Writer, producer, director, everyman Kenneth Barr had fashioned a distinct, and for lack of a better term, lyrical style that he has continued to evolve to this day. Using the film noir, or urban crime genre, the company as a whole explored themes and characterizations a little more advanced than most independently marketed films of the time. Where other indies were content exploring Tarantinoisms and other such “hip” pyrotechnics, IDIOM was harkening back to pulp writings of Jim Thomson and the 70’s revenge film long before fashionable. The latter was never more apparent in their overtures as it was with Reroute, and after many long years of being discontinued, it’s good to see the film once again available to the public.

Reroute is a classic revenge plot akin to John Boorman’s Point Blank (1967) (itself an adaption of the novel The Hunter by Richard Stark). Both movie and novel hold much that is evident throughout Reroute, from its quiet moments of surreal reflection to the use of flashback as a necessary narrative device.  Reroute begins in a long, and at times baffling, flashback verses real time setup as antihero Teague (Shane Carr) retraces his steps back to the scene of an apartment building massacre. Though tricky, the sense of disorientation in these opening minutes is something unavoidable due to Barr setting the action in the same place with characters wearing the same costumes. Later in the film the flashbacks are woven more effortlessly into the narrative, yet these opening minutes of the film become an acid test of sorts. It’s engaging to be sure, but even Barr later remarked about the production gaff in a 2004 radio interview;

“It’s a sort of flaw-in-the-slaw that we didn’t see coming until it was already done. On paper some things work wonderfully, then you get them onto the screen and it doesn’t come out the way it should have. When you realize what you have and it’s not what you wanted, and you’re working on a budget the size of what we had, there are no reshoots and it’s make or break time. You do what you can and hope the audience gets it.”

The rest of the film follows Teague as he tracks down villain mastermind Miguel (Johnny Bede) who set him up, killed his friend Kerwin (Alykhan Gulamani), and stolen away with his girl Minette (Kailin See). His journey takes him through the underbelly of the city, and through more than one life-and-death conflict that culminates in a ton of people dying. You never know the whole story, not even at the end is everything explained in full. Barr doles out just enough information throughout the film to answer some questions while posing new ones. It’s a brilliant ploy that leads to a satisfying twist ending and indelible climax. Barr explained on his website it was always part of his design for the film;

“We went through a very strict regiment from the start with what was shown. From the first draft of the screenplay to the final cut of the film we held firm that what the character of Teague remembers is what is shown to the audience, and also what Teague acknowledges consciously. There are things that he stuffs into the back of his mind that the audience never gets to see, and about 50% of it is revealed at the end. It was very much designed to be an almost organic stream-of-consciousness narrative.”

Teague (Shane Carr) confronts Miguel (Johnny Bede) as Minette (Kailin See) looks on.

The film has aged reasonably well. There are small things throughout the film that are definitely flawed, and show the budgetary constraints more now than upon its release. Yet the one thing that hasn’t lost its potency is Reroute’s story. Some of the best moments in the film aren’t the myriad of bodies that erupt in geysers of blood and gore but small quiet moments of reflection and interaction. These both set up and perpetuate Teague’s journey through an almost nightmarish urban landscape littered with criminals and people out to kill him. It gives weight and much needed reasoning behind the violence and carnage, of which there is plenty. Some ninety characters are killed off in the 106 minute running time, most of them erupting rivers of gushing blood as they die, Schwarzenegger would be proud. The violence though is never turned into a cartoon and Teague begins wearing each of his kills like an Atlas weight around his neck.

Director Kenneth Barr applies a head wound to actor Brian Copping.

What I loved about the film then is what I still admire. Barr created a story with weight, characters that breathe and a narrative that openly challenged its intended audience. It presents itself like the myriad of direct-to-DVD indie shoot-em-ups that litter the marketplace, but be assured it is not. As if pealing back the layers of an onion, Reroute finds its strength in repeated viewing. Everything in the film is of dual nature, from the characters to what they say. You will hear things differently the second time, pick up on the subtle nuances that Barr sprinkles with abandon like an assured literary mad scientist. Though at the time most of the cast were inexperienced they handle the material wonderfully, injecting the right amount of rage and pathos into their actions.

From L-R: Tara Pratt, Alykhan Gulamani, Shane Carr and Kailin See.

The image of the film still crackles vibrantly though originally shot in 480p. Its widescreen presentation in the release has obviously had some mastering to it as it is a vast improvement over the already crystal image of the original DVD-5 release. The sound is also impeccable, a feat Barr accomplished by redoing the entire soundtrack from the ground up through the latter part of 2003 and into 2004. The importance of sound is something I cannot overstate, it makes up so much of the visceral cinematic experience that without it films just fall flat. Here you can hear every pang of pain, eruption of rage and muted whisper. A needed element for a story so focused on evolving itself subtly amid a maelstrom of gunfire.

The film is not without its detractions, and though I agree Reroute should be widely available, I think Barr has missed an opportunity to do some much needed pruning. The music score in places has definitely not aged as well as the rest of the film, and unfortunately the moments scored by these tracks are marred by leaving them unaltered. Additionally there is definitely some cinematic fat that could be trimmed from a couple scenes, and normally Barr is the first to make these drastic and necessary cuts. It may just be Barr wants to release the original version of the film, which hasn’t been available since mid 2005, back onto the market before releasing a “director’s cut”. Who knows, but it may be something to consider if not already in the works.

Ultimately the film still stands as an accomplished work of revenge cinema. It was Grindhouse before that film thrust the sub-genre back to the forefront of the filmic lexicon. Today what works with the film far outweighs what hasn’t aged as well. Stripping the violent pyrotechnics away, the story and performances are still incredibly strong. The film was also the launching pad for a number of its actors who have since gone onto established careers in the industry both in front of, or behind, the camera. It is a cinematic time capsule that should be opened and viewed by the uninitiated. Though I have never been in the position to do this before, I will quote my original review from 2004 which holds as true today as it did then. “Reroute is special because it’s a film that shows what an independent film can be, thoughtful exploitation; and that dear readers is a rare thing indeed.”

-Vance Garrett

Reroute Official Site

Reroute now available on Amazon Video On Demand

The movie is centered around a passionate film geek “Brad Zhul” played by Daniel Bartkewicz and his movie review website that has so much authority that it can influence Hollywood, think power to the little people. The portrayal of the webmaster come film critic is spot on and resonates with everyone here at independent film reviews, though sometimes a little over the top.

“Spoiler Alert is a black comic/revenge tale from first-time feature filmmaker David Rakowiecki (pronounced Ra-cow-ski). Itʼs about Brad, the operator of a movie scoop website and Harrison, a down on his luck film director who has squandered his artistic abilities in pursuit of easy paydays. One night Harrison shows up on Bradʼs doorstep looking to exact revenge upon him because he feels Brad and his website have ruined his career. Chinese food, movie geek talk and murder ensue.”

The scene is set, and stays that way throughout, inside a small basement cave – a movie making tactic that hasn’t worked in a very long time, or at least as long as I can remember. The director uses hand held camera work and scene cutaways which help with the flow and overall feel of this film which everyone here at IFR thoroughly enjoyed.

Spoiler Alert deals with something we discuss here on a regular basis, how do you deal with a bad film when you have so much influence at your disposal and you know your review can help make or break that movies chance of success? I’m just thankful right now I actually loved this film and could write an honest review without a knock on the door from the disgruntled director!

For a basically “one scene movie” with virtually no score, Rakowiecki keeps things moving along with some unexpected plot twists and turns that managed to keep us all entertained, when the pace began to slow, another twist comes along at almost exactly the right time, great directing overall and kudos to the camera operators for some stellar hand held work.

Well – no bad reviews over here, or spoilers for that matter. We all thought Spoiler Alert was one of the most well polished, best acted and well written indie flicks we’ve received in a long time. Unfortunately we get a lot of junk sent our way and unlike Brad, we try and stray away from negative reviews, you just never know who will be knocking on your door!

Get your hands on a copy and see for yourself. 7/10

Bolivar (Paul Hubbard) calms Sam (Torrance Coombs) down.

In a market oversaturated with films about vampires and their ilk, Zimmermann wisely eschews convention by centering his narrative on the oft neglected character of the vampire’s familiar. These important, but relegated-to-the-background characters tend to the vampires during the day and protect them while they sleep; and on the whole that is about as much as you get to know about them. Though there have been a few films that have slightly evolved the familiar, truth is movie fans of my age still think of a hunched over Dwight Frye or a ravenous Tom Waits, (both portraying the epochal Renfield from Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Frye in 1931 and Waits in Coppola’s 1992 film of the same name). In the folklore of the vampire, the character of the familiar is rife with possibilities, something the filmmaker obviously understood.

Sam (Torrance Coombs) reflects on his choice in careers.

Zimmermann effectively weaves together his intent in the first few minutes by utilizing the internal monologue of our lead, Sam Matheson (Torrance Coombs), to set up both the story and the gallows humor.  He is the quintessential modern youth, a desperate and directionless dreamer trapped by the confining walls of his life. At the beginning of the film Sam is a disheartened shell that dryly reflects on turning the discarded human bodies of his master into compost with the same inflection of an accountant filing their ten thousandth tax form. When Sam is presented in his pre-familiar days we are shown how, with the promise of immortality and power, he has ironically traded one stifling unfulfilling life for another. The casting of Coombs is key to the empathy and connection of the audience to the piece, as is the casting of Paul Hubbard as the vampire Simon Bolivar. Hubbard cuts the same imposing figure as Christopher Lee’s vampire incarnations, but Zimmermann then deftly deconstructs the man and the mythos into an all too flawed and common day farce akin to Dracula written by Monty Python. Hubbard and Zimmermann seem to have been birds of a feather and the vampire Bolivar never once swings too wide becoming an exaggerated lampoon. The role is a clever tight-rope act that delivers just the right amount of danger, contrast and dark humor to the entire piece.

Sam's (Torrance Coombs) disposal work.

There are a few missteps, as is with most first-time filmmakers, but these are far and few between. Most skew towards the aforementioned Hammer kitsch than playing as mistakes, and most viewers won’t even notice unless looking for them. Cinematography, lighting and sound are all top notch, essential ingredients some filmmakers skim over in lieu of pyrotechnics and extreme effects. The team behind The Familiar doles out blood and computer effects with restraint for the majority of the running time, and instead wisely center their film on Sam and his very human plight.

With every beautifully composed frame Zimmermann shows his respect for the horror of his material, something filmmakers tend to forget when forging a “horror/comedy”. More oft we are presented a comedy with horror elements, it is the rare exception that defies the convention (Cemetery Man (1994) and Shaun of the Dead (2004) come to mind). Here everybody takes great care to craft well developed characters, a sense of dread and ultimate doom all with tongue firmly planted in cheek. These diverse elements have been woven together with such meticulous care it belies it and the filmmaker’s origins.

Sam (Torrance Coombs) meets Bolivar (Paul Hubbard) for the first time.

From beginning to end Zimmermann has crafted a well composed and thoughtful piece of truly entertaining cinema. It delivers on all the right beats, pays off in all the right moments, and its rhythm is perfected to a razor sharp note that rings in the viewers ears long after the film is done. The Familiar is a great horror comedy on its own merits, but as the first film from Zimmermann I would not be surprised at all that within the next few years his name is spoken in the same breath as Edger Wright (Shaun of the Dead) and genre mogul Joss Whedon (Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Firefly). Like Wright, Zimmermann intrinsically knows the language of film and is primed to create a modern classic; all the ingredients for his success are already there in his film The Familiar.

-Vance Garrett.

Visit the official site: The Familiar Movie

The film presents the last few dates in a struggling independent wrestling organization TCICWF (Tri-Cities International Championship Wrestling Federation) and the lives of the wrestlers within. Unlike the televised high-profile wrestling companies, the stars of these independent shows hold regular day jobs and play to crowds of 50 people. The first few minutes of the film smartly present this world at its height, backstage during a show. Through a conversation between the promoter Al Thomson (Travis Watters who also plays Marco Pain the promotion’s color commentator) and “Rocket” Randy Tyler (Pete Smith who was also shared writing, producing and directing duties on the film) they set up the lingo, the feel and the construct of this world. Within moments the audience is caught up in the flow, and though some of the dialogue is stilted it comes off more like people being filmed backstage for the first time out of character rather than anything else (though Travis Watters’ “Al Thomson” comes off larger than life, it’s actually an accurate depiction and instantly reminded me of legendary Canadian promoter Tony Condello from the first grumbling sentence of profanity). This opening sequence had me at odds the first time through, it is a little slow and feels slightly disjointed, but it never once lost me. By the time the opening credits began presenting the various matches the rhythm of the film had found its footing and right to the last frame never once lost pace. Each character is well drawn, as is the in-ring work (most of the performers are working independent wrestlers) and the humor is cleverly interlaced throughout the film creating some truly memorable moments. The entire cast handles their characters with grace, (most having no previous film credits to their name), and breathe a sense of life into these people’s desires to be larger than life. Pete Smith’s Rocket Randy Tyler and Travis Watters in either of his roles are the stand outs of the film. Smith imbues his Randy Tyler (his real-world wrestling alter-ego) with the sort of endearing self deprecation that made Michael Palin so damn lovable and handles the lead role with subtle ease. Watters plays his roles to the hilt, lampooning every opportunity he gets in similar fashion, still there is a singular moment in the film given to him alone that shines; it’s an impassioned speech about wrestlers laying down to do a job verses getting over and ultimately their ego. This moment in the film is so elegantly handled by the filmmakers that you hang on Watters’ every word because you know what is being said isn’t acting, it’s not a joke and it comes from the singular heart of the people making this picture. In short it’s extraordinary.

It should be noted that at the time Kayfabe was released it was competing with Darren Aronofsky’s 2008 film The Wrestler starring Mickey Rourke. It’s unfortunate that so many comparisons have been drawn in the press between the two films just because they’re both set in the independent wrestling world, because in a lot of ways Kayfabe speaks to a more general audience than Aronofsky’s film. Where The Wrestler presented a solemn look at one man’s self-destructive journey Kayfabe is its antithesis in theme. It is a love letter to the life of the independent wrestler, but moreover it is an affirmation of the dreamer. On an entertainment level alone Kayfabe is vastly superior to The Wrestler and transcends the audience limitations of its subject matter.

When sitting down to write this review I thought long and hard about how it should be presented. Kayfabe isn’t just a mockumentary, it isn’t just a movie about wrestling, and it isn’t just a tongue-in-cheek comedy. Kayfabe is one of those special little films that reached and succeed at achieving so much more working its budgetary limitations mostly to its benefit throughout. It is an entertaining and uplifting film, with characters and tons of heart. It deftly illustrates the passion and lunacy of a business that lives and dies by the desire of its workers to perform each week for nothing more than the adulation of their friends. There is no fame here for them, just the satisfaction of delivering a great show. The film endears each character to the audience the way they would at a live wrestling show. The actors and filmmakers alike skillfully “work their gimmick” making Kayfabe a truly wonderful and memorable film. Not to mention one hell of a great show.

-Vance Garrett

Visit the official site: Kayfabe The Movie

The film’s writer-director Kenneth Barr wears his Asian cinema inspirations proudly throughout the film yet crafts them into something uniquely his own. This isn’t just indicated from the myriad of striking visuals, such as characters facing off against each other samurai sword to samurai sword backed by a yellow morning sky, it is all over the picture. The story of disenfranchised youth being co-opted and trained as assassins holds similarities to Ryuhei Kitamura’s 2003 film Azumi; that these “students” must battle each other across an urban backdrop until only one is left alive echoes themes in Kinji Fukasaku’s seminal Battle Royal; the characters are fully developed archetypes that at times mirror the contemporary Hong Kong film masters Johnnie To and the aforementioned John Woo. It is surprising amid all these apparent influences that Barr has still managed to craft something singularly his own. He opts away from flashy camera moves for a more grounded and by-in-turn more intense, handheld visual style (again echoing the seminal 70’s work of cinematic master Fukasaku). It is a tour de force of cinematic carnage that shocks even more when you learn it is intended as a pilot episode to a three year television series.

This is as pure an ensemble piece as I’ve seen since The Dirty Dozen (1967). Almost all the characters are given time to develop on the screen, which is amazing given there are more than twenty speaking roles. Those that are underdeveloped come off as tragic rather than clichés or two dimensional. It is a testament to Barr’s growing prowess as a writer and the breadth of talent in front of the camera. Each character is designed to attract a certain personality type, and because of the care given it will ensure a broader audience for the picture. Ryan K. Burke and Brittany Trogen were stand outs for me; their roles of Stoker and Rochelle respectively were delightfully textured. Burke as Stoker, the “villain” of the piece, delighted in evil glee from the first frame and was purely fun to watch. Burke fit so well into the skin of Stoker he never once came off cartoonish, though he well could have. Trogen’s turn as the near mute Rochelle was the most emotionally complex of the characters. Though she barely says a word in the entire film she is at the centre of some of the best gallows-humor moments and was my personal favorite character.

Make no mistake, despite the complex characters, this is an action film. The myriad of action set pieces scattered through the film come fast and furious and belie the budgetary limitations. There are gunfights galore, sword battles at dawn, wrestling inspired beat downs, executions by cast iron frying pans and a 9 minute climax with so much chaos I sat with my jaw in my lap the entire time. To catalogue everything that happens in this film would do a disservice to the texture the film creates, it is a visceral cinematic experience that cannot be missed. Barr and his production team have packed so much into the running time that it’s hard to believe this was an independent film. The Academy plays like a thrown gauntlet, a “see what we can do with nothing” battle cry to Hollywood, and it would behoove that cinematic juggernaut to take notice. I cannot help but think if this is what Barr and his team can do with nothing just imagine what they could do with a studio backing them. I for one hope The Academy finds its intended home on television. If it does not Barr has still given us an amazing truly singular cinematic experience we can appreciate.

A limited edition DVD release is now available on the company website and an online rental version through Amazon Video On Demand is scheduled for April 2010. For more information or to order a copy of the DVD you can visit the IDIOM Films site at  www.idiomfilms.ca.

- Vance Garrett

Visit the official site: IDIOM Films

Watch a the preview: The Academy Preview 01

Earthlings is mostly consisted of undercover footage from slaughterhouses, animal testing facilities, breeding farms / puppy mills and circuses. The underlying message;

“ignorance is bliss, if we don’t want to know where our food and clothing comes from we can turn a blind eye or choose to ignore the truth all together to morally justify our consumption, usage and treatment of the animals who unwillingly gave their lives for it. “

I’ll be brutally honest. Before watching this film I was possibly one of the most ignorant people on the planet when it came to eating meats, mocking protesters, animal rights activists and vegetarians/vegans. I was close minded and living in a world of ignorance and denial.

This documentary opened my eyes to what I already knew happened in the world we live in. It forced me, or should I say, I forced myself to get a deeper understanding of the unimaginable pain and suffering these animals endure in order to feed our insatiable appetite.

I’ve never been so emotionally distraught whilst watching anything on my screen. Ever. I struggled the entire film and covered my eyes or just looked away during the vast majority of it. I found myself cursing the abusers, getting angry at the humans who seemingly enjoy this miss treatment of animals. The films message is a harsh look at the reality of our society and culture and I strongly suggest you watch this film for yourselves and leave me some comments on your thoughts and feelings. The entire film is freely available for download all over the Internet, Here is a link to the Youtube version: Earthlings – The Documentary.

So – I was feeling sorry for my love life one night, and decided to make it worse and watch a romantic comedy (or, “romcom”, as the hip name-compressing media who brought us gems like “Bennifer” and “Brangelina” has repackaged it). “He’s Just Not That Into You” happened to be recently released on Xbox Live, so I thought, what the hey – they’re all the sip-sappy same, right? Au Contraire! Although HJNTIY was predictable, it wasn’t “traditionally” predictable. That is, not everybody has a traditionally happy ending. As an insighful, amusing romcom, I give it 3.75/5 stars.

The cast is wholesomely good-looking, and Ben Affleck should really be played by Paul Rudd, but the chemistry between he and Jennifer Aniston is pretty funny. Drew Barrymore seems to be playing somebody just because she produced it and not because it’s a good part for her. I do like her but I kinda cringed at this role, to be honest. The outtakes at the end reveal who is good at character improv (cough, Aniston, cough) and who is seriously not (ah-Connelly-choo!). Did I mention Scarlett Johansson gets kinda naked? And plays a yoga instructor (but doesn’t do a single yoga pose in the enitre movie, wtf)?

At the heart of the movie is Gigi, the girl waiting by the phone and utterly hopeless to the ways of men. She is the progeny of the generations of lies women tell themselves (and their girlfriends) about men’s behavior and a genetic defect in reading blatant social cues. Pretty, sweet, and annoyingly desperate, Ginnifer Goodwin is brilliantly convincing as the hopeless friend you simultaneously want to give a good shake and yet somehow keep telling her lies to make her feel better (“I’m sure he just lost your phone number…seriously!”). Her embarrassing trials become the platform for revealing the secrets behind the infamously bad behavior of men and why women put up with it. As we get to know the characters (who, predictably, are all in love with somebody who doesn’t love them back), wise “opposite-sex common sense” is unmasked and gently examined. The movie aims to ask: when we really know WHY somebody is acting the way they are, why do we delude ourselves into believing otherwise, and why do our support networks and culture actually encourage it? The arrived-at answers involve a few pretty good truth nuggets concerning human psychology and people’s secret obsession with their own life-dramas.

Ultimately I thought it was a pretty good reflection of cliched romance woes in today’s western culture, and how cultural norms and societal pressures can make us conform and confuse good behavior, honorable intentions, and what it really means to be happy. Even though the movie appears to embrace the non-threatening route of examining the relationship woes of just women, it actually sneaks in an acurate critique of men’s woes as well, and rounds out with the obligatory comedic-relief nod to gay romance.

Basically – don’t go see this movie on a booty-call date. It will probably make you uncomfortable. Also, do not go see this movie with: somebody you’re about to dump, somebody who’s about to dump you, somebody you’re cheating on or who is cheating on you, an ex, or somebody you really like who’s, well, just not that into you. Everybody else is ok.

User Submitted Review By: Katie McKelley

The film has some dramatic moments, like when entertainment lawyer Marilyn Marsden confronts her ex-lover and his new boyfriend.  It also includes several laugh out loud scenarios including deluded Ashley pouring her heart out to her sex addict lover, Todd.

Three stories run parallel over a period of time in the film and all come together in the dramatic climax.

The writers made me care about the characters and left me wanting more so I would have to give this film a big thumbs up.

User Review Submitted By: Aaron Kreider

You know those movies you sit through where nothing happens for the first hour and ten miniutes? well, The Uninvited is one of those movies. It’s only saving grave was Elizabeth Banks, she gave a pretty solid performance dispite it being a  drab, stale and badly acted film.

One thing I couldn’t figure out was the character “Alex” played Arielle Kebbel – I thought it was Mandy Moore, in fact, I was so sure it was her (back from a time machine adventure or something) I placed a small wager with my wife, only to check IMDB after the movie had ended. Oh well, dishes for the next week I suppose…

Apparently this movie is a remake of a classic which I haven’t seen, though after this typical hollywood crime/drama/thriller/horror/snorefest I’m probably not going to bother with it as it will probably drudge up bad memories  of my two hours wasted watching this movie.

Something has been irking me with the last year or so of movies with teen lead actors. The “over acting” you know, when they go way OTT, facial expressions turn into “Cm’mon, you can nail this scene!!” you can just vision the 31 takes it took to get that look. What happened to natural talent and acting ability? Guess we have the Wayans brothers and co to thank for that. (Dance flick anyone?)

This movie was bad. Struggling to find a none offensive adjective so yeah, I’ll stick with “bad.” Don’t rent it, don’t get it On demand, don’t watch it if your sister inlaw loans you the DVD.  She’s giving it to you for a reason.

2/10

So there is a it of familiarity with this film, such as the same type of prison theme you see time and time again. Shaun Parkes plays Joey’s cell mate, and though enjoyable to watch is very cliche’. Not to mention Gil Bellows’ performance feeling very reminiscent of Mickey Rourke’s character in Bullit. Visually there are some really nice scenes artistically but not enough that will keep you entertained. The writing also is a bit drab, trying to be philosophical but coming off as dribble and out of place. The music does add to the effects though as most of it is taken from the Blue Notes and gives some added ambiance. But overall the theme is predictable and the story pretty much tells its ending all throughout which gives the viewer a bit of a letdown.

I would definitely say to rent this one and check it out if you’re in the mood for a semi moody noir but don’t go in with high expectations. There are some pretty good scenes and semi solid writing but overall a 4.5 out of 10 because it is a theme that is played out and has been played better and a bit predictable.