"Evil Dead's" Bruce Campbell, SXSW Interview

I sat down with Bruce Campbell the day after the SXSW premiere of Evil Dead, which he produced along with his good friends and collaborators on the original The Evil Dead trilogy, Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert. 

The dapper B movie icon with the chin that just won't quit kept me on my toes with his biting sarcasm and absolute lack of pretension. Here's the complete transcript of the interview, during which he shares his thoughts on fervent Evil Dead fans,  how much he enjoys taunting his old buddy Sam Raimi, and why he doesn't watch horror movies. You can read my story here and my review of "Evil Dead" here.

Alison Gang: I saw the movie last night.  What an outrageous reaction.

Bruce Campbell: Yeah.  It was fun.

AG: Did you get the reaction that you were expecting?

BC: Yes.  Yeah, we’re good.  We’re done.  This is what you want.  You need a verbal reaction.  

AG: Tell me about this remake idea.  Obviously you were a little nervous about fan reaction and I know there was some in the early days.

BC: Yeah, they were visceral.  They were loud.  They were nasty.

AG: What were they worried about?

BC: That everything would be ruined.  If there’s no Ash character then there’s no Evil Dead.

All of these absolute statements.  And I’m like, hey, relax.  Sam’s behind it.  Rob Tapert’s behind it.  I’m behind it.  We are the only producers.  There are no other cigar chomping producers looking to make a fast buck.  This is the first movie that ever got us into the film business so as violently as opposed as a fan is or careful as they are with this Evil Dead franchise, what do you think we are?  We’re going to take more time with it than the average fan I can tell you that right now.  I care more than the average fan about this movie.  

But we appreciate their zeal.  We appreciate the fact that they care enough to say, don’t screw this up.  You know, like verbally threatening us.  Based on the reaction last night we didn’t’ screw them over.  That’s the goal when you make a horror film, they’ve got to react.  If they don’t react, you’ve failed.  You’ve completely failed.  Laughter.  Nervous laughter.  Screaming.  Hiding.  It’s all good.

AG: Can I be honest?  I actually almost threw up.  And not because I was grossed out but because it didn’t let up.  I didn’t get a chance to breath and I thought I was going to jump out of my skin.

BC: It’s kind of like a noose that gets tightened a little bit.  You’re in a shoot and there’s no way out.

AG: I was like, my knees were up to here, there’s people trapped all around me, I kind of almost had a claustrophobic attack so I thank you for that.

BC: Good.  I like that.

AG: Did you see any of the internet buzz [after the premiere] or anything?

BC: Not since. No.  Fede’s [Alvarez, the film's director] been on it.  He’s good.  These younger guys, their fingers work good.  I haven’t’ read it yet but I just got an email with a link to a bunch of reviews so I can’t wait.  Because the first Evil Dead was pretty much split.  There were some very good reviews and some very bad reviews.  An Atlanta paper called it the sickest of the sick, the first Evil Dead.  In another one, the headline was 'Films That Stoop,' like they’re not even trying to be a legitimate movie.

AG: Now, sickest of the sick was a compliment to you I would imagine?  

BC: Well no, they followed it by saying Sam Raimi took every low-budget bad idea and put it in a low budget blender.

AG: Oh boy.  Yeah.

BC: Yet, the L.A. Times comes out and says instant classic.  So that’s the thing with reviews, you can’t throw yourself off the cliff for a bad one and you can’t go buy a new Cadillac with a good one.  The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.  Nothing is ever that bad and nothing is ever that good.

AG: I read you were looking originally to make a comedy before you decided on doing the The Evil Dead way back then.

BC: That’s all we’d ever done was comedies.  We were Three Stooges fans.  If we are going to raise money from a group of business men in Detroit, comedy was like, who’s your main actor or who’s your comedian that you know?  None of us.  But horror movies you can make with no name actors.  Jane Levy [Mia in Evil Dead] had a lot of experience, and Shilo Fernandez [David] and same with Lou [Taylor Pucci, who plays Eric] and all of the other actors. They’re all good, solid actors but we don’t have like a star or starlet that everybody knows. Horror movies can do that.  You can have no name people.

AG: Because the gore is the star.

BC: The gore is the star.  Yeah, that’s pretty much the deal.

AG: There were a lot of low budget horror movies around that time. Why was the original Evil Dead different? Why did it hit the way it did?

BC: Sam Raimi.  His visual style.  I doubt that some of these other late 70s horror movies, like I Know What You Did Last Night, Friday the 13^th, all of those movies were shot in about three weeks and it looks like it.  The Evil Dead took 12 weeks of principle photography.  That was twice as long as we had intended.  When you shoot that long you can take an entire day to get one shot.  We would never do that again and have never done it since.  It’s too inefficient.  As a result there are shots in the movie that are arrestingly cool that are not in any other low budget horror films because they don’t have the time.  

Roger Corman movies, god bless him for being so prolific, but memorable?  No.  He makes impossible challenges, like make a movie in 10 days.  You’re going to get what you get.  You really are.  The occasional guys like [George] Lucas will come out of there, or [Francis Ford] Coppola. Out of the hundreds of directors, very few survive that world because they were not given a chance to do their stuff.  

Sam from the get-go had these ridiculous ideas that Rob [Tapert] and I were like, 'Oh god, how do we do that?  How do we do that shot?'  It was before green screen.  It was before blue screen.  So we just had to figure out a way to do it.  I think that’s what set it apart.  They knew that there was somebody behind the camera that had a little more something going on.

AG: What did you guys see in Fede [Alvarez, the film's director]?

BC: Sophistication.  This movie is more sophisticated than the original.  He brings a really interesting sensibility.  He’s not a kid.  He runs a very successful effects company in Uruguay and has a very good living and just got married.  He’s not a 21-year-old know nothing.  He has opinions.  He’s worked extensively with special effects.  We just lucked out there.  The rest was a little bit of a gamble.  Can he make his day?  What do you say to actors?  Does he know how to deal with them?  What if they’re pissed off, how do you calm them down?  There’s a lot of that.  But he had it.  I sat in on a lot of the casting.  To me, that’s what I wanted to see.  What does he say to that actor to make him better without pissing them off?  Actors are these weird, volatile creatures.  So by the time those sessions were done, I’m like he’s good.  I could see how when someone asked a question, he would answer it and how he would help them understand more of what it is they should be doing and what he’s looking for.  That was very reassuring to me.  We were very fortunate to get Fede and Jane [Levy].  We hit two homeruns.  One was with Fede and one was with Jane.

AG: You’re like the king of this nerd B movie empire and you guys are shepherding this franchise. Was that ever how you saw your career ending up way back when?

BC: Well, you know, all roads lead to B movies.  You start B movies as an actor because that’s how you get in movies and you end in B movies when your career is over.  It’s a logical place to be.  I just never left.  I have no problem with B movies.  I don’t apologize for them.  You can make more interesting movies.  You can make twist endings.  You can kill your lead character.  You can cut their arm off.  If this movie was made by a studio it would not be this movie.  It wouldn’t be anything close to this movie.  Thank God.  

I’m happy to work in a low budget arena as long as I’m left alone because then all of the mental shit is gone.  It’s just the physical challenge of making the movie without the politics and without any other pressure.  We wanted to give Fede that environment.  Sam is so supportive of directors.  He’d get on Rob’s case and my case and be like, 'Hey what are you bugging Fede so much for?  Leave him alone.'  And we’re like, 'Shut up, we’re doing our job.'

AG: What were you bugging him about?

BC: Anything.You see the film and it’s time for your editing notes. Well, we can either give him a lot of notes or few notes.  It depends on what we thought.  We each have things that bug us about editing.  That shot seems very similar to that second shot.  Why don’t we lift one of those shots?  Do we need that shot?  It’s stuff like that.

AG: What did you really want to keep from the original?

BC: Some of the sounds.

AG: Like what?

BC: Well the room where everything goes down, where the chick is burned alive in the beginning and where they find the book, there’s a wind in there that we buried with two other winds that is the original Evil Dead wind.  In the cabin for half of the movie is this very dead, creepy, subtle wind and that’s in that room.  Whenever you go in that room the original sound is there and only there.  You can barely hear it but I can hear it.

AG: But you wanted it there.

BC: Hell yeah.

AG: And then the car, of course [the 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88 that Campbell’s character drove in the original films.]

BC: The car I don’t’ give a crap about.  That’s Sam’s.  Sam’s obsession with that stupid car.

AG: It literally is the same car?

BC: I doubt it, being in New Zealand.  But find a couple of car parts and glue them together and you’ve got a car.

AG: I saw Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful and I noted your cameo in there, only because I saw a picture of it ahead of time.  I probably would have never known.  What was that experience like in that film?

BC: Well it’s fun to go on the big movie sets because…to me it’s just fun.  I looked at the makeup station they had.  It was like the infinity mirror.  They had to make up 200 people every day in prosthetic makeups.  That’s staggering.  So I worked one day and it was one incredibly long day but working with Sam was just like nothing else had happened.  It doesn’t matter the budget; it all felt very small and personal when we actually got to film it.  It wasn’t about this big spectacle.  It was about dicking with the scene and having fun with it.  But the crew didn’t know how familiar I was with Sam.  These were all people who were Mr. Raimi this, Mr. Raimi that.

AG: Mr. Hollywood.

BC: They’ve got him…these crew members, they tip toe around him.  Not because he’s mean but he’s a very competent director and very confident.  He knows what he wants.  He was getting pissy one day, saying 'Well, that didn’t work, I’m going to do this and we’re going to do this until we get this.'  So I started imitating him, and I was like, 'Yeah, we’re going to do this, we’re going to shoot it 1,000 times in 18 different ways!'  The crew members were looking at me like, 'Dude, what are you sassing Sam for?'  I’m like, 'You don’t know anything.  I went to high school with this guy.'  So that’s great.  And to watch a good friend be so successful is just…that’s what it’s all about.  That’s why you get in the business, to go, damn, Sam is swimming with the biggest of the big dogs.  He is a big dog.  Sam’s a big dog.  He’s’ a big Hollywood influence.  Nothing could make me happier.  I sit back and I laugh.  I’m sure I’ll send him an email about this weekend’s box office [for opening weekend of Oz], because I think he’s going to pull it out.

AG: Last night you mentioned the sequel.  You said that it's already been written or being written?

BC: Being written.

AG: Okay.  Does it bear any resemblance to the other sequel or is it a whole different path that it’s taking? 

BC: I think it’s going to go completely crazy in a different direction.  It won’t be anything like this movie.  Nothing like this movie.  Which is cool.

AG: One of the things about horror is that, to get the fans to keep coming back, you have to show them something new and it gets more and more graphic, making me want to throw up and things like that.  I’m just curious, how much more graphic do you think you can get?  

BC: That’s not it.

AG: No?  What do you think it is to top it next?

BC: Just different.  There’s a lot of room for different.  It doesn’t have to be more, just different.  There are different ways to show carnage and mayhem.  I don’t know.  Fede will think of something.  Sam will tell us to leave him alone and he’ll come up with something big and ridiculous.

AG: Yeah.  The arm cutting…I think I’m going to live with that for quite a while.

BC: That was cool.  We got just the reaction that we wanted.  People were like, 'Oh my god, she’s doing it!  Oh my god, she’s still doing it.  Oh, it broke off.'

AG: My body was reacting in a way that I had no control over.  It was weird. 

BC: Yeah.  Isn’t that awesome though?

AG: It was pretty awesome.

BC: This is the beauty. People go 'Why are you in a horror movie?'  Because the visceral reaction that you can get from a horror film is so much bigger than dramedy or a romcom or an action movie even.  This is where you get people to be vocal.  That’s a powerful medium.  Comedies and horror films.

AG: Oh yeah.  And watching it in theaters with people is such a great experience.  What’s your favorite modern horror film, besides the Evil Dead of course, that’s come out in the past couple of years?

BC: I haven’t been that impressed with any modern day horror films.

AG: Really?  Even Cabin in the Woods?

BC: I didn’t see it.  Half of these things I haven’t seen.

AG: What?  Cabin in the Woods basically uses the beginning of Evil Dead.

BC: When I go see a movie, I go to watch the actors working.  I feel like I’m at work.  I feel like I’m watching dailies. 

AG: It’s not fun for you.

BC: It’s okay.  Last night was a blast because it was all about tormenting the audience.

AG: Well, consider me tormented.

BC: Good.

"The Artist," and I'm sticking to it.

Jean Dujardin as George Valentin and
 Berenice Bejo as Peppy Miller in "The Artist."
AP Photo/The Weinstein Company

With my 4-star review of "The Artist," I give away one of my top picks of 2011 (the official list runs December 30). After winning a slew of awards from critics groups and festivals (including the San Diego Film Critics Society, which voted it Best Film, my vote included), this black and white silent film is now suffering through something of a backlash with accusations that its story is too slight, the content is low-brow, and its style is merely a "technical exercise" in filmmaking. Obviously I don't agree, though I can see some of what they're saying -- but I loved the film anyway. You can read why in my review.

I was thrilled to get the chance to interview the film's director, Michel Hazanavicius (a name I will forever know how to spell after fixing it in spell check dozens of times), a Frenchman who dazzled me with his ability to articulate the essence of American storytelling during our conversation and in the film itself. You can read the story here.

You also might want to check out Mike Ryan's (Moviefone.com) astute and entertaining explanation of why "It's OK to Like 'The Artist,'" in which he somehow manages to compare the film to the 90s band The Gin Blossoms -- and have it not be an insult.

A friend recently asked me what holiday movies are a must-see for her family, which includes a husband and two college-age sons. When I recommended "The Artist" she scrunched her face up and said with disbelief, "Really? Isn't that the silent movie?" as if that meant it was far too artsy-fartsy for her family's taste. My response was that this is a very mainstream film (hence the backlash, critics are supposed to hate anything mainstream, don't you know) that is perfect for the holidays because it just makes you feel good. 

The way things are going these days, I'll take it where I can get it.

Happy holidays to all! I'll post my top picks of 2011 next week.

A Singular Olsen Sister

Elizabeth Olsen and Sean Durkin,
star and director of "Martha Marcy May Marlene"
Photo credit: Earnie Grafton, U-T

At last, an Olsen sister who can have her photograph taken without posing in a ridiculous manner. But that's not the only quality Elizabeth Olsen has that's worth celebrating.

I spent some quality time with Olsen, star of the new indie "cult" film (literally) "Martha Marcy May Marlene," when she was in town this summer with the film's writer/director Sean Durkin. We were the only two women at a sparsely attended critics' mixer and, while the men did that thing they do where they show each other how much they know, she and I sat together at a table chatting about going to college in New York City (she's at NYU, I went to Columbia), her suddenly exploding career and how she's the first Olsen sister who actually likes performing (her sisters prefer board meetings for their company, which they've been attending since their tweens).

All in all, it was a pleasure to cross paths with Olsen at this precious moment in her life, between carefree young adult and celebrated actress.

Here's my interview with Olsen and Durkin and my review of "Martha Marcy May Marlene."

You don't have to join any "families" to see the film.

Well-Directed Rage

Debbie Peagler, subject of the
 documentary "Crime After Crime"

"One Day" feels like a life sentence (here's my 1/2 star review), but it's nothing compared to the disgraceful injustice suffered by Debbie Peagler in  "Crime After Crime," a documentary opening today at Reading Gaslamp Cinemas. (Read my interview with the film's director, La Jolla native Yoav Potash.) If you're going to get angry while watching a film (as I did during the laughable romantic drama "One Day"), you'd at least like that anger to be intentionally provoked.

While I can't say that "Crime After Crime" is a particularly well-crafted film, you'd have to be a sociopath or robot for Debbie's story not to enrage you. While watching the DVD screener with friends, we had to pause at least 10 times just to yell at the TV and blow off the accumulating steam.

A young American soldier (Dan Dehaan)
in John Sayles' take on the
Philippine-American war, "Amigo."

I also suggest you check out the new John Sayles' film "Amigo," opening today at Horton Plaza cinemas. Sayles is one of my favorite filmmakers; I find myself wanting to sit with his characters all day, absorbing their stories, surroundings and relationships with the same patience Sayles demonstrates with his camera.

In typical Sayles fashion, he bucks all conventionality by telling a story about a war most Americans barely recall from history class - the Philippine-American war (1899-1902). Even if you're not familiar with the history, Sayles keeps the story timely by letting us into the lives of its participants at the most human level, revealing there is no clear-cut "good guy" and "bad guy" when it comes to war.

I normally describe Sayles' films as a slow burn; you may not feel a lot at first, but if you stick with it and invest, you'll be seared to the core by film's end ("Lone Star" being a perfect example). While "Amigo" took a little longer to singe, it still got me there. Thanks to the San Diego Asian Film Foundation for holding the special screening.

Finally, for the first time I attended a screening of films from this year's 48 Hour Film Project, which took place August 5-7 in San Diego. I had no idea what to expect going in, though I feared it would consist of some pretty awful movies slapped together by amateur crews over the course of two harried days.

What I saw was almost the exact opposite, but more important than the finished product was the feeling of camaraderie in the crowd, made up mostly of crew members, their friends and family. The whole event had a sort of Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland "Let's put on a show!" vibe to it and I left wanting to sign up for next year. What better to way to punish a film critic than to have her PA on a no-budget film!

Whatever you decide to see or do this weekend, make it a good one. Summer's almost over after all.

Book vs. Movie: "The Help"

In Jackson, Mississippi in 1963, Skeeter Phelan
(Emma Stone, left), Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer, center)
and Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis) build an unlikely friendship
 around a secret writing project in “The Help.”
©DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC.

A reader recently emailed me with a good question. When applicable (and it seems to always be these days), do you judge a film based on how compares to its source material -- be it a book, play, graphic novel, whatever -- or do you judge it on its own merits, without consideration to its roots?

Honestly, I didn't have a strong opinion either way. If I knew the source material--and liked it--then it mattered. Or not.  But when "The Help" came along, I made up my mind.

Knowing I would be reviewing the film in August, I picked up a copy of "The Help" in July, fully expecting an insult to my intelligence. Instead I was captivated. In fact, I had what I would call a bit of a claustrophobic attack as I finally understood on an emotional level just how trapped the African American characters were. I knew all about Jim Crow, segregation and lynchings---but I never really understood how living under that oppression might feel it until I read "The Help."

Because I was scheduled to interview the book's author, Kathryn Stockett, and Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays Hilly Hollbrook in the film, I needed to see the movie before I was able to finish the book. In fact, I was about 30 pages from the end, so when I sat down in the theater that weekday morning, all I could think about was where I'd left Aibileen and Milly on paper, and how their world was different or the same in the movie that was unfolding before me. It was the most distracted I'd ever been watching a film and I knew before I got to my car that I'd need to see it again before I wrote my review.

By the time that second viewing came around I'd long finished the book and was able to see the movie with a fresh perspective. Instead of noting all the similarities and differences, I focused on the story being told on screen -- and I liked it a lot more than I did the first time around.

So, in answer to the reader's question, I now say this: If you have the option, see the movie first. Then read the source material. Chances are, you'll be distracted from neither and remain fair. At least that 's how I'm going to do it from here on out, which works out well since I barely have time to read these days anyway!

Here's my review of "The Help" and my interview with Kathryn Stockett and Bryce Dallas Howard.

I also reviewed "30 Minutes or Less" this week (in Friday's paper), but if you are contemplating seeing that, I recommend reading a book -- any book--instead.

Brit Marling is indeed from "Another Earth"; "Apes" vs. Franco

Reading Brit Marling's bio is a slightly sickening experience.

The star and co-writer of "Another Earth" graduated valedictorian from Georgetown University with a major in economics, then turned down a lucrative career in finance to become an actress and artist. Instead of struggling through her 20s waiting tables in LA and slugging through auditions, the natural beauty formed a winning creative partnership with director Mike Cahill, first with the documentary "Boxers and Ballerinas," and now the indie Sundance hit, "Another Earth."

But when you meet the poised, bright-eyed young woman, you understand her success -- and eagerly await what comes next for her as an actress and co-writer/producer with the equally enthusiastic and impressive Cahill.

Read my interview with both of them here, then check out my review of "Another Earth." 

Speaking of alternate realities, how about apes taking over the planet? I went in to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" thinking, "Hey, Franco's in it -- that's all I really need." I walked out thinking, "Franco who? Go apes!" Read my review of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" here.

Whatever planet you visit, enjoy the weekend.

Kiddie Flicks

As a freelance critic with a full-time day job, I only have time to review one or two movies per week. So when it's time to choose what I'm going to review for the month, I tend to skim over those titles that are geared specifically to kids, while silently pitying the parents who have to accompany their offspring to what I can only imagine is a semi-torturous two-hour babysitting session.

It's not the kids themselves that bother me. In fact, I usually get a little tearful when I see kids having a genuine reaction to what they're seeing onscreen. My real problem is the cranky old lady who's lived inside me since I was a kid myself. I simply don't have patience for the inanity of the onscreen antics cobbled together to cater to short attention spans: fart jokes, bonks on heads, corny kindergarten-level life lessons, etc.

These kinds of movies are easily avoidable for a "civilian" without kids. But for a film critic, it isn't always so easy. Still, I'm a professional and capable of applying my critical skills to a film of any type, right? Sure, but it seems unfair to apply my perspective--one that is severely lacking in little kid input--to a movie that has no intention of pleasing an audience member like me. I have no clue what little kids like. What might scare them. Or what a parent might find unacceptable. What could I possibly add to what a gazillion mommy bloggers and "pro-family" movie review sites already do so effectively?

When I try to tap into my own preferences as a child, I go straight to Mary Poppins, Sound of Music, Annie and the Muppet movies (yes, I'm pumped for Jason Segal's Muppet reboot in November) -- all classics that most adults would enjoy on their own. But you would never have caught me at a "My Little Pony" kind of flick back then. And certainly not today.

But I have no problem getting excited about and reviewing movies geared for kids and adults. You know, a Pixar movie. So I happily included "Cars 2" on my review list for June, and even signed on for an interview with one of the film's directing animators, a San Diego native with a darn cool success story.

I'm not gonna lie, I was expecting greatness. How could I not after the phenomenal run Pixar's had over the last 15 years, culminating in one of the best films of 2010, "Toy Story 3" (my original review here).

Unfortunately, what "Cars 2" delivered was strictly for kids. True, its animation was top notch, but the goofy antics took center stage over story and character. And the character they chose to focus on, Mater, drove me up the wall. Yes, it's true. The Pixar streak (at least for grown-ups) is over.

You can read my "Cars 2" review here and my interview with Pixar animator Victor Navone here.

If you do end up taking your little ones to see it, do me a favor and tell me what THEY thought (and what you thought as well). Consider it field research as a favor. Or dump the kids at the cineplex and rush over to Landmark Hillcrest to catch "Buck," "Midnight in Paris," or even the quirky "Submarine" (my review here). Don't worry, I won't tell.

Whatever you do, enjoy your weekend.

Legends on the Line: Interview with J.J. Abrams and Review of "Super 8"

You know you're having a strange Sunday morning when your telephone conversation with J.J. Abrams about working with Steven Spielberg is interrupted by a call from Spielberg himself. Lucky for me, Abrams took the call while leaving me on the line, able to hear at least one side of their conversation.



It wasn't anything juicy; mostly about how things were going during the lead-up to the release of the Abrams' new film "Super 8," produced by Spielberg and very much in the style that made him a filmmaking icon.

But the distinctive shift in Abrams' demeanor -- from subdued, serious director to overeager, young filmmaker practically jumping out of his skin when his childhood idol called to say hi -- was all I needed to get just how sincere Abrams is in his tribute to Spielberg throughout "Super 8." It was also pretty damn cool for a nosy girl like me.

Read more of my interview with J.J. Abrams and also my review of "Super 8."

I'm moving this weekend so I'll be taking next week off. But if you need another recommendation to tide you over til then, I enthusiastically point you to Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris." Simply delightful --especially for nostalgia whores like me.

If you are a Terrence Malick fan, you probably already have plans to see "Tree of Life," out this weekend in San Diego. While I was intrigued by its visual poetry, I couldn't help but think that the film thinks it's deeper than it actually is. But with a filmmaker like Malick, who takes years to assemble his thoughtful work, I absolutely owe it a second viewing. Especially after the treat of seeing his 1978 masterpiece "Days of Heaven" on the big screen for the first time last weekend (thanks Reading Cinemas and KPBS' Beth Accomando for making that happen!). I could've watched that movie for days.

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold: Review (2 1/2 stars), Interview with Morgan Spurlock

I've never been one for approaching celebrities I encounter "in the wild." I mean, really --what could I possibly say to them that would make me any different than some other slobbering fan? "I like your movies." Duh. "You were really good in X." Double duh.

When it comes to interviewing them, it's not even a question. We're both there to do a job. Get in, ask your questions, get your answers, get on with your day.

But when it came time for me to interview filmmaker Morgan Spurlock about his new documentary "POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold," I threw my point-and-shoot camera in my purse alongside my notepad and had no problem asking for a snapshot of the two of us post-interview.

Why? Well, of course I'm a fan. How can you not be? He's charming, clever, and willing to challenge mainstream thinking. I loved "Super Size Me" but was an even bigger fan of his TV series "30 Days." If this was my only motivation, I'd still keep my mouth shut and go about my business asking questions and trying to get him to say something, anything, he hasn't already said in the countless interviews he's done over the last month.

The reason I happily packed my camera and captured this poolside snapshot? The logo-covered suit of course. He's a walking billboard--and an extremely enthusiastic one at that--and what kind of billboard asks you to respect its privacy?

Here's my interview with Spurlock about his very meta experiment in making a documentary about marketing and advertising by funding his entire film with marketing and advertising. And then find out what I thought the film in my review, out today.

And by all means, go out and enjoy an ice cold glass of anti-oxidant rich POM Wonderful, would ya?

"Hanna": Review (3 stars) and Interview with Director Joe Wright

I wasn't expecting much for my interview with "Hanna" director Joe Wright. Not only was he almost 30 minutes late (a radio interview ran long), but he was clearly exhausted by the time he shook my hand and collapsed onto his chair.

But even through the exhaustion (a one-month old baby and a hefty promotion schedule are the likely culprits), the British director impressed me with his clarity of vision, passion and--most of all--feminist perspective. Not to mention the easy job I had of transcribing the interview due to his British mannerisms full of polite qualifiers and other Hugh Grant-ish verbal fillers. 

Photo: San Diego Union-Tribune/Peggy Peattie

You can read my interview with Wright here. I think you'll be impressed with him too. (I was even more pleased when Wright went public with his criticism of the portrayal of women in the marketing campaign for Zack Snyder's "Sucker Punch," a movie I simply refused to see for that very same reason.)

Then read my review of "Hanna," Wright's fairy tale action movie starring his teenage muse Saoirse Ronan (the Oscar nominated young star from "Atonement").

I also caught "Your Highness" this week, hoping for a much needed laugh. I got a few but not nearly as many as I expected (I could count the seconds in every scene where opportunities for humor were missed). Still, you won't hear too much complaining from me when James Franco and Natalie Portman are on screen - even when they're sharing that screen time with a graphic depiction of minotaur penis. Yes, you read that right. Minotaur penis.

Enjoy your weekend!

"Win Win" interview, review (3 stars); Source Code (2 1/2 stars)

The last two weeks have been jampacked with press tours and I'm heading out the door for yet another, this time with Morgan Spurlock, director of the new doc "Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold." That story will run April 22, along with my review of the film.

But in today's paper is my interview with writer/director Tom McCarthy and the teenage wrestler, Alex Shaffer, who stars alongside Paul Giamatti in the new film "Win Win."  Both were a delight to interview and I was struck by the relationship between the novice actor and the director--also a working actor who's known for being tough on his performers. Read the full story here and my review of the film here.

I also reviewed "Source Code" this week, the new Duncan Jones-directed film starring one of my celebrity crushes, Jake Gyllenhaal. Read my review here.

Next week, my interview with "Hanna" director, Joe Wright.

Happy weekend!

Reviews: The Last Lions (4 stars); Of Gods & Men (4 stars)

Movies can seem rather trivial when compared to the disaster in Japan, but I'm relieved to say I've been in communication with my dear friend in Tokyo who is "shaken, but not stirred." His reports of the experience are frightening however and I wish him, the people of Japan, and everyone else in the wake of the resulting tsunami (maybe us?) well.

It's appropriate then that both the films I'm talking about today tackle serious, or at least contemplative, subjects--endangered lions in Africa ("The Last Lions") and endangered monks in Algeria ("Of Gods and Men").

I was privileged to be able to sit down for an hour-long conversation with filmmakers and National Geographic Explorers-in-Residence Dereck and Beverly Joubert, whose film "The Last Lions" left me a blubbering mess. They apologized in good humor when I told them that the film, at times, felt like "Schindler's List" for animals, but I insisted that it was worth every tear. You can see why in my review of the film.

But the best part was talking to this incredibly serene (and impossibly attractive) couple about their lives in the bush, where they've happily made camp for the past 28 years, their experiences in such close proximity to these breathtaking lions, and their own emotional response to what they witnessed during the filming of this incredible documentary. I could've written another 5,000 words about them (and then snuck into their suitcase for their return to Botswana), but had to whittle it down to a newspaper-sized story. I hope you'll read it.

I also strongly encourage you get to the theater to see "Of Gods and Men," a beautiful portrait of brotherhood, faith, community and duty, directed by Xavier Beauvois. If you told me that I would walk out of the theater with a complete understanding why someone would opt for the quiet life of a Trappist monk in a small Algerian village, I would've said you were insane. But regardless of your feelings about religion, this incredibly acted ensemble film will take you to this place and leave you with complete acceptance of the choices and actions this close community of men take in the face of danger from a terrorist insurgence in their village. It's a peaceful, patient film and it's in French. See it. It should have won the foreign language Oscar, or at least have been nominated!

Have a safe and peaceful weekend all.