Primeval is one of my favorite kinds of films, the kind that sneaks in educational material under the guise of action/horror, which is one way to get the masses to understand something that’s not occurring right outside their door. For those who missed, say, Hotel Rwanda, Primeval tells just enough about the atrocities in Africa to inform those who might not otherwise be informed.

The plot centers around a 25-foot, man-eating crocodile that is ravaging the African jungle. And while at first glance the plot might sound a bit, um, silly, it’s not. It’s based on true happenings, and the crocodile in question is even dubbed “Gustave” by the locals.

Directed by Michael Katleman (who has a lot of television directing credits under his belt), the film stars Dominic Purcell (one half of TV’s infamous Prison Break brothers), the always-hysterical Orlando Jones (previous credits include The Replacements, Runaway Jury and Office Space), Brooke Langton (of TV’s Melrose Place and the film The Replacements), and Jurgen Prochnow (film credits include The Da Vinci Code and The Celestine Prophecy).

Rated R and presented in 2.35:1 widescreen with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound, the film runs approximately 94 minutes and also includes English, French and Spanish subtitles and audio in both English and Spanish. Bonus features include “Crocumentary: Brining Gustave to Life,” three deleted scenes and audio commentary with the director and various cast and crew.

There’s lots of political and social commentary peppered throughout the film, as well as unlikely heroes, great action sequences, and fabulous special effects. The fact that the film is also shot where the true events happened only adds to the overall look and feel of the film, as well as its authenticity.

Primeval hits all the right marks, combining history, special effects, great acting, a bit of horror and humor to create an entertaining 94 minutes — and that’s more than a lot of films can boast these days.

Do you want to see a truly scary movie this summer? Sure, you can watch one of those movies like Hostel 2 or a zombie movie.

But if you want to see something truly disturbing – a movie which makes the viewer alternate between horror, fear, and concern over children's welfare – then watch the documentary Jesus Camp. If you are like me you will still be thinking about this documentary weeks after you view it, contemplating both the movie and your reaction toward it.

The movie is an evenhanded look at the Kids on Fire Summer Camp in Devils Lake, North Dakota and the growing evangelical movement. The movie is directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, who previously made The Boys of Baraka.

Becky Fischer, the Pentecostal children’s pastor at the camp, gave the directors wide access to the camp because she liked their prior movie. She has probably been re-thinking that decision ever since, as the movie makes her look like quite the passionate propagandist with little concern for letting kids learn to think for themselves.

At the camp, which she started in 2001, children are forced, through manipulative, intense preaching by Fischer and others, to feel awful if they do not think and act properly. And what, pray tell (no pun intended), is the right way to act and think, judging by the film? Four examples spring to mind:

• No ghost stories at camp because they “do not honor God.”
• Evolution is wrong and creationism is the only logical explanation for Earth. Or as one home-schooled child's mother states "science hasn't proved anything" on this issue.
• The Harry Potter books are evil. Fischer tells the camp: "Let me say something about Harry Potter. Warlocks are the enemies of God! And I don't care what kind of hero they are, they're an enemy of God and had it been in the old testament Harry Potter would have been put to death!" After the church shouts "amen!" she adds, "You don't make heroes out of warlocks!
• Speaking in tongues is normal.

There is a telling comment about that last example on the DVD during a commentary track by the two directors. They said that Fischer asked them why they were including a specific scene she though quite boring and ordinary. They explained to her that most viewers are probably not used to seeing people not only blessing facilities and equipment in preparation for the start of camp but also speaking in tongues about the matter.

My favorite part of the scene comes when Fischer says the devil loves to mess up Powerpoint presentations in an attempt to disrupt the spreading of God's words. They of course proceed to pray in an attempt to stop the devil's technological meddling.

But Scott, you may be saying as you read this, what is so wrong with a church passing these messages and lessons on to children? Well, first I want to remind you that they are indeed just children.

I challenge you to not be unsettled by a scene in which they are preached to, until they are in a frenzy, on the "evils" of abortion, complete with tiny models of embryos. Are they not a little young to become soldiers in what they call an "army of God" on the issue of abortion?

Fischer is fascinating and yet shocking to watch. She is quite correct when she says, watching video footage of one service, that the resulting movie would leave liberals liberals "shaking in their boots."

There is an unsettling military theme throughout the movie, from a church service in which children are in war paint to the many references to the Army of God. She says at one point about Muslims,

It's no wonder, with that kind of intense training and discipling, that those young people are ready to kill themselves for the cause of Islam. I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam. I wanna see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, you know, because we have… excuse me, but we have the truth!

Fischer has not disavowed the film or its portrayal of her. However, after the movie came out Fischer discontinued indefinitely the camp, citing phone calls and concerns about vandalism.

The only person involved in the movie who has complained about its content is Ted Haggard, a popular, influential church pastor who, two months after the movie's release, was disgraced through a messy scandal involving sex and drugs. Judging by the deleted scenes which make him come off looking even more high, trippy, and creepy than he does in the movie itself, I think Haggard got off easy.

In a surreal scene included in the movie Haggard stops practicing a sermon to make weird jokes. Pointing into the camera he says, "I think I know what you did last night." As the audience laughs he says, "If you send me a thousand dollars, I won't tell your wife." The audience laughs again and then Haggard says, "If you use any of this, I'll sue you." Um, oops? But I digress.

In one of the best scenes Fischer is challenged by a Christian radio talk show host about whether it is right for the church to be "indoctrinating" these children. She replies that "every other religion is indoctrinating their kids. I would like to see more churches indoctrinating." Fischer later says,

I can go into a playground of kids that don't know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of, just no time at all, and just moments later they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity.

My hope is that after reading those words, and seeding these movies, it is not just liberals who are "shaking in their boots," at least a little nervous about what Fischer and others like her are telling children.

The Painted Veil is one of those movies I was interested in, but never made the time to go see. Even with the DVD in hand, I approached the viewing as if it were a chore. Now that I have watched it, I am happy to report that it is a beautifully crafted film that combines a realistic depiction of a relationship with a view of China circa the 1920s, creating a film that is gorgeous to look at and fascinating to watch.

The film is based on the novel of the same name by W. Somerset Maugham. It is the third filming of the story, previously getting the big screen treatment in 1934 and then again in 1957 (as The Seventh Sin). I have not seen either of those, nor have I read the book, so any comparisons to the source/prior interpretations is a no-go. No matter, the film is strong enough to stand on its own as a highly dramatic film with a well-developed screenplay, fine acting, and gorgeous cinematography.

The story centers on the relationship between Kitty (Naomi Watts) and her husband, Dr. Walter Fane (Edward Norton). The film begins with their meeting in London, where the proper Doctor courts the more liberated Kitty, and they soon marry. Shortly after the wedding, the new couple relocate to Shanghai, where Dr. Fane, a bacteriologist, was to work on his studies. It is here where the film slows its pace. Up to this point the film seemed to cover a lot of ground in very little time, moving quickly from their initial meeting, to marriage, to the trip to Shanghai. I was not sure I was going to like it. Sure, it was well acted and gorgeous to look at, but the narrative seemed somewhat lacking. That was all about to change as their life in Shanghai settles in.

Walter is married to his work, and Kitty, looking for a stronger emotional bond, finds it in an affair with Charlie Townsend (Liev Schreiber), another official stationed in Shanghai. It is not long before Walter discovers his wife's dalliance, and their relationship takes a turn. The exposure of the affair leads to an ultimatum which takes our unhappily married couple to a small village in the throes of a massive cholera epidemic. It takes the relationship to the next level, an uncomfortable purgatory for both of them.

To say more of their lives would be to tell too much. The film is a journey of a couple that never should have been a couple in the first place learning something about each and reaching some sort of middle ground, some level of co-existence. It mines the idea of a doomed relationship surviving and becoming more than it should have been. It truly is a beautiful sight to watch as these characters develop against the backdrop of a China in crisis.

The performances are first rate, in particular Naomi Watts' portrayal of Kitty. Kitty is complex and full of emotion, a woman who believes in her liberty and her right to personal happiness. We watch her grow and mature as a human being and look below the surface of her husband to find something different, and it is beautiful. Edward Norton is good, though the performance seems to be a bit too distant, and even bland. At moments that distracted from what I thought of the character. It was still interesting to watch his arrogance almost prove his undoing as he tries to do what he thinks is best, despite what the locals think, as well as his attempt to punish his wife as the two scarcely acknowledge each other. Even when it doesn't completely work, it still manages to strike all the right chords.

The screenplay, by Ron Nyswaner, is well developed and has a strong arc for the lead characters. The screenplay allows them to develop as individuals as they learn about themselves, each other, and this distant land they find themselves in. It is fictional romantic drama set in a world based on historical fact, where the history does not overshadow the drama. Very strong work that really draws you in and holds your attention, following those fast-moving first twenty minutes.

John Curran directs, and he brings an eye for the artistic to the screen, his framing and slow camera moves highlighting the beautiful Chinese landscape. He lets the actors' performances carry the film, and this is not a flashy movie. I would be remiss if I did not mention the director of photography, Stuart Dryburgh, who brings life to the brown and green tones of the film. Then there is the beautiful score from Alexandre Desplat, a soft and beautiful string-based score that really plays nicely with the film.

Audio/Video. The image is presented in anamorphic widescreen in its original aspect ratio of 2.35:1, and it looks very good. The film has a very monocrhomatic feel to it, with little in the way of bright colors, but the tones we do get are beautifully rendered here, with no noticable artifacting or halos that I saw. Audio is presented in Dolby Digital 5.1, and sounds fine. Nothing terribly exciting, but the soundstage is nice.

Extras. None. That's right, nothing. I think a commentary would have been great.

Bottomline. Despite the decidedly lackluster release in terms of extra material, this is a beautiful film that I should not have avoided for so long. It is a journey of discovery, of both self and partner, and it plays out in such a way that you cannot help but feel for them and become involved in their plight and that of the people around them. In short, see this movie — you will not be disappointed.

Highly Recommended.

Christopher Beaumont spends much of his time writing about entertainment when he isn’t sitting in a movie theater. He is known around the office as the “Movie Guy” and is always ready to talk about his favorite form of entertainment and offer up recommendations. Interests include science fiction, horror, and metal music. His writings can be found at Draven99’s Musings, as well as Film School Rejects.

This is a character driven romantic comedy about a high-powered Manhattan single mother who opens Pandora's box when she seeks out the anonymous sperm donor father of her young son. Tackling issues of motherhood, proposal of marriage, and the challenges and choices of parenting, this is a story that hits at the heart of how, why and whom we love.

In this well developed comedy Julie (Vanessa Williams), a mid-40s successful New York City reporter/columnist has a great job, a rent controlled apartment, a successful photojournalist boyfriend named Ted (Michael Boatman) and a six year old son Jake (Jeremy Gumbs), whom she conceived via anonymous sperm donor.

One day Julie gets called in for an emergency parent-teacher conference and learns that her son has been acting up in class. She is told he'll have to be tested for his hypertension and is on the verge of being expelled. Julie blames herself and it's easy to do because her mother Mona (Eartha Kitt) has made her feel inadequate for not being a stay-at-home mom and not being married. The on-screen relationship between the classy Ms. Williams and the legendary Ms. Kitt is something to marvel about. The dialogue of these two characters is smart and snappy. However, Julie won't concede that Mona is right, so she decides the blame must be genetic on the anonymous father. Through a investigator, Julie learns the identity of the donor and meets him without telling him the reason. The 30 something year old man is Paul Cooper (Kevin Daniels), a struggling actor and law school dropout. He's quite intelligent but hasn't found his niche.

As Julie gets psychiatric help for Jake it appears that he can benefit from a father figure in his life. So Julie's charismatic boyfriend pops the question of marriage and Mona is happy her daughter is finally getting her life in order. Meanwhile Paul has appeared at Julie's door hoping to help him promote an off-off broadway show. Now Paul and Jake bond. No matter how hard Julie keeps Jake and Paul apart it doesn't work. But in the meantime her feelings drift towards him and him to her.

The strength of this heart-felt comedy is carried on the backs of it's complex characters, because Venessa Williams shines and Eartha Kitt glows. Ben Vereen is given a small part as he portrays Paul's father Chuck Cooper, a starchy retired attorney living in a well to do New Jersey home with a loss of interest in his wandering son. Supporting members of Manny and Patricia Sanchez, Tommy Nelson and Stephan Spinella keep this movie afloat. Don't expect to watch a block busting movie, because it's not. I found this film to be predictable but genuinely fun to watch.

Directed by: Richard Schenkman
Running time: 99 minutes
Release date: June 15, 2007
Genre: Comedy/Drama and Romance
Distributor: Fox Meadow Films
MPAA Rating: This Film Is Not Rated

Written by Caballero Oscuro

DOA: Dead or Alive might as well be called Dead on Arrival for its overall chances of box-office success this weekend, but here’s the surprise: it’s a fun guilty pleasure! Sure, your head might hurt if you try to make any sense out of the paper-thin plot, but if you’re going to this film for the story, you’re in the wrong place anyway. It fully delivers on what it promises: babes in bikinis and hot martial arts action. What’s more, it’s easily the most entertaining film inspired by a video game to date (sorry, Uwe Boll).

The film is based on a long-running fighting game series legendary for its stunning graphics and supernaturally bouncy heroines. The game characters have also been transitioned to a beach volleyball side series that factors into the film as well. While the games have basic storylines, the real attractions are the fast-paced matches and stunning characters and backgrounds, traits they share with this film.

So how do you make a film out of a fighting game? First, hire a competent action director, which they’ve covered quite nicely here with veteran Hong Kong action auteur Corey Yuen (The Transporter, So Close). Next, sign some attractive young lasses with moderate name recognition, again well-done with a genetically superior cast headed by Jaime Pressly and Devon Aoki. Finally, add in skimpy outfits and outlandish fighting moves and simmer to perfection.

The story finds the ladies (and a few men) traveling to an exotic resort island to challenge each other in a tournament to determine the best fighter. Fights can be staged at any time, so the contestants wear electronic bracelets to alert them to their next match. Minor subplots are thrown in, such as the relationships between Tina (Pressly) and her father as well as Kasumi (Aoki) and her brother, but the main attraction is the tournament. Of course there’s an evil villain behind the whole tournament, and there’s no denying the film has completely earned classic B-movie status when the baddie turns out to be Eric Roberts. There are no major surprises in the main plot, it’s strictly a fight to the finish where the best contestants face off in the final boss battle to save the world.

Yuen keeps the action moving at all times, never letting the pace slow down. He expertly stages and films all of the fights, particularly a gorgeous match in the rain on the beach. The film contains plenty of amazing action feats that will leave viewers alternately awestruck and grimacing in sympathetic pain, although the overall effect is kept mostly light-hearted due to the exhibition nature of the tournament. The tropical beach setting makes for some spectacular backdrops for the fights, and also allows for a 2-on-2 bikini volleyball match that rivals Top Gun for sexiest volleyball game ever.

There are no stellar acting performances to single out, although Pressly gets the most mileage out of her twangy Southern character. On the action front, all of the primary characters seem to hold their own admirably in performing their fair share of the stunts. They’re cute, they’re perky, and they kick ass, putting this film in the same class as D.E.B.S., Aoki’s previous B-movie acronym gem. Dead or Alive is a long way from Shakespeare, but it’s a breezy, action-packed diversion sure to entertain viewers willing to check their brains at the door.

I love Jason Statham’s movies for the most part, and no one else could have pulled off the role of Handsome Rob in The Italian Job with the flair that he did. Statham has a swagger like no other, and the bull-necked stride he uses to catch up to his prey in his Transporter movies is awesome.

However, Crank just didn’t deliver. Like its protagonist, it had an erratic heart rhythm. At times the movie sailed for short bursts, then it collapsed under its own weight.

Statham stars as Chev Chelios, a hitman who’s been injected with a Chinese poison that will kill him if his heart rate drops to a resting beat. He has to find ways to stay amped up throughout the movie or die (as if having a death threat hanging over his head wouldn’t automatically do that).

With that premise, Statham kills, crashes, attacks, and confronts everything and everyone that gets in his way as he struggles to keep his girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart) out of harm’s way and get his pound of flesh in revenge. The action lags a little from time to time despite the pressure and push of the situation, and it’s far too easy to get confused over who’s who and what’s going on.

The movie was written and directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, both of whom have a mass of credits in the film business in stunts, photography, acting, and special effects. They definitely knew the audience they were going for, and they went for the throat.

I just didn’t buy into Statham’s character, even though I was predisposed to like him. The character was too thin, and there wasn’t anything to root for. I didn’t feel like I ever got to know him. Everyone else around him were cardboard cutouts.

Stunt-heavy, the movie didn’t quite come together in that area either. I missed Statham’s martial arts. Not that he does them in every movie, but we were left with endless gunfights and violent action that was more brutal than choreographed.

Even when the plot came together at the end, impossibilities stack on each other to the breaking point. There was no way everything could have gone down the way the movie showed it. The final confrontation at the end would have been impossible to pull off without some of Chelios’s enemies knowing what was coming.

In the end, Crank is a decent watch for a guy’s night out. It comes with a “family-friendly” version on the disc, but the overall story isn’t family friendly by any stretch of the imagination, and it’s too watered down for action fans.

Ghidorah is an odd outing for the Godzilla series. It’s widely regarded as the turning point for the series in which Toho’s monster icon switched his role from city destroyer to city helper. That’s not entirely correct, though it is definitely on the lighter side of Toho’s monster output of the decade.

What the film does so well in terms of the monster canon is balance both the goofy fun and serious tone so well. Godzilla’s initial appearance here is spectacular, providing decent city destruction and some memorable shots of the beast emerging from the water. His early battle with Rodan carries this over with great back and forth action.

Of course, in a movie featuring a whopping four monsters, all heading into battle at once, something has to give. Mothra’s appearance here hardly carries the weight of the monster’s prior appearance against Godzilla. There has to be some reason Godzilla and Rodan stop their rumbling to combine their forces to combat the outer space invader Ghidorah (who appears quite late in the film given the title credit, and it’s an even longer wait in the Japanese version).

Constant Godzilla movie contributor Shinichi Sekizawa decided on letting the monster’s talk to each other, leading to a classic dubbed line “Do you think I understand monster talk?” This is easily taken as the point where the series would follow a different path, yet King Kong vs. Godzilla would be pure comedy at the sake of monstrous creations two years prior.

The human drama is actually the centerpiece however, and as odd as it can be, it carries quite a bit of weight in terms of meshing with the monster action. Akiko Wakabayashi, a future Bond girl, plays the role of a princess who somehow escapes from an exploding plane only to become a prophet who accurately predicts the coming of the giant monster disaster. This is a storyline only fitting of a Toho kaiju effort in this sense.

On the other side, there’s a kidnapping drama, some detective work, multiple fast action shootouts, and a mountain excursion investigating what eventually becomes Ghidorah’s egg. While purely incidental, the finale between human and monster interjects multiple times, both killing and saving the humans. It gives some purpose to the build up, and a way to clear up the human saga of the story without moving away from the monster melee everyone came to see.

The special effects are in grand Toho style, loaded with excellent miniature work that would be used for stock footage as budgets were cut later in the series. Ghidorah’s initial appearance, flying over a heavily populated business district raining yellow beams of death, is amongst the most impressive destruction you’ll find in the genre, whether western or eastern in origin. The amount of pupeteering required to operate Mothra, Ghidorah’s three heads, and a flying Rodan, and more is truly a feat of dedication to the craft.

Akira Ifukube’s soundtrack adds weight to the battle, regardless of how oddball it can be at times. The unforgettable “Godzilla March” is used in full force, though sadly altered for reasons unknown when the US cut was released. It also manages to make the campy “monster talk” sequence tolerable and logical, when without it, it would simply be a low point.

Alterations to the film were mostly made to quicken pacing when the film arrived in the US a year after its Japanese release. The shifting of scenes is generally beneficial, and gives the movie a better flow. Instead of splitting scenes such as the government conference up, it’s one sequence and allows the later battle between Godzilla and Rodan to stay on screen for an extended period.

If anything, Ghidorah is memorable for the introduction of a Godzilla foe that would follow the Japanese icon through his entire career all the way up to 2004’s Godzilla – Final Wars. It started here, and whether or not you’re a fan of the film, obviously something was right if the creature continued to reappear to rake in box office dollars. While a step down from Godzilla vs. Mothra, this is a wildly fun follow up.

Both versions of the film are contained on one side of this single disc DVD release. The US cut is of a lesser quality, somewhat faded and softer. That said, both versions are in remarkable condition. Damage is limited to multiple pass special effects shots, which it’s to be expected. Compression is well controlled, and the clarity of the Japanese print is deserving of high praise. This is the best presentation of the film to date, and it’s a proper way to bring the film to these shores on DVD for the first time.

Audio is par for the course. While clean and crisp, nothing has been done to bring this up to date as Toho did for the Japanese DVD release. It’s a mono presentation that delivers all the needed sound and nothing else.

Classic Media handles the release of their Godzilla line in the same cardboard packaging. While it feels fragile, it’s a gorgeous presentation in a slim case in-line with the other DVDs they’ve produced.

Extras include a short yet informative feature on the special effects master behind these films, Eiji Tsuburaya. This could have been included on any Godzilla DVD, and there’s nothing to tie it to the actual film on the disc. Still, it’s nicely put together relevant information. A nice photo gallery is also included.

The commentary by David Kalat, author of A Critical History and Filmography of Toho’s Godzilla Series, is definitely unique. To say he’s a true Godzilla fanatic would be understating things. The commentary is all over the place though, discussing other movies, constantly defending the US re-cut, and even heading into the history of other films in the series while ignoring the film he’s supposed to commentating on. It’s informative, just not what you might expect.

Ghidorah would prove a popular enough monster to bring him back for a second battle a year later in Godzilla vs. Monster Zero or Invasion of the Astro Monster. This would take place on an entirely different planet before heading to Earth. It would contain a piece of camp that would haunt the series forever, Godzilla’s dancing victory jig that is impossible to defend even for fans.

Matt Paprocki is the reviews editor for Digital Press, a classic video game website which he called home after his fanzine (Gaming Source) published its final issue. The deep game collection which spans nearly 30 systems and 2,000 games line his walls for reasearch purposes. Really. He has also begun writing freelance for the Toledo Free Press.

This week’s episode (Sundance Channel, 9pm Tuesday) shows that you do not have to be grown up, nor have a PhD to care about the environment. Even kids can help. In fact it likely is the kids that will drive the Eco-scene forward. The average parent is going to get pretty upset, and worn down by the ‘But why are there no (insert animal or plant name) left?’ questions from the little ones.

When you come up against eleven year old Evan Green, you know you are in trouble! This head of frizzy hair, and ‘Tasmanian Devil; go get em attitude’ should scare most people. He is happy to be behind the microphone and explain “You want to get money out of adults? Well you have to talk serious to them”. He goes on to explain that if your message is clear, they will cave in. This is a kid that cares about the rain forest, and his ‘Red Dragon’ organization is going to be a force to be reasoned with. It is great to see young people caring about the environment. Oh, and if Evan knocks on your door, I recommend that you just hand over everything in your wallet, because he is not going to leave until you do!

Toy-maker Barbera Aimes, founder of ImagiPLAY, has a more ‘low key’ approach, she creates non-toxic toys made from renewable rubberwood and recycled cardboard. This may not sound earth breaking, but it is. Regular plastics contain a veritable ingredient list of bad things. The toxin list alone would make your head spin. When you apply this ingredient list to small children, you have a problem. The favorite activity is to put stuff in their mouths, the tactile experience is part of the growing up process. Barbera has created a whole line of toys for young learners that are free from these toxins, yet still have the fun tactile aspects that toddlers like.

Los Angeles based ‘Plastics are Forever’ are concerned about plastics, and the effect that they have on the ecosystem. That Styrofoam cup that get tossed when the coffee is all gone is a bio-disaster. Come back 100 years in the future and it is ready for more coffee, in fact come back in 500 years, and it will still be ready and willing. Durability is good, but when it is used as a ‘one shot’ item it obviously does not work well. The ‘Plastics are Forever’ group may have fun in their quest, but their message is very clear, they care!

If you cannot pick up The Sundance Channel on your local cable system, all is not lost, check out their web page.

Gela Babluani's first film is a stark, neo-noir thriller. Just kidding, but that's what every other review has said in a nutshell. I guess the noir tag isn't too far off. There are detectives (though they aren't that instrumental to the plot), it is in black and white, and it is extremely tense. I guess the stark tag comes from the black and white film, which is the cliche way to describe such a film with serious themes.

13 was written and directed by Gela Babluani and stars his younger brother George. They are the sons of famed Georgian (that would be the country) director Temur Babluani (I don't know who that is either).

The story starts with Sebastien (Babluani the younger) working as a laborer in a small coastal city of France. We see that his family is living in near poverty and that they depend heavily on Sebastien's wages. Apparently, they are Georgian immigrants, but I would never have known if I hadn't read up on it. Sebastien is working for a morphine addicted criminal who is quickly running out of money.

While working on the hole in his roof, Sebastien hears his employer talking about going to Paris to get in on another score where he is hoping to bring home a substantial sum of money. Days later, the employer overdoses leaving his mistress penniless and unable to pay Sebastien for any of his work. By fortuitous chance Sebastien finds the letter containing the ticket to Paris with instructions. Down on his luck and unable to bring himself to tell his family that he wouldn't be paid, he takes the ticket and goes to find his fortune in Paris (think Antioni's The Passenger).

Little to his knowledge, Sebastien has a determined detective on his trail, as his former employer was under surveillance. Through clever means unbeknownst to Sebastien, he avoids the police and makes it to his destination none the wiser.

Sebastien's youthful naivety and innocence is abounding. He has had a fresh hair cut and wearing his best (and probably only) pair of dress shoes. Once he meets his sponsors though, things go beyond his control. Circumstances dictate that Sebastien now has no choice but to take the dead man's place as his sponsors stand to lose money and credibility if not. He is only referred to by his number for the game, 13.

The game to be played is similar to Russian Roulette, except that it involves several guns at once. The players stand in a circle, put a bullet in their pistol, spin the cylinder, and fire (think The Deerhunter). They all stand to make a lot of money or lose their lives. Black and white. Sebastien wants to run, but he is trapped and surely dead if he refuses to play.

What follows is an extremely intense film, unrecommended for those with high blood pressure or pussies in general. Some say it is a commentary on the free market economy, supposedly showing what people will do to earn a quick buck or make ends meet.

However, the protagonist actually tries to back out once he discovers what he must do. The other players are either junkies addicted to the adrenaline or have some sick fixation with the game and money. The free market economy comparison is tenuous at best, and at worst, stupid.

Babluani himself said it was a movie about violence. He relates to the violence that he saw in revolutionary Georgia and puts it into a different context. Much as Sebastien is an unwilling participant to this game, Babluani was probably in a similar dilemma growing up in war-torn Georgia. Their is also speculation that this type of twisted gambling actually takes place, as evidenced by interviews and film commentary. Babluani simply took the idea and ran with it, expanding the concept of a taut and depraved 'game' into a look at the effect of violence on the pysche, intertwined with his own experiences as a Georgian immigrant in France.

The result is one of the best freshman film efforts this renowned critic has ever seen. Tzameti has its flaws, sure, but it more than makes up for them in other aspects. The most common complaint was that the premise couldn't support a feature length film.

It is true that not much really happens in this movie in terms of actions and time. Their are a few events and a few consequences. However, each act has so much weight behind it that the consequences of it are rarely anything but dire. Sebastien's original choice leads sets off a domino effect that snowballs until he is no longer in control, much like how Babluani purposefully directs the action. The viewer may want to turn away or take a breather, but we are forced to join Sebastien's terrible journey. Perhaps even harder to imagine are the few minutes between each round where the thinning group of players are calming their nerves through drug and drink, trying not to think that their life could end in the next half-hour.

The idea of circularity plays a large theme in this film. The barrel of the gun. The circle they stand in while playing the game. It could be taken to mean any number of things, but the circularity of violence is a clear thematic expression made in this film. The Russian Roulette circle expresses it on a topical level, but the deeper circle of depravity and wont of care for human life is evident.

Higher stakes, more money, more bullets, everything spirals downward until one man is standing and it begins again. The camera swivels around the inside of the circle. We see a frame with a player's arm extended, cut off at the wrist, another arm is coming from the other side of the frame holding a gun pointed right at the player's head. It gives the impression that he is killing himself, which, he essentially is by taking part in this game. But, what happens when the player is there by mere circumstance?

These and other questions are all at play in 13 (Tzameti). While the film examines deeper issues, it remains at heart a thriller. Anyone who said it was predictable is a really bad liar. Babluani builds tension so effectively that the release isn't even important. It is one of the best thrillers in recent memory, original and daring, yet also stands out as example of directorial brilliance. Babluani made a remarkable first film and I will eagerly await to see what he comes up with next.

DVD features include interviews with cast and crew, an interview with a man who claims to have taken part in the games depicted in the film and a hilarious short film (that is, if you enjoy watching old ladies shoot themselves in the face).

Some thoughts on the remarkable ending of The Sopranos:

I’ve seen many responses to the ambiguous ending, ranging from disappointment and outrage to satisfaction and joy.

Much like the response to Frank R. Stockton’s “The Lady, or the Tiger,” when it first was published in 1882. The short story of course went on to become a classic.

A suitor for the princess of a kingdom is put on trial by the king. He is put in an arena and asked to pick one of two doors. Behind one is a lady, behind the other is a tiger. If he picks the door with the lady, he will be set free, and would live, but would be obliged to marry the lady. If he goes for the door with the tiger, he’ll be ripped to shreds. He of course does not know which is behind each of the doors. He loves the princess, so choosing the door with the lady may leave him heartbroken, but at least alive.

The princess knows what is behind each door. She loves the suitor. She gives him a signal – indicating which door the suitor should choose. If he chooses the lady, the princess will see the man she loves spend his life with another woman. If he chooses the tiger, the princess will see him die.

He opens the door, and… the story ends right there. Much like The Sopranos‘s cut to black last night.

Let us assume, for the moment, as many viewers have argued, that the blackness plus the conversation with Bobby on the lake about what happens when you get whacked (you never see it coming) mean that Tony is shot in the head by the guy who walked into the bathroom. But… did he kill just Tony, or Tony and Carmela, Tony and A.J., Tony and Meadow, maybe everyone at the table? And, if we allow that perhaps the darkness is not Tony’s, then maybe someone else at the table, or everyone else other than Tony, is killed.

Then, of course, if we allow the possibility that no one was killed, then the guy just went to the bathroom not to take care of business but to do his own business. So David Chase has given us a Sopranos, or the Tiger ending.

He’s the princess — he knows what’s behind the door of darkness. And we’re all the suitors in the arena. But unlike the princess, Chase is not clearly pointing to any door. And unlike the suitor, we have many more choices than two. But like the suitor, our choice of door depends upon what we think Chase wants us to see beyond it, and, even more importantly, what we in our hearts most want to see.

PS — One other thing, Frank R. Stockton published a sequel to “The Lady, or The Tiger”: “The Discourager of Hesitancy: A Continuation of ‘The Lady, or the Tiger?'” — three years later, in 1885.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that my own novels — such as The Silk Code and The Plot to Save Socrates — have been criticized here and there for not providing more definitive endings. So I may be naturally disposed to liking ambiguity.