Down-to-the-wire suspense! Unfortunately, in real life.

So yesterday my desktop system crashed, 12 hours after my computer techie fitted me with a wide-screen monitor and some new software. He happens to be leaving for Poland today, for nearly two weeks, so he is urgently trying to fix the situation. Will he manage this prior to departure? If not, I will have to work from an ancient laptop. Stay tuned (or not, should you have better things to do). I will try to post, posthaste, but who knows...?

Recent DVDebuts: VALKYRIE, JCVD, PASSENGERS and LOOK

Since just about everyone and his second-cousin-by-marriage has weighed-in on VALKYRIE, how can I not offer my thoughts? If you know nothing about the Third Reich, the demise of Adolf Hitler or any of the many attempts on the life of the original "Good German," then you may find this Bryan Singer-directed film suspenseful and exciting. For me it was the ultimate bore, with but a single fun scene: How does a guy with one working hand (the other's missing parts of two fingers) plant a bomb in a valise with the deadline fast approaching? I did not buy most of the back-story involving the various officers and gentlemen who help our hero on his way, though the performances from these first-rate Brits & Germans generally outshine that of Mr. Cruise, who remains, as ever, perfectly competent at appearing relatively competent.

Not so Jean-Claude Van Damme, who ranges from competent to better-than-that, depending on the moment-to-moment goings- on in JCVD, the mock- umentary about the action star becoming involved in robbery & extortion. It's fun to see Van Damme engaged in something other than hand, arm, leg & foot action; in the acting department, he holds up well, even during a very long and rather moving monologue. He's a pleasant surprise, and so's the movie.

There are three good reasons to see PASSENGERS, one of the more poorly-reviewed films of last year (only 22% "fresh" on RottenTomatoes): its two stars and its director, who is not even mentioned until the closing credit roll. Rodrigo García has made two of my favorite films: Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her (2000) and Nine Lives (2005). He's master of the tiny-but-vital moment; his films are full of these, bringing together rich characterization and subtle plot development into a splendid whole. While these moments are on display in Passengers, unfortunately the genre here is the supernatural thriller, which may not be García's forte. Yet the performances he draws from Anne Hathaway and Patrick Wilson are wonderful. What a romantic pair these two make! He, effortlessly combining intelligence, good looks, sex appeal and humor; she, equals part vulnerability and need and looking particularly ravishing. It's worth the watch just to see their chemistry -- not to mention the many lovely moments García manages. But the thrills and suspense? Maybe another time.

A movie that seems to tell us how terrible it is that there are so many surveillance cameras gazing at us 'round the clock, Adam Rifkin's LOOK is instead a voyeur in scold's clothing. I admit that watching these characters get "watched" is pretty interesting, and since their stories deal with everything from a teacher being stalked by his student to ATM robberies and the kidnapping of a child, there are built-in "grabbers" throughout. But the more you watch, the more you realize the unreality of much that you see. It's both too easy and too fake. But performances are generally good, and there is that undeniable "sleaze" factor at work....

You can also find several of my recent reviews (on GreenCine's Guru site) of five worthwhile films: Rod Lurie's fine melodrama NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, Chris Marker's great documentary GRIN WITHOUT A CAT, the terrific dramedy from Uruguay THE POPE'S TOILET, the involving, funny and jolting Lebanese drama UNDER THE BOMBS and Parvez Sharma's documentary about Islam and homosexuality, A JIHAD FOR LOVE.

Surprise DVD click MIDNIGHT MOVIE: interview with filmmaker Jack Messitt

As someone who's forever agitating for a decent reanimation of zombies, vampires and -- now -- the slasher genre, TrustMovies was told by a friend a few months back about a new addition to that last category that was worth a view. Indeed, MIDNIGHT MOVIE, the first full-length film from director of photography Jack Messitt is worth a watch from horror buffs, and probably more than one from fans of horror's popular slasher sub-genre.

From an opening that quickly, cleverly and scarily deposits its back story while setting up what is to come, this movie-about-a-movie that features a movie-within-a-movie takes us to a small-town, one-screen cinema for an exciting midnight show that promises to rediscover a classic of the genre. Oh, boy. We're soon watching this black-and-white 1970s slasher film, lovingly recreated for Midnight Movie (see below), from which the villain is able (don't ask how: this is part of the supernatural element) to morph into the lives -- and deaths -- of the audience watching the film.

This unusual scenario offers all kind of possibilities for fright and gore (our killer's a nasty one), many of which the movie taps into with glee. Too many, in fact. For my taste, as creative as its ideas often are, the film runs out of steam a bit before the finale -- which also shows some originality and flair, plus one surprising moment of charm that goes a distance in reminding viewers that all the blood and gore they've endured were really just "fun and games."

Midnight Movie stands relatively tall against much of what passes for creative horror these days. (It surpasses another attempt that was released to DVD around the same time: Killer Movie.) If you have not already seen Messitt's film, you might want to rent it prior to reading the interview with the filmmaker, below, as there are plenty of “spoilers” ahead….

Quick Update! Midnight Movie will be coming to Pay Cable TV, this summer '09.
The first block of showtimes appears below:
TMC — Sat 7/04 -- 9:00PM
TMC — Sun 7/05 -- 12:15AM
TMC — Wed 7/8 -- 10:00PM
TM2 — Fri 7/10 -- 10:00PM
TM2 — Sat 7/11 -- 1:10AM
TMC -- Tue 7/14 -- 1:45AM
TMC -- Sun 7/19 -- 8:30PM
TM2 -- Wed 7/22 -- 1:25AM
TM2 -- Sat 7/25 -- 2:45AM
TM2 -- Thu 7/30 -- 1:00AM
SHO -- Sat 8/01 -- 1:45AM
SHO -- Thu 8/13 -- 2:05AM
SHO -- Mon 8/24 -- 12:30AM
(TMC - The Movie Channel)
(TM2 - The Movie Channel 2)
(SHO - Showtime)

*****************

TrustMovies is speaking with Jack Messitt (left), a longtime director of photography (The Curiosity of Chance) who has recently broken out as a director and co-screenwriter with his successful horror flick Midnight Movie. TrustMovies: Shall we call you a director, screenwriter or director of photography? Jack Messitt: Any of 'em. I’ve worn a lot of hats over the last few years.

How do you categorize horror/slasher films? Break them down into some categories for me.

The horror genre, especially over the past 10 years has really taken some interesting turns. Horror in general is now hard to categorize because there are just so many sub-genres.

Are there any special new horror/slasher films that have you enjoyed of late?

My favorite type of horror film tends to be more of the thriller variety. Some of my favorites are The Shining and The Sixth Sense -- which I think in a certain way can be considered a suspense thriller. I also love a good slasher film, like some of those from the Friday the 13th series. I thought the recent remake had some interesting moments. It tried to be a blend of the entire series, taking some of the best parts of the series from different films and putting it all into one film. Of course it can't be as successful as the original was. But I think they really did their best to try to reinvent.

Sometimes, it seems that almost everything in the genre now is just a tired reinvention.

Horror has gone through so many different incarnations over the years, that it's growing difficult to reinvent. Fans demand something new and fresh, but so many horror films have been made over past 30 years, from big budget to low, it's getting a lot harder to pierce that genre.

“Pierce?” Spoken like a good slasher film director!

It's interesting because it seems to me that all the genres, from horror films to westerns, have had their evolution sped up. It was TV that sped up the western genre. And for horror, it was due to all the new and different horror films from the 80s and 90s, then the explosion of ultra low budget DV type horror of the past 10 years or so that really sped up this genre. Both of these genres were put on fast-forward in a way that other genres were not; where other genres could take their time and kind of meander through different choices. I think moviegoers are always looking for a film that takes a fresh angle. But to be groundbreaking and fresh is difficult. And the horror genre is really unique in that way that it offers so many sub-genres. Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street are only one avenue you can take. There are the Japanese-style, supernatural type of thrillers; and films like Saw and Hostel, more torture-porn types. Really, horror is one of the few genres out there that can be broken down into so many unique forms.

Midnight Movie was your directorial and writing debut?

Right. It had a limited theatrical release last November and, according to Bigfoot Entertainment, it looks like there will be another one this October.

Isn't that pretty unusual?

Yes it is. Bigfoot has put together a deal with Carmike Cinemas, but the details are still being hashed out. It will cater more to smaller cities . We're excited about this because the smaller towns were not hit as hard in our initial release, which was either a week-long or week-end release, depending on the location. And sometimes it included showing the films at midnight shows -- which were actually some of our most successful. With the Nov 08 release, in LA and NYC and in some 20 of the larger cities nationwide we had a great response. It was this successful release that ramped us into our DVD release in January ’09.

How did you research the movie and how did it progress according to your concept of how horror movies, in general, have progressed in the past four decades?

In researching for Midnight Movie, I went back and watched a ton of horror movies from the past 40 years or so. I tried to see what was successful about the films that I liked and see if there was a way to incorporate those elements into my film. Again, I think the horror genre has run the gamut, through all the different stages in film aesthetic terms. So I began Midnight Movie with a script and then just ran with it. But, of course, when we started breaking down how to shoot the script, all the budgetary limitations came into play.

There's a big different in writing and then producing what you've written, I take it?

When you're writing, well, the sky's the limit. But as soon as the script is greenlit, reality sets in. I mean: You want every sequence to be great, every kill a "marquee" kill, but you can't with a budget like ours, so you had to be creative. In Midnight Movie, we killed 18 people all told. So, we did not have the budget to do every kill as a marquee one, so instead, I tried to give each it’s own "personality." The one thing I didn’t want to do was put our best kill up front. I didn’t want to peak too early. I didn’t want everything afterward to seem like a letdown.

So to help with this, I tried to put the kills together into a kind of format that would mirror the history of horror movies. Not only would it allow us to best use the money we had to create some real "marquee" moments, it would also help give the film an increasing progression of kills, a nice arc.

Could you explain in a bit more detail?

In the first sequence, when Radford takes out the psych ward, you only see the before and after what happened - much like the early stages of the horror genre.

For me, this was the highlight of the kills -- because it was so suspenseful, the scene leading up to it, and then so shocking to see the aftermath, but not the thing itself. In fact, this sequence so surprised me and shook me up that in the next scene, even though I knew she was in your movie, I complete missed noticing my good friend Linda Sunshine who even had a line of dialog in the movie!

Good! Glad to hear it had that effect on you. So, coming off that scene, we head into the theater. And when the killing starts there, and with each progressive kill, I try to move to the next stage of horror. Moving through the horror films of the 70’s and 80’s and finally into today’s horror, you see more blood and guts, so to speak. And this is not just in what you see, but how "dark" the scenes become. With each kill, it becomes more stark and dark, and the tone of the film changes as it goes on.

That's right: Darker and more graphic. That’s why I think I found the first kills so weird and extraordinary: You don't see what happened -- not even the full result of what happened -- which makes it all more scary and unsettling.

Yes: Everyone has his own favorite gross-out moment, so it's exciting to see how different fans respond to different moments.

In completing this idea of how the kills darken: The first kill in the theatre is actually in the movie in the movie – when we kill off Bobby the hippie. Instead of showing the impact, we cut away to the kids watching. But because of their reaction, you feel like you saw this, but you didn't. As with Psycho, you think you saw things, but you really didn't.

Psycho is famous for this.

Psycho was such a great example of groundbreaking horror in a way that other films can no longer do, Audiences react differently now because of everything that they've seen before.
Our second batch of theater kills -- like the 80s period of horror -- is gory but is still somewhat playful, in a way that some of the later kills are not. The gore level may be high, but it’s not done in quite as malicious a manner as some of today’s movies. Like that line, "If you want to get her, you've to go through me." A funny throwaway line typical of some the 80’s slasher films. So the killer does go right thru him, and gets the girl, too.

As movie progresses to next stage, I will jump ahead a kill or two to Babe, the biker chick (above). This, to me, is one of the more interesting kills, as far as how we put it together. Unlike the earlier Sully kill where the kids are laughing at their friend being killed on screen, this one has a totally different tone. They know it’s real, so we portray it in a much more stark and unglamorous way. It pulls the Hollywood aspect out of the kill. Even the sound design is more stark and raw, so emotionally it's a totally different feel.

How did you arrive at the idea of the film-within-a-film? That's one of the more interesting aspects of Midnight Movie.

The original screenplay, written by Mark Garbett, had a different idea of the film within the film. The movie in the movie was more of a mish-mash of creepy images, like the videotape in The Ring. But I felt that it was not realistic that people would actually sit through this for more than a minute or two before walking out of the theater. So Mark and I sat down and came up with a storyline for the movie within a movie. At first, it was a 1930's kind of film. We went through to a full draft of the script when we realized that, for today's audiences. The movies of the 30s movies don't hold much horror power.

That's true. Tod Browning's Dracula holds up today as history but not so much as a scary movie.

Right. But for me, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Night of the Living Dead still hold a raw power and for today's audiences, too. I think that if your released these movies for the first time today, they would all play as well now as they did then. So, The Dark Beneath was born as a homage to those films. (Ed's note: The Dark Beneath is the name of the very clever, black-and-white, film-with-the-film in Midnight Movie.)

Really, the curse of some of the sub-genres in horror is that all the subsequent movies must try to outdo their predecessors, but because they've been done so often now, there's no surprise. You have to change with the times. What is effective today, tomorrow's audiences won't respond to in the same way to because it can only be original once!

If you look at any genre, say action films… Raiders of the Lost Ark was groundbreaking at the time, taking an old concept of the B movies reels and making it fresh again just by infusing it with a big budget and big stars. But today, that isn’t enough. You need to do more. In horror, this meant gore.

For gore hounds, it's when the killing gets more graphic that these people come aboard. So after the kill with Babe, we progress to more of today's horror. When we go down into basement, we're also going into the Hostel and Saw area of the horror genre -- torture porn.

That's where your movie began to lose me. The scene seemed unnecessary and began to draw out the movie to a lengthier place it didn't need to go.

But in our thematic progression, this became a necessary scene. I remember when I first put this in the script. I got a lot of really bad reactions, but I felt it had to happen because of what we were doing in the film and the progression that horror films have taken, constantly bringing things to the next level.

And while I think this is one of our most terrifying, turn-your-head-from-the-screen moments, it has the least amount of gore. Again, what you don’t see is more terrifying than what you do, Watching Rebekah’s face as she screams makes you feel like you saw her toes being cut off. Especially for those that close their eyes, the sound effects do a lot. You feel as though you saw her toes being cut off. But you really didn't. Your mind is filling in the gaps in a way that I as a filmmaker can’t achieve in the same way.

But when you get to that moment when Timmy is being chased and is then is thrown -- literally -- out of the film, we come full circle into a more charming, playful moment. But leaving our heroine in the film itself, we're sort of going against conventional wisdom. We trap the one person that throughout the entire film has been set up to survive. I actually wrote several different endings, and planned on shooting them all. But we didn't.

How come?

Mainly because of time constraints.

And money?

They are one in the same, really. Regarding the ending, one of the great things about horror fans is that they like to think of alternate endings, and what might happen after the fact or between the lines, so to speak. At our first test screening, it was wonderful to hear all their different ideas about what other directions the movie in the movie might have gone in if our characters hadn’t interfered, so to speak. And hearing this from the fans themselves, just moments after the screening ended, was amazing. It was like, as they were watching the film for the first time, they were already making these connections and thinking about… what if?

How long did it take you to film?

We made the movie in 20 days.

At what budget?

Right around one million.

Wow. I guess, lately, I'm more used to speaking with filmmakers who have a much smaller budget.

Yes, it's a lot of money when it's in your bank account, but not when you start making the film. Because horror films are so much about the effects, you need to put your budget toward these things – but in a smart, effective way. Knowing the history of horror helped us do this. We could make it memorable. Like with Mario's kill and Josh's face in the basement, we went to a great special effects house, Pixel Magic. They did the effects on 300. Lunar Effects did our on-set work and built the prosthetics on Josh's face, but it was the combination of on set and post effects that made this such a great effect. We created a real, active wound with a lot of depth. When you look closely, it is actually bleeding inside.
This was a great experience for me, and I think that putting it together in the way we did helped keep the film from becoming generic. We wanted to make it as good an experience for the horror audience as possible.

Overall, you've been please with how things have gone with the distribution of Midnight Movie?

Absolutely. Peace Arch, the distributor, has been great at getting film out there -- on Netflix, Blockbuster, even some Wal-Marts. And with the limited edition in particular, they did a great job of packaging. All this shows that Peace Arch really believed in the film. In fact, it is selling and renting so well, that a Blu-Ray edition is coming out this September. I couldn’t be happier about that. It speaks so well as to how fans of this genre are reacting to the movie. The Blu-Ray edition should open up Midnight Movie to a whole new audience.

(All photos, save the poster at top,
are from Midnight Movie, courtesy of Jack Messitt.)

MY BLOODY VALENTINE? Either provide decent 3-D on DVD -- or don't even bother

Theatrical 3-D -- I'm referring now to something like the currently-in-release Monsters vs. Aliens -- has definitely arrived. It's got the technology down pat: easy to view, non-headache-producing, full of stylish, clever, sometimes thrilling effects. And when this same movie arrives on DVD and is popped into your home player with those little paper glasses planted not-so-firmly on your nose, the result -- if history is any guide -- is going to be abysmal. History, in this case, would include tomorrow's release of MY BLOODY VALENTINE, via Lionsgate, which is not even up to the relatively crummy level of last year's Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D, which was a gift from Warner Bros' New Line Cinema.

Slasher movie acting lesson: One -- Look romantic/sexy/wistful.

"Valentine" actually takes 3-D so far down the tubes that the headache arrives within moments of trying to view this wretched transfer: out of focus most of the time, dark and gloomy (and not only in the scenes that are supposed to be dark and gloomy) with the effects that were so hyped-as-fantastic in the theater barely registering here on your TV monitor. So bad is this ridiculous would-be 3-D movie that, within minutes, I suspect you'll have hit -- and hard -- "eject," flipping the little silver circle over to its infinitely more watchable 2-D side.

Slasher movie acting lesson: Two -- Look scared.

My Bloody Valentine is actually not that bad an example of the slasher film, given what else is out there these days. It has the sense to add a mystery to the usual goings-on so that we at least have something else to think about besides the tiresome, typical "Who's the next victim?" The cast is -- surprise! -- full of pretty girls and hunky guys with acting skills that at least can handle the task at hand. Generally speaking, this means looking sexy, romantic and/or wistful, then looking scared. And finally, more often than not, looking dead. (If you think about it, the cast of one slasher movie could easily be switched for the cast of another without many viewers being any the wiser.)

Slasher movie acting lesson: Three -- Look dead.

Director Patrick Lussier (helmer of the Wes Craven-produced nouveau-Dracula series and a fine film editor: see Red Eye) does an OK job of moving things along. His pacing is smart, he gets decent performances from his cast, and a few of the killings are prime in terms of producing a creative weapon-meets-victim moment (see above for one example). Yes, there is a degree of the same-old/same-old here, but since this is true of almost every slasher movie since the dawn of knife, ax and chainsaw, let us not pretend to expect much originality. What we should expect -- insist on, really -- is that movie distributors either put up the money for the technology to obtain decent 3-D on DVD or just give it up. Subjecting us to continued shoddy and inferior product will only come back to bite them in the ass when viewers finally reply, "Don't even ask" to at-home 3-D.

Just breaking news, as of 4:40AM on 5/19/09, Video Business Magazine reports that Blu-Ray will soon be tackling 3-D Home Standards. You can read the article here. No exact time frame is promised, but eventually maybe we'll be able to have the 3-D theatrical experience at home....

It's the Human Trafficking Face-off! Besson's TAKEN vs PBS' WALLANDER

TrustMovies made one his rare forays into the world of television this week and returned even more certain that he'd never name his blog TrustTV. The event was the American debut of the PBS Masterpiece Mystery series WALLANDER. The following night he caught up with TAKEN, the most successful and surprising "sleeper" to hit theatres so far this year (and out just now on DVD).

Both films come in at 90 minutes (Taken's credit roll is longer than Wallander's) and both deal with the most popular, need-a-villain?/Try this one! catch-all, bug-a-boo since the evergreen-but-now-a-bit-boring terrorist: the human trafficker. Really, this new, all-purpose bad guy comes complete with everything: violence (against women: ten more points!), exotic locales, foreign accents, nudity, sex, the works! By all of the above, including my headline, I do not mean to make fun of human trafficking, which is one of the sleaziest and most inhumane of criminal occupations, particularly when it takes in the sex trade (just ask The NY Times' Nicholas Kristoff).

The Unknown Woman (La sconosciuta), the film that won Italy's major "David" awards in 2007, had the same theme and was actually better than either of the examples at hand, but Giuseppe Tornatore's fine, if excessive, film still awaits a DVD release in the U.S., after receiving a single-city (guess which?) theatrical run in 2008. For the performance of leading lady Kseniya Rappoport alone (shown at right, above, with co-star Michele Placido), the movie's a must. So let's hope that whichever distributor is currently holding on to this film lets it loose to DVD soon.

Wallander stars Kenneth Branagh (at left and top) as a titular Swedish super-sleuth (from an extremely popular series of novels) in a three-part series which began this past Sunday on PBS stations. It bears most of the hallmarks of both the Masterpiece Theatre and Mystery experiences that viewers have come to expect over the decades that these series have graced the small (lately somewhat larger) screen: classy production values, a star or two or three (here Branagh is joined by David Warner, who plays his father), important themes and -- since this bears "Mystery" moniker -- crime.

Mystery was almost always the weak sister to Masterpiece, with lame if fussy plots, frail and obvious characterization, and a sameness coupled to a heavy hand that rendered, for me at least, the series a usual washout. (Yes, there were exceptions along the way, as is always true.) For Wallander, the idea seems to have been to couple the class of Masterpiece with the crime of Mystery, but the result -- if this first episode is any indication -- is small potatoes. The production is given an elegant look (gorgeous vistas of yellow fields, sea-scapes and posh homes) in wide-screen and Wallander is surrounded by the usual crime staff (above, none of them at all interesting except in their ability to move long the so-so plot) and typical suspects (most of them red-herrings, with the non-herring a little too obvious). The murders (several) are shown in the usual "classy" manner that renders them arty and exotic rather than particularly "real." Most of the actors do "Swedish" via British accents, which we're used to from our history of hearing actors playing Germans use British accents (not Tom Cruise, of course). The investigative prowess of Wallander, the character, we must take on faith, as far too little is shown us and, as usual, all the pieces fall into place neatly for a ho-hum, told-you-so climax.

It's unfair, I suppose to make too much much of the mediocrity of Wallander (it's TV, dummy!), but against the more muscular moviemaking skills demonstrated by Pierre Morel in Taken (he also gave us the terrific Banlieu 13), this Swedish detective-story adaptation does pale. While Taken (photo above is of the "takees") ought not be taken as gospel where sex trafficking (or much else) is concerned, as charge-ahead, take-no-prisoners entertainment, it's damn good. (Take, take, take: I ought to have come up with another verb, right?) Liam Neeson, below with photo, is a tad more stolid than necessary in the acting department (he even gets a line reading dead-wrong), but makes a decent enough aging hero who refuses to waste the time he doesn't have. (96 hours is considered the maximum to track down a recently kidnapped young woman before she ends up disappearing for good.)

The various locations are well-chosen and/or created: the classy digs from where Neeson's daughter is abducted, the "offices" of the kidnappers (they're Albanian, 'natch -- a tiny, poor Eastern Euopean country that could never muster the PR chops to fight back), and the very posh accommodations where the auctioning of those kidnapped is held. The film's pacing is relentless, pretty much up until the finale, where, for me it began to drag a bit: A little more inventiveness here would have been appreciated. In the overall scheme of things, however, this is but a quibble. Perhaps my biggest praise is simply this: If I'd seen the film prior to my daughter's doing her junior-year semester abroad, I would have lost a lot more sleep.

Taken, by the way, was produced and co-written by Luc Besson under his shingle EuropaCorp and has -- surprisingly (I hope there is a rationale behind this) -- very few big, as in "explosive," special effects. Its success resides in the nimbleness of its film technique set against the gravity of its plot situation. The humanity of that situation -- a father's need to protect his daughter -- is not unlike another popular arthouse success of last year, Trust No One, in which a husband's love for his wife trumped all else (except filmmaking skills, which were heavily on display). That both films were surprise successes in the U.S. may give some clue to what audiences crave -- content and theme handled skillfully -- outside of the usual blast-off or blast 'em special effects.

THE CHASER and CADAVER: shudders from Korea come to the IFC Midnight series

The welcome IFC Midnight series proceeds apace with two troubling and creepy genre movies from Korea -- THE CHASER, a relatively complex serial killer thriller, and CADAVER a ghost story in which spirits-of-the-dead begin performing their own autopsies on the living. IFC Midnight collects some of the better genre films from around the world (horror, thriller, sci-fi and erotic-arthouse) that have made festival splashes but may not be quite big enough for prime-time play dates.

IFC then gives them a chance to be seen at home, On-Demand (sometimes with a small theatrical release).

South Korean cinema was the hot new thing a few years back, but its commercial wave seems to have crested around the time of The Host -- which means little in terms of either the quality or originality of the what's still coming out of South Korea. Rather, it indicates that our cultural guardians, ever demanding of the new and the novel, have moved on to... Romania? (Whoops: that was two years ago.) Italy? (Though they're currently enjoying some arthouse popularity in the U.S., Gomorrah and Il Divo rocked Cannes last year.) Iran? (Please: you're at least a decade behind the times, and in any case, The Song of Sparrows did not make much of a recent wave at the box-office.)

My point here is that these countries, and many more, though off the current critical radar, continue to produce interesting films worth seeing. But without the crack combo of quality, timing and luck that makes a movie a critical and arthouse hit, good films from all over the world continue to languish unseen. Which is why we should particularly appreciate what IFC is doing for these genre movies.

Playing in a number of festivals and winning a slew of awards on its home ground, The Chaser is a good, though not great, genre movie about a particularly creepy serial killer (shown, right). The guy is crazy, but because he's also young and relatively attractive with a manner than moves from maniacal to modest (at times, he's damn near gracious), he gets away (and away and away) with murder. He's tracked by an ex-cop who now runs a stable of call girls -- one of whom (the cutie below left) is the latest victim, so we are clearly in murky moral territory. As the movie moves along, the ground keeps shifting more dangerously (and I am not talking about earthquakes). This is Korea, so cultural differences -- from how police brutality is handled to the speed with which cops respond to a 911-type call -- take on their own meaning.

The Chaser is the first film of a new director, Hong-jin Na, who also co-wrote the screenplay. Visually, and in terms of construction, performances and pacing, the movie is almost shockingly well-done. For awhile. This may be but another of those cultural differences, yet I've noticed that most Korean films, good ones on down, are long. It's rare to find one coming in under two hours. (The Chaser lasts 125 minutes.) In the U.S. (and elsewhere in western societies) the genre film is generally short, tight, fast and very focused. Under 90 minutes is often de rigueur. This would have helped The Chaser immensely because, finally, the movie just wears you down. All the blood and pain and "We've got him!" "No, we don't!" becomes repetitive, and just when things ought to be ending, they're cresting, then ebbing, and then cresting again. There's a lot of good stuff here -- just too much of it -- but I've got to recommend the movie, nonetheless.

Oddly enough, Cadaver, directed by Sohn Tae-wung -- though less original -- proves equally as successful due to gorgeous visuals, committed performances and (oddest of all) its languid pacing. Normally, I'd be screaming, "Get on with it!" but here, I was happy to sit back and bask, as a group of new med students (above) find themselves in the midst of some supernatural goings-on, which are due, as usual in these variations on J-and-K-horror, to something naughty that someone did back when.

The entire cast, from the older doctors who figure in the plot to the young kids, is quite attractive. One young actor in particular -- On Ju-wan, shown at right and below -- has a face so beautiful, it almost looks like animation. (Has he been CGI-ed, perhaps?) Corpses pile up, one by one, as the students try desperately to get to the bottom of things. We feel their pain -- the living and the dead -- and eventually we understand (but maybe not quite everything or even all of one thing). I find that the genre films from Korean and Japan to reach our shores tend toward the dark, and these two are no exceptions. Proceed at your own risk.

Neither Cadaver nor The Chaser is getting any theatrical release, so at-home on-demand is not just your best, but your only, bet. The Chaser is available now through July 7, while Cadaver begins next Wednesday, May 20, and will be available through August 18. Look for the films on the cable systems below in their quadrants noted: BrightHouse: Movies On Demand - IFC In Theaters Cablevision: Movies On Demand - IFC In Theaters - Festival Direct Comcast: Channel 1 - Movies & Events - IFC Festival Direct Cox: Channel 1 - Movies On Demand - IFC In Theaters Time Warner: Movies On Demand - IFC In Theaters

"Cadaver" photo credits: Sung-hui Jin and Ji-hye Lim.
Both movies under review are IFC Films releases.

The Gielens' THE GRADUATES -- a movie you've probably never heard of, but might.

You've raised the money, hired the cast and crew, shot the movie, edited it to within an inch of its life and added the soundtrack. Now: How in hell do you find an audience?

TrustMovies has been hearing from more and more young, unreleased filmmakers of late, with the request: "Watch my film, please." Since time is limited, and the results aren’t always promising, investing hours and energy is a crap shoot (and yours truly is not much of a gambler). Still, many mainstream movies are risky views, too, not to mention some foreign and independent films, so occasionally one of these “out of the blue” movies gets through the cracks. Such was the case with THE GRADUATES, a coming-of-age opus that tracks a week at the Ocean City, Maryland, shore with four friends, one's older brother, and a few of their girls. Since coming-of-age is maybe the single most oft-filmed genre (I've seen 5,477 of these by now, and you've probably seen half that many), without an exotic locale or some other hook, it's not promising.

The Graduates has no hook, other than decent performances and adequate filmmaking skills, particularly given its very small shooting budget. From that standpoint, the movie is surprisingly OK. There's a smart line of dialog now and again, an attractive cast, but not much plot nor even events, to speak of. Yet there's not much that's wince-inducing either, so the experience is relatively painless. Zak Williams (Robin Williams' son) makes his feature film debut here, with one long, well-written/acted scene -- a further inducement. The film is made for a young, love-to-drink-and-party crowd. Would I recommend it? Not really. But I wouldn't knock it, either.

What caused me to pay attention to The Graduates was the original email I received from its executive producer, Matt Gielen, (pronounced "Guy-len"), who is also the younger brother -- by four years -- of the film's writer/director, Ryan Gielen. (The brothers are pictured above, Ryan at left) Arriving during the Tribeca film fest, the email's subject line read "Hottest Ticket at Tribeca Is Playing in Queens," and the message below it invited me to the film's opening at The Astoria Beer Garden, promising me a free beer. Since the film was not part of the Tribeca fest, we'll call this "marketing" rather than prevarication.

Further below in the message was the real hook: distribution. "We're self-distributing, for the most part, so we're doing a lot of cool things with social media, alternative venues, viral marketing, etc. and I think fans of indie film and indie filmmakers would find it pretty cool and informative." Because I could make neither of the Beer Garden showings, I requested a screener (which Matt kindly sent), watched it, and then called him for a quick interview.

TrustMovies: When did you actually make this film?

Matt Gielen: The movie was shot in 2007: principal photography began on Sept 7, 07, and wrapped on October 15. That's a five-week shoot -- probably as long a shoot as you would ever want to go, with the budget we had.

Which was…?

A $95,000 shooting budget. But it turned out to be the perfect amount for us. We shot every day for six day weeks and shot a ton of stuff. Five to six months later, we had the finished film, and the very first showing was in April 2008: a screening for cast, crew, investors, friends, family -- and invited industry.

Then what?

Then we started applying to film festivals and also had a few "sneak previews" in Baltimore (we’re from that area), DC, LA, Austin, NYC, and Asheville NC.

Can you tell me about your experience with film festivals?

With the advent of digital media and the ability to make cheap movies fast, you started seeing these festivals popping up everywhere. Our experience with the festivals has been very mixed: from the biggest exploiter of filmmakers -- a festival that makes everyone pay to get in -- to the Rhode Island International Film Festival, which is really helpful to new filmmakers trying to get their stuff out there.

(Ed. Note: The Graduates won the Director Discovery Award in 2008
at the Rhode Island Intl. film fest and also won Best Comedy
at the Seattle True Independent Film Festival.)

A lot of these film fests are just money machines. Or they only want world premiers, or stars. Or they check your budget, and if it's not big enough, they don't want to even look at your film because they imagine that it's not going to be any good. Then, after that, you must deal with, "Do you know anyone at this festival?" Many filmmakers have friends at festivals who can pull strings. Or then you need a PR agent -- for which we had no budget. We did use WithoutaBox.com, which is kind of like a middle man between filmmaker and film festival. It's a good service and gives you a lot more options. But what this also does is open up all these little tiny film fests -- that desperately want to keep running -- so that everyone and his cousin with a camera can submit. This greatly increases the competition, and makes it less likely that your film will get approved. So you really have to be smart with your festival strategy, because these festival fees add up.

How were you smart with yours? Or maybe I should say, How have you now learned to be smarter?

A lot of fests, when they select their films, go for the artsy movies that offer big, giant messages. So be aware of this and tailor your message to your audience: If you have a comedy, tell them: Here's a great piece of counter-programming.

And this: Submit to the major festivals first, and then wait. When you are doing indie filmmaking and are out there on your own, there is a huge drive not to go with the common mindset. But sometimes it is a good idea to try this. So, submit to the big boys first, then wait. Overall, we spent thousands of dollars in film fest submissions. Each $20 adds up, after all. So save yourself money and time -- and wait. Wait for that yes or no from the festivals you care about most -- because if they are looking for a premier and you end up choosing another fest before you've heard from them, you've missed out. Most important: know your festival audience: If you have a coming-of-age comedy like ours, maybe Berlin is not your best choice.

So now, what has happened lately?

We were also invited by Anthology Film Archives to be part of its New Filmmakers' series in January '09. That was worthwhile.

Yes, I like the AFA: they're smart and show such a wide range of films.

In addition to AFA, we're doing a lot of other cool things. After all, we have a duty to pay our investors back. So we are going the self-distribution route. IndieFliks is going to be dealing with our distribution -- via Amazon, Netflix, Hulu (hi-end digital streaming), and the like. This will be just part of the distribution. We're also having one of our producers reach out to every single independent theatre in the entire country. He spent six weeks getting a database and spread sheet on these theatres and is now starting to reach them. We have a one-week run coming up in the Baltimore area -- where our family is from.

This was part of this independent theatre outreach? Where in Baltimore?

We're opening Friday, 5/15, at the R/C Hollywood Cinema Four, just outside of Baltimore. We'll be making personal appearances: Ryan will be doing a brief intro and then a brief Q& A afterward. Regarding marketing, we're going nationally to any web site dealing with comedy, humor, college kids, etc. We'll refine it to Maryland, where we data-based every possible news outlet in state. We're looking at having articles in 6-7 newspapers, maybe 20 blog postings, a couple of radio appearances between now and screening time. And this is just the traditional media outreach. We've also geo-targeted and reached out to everyone on Facebook, YouTube, My Space, and Twitter accounts.

And one more important thing no self-distributing filmmaker should ever forget: Grow Your List. From day zero of development, collect every single email address that comes your way. Have everyone who stops by the set, friends of extras on up -- everyone -- get their email address. We now have a 50,000 strong email list that will help us market and sell the film. We also give away our soundtrack, which feature 25 songs from some incredible indie bands. We made an agreement with all of them for profit sharing.

That seems very fair.

We’re young, hungry and hardworking. The last thing we want to do is rip off other people who are in the same position as we are. For the bands, this opens the door to having maybe thousands more people, who have not heard their songs before, now hearing them.

Can we talk about alternative venues -- like The Astoria Beer Garden where you screened here in Queens?

There are a couple of really good articles by Jon Reiss for Filmmaker Magazine that I recommend to anyone doing something like this -- a must-read for any indie filmmaker. I heard Jon speak at the Tribeca panel, where he asked, "What is a theatrical release? It's any room in which you're showing your film." Getting into a theatre in NYC is really hard. But The Astoria Beer Garden has this giant 250 person room, with a stage. It was basically a giant open hall. So we got in for a tenth of what we’d have rented out the cheapest theatre in NYC! We did the research.

So how did it go?

It went great. We sold out first night completely, and got around 200 people the second night.

What did the audience get?

For $10, they got to see the see the film and also got a free soundtrack -- and they were in a place where they could buy a cold drink or beer.

That strikes me as a good way in which to see a movie like The Graduates.

Comedy films go better with food and drink! We also gave the audience a Q&A (shown above) with the producer, writer/director, and a majority of the cast -- many of our actors are from the NYC area anyway -- and we hung out for two hours before and two hours after and chatted away about film and filmmaking. And we made a nice little bit of money.

How did you manage to get your audience -- 450 people -- for these screenings?

You need to create a sense of urgency to see this film, and I admit that this is hard to do.

Maybe, in the case of a movie like yours, it is more about making people think they are going to have a good time?

Maybe, yes. We will probably have one or two more runs like this beer garden thing in different cities. And then we will end up four-walling in certain cities like Portland, LA, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Austin, and maybe Myrtle Beach, and couple of Florida cities. We'll do small ad buys in the cities' biggest paper. Oh, and in Maryland. We'll be in Ocean City (Ed's Note: The movie was filmed here) doing free screenings and selling DVDs.

Any other thoughts before we close?

Find out where your audience goes. Did you make a movie about ceramics? Then find cities with there art festivals. Find your audience, then figure out how to reach 'em. We've had the greatest success with our screenings, when we go out and talk with people. Hand them a flyer and make eye and voice contact. This will do ten times more than anything else.

Sounds sort of like a political candidate glad-handing, eyeballing and talking to his voters?

Yes. Definitely!

(All photos and art courtesy of the Geilens and The Graduates.)

SUMMER HOURS: furniture and family in the best film yet from Olivier Assayas

Does anyone run more hot and cold regarding the work of French filmmaker Olivier Assayas (shown at right) than TrustMovies? I found Irma Vep a tad over-rated, though I was quite taken with Late August, Early September. Les destinées sentimentales came complete with everything I usually want in a film but proved somehow inert. I loved Demonlover and loathed Clean -- the reverse, I realize, of most critics. Assayas' segment of Paris, je t'aime worked beautifully (but then I thought every segment in that enchantment paid a nice dividend).

Boarding Gate? An unmitigated disaster that ought to have called into question the most fundamental abilities of a certain low-grade "star" apparently named for the world's largest continent. And now comes Summer Hours (L'heure d'été).

If the writer/director's latest is not a great film -- it may well be one -- it's certainly his greatest and will no doubt appear on numerous "Best" lists, come the end of the year, just as did last year's A Christmas Tale by Assayas' compatriot, Arnaud Desplechin -- a film which sprang to mind a number of times while watching Summer Hours. The two movies share a fine cinematographer, Eric Gautier, as well as the French penchant for understatement, philosophizing and making interesting connections in unusual ways.

Summer Hours is all about a large French family (above) and its possessions, specifically a grand old house full of history (and wonderful artifacts, some via famous names) set in the verdant countryside and owned by the family's elderly matriarch (the stunning Edith Scob, below, who much earlier in her career decorated Franju's famous Eyes Without a Face). When mortality rears its necessary head, what will happen to these possessions? This is the question that dogs Assayas' characters and his film.

Though we see the grand-kids of the matriarch, it's her three children with whom we spend most of our time. Charles Berling, more interesting with each new role, plays the elder son and mommy's favorite, though the two do have a few issues. Juliette Binoche is the distant (in miles and emotions) daughter, while Jérémie Renier essays the younger son who, for reasons of career, has outsourced himself (and his family) to China. I suspect Assayas is less concerned with this fellow; certainly, the Renier character comes off as the least interesting of the three siblings, with Binoche in second place. It's Berling, whose attachment to family, as well as to the many memories connected to this house, proves the centerpiece of the movie. (Berling's son Emile, who registered so strongly in A Christmas Tale, takes the role of the character's "movie" son in the film.)

Also vital to the heart of Summer Hours is the matriarch's housekeeper Éloïse, played by the glowing, aging Isabelle Sadoyan (shown, right, who made her film debut nearly 40 years ago in Sautet's Les choses de la vie). Éloïse is as much as part of the family, the house and the film as anyone else, though only the viewer is likely to fully understand this. The family members are too caught up in their own immediate needs and events to appreciate her profound connection. And here is where M. Assayas' command of filmmaking becomes quietly apparent. There are moments -- a number of them throughout the movie -- at which point the ineffable is somehow expressed. Assayas manages this by linking a visual moment to something that has come before, so that we are suddenly aware of a connection, a feeling, an idea that shimmers for a moment, unstated -- and then we move on.

These moments -- in a museum, the house, the garden -- link everything from material objects to the generations, and their cumulative effect allows us to feel that we've understood, briefly, life itself. (That's right: the work of Jean Renoir and possibly a few other great filmmakers may come to mind.) This experience, rare in film, is to be treasured. So is Assayas' movie -- which opens this Friday, May 15, at the IFC Center and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas. A limited national theatrical release will follow, as will availabilty to over 55 million homes in all major U.S. markets via IFC Films’ video-on-demand platform.