Everyone needs a Catfish in their life to keep them sharp...

I have 20 minutes to write this. That might be a good thing since I've been told I tend to ramble on a bit...

“Catfish.” This is a good film, though maybe not what you would expect. It’s a documentary of sorts, with two guys (Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman) filming the relationship their best friend Nev (Yaniv Schulman), a photographer in New York City, develops over Facebook with a family in Michigan.

The family includes a mom, two daughters and a brother, and various other loosely associated relatives. They may or may not have horses. One of them is an artist. One of them may be a dancer…or something.

"Not based on a true story,” the trailer says.

"Not inspired by true events.”

"Just true.”

Intriguing, right?

You’d be forgiven for thinking this was some sort of a horror film from the trailer.

It’s creepy, no doubt, and there are some horrific aspects to it, but mostly it’s an exploration of our online, social media culture and the types of relationships that can develop over the Internet -- and what happens when real human beings intersect with their online-only friends.

I spent two weeks avoiding learning anything about the film, before watching it. This helped, and I recommend it. Beyond reading this blog – which I promise has no spoilers – you should really avoid details that might give away the crux of this story.

We watched “The Social Network” a couple of weeks prior to seeing “Catfish” and it really helped to give context and contrast – sort of like seeing two very different sides to the same story. I recommend doing that.

If this film starts out a little weirdly, hang in there. It gets better and better and is worth sticking around until the end, just like Nev does.

Grenier turns the lens around in 'Paparazzo' (Adrian Grenier, 2010)

I didn’t have high expectations for “Teenage Paparazzo,” the new documentary by actor Adrian Grenier of “Entourage” fame.

I’m usually suspicious of celebrity vanity projects to begin with, and the subject matter of this film -- a cocky kid out ‘til 3 or 4 a.m. stalking celebrities in L.A. with a camera – didn’t sound all that appealing.

But I was surprised in a good way by this movie. Not just by the storytelling and legitimate documentary style, but by Grenier’s honesty throughout.

The story focuses on then 14-year-old Austin Visschedyk. Grenier encounters the teen one late night in Los Angeles and is astounded to find him ensconced within a gang of much older Paparazzi photographers, staking out a celebrity hotspot.

Grenier becomes fascinated by the idea of someone so young doing such a grown-up job -- not to mention wondering how the heck he pulls it off on a school night -- and decides to turn the lens around and film a documentary about Visschedyk.

At first, the fast-talking, slick and not that likable kid is all for the project. The idea of hanging out with a bonafide celebrity and getting a little bit of his own fame seems to sit pretty well with him.

Visschedyk reminded me of a child star who has spent too much time around adults at a young age, and therefore grown up too fast, and without the necessary life lessons. He swears like a trucker, talks back to his parents and basically whines about almost everything.

At one point he suggests he isn’t all that happy about the arrangement with Grenier, but doesn’t want to say what’s really bothering him.

Grenier pushes him on it.

“Well, I thought you were going to, you know, like, let me know where you were going to be and stuff.”

That isn’t part of Grenier’s plan. He seems to want to take as journalistic of an approach as possible, and isn’t keen on setting up celebrity photo shoots just to keep the spoiled kid happy.

Instead Grenier wants to follow Visschedyk as he works, and interview other Paparazzi members, celebrities and Visschedyk’s parents to try and put together a film about how celebrity and society interact and how it’s possible for this kid to do what he does.

But between the tension this causes between Visschedyk and other photographers, the fact the kid begins to simply get bored with Grenier’s artistic endeavour, and rising media interest in the kid-phenom, their relationship begins to break down.

Visschedyk stops returning Grenier’s calls, fails to show up to a meeting or two, and gets tangled up with another copycat project, where a father is shooting a documentary about his alleged Paparazzo son.

It’s interesting to see how Grenier handles the change in their relationship. He gets genuinely stressed. He’s put time, effort and money into the project, and he’s desperate to save it.

On the other hand, he admits that his interest in Visschedyk is the main catalyst for the problems they are experiencing. The kid has become a bit of a star in his own right as major media picked up on the story after getting word that Grenier was making a film about Visschedyk.

While getting too involved with a story can be the kiss of death for many documentarians and journalists, it actually makes this story more interesting. Halfway through, the whole direction changes and Grenier has to roll with it and make it work.

“I’d like to be, you know, famous,” Visschedyk says at one point, admitting he doesn’t necessarily want to be a famous photographer, but more that like Paris Hilton, whom he has photographed and gotten to know – he just wants to be famous for being famous.

Grenier admits he’s created a monster and doesn’t quite know what to do about it.

The image of a rich and famous celebrity struggling to get his way, is in start contrast to the life of Grenier’s ‘Vince’ role on "Entourage," and is one really refreshing aspect of the film.

Grenier manages to save his film though, by taking more drastic measures that Visschedyk can live with, picking up a camera himself and joining the ranks of the Paparazzi himself, to see how they work and live.

The film ends with a touching scene where Grenier and Visschedyk seem to get real with each other – something that may not be easy for either of them to do, given their careers – and agree to chart a different path with their relationship.

A post-script update on Visschedyk also helps take the edge off and allows the audience to warm up a little more to this really annoying but talented, dedicated photographer, who is, after all, just a kid.

'True Grit' a true Western with classic Coen characteristics

Joel and Ethan Coen have travelled all over the map in recent years. Their films have ranged from the dark and chillingly violent “No Country for Old Men” to earlier efforts like “Fargo” that mixed unexpected violence with folksy humour and small-town sentimentality.

Add in comedic efforts like “The Big Lebowski” and you can see the wide range these guys have.

One thing their diverse films almost always have in common though is a unique artistic approach, beautiful photography and composition that makes every frame look like a masterpiece. Within a few minutes you almost always know you’re watching a Coen bro’s movie.

That was no different in their latest effort, a remake of the 1969 Western classic “True Grit” (starring John Wayne in his only Oscar-winning role).

I haven’t seen the original film so I went in with few expectations. I wasn’t sure where they would take the story about a 14-year-old girl out to seek revenge on her father’s killer with the help of a U.S. Marshal and a Texas Ranger.

At least as far as the story line went, anyway. In terms of the look, tone and chemistry of the film though, I had a lot of expectations. It was the first time the Coens had reunited with Jeff Bridges since “The Big Lebowski” and I was interested to see whether the sparks would still fly.

I also wondered how the introduction of a 14-year-old girl as a main character in a violent Western movie would affect the tone of the film, which I was expecting to be violent and gritty.

The violence was there, but it wasn’t the central characteristic of the film. It came in a couple of sparing, but sharp, shocking bursts.

Mostly, the film was about the story – an epic tale of payback and the relationship between Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) and Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) – a bounty hunter whom she hires for his “true grit” and LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) a Texas Ranger on the trail of the same man – Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin.)

Mattie’s drive for revenge is what carries the film. It’s not hatred or anger that drives her, more a pragmatic urge to take matters into her own hands and do what’s right. Her precocious nerve, fierceness and energy drives the story and the mission and she steals almost ever scene she is in.

Bridges is good too, as the drunk, rough around the edges lawman who isn’t afraid to bend the rules. But I do wonder if Bridges isn’t getting a little too comfortable in the skin of the overweight, slobby drunks he’s been playing lately. Luckily, his hard edge and toughness comes through in the moments when it’s required, and at those times the slobby side is all but forgotten. In true Bridges form, he’s also lovable despite his unlikableness.

Damon is great as a quirky and not-that-successful Texas Ranger. He adds a bit of a comedic element to his role, which is a bit out of place. And there’s a creepy moment when Mattie wakes up and he he’s there, watching her sleep and tells her he was considering “stealing a kiss” and another where he actually spanks her.

I wish there was more of Josh Brolin. He plays such a good hard-ass tough guy, but he was barely in the film until the last 15 or 20 minutes, and even then there just wasn’t enough time or space to really explore his character.

That was really the only disappointment in the film. The story was excellent, the acting was solid and the Coens went for a true Western fell, complete with wide panoramic shots, eerie mountain scenes and perfect use of snowfall to create a cold, lonely feel.

Great movie. You should see it.

The young John Lennon was a "Nowhere Boy" (2010, directed by Sam Taylor-Wood)

John Lennon is one of those people I feel like I kind of know. Like Paul Simon or John Steinbeck, I feel like he’s revealed enough about himself in his music and writing, and I’ve been a dedicated enough follower for long enough, that I have some kind of insider status and I know things about him that other people don’t.

That’s a total misconception, of course, the kind that comes crashing down when we meet our heroes for the first time and feel a profound sense of disappointment when we find out they’re just like us – human.

I haven’t met John Lennon, obviously. But I do feel like I have a new introduction to his life through “Nowhere Boy.” The film, playing at the Bloor Cinema this week, focuses on John’s mid to late teenage years and provides a fascinating snapshot into his life.

At the beginning of the film John, played brilliantly by Aaron Johnson (believe it or not, yes, he’s the guy from “Kickass,” turns out he’s British), is a young man trying to figure out who he is.

He’s being raised by his cold, stoic aunt and his uncle, a warm and jovial fellow.
With a sudden death in the family, he has his first encounter with his estranged mother, with whom he has had no contact to until that point.

The death, the glimpse of the mysterious redhead, and the sudden realization that his mom is out there and that he should get to know her, shakes his life up in a big way.
Her love of music and carefree attitude introduce him to a new world at a time when he’s trying to figure out who he is.

Rock and roll is just starting to take the world by storm as Elvis Presley makes his mark, and the young John, who doesn’t really play any instruments, decides to form a band. Eventually George Harrison and Paul McCartney come along, and the chemistry that will create one of the greatest bands of all time, begins to develop.

There are some interesting details, like the source of the money that paid for the band’s first professional recording, and the fact John initially didn’t want Paul McCartney in the band because he was too good.

"Better with us than with someone else," says one of his band mates, convincing Lennon to change his mind.

It’s a fascinating portrait, taking just a few brief years and zooming in for a detailed illustration of young John Lennon’s life. Played expertly by Johnson, Lennon’s powerful charisma comes through. He’s also troubled and dangerous, dealing with dark demons in his life and struggling to reconcile the way he was raised with the wild in his blood.

Johnson, even though he looks nothing like Lennon, is convincing, describing how that emotional struggle, charisma, raw talent and artistic hunger could come together to create a force like John Lennon.

Paul, though his role is much smaller in the movie, is also well played by Thomas Sangster – who also looks nothing like McCartney. His gentler manner and more refined musical skills play well off Lennon and the two form an unlikely bond.

The film just barely hints at tension between the two as they jostle as co-leaders of the young group.

I’ve read that McCartney is mad that Sangster is shorter than Lennon in the film, since that wasn’t the case in reality. He also says the film captures the essence of the young John Lennon, but that not everything in the film actually happened.

Sam Taylor-Wood has created an interesting, compelling look into Lennon’s little-known younger years, and I recommend this film for any Beatles fan – so yes, basically everyone.

Dark and gritty 'Dragon Tattoo' film has teeth (directed by Niels Arden Oplev, 2009)

There’s been a ton of hype surrounding "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." For a while the book (by Stieg Larsson) by the same name was pretty much everywhere, and the film, released hot on its heels, has also generated a lot of excitement.

That surprised me a little. It’s pretty rare to go to Blockbuster in search of a foreign film (made in Sweden), with subtitles, and find that all 20 copies are rented.

That just doesn’t happen, and it speaks to the popularity of the three-part book series and the films.

After watching the movie last night (I haven’t read the book) I’m still a little surprised. Don’t get me wrong, the film was awesome, but it didn’t have any major stars, was entirely shot in Sweden, in Swedish.

What it did have was a gripping, thrilling storyline that scared the heck out of me, solid unpretentious acting, and a simple, gritty narrative that relies on the story rather than CGI or Hollywood clichés to make a mark.

The story focuses on Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist), a once-respected journalist who has been convicted of libel, and has six months to kill before serving his sentence.

He is approached by a wealthy businessman named Henrik Vanger, and asked to spend that time turning his investigative skills to the unsolved disappearance of his niece, who went missing 40 years ago.

Along the way Blomkvist enlists the help of the beautiful, but darkly troubled Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace), a tattoo’d and pierced hacker who was initially hired to investigate Blomkvist’s background, before Vanger brought him on.

Her illicit skills, paired with Blomkvist’s investigative skills, allow the team to turn up new clues in the mysterious investigation set mostly on the Vanger’s creepy island estate.

Rapace and Nyqvist are both pitch perfect in their roles, very different people united by their connection to the girl’s disappearance and their commitment to seeing the investigation through – and their ability to draw the characters into their lives.

Great writing and direction get a lot of credit for that too though.
Another reason I was surprised by the success of this film here, is the graphic nature of some of the scenes. I’m guessing a lot of people who saw it aren’t used to the boundary-pushing of European cinema, and were probably caught off guard. We were.

There are three scenes of sexual abuse or violence that were pretty shocking, and definitely won’t make it into the American version, which is apparently now in casting. (Allegedly Ellen Page is a contender to play Lisbeth, which in my opinion would be a bad choice. And Angelina Jolie was apparently sought before the remembered she’s way too old. Sidenote: isn’t it lame that big American movies always have to have the hot star of the moment? Rapace is awesome in this role because you’ve never seen her before and have no preconceived notions or baggage.)

I definitely recommend this film, but know what you’re getting into. It’s dark and graphic and not for everyone.

One really interesting sidenote is that none of the three books (The other two are The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest) in the trilogy were published until after Larsson died in 2004. According to Wiki he wrote them for pleasure, as a hobby, and made no attempt to publish them until just before he died.

'Defendor' (2009) directed by Peter Stebbings

I watched ‘Defendor’ last night. Pretty interesting movie. I admit I fell asleep a couple of times but that was mainly because I was beat, and is no reflection on the film.

The film stars Woody Harrelson as Arthur Poppington, a self-styled super hero whose main weapons include a metal-studded trench club, handfuls of marbles and small jars of angry, agitated hornets.

His life’s work is protecting the vulnerable and beating up the bad guys. He also likes to rehearse ahead of time the one-liners he delivers to the bad guys.

Something’s not quite right with Defendor (note, that’s Defendor, not Defender). Based on a couple of flashbacks, his mother seems to have been a drug-addicted prostitute who may have been forced to abandon him at a young age, leaving him to be raised by his grandfather.

As a boy, Arthur asks his grandfather when his mother is coming home. He explains that she never is, that drug dealers got her -- “captains of industry” as he refers to them sardonically.

Sometime after that conversation, Poppington invents his ‘Defendor’ alter-ego and dedicated himself to tracking down ‘Captain Industry’ – his nemesis.

The problem is, Captain Industry doesn’t exist, at least he doesn’t up until Poppington befriends Kat Debrofkowitz (Kat Dennings) a down-on-her-luck prostitute who needs to lay low for a few days to avoid an angry pimp, and ends up staying with Poppington.

Kat has her own troubled past to deal with, and the two develop a weird semi co-dependent relationship, based mainly on the fact that Kat lies to Defendor, telling him she knows who Captain Industry is and where he can be found. The rest of the film focuses on his mission to track him down and get revenge.

Defendor’s unswerving commitment to his task is respectable. He doesn’t really get scared, and seems to be willing to take on any challenge, no matter how impossible, even though he usually loses on some level. He’s sort of a heroic loser, I guess, which is a twist on a superhero movie and makes this film really interesting.

And Harrelson is awesome in the role, really convincing and totally committed to the character to the point where you don’t see Woody, you see Defendor.

Another cool thing is that the film was shot in Hamilton, Ont., of all places. Gritty, grim, industrial wasteland Hamilton makes a perfect backdrop for the movie.

One other nice surprise was seeing Clark Johnson as Capt. Fairbanks of the local police. Johnson played city editor Gus Haynes in The Wire and it was almost like seeing an old friend.

This is a good film with a simple but interesting story. I definitely recommend it.

Hockey players, farmers and pickup trucks

At first I didn’t think I was going to like Jeff Lemire’s Tales From the Farm (Essex County Vol 1). It was roughly drawn, sparse and somewhat jarring. The characters were all harsh lines and contrast, and the dialogue was simple and abrupt.

But a few pages into the graphic novel and I had completely forgotten all those criticisms and was fully focused on the simple but gripping story, recommended to me by Dan Brown.

Set in Essex County in Southwestern Ontario, the story focuses on the goofy, highly imaginative boy Lester (think Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes, but without the cuteness and with a bleak chicken farm as the setting) and his uncle Ken, who is raising him following his mother’s death.

Ken is a single, hard working, old-school farmer doing his best to raise a child and thereby keep a promise to his dead sister. Lester, who wears a mask and cape for most

of the book, feels like he’s more of an obligation than a loved one, and their relationship is tense.

"Hey Les, Hockey Night in Canada’s on…two to one for Boston, second period, wanna watch with me?” Ken asks one night after dinner.

"…Nah,” Les replies, then disappears into the basement to watch the game on his own.

It’s sad and a little uncomfortable to read this kind of relational grappling between two people not really equipped for the relationship they’re thrust into.

But in increments, little by little, you become more comfortable as a reader as Lemire reveals the deeper truths behind the relationship and you get fully drawn in without even realizing that it’s happening.

There’s simplicity in the storytelling and sparseness to the drawings that combine to tell a powerful but simple story that’s revealed through a few characters, a farm and a country gas station.

If you’ve ever lived in the country or been around farmers or small town hockey players, this story will resonate. If not, that’s ok too; I think you’ll still like it.

I'm looking forward to reading the next two installments in the series.