it is.

It’s not so much in that it’s only men killing exclusively women. If it was that subtle, it would be easily forgiven, as is most of the joking, over-the-top misogyny. There’s just something about it that doesn’t feel right… Maybe it’s the fact that all the non-zombie women in these men’s lives are depicted as castrating bitches. Maybe it’s the fact that any critique of sexist attitudes within the film (one of the characters is routinely mocked for being a pig by his friends) is immediately undermined in some way or another.

Bottom line, there’s an extremely juvenile, lad-mag quality to this movie, and that’s essentially its saving grace. Few people would take the advice in Maxim or FHM seriously, and it’s with that in mind that the film can be enjoyable. Of course, there’s another way to read the film… in the final scene, when all their hard work is undone by typical male ego and stupidity, I could only think to myself “pfffft, just like a man!”.

July 22

Fantasia Recap

I’ve let this thing lie fallow long enough, it’s time for a recap of all the films I’ve seen in the past few days.

The Disappearance of Alice Creed

The opening sequence of this film is one of the smartest I’ve seen in a while. Snappy and precise, it is a harbinger of things to come, and outlines with what exactitude this film will keep you in its grasp without saying a word. Many of the films shown at Fantasia have twists, and many of those are discernible from the opening frame, but this film thrusts and parrys the whole way through, turning its twists and twisting its turns the whole way through. The actual resolution of the film falls a little flat, but the ride it takes to get there is thrilling, and the actors are wonderful (particularly Eddie Marsan, who manages to be both unhinged and endearing, often at the same time). Go see it, you’ll like it.

Saving Grace

The theme continues with the premiere of this Canadian film, which follows the abduction of a troubled young woman. Her captor tells her that he rescued her from a chemical disaster and the ensuing death and destruction, but is he telling the truth? This is a solid first narrative feature, with believable if occasionally overenthusiastic actors. The pacing is sometimes too slow and deliberate, and there are some moments that are confusing, but the film is well written, especially given the caution that this kind of a “is he or isn’t he?” story requires, and the execution is solid.

La Meute

I went into this not knowing what to expect, and while the film was enjoyable enough, the thinly forged plot and familiar monsters (seriously, it’s The Descent with coveralls) were a little disappointing. There were too many narrative holes (what was the point of that machine anyways?), and the twist ending was pretty phoned in, but it’s a decent enough horror flick that reminds you of two very important things… 1) hitchiking… still dangerous, and 2) HEADSHOTS. seriously, people. Don’t be shy, when in doubt, headshots.

[REC]2

HELL. YES. While nothing can top the brilliance of the first [REC] film, this followup managed to be just as jumpy and well-executed as the first. Picking up precisely where [REC] left off, [REC]2 shifts perspective slightly, as a new group of hapless victims are called to the scene of the infection and a back story is revealed. This film can be read as a cutting commentary on the Catholic church (particularly in regards to all the pedophile priest sex scandals and their subsequent followup), but as a straightforward horror flick it still shines. See [REC] first if you wanna give this one a go… it’ll make for one hell of a double feature.

Small Gauge Trauma 2010

SGT never disappoints, although the majority of the short films in the program this year weren’t as harrowing as in previous editions. The one major exception was probably Ninjas, the terribly striking Brazilian short about corrupt cops by festival favorite Dennison Ramalho, but there were plenty of films with a lighter take (the parody Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ad… “Is that the Bible?” “Not quite… it’s the Necronomicon!”, and the clever Spanish short about the street performer/human statue/boxer) which were equally great.

Red, White & Blue

One of my all time favorite Fantasia films was The Lost, an adaptation of a Jack Ketchum novel with a small town rock’n’roll aesthetic and a terrific performance by Marc Senter. When I saw that Senter was back in another film with a strong rock’n’roll Americana feel, I couldn’t get to the theatre fast enough. There’s an interesting futility to Red White & Blue which I enjoyed, and it’s a clear reminder that the spectre of death doesn’t always wield a knife. As a twisted love story, it’s pretty good, but it’s the acting holds this film together most of all. The slutty girl with nothing to live for, the suburban two-car-garage-rocker, the benevolent sociopath… all these characters are given incredible strength by the actors that portray them, and that alone makes it worth watching.

Tonight will be a triple threat, if I can make it through… Doghouse, Into Eternity and Symbol. This is where Fantasia starts to really heat up. So far, I’ve seen roughly 15 films in 13 days, and I have about 17 left to go… in 7 days. Not to mention 8 more DJ sets to go. Sleep is nonexistent, I seem to never not have alcohol in my system, and I’m just hoping to make it through. Wish me luck!

July 20

taking two days off…

but when I start writing again I will be covering the Fantasia films I’ve caught in the meantime, which will likely include:

  • The Disappearance of Alice Creed
  • Saving Grace
  • La Meute
  • [Rec]2 (TONIGHT! can’t wait)
  • Small Gauge Trauma 2010
  • Red White & Blue

That’s a lot of writing. No BVST tonight, by the way. Join us for a drink tonight or tomorrow at the regular post-Fantasia watering hole if you wanna hang out.

July 19
Kansas City News - Plog As I walked out of the theatre after seeing Feast of the Assumption: BTK & The Otero Family Murders, all I could think about was how much more impact this film had than A Serbian Film. Misery, mental illness, torture and devastation is all too real, and it is perpetrated by the sick on the innocent all the time. Who needs to fictionalize it in a cheap torture porn when films like Feast of the Assumption show the real price paid? The film doesn’t follow Dennis Rader, the man eventually identified as BTK. It follows the story of a survivor left in his wake, Charlie Otero, a member of the murdered Otero family. Life hasn’t been easy for Charlie since the day he walked into his family home at the age of fifteen. Charlie’s story is compelling and devastating, and he is a true protagonist. The film itself is uneven, and looks ugly at times, but its story cuts deep. There are some weird musical choices (GG Allin? Wesley Willis?) that I won’t say are in poor taste because I love the artists in question, but I know left many members of the audience confused. Also strange were the allusions to Charlie Otero’s conspiracy theories about the murder of his family (discussed, but never really fleshed out) and a distressing later scene in which anger, misplaced revenge and the movie In Cold Blood come together in an undeniably bizarre way. That said, the film is very emotionally engaging, and I think it functions as clear evidence that while BTK destroyed many lives, he didn’t kill the Otero family. On a final note, though not directly related to the film, I’d like to add this, taken from Wikipedia: The police corresponded with the BTK Killer (Rader) in an effort to gain his confidence. Then, in one of his communications with police, Rader asked them if it was possible to trace information from floppy disks. The police department replied that there was no way of knowing what computer such a disk had been used on, when in fact such ways existed. Rader then sent his message and floppy to the police department, which quickly checked the metadata of the Microsoft Word document. In the metadata, they found that the document had been made by a man who called himself Dennis. They also found a link to the Lutheran Church. When the police searched on the Internet for ‘Lutheran Church Wichita Dennis’, they found his family name, and were able to identify a suspect: Dennis Rader, a Lutheran Deacon.

Kansas City News - Plog

As I walked out of the theatre after seeing Feast of the Assumption: BTK & The Otero Family Murders, all I could think about was how much more impact this film had than A Serbian Film. Misery, mental illness, torture and devastation is all too real, and it is perpetrated by the sick on the innocent all the time. Who needs to fictionalize it in a cheap torture porn when films like Feast of the Assumption show the real price paid?

The film doesn’t follow Dennis Rader, the man eventually identified as BTK. It follows the story of a survivor left in his wake, Charlie Otero, a member of the murdered Otero family. Life hasn’t been easy for Charlie since the day he walked into his family home at the age of fifteen. Charlie’s story is compelling and devastating, and he is a true protagonist.

The film itself is uneven, and looks ugly at times, but its story cuts deep. There are some weird musical choices (GG Allin? Wesley Willis?) that I won’t say are in poor taste because I love the artists in question, but I know left many members of the audience confused. Also strange were the allusions to Charlie Otero’s conspiracy theories about the murder of his family (discussed, but never really fleshed out) and a distressing later scene in which anger, misplaced revenge and the movie In Cold Blood come together in an undeniably bizarre way.

That said, the film is very emotionally engaging, and I think it functions as clear evidence that while BTK destroyed many lives, he didn’t kill the Otero family.

On a final note, though not directly related to the film, I’d like to add this, taken from Wikipedia:

The police corresponded with the BTK Killer (Rader) in an effort to gain his confidence. Then, in one of his communications with police, Rader asked them if it was possible to trace information from floppy disks. The police department replied that there was no way of knowing what computer such a disk had been used on, when in fact such ways existed. Rader then sent his message and floppy to the police department, which quickly checked the metadata of the Microsoft Word document. In the metadata, they found that the document had been made by a man who called himself Dennis. They also found a link to the Lutheran Church. When the police searched on the Internet for ‘Lutheran Church Wichita Dennis’, they found his family name, and were able to identify a suspect: Dennis Rader, a Lutheran Deacon.