It is with a heavy heart that I write this.
Yesterday evening, after another excellent trip to Fuji Ya for dinner, I was walking home on Lake Street. As I passed Bryant Lake Bowl and wondering why I never bowl, I saw this sign hanging on the door of my favorite comics store.
That's right. Double Danger Comics, the impeccably up-kept comic store of my neighborhood, is closing.
What a tragedy! Here we had a nice, freshly done and locally owned comic store and it's going out of business. I remember being so excited, walking from my condo to their grand opening on National Comic Book Day, eager to see what the place looked like and what their selection was. It was a double bonus - not only was a great, new shop opening right down the street from where I lay my head at night, but it was Free Comic Book Day! I picked up the best of the freebies and (of course) did some legitimate business as well, managing to tack down some issues I had not been able to find for quite a while. They had a fantastic store and I made sure to be a consistent patron whenever I could, instead of shopping at one of the bigger book stores. Super cool prints for sale, an excellent asetethic, figurines, good selection and variety and above all a friendly and patient staff. It was a great place to have, right in the neighborhood. You would think Uptown, of all places, would be able to support the need for such a place, especially with the gap left in the community ever since mainstay Shinders closed down earlier in the decade.
Granted this is only the physical location closing its doors. According to the staff they plan on maintaining their online presence and selections while shuttering the shop on Lake Street. It really is a bummer, even if they ring you up with a smile and recommendation for things you might like, based on your purchase. Such an awesome store, going the way of the buffalo. The one, small silver lining, a minor positive to this situation, is the massive liquidation happening as a result, but even that makes me feel guilty for taking any pleasure in it. Considering the awesome back log of stuff still available, I picked up a few trade paperbacks and recent issues, as well as a Futurama figurine for my desk. Get in while you can and the selection lasts, there were some amazing things available for a whopping 50% off. Again, I got some great deals but at the cost of losing my favorite store in the area. A sad trade, if you ask me.
Quelle domage. Here's their site, check 'em out if you can, or if at all possible, help them out by reducing inventory. I know I plan on making a trip back before the end of February, their last day of open doors. It was an excellent shop, worthy of your business and mine. I just wish I could have helped more.
Alright friends and neighbors, today we're going to talk about a different kind of monster movie.
My post last week on indie-extraordinaire Monsters extolled the virtues of subtlety and how to evoke mood by presenting the quieter, more tense aspect of the unseen. The appeal in that film was the ambiance and it's minimal presentation, eschewing EXPLOSIONS for long silences and the unknown. Today's subject matter is pretty much the opposite of the little monster movie that could. What I'm referring to is 2008's Cloverfield.
While directed by Matt Reeves, known mostly for his TV work on the show Felicity, the movie is basically the brain child of J.J. Abrams, creator of the genius and sorely missed Lost. Abrams said the idea stemmed from seeing Godzilla figurines in a Japanese toy shop with his son. Seeing the iconic monster and realizing the impact it had on the culture, he thought to himself "I want to make an American monster" in that vein, our own thing that is unique to this generation.
The movie was filmed under tight wraps with only the slightest of details leaking out during production. A teaser trailer for the movie was shown before theatrical screenings of Transformers, showing the head of the Statue of Liberty being flung down the street in Manhattan with crowds gathering to gape at the spectacle. That was all the audience had to go on, unless you followed the viral marketing that popped up innocuously online. This was back in the days where Myspace was still considered a social viability for relevance, as opposed to today's ultra-ubiquitous Facebook. What fans (correctly) assumed was that the pages were of characters in the movie. These were all linked together from a central website that showed photos of a fractured and broken New York skyline. Further hidden links led to pages showing a beverage company that mined its secret ingredient off the ocean floor. Follow those links and you get a video of a deep-sea drilling station that was sunk by an undersea attack. All of that was meant to give clues to the movie's plot.
Ready? Here goes.
The Blair Witch monster eats New York, attractive people flee in terror.
That about sums it up!
While I admit its a bit of an over simplification, I still enjoy it for what it is. The movie is a modern-day monster movie, a popcorn flick with shaky camera-style, lending a found-footage aesthetic. A group of attractive young people are having a going away party for their friend Rob, and on the night of the party, as another friend films the debauchery, a monster from the ocean floor, 25 stories tall, begins stomping through New York. The next 70+ minutes are spent alternating between running while turning to film fleeting glimpses of the monster and gasping for breath in hiding holes, asking each other just what that thing was and what should they do now? Desperate rescue attempts and edge-of-your-seat close calls fill out the rest of the running time. There are a few cool and creepy moments, such as running from smaller parasites that fall off the larger creature, or stumbling onto the military's ad-hoc quarantine and medical zone.
I know it sounds like I'm pretty roundly dismissing the movie, but despite its obvious flaws and at times frustrating camera work I still hold a soft spot for this overlooked oddity. To me, the movie feels authentic and genuine, despite the ridiculous premise and bland characters. Self interested, boring people in New York? I'll buy it. But what I think really sold it for me is what Roger Ebert, of all people, suggests about the film. He saw it as an unnerving take on our worst (unconscious) fears after September 11th. To ironically allow vanity steer my post, its been said that my generation was one that was profoundly affected by the attacks because we were forced to watch it over and over again on TV after the fact. Seeing this shaky cam footage of people roughly my age, running and screaming from some Lovecraft-ian horror-from-the-depths does affect me and gets a visceral response. It all adds up to one messed up movie. It's short, frenetic and barely focused but it still appeals to me with its immediacy and (to use a phrase I take from The Simpson's Lindsey Naegel) in-your-face attitude.
Yes, this is a flawed movie. It's short, the people are sketches at best and there really is no plot besides "RUN!" but I still find myself enjoying it under the right circumstances. Most often, that would be on a massive TV with a good sound system and a beer. Maybe a couple beers, actually, but the violent camera work might make that difficult, come to think of it. Basically if you're looking for a straight-forward popcorn flick that might actually make you think a bit, give a look. I'm pretty sure it's widely dismissive reception kept the price down.
Oh, and the monster? Pretty awesome and strange, if you ask me.
Double post extravaganza!
Like I wrote last night, this second post for the day serves as penance for not getting in any proper writing yesterday. Having already written about the love that is Calvin & Hobbes, I thought I'd put up a short piece about the excellent indie film Monsters. Shot in 2009 in parts of Mexico, South America and southern Texas for just over half of a million dollars, the film was given a limited release and received generally favorable reviews.
I stumbled across the film last year while perusing the renowned science and tech blog io9. They had a series of articles detailing how Monsters was filmed with as much of a natural feel as possible, with the locations and extras all being whatever happened and where the director would guide the film - everything was basically found and fairly DIY. All of the extras were local people who simply agreed to improvise their scenes. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The premise for the movie is that life is discovered on one of Jupiter's moons and probes sent to analyze it unintentionally bring it back when they return to Earth, crashing in the desert of the Tex/Mex border. The lifeforms grow and spread, despite the intervention of the pertinent governments and the entire area is quarantined as infected and therefor, uninhabitable. The protagonist is tasked with returning a media mogul's daughter to her home in America and, due to extenuating circumstances, have to cross the infected zone.
What gives the film a breath of fresh air in the sea of mediocrity that is current science fiction is that it relies on the unseen and creating tension through atmosphere rather than bombast and spectacle. It is a quiet and tense, understated film that lets scenes play out in their natural progression rather than rushing the story from one plot point to the next. It is a bit of a road movie, but one that effectively creates tension through the unseen and unknown, which is a refreshingly novel take on a monster movie. The aliens, when glimpsed, are genuinely scary and mesmerizing as a result. The effect is not unlike when Spielberg had to keep Jaws out of the frame for most of the movie, or how Ridley Scott never gave a solid look directly at his alien in one of my favorite movies, Alien. It boils down to quality story telling, the old trick of Show, Don't Tell.
What I had gotten prematurely started on above was the fact that Monsters was made for a pittance of what a movie of this ilk would normally require. All shots were on location as found, locals provided genuine characters and the special effects, as impressive as they are, were created solely using consumer-level programs and software. No racks of processors and rendering farms with Lucas Arts - just the director and his computer, locked away, editing and slowly going mad. It is indicative of the personal nature of the movie and the passion that went into it. Where many movies would end up just looking lifeless and flat (particularly in this genre), Monsters looks and feels fantastically real and as a result draws in the viewer in a way that is so often lacking these days.
I can't help but be reminded of the recent and highly innovative District 9 when viewing this movie. Both were done on relatively meager budgets (though Monsters was even more restrictive) and both deal with pervasive, human issues through alien allegories. Already out on iTunes, I would highly recommend checking this quiet but innovative movie out. Take a look at the trailer here and see for yourself.
Tomorrow - back on a normal schedule!
