MOVIE POLITICS IN A NUTSHELL: Livin' It Up at the Hostel Slovakia

By Peanut

Hostel Part II: 2.5 PB Jars
Turistas: 1 PB Jar

Pirates, superhero costumes, animated ogres -- that's all kiddie stuff. If you're looking for some R-rated (ahem... PG-13 Live Free or Die Hard), bad-ass, summer sequel action, look no further than Hostel II.

From the twisted mind of Eli Roth, the Quentin Tarantino protege who created the original Hostel and the horror-comedy gem Cabin Fever, Hostel II puts a new spin on the genre. The film boasts the requisite gore, suspenseful music, and unnecessary nudity, yet it also shows us a rare glimpse of the larger network of evil that keeps the infamous Hostel in business. When three female tourists show up at the Hostel's front desk, an online auction immediately begins for the right to torture and kill each unsuspecting American. (Participants in this macabre bidding war include a yuppie businessman sitting on his living room couch and a half-naked woman on a yacht. Ah...the wonders of wi-fi.) Eli Roth excels at creating inexplicably humorous moments; the expressions of anxiety on the faces of these frantic "ebay" bidders are priceless.

From here, you'd expect the "kids trapped in a haunted house with crazed killers" formula to play out as usual, but Roth keeps the twists coming. The (prospective) crazed killers are neither masked nor anonymous. Central among them is a weak-willed family man, bullied by his brother (who's juiced up on 'roids) into participating in the Hostel's male-fantasy bloodsport. Observing his "prey" at a local Slovakian beer fest, the reluctant killer makes the mistake of bumping into and conversing with the girl he's about to torture. He seems like such a normal, good-natured guy that it's almost impossible to imagine he will go through with the deed -- making it all the sweeter (and more disturbing) when he confronts his bound-and-gagged prize later in the film.

You may be thinking that none of this sounds remotely entertaining, and if you've subjected yourself to Texas Chainsaw Massacre or any of the Saw movies, I understand why you'd think that. But I'd say Hostel II is more akin to a great Shakespearean comedy. We meet some sympathetic characters, some f'd up sh** happens in the middle, but order is eventually restored with hilarious consequences. Though the protagonist gets pretty roughed up, the bad guys eventually get it even worse. The demise of the attractive Eastern European chick who initially lures the three American girls to Slovakia literally had me cracking up in the theater. Eli Roth has a way of doling out vigilante justice to law-breaking foreigners that would make the "Minutemen Civil Defense Corps" proud.

If you're still not convinced that Hostel II (or any horror/gory movie, for that matter) is worth a $10 admission price, I humbly respect your opinion. However, if you find yourself in the New Release section at Blockbuster and come across Turistas, PLEASE do not subject yourself to this derivative crap. Turistas is a prime example of that cliched marketing ploy: saying that ____ movie is great because "it's ______ meets ______!" Here, it's "You'll looooove Turistas -- it's Hostel meets The Real Cancun, with a pinch of Josh Duhamel!" The Real Cancun comparison may fit; there's plenty of scantily-clad girls, drunken frolicking on the beach, etc. Yet the Brazilian beach setting does nothing to spice up the Hostel-"inspired" (to put it nicely) plot. Tour bus breaks down on the way to Rio; American tourists find isolated beach paradise; said tourists are lured to an even more isolated house where sociopaths use them as surgical specimens. Been there, done that.

The only saving grace for Turistas is it's oh-so-subtle critique of American imperialism and the ill will generated by our exploitation of the Third World. The native Brazilians prove highly suspicious of Josh Duhamel and co. because of a recent spate of kidnappings -- Brazilian children stolen and killed by American organ peddlers. It turns out that [SPOILER ALERT] the chief baddie in the movie is a Brazilian surgeon looking to right this wrong by stealing organs from Americans and donating them to community hospitals. When the tourists of the film's title find themselves in hot water, the locals angrily turn on them as well. It's an interesting political comment from such a schlocky film, but it's not enough to salvage it. Stick with Eli Roth's Cabin Fever and Hostel I and II. There's no place like Hostel.

A Plea for Studio 60

As some of you may know, NBC recently decided to cancel "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." The show stars Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford, and Amanda Peet as the head writer, director, and network president, respectively, behind an SNL-like sketch comedy show.

Though I was hesitant to discuss the cancellation of "Studio 60" on this movie blog, it turns out that the show's demise may hold some lessons for Hollywood producers (see below). Moreover, "Studio 60" (created by Aaron Sorkin, who also created "West Wing") is one of those rare high-concept, high-production-value shows that rivals the artistry of motion pictures. So while this post may seem out-of-place, I do believe its tangentially-related to movies.

Anyway, this morning I read an article urging "Studio 60" fans to rally behind the canceled show. Though I agreed with the article's general premise -- that NBC shouldn't have been so hasty to kill such a well-written program -- I took issue with several points the author made. Here is a link to the original article, followed by the response I sent to the author:

Save Studio 60: Fans Need to Take Action by Jack Myers

http://blogs.mediavillage.com/jack/archives/2007/06/save_studio_60.html#more

My response:

As a proud viewer of Sports Night, The West Wing, and Studio 60, I appreciate your defense of Aaron Sorkin's unique brand of TV "high art." Your efforts to spark grassroots movement in support of Studio 60 are praiseworthy. However, I must take issue with several mischaracterizations I found in your article.

First, you claim that "even though Studio 60 was outperforming several other series that NBC retained for another season, Studio 60 represented an enigma to the network programmers." You are certainly correct that, ratings-wise, Studio 60 outperformed numerous programs on NBC's schedule this season. (Not hard to do when you're on a network ranked behind the other three major broadcast nets.) However, Studio 60 is also one of the most expensive programs on NBC's roster. High salaries for its marquee creator-writer (Sorkin) and big-name stars (Matthew Perry, Amanda Peet, and Steven Weber, to name a few) mean Studio 60 costs NBC a pretty penny to produce ($2-3 million per episode). Thus, Studio 60's cost-per-viewer average is higher than almost every other show in NBC's prime-time lineup. Think of an analogous situation facing a Hollywood producer: Which is a better investment, a $200 million blockbuster that grosses $250 million at the box office, or a $5 million indie film that grosses $60 million? Studio 60 failed because it was a nightmare to the network accountants, not "an enigma to the network programmers." Studio 60 didn't fail because its viewers "were less likely to stay tuned for the show following Studio 60." After all, the show was on from 10:00-11:00, the final hour of prime time! It's lead-out is local news! In fact, I'm sure NBC was pleased that Studio 60's viewers tended to be older and more affluent, i.e., more attractive to advertisers hoping they'll buy the products advertised during the commercial breaks. Personally, I believe NBC underestimated Studio 60's audience and, in turn, its long-term potential -- it is one of the most-recorded shows, one of the best-selling on iTunes, and one of the most watched among middle- to upper-class viewers targeted by advertisers.

Second, you identify a lack of "compelling storytelling" as the show's biggest flaw, yet Sorkin's storytelling style in Studio 60 closely resembles that of his top-rated, Emmy Award-winning series The West Wing. In my humble opinion, Studio 60 suffered two much more glaring weaknesses not present in The West Wing: (a) a lack of political "gravity" and (b) unsuccessful genre-crossing. The first problem stems from show's subject: a sketch-comedy TV program. Sorkin took an admirable stab at infusing Studio 60 with timely political debates (about censorship, religion, etc.), but in many episodes it was hard to ignore the sense that "it's JUST a sketch-comedy show, so who really cares?" Whereas the decisions made in West Wing's Oval Office affected (fictional) millions, the decisions made in the Studio 60 control room affected the cast, crew, and (indirectly) its viewing audience. (In Sorkin's defense, the kidnapping of Tom Jeter's brother by Afghani insurgents proved to be a compelling late-season, life-or-death story arc.) This leads us to a second failing: Studio 60 couldn't figure out what type of show it wanted to be for much of the season. Is it a comedy? A romantic comedy? A political drama? Rather than a genre hybrid, Studio 60 often felt like a hodgepodge of scenes (and themes). The "on again, off again" relationship between Matt and Harriet was annoying; the Matt-Harriet-Luke love triangle felt forced. Perhaps Sorkin should have stayed true to the West Wing model of "chemistry sans consummation." Sorkin received a lot of press when he said that West Wing fan favorites Josh and Donna wouldn't get together until Sorkin had sorted out his own love life, and what resulted was one of the most complex and interesting relationships in TV history. This also left Sorkin with more time to explore the meat-and-potatoes political/moral issues at the heart of the show. In contrast, Studio 60 frequently got bogged down in romantic melodrama.

Finally, your article mischaracterizes Studio 60's core audience. If they're "intelligent," then why would they be unlikely to respond to your appeal for support? In fact, I think you have it quite backward when you argue that "intelligent" TV viewers won't "take part in political action to support a television series." Intelligent viewers have successfully organized movements to save Family Guy from Fox's trash heap; to resurrect Firefly in the form of the feature-length movie, Serenity; and, as you mentioned, to earn another batch of Jericho episodes from CBS. Whether upset fans will rally together behind Studio 60 remains to be seen, but your half-hearted attempt at reverse psychology in your final paragraph certainly won't be the spark. My suggestion: Fans should encourage NBC to (1) slim Studio 60's budget by limiting the number of episodes produced and cutting some high-priced actors (D.L. Hughley, for starters); (2) replace them with actual up-and-coming sketch comedians; (3) move the show to NBC's cable sister, USA (the #1 cable network), where it could be partnered up with another brilliantly-written NBC castoff, Law & Order: Criminal Intent.

Almodovar? Yo Quiero Que Vuelvas!

Volver - 3 PB Jars!

I don’t think that there is a director working in Hollywood today who can match Pedro Almodovar’s skill in repeatedly delivering beautifully entertaining artistic spectacles. Volver leapt off the screen with arresting visuals and complex characters, straight to the middle of my top 5 of 2006. That's right, Casino Royale is off the list and Volver takes the #3 spot, ahead of #4 Children of Men and #5 The Devil Wears Prada, but still behind #1 United 93 and #2 The Departed.

Volver 's premise is slightly crazy. But, then again, it wouldn't be vintage Almodovar without a wacky over-the-top situation that captivates us with fantasy, yet grounds us with richly developed characters and the depths of human emotion. Raimunda (Penelope Cruz in her best role since Abre Los Ojos / Open Your Eyes) is married to a drunk, who is murdered by Raimunda's daughter Paula after he drunkenly attempts to rape her. Ramunda hides her husband's body in a neighboring restaurant's freezer, which indirectly leads to a new employment opportunity (Interesting fact: this plot is the subject of a joke in Almodovar's earlier film The Flower of My Secret, when the main character is chided for attempting to write a book depicting similar circumstances). In the meantime, Raimunda's sister Sole has seen her and Raimunda's mother, who supposedly had passed away in a fire 4 months earlier. These major plotlines weave throughout the neighborhoods of Madrid as well as a small town in La Mancha. Various neighbors and friends become involved, sometimes for dramatic effect, and often times for comic effect.

It is films like Volver that remind me that a movie is more than witty plot, more than just stylish actors spouting crafted lines. Many times I found myself as captivated by the beauty of the shot as by the plot of the movie itself. Almodovar uses his visuals so effectively, they are as important as any one character. Every shot in the film is beautifully composed in a well thought out manner that contributes to the narrative. Despite depicting some of the worst in human shortcomings (rape, incest, murder, loneliness, abandonment), the film is ultimately a celebration of female strength in spite of these shortcomings. The bright, saturated colors imbue an optimism into even the darkest moments of the film. The cast inhabits their characters rather than acting them. The direction is tight and every scene has a purpose. The cinematography carries the film without obscuring it. In sum, Volver is a perfectly balanced film.

If, like me, you watch Volver and find Almodovar's style captivating and want to discover more, check out Viva Pedro for information on the re-release of many of Almodovar's classics in major-city theatres around the country.

B thinks global climate change is a lie.

Just wanted to reiterate that, in case you missed it in his previous post.

Filler (Reviews)

I've been going senile waiting for Peanut's Political Diatribe/Review of Children of Men, so in the interest of filling empty space... some thoughts on recent DVDs I've rented.

Rocky Balboa - 1.5 PB Jars
Eh, yo, this movie ain't too bad. But, it ain't too good either. The mildly amusing premise is somewhat entertaining, but honestly, no one cares about Rocky's relationship with his son, his dead wife (did you care about her when she was alive?), his new flame, etc etc. Ultimately, he's just an old dude on steriods. Boxing is dead. The De La Hoya - Mayweather fight didn't save it. On the upside, at least this movie didn't have Talia "the only bad part of the Godfather" Shire in it. More interesting than watching this movie would be a spirited debate about which Rocky movies and Rocky opponents were the best. I'd contend that only I and IV are good (2 or more PB jars), with 3 being entertaining because Mr. T is a badass.

The Good Shepherd - 2 PB Jars
I enjoyed The Good Shepherd the same way I would enjoy reading a book for history class. I was interested, but not overly engaged. I thought it was well made and well acted, but I was bored and wanted to get it over with. Now, I did spend nearly as much time on wikipedia after the movie researching the orgins of the CIA as I did watching the movie, so I'll give it a good deal of credit for exciting my interest in the subject. Angelina Jolie's talents are wasted, while Matt Damon does an excellent job portraying a rather unlikeable character (an not just because he went to Yale). The son is so obnoxious that found myself rooting for his untimely demise. I loved Joe Pesci's 2 minutes of screen time and wished he had been around longer. Final word, The Good Shepherd is a good movie, but ultimately Yale Sucks.

Night at the Museum - 1.5 PB Jars
I was entertained in spite of myself. A movie this cheesy and formulaic shouldn't have made me laugh as much as I did. One substantial criticism - what sort of message does this movie send that the bad guys don't get in bigger trouble?

Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? - 2.5 PB Jars
A very fun movie. If you haven't heard of this documentary, I highly recommend picking it up. In a year with such self-important documentary features tackling weighty subjects (like An Inconvenient Lie, um, i mean Truth, and Jesus Camp, two of P's favorites), Pollock is a breath of fresh air. Quick plot summary for the unfamiliar - Old, foul-mouthed trucker lady (Teri) buys an ugly painting in a thrift shop for 5 bucks. Someone informs Teri that the painting looks like something Jackson Pollock would have painted (cue title dialogue). Teri finds out that if painting is a genuine Pollock, it could be worth $50 Million. Hilarity in the form of a multi-year battle between Teri and obnoxiously snooty art establishment ensues. My favorite character is the near-unbearably pretentious former director of the Met in NYC. The contrast between his holier-than-thou art pundit attitude and Teri's salt-of-the-earth colorful irrationality is great entertainment. I also applaud the filmmakers for letting the natural drama of this story take center stage. There is no preachiness about the rights or wrongs of either side, as they are both presented with a full range of strengths and flaws. Well done!