by contributing writer Howard Anderton

Dune.

Man, Dune.

That movie sucks.

David Lynch.

Man, David Lynch…

Unquestionably, he’s one of the most gifted filmmakers who ever lived: David Lynch, a bona fide weirdo, and the grand transgressor of American cinema. His best scenes live on in your mind just like those dreams you’ll never forget: the nightmarish arrival of Robert Blake in Lost Highway, the circus-freak march of The Elephant Man, Dennis Hopper’s oxygen mask in Blue Velvet.

Some of Lynch’s work I embrace and love: The Straight Story is amazing. But most of his work I either don’t touch with a ten foot pole or don’t have the stomach to finish. Admittedly, the only films in the first paragraph I didn’t shut off were The Elephant Man and Blue Velvet. I loved The Elephant Man. I wish I could unsee Blue Velvet.

As alienating as his films are to me, he is a erudite man and a gifted communicator.

The man knows film, and he knows how to communicate his love for film. Heck, even our tastes are similar—he loves Hitchcock even more than I do. I have an intense amount of respect and admiration for Lynch, and for his command of the medium.

And then we have Dune. I was six years old when I first saw this film, and it stuck in my head: The bad guys’ six-inch-long eyebrows… The super-evolved, space-folding psychic monster men… knife-fights with bizarre yellow energy shields… Sting… Even as a kid, I wanted to like the film—giant worms and spaceships, come on!—but it didn’t make a lick of sense.

Thank God for Netflix streaming. In a moment of idle curiosity, I found Dune again. I’ve been on a pre-90s sci-fi kick lately (old school Doctor Who! Yes!!), so I clicked on it…

…and oh my goodness, I feel like throwing up.

The film opens with a shot of Virginia Madsen staring at the screen, fading in and out, setting up the world of Dune for us by talking directly to the camera. It is the year 10,000-something. Something about “the spice must flow.” A bunch of weird names like Atrides and Arrakis. I’m sort of captivated—kudos to Madsen and Lynch for creating a dreamlike erotic atmosphere… but I can’t understand a word she’s saying. Is that English?

Check the opening out. I can’t embed it from youtube, but you can watch it here.

Fade down Virginia Madsen. Fade up opening credits.

And then comes one bizarre, incredibly over-plotted, incomprehensibly weird scene after another.

The casting’s insane: Kyle Maclachlan, Patrick Stewart, Linda Hunt, Francesca Annis, Dean Stockwell, Sting, Jurgen Pronchow, Brad Dourif, Max von Snydow, Richard Jordan, Fernando Rey, Sean Young. All somehow leave a distinct impression on the viewer, delivering full-bodied characterizations in the midst of a very messy film.

The villains of Dune are classic David Lynch. Brad Dourif, whose ridiculous pyscho-religious dialogue and bizarre gestures and body language set the viewer on edge. Kenneth McMillan as a flying, psychopathic fat man. A bunch of attendants with their eyes and ears sewn shut. A psychotic doctor who whispers sweet nothings into Kenneth McMillan’s ears while sucking puss out of his face. A bald witch lady. Michael Bolton.* Sting.

About halfway through the movie—long after I gave up trying to make sense of it–Kyle Maclachlan and his mother get stranded in the desert. They’re taken in by some sort of native terrorist tribe run by Everett McGill, who has the coolest voice this side of James Earl Jones. From this point on, the movie threatens us with comprehensibility… there’s a neat sequence where Maclachlan uses some sort of psychic shouting thing to blow up rocks. The giant worms show up. The editing becomes smooth (it’s a complete hack job up until this point), and the film’s atmosphere becomes stronger. In another sequence, Kyle Maclachlan drinks a potion and goes on an acid trip. When he wakes up, the giant worms are sitting at his feet like puppy dogs, and he’s become, apparently, some sort of Future Space Jesus Christ.

At this point, I have the impression that Lynch may have had a good film here somewhere during the editing process.

I also have a headache. I pop a Tylenol and continue.

Finally, there’s a climactic battle in which the heroes attack a future space dessert city while riding giant worms. It should be noted that the special effects here aren’t the greatest, and the battle looks like… well, it’s a bunch of penis-shaped worm puppets attacking a miniature city.

The good guys win. Virginia Madsen shows up for the first time since the opening, speaking one line (why was she in this movie again)? Kyle Maclachlan fights Sting and stabs him to death. Then Kyle Maclachlan, summoning his Future Space Jesus Christ powers, makes it rain. Cue closing credits.

All in all… what the heck just happened?

That said, I think there was a good film in there. It should have been an hour longer, allowing Lynch to flesh out the story and give us something more comprehensible. The novel Dune is based on is thick—like 544 pages. It is regarded as the Lord of the Rings of science fiction—i.e. it is a unique, intricate, and complete world, filled with maps and glossaries and mishmash. Imagine if the first Lord of the Rings film had been cut down to two hours. We all would’ve hated it.

According to my research,** Lynch turned in a four hour cut, and it was chopped down by the producers for release—Lynch was contractually obliged to turn in a two hour film. An obvious mistake on the producers’ part.

Ridley Scott was developing Dune to direct before Lynch, and had suggested splitting the first book’s story into two films. This was probably the wisest choice. The Sci-fi Channel’s miniseries adaptation of the novel spanned six hours, and apparently made a lot more sense. There’s just too much information in the novel to adapt into a sensical two hour film.

Lynch’s film has its good points, buried in an obsence mess of uniformly awful editing. The score by Toto is sublime. The cinematography by Freddie Francis is atmospheric and heady. The performances, as I noted earlier, are full-bodied, weird, and attention-grabbing. And it has the touch of an auteur, which can make a terrible film like Dune more entertaining to me than vacuous fluff like Night at The Museum.

That said, it still made me wanna throw up. Netflix it at your own risk.

· Bolton can be spotted in a single shot at the end of the film. He plays a drummer during a climactic knife fight between Sting and Kyle Maclachlan.

** By research, of course, I mean Wikipedia.

To lie or not to lie, that is the question. Not posed by William Shakespeare of course but rather by the growing interest of “documentary” films today. I recently screened two widely discussed films, “Catfish” and “Exit Through the Gift Shop”. But rather than simply review them, I’ve decided to take a different approach.

What these two films have in common and why I’ve chosen an alternate path to writing this article, is because both films have been questioned of their legitimacy. What’s odd, is that these aren’t the first documentaries to be asked of this however it seems to be a growing trend. Though with all of this controversy surrounding these films, you have to wonder if that was the producer’s plan all along.

Let’s begin first by analyzing each film separately and then from there decide which film in fact holds merit, and which film simply is holding your cash. The first film is “Catfish”, one that I had high expectations for and one that I also enjoyed. Although it should be pointed out that going into this film without knowing it, I believed it to be a work of fiction. The film revolves around the relationship between the center piece of the documentary (also the filmmaker’s brother) and a girl he meets online. I can’t say much more than that although, in the digital age we live in today the film is very interesting. Later, when curious of the film’s reception, I researched it and discovered that the film was actually listed as a documentary. Upon realizing this I also found that many, like myself, questioned the very same thing. What is used as proof of the film’s fraud is that there are scenes that are too convenient to the “arc of a story” and to the “composition of a film”. Furthermore, at the Sundance Film Festival and when asked about the film’s legitimacy, the director’s of the film shut down the Q & A panel, which didn’t help. Regardless of the films authenticity, I still enjoyed it but also can understand why a simple concept and modest budget would attract producers.

What’s truly astounding about this argument in general is while seeing the second documentary, “Exit Through the Gift Shop”, I believed the film to be real. Although once again, once finished with the film I learned that others like me had also wondered of this film’s “true meaning”. The difference in contrast is far more apparent than with “Catfish”. This reason being that the film centers around a street artist known as “Banksy” who is infamously known for his elaborate pranks and also serves as the film’s director. When figuring this out and looking back at the film, of course I became more curious. My final bit of curiosity relied on whether or not the film itself was just another media stunt or if it was making an extremely ironic point about media stunts in general. Though real or not, like “Catfish”, this film is one that is highly entertaining and shouldn’t be missed.

So, two documentaries, real or fake, have been released and it raises the idea of whether or not it matters. In comparison, the recent film “I’m Still Here” about actor Joaquin Phoenix’s recent “retirement from acting” anchored completely on the idea of whether or not the film’s plot was real. When discovered that [SPOILER ALERT] it was in fact a fake, many wrote the film off in its entirety. While somewhat harsh, it’s easy to understand since the film had no real story other than the audience wondering if the film was based on truth. Once again a problem many of Hollywood films are faced with today, you have to base a film around a story not a concept.

While the subject of fake documentaries may be shocking to some, in filmmaking it’s nothing new. The difference being that in most “fake documentaries” or “mockumentaries” as they are often called, the lie is more forthwith. Whether it’s in film with a movie like “Best in Show” or in Television with examples like “The Office” and “Modern Family”, the concept has been seen before. What’s important to realize in all of this is that just like any human being it is what’s inside that counts, and if the film, like a person, has no heart then it’s not worth the effort.

When is it time to give up? I asked myself this when I recently saw a preview for the new film “Devil”. The reason why is because when the screen showed the titles “from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan” the entire theater groaned very loudly. It was when I heard these ominous groans that I wondered if a future should exist for the once prominent director. Personally, after watching “The Last Airbender” and seeing the terrible box office gross that ensued I was sure it was the last we would hear of Mr. Shyamalan. Yet when I saw this trailer and learned of a series of films known as the “Night Chronicles” soon to come it feels as though his resignation won’t be when we would all like. So in an effort to help both mine and your understanding, let’s explore how Shyamalan became not only the appealing director he once was but also how he transformed to the box office poison he now is today.

From the very beginning of this young director’s career, it felt as if he was right on the cusp of something truly brilliant. Now, more than a decade has gone by and here we stand right where we started, with something that has yet to be fully realized. No matter what director or artist is being discussed there is one principle that always rings true: to create you must evolve. Perhaps this is a lesson our fateful choice of director should have learned long ago.

M. Night Shyamalan (Born in India as Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan) was raised in the urban Penn Valley area of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was there that he received a Super-8 camera as a gift and then began making home movies (most of which are special features on his various films). He raised all the funding for his first film “Praying with Anger” which he produced, directed, and starred in all on his own. The film is a story  of an alienated Americanized teenager of East Indian heritage that is sent back to India and is partially based on Shymalan’s personal experiences. I recently saw this film while doing research for this article, and found it to be very interesting. The film shows signs of a director who wanted to tell stories we could not only enjoy but relate to as well. I personally can recommend the film and while not perfect, for those who still believe in Shyamalan, it’s definitely a must-see.

His second film “Wide Awake” was actually a film that I saw at a young age and it wasn’t until a second viewing many years later that I became aware of who its director was. The film takes place at a Philadelphia Catholic school and centers around a boy who embarks on a journey to discover God after his grandfather dies. While not completely successful at the box office, Shymalan showed great promise as many consider this to be an underrated film. What makes this film significant in his career is it continues the trend of exploring the spiritual and religious in an interesting, unbiased, and relatable way.

M. Night’s third film which is perhaps his most ambitious, and arguably his most critically successful, would be his his definitive work. The film was “The Sixth Sense”, and much like Shymalan’s role model Steven Spielberg, this third film would be the landmark of his career. Both Speilberg and Shymalan in their third film (Speilberg’s being “Jaws”) engrossed themselves around the idea instituted by Alfred Hitchcock of capturing what’s most fearful… the unknown.  The fear coming not from what we see, but from what we don’t see. “The Sixth Sense” again handling a very adult matter through the eyes of a child, with an academy award nominated performance by Haley Joel Osment. Shymalan’s decision to use a child as the film’s main character continued a trend he began with his last film, but with this entry he started another one as well; the twist. At the final moments of “The Sixth Sense” Shymalan not only shocked the audience but at the same time intrigued them enough to expect an ending like this with all of his films.

With his fourth film, “Unbreakable”, Shymalan seemed to almost reinvent himself with what I believe to be his best film to date. The film begins with a train wreck and thus it becomes the center piece for the film’s plot. Without revealing too much, the film slowly unravels to a rich storyline, intriguing performances, and a visual style that still impresses me to this day. As almost a quasi-superhero film for the 21st century, “Unbreakable” is largely ignored by the mass audience but is still revered by most comic and cult-film fans today.

Shymalan wanted something new and yet something familiar with his fifth film “Signs”, and he did just that. Again, the film explores religious themes, provides us with young talented actors in pivotal roles, and of course ends with the Shymalan twist. Instead of using the actor Bruce Willis as the lead character, Shymalan shifted gears a bit and used Mel Gibson. This proved to be a step in the right direction as audiences came out in droves to not only see “the new Mel Gibson film” but also wait for that twist that they had become accustomed to. This film is also somewhat hard to discuss without revealing too much, but Shymalan again took the familiar, as he did with “Unbreakable”, and reinvented it. The plot revolves around the idea of how crop circles are made and makes us wonder if they truly are the mystery they appear to be. The reason this film stands out as one of Shymalan’s best is it again employs what he started out to create, a film not only enjoyable but relatable.

Shymalan was at a crossroads with his sixth film, with so many different ideas and twists, where would he go from here? Shymalan’s answer was “The Village”. Audiences were mixed. While many consider this film much better than it was perceived, I can agree with the mass population and say this movie revealed to us Shymalan’s tell. Instead of an interesting and mysterious plot that the audience would relate to, we were instead subjected to something far worse. The idea of surprising the audience with a twist had obviously overwhelmed Shymalan and it sadly disappointed many. Shymalan had to learn that you can’t revolve an entire film around the principle of a surprise, unfortunately it’s a lesson he’s still trying to learn.

Distraught by what many thought to be the end of his career with words like “wash-up” and “has-been”,  Shymalan had to break new ground with his seventh film. Unfortunately, this did not happen and instead we were treated with “Lady in the Water”. What followed was a film that seemed like a potentially good idea that just wasn’t fully realized. Shymalan tried to tell an adult fairy tale in the vein of “Pan’s Labyrinth” but failed miserably and instead produced something that even the Grimm Fairy Tales wouldn’t accept. Shymalan used a new actor in Paul GIamatti and a familiar one with Bryce Dallas Howard but again Shymalan couldn’t figure out a successful formula to make a film like this work.

His next film, due to the recent fall from grace, was a toss up between almost no expectations and talks of a comeback. The film that came out of this was “The Happening”. Now once again, up until writing this article I had not seen this film, frankly because it had been panned by everyone I know. I don’t want to over-analyze this film so I’ll simply say that watching this film was utterly painful. I have never felt an experience quite like this, because this quite possibly was the worst film I have ever seen. The problem being once again that Shymalan was given a large budget, a slew of talented actors, and yet still could not produce due the plot being poorly realized.

M. Night Shymalan’s latest work, “The Last Airbender”, was supposed to once again be a reinvention and had all the possibility to do so. With a storyline based on a popular and well written anime cartoon of the same name, this film would be hard to screw up. Though as we saw with “The Happening” the film was plagued by horrible acting, atrocious dialogue, and special effects that James Cameron created when he was in grade school. I’m not sure what else to say about Shymalan’s films that I haven’t already said because as you may have noticed, they all follow a trend.

This trend is one commonly seen in filmmaking today; that even with all the ambition in the world, all of the money in the world, and even with endless support and resources, a film’s story must take the time to be fully realized. When you are given the keys to the kingdom at such an early stage in your career sometimes it feels like everything afterward is downhill, sadly this has proven to be the case with Shymalan, the only direction he has gone is down. Starting out with such promise, such vision, and such imagination Shymalan has truly squandered away all hope from his audience, and at his own hand. There is no one to blame but Shymalan himself, for he truly had everything a filmmaker could ask for and yet in just a little over a decade, he has created a literal “what not-to-do” guide to filmmaking. The lesson to learn here is that story is important, and no matter what, that story must have time to develop. Much like Shymalan’s films his career was rushed before it began, now it feels like it’s already over.

Without avail, Shyamalan brings us a new film we didn’t ask for. This time it’s called “Devil”, a movie he wrote but did not direct. The problem we have seen in his increasingly depreciating work unfortunately has been the writing. To depend on a failing formula and dialogue that simply doesn’t improve is a gamble for sure. The question remains as it has with has last few films; will he redeem himself or fall short yet again? After much deliberation I can say with confidence that I’ve been fooled before and unlike Shyamalan’s poorly written characters I won’t get fooled again.

Have you seen “Devil”? Did you love it, or hate it? Let us know in the comment section below.

When you hear the plot synopsis “An assassin hides out in Italy for one last assignment”, it’s hard to hold out hope for originality in a film’s plot. Yet with George Clooney’s latest starring film, “The American”, the actor not only brings originality through his performance but makes his best film in years.

While Clooney has been known to make some great films, both artistic and commercial, his rise to fame came also through a lot of tabloid covers and less than stellar films. However, in “The American” he is truly at the top of his game and delivers a truly great performance, one that he was born to play.

Directed by Anton Corbijn (“Control”) with his second film he brings a unique and almost vintage style to the film that would suggest he is a seasoned professional. Corbijn, who comes from the Netherlands and got most of his fame as a still photographer for bands such as “U2″ and “Nirvana” creates something remarkable with this film.

Remarkable meaning that it feels like Michelangelo Antonioni or Bernardo Bertolucci should have made this film years ago. Although putting an American movie star in a foreign film has been done before, I don’t think it’s been done quite this successful since “The Last Tango in Paris”.

To prove how such a feat can be explained the proof is all through Clooney’s performance. A lot of the time Clooney tends to play a man who charms you with not only his smile but especially his words. What’s most interesting here, is that with this film Clooney is a man of few words and even fewer smiles.

His performance is masterfully subtle and wholly encapsulates the mystery of this film’s plot. Backed by previously stated and outstanding visuals it’s hard not to completely recommend this film. The supporting cast does a great job of not overshadowing Clooney but rather help contribute to his dark presence and the film’s even darker premise.

If you haven’t gathered from this review, I absolutely loved this film. From start to finish, it will draw you in and slowly pull away at the same time making it that much more appealing. I’ve always hoped they had made “The Bourne Identity” series in just one film, well now they have, only it looks much better and is far more intriguing.

Is it better to be appreciated in your own time, or later discovered for your unacknowledged brilliance? This is something I can’t help but question in the film box office as of late. I was driven to examine this very question after a recent screening of the film “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”.

“Pilgrim” felt like the film people had been wanting for quite some time, and yet when finally released it underperformed; why? When a film has a poor box office gross it could always be a number of things. Sometimes it could be timing, competition, or, in some cases, a scandal involving the film’s cast or crew. The reason why I find this subject so alarming is it feels that lately the films I enjoy the most are the ones that take the mass audience a long time to appreciate.

Now granted this isn’t always the case, but I analyzed every movie I have seen this year and besides two (“Inception” and “Shutter Island”) these films were largely ignored by the public. It started early this year in April when I saw “Kick-Ass” and “Macgruber” at both festival and theater screenings, then later continued when I looked back at other films I enjoyed but no one else saw.

The strangest thing, and definitely the most annoying, was the ignorance of the people who hadn’t seen these movies to begin with. The biggest complaint I heard from people who DIDN’T see “Kick-Ass” was that they said they don’t like superhero movies. While this is a valid complaint when it comes to a film like this, if they had actually watched it they would see the film addressed this very issue.

Normally I would chalk this up to mere ignorance, but there seems to be a growing epidemic of film preconceptions. This happened just a month later with “Macgruber” where people simply just wrote the film off entirely even when it had some surprisingly good reviews.

To put my own movie preconceptions to the test I screened two films against my will. My roommate’s girlfriend had previously recommended two films to me and I scoffed at both. She told me to give them a chance because I was being too cynical and I replied with just more cynicism. To make amends, I told her I would watch the two films with her and give my honest opinion. What were these two films you ask? “The Ugly Truth” and “The Last Song”, yes I know, bad, right? I swallowed my pride with a big, nervous gulp and went where few men have boldly gone before.

When it came to “The Ugly Truth”, I knew the film would be bad by both my standards and that of the general public. Katherine Heigle is a “1-note actress”, she has only proven herself in one role (“Knocked Up”) and has simply replayed that same sassy yet slightly annoying character in different shades since. I also knew by the bad acting and atrocious dialogue in the trailer that I had a pretty good idea of how the film would play out. So what happened after I was done viewing the film? Was I surprised? No, of course not! Because, SPOILER ALERT, the two characters who “hate” each other by the end fall in love just as I predicted and yes Heigle’s shades of Grey acting were all the same. The sad part about this is, I fell asleep halfway through the film because I knew this very thing would happen, so I had to wake up and endure the finale.

By the time I finished “The Ugly Truth” I simply did not have it in me to finish the “The Last Song”. I watched the first half of the film and after realizing the similarities between the two, I knew I would not be fooled twice in one night. So while I gave the films that I had preconceptions about a chance, I’m sure you are asking, what did I learn?

Well to be honest, not a whole hell of a lot, sadly. What I did scrape by with however, was this; when you decide whether or not you want to see a movie, do your research. Now I know that sounds like work but it’s really not. The reason why I knew “Knight and Day” would be an enjoyable film was because both the director (James Mangold -  “Walk the Line” “3:10 to Yuma”) and it’s star (Tom Cruise) have proven track records. The reason why the film failed at the box office however was simply because people are unwilling to forgive Mr. Cruise for his past transgression in the tabloids.

So stop basing your opinion of a movie on a trailer or a man’s religion, but maybe see what the film is about and who the writer or director was instead. To compare, the films the director of “The Ugly Truth”  had made previously were “Legally Blonde” and “Monster-in-Law”, yeah ’nuff said. It’s not too hard to detect the bad films of the world out there, but occasionally you can be fooled. Although when it comes to bad movies I’d much rather watch “Dinner for Schmucks” again instead of watching Miley Cyrus try to act.