My Own Personal Summer Blockbuster

While I'm sure there's plenty to say -- good or bad -- about Baz Luhrmann's glitzy 3-D version of "The Great Gatsby," I'm staying mum. Same goes for "Star Trek into Darkness," "Frances Ha" and all the other movies coming out this summer that would surely appear on my review schedule.

Instead of spending my summer evenings inside of a movie theater, notebook in hand, I'll be settling in to what will undoubtedly be an overpriced, undersized San Francisco studio apartment and preparing for the early morning shuttle ride down the peninsula to my new job at Google. Considering that the movie houses didn't let me bring my dog to work, and they never once provided me with a catered meal, I think I'm coming out a winner on this one. 

Of course, I'll also get to work for a company that is, as cheesy as it sounds, inventing the future. Alright, fine. As a technical writer, I won't exactly be the one churning out the killer code that makes the future a reality, but I will be responsible for helping the rest of us figure out how to use it. I couldn't be more excited, both for the career shift and the location leap. I've always wanted to live in San Francisco.

Will I miss reviewing movies? Did you really have to ask that? Of course I will.   

But I won't miss trying to cram a film critic's job into a few nights per week and most of my weekends, which I've been doing ever since I started freelancing for U-T San Diego in January 2010. I spent business hours (at least until 5pm today) in a cozy, double-wide trailer on the UCSD Extension campus, where I've been happily employed as University of California Television's communications director since 2003. (I can't yet bring myself to officially say goodbye to the job and the people on this blog.)

Just like when I decided to leave L.A. and the entertainment business behind in 1999, movies will once again become my hobby. Sure, I'll have to get to the theater early to make sure I get a good seat, suffer through the commercials and eardrum-busting previews and, of course, buy a ticket. But at least I can put the notebook down and pick up a handful of popcorn instead.

Of course, if I feel so inclined, I can always write about the movies I see on my blog. Just like everyone else.

I'm eager to see where all of this new found free time will take me. My plan is to resume my own writing projects, which have been on hold since I signed on with the U-T. If you're interested, I'll be posting updates right here. 

And just in case you start missing me, I will have one more story running in the U-T in June. It's my SXSW interview with Joss Whedon about his micro-budget  summer release, "Much Ado About Nothing."

Until then, enjoy your San Diego summer. While you're soaking up the sunshine, I'll be in San Francisco, adjusting to what it's like to wear a jacket in July.

Read More

"Evil Dead's" Bruce Campbell, SXSW Interview

I sat down with Bruce Campbell the day after the SXSW premiere of Evil Dead, which he produced along with his good friends and collaborators on the original The Evil Dead trilogy, Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert. 

The dapper B movie icon with the chin that just won't quit kept me on my toes with his biting sarcasm and absolute lack of pretension. Here's the complete transcript of the interview, during which he shares his thoughts on fervent Evil Dead fans,  how much he enjoys taunting his old buddy Sam Raimi, and why he doesn't watch horror movies. You can read my story here and my review of "Evil Dead" here.

Alison Gang: I saw the movie last night.  What an outrageous reaction.

Bruce Campbell: Yeah.  It was fun.

AG: Did you get the reaction that you were expecting?

BC: Yes.  Yeah, we’re good.  We’re done.  This is what you want.  You need a verbal reaction.  

AG: Tell me about this remake idea.  Obviously you were a little nervous about fan reaction and I know there was some in the early days.

BC: Yeah, they were visceral.  They were loud.  They were nasty.

AG: What were they worried about?

BC: That everything would be ruined.  If there’s no Ash character then there’s no Evil Dead.

All of these absolute statements.  And I’m like, hey, relax.  Sam’s behind it.  Rob Tapert’s behind it.  I’m behind it.  We are the only producers.  There are no other cigar chomping producers looking to make a fast buck.  This is the first movie that ever got us into the film business so as violently as opposed as a fan is or careful as they are with this Evil Dead franchise, what do you think we are?  We’re going to take more time with it than the average fan I can tell you that right now.  I care more than the average fan about this movie.  

But we appreciate their zeal.  We appreciate the fact that they care enough to say, don’t screw this up.  You know, like verbally threatening us.  Based on the reaction last night we didn’t’ screw them over.  That’s the goal when you make a horror film, they’ve got to react.  If they don’t react, you’ve failed.  You’ve completely failed.  Laughter.  Nervous laughter.  Screaming.  Hiding.  It’s all good.

AG: Can I be honest?  I actually almost threw up.  And not because I was grossed out but because it didn’t let up.  I didn’t get a chance to breath and I thought I was going to jump out of my skin.

BC: It’s kind of like a noose that gets tightened a little bit.  You’re in a shoot and there’s no way out.

AG: I was like, my knees were up to here, there’s people trapped all around me, I kind of almost had a claustrophobic attack so I thank you for that.

BC: Good.  I like that.

AG: Did you see any of the internet buzz [after the premiere] or anything?

BC: Not since. No.  Fede’s [Alvarez, the film's director] been on it.  He’s good.  These younger guys, their fingers work good.  I haven’t’ read it yet but I just got an email with a link to a bunch of reviews so I can’t wait.  Because the first Evil Dead was pretty much split.  There were some very good reviews and some very bad reviews.  An Atlanta paper called it the sickest of the sick, the first Evil Dead.  In another one, the headline was 'Films That Stoop,' like they’re not even trying to be a legitimate movie.

AG: Now, sickest of the sick was a compliment to you I would imagine?  

BC: Well no, they followed it by saying Sam Raimi took every low-budget bad idea and put it in a low budget blender.

AG: Oh boy.  Yeah.

BC: Yet, the L.A. Times comes out and says instant classic.  So that’s the thing with reviews, you can’t throw yourself off the cliff for a bad one and you can’t go buy a new Cadillac with a good one.  The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.  Nothing is ever that bad and nothing is ever that good.

AG: I read you were looking originally to make a comedy before you decided on doing the The Evil Dead way back then.

BC: That’s all we’d ever done was comedies.  We were Three Stooges fans.  If we are going to raise money from a group of business men in Detroit, comedy was like, who’s your main actor or who’s your comedian that you know?  None of us.  But horror movies you can make with no name actors.  Jane Levy [Mia in Evil Dead] had a lot of experience, and Shilo Fernandez [David] and same with Lou [Taylor Pucci, who plays Eric] and all of the other actors. They’re all good, solid actors but we don’t have like a star or starlet that everybody knows. Horror movies can do that.  You can have no name people.

AG: Because the gore is the star.

BC: The gore is the star.  Yeah, that’s pretty much the deal.

AG: There were a lot of low budget horror movies around that time. Why was the original Evil Dead different? Why did it hit the way it did?

BC: Sam Raimi.  His visual style.  I doubt that some of these other late 70s horror movies, like I Know What You Did Last Night, Friday the 13^th, all of those movies were shot in about three weeks and it looks like it.  The Evil Dead took 12 weeks of principle photography.  That was twice as long as we had intended.  When you shoot that long you can take an entire day to get one shot.  We would never do that again and have never done it since.  It’s too inefficient.  As a result there are shots in the movie that are arrestingly cool that are not in any other low budget horror films because they don’t have the time.  

Roger Corman movies, god bless him for being so prolific, but memorable?  No.  He makes impossible challenges, like make a movie in 10 days.  You’re going to get what you get.  You really are.  The occasional guys like [George] Lucas will come out of there, or [Francis Ford] Coppola. Out of the hundreds of directors, very few survive that world because they were not given a chance to do their stuff.  

Sam from the get-go had these ridiculous ideas that Rob [Tapert] and I were like, 'Oh god, how do we do that?  How do we do that shot?'  It was before green screen.  It was before blue screen.  So we just had to figure out a way to do it.  I think that’s what set it apart.  They knew that there was somebody behind the camera that had a little more something going on.

AG: What did you guys see in Fede [Alvarez, the film's director]?

BC: Sophistication.  This movie is more sophisticated than the original.  He brings a really interesting sensibility.  He’s not a kid.  He runs a very successful effects company in Uruguay and has a very good living and just got married.  He’s not a 21-year-old know nothing.  He has opinions.  He’s worked extensively with special effects.  We just lucked out there.  The rest was a little bit of a gamble.  Can he make his day?  What do you say to actors?  Does he know how to deal with them?  What if they’re pissed off, how do you calm them down?  There’s a lot of that.  But he had it.  I sat in on a lot of the casting.  To me, that’s what I wanted to see.  What does he say to that actor to make him better without pissing them off?  Actors are these weird, volatile creatures.  So by the time those sessions were done, I’m like he’s good.  I could see how when someone asked a question, he would answer it and how he would help them understand more of what it is they should be doing and what he’s looking for.  That was very reassuring to me.  We were very fortunate to get Fede and Jane [Levy].  We hit two homeruns.  One was with Fede and one was with Jane.

AG: You’re like the king of this nerd B movie empire and you guys are shepherding this franchise. Was that ever how you saw your career ending up way back when?

BC: Well, you know, all roads lead to B movies.  You start B movies as an actor because that’s how you get in movies and you end in B movies when your career is over.  It’s a logical place to be.  I just never left.  I have no problem with B movies.  I don’t apologize for them.  You can make more interesting movies.  You can make twist endings.  You can kill your lead character.  You can cut their arm off.  If this movie was made by a studio it would not be this movie.  It wouldn’t be anything close to this movie.  Thank God.  

I’m happy to work in a low budget arena as long as I’m left alone because then all of the mental shit is gone.  It’s just the physical challenge of making the movie without the politics and without any other pressure.  We wanted to give Fede that environment.  Sam is so supportive of directors.  He’d get on Rob’s case and my case and be like, 'Hey what are you bugging Fede so much for?  Leave him alone.'  And we’re like, 'Shut up, we’re doing our job.'

AG: What were you bugging him about?

BC: Anything.You see the film and it’s time for your editing notes. Well, we can either give him a lot of notes or few notes.  It depends on what we thought.  We each have things that bug us about editing.  That shot seems very similar to that second shot.  Why don’t we lift one of those shots?  Do we need that shot?  It’s stuff like that.

AG: What did you really want to keep from the original?

BC: Some of the sounds.

AG: Like what?

BC: Well the room where everything goes down, where the chick is burned alive in the beginning and where they find the book, there’s a wind in there that we buried with two other winds that is the original Evil Dead wind.  In the cabin for half of the movie is this very dead, creepy, subtle wind and that’s in that room.  Whenever you go in that room the original sound is there and only there.  You can barely hear it but I can hear it.

AG: But you wanted it there.

BC: Hell yeah.

AG: And then the car, of course [the 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88 that Campbell’s character drove in the original films.]

BC: The car I don’t’ give a crap about.  That’s Sam’s.  Sam’s obsession with that stupid car.

AG: It literally is the same car?

BC: I doubt it, being in New Zealand.  But find a couple of car parts and glue them together and you’ve got a car.

AG: I saw Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful and I noted your cameo in there, only because I saw a picture of it ahead of time.  I probably would have never known.  What was that experience like in that film?

BC: Well it’s fun to go on the big movie sets because…to me it’s just fun.  I looked at the makeup station they had.  It was like the infinity mirror.  They had to make up 200 people every day in prosthetic makeups.  That’s staggering.  So I worked one day and it was one incredibly long day but working with Sam was just like nothing else had happened.  It doesn’t matter the budget; it all felt very small and personal when we actually got to film it.  It wasn’t about this big spectacle.  It was about dicking with the scene and having fun with it.  But the crew didn’t know how familiar I was with Sam.  These were all people who were Mr. Raimi this, Mr. Raimi that.

AG: Mr. Hollywood.

BC: They’ve got him…these crew members, they tip toe around him.  Not because he’s mean but he’s a very competent director and very confident.  He knows what he wants.  He was getting pissy one day, saying 'Well, that didn’t work, I’m going to do this and we’re going to do this until we get this.'  So I started imitating him, and I was like, 'Yeah, we’re going to do this, we’re going to shoot it 1,000 times in 18 different ways!'  The crew members were looking at me like, 'Dude, what are you sassing Sam for?'  I’m like, 'You don’t know anything.  I went to high school with this guy.'  So that’s great.  And to watch a good friend be so successful is just…that’s what it’s all about.  That’s why you get in the business, to go, damn, Sam is swimming with the biggest of the big dogs.  He is a big dog.  Sam’s a big dog.  He’s’ a big Hollywood influence.  Nothing could make me happier.  I sit back and I laugh.  I’m sure I’ll send him an email about this weekend’s box office [for opening weekend of Oz], because I think he’s going to pull it out.

AG: Last night you mentioned the sequel.  You said that it's already been written or being written?

BC: Being written.

AG: Okay.  Does it bear any resemblance to the other sequel or is it a whole different path that it’s taking? 

BC: I think it’s going to go completely crazy in a different direction.  It won’t be anything like this movie.  Nothing like this movie.  Which is cool.

AG: One of the things about horror is that, to get the fans to keep coming back, you have to show them something new and it gets more and more graphic, making me want to throw up and things like that.  I’m just curious, how much more graphic do you think you can get?  

BC: That’s not it.

AG: No?  What do you think it is to top it next?

BC: Just different.  There’s a lot of room for different.  It doesn’t have to be more, just different.  There are different ways to show carnage and mayhem.  I don’t know.  Fede will think of something.  Sam will tell us to leave him alone and he’ll come up with something big and ridiculous.

AG: Yeah.  The arm cutting…I think I’m going to live with that for quite a while.

BC: That was cool.  We got just the reaction that we wanted.  People were like, 'Oh my god, she’s doing it!  Oh my god, she’s still doing it.  Oh, it broke off.'

AG: My body was reacting in a way that I had no control over.  It was weird. 

BC: Yeah.  Isn’t that awesome though?

AG: It was pretty awesome.

BC: This is the beauty. People go 'Why are you in a horror movie?'  Because the visceral reaction that you can get from a horror film is so much bigger than dramedy or a romcom or an action movie even.  This is where you get people to be vocal.  That’s a powerful medium.  Comedies and horror films.

AG: Oh yeah.  And watching it in theaters with people is such a great experience.  What’s your favorite modern horror film, besides the Evil Dead of course, that’s come out in the past couple of years?

BC: I haven’t been that impressed with any modern day horror films.

AG: Really?  Even Cabin in the Woods?

BC: I didn’t see it.  Half of these things I haven’t seen.

AG: What?  Cabin in the Woods basically uses the beginning of Evil Dead.

BC: When I go see a movie, I go to watch the actors working.  I feel like I’m at work.  I feel like I’m watching dailies. 

AG: It’s not fun for you.

BC: It’s okay.  Last night was a blast because it was all about tormenting the audience.

AG: Well, consider me tormented.

BC: Good.

Read More

Wrapping up SXSW

I'm writing from 30,000 feet as I make my way home from SXSW and attempt to get my head back in the game of regular life. While reading my previous blog entry, posted when I first arrived, I couldn't help but laugh at the silly anxieties I had about what was to come -- crowds, lines, not getting in. It took just that first screening, the premiere of "Evil Dead," for those small concerns to vaporize and one of the best weeks I've had in years to commence. 

As I charged through each 16+ hour day filled with films, fascinating Q&As with filmmakers and stars, one-on-one interviews, happy hours and meeting interesting people from all over the world, my mind only had room for excitement and appreciation. Even sleep and hunger took a backseat and, considering I'm a big fan of both sleeping and eating, that's saying something.  

Over the next few weeks and months, I'll post the full write-ups of my interviews with Matthew McConaughey and Jeff Nichols (for "Mud"), Joss Whedon (for "Much Ado About Nothing") and Bruce Campbell (for "Evil Dead"), but during the festival I did find some time to chronicle my experiences each day. As a SXSW virgin, I wanted to capture what it felt like to be caught up in the whirlwind as a member of the press. I hope I was able to do that in a way that's interesting to you. You can read my updates at the links below: 

Day 1: Evil Dead premiere and getting in the swing of SXSW

Day 2: Joss Whedon, Bruce Campbell, Richard Linklater and more...

Day 3: Matthew McConaughey, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and more...

Day 4: John Sayles, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's "Don Jon" and festival final thoughts...

The only downside to making the trip was that I used up all of my vacation time at my day job. But at least I have a reason to save them up again -- SXSW 2014 is less than a year away!

In the meantime, here are some snapshots from my adventures.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tony Danza visited the Fandango press lounge
for  an interview about Gordon-Levitt's directorial debut "Don Jon,"

Inside the beautiful Paramount theater, just
before the "Evil Dead" premiere.

Another view from the Fandango lounge, this time with an iconic Austin view from the Intercontinental Hotel terrace where host Dave Karger interviewed Brian Geraghty about "Kilimanjaro," which premiered at SXSW.

"Downloaded" director Alex Winter (L) with Sean Parker and Shawn Fanning, founders of Napster and subjects in Winter's documentary on the controversial music sharing site's rise and fall, take questions after the premiere.

Read More

SXSW: Free Underwear

I've been at the Austin Convention Center for 30 minutes and I've already been shut out of my first SXSW screening. Well, not entirely shut out, just not guaranteed a seat and a pass to the front of the line for tonight's premiere of "Evil Dead," the Sam Raimi-endorsed remake of his 1981 cult horror classic "The Evil Dead." There are plenty more films to see, but since I have an interview scheduled with Bruce Campbell (star of the original series and producer on the remake) tomorrow, I'm obligated to get my rear to the Paramount Theater two hours early and wait...in the rain.

Nobody said SXSW would be easy. This is my first visit to the festival, or any major film festival for that matter, and I've been gearing myself up for lines, crowds, disappointments and - hopefully - some exciting surprises. Like a few minutes ago when I arrived in the Press Suite and the attendant asked me, "Would you like a pair of underwear?" What's a girl to say? Yes, of course. So I snapped up the package of unisex underwear courtesy of GoToMeeting. And a harmonica, because what else do you do while lounging around in your underwear?

Now I'm off to wander the convention center and get my bearings before I hit the "Beginner's Guide to SXSW" panel where I'll hopefully glean a few tips. Then it's time to for a happy hour or two before I stake my claim in the "Evil Dead" premiere line.

I suspect this is the last time I'll feel well-rested during the next week, s o I shall try to savor my clear-headedness. Here's hoping my future posts make sense!

Read More

For Your Consideration: My 2013 Oscar Ballot

After a case of early-onset Oscar fatigue, I was surprised to find myself rather interested in the race while processing my predictions in the major categories for my Oscar preview article (you can read it here, especially if you want to know my rationale for picks you probably disagree with). 

I think my rebound is due to the fact that 2012 was actually a strong year for film, which means there was a lot less cynical eye-rolling as I vacillated between the candidates. 

But enough stalling. Let's get down to the ballot. Just one disclaimer: I am not to be held responsible for any losses you might incur by following my lead. I will, however, be happy to take a cut of the winnings. 

Either way, enjoy the show - even if Seth MacFarlane ruins it with too many Hitler jokes.

BEST PICTURE

Will win: Argo

Should win: Argo
Because it's a perfect distillation of everything a conventional Hollywood film should be -- and this is, after all, a night about Hollywood. After a second viewing of "Life of Pi," however, I'm almost ready to change my mind. 

BEST DIRECTOR

Will win: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

Should win: Ang Lee, Life of Pi
Because he pulled off the impossible and created a film that actually made me want to pay extra to see it in the best possible venue.

  

BEST ACTOR

Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Do I need to explain?

BEST ACTRESS

Will win: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour OK, I actually think Jennifer Lawrence will win, but I'm demonstrating wishful thinking that Academy voters will see past the Weinstein marketing assault and vote the way they should. I loved Silver Linings Playbook and Lawrence's performance, but she'll have plenty more chances at the podium.

Should win: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour

Because she is astounding in the role. Because her co-star wasn't nominated. Because Amour won't win in any other major categories, except Foreign Language Film. 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Will win: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

Should win: Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master

Because he's masterful in The Master and none of his equally incredible co-stars, Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams, have a chance.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Will win: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

Should win: Amy Adams, The Master

Because just when you think you've figured her out, she reveals another side to her talent.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Will win: Searching for Sugar Man

Should win: How to Survive a Plague

Because director David France definitively redefined the American hero.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT

Will win: Inocente

Should win: Inocente

Because it's the only one I've seen and because it's about an inspiring young artist from San Diego.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Will win: Amour

Should win: Amour

Because director Michael Haneke gave us a love story wrapped in a bleak, bloodless horror film.

ANIMATED FEATURE

Will win: Wreck-It Ralph

Should win: ParaNorman

Because I've simply never seen anything like it.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi
Again, because I've simply never seen anything like it.

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

Will win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Should win: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Even though much was betrayed by the hyper-vivid HFR photography, the work was exceptional.  

PRODUCTION DESIGN
Will win: Anna Karenina

Should win:Anna Karenina
Because it was sumptuous and inventive and the best thing about the film. 

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Will win: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty

Should win: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty

Because Kathryn Bigelow wasn't nominated and his script is the other half of the reason I was riveted for the entire 2 1/2 hours. (I'm choosing to ignore the politics surrounding torture in my assessment because there is simply nothing new to say about it.)

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Will win: Chris Terrio, Argo

Should win: For the life of me I can't decide. 

And because I don't have to, I'm making it a four-way tie between Terrio, David Magee (Life of Pi), Tony Kushner (Lincoln) and David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook). Think about the range of films and subject matter represented here and you'll see why I think these kinds of contests are fundamentally flawed. Talk about apples and oranges.

ANIMATED SHORT FILM

Will win: Paperman

Should win: Adam and Dog

Because it's serene, picturesque and about the incomparable bond between human and dog. I'm a sucker for sappy dog stories.

LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM

Will win: Curfew
Should win: Asad
Because it helped me understand a social issue that's otherwise just a news headline, and I love that the cast was made up mostly of Somali refugees.

VISUAL EFFECTS

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi

Because it opened up a whole new level in what technology can do for storytelling.

COSTUME DESIGN

Will win: Anna Karenina

Should win: Anna Karenina

Because you want to reach out and touch every garment Keira Knightley dons.

FILM EDITING

Will win: Argo

Should win: Argo

Because you can't effortlessly weave intense suspense and humor without one hell of an editor.

SOUND MIXING

Will win: Les Miserables

Should win: Les Miserables

Because they sang live, people.

SOUND EDITING

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi

Because I can't get the sound of that shipwreck out of my head.

ORIGINAL SCORE

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi

Because it was magical, dramatic and inclusive of non-western sounds.

ORIGINAL SONG

Will win: Skyfall, by Adele

Should win: Skyfall, by Adele

Because it's been a long time since a Bond theme song seemed even slightly relevant.

Read More

On Second Thought: "Life of Pi"

I saw "Life of Pi" in October, several weeks before it was released, in preparation for a phone interview with its director, Ang Lee (you can read the story here). It was a 10am screening, with just me and two studio security guards in attendance.

Not exactly the ideal time of day and atmosphere for film appreciation, but when I walked out of the theater to rush back to my "regular" job, I knew I'd seen something special; something that elevated 3D filmmaking from a spectacle to be gawked at, like "Avatar," to a tool used to express an artistic vision. I valued its technical accomplishment, the performance of its novice lead actor, Suraj Sharma, and Lee's overall achievement of successfully adapting a book that most of Hollywood had deemed unfilmable.

I knew all of that, but I didn't really feel what the film had to offer. That is, not until I saw it again last night.

In the four months since I first saw the film, what stuck with me most was its beauty, particularly the scenes that melded ocean and sky, and the wonder of the world beneath the surface of the sea. With this in mind, I decided to see it for the second time at one of the "luxury" cinemas here in San Diego, where the cushy recliners would set me up to absorb Lee's wondrous canvas in comfort.

I'd yet to visit one of these fancy theaters and, I have to say, I was impressed by the one I chose, Cinepolis in Del Mar. How wonderful to walk into a theater lobby and see people milling about, drinking cocktails or coffee and chatting. No cattle herding through the snack stand lines; no sullen teenage staff upselling you popcorn or rolling their eyes as they tear your ticket stub. Finally, the movies are a place to be again. When I discovered I could order SweetTarts off the menu (the good kind, small chewy nuggets of sugary tang) and have them delivered to my seat, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.

While my moviegoing experience was transformed by the theater upgrade, it was the film itself that transformed upon second viewing. The artistry and hypnotic beauty were still front and center, but since I'd already been introduced to it, it didn't steal every ounce of my attention as it did in round one.

In fact, I was struck by the volume of sheer, spectacular horror Lee puts Pi (and us) through before he winds up on the open sea with his hungry tiger companion. I was reclined, not in relaxed comfort, but in clutching anguish as I was transported to the depths of Pi's despair, then up and back again as he battled with the elements, the animals, and his own understanding of and belief in God.

After first seeing the film, I was bothered by the exchanges between the grown Pi (Irrfan Khan) and a visiting writer (Rafe Spall), which felt almost like a beloved uncle reading old-fashioned fables to an awestruck child. As I pointed out in my original review, I found these scenes simplistic and repetitive, if not somewhat condescending to anyone on the mid-to-upper end of its PG-range audience.

I was still somewhat uncomfortable with the tone of these scenes upon second viewing, but I was entirely unbothered by the simplicity of their content.

With an opportunity to tune in more closely to David Magee's script, it became clear to me: the act of faith actually is that simple. You believe because you need to. Or you don't. You can debate the fine points and break down your rationalizations for accepting or rejecting them, but in the end the decision to believe the "story" that, for you, makes your life meaningful really is as simple, and potentially profound, as that.

Once the end credits concluded and the lights came up, I was surprised to see nearly everyone in the theater still in their seats, casually talking to one another as the waiters quietly cleared the tables. No mad rush to the exits. No obnoxious cell phone conversations. My companion and I remained seated for quite some time discussing the film, relating it to our lives and, for me, drying my eyes.

If I had made the choice to actually rank my Top 10 films of 2012, I would most definitely be moving "Life of Pi" up the list after last night's screening. If you haven't seen it yet, please make sure to do so -- in 3D -- before it leaves theaters.

Read More

Oh, the Oscars

Well, I suppose I can't deny it anymore. With the nominations out, Oscar hysteria is now at full throttle. Even more so this year due to a few Academy surprises, most notably the absence of Kathryn Bigelow ("Zero Dark Thirty") and Ben Affleck ("Argo") from the Best Director list, despite both of their films being included in the Best Picture category.

But when has the Academy ever really gotten it right? Or perhaps a better question is, whose "right" are we talking about? Each year I'm amazed at how worked up everyone seems to get over the Oscar race. Either people feel vindicated when the movie they championed made the cut, or disgusted when it didn't. Maybe they think the selections are overly commercial, or they're complaining that they're too arty for a mass audience. Perhaps they blame the Academy members, calling them a bunch of old fogies. Or maybe they're saying that the voting population is packed with left wing nuts who hold political grudges against films or filmmakers.

Every year these arguments get trotted out, whipped into a frenzy in the weeks leading up to the star-studded night, then slowly seep away like a malfunctioning whoopee cushion as everyone shifts their focus to what really matters -- how boring/funny/long/controversial the awards broadcast was.

I can understand all the hoopla and hysteria over a campaign that had to do with something that actually affected our lives -- like, you know, an election.  Even if the democratic process is starting to seem like donor-backed political theater, it's still a process that, in the end, each and every eligible citizen can participate in.

But the Oscars? It's all hot air. It's movie studios spending months and millions ramping up their lobbying efforts to convince an exclusive group of individuals to support their candidate. Sometimes really amazing work is rewarded with a statue, and all the glory and money that comes with it. Just as often, a hack gets the gold. Again, it depends on who's talking and, when it comes to the Oscars, it isn't the moviegoer that anyone's listening to. More often than not, it's the Weinsteins.

The best spin I can put on it is that it's horse race political coverage with no real consequence. In politics, all that breathless minute-by-minute reporting tends to  distract and detach the voting public from what's happening in the larger context -- stuff that actually effects their lives. But with the Academy Awards we can root and hoot, complain and caterwaul, ogle designer gowns and celebrity dates, all without undermining our own democracy. I guess that's what you call entertainment!

So what do I think of the nominations.  Well, first of all I'm happy to say I interviewed two five of this year's nominees: director Ang Lee ("Life of Pi"), "Beasts of the Southern Wild" director Benh Zeitlin and lead actress  Quvenzhané Wallis, and screenwriter John Gatins ("Flight"), which is kind of cool to say. Otherwise, here are my thoughts in bullet point:

• Passing on Bigelow was an overstated and unjustified slap in the face.
• Passing on Affleck, petty.
• Love that "Amour" got so much love. Same for "Silver Linings Playbook."
• A bit baffled that "Django Unchained" made it to Best Picture, but pleased Christoph Waltz did too.
• I was sure Joaquin Phoenix would be ignored since he's so bitter about Oscar campaigning, but thrilled he wasn't because he was amazing in "The Master." 
• Disappointing that Jean-Louis Trintignant wasn't recognized for his amazing work carrying the other half of "Amour's" heavy load, but Emmanuelle Rivas' recognition is a delight.
• Nice to see "Searching for Sugarman" on the documentary list (I neglected to mention it in my cheat of a Top 10 - plus 12 more - list). Equally pleased that the overhyped, accidental commentary on the most vulgar of American consumerism, "Queen of Versailles," was left off.

If I make it through the campaign season, I'll give you my predictions when we get a little closer to the big night. In the meantime, don't you have some movie catch-up to do?

Read More