The 'King' towers above all

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is now at a close. "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" has brought the long-awaited trilogy to a grand finish, as epic as one could ever imagine. "The Return of the King" is easily the film that all of us have been waiting for - a sweeping tale of true heroism and chivalry unlike anything I have ever seen before. To say that it blows away the two previous films is only icing on the cake - it confirms that we have witnessed one of the most emotionally overpowering fantasies ever made.

"Return of the King" begins with a flashback to Smeagol (Andy Serkis), a hobbit who discovers his fellow hobbit friend has found the all-powerful ring. Smeagol relishes the ring so much that he fights for it and kills his friend. Slowly, through the years. he is so consumed by its power that he transforms into the ugly, skeletal creature we all know as Gollum. Thus, we are left with other fellow hobbits, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his best friend, Sam (Sean Astin), as they make their way to Mordor to destroy the ring, the very same ring that Gollum craves. Considering Gollum is along for this journey, he tries to turn Frodo against Sam, claiming Sam wants the ring for himself.

Meanwhile, we return to the heroes of the former battle at Helm's Deep and Isengard from "The Two Towers," which include the powerful wizard Gandalf the White (Ian McKellen), the Ranger and soon-to-be King Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas, the elf archer (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli, the feisty, boisterous dwarf (John Rhys-Davies). All four are rejoined with the hobbits, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), last seen in battle fighting along with the Ents in Isengard. There is to be one or two more battles to fight, mainly to distract the fiery Eye of Sauron so that Frodo can complete his dangerous quest. After all, the Eye sees all.

It is highly recommended that one be knowledgeable of the first two "Rings" films (if not the book) or else you'll be confounded by what transpires on screen. For those of us who have been wowed by the first two epic films, "Return of the King" delivers everything you can possibly want from a fantasy film. Middle-Earth is as amazing as ever to look at, particularly the sights of rolling hills and flat lands where a tower can be seen in the distance (all of this was, of course, shot in New Zealand). For once, director Peter Jackson doesn't overdo the sweeping panoramic shots of people on horses headed for a single destination. He lets the shots breathe on their own without forcing the camera to do so. One of the more amazingly detailed shots that breathlessly combines CGI with real landscapes is a scene set at Minas Tirith, the home of a depressed and menacing ruler named Denethor (John Noble), who is in mourning over the death of one of his sons. Denethor seems content to sit at his table and eat without ever resorting to the raging war that threatens his home. Gandalf and Pippin try to convince Denethor to get reinforcements for the extensive number of Orcs headed their way. What follows is Pippin climbing to the top of tower and setting fire to a beacon as a signal to Aragorn. So we see one fiery signal sent from one mountainous peak to another until it's finally seen by Aragorn. From close-up to wide shot, sometimes in the same shot, Jackson accomplishes something rare - he shows that Middle-Earth is a real place that seems lived-in and occupied. There is size, shape and scope in these images that lends it an intimacy few other fantasies can match.

To say the battle scenes are not extraordinary is to deny Jackson's own genius at staging such scenes. The Siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields are the most exciting, nail-biting and nerve-frying battle scenes I have ever seen. We see huge solid rock formations thrown across fields of Orcs ready for battle, enormous elephant-like animals stampeding in record numbers, phantom armies (sent by Aragorn from the Cursed Mountains) that whip their way across the enemy in flashes of green color, arrows flung that fly across the sky twenty sometimes thirtyfold, cave trolls pounding their fists against large entry doors, and so on. Outside of the battle scenes, we have Frodo facing a huge tarantula called Shelob, who traps our hero with web and almost mummifies him. There are also the lava lakes of Mordor as Frodo, tired and hungry, mostly from carrying the ring, struggles to make it to the dangerous fires where the ring must be destroyed, once and for all. I doubt even George Lucas could muster a tenth of the brilliance and innovation of such battles as Jackson has.

If it was not for the characters and their humanity, their fears and their desires, nothing that happens in "Return of the King" or, for that matter, the entire trilogy would matter. As fascinating as Ralph Bakshi's animated and truncated "Lord of the Rings" version was, Peter Jackson's is the standard by which all fantasy films will be measured. At this point, we care for Frodo and Sam, and see how crucial their relationship is and how much they need each other to survive this epic war. Some may find that Sean Astin as Sam is too willful with his tears but I found that it was necessary - so much has happened in their adventures that I felt for Sam when Frodo leaves him behind, ever so briefly. But the one character that I'll never forget is Gollum (Andy Serkis), the former hobbit who is the most affected by the ring. He turns out to be quite the mischievous, greedy, sneaky little murderer, characteristics which were only hinted at in the "Two Towers." This physically wrecked, schizophrenic abomination is clearly intent on possessing that ring through all the treachery and greed he can muster. Gollum is clearly the most memorable character of the trilogy.

Gandalf the White has a bigger role in this film, facing more forces of evil and using his blinding white staff to defeat any and everything in his path. Aragorn is merely our trustworthy hero, knowing he has a future as King of Gondor, and he is as persuasive as Robin Hood in rallying the troops to fight for what they all believe in. Legolas and Gimli merely show up to fight but Legolas proves as adept in firing his arrows with precision as ever before. Gimli has a lot more colorful dialogue this time out. Likewise, Merry and Pippin, two formerly child-like hobbits who only desired food, have become as affected and changed by this journey as anyone else.

Of course, there are many other characters in "Return of the King," particularly the return of Eowyn (Miranda Otto) and her father, King Theoden (Bernard Hill), not to mention the Witch-King, the Ents, Bilbo Baggins, and much more. If I have one gripe, it is that there are too many endings and fade-outs towards the end - it runs on for almost twenty minutes. Though I've noticed the book ends the same way, I miss the character of Saruman (Christopher Lee) and his own fate when meeting with Gandalf - a deleted scene that has been included in the extended DVD. Still, there is the marriage of Aragorn and former elf, Arwen (Liv Tyler), the latter of which I would loved to seen included in an extra scene or two, in a beautiful and rhapsodic sequence to behold. And Sam's own return to the Shire with a wife and children shows there is hope for all. What is most noticeable is that Jackson injects the feeling that everyone and everything has changed, despite the fact normalcy has returned. Too much darkness has come to pass for the hobbits and others to forget their own personal tragedies.

Most notably, director Peter Jackson has accomplished something few ever hoped to achieve - he has made Middle-Earth as real a place as any with characters as real as anyone could have hoped for. Tolkien fans should rejoice: the King has finally ruled with a cinematic iron fist.

Footnote: a possible movie connection occurs in "Return of the King." One of the Orc Lieutenants, unnamed as I recall, has a melted, monstrous face that instantly reminded me of the Sloth creature in "The Goonies." Maybe the homage is not intentional but both films do star Sean Astin. Hmmm.

Gollum's own preciousness

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: 

THE TWO TOWERS (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I had seen "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a couple of times before seeing the second installment, and I was struck by its emotional density. Every character is given a human dimension and every tragedy is treated with cosmic significance in a world far removed from our own. Though not a great film, the first "Lord of the Rings" has real power to it. "The Two Towers," the middle section of the trilogy, is not nearly as sweeping or grandiose as the first epic. It has action and zest to it but the intimacy is gone. Director Peter Jackson is intent on throwing everything in except the kitchen sink.

When we last left the J.R.R. Tolkien world, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Josh Astin) were prepared to go to Mordor where Frodo would destroy the all-powerful ring forever. Coming along on this journey is the skeletal-looking creature Gollum (Andy Serkis), who initially attempts to steal the ring from Frodo. This ring exudes a magic and a will of its own, and can make men of nobility change into traitors and murderers. After a major struggle with Gollum, the three acquiesce and head to Mordor using Gollum as their guide.

A war is starting to brew in Middle-Earth. Saruman (Christopher Lee), the evil wizard, has amassed an army of 10,000 Uruk-Hai, basically creatures with ugly eyes and distorted, wizened faces. There are also the Orcs, another race of creatures we had seen in the last film. They are all warriors who are ready for battle, and see no harm in pulling trees off the ground. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), our hero who is destined to become king one day, has to warn the real king, Theoden (Bernard Hill), of the growing armies of darkness. Brad Dourif is Grima Wormtongue, a pale-skinned, vampiric-looking servant to Saruman who betrays Theoden with the help of Saruman's spell. Naturally, Aragorn cannot go at this alone. He teams up with the elf, Legolas (Orlando Bloom), the feisty, competitive dwarf, Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), and the wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) who was last seen battling the demon Balrog (this battle is briefly reprised with a different outcome). Just when Gandalf was thought to be dead, he survives and becomes Gandalf the White, a more powerful wizard who can stop anyone in his tracks with forces of blinding white light.

Meanwhile, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), two hobbits who had to let Frodo go his own way, are captured by the Orcs. They eventually flee into the Fanghorn Forest, a forest few ever dare to enter. This forest has living trees named Ents, who can walk with grace from one edge of the forest to the other. One particular Ent named Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies) helps Merry and Pippin on their journey to Saruman's stronghold.

As in "Fellowship of the Ring," every image of "The Two Towers" is forceful and serenely beautiful. Though director Peter Jackson overdoes the sweeping shots of the countryside and still shoots the action scenes a little too tightly, the film does have much to offer. The special-effects are consistently dazzling and eye-opening. The creatures are all believable and this world of Middle-Earth is still quite a vision of grand vistas of the countryside, foggy swamps, fiery castles and mountains. No shot is wasted and no effect is too impossible for Mr. Jackson - he has created a storybook of fantasy images one can only dream about. I recently looked through a delightful illustration book of Tolkien's trilogy and I can say that the images are as crystallized as the ones created in the film - even the Gollum looks exactly as one could imagine on screen. This is a world understood on the page by Tolkien, and cinematically understood by Jackson's own vision.

There is action to spare, especially during the climactic Helm's Deep battle, but the intimacy and emotional weight of "Fellowship of the Ring" is clearly gone. The hobbits are taken matter-of-factly, as is our unshaven hero, Aragorn, and the elf and the dwarf. A return by Liv Tyler as Arwen, the elf who fell in love with Aragorn, springs some emotion but, alas, is too brief to strike any chord. Likewise the cameo by Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, the queen of the Elves. The one character that brings some pathos is Gollum, the enervated creature who may or may not have been a hobbit named Smeagol. His wide eyes of confusion and hate indicate the undying need for the ring he once possessed ("My precious!"). This creature was created by CGI and yet, despite some reservations I have about this technology, this character remains the most convincing animated creation I have yet seen on film. He moves, gyrates, spits, talks and jumps like a real being. The exception is that this creature seems like a real actor, emoting between looks of fright and anger with equal aplomb. Andy Serkis, who voices the creature and was on the set to match the motion control through CGI, brilliantly captures a lost, schizophrenic soul of Middle-Earth - he remains the most human character in the film by far, as if he was thrust into this world to live a life of pain and regret.

"The Two Towers" is recommended for its visual beauty and for the amazing, memorable Gollum character. The rest of the film will likely make no sense to anyone who has not read the books or seen the first film in this epic series. There is no beginning, middle or end - this is clearly the middle chapter and no recap of past events has been implemented. Overlong and overcooked, "The Two Towers" is still worthwhile entertainment and remains stunning mostly in terms of what it accomplishes visually. I still miss the intimacy.

Ho, Ho, Hoffmeister's Christmas Story

THE CHRISTMAS CONSULTANT (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I have no recollection of the last time I saw something that starred David Hasselhoff that I liked. The TV series of "Knight Rider" seems like ages ago and I suppose I enjoyed it as a pre-teen ("Baywatch" never entered my radar). So it is rather odd to state that a new Lifetime Christmas TV movie called "The Christmas Consultant" (which stars Hasselhoff in the titular role) is not a snoozer and not a fruitcake train wreck. It is harmless and sweet enough to watch, just once mind you. Do not make this film a perennial Christmas selection where there are a few others more worthy, but you will still not waste your time either by seeing it once.

A family crisis has ensued in the Fletcher household when everyone is too busy to plan a proper Christmas party. Maya Fletcher (Caroline Rhea), an intensely busy businesswoman forever clinging to her cell phone, has to invite an important client to her party, a Russian perfume magnate, who wants nothing more than to experience an "AMERICAN CHRISTMAS!" He gets to say that line at least a half dozen times. The Fletcher family also has a few relatives on their way. So what will Maya do since her husband expects her to do all the work, her young son would rather be throwing snowballs, her youngest daughter looks like a third cousin of Winona Ryder's character from "Beetlejuice" who would rather play a fantasy world with her dolls, and her eldest daughter who has her eyes on a cute guy.

Enter the Christmas Consultant himself, Owen (David Hasselhoff), who will save the day. He is hired by Maya and her husband to essentially do what this family ought to be able to do - put up Christmas decorations in and outside the house; select a tree; cook; bake; make eggnog; sing Christmas carols, and bring joy to the world. Something like that.

Hasselhoff makes this all tolerable with his quick comic timing and precise double-takes. He also has a final scene that is quite moving. Clearly "Christmas Consultant" is obvious from the word go, but it is never cloying, irritating or ickily sentimental. It is a pleasant film to watch with pleasant enough faces and some good cheer. You can have it on the telly during Christmas and not feel that your egg nog got sour while watching it. There is something to be said for that.

I WANT...THE RING!

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I read portions of the epic book of J.R.R. Tolkien's hugely popular epic fantasy. There is no doubt that it is the epic fantasy of all time because the characters and themes of this grandly surreal world has filtered through our pop culture radar ever since the books were first published. Many films have tried to capture the magic of Tolkien's world. For example, Tolkien's books are the models of fantasy for George Lucas's own "Star Wars" trilogy. I love stories about goblins, ogres, fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, etc. "Lord of the Rings" is an often breathtaking film adaptation but it is curiously overdone and remote, and I can't say that is true of "Star Wars," as unfair a comparison as it may be.

Tolkien's world, known as Middle-Earth, is entirely imaginary and comprised of creatures and sounds and sights entirely not out of our own world. There are the Hobbits, the good-natured, good-hearted, fondly talkative, hairy-footed, pointy-eared people who are about as tall as dwarves. They can live for years and years, as they do chatting it up, smoking herbs and eating merrily in their private world of Shire. The hobbit of pure heart in this story is Frodo Baggins (a perfectly well-cast Elijah Wood), who embarks on an adventure to bring a powerful ring, known as the One Ring, to the fires of Mount Doom and destroy it once and for all time. Easier said than done. Is Frodo up to the challenge?

There are wizards in this world as well. There is the good wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and an evil wizard named Saruman (Christopher Lee) who wants the ring, as most of the characters do. There are storms of faceless horsemen riding in stallions and stampeding through Middle-Earth looking for Frodo. It is Gandalf who tells Frodo to carry the ring, rather than Frodo's uncle Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) who might be a tad greedy. After all, this Ring can make men and women do strange things - you need will power to use the Ring wisely. Not unlike the Force.

Along this perilous journey, Frodo is accompanied by three Hobbit friends, Sam (Sean Astin), Mercy (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). Of course, Hobbits can only do so much damage in actual combat. Also along for the ride are the members of the Fellowship, which include Boromir (Sean Bean), the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), an archery elf expert, and the mysterious, aloof Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen). Together their journey lasts through several different lands of beauty, endless caves, cascading waterfalls, a battle with a tree troll, a flaming duel with a vicious dragon known as Balrog, and so on. There are also more characters who pop up including the serene queen of elves Lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), the serene, dreamy elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), and more and more creatures such as Orcs and the ring wraiths, known as Nazgul, who gallop around in stallions that shriek. These silhouetted Black Riders are as fearsome as the Headless Horseman.

Director Peter Jackson ("Heavenly Creatures") does a massively complicated job of bringing all these characters and vistas together in a film that tops the three-hour mark. There is so much to take in and cherish in "Lord of the Rings" that it is no wonder it will take two more movies to bring closure to all the incidents and events. It is like a gloriously illustrated picture book come to life. Jackson and his band of set designers and special-effects artists spare no expense in creating this fictional world.

But if I am afforded the luxury of reviewing this film, I can honestly say that "Lord of the Rings" is deeply imaginative but, at its core, somehow uninvolving. Jackson affords his actors the luxury of close-ups and there are so many in the film that there is nothing left to look at. You can only see Wood's beatific and worried Frodo face with wide blue eyes so often before it becomes repetitive. McKellen is a force-of-nature on film so I was not displeased with seeing his face so closely, but what of any close-up shots of Christopher Lee, the dueling wizard? More scenes where we see the interior of Bilbo Baggins's house were needed. These shots work because they are shown as master shots for the most part. Why we can't ever see a hobbit standing next to any of the taller characters for more than three seconds is beyond me. A hobbit has those hairy feet and pointy-ears, and I do not recall a single shot where we would see a hobbit walking through a given space showing his whole body. This may have been done to evoke how small the hobbits were but there are ways of conveying stature and size without all those random close-ups.

Jackson never quite shows the grandeur, the mysticism of Middle-Earth. He too often cuts away from expansive long-shots to extreme, tight close-ups. When the camera swoops up and down in territories and castles, we notice them fleetingly but never long enough to feel like we are in them. It's as if Jackson felt that audiences might get bored at any given moment so he had to keep cutting away and show us an action scene and bring the Dolby noise level higher and higher.

The action scenes are also a disappointment. Just as in the original "Harry Potter" and any action film post-"Gladiator," everything is shot so tight that the fighting remains a series of blurry shots, nothing more. Jackson could have looked at those amazing fight scenes in Errol Flynn's "Adventures of Robin Hood" where we would always see the action in full shots and where the close-ups would occur when necessary. Here, everything is shot so tightly that unless you listen to the sound effects, it is never clear who is winning or losing in any of the countless sword fights (and no, I was not sitting too close to the screen). So all the sound and fury swallows up the screen in extremely fast edits that lose our focus as to what is occurring. The more intimate, quiet moments are beautifully done, as in the exquisite moment where Arwen tries to save Frodo from dying, but more often than not, they do not involve us. It is all magical to be sure but a fantasy epic often prides itself on engaging the viewer from moment to moment by seeing the fantastical settings as a backdrop for the characters.

I do urge people to see "Lord of the Rings" but I feel that it could have been so much more. Peter Jackson is a frenetic director to be sure but he needs to dial down the heat a bit. Tolkien fans may not care much but I prefer more intimacy in this epic than confounding action scenes. I like the characters, the situations, the landscapes (as brief as they may be), the varied color lighting schemes, and the dialogue. It is just too cramped and overheated to qualify as anything more than a grand, slightly undernourished epic.

Dead, Crystallized High-Schoolers

ZOMBIE HIGH (1987)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Good/bad movies are as infrequent as great films. The last really good bad movie I've seen was "Werewolf," an unintentionally hilarious werewolf movie that stinks of wolfsbane, but at least it was fun and not dispiriting. "Zombie High" is the newest addition to my own canon of good/bad flicks - it is so idiotic and so funny that you can't dismiss it.

Virginia Madsen plays Andrea, the newest student to a formerly all-male prestigious high school named Ettinger High. Her boyfriend, Barry (James Wilder), drops her off at the school despite his feeling that she may seek other male attention. Andrea is quickly introduced to two roomates, one is played by Sherilyn Fenn who is at first unrecognizable since there are no close-ups. The other roomate remains anonymous and is dispatched of too soon to really care.

Meanwhile, the school population is relatively sparse as is the teacher faculty (which is a sure sign of low-budget constraints). Nevertheless, there is the curious teacher, Dr. Philo (Richard Cox), who is trying to coax Andrea into sleeping with him (or does it have something to do with an old photograph that shows a remarkably similar-looking Andrea). To make a long story short and sweet, the high school is not what it seems (though it looks more like a private college). The newly admitted students are drugged in their sleep, taken to the infirmary and subjected to a medical procedure where crystals are placed in their brains. This means they can be controlled by the faculty and become successful yuppies in the future (and I thought it only took studying and good grades to get there). Now why the faculty wants to do this is something of a mystery, considering the faculty has century-old professors who have taken some magical serum that allows them to be immortals. Now they all look like old farts, but Dr. Philo looks like a thirty-something teacher who just happens to be 102 years old! Why they can't give the students the serum instead is also a mystery. There are plot holes here big enough to fit an entire high school!

A curious thing happens midway through "Zombie High": it speeds along quickly after an interminable exposition and delivers a lot of humor. Some students appear and others disappear, and Andrea takes a hell of a long time before she realizes something is cooking at this school. By the time she makes her grim discoveries, she is left with a half-hour of film time before she can destroy all the bottles containing the serum and save herself from being brainwashed into a robotic yuppie, not to mention make a police report! Then it appears Andrea's boyfriend has been brainwashed, but then it turns out that good old Dr. Philo had saved him. The question remains, how do you save a brainwashed student? Ah, it must have something to do with removing the crystal from their brains (although I thought they removed a piece of their brains before depositing the crystal).

Oh, heck, it makes no difference because "Zombie High" is simply too funny to take seriously. This is the kind of movie that features the zombified students dancing as slow as you can imagine (and in unison) but when trouble starts, they can run as if they were at a marathon. It is also the kind of movie where a classical music cassette can soothe the students' nerves (including a former student who is shown to be the President of the U.S.!) but insert some rock n' roll in their brain waves, and they are killed with a resulting puff of smoke exiting their ears! The movie looks and feels like a hysterical sci-fi parody of "The Stepford Wives" but whether it was intended as such remains a mystery.

God hates Kevin Smith's dogmatism!

RED STATE (2011)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Kevin Smith has a career of making incredibly vulgar and often hilarious comedies, especially with those pot-smoking dweebs, Jay and Silent Bob. Although he has crafted one so-so romantic comedy, "Jersey Girl," writer-director Smith has rarely veered from his Garden State comfort zone ("Cop Out" being the one exception, the worst film of his career). "Red State" doesn't resemble a Kevin Smith flick nor does it contain any shred of Smith's personality. It is a crass, graphically violent and occasionally bizarrely funny and scary picture. It doesn't work on the whole, has some stereotypical characterizations, but it is a rapid-fire and dramatic change from Smith's ouevre and it is definitely welcomed.

"Red State" begins with a facsimile of the Westboro Baptist Church, known in the film as the Five Points Trinity Church, protesting a funeral of a gay teenager (the film could've made it more timely by making it a fallen soldier, as the WBC has participated in such events). This protest is led by Abin Cooper (Michael Parks), who believes (in the most earth-shattering and convincing speech in the movie) that God hates gays and punishes those who commit abortion and other perceived immoral acts. The story at first deals with three teenagers (Michael Angarano, Kyle Gallner and Nicholas Braun) who are looking to get laid with some woman in a trailer. It turns out to be female member of the Five Points Trinity Church, Sarah Cooper (Melissa Leo), who drugs the three horny kids and lures them inside a sparsely populated church where Abin Cooper is sermonizing. Trouble and much more ensues, including the introduction of a sheriff (Stephen Root) who has crying fits, and an ATF agent (John Goodman) who is ready to destroy the Five Points Trinity Church.

"Red State" may have the roots of a torture porn (I prefer torture play) slasher flick but it has Christian monsters who have subverted the Bible to suit their place on Earth and in Heaven. There are no hooded boogeymen armed with machetes or any Rube Goldberg contraptions of the "Saw" variety here - this is a militant church who hold firmly to their beliefs. Excepting Parks' monumental speech, the film doesn't provide much insight or depth into this group. Nor does it get too deep with the young victims or their horny desires from using social networking sites that leads them to this dangerous hellhole - that could make an interesting film. Every character and situation is practically one-note or two notes at best. Satire, no matter how topical, should be elevated with something other than cliches and some obvious preachiness. 

"Red State" does move quickly at 88 minutes and is energetically and tightly shot by director Kevin Smith and his capable cinematographer, David Klein. Smith knows how to engineer thrills and scares, even if a few of them are telegraphed. But "Red State's" impactful ending (as clever and out-of-the-blue as it may be) doesn't leave enough of an impact - the film skewers the Westboro Baptist Church and their homophobic messages that are filtered from God yet abandons its own ambitions by settling for endless gunfire and a massacre that almost rivals the events of Waco, or at least Ruby Ridge. The movie is blood-soaked chaos and essentially a horror movie with a slightly higher pedigree than "Hostel." What makes the movie sing is Michael Parks playing one of the scariest preachers since Burt Lancaster's own Elmer Gantry. Parks terrifies us and does it with a subtle sleight-of-hand that perhaps Kevin Smith can't even appreciate.

(Interview with Andre Ovredal): Trollhunter director

INTERVIEW WITH ANDRE ØVREDAL:

Cracking a new wrinkle with trolls and Norway 

By Jerry Saravia

Andre Ovredal, director of Trollhunter

An element missing from modern-day horror films is the element of surprise, of reinvigorating a genre where the assumed target audience has seen it all. Trollhunter could be seen as yet another mockumentary crossed with found footage-type of film but it is decidedly far more than that. In fact, though it has horror elements, it is more of a cinematic blending of Indiana Jones with a helping of "Jurassic Park," a dash of "Men in Black" mixed with social satire and an original setting - the desolate countryside of Norway. It is also dealing with the folklore of actual giant trolls who are infected with rabies and are eating livestock throughout the region. A trollhunter named Hans (played by Otto Jespersen, a comedian) seeks to find these trolls and his every step is documented by a documentary film crew.

The film is directed by Andre Ovredal, who helmed a 90-minute film in 2000 called "Future Murder." "Trollhunter" has gained him an international cult reputation, so much so that producer/writer/director Chris Columbus has bought the remake rights and is reportedly prepping Ovredal to direct an adaptation of the Julie Kenner novel, "Carpe Demon: Adventures of a Demon-Hunting Soccer Mom." I had the good fortune to correspond with director Ovredal on the folkloric origins of "Trollhunter," the news of a remake and potential sequel, his pre-"Trollhunter" work, and a dash of social commentary regarding Norway's proposed power lines.

1.) What was the inspiration behind "Trollhunter"? I could see references in the film to Steven Spielberg's work and "Men in Black," though the satire seems to be specifically of Norwegian origin.

Andre Ovredal: Well, I think the most important influence was Man Bites Dog. Of course Blair Witch is an influence on the entire genre. And yes, MiB, Jurassic Park, even Ghostbusters in its inventive, fun use of low-tech equipment.

2.) Not being educated on the mythical beings known as trolls, one thing I can't figure out is why do bright lights turn the trolls into stone? Is that based on myth and/or folklore?

A.O.: Yes, it´s based on the myth that daylight will make trolls turn to stone of explode. This I think is a common myth around the world for many creatures, don´t have to look further than vampires, really. So in the movie, Hans has to balance his light sources to match daylight. It´s all explained by the veterinarian .

Otto Jespersen as Hans, the Trollhunter

3.) In reference to a plot point 2/3 into "Trollhunter," I read in an article about how the government was proposing power lines all around the beautiful fields of Norway. What is the reason behind it and have they succeeded or has the proposal been turned down?

A.O.: There were tons of demonstrations and lots of political mayhem, but I believe they are moving forward with it – I think it´s simply that the current power delivery to especially Bergen on the west coast is not sufficient or properly maintained anymore, and it needs a big update. I think it´s quite ridiculous to not find some other way, though, despite expenses. That nature is one of Norway´s greatest legacies to the world, and it should be protected at all cost.

4.) Your first film was a 92-minute film called "Future Murder." I understand that it was your graduation film at the Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara, CA. How was the film received by fellow students or faculty? Did you get to show it at a festival?

A.O.: Yes, that´s right! I co-wrote and co-directed it with my fellow classmate Norman Lesperance and it was shown at the 1997 Santa Barbara International Film Festival, had VHS/DVD distribution in the US, Canada, Australia and Scandinavia. I think/hope it was well-received. But it was a student film – lots of mistakes to be made, lots of things to learn. But I am proud of the film´s core idea and lots of what we did on it, especially the suspense scenes. It was made for 40,000 dollars on 16mm.

 

5.) I read that your approach to directing actors is: "I allowed the actors the freedom to say whatever they wanted - as long as they didn't say what was in the script." Is this a technique you wish to continue pursuing or is what worked best within the mockumentary framework of "Trollhunter"?

A.O.: It worked best within the framework of Troll Hunter´s mockumentary style, it was needed to create unpredictability in the direction. Sometimes I really had to stand back and not direct at all. Generally I will always give the actors as much freedom as I can, including changing the lines, as long as it does not impact the story too much.
 
I just recently shot a short film based on Alice Glaser´s 1961 sci-fi story called “The Tunnel Ahead” and there we adhered very closely to the script I had written. And that short film is the polar opposite of Troll Hunter – very controlled style.

6.) I see that you are working on a new project called "Enormous" [a monster apocalyptic comic published by Image]. Tell us what the approach to that film will be - mockumentary style or straight storytelling?

A.O.: Straight forward, but with a high energy, Cloverfield/The Raid/Act of Valor kind of vibe.

7.) Lastly, I hear an American remake of "Trollhunter" is in the works with writer-director Chris Columbus. Anything you can share about it? And are you planning a sequel to the original?

A.O.: They are still working on that. Not much I really know or can say, but from brief conversations with them, it sounds all positive – [regarding sequel] still working on getting that made, maybe in 2013---?

Best,
André