Sasquatch Sunset - Bigfoot Family for Adults

Earlier today, my four-year-old son excitedly told me about a movie he watched a part of on Netflix called Bigfoot Family. I thankfully missed out on that (for now) and instead got to watch another movie about a Bigfoot family that is definitely not for children: Sasquatch Sunset. 

When the trailer for this came out a while back, I remember being interested in it mainly because it featured Jesse Eisenberg and Riley Keough (along with Christophe Zajac-Denek and co-director Nathan Zellner) in full sasquatch prosthetics grunting for the entire movie, and it was rated R. While the trailer was mainly humorous, the full film is thankfully deeper than just “look at these actors doing sasquatch shit!” 

As the film follows this sasquatch family nature-doc style, there are plenty of funny moments, but no amount of humor could sustain a feature length comedy about grunting sasquatches. Instead, you slowly get to know the family beyond just trying to figure out which one is Eisenberg. There’s a dynamic going on that becomes interesting to follow, and the specter of humanity (actual people are never seen, but their presence is clear) adds a melancholy aura to it all. 

But many people may come to this film just for the oddity of a dialogue-free sasquatch movie. Those people will likely get bored quickly. The film is certainly amusing, but if you don’t let yourself be taken in by the family’s journey, it’ll make the brief eighty-nine minute runtime feel like an eternity. 

The family drama kept me involved, and the overall style of the film won me over. The “nature-doc” description is apt, but doesn’t do the film justice. Sasquatch Sunset is a beautiful film that doesn’t contain a single wasted shot, and the score makes you feel like you’re witnessing a new world. 

The visuals and music are so effective that it can be easy to forget that this takes place in the real world, so when the family comes across evidence of humans, like an “X” marked on a tree for logging, or a campsite, or, in what is destined to be the most famous and definitely most disgusting scene in the film, a road, it feels jarring, foreign, and a little frightening. 

Of course, the presence of humanity means the end of the world for this family (it is called Sasquatch Sunset, not Sunrise, after all), but it never feels preachy in its environmental message. It’s more of a sad acceptance of what “progress” does to the natural world. What helps keep the message grounded is the often disgusting behavior of some family members. These aren’t perfect beings frolicing in the magical woods. The alpha, especially, does some selfish, gross shit. This doesn’t mean the movie makes the case to justify the extinction of these creatures; it’s just that the film isn’t naive enough to try to present the natural world as perfect or nice. Here, the world is simply presented as a changing one in which a sasquatch can be part of pop culture, but won’t be able to survive actual culture.

The effectiveness of the film is also a testament to the great physical acting of the four performers. The prosthetics are great, but the eyes of each sasquatch are the most telling feature. Keough is the standout, and she’s the true star of the film. She has the most expressive eyes, and I found myself truly concerned for her character throughout. The combination of performance and prosthetics made me forget at times that I was watching actors in sasquatch suits eating leaves, throwing rocks, and beating sticks against trees, hoping to hear from other sasquatches but only receiving silence in return.

Years from now, maybe my son will watch Sasquatch Sunset and appreciate it as much as I do. But for now, he’ll have to get his environmental messaging from Bigfoot Family (though there is a disturbing element to that film, too, since Bigfoot is married and has a kid with a human woman in it). For the rest of us adults, it’s nice that there’s a poignant, but also gross and funny, sasquatch movie out there.

Didn't Get Around to Watching "Now You See Me"? No Big Deal. Watch "The Prestige" Again Instead.

Directed by Louis Leterrier, written by Ed Solomon, and Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt, starring Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine - Rated PG-13

Pretty much completely indifferent on this one.

 

 

 

 

Movies about magic are not exactly a subgenre just yet, but it’s getting close.  Previous films in recent memory like The Prestige and The Illusionist were all about a mystery that the audience had to look for.  In the case of The Prestige you have Michael Caine flat out talking to you about looking closely.  I suppose it’s fitting that Caine also appears in Now You See Me, the latest mystery magician film in which the audience is dared to look closely and figure it out (once again, the audience is directly addressed).  I consider “The Prestige” to be one of the finest and most engaging films of the past decade (I was not a fan of The Illusionist), so Now You See Me has some big shoes to fill.  In an unfair comparison to The Prestige, Now You See Me does not hold up very well.  But as a piece of forgetful entertainment, it gets the job done.

 

First off, it’s unfair to compare the two magician movies because Now You See Me has a much more light-hearted tone than that film.  This isn’t a film that is truly about magic.  In other words, you don’t get to see a lot of tricks painstakingly planned out and explained.  There is a little of that, but for the most part the audience is left completely in the dark and we’re told how it all worked after the fact.  I suppose that’s fine and all, but the film seemed to be cheating at times.  The viewer doesn’t really have the chance to think the film through because the evidence is limited.  We’re reduced to simply guessing who is behind it all.  It’s still interesting enough to stay involved and want to know the answer, but it’s not as satisfying as it could have been.

 

Part of the problem of the film is that it seems unsure of who the main characters are.  I know that this is part of the point what with misdirection and all, but the film suffers for it.  The basic plot involves four street magicians played by Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, and Woody Harrelson.  We’re introduced to them individually, and it seems like they are the protagonists (the preview would lead you to believe this as well).  But once they are brought together, we leave them, for the most part.  Once they are brought together and named the Four Horsemen (is Isla Fisher a man?), the film becomes a detective story told from Mark Ruffalo’s perspective as he (and the audience) tries to figure out who’s behind it all. 

 

The detective gets involved because the magicians turn criminal when they rob a bank as part of their big Las Vegas show, promising that it’s just the beginning.  It’s really the beginning of this movie becoming less interesting.  Ruffalo’s detective is so cliché and boring that you just want to see what the magicians are up to, but we rarely get to see things from their perspective.  This is a problem because it’s not as if the movie never follows these characters…it started with these characters!  So the rules of the film allow the camera to be with these guys as they plan their act and whatnot, but it chooses not to show us because the filmmakers probably couldn’t think of anything interesting for them to do. 

 

I think the film would have been better if we just got to know the tricks and illusions as the magicians came up with them.  The tricks are not so amazing that the mystery is worth it anyway.  Instead of this turning into a cops and robbers story, it would’ve been an interesting film about magicians figuring out how to perform cool tricks, and we would still have to figure out who the benefactor is.  It’s a win-win.  Such a missed opportunity…

 

Despite that major gripe, the movie’s worth a watch when it comes out on HBO or something.  It’s filmed adequately and the performances are sufficient.  It’s a slightly fun magician movie.  It wants to be a mindbender, but the focus and the mystery were lacking.  I think I’ll go watch The Prestige for the twentieth time now…

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

I wasn't kidding at the end there.  I am actually watching The Prestige again as I post this.  And speaking of that film, it's not that I wanted Now You See Me to be just like that film.  That would be pointless.  If anything, the fact that this film tried to mimic a "twist" like The Prestige had is what limits it.  So it's actually too much like The Prestige.

 

As for the "twist" ending, it is only effective in that it makes Ruffalo's character make a bit more sense.  He's really only playing at being a cop.  Although he probably had to be a real cop for the misdirection to truly work.  What dedication...  The movie isn't worth watching again to check for all the tell-tale signs, but looking back it makes the film seem that much more deceitful.  There were a few moments when Ruffalo was the only guy in the scene yet he kept up the act.  I get that it shows total devotion to the illusion, but I just don't buy it. 

 

Kind of harsh on Morgan Freeman, by the way, isn't he?  So Freeman exposes his father as a weak magician, which goads Ruffalo's father to perform a trick that proves without a doubt that he's a weak magician.  (Or at least an unlucky magician that picks a safe that is too crappy for a trick?  I wasn't quite clear on the safe problem, I was ready for the movie to be over at that point.)  Why is this Freeman's fault?  I get that without Freeman's action, Ruffalo's dad wouldn't have tried it, but it's not like Freeman challenged him to do it.  This line of thinking would lead someone to blaming a car company a for fatal car wreck even if the driver was at fault.  Let's hope no other bad things happen to Ruffalo's loved ones...who knows how far he'll expand the blame.

"The Social Network"

**The first thing you might notice is yet another "Vader" review (I believe it's number four after Scott Pilgrim, Inception, and My Son, My Son). This doesn't mean I'm lowering my standards it just means I really enjoyed these four films. And as I posted in my top fifteen list earlier in the year, the "Vader" doesn't represent the perfect film (even though I claim that in the description). I do intend on changing that description on the side someday.

The Social Network - Directed by David Fincher, written by Aaron Sorkin, starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, and Justin Timberlake - Rated PG-13

"We don't know what it can be, we don't know what it will be, we know that it is cool."

The Social Network, aka “The Facebook Movie,” seemed like a joke when I first heard about it. Okay, a popular website that seemingly everyone uses is getting its own movie. Sounds like a gimmick. Then I read that Aaron Sorkin was writing it and David Fincher was directing it. How quickly gimmick turns into entertaining art.

The creation of a social networking site may not sound like ripe material for a movie, but in this case, the “true” story actually contains plenty of dramatic possibilities. I put “true” in quotations because it’s not really known how much of this film is factual. A lot of the film takes place during legal depositions, and much of the script was based on documents from these meetings. But regardless of what is or is not true, the film packs in plenty of drama in the form of revenge and betrayal.

The story goes like this: Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg gets dumped one night and goes back to his dorm to drink his sorrows away and denigrate his ex on the internet. He decides to take his anger out in the form of creating a site that allows people to rank female students side by side. This attracts the attention of the Winklevoss twins, who ask Mark to program a social network for Harvard students. Mark agrees, but creates Facebook on the side with his own crew, including his best friend, Eduardo Saverin. It becomes very popular and the legal action begins.

It’s all a bit more complicated than that, of course, but you get the idea. This isn’t really a movie about “what happened?” anyway. This is a film about Zuckerberg as a character. What is his motivation? Why does he betray his friends when there seems to be no real benefit? Zuckerberg seems to be operating on a different plane than the rest of the characters in the film. He certainly talks on a different level…or should I say levels? Zuckerberg talks a mile a minute and seems to be in the middle of three simultaneous conversations. It’s exhausting to listen to at times (a fact a character points out early on), but it’s always entertaining. Sorkin’s script contains some of the wittiest and smartest dialogue this year.

The dialogue is one thing, the delivery is another. Jesse Eisenberg (who hopefully will no longer be confused with Michael Cera after this) is the perfect choice for the speed talking, sarcastic Zuckerberg. I get the feeling that you’re supposed to hate the character at least a little, but I found myself rooting for him, because Eisenberg, while portraying a socially awkward, childish jerk, is still very charismatic and even likable in a strange way. I hope that Eisenberg is recognized this year come award season because as of right now, his is my favorite performance of the year.

The supporting cast is rounded out quite well. Andrew Garfield (recently cast as the new Spider-Man) stands out as Eduardo. I may have liked Zuckerberg a bit, but I felt complete sympathy for Eduardo and that is due to Garfield’s earnest performance. Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins (his likeness was digitally added to a body double in post production) was entertaining as well, especially since the twins provided quite a bit of comedic relief. And entertainment Renaissance man Justin Timberlake is amusing as Napster founder Sean Parker.

The acting and writing is great, but this is still a David Fincher film. Fincher has yet to make a film I don’t like (yes, I enjoy Alien 3) and his streak is alive with The Social Network. This film has all the visual flair one would expect from Fincher and there are segments that are just amazing (the regatta scene is definitely a standout). The dim lighting of the film worked for me as well. It created a cool atmosphere. The decision to go with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for the score was pitch-perfect too. It’s hard to imagine the film without the techno-infused music blasting throughout.

There is much to be said for the editing of the film as well. It all pieces together so coherently even though the story could potentially be very complicated. This is a film that delves into techno-babble concerning computer programming and whatnot and at times you just have to let it wash over you and stop trying to understand it all, which is how you should enjoy the entire film.

Don’t trouble yourself with questions about whether or not this film “defines a generation” like the commercials claim. For the record, I don’t see how we can think in terms of generation this or that in the internet age. Everything has become so diverse because of the internet you can’t even lump people together by their age anymore. I guess the story about the birth of a site that is helping to bring about the end of “generations” may in fact define the era. Maybe we should say that The Social Network is a film that “defies” generations.

The Social Network doesn’t need all the hyperbole that is surrounding it anyway. It’s a film that knows just how cool it is. Now you just need to check it out, not because it’s a statement on this or any generation, but because it’s smart, funny, and it is one of the best films of the year.