This camp is less than monstrous. Or interesting.

So I ended up watching quite a few documentaries over this past weekend, two of which had a common theme. What was the common theme you ask? It was nerddom. Utter and glorious nerddom. I feel a special affinity for nerds because, to be frank, I kind of am one. I understand the attraction of games and genre fiction. However, these films showed some of the more extreme examples that are out there. Let the awkwardness begin!

Let’s start with “Monster Camp.” “Monster Camp” follows the trials and tribulations of the Seattle branch of NERO, the New England Roleplaying Organization. NERO is basically a live action fantasy roleplaying game where players assume the roles of wizards, warriors and various monsters. Face paint, homemade costumes and foam rubber swords are everywhere you look. Think Augie from “Role Models” and you get the idea.

The first thing that struck me about this “game” is how ridiculously complicated it is. In one scene, a man named Fern (yes, Fern) is instructing a new recruit on the finer points of dealing damage in a melee battle. Fern explains that your weapon deals out a certain number of damage with each strike and may have enchantments that make it deal out certain types of damage. It is your responsibility to then yell out what type and how much damage you are doing with each strike of your mighty Nerf sword of doom. For example, you would yell out “Normal 2!” for 2 points of normal damage. Got all that? Of course you do.

How this actually plays out in practice is a bunch of grown men and women spastically swinging “weapons” at each other screaming “NORMAL2NORMAL2NORMAL2!” in a swarm around some poor sap that is playing a monster. This really underscores what I think is the major problem with the film. The game is boring to watch. Really, really boring. It’s needlessly complicated and they all take it very seriously. While the film goes for the predictable “look-at-how-ridiculous-this-all-is” laughs, that pretty much gets old after the first ten minutes (although a very husky man playing the part of a giant death moth or something shouting “HYPNOTIC STARE!” while spreading his cape “wings” is pretty hilarious).

The film’s attempt to humanize the players is mostly done in such a way that we pity them. Two best friends/roommates that are profiled haven’t finished high school, one a seventh year senior and the other a fourth year senior. Of these two, one of them doesn’t even have a job. He plays World of Warcraft all day while his roommate is at work and then moves to videogames on the TV when his buddy gets home. Another player is criticized by his daughter for playing too many games and his solution is to buy her a computer so they can both play in the same room together. You just never get any more emotionally invested with these people because they seem so alien, to me at least. And if your documentary can’t make you connect with the subjects, what’s the point?


Grade: C-

"Salt"y goodness? Not so much.

Hi there. It’s Matt. I know I haven’t posted anything in awhile. A long while. But the truth is I was a little mad at you. We both know why. So let’s just try and put this ugliness behind us ok? Ok!

Now that we have gotten THAT out of the way, I would like to talk to you about a little movie called Salt. Oh where do I begin? Let me first start with the title. I think this title is stupid. You think the title is stupid. I realize that there are people in this crazy world whose surname is synonymous with a vital chemical compound, just like there are people named “Jane Water” or “Peter Vitamin C.” However, a good movie title it does not make. Is it supposed to be some kind of play-on-words that I’m missing? Like “salt” of the earth (which would make no sense) or “salt” in the wound (which makes slightly more sense maybe)?

Anyway, Salt stars Angelina Jolie, she of the strange facial amalgamation of angular and puffy, as CIA operative Evelyn Salt (ugh) who is accused of being a Russian sleeper agent. That is pretty much the whole plot of the movie, sorry for not giving you a SPOILER ALERT. The rest of the film basically revolves around the question of “Is she or isn’t she?” set into the framework of chase sequences and obligatory, balletic beat downs/gun battles that you expect from a summer action vehicle. In that aspect, Salt doesn’t disappoint. The action sequences are thrilling, if not totally original. They do manage to strain at the limits of believability without crossing them, which is really the goal of any action movie of this type.

That being said, Salt does have a couple of major flaws that, when combined, prove too much. The first problem is Ms. Jolie herself. Now, calm down, let me explain myself. Angelina is a badass. I totally buy into her killing black op mercenaries with her bare hands. She exudes such power, confidence and badassery that she should have been in The Expendables instead of Randy Couture. But because of that, I’ve always had a problem with her when she has to play vulnerable. A critical aspect of the film is Salt’s love for her husband and her need to protect him. It drives the action and is pretty much the entire basis for the movie. So it’s unfortunate that Jolie and August Diehl have all the onscreen chemistry of a cardboard cut-out and an inanimate carbon rod. Since Diehl’s total screen time is about 10 minutes, I’m afraid most of the blame has to go on Jolie. Even when she is talking about him or begging her now-suspicious CIA cohorts to help him, it seems like so many crocodile tears. It appears that, much like Chuck Norris, Angelina Jolie only seems to have two settings: Wait and Kill.

The second problem I had with the film is the bloat it develops as the story progresses. I was into this film for the first third of it, right up to what turns out to be the FIRST twist. This first twist comes early enough that you are like “Cool! Now that that is out of the way, let’s see how the rest of this plays out.” And it is exciting up to and after the first twist! I was all, “Yay Salt!” But then twist number two comes up and I’m all “Ummmm…ok…well, I guess that kind of makes sense. On with the plot!” Then the third twist comes (really?), then a fourth (Oh come on!). By the last set of twists and reveals, you’ve figured this whole thing out way in advance and you’re just not interested anymore. To top it all off, they’ve worked so hard to make it complicated that the ending seems lazily thrown in there. It’s an ambitious bit of storytelling but in the end, it’s a mess and is ultimately unsatisfying.


Grade: C-

Cyrus

Huh.  Welcome to a bit of Mainstream Mumblecore.  If you're unfamiliar with the movement, it's lo-fi film making.  Ultra low budget, non professional actors, and improvised dialogue.  Here we go a bit more mainstream.  John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill, and still sexy Marisa Tomei star in Jay & Mark Duplass' 'Cyrus'.  In a nutshell, lonely guy John C. Reilly meets Marisa Tomei at his ex-wife's new engagement party.  They hit it off (wink), and quickly fall for each other.  There is one problem, Tomei has a son she hasn't told him about.  And he lives at home, is 21, and will do anything to stop a man from coming between him and his mother. The film is darkly funny.  Anyone viewing the film, prepare yourself for some truly awkward moments.  At its heart, it's a sweet film about growth and acceptance.  At times I found it a bit too 'indie' for me.  The movement is known for it's shaky hand held camera work, as well as the numerous close ups.  I have to admit that I'm on the fence regarding the Mumblecore movement.  But I'm interested in exploring some of the films more representative of this style.  Perhaps a viewing of 'Hump Day' is in order...

Is 'Cyrus' worth your time?  If you enjoy your comedy on the dark side, with some uncomfortable moments, then 'Cyrus' is for you.

Rating: B-

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

The first film based on the 'Millennium Trilogy' by Stieg Larsson introduces us to Lisbeth Salander, one of the more complex and rich female characters to come about in a long time.  Mikael Blomkvist, played competently by Michael Nyqvis is a journalist recently released from prison after being framed for libel when publishing a piece on defaming a local business tycoon.  He is hired by the patriarch of the wealthy Vanger family, who value their privacy with good reason.  Harriet Vanger disappeared 40 years ago, and her uncle is convinced it was murder.  Blomkvist agrees to investigate the case, eventually teaming up with Noomi Rapace's Salander.

There are twists and turns aplenty, as well as some true genuine chills.  I must admit at times I was more interested in Salander's story, than the main mystery concerning Harriet's disappearance.  Nonetheless, the film is grossly engaging, as well as just plain gross at times.  There are some brutal scenes in this film, and I'm curious how far the remake will go in recreating them.

Yes, the inevitable US remake is coming, and could quite possibly out do the source film.  It's is being helmed by David Fincher, and Daniel Craig has signed on to play the Blomkvist role.  The Salander role is still uncast at this time.  Fincher's involvement alone fills me with confidence.

I enjoyed the movie immensely, and am excited to see the sequel, 'The Girl Who Played With Fire' (currently playing).  If you enjoy an exceptionally well crafted adult thriller, 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' is a can't miss and a blind buy (if you don't mind subtitles).

Grade: A