http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:34:06 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/21/143406.php JollyG15Ladies and gentleman, whether you are aware of it or not, we are in a new era of filmmaking. In an industry and art form where the most significant advance in its first hundred years was the addition of sound, the dawn of the proliferation of digital filmmaking into the mainstream is a similarly earthshaking evolution. Kerry Conran's Sky Captain and The World Of Tommorow is a signpost of this new era, being the first film shot entirely in front of a blue screen. Is this capability a positive or a negative influence for both the artistic and commercial viability of today and tommorow's American cinema?Digital Cinema, in a very generic sense and for the purposes of this article, can include two clear pools of evolution. On the one hand it can mean the marketplace proliferation and availability of high-quality affordable digital video cameras, advanced editing suites like Avid and Final Cut Pro and digital distribution channels evergrowing on the internet; on the other it is the highly advanced (and more expensive) digital animation/CGI graphics that a select few filmmakers have access to create a new world (like the one created by Conran) that may not necessarily exist in our real one. The immediate pros of both of these pools is the increased access they afford their masters. The availability of digital cameras and editing software literally give the access of opportunity to thousands of amateur filmmakers to tell their stories where none had existed before. The capabilities of CGI mean more advanced filmmakers have greater access to their own imaginations and unleashing whatever stew it has cooked up; boundaries heretofore limited by location/set/early special fx have been pushed and now, thanks to the likes of Sky Captain, seemingly eliminated. Indeed, the advances of Digital Cinema overall seem to have divided the film world into two camps: those "purists" who hold onto celluloid as a sacred living, breathing parchment and those who are welcoming its evolution into bits and bytes.So is this movement, this newfound access a good thing for artist and audience? Like every new technology there are inherent trade-offs. On one hand there has been an explosion in amateur filmmaking; festivals filled with the short films made on the cheap spring up like Barbara Streisand comeback tours. One could argue, however, that it is not a good thing for any Tom, Dick, Harry or Akbar to be able to tell their stories (or write reviews on their own blog...ouch, me!) much like you don't need yet another Starbucks to open across the street from the one already open right next door to you. But as long as talent, hard-work and luck cause the cream to rise from an ever-growing crop then it should be no issue. A problem does arise, however, when young directors rely on this technology and never learn the how to use real film. While films shot on DV are creeping into the mainstream (Blair Witch, 28 Days Later, Pieces Of April) the overall quality of the look and feel of the films suffer when compared to traditional film; today's digital cameras can still not match the amount of color and contrast you can achieve the "old" way. It could, nevertheless, be argued that the lower-fidelity image in those films mentioned above evoked a certain mood the respective directors were shooting for. When digital cameras can one day completely mimic the image a 35mm motion picture camera can create, eliminating the large expense of film purchasing, processing, etc., well then, folks, the use of film may die out with the surviving members of this generation of purists who wrap themselves in it today; much in the way the days of flatbeds, miles of footage and scissors have given over to a flickering screen and a mouse click in editing universe. Shooting on film in that possible future will become something an auteur would do to be "retro," to make a film like his ancient forbearers. Sad, but probably eventual.There exists an undeniable "kiss-off" factor by learned film critics and filmgoers in this land towards films saturated CGI. The sentiment goes something along the line that these "products" are heavy on eye-candy and light on the fundamental foundations of good cinema: story and character development. Any fan of those hariy-footed Hobbits could tell you that this is not always the case, that indeed the effects serve to incredibly enhance the world these stories and characters exist in rather than bully the film with their "look-at-me" coolness. Animation is another film genre that has recieved quite an adrenaline shot in the arm thanks to the digital evoultion; as evidenced by the 3D success of the Pixar and the Shrek films. The immediate tradeoff of this new world of animation is the that the hand-drawn 2D Disney-fied animation we grew up on and loved is dying a slow death. Even 2D adventures like last year's Spirit: Stallion of The Cimarron look downright antiquated to these 27 year-old eyes, you can imagine what a 10 year-old thinks who knows no different. I think that we can, however, agree somewhat with the "kiss-off" critics. There is an undeniable artificiality, even with today's available technology, to many digital effects and shots in today's Hollywood films; and anytime you are taken out the film long enought to think "Hmmm...that looks fake" or "Those tech wizards don't know what a real spaceship looks like," is a moment any filmmaker dreads. Digital effects can, in post-production, remove any mistake, blemish or happy accident that occurred during the production of a film, shrinking the most vital element that these films and filmmakers have in common with their audience: humanity. It's analogous to the cliched set of a sci-fi future-world: all the convenient, shiny and flashy exterior hide something much, much worse behind it.So where does our Sky Captain fit in this digital buffet? Someplace in the middle. First off, it is almost a coup for a studio to end up giving $70 million dollars to a first time filmmaker who had a vision of creating something that had't quite existed before. It's seems like the least calculated risk a non-risk taking entity could take. So kudos to Conran. The film is about reckless pilot Joe Sullivan (Jude Law) and a adventurous reporter-dame Polly Perkins (Gwenyth Paltrow) who team up (with help from Angelina Jolie's Capt. Frank Cook) to remove an army of bent-on-destruction-of-the-world robots (who is their leader? Who Dammit!) in a pre-World War II art deco-looking New York and beyond. The CGI visuals are, at first, stunning...and big. The first sequence of these robots attacking New York can be breathless at times. The problem is that with each successive sequence in the film Conran seems to try to outdue himself and wow us with an even bigger, more outlandish digital set creation. He also tries, somewhat understandably, to squeeze in every exisitng precipitation, eco-system and mode of transportation into the filter of his CGI-created and imagined world. There are some charming pieces fit into that world as it wears its bygone-era Hollywood nostalgia on its sleeve; indeed, The Wizard of Oz and Wuthering Heights both can be seen directly quoted in the movie; although I would be hesitant to say I would be happy if I was a descendant of Sir Laurence Olivier, archive footage of whom appears as a character in the film (the morality and future implications of this and John Wayne appearing in beer commercials has been debated before and will again). One thing I took umbrage with is Conran's portrayal of his two main women characters who fall at the extreme end of the female character spectrum. On one end, Paltrow's Perkins is the stereo-typical juvenile "girly-girl:" always scheming or whining to get her way; always hitting the wrong button, getting herself into trouble, needing to be rescued, making noise when she should be quiet; and leaving her stuff beyond (namely her trusty camera) at the least opportune time. On the other is Angelina Jolie's Capt. Cook: an androgenous, barely feminine, desexified (hair up in a cap) militeristic commander of a floating air carrier; she is, in fact, referred to first as "Frank" only. Where is a strong and sexy female character in this made-up world. Where!?Ultimately, I would side with the "kiss-off" critics stereotyped earlier: Conran's vision and CGI world are the stars of the film, the story and the characters are just fixtures in its gigantic big-ness. But that bigness is worth seeing on an equally big screen; a movie meant to be seen, well, at the movies. Video24512@blogcritics.org Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:34:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/19/133534.php JollyG15With the dawning era of unending queues on popular DVD rental sites, unlimited virtual shelf-space and DVR technology, the forgotten and forlorn films of the past are recieving renewed attention. In response, comes a new series, called Deep Cut DVD, of brief reviews of some of those gems all available for your visual consumption on shiny disc. These tidbits are meant for the uninitiated, the curious, and the seekers of new, higher and fertile cinematic grounds. Go ahead ... add it to your queue.Volume 1: The Night Of The Hunter (1955) Directed by: Charles Laughton Starring: Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters, Lillian Gish and Peter GravesThis is noted 1940s/50s screenstar Charles Laughton's sole directorial credit and it is a dark, noirish masterstroke.Robert Mitchum is absolutely terrifying as Harry Powell, a preacher who roams the countryside shrouding himself in strict religious adherence without tolerance committing a sharp blade against those he feels are ribald sinners. While serving a short sentence with condemned bank robber and murderer Ben Harper (Peter Graves), Powell overhears Harper sleep-mumbling about the $10,000 he had made off with, the location of which only Harper's two young children know.Freed from incarceration, Powell tracks down and nightmarishly ingratiates himself into Harper's family, including marrying his ex-wife Willa (Shelly Winters), and torments the kids for the cash. Robust with suspense while compact (93 minutes), the film features some glorious, innovative, expressionistic black-and-white cinematography; if ever a film's frames begat its emotions, this is it. It is so influential, in fact, that one of Powell's early speeches about the famously scrawled inscriptions of "love" and "hate" on his fists is featured, almost word-for-word, in Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing.Forget about the few dated moments that liter the film here and there, and dim the lights, sit back, watch, and submit. Video24424@blogcritics.org Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:35:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/13/141106.php JollyG15Wasn't it only yesterday that lists were used solely for the purposes of food shopping or as something Santa checked twice? A simpler time when breezy summer days passed to the static sounds of the counted-down top 500 rock songs of all-time on the radio; the only real list that mattered? Drift away, for a moment, into the welcoming grasp of childhood nostalgic tranquilities past, before I rudely slam you with the reality of today: lists are everywhere and like Gremlins fed after midnight, they are multiplying, fast. Every magazine, network, website, blog, man, woman and child categorizes something according to their "expert" opinion. It's gotten so that I made an actual entire outfit out of paper containing these little monsters and nobody looked twice. Ok, I'm lying. But making a list has become, along with owning a gun and drinking moonshine, an inalienable American rite. So without further ado, and while VH1 subjects me to the Top 100 Red Carpet Moments...again, I present to you my top ten and worst bottom-feeding three movies of the year (and a few other goodies thrown in as well). Enjoy!THE TOP TEN10. SHAUN OF THE DEAD The most fun I had watching a movie (released in 2004) on DVD at home. Even if I didn't get all of the zombie movie references, this horror film spoof is well made, lively (no pun intended) and highly entertaining. Hail Britain! 9. (TIE) INTIMATE STRANGERS/RED LIGHTS The best from the foreign "art house," both films hail from France. Both films are crafted beautifully; Patrice Laconte's STRANGERS a comic, quirky, romantic tale while Cedric Kahn's RED LIGHTS is a darker treatise on modern adult manhood in an unraveling marriage. 8. FAHRENHEIT 9/11 Putting politics aside for a moment, the film is most intriguing as an op-ed piece; an expensive, visual op-ed piece that gathered unique footage and a boatload of heated, but known, argument points in one package. To the large mouth and body that spurred a documentary renaissance, I pay homage. 7. THE BOURNE SUPREMACY The most fun I had in a theater this year. Paul Greengrass's (BLOODY SUNDAY) true popcorn action thriller has a simple, agile plotline and an actions-speak-louder-than-no-words hero in Jason Bourne (Matt Damon). A summer action flick that all others who come after it should learn from. 6. METALLICA: SOME KIND OF MONSTER Kind of like going to a rock 'n' roll zoo and intimately studying the inhabitants of the heavy-metal cage for two hours, if that were possible. Not just for Metallica fans, but an insightful portrait worthy of any music fan's attention. 5. KINSEY In a year that has produced a thickening haze of biopics, this was the best. Simultaneously and deftly portraying its protagonist's traits and accomplishments, it treats an often still-taboo subject, sex, frankly and maturely. 4. MILLION DOLLAR BABY Like RAGING BULL and a few others, this is a boxing movie less about boxing and more about the boxer. Director Clint Eastwood, on a bit of a roll, has effortlessly created a superior heartfelt tale of determination and bravery in what feels like handmade cinema. 3. BEFORE SUNSET Richard Linklater's eloquent tale of true love lost and true love found again is a rare instance where a sequel is even more charming and fulfilling then its excellent predecessor, 1995's BEFORE SUNRISE. An exceptional instance where the main characters, along with the audience, have grown more worldly and weary in the intermittent real time. 2. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND Spare. Poetic. Beautiful. One of my favorite films of the year. An amped-down Jim Carrey shines along with Kate Winslet in director Michel Gondry and noted screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's twisty story of amour that will tug at anyone with a beating heart and warm blood flowing through their veins. 1. SIDEWAYS Alexander Payne's triumph gives, in ample supply, what I love about any great film: true, yet flawed characters who shed that restrictive skin and become people; several moments of subtle, sharp humor; and moments of gripping emotional depth that cause serious personal contemplation; the film sticks with you for days, long after its last credit has lifted up towards the sky. HONORABLE MENTION: TOUCHING THE VOID; GOOD-BYE LENIN; SUPERSIZE ME; COLLATERAL; CLOSER; HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS; SPRING, SUMMER, FALL, WINTER...AND SPRING AGAIN.THE BOTTOM 33. DARKNESS Cliché-drenched, non-scary horror thrillers with creepy kids are bad enough. Cliché-drenched, non-scary horror thrillers with a non-sensical, dim storylines are absolutely dreadful. 2. THE BIG BOUNCE Even getting to stare at Sara Foster's unquestionable beauty for 88 minutes (which felt interminable!) couldn't save this stale, half-assed, boring, half-baked "comic" caper remake. 1. SURVIVING CHRISTMAS Good luck surviving this unfunny bit of trash. This is the kind of movie they should hand out merit badges to the three leaving audience members who sat through CHRISTMAS in October (one of whom was presumably James Gandolfini's mother). Ben Affleck's smarmy, self-aggrandizing, annoying, cutesy character may just be the real reason why the rest of the world hates us.OTHER AWARDSGuiltiest Pleasure (THE DAY AFTER TOMMORROW): I know the CGI wolves looked terrible and were pretty pointless. I know director Roland Emmerich made GODZILLA. I know the Dennis Quaid's trek was as realistic as that leprechaun who tells me to burn stuff. I know that Sela Ward's character's sub-plot was totally manipulative. But, what can I say? I...got...sucked...in. Guilty as charged.Most Overrated Movie (NAPOLEON DYNAMITE): At the risk of taking heat on this (it is selling like hotcakes on DVD), I am not in love with Napoleon or his Liger. Yes, I laugh at these characters because, like P.T. Barnum's freak show, it's easy to point and chuckle. But this was less a film then a series of skits with emotionless vessels that left no impression, good, funny, or bad, on me. Video24208@blogcritics.org Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:11:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/06/141845.php JollyG15They're cute and they're everywhere, spreading like the fat-faced mid-80's Cabbage Patch Kid craze. They count a Vertigo-inducing, hip-swiveling Bono among their denizens, a group whose size knows not the boudaries of race, age, or class. I am talking, of course, about the getting-to-be iconic white ear buds of the Ipod; I am talking about the Ipod Army of the Ipod Nation. They are, indeed, everywhere.The flip side of this growing gang is two-fold:1. The term "Ipod" is slowly branding itself to act interchangeably with "MP3 Player" à la "Band-Aid" for bandage or "Xerox copy" for photocopy. For an owner of Rio's 20Gb Karma, it affords me the twin frustrations of red anger and green jealousy (perfect for the holiday time!).2. The spirit of capitalism gloms onto the "new big thing" like muscle cream to professional athletes. An entire accessory-based industry has started and its life-support is the continued success of the Ipod: speakers, cases, little beds to rest your Ipod in at night.This Pop Culture Apocalypse brings you to the most ridiculous spawn of this new breed:Ipodmyphoto.com, a company that will take any of your photos and convert it into an Ipod-silhouette ad as easy as Uno! Dos! Tres! Catorce! Sci/Tech23968@blogcritics.org Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:18:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/05/144914.php JollyG15Despite the current popular, political argument that life imitates art (or see: kids smoke and kill people because they are influenced by what they see on a screen at the local-plex) Hollywood has notoriously been behind the social times in reflecting what is going on in the moment when their films are released. For example, the overt personal artistic expression that littered art, literature and music in the 1950's and 1960's in this country only flowered in American Cinema in the 1970's. While Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball in 1946, it took years after that before African Americans stepped out from the stereotypical roles they were usually relegated to on film...ironic for a supposedly liberal-leaning town. Part of the reasoning for this social delay is because of the time it takes to produce a film, but more importantly because major studios have often treated us, its audience, like kids with too much money in our wallet; by providing us with a two-hour escape from society rather than inciting us to question it. Plainly, it's just more profitable that way. However, Hollywood does sometimes catch up...and indeed the stoner-comedy Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle is an excellent example of the freeing of two otherwise forgotten-on-film minorities from the stereotypical ties that had previously bound them to anonymity.Despite current continuous, necessary and vigilant calls for more roles and roles of power for African Americans, Hollywood has slowly integrated and enfranchised the African American on film. There is a stronger African American voice in Hollywood today then there has been ever before; actors like Denzel Wahington and Halle Berry have broken through racial-character stereotypes and play racially indifferent lead roles; roles that probably would have gone to an Anglo actors even fifteen to twenty years ago. Is there any doubt that a Manchurian Candidate remake or The Pelican Brief would have featured white lead actors had they been made in a different era? That Mario Van Peeples can make a film today (Badassssss!) about the independent, albeit meager beginnings of African American filmmaking is truly a signpost of how far things have come. The crossover mainstream success of films like Barbershop has proven that Hip-Hop culture is hip enough or, more importantly, a viable enough money-making product that major studio executives have noticed and responded.Which brings us to the representation of Asian-Americans and Indians (the ones from India, not the reservation) on film. Has Hollywood similarly enfranchised these minorities in movies as much as African Americans? I would argue not. For years in American movies, there was an unwritten policy that Anglos played major character parts that were clearly identified or intended to be other minorities: David Carridine's "Caine" comes to mind; Twenty years ago, Ben Kingsley, an Englishman, played famous Indian leader Mohatma Ghandi. Even today, in a more "enlightened" era, many films that feature Asian Americans or Indians place them in squarely stereotypical supporting roles. While actors like Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan have made names for themselves as lead actors in Hollywood, it is surely not based on their acting skills first, but for their martial arts prowess. The stereotypes of these minorities portrayed in modern film and television seep into public consciousness and into popular culture. Among the oft regurgitated lines in pop culture and, especially, male-fraternizing conversation, are from The Karate Kid. Pat Morita's (Shock! Another Asian in a popular martial arts movie!) Asian-cum-Hollywood "philosophies" like "Wax on, Wax off," "Sand The Floor" and "Karate here; Karate not here." How many times have we seen Indians portrayed in film and popular culture as cab drivers, one-dimensional sentimental losers or comic foils (up to Kal Penn's character in Van Wilder, Apu from The Simpsons)? Is there a more over used "go-to" for a laugh then an Indian accent? Somehow, these minorities have taken the current mantel for a "bookish" or "nerdy" character in a film...which seemingly represents a step-up on the Hollywood evolutionary minority-ladder from "non-existence" to "let's laugh at them." There are millions of people in many areas of this country whose ideas and images about these minorities come from what they see on mainstream film and TV...only!In Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle we have an excellent leap forward in an effort to smash this ideological barrier. In fact, the film does a complete switcheroo, stereotyping white people while ascending the protagonists to multi-dimensional character status. For example, there are the "Extreme" dudes (representing skateboard youth culture), the cops (representing patriarchal authority), and the business executives (representing corporate America) all of whom constantly fight to squeeze our heroes back into the squarepeggish-holes they came from. What ammunition do they use? Some of the very same pop-culture references mentioned above (Both The Karate Kid and The Simpsons are cited) and the stereotypes they foster ("What kind of name is "Kumar" anyway?). Even members of Harold and Kumar's own racial minorities try to reclaim then and mold (or hold?) them back into the stereotypical clay figures they are breaking away from. Consider Harold's repeated abhorrence of an Asian club trying to recruit him. Indeed, the members of the club are first portrayed in the typical pre-established minority light (tending towards dorkish) until we see them later partying as hard as any bunch of white-baseball-hat wearing frat guys; another example of the filmmaker's opening the book you were judging previously by its cover. For Kumar, his immigrant-turned successful doctor father fights hard to force his son to focus onto becoming a doctor (a program his older brother already submitted to) himself and little else. Kumar is more than bright enough, as evidenced by the sequence where he performs a difficult surgery without breaking a sweat or training. There is also a powerful passing of the minority-enfranchisement-mantle in the film. There's a scene where an African-American offers Harold sage words of racial tolerance advice in prison; the only time in the film when another character offers encouragement instead of hatred. Harold and Kumar are our heroes in the film, the protagonists the filmmakers ask us to identify with...and we easily can. They are bright, young, urban professionals fresh from the womb of college who just want to get high and eat some burgers! That's me! Or at least it was a few years ago... and I am neither Asian nor Indian. Thus, both Harold and Kumar enjoy all the rewards bestowed normally upon their heroic brethren at the end of a movie: the girl, triumph over their enemies and, for the sake their own story, tons of White Castle burgers.So what is the easiest, most subtle way for the film establishment to welcome these minorities into mainstream characterhood? The cinematic tablet easiest to swallow (and responsible for the negative images in the first place): the comedy or more specifically, the stoner comedy. Amazing to think a dime bag, glass bong and some hamburgers can try to right the wrongs of previous media injustices for a whole new generation of eyes and minds. Video23938@blogcritics.org Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:49:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/05/143831.php JollyG15Jaume Balaguero's Darkness, from a screenplay by Balaguero, Fernando De Filipe and Miguel Tejada-Flores, finally arrives on American shores a full two years after it debuted in Europe. Despite being made by a Spanish crew and filmmakers and shot entirely in Spain, this is an American film with English-speaking actors, much like Alejandro Almenabar's The Others. Also like that film, Darkness is a supernatural horror suspense thriller that features creepy kids and the heroines who try to save them, with Anna Paquin filling the role here as Nicole Kidman did in the other.Ms. Paquin is unique among her young actress peers in truly looking like the girl-next-door, seemingly more attainable, more genuinely likeable and down-to-earth then her like-aged statuesque model associates. As Regina, the teenaged daughter of an American family that relocates to an old, creaky Victorian house in the Spanish countryside, this accessibility helps an audience identify and side with her when the chips are down. Unbeknownst to her and her family, their house was the site of some unspeakable science experiments involving children on the night of a total eclipse forty years earlier. So when her 8 year-old brother Paul (Stephan Enquist) develops unexplainable bruises on his chest and her father Mark (Iain Glen) begins inexplicably banging holes in the walls with a sledge hammer, Regina, suspecting their new abode, springs into Nancy Drew mode with her hottie Spanish boyfriend (boyfriend? They had moved only three weeks earlier!) Carlos (Fele Martinez). Despite a blind-eye turned to these problems by her mother (weird bruises on my son? No big deal) Maria (Lena Olin) and her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini), Regina tracks down the haunted house's crusty designer, Villalobos, for some answers. And so on.Unfortunately for Ms. Paquin, down-to-earth looks aren't everything; she sleepwalks through most of her lines, robbing the term "scream queen" of its vocal aspect. Indeed, I found myself wishing, at times, that I had stick to poke at the screen to make sure she was still participating. But to fault her fully would be a foolish miscalculation. Admittedly, I am not the biggest proponent of the horror film genre but I know cliché soup when I'm served it. Balaguero uses day-of-the-week placards to demarcate time and to map ascending points of suspense pressure. But the precious few moments in the film that approach horror intensity are immediately destroyed by a placard's pronouncement of the next day, like a knife chopping possibility in one kill-shot. This same device was used more memorably in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining; but while we learn, early on, of the horrific atrocities committed in the Overlook Hotel, Balagureo feeds us no such story until we are halfway through his proceedings. Until that point we are left to nibble on shadowy figures crossing in front of the camera; disturbing images drawn in color pencil by a kid; echoing children's laughter; heavy-shaky music-video-style camera work; shots of empty swings; wind-chimes; perpetual rain; unknown crazy guy standing in the rain and an X-files-like music. Cliché unto itself is not a fatal pill, merely just a dirty term used to decry influence. But cliché served alone without something original mutating from its scaly skin can prove, as it does in Darkness, to be poisonous.By the time the credits rolled, I was left with more questions than answers about the film's resolution. Sadly, some of those questions included: Why was I here? And, can't they just warn me next time? If you want to spend two hours with darkness, I recommend doing so somewhere comfortable, watching the back of your eyelids. Video23937@blogcritics.org Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:38:31 EST