Movies on the Mind

Best Movies Of 2011 (of what I saw this year)

2012-01-26T00:24:00.000-06:00

Okay, I'm a bit late with this...but everything on the internet is either immediately forgotten or forever timeless, right? So I can shoot for timeless, and hope for the best.

Remember, this is not a best-of list for movies released in 2011, but of those I happened (managed) to see throughout the year. Usually for free, from the library (I'm kinda broke). And since I can't necessarily see everything I want to, these movies stand out from the bunch, because I'll watch anything I can get my eyes on...anything.

If you haven't seen these movies, see them! If you have, tell me what you think!

Black Swan
Brought me back into the Aronofsky camp (tentatively). I can't stand The Fountain and I hate The Wrestler, so I picked it up with some trepidation - but this is finally the same guy who made Pi & Requiem For A Dream, and I like that guy. His movies, anyway. And, Oscars aside, Natalie Portman is very good here. So are Mila Kunis, Winona Ryder, & Barbara Hershey. Truly, truly good.

(500) Days Of Summer
What I mainly respond to here is the emotional reality it portrays of being in a relationship that isn't what you thought it was or wanted it to be...in that regard, it's brilliant. It's also occasionally silly and broadly comic, but hey, it's a movie! And it has a wonderful balance of drama among the goofy jokes and full-on musical numbers.

Cold Souls
An inventive idea, well executed, with Paul Giamatti at his most Paul Giamattiish - playing a fictional version of himself. Often amazing, always enjoyable, and with many great little touches here and there. Must-watch deleted scenes on the DVD: variations of his literally soul-less rehearsals for Uncle Vanya. Utterly priceless, and hilarious.

Robin Hood
So what if Ridley Scott almost completely changed one of the most highly touted screenplays of the last few years! So what if Russell Crowe is the oldest actor (45 at the time) to play the role! It's a good story - conflict, action, a bit of romance - and a new look at a familiar legend. Judge it on its own terms and it's definitely entertaining.

Black Dynamite
I'm not even sure what to say about this; it speaks for itself so incredibly well. This movie is crazy funny, even if you've never seen an example of the films they're making fun of. Because you've certainly seen poorly made cinematic trash before, which is mainly what this movie celebrates. Honestly, just rent it. Just watch it. Guaranteed chuckles, I promise you.

How To Train Your Dragon
While there is a certain simplicity in the storytelling here, being a movie aimed at children, it's still funny, touching, and beautifully animated. No pandering to the audience, no stupid crap you often see in kid-friendly movies...just good old-fashioned fun. And no, it doesn't make sense that vikings would sound either Scottish or American, but come on - DRAGONS!

Coming soon: The Worst Of 2011. There will be swearing...

What An Asshole!

2011-11-27T21:35:00.000-06:00

Finally, the long-delayed sequel to movie Bitches: Assholes!

In terms of film history, there are a lot more to choose from here, as movies have a lot of villains - and villains tend to be Assholes. Rarely is the protagonist the Asshole, unless he becomes a better person by the end - like Bill Murray’s Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, a fine example of an Asshole protagonist.

So, given the depth & breadth of movie Assholes (ha ha), this is but a small selection of representatives. Spoilers abound, but these movies have been around a while; anything you didn’t know is your own fault. And again, apologies for any oddities in layout & formatting...if it bothers you, try not to be an asshole about it.

Mr. Blonde/Vic Vega (Michael Madsen) in Reservoir Dogs

The Psychopath Asshole
Yes, he is cool. And while he is also quite the badass, he did turn a simple robbery into a bloodbath, for no apparent reason other than he kinda felt like it. And what does he do, after shooting a bunch of people and getting several of his cohorts shot or killed? He shoves a rookie cop in his trunk, stops for a bite to eat, cuts off the poor guy’s ear, and prepares to burn him alive. Not exactly Mr. Normal here.

“If they hadn’t ‘a done what I told ‘em not to do, they’d still be alive.”

-----

Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson) in Clerks

The Vulgar Asshole
The antithesis of his best (and apparently only) friend Dante, Randal says whatever he thinks - and does whatever he wants - because he’s free to be himself. Unconcerned with whom he offends or how badly, he has no qualms about ordering a long list of porn videos over the phone in front of a little girl and her mom, or spitting water on a guy just to prove that title doesn’t dictate behavior. And the truth is, he’s not a bad person - he simply never bothers to keep his mouth shut.

“This job would be great if it wasn’t for the fuckin’ customers.”

-----

Biff Tannen (Thomas F Wilson) in Back To The Future

The Bully Asshole
One mark of a great performer is the ability to play a character very much unlike oneself - Tom Wilson, the actor, is in fact quite shy, and gentle, and sweet. Biff, on the other hand, torments and harasses every single person he interacts with: the McFlys, Lorraine, his group of so-called friends, even his grandmother (in Part II)...though she doesn’t seem especially fond of him either. We never get much more insight into his behavior, but clearly, he has issues.

“What’re you lookin’ at, butthead?”

-----

Hank Evans (Jim Carrey) in Me, Myself & Irene

The Unstable Asshole
Never mind the enormous lack of clinical accuracy regarding severe mental health concerns; Hank appears in the moments when Charlie - the nice guy host personality - is psychologically incapable of standing up for himself. But Hank’s been suppressed so long, once he’s loose he goes WAY overboard. He assaults several people, insults everyone else, destroys plenty of property...and leaves the mess for poor Charlie to clean up.

“Hey, ringworm...yeah I’m talkin’ to you, you toxic waste of life.”

-----

Hopper (Kevin Spacey) in A Bug’s Life

The Insecure Asshole
So what if it’s G-rated animation; an Asshole’s an Asshole! Hopper’s whole theory of life is this: knock the other guy down before he realizes he could knock you down. So while he and the other grasshoppers are three times the size of the ants, those ants outnumber them a hundred to one - and if the ants ever figure that out, those lazy grasshoppers might have to do something for themselves.

“If I hadn’t promised Mother, on her deathbed, that I wouldn’t kill you...I would kill you!”

-----

Ian Malcolm & Dennis Nedry (Jeff Goldblum & Wayne Knight) in Jurassic Park

The Genius Asshole
Two sides of the same obnoxious coin, they both think and act on the conviction they’re smarter than everyone around them - and they both pay for it. Their egos get them maimed, incapacitated, and in Nedry’s case, eaten. While it’s a good thing to use one’s superior knowledge in the advancement of science and understanding, it isn’t nice to rub everyone’s nose in it.

“Did I go too fast? I did a fly-by.”

“Ah-ah-ah...you didn’t say the magic word!”

-----

David (Dylan Moran) in Shaun of the Dead

The Uptight Asshole
The spoilsport, the party pooper, the guy who insists on disparaging everyone and everything under discussion or under way. He’s insulting, passive-aggressive, argumentative, and really shouldn’t have been pointing that gun at Shaun’s mum (even if she was a z-word). In his defense, he does finally stop whining and complaining - unless you count the screaming - once the hungry masses tear his limbs from his torso as they’re devouring it.

“Basically, I’d say your nine lives were up, Shaun.”

-----

Jim (Anthony Michael Hall) in Edward Scissorhands

The Jealous Asshole
At some point, he must have had a certain appeal - or Winona Ryder’s Kim wouldn’t be his girlfriend - but now he’s constantly abusive and demanding. When he sees a more respectful relationship developing between the “freak” he hates and the girl he loves (read: has chosen to possess as though she were property), he turns increasingly violent...and becomes one of 8 Assholes on this list to end up dead.

“Are you serious? Lose you to that? He isn’t even human!”

-----

Jasper Bloom (Rufus Sewell) in The Holiday

The Conceited Asshole
Selfish and self-centered, not only does he cheat on the women who love him, he uses them, coaxes them into taking care of things for him, and somehow still manages to make them desire his attention. He’s got such a ridiculous sense of entitlement that he literally can’t believe it - seriously; he would have considered it impossible if the idea could have even occurred to him - when Kate Winslet’s Iris finally frees herself from him emotionally.

“So you are eventually gonna look at me, aren’t you?”

-----

Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy) in Bowfinger

The Movie Star Asshole
Kit does have genuine psychological issues - and the movie’s protagonists are certainly messing with him - but that’s no excuse for constantly berating everyone around him. He also looks for trouble where there is none, scanning a script to count the instances of the letter K and calling it a racist conspiracy when that number (1456) is divisible by three (which it isn’t). He’s gotten so used to being treated like a superstar he expects every whim to be catered to - no matter how crazy he sounds.

“I’m the biggest black action star in the world! Where’s my ‘Hasta la vista, baby’ ? If Arnold Schwarzencracker is gettin’ to say lines like that, you better make sure that Kit Ramsey has shit that’s equally well-written!”

-----

Kent Mansley (Christopher McDonald) in The Iron Giant

The Government Asshole
McDonald has built a career out of playing characters nobody likes, and Mansley is no exception. He’s paranoid, xenophobic, and constantly struggling to prove his worth, even to people he looks down upon. He is so hell-bent on destroying the Giant - with no other reason than he doesn’t know where it came from therefore it must be dangerous - he launches a nuclear missile into a town full of people, including himself. And then tries to run away!

“I’m not at liberty to reveal the particulars of the agency I work for...and all that that implies.”

-----

Kim Jong Il (Trey Parker) in Team America: World Police

The Grandiose Asshole
No, I am not going to quote the movie's speech about assholes; I’m sure it’s easily found elsewhere. But just what is the little guy’s problem? Napoleon complex? No hugs during childhood? Whatever his issues, he’s nice to nobody...and if he is, he’s only setting them up for an imminent attack. He’ll settle for nothing less than complete world domination - even if he has to blow up most of the world to get it. And that, movie friends, is what makes him such a huge, gaping Asshole.

“Do you have any idea how fucking busy I am?!”

-----

Honorable Mentions:

Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) in The Matrix

The Digital Asshole

Drexl Spivey (Gary Oldman) in True Romance

The Wannabe Asshole

AUTO (MacInTalk) in WALL-E

The Misguided Asshole

What A Bitch!

2010-02-23T04:13:00.001-06:00

(Sorry about the awkward formatting, but my design skills are limited to verbal, not visual, and I can't figure out how to get this damn thing to look the way I want. We just have to deal.)

Her flaws are obvious: she’s mean, she’s loud, she does bad things to good people and she’s not a nice person. But she’s a great character. And either we love her, or we love to hate her.

Jennifer Grey as Jeannie in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is generally regarded as the queen of lovable movie bitches - and I certainly won’t disagree - but I thought I’d list a few others worth appreciating.

“Go piss up a flagpole.” - The Queen Bitch

-----

Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) in Fight Club

The Unrepentant Bitch

She smokes constantly, steals food & laundry, screams during sex, and hangs around support groups for free drama and coffee. Marla is proof that even a woman with the harshest mouth and the poorest attitude has a soft side...somewhere.

“Here comes an avalanche of bullshit.”

-----

Delia Deetz (Catherine O’Hara) in Beetlejuice

The Harpy Bitch

Possibly the funniest bitch ever, and a great broad performance in what has long been my favorite movie. What makes the character work is that she doesn’t realize what a pain she is - she thinks she’s doing everyone a favor by yelling at them and demanding her way. Delia truly believes everyone would be so much happier if they would only shut up and do what she says.

“If you don't let me gut out this house and make it my own, I will go insane, and I will take you with me!”

-----

Kitty Farmer (Beth Grant) in Donnie Darko

The Busybody Bitch

She doesn’t raise cats, but she does antagonize everybody with her delusional self-righteousness and constant complaining. Like Delia, she truly believes she’s doing the right thing; unlike Delia, she actually thinks she’s being nice about it, and isn’t aware how little most people think of her. I don’t know another character who’s gotten on everyone’s nerves yet been so funny at the same time.

“Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!”

-----

Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) in Misery

The Crazy Bitch

Actually the sweetest, nicest, most caring & decent person you could ever ask to nurse you back to health in an isolated place...of course, she’s also obsessed, possessive, dominating, vengeful, and completely insane. When Annie wants you to stay in your room - you stay in your room, or you get hobbled.

“You just better start showing me a little appreciation around here, Mr. Man!”

-----

Carolyn Burnham (Annette Bening) in American Beauty

The Judgemental Bitch

Such a well-drawn character, and indeed a nomination-worthy performance, of a woman who tries so hard to be how she wants people to see her, she forgets who she really is and used to be. She insults, she derides, she chastises, but underneath it all Carolyn just wants to feel valued. A bitch who wasn’t always one, and could be reformed with a little time and a lot of love.

“Are you trying to look unattractive? Well, congratulations, you’ve succeeded admirably.”

-----

Asami (Eihi Shiina) in Audition

The Torturous Bitch

Just when you think you’ve found the perfect young woman to alleviate your terrible loneliness after the death of your wife, she injects paralyzing sedatives under your eyelids and saws off your limbs with surgical wire. Oh, darn. And she seemed so nice and sweet and submissive until you didn’t call when she expected you to.

“Words create lies. Pain can be trusted.”

-----

Darian (Danielle Harris) in The Last Boy Scout

The Bitch-In-Training

A foul-mouthed little almost-teen who treats Dad exactly like Mom does: without an ounce of respect. She yells at Bruce Willis, insults Damon Wayans, and hides a gun in a hand-puppet cat named Furry Tom. Harris was so good in the role she acquired an obsessed fan who came to her house with a gun - which is not cool, by the way. As great as these characters are, they don’t exist once the movie’s over. Try to remember that, folks.

“Kiss my ass! Is that clear enough?”

-----

Ellen (Mary Kate Schellhardt) in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape

The Teen Bitch

The youngest in a family of odd people and no father, because he hanged himself before she was born. Everything she does or says is about her, everything that matters to her should matter to everybody, and everyone she finds cause to disagree with will certainly get an earful. However - she’s just trying to find her place in the world, and it’s hard to fault her for that. Abrasive and self-centered she may be, but she always turns the corner to forgiveness, and in the end she puts her family first.

“I’m almost sixteen, and I got pages of ideas. He never does anything; this is no fair, Mom!”

-----

Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) in Shrek

The Stuck Up Bitch

She may be a princess, but, dang - show a little gratitude when someone risks their life for you, okay? Still - she can cook, she kicks ass, she’s as nasty as you are, and if you get an arrow in your butt she’ll pluck it out. Fiona may be a pain, but if you can put up with her long enough she’ll turn into a friend you can count on.

“I'm supposed to be rescued by my true love, not by some ogre and his pet!”

-----

Lori (Sharon Stone) in Total Recall

The Murderous Nympho Bitch

Okay, so she’s part of an interplanetary conspiracy to brainwash you as long as possible then kill you - she’s also super-hot and deflects every single conversation toward getting laid instead of talking. Director Paul Verhoeven liked Stone’s portrayal so much he cast her in his next film, Basic Instinct, playing essentially the same character (a murderous nympho) in a different environment. And that would be The Intellectual Bitch, but I’m not putting Catherine Tramell on this list because...well, she just doesn’t interest me.

“If you don’t trust me, you can tie me up...”

-----

Pamela Finklestein (Fran Drescher) in UHF

The Whiny Bitch

Essentially a decent person overall, but that first moment of complete frustration when she meets Weird Al’s George Newman, and his immediate reaction? Never stops being funny.

“It's kind of hard to get promoted when every other week you have a new boss! This job really sucks!”

-----

Mystery Woman (Carrie Fisher) in The Blues Brothers

The Tough Bitch

We never even get her name, but after trying to shoot and/or blow up our heroes several times without success, one sweet look from the ever-passionate Jake is enough to melt her fiery heart...and then leave her in the mud once again. This bitch is fiercely loyal and endlessly determined, making her a terrific woman to have by your side - just don’t leave her waiting in celibacy for you.

“For the common good, I must now kill you...and your brother.”

-----

There are plenty more lovable bitches in movie history; I didn’t even venture into movies from outside my own lifetime. So let’s hear from the gallery: who’s your favorite bitch?

(Next time: equal time for assholes!)

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-11-21T17:48:00.019-06:00

Slumdog Millionaire won 8 Oscars. It was a struggle to fund, produce, & distribute. It is admired, beloved, and a tremendous emotional experience to millions of viewers around the world. It's also one of the most horribly contrived and predictable piles of crap I've seen in a long time.

Don't boo me, fans; I am actually an easy mark when it comes to epic tales of oft-delayed romance which turn out wonderful and beautiful in the end - I am indeed a sap, tears always at the ready - but when the plot points along the way are as forced as these, I'm gonna call foul. (The Notebook has the exact same qualities; I also hate that movie while wanting to like it.) And even putting aside the message of the film that money solves all problems - a message I find incredibly demeaning and insulting, even if probably true - most of the trouble these characters get into, or don't get out of, is their own fault.

Why is it so difficult for Jamal and Latika to stick together? Because they don't try to, until it suits the story. Even as adults, she has the chance to leave with him, and she doesn't, because "it's too late." Give me a break; if you want to go just go! And don't anyone claim she's afraid to leave because she's abused; that would be your assumption - the movie doesn't create that situation or that character. The filmmakers have the characters do what they want them to do to retain their story structure, whether it makes sense or not.

When they're still kids, Jamal listens to his brother Salim and doesn't go back for Latika, even though Salim left her behind for no reason. Years later, Salim kicks Jamal out because he wants Latika for his own purposes...but why? Because they're teenagers now and he's got the hots for her? Why her and not any other girl? What about looking after his little brother, and why doesn't Jamal do anything to keep track of them? It was so stupid...I thought Salim was forcing him out for one night, to have his way with the girl while he had a chance - because that's how the filmmakers sold it - but the story just skips ahead a few years like that was the end of it. This is poor story structure, and lousy character motivation.

And these are just the things they're doing to themselves - the situations that are forced upon them are so ridiculous and predictable that I absolutely did not care about anything that happened. Why is the host of the show telling a contestant he's going to lose, then secretly giving him wrong answers? What's the point of that? It's movie bullshit, and I hate fake drama. A character's actions have to be believable for that character...so a despicable person can certainly do despicable things, but that character has to have a reason he or she believes in...when it's just for the sake of giving your hero a moment of antagonism, it's movie bullshit.

So let's talk about predictability...yes, the movie will end with the hero and heroine safely reunited, all is well, blah blah blah that's a given and I'm very accepting of that. Right near the beginning, they're talking about The Three Musketeers, and how they didn't learn the name of the third one...gee, think that'll be the final question? What a shocker. The kids are saved from living in the dump by a nice man who gives them cold soda in glass bottles; think he'll turn out to be an evil scumbag with ulterior motives? Whuh-oh! And if that weren't already clear enough, we are treated to a scene in which the kids, happily eating lots and lots of food, talk about the nice man and discuss his eligibility for sainthood...golly, he really had them fooled! Such garbage in this movie, and a lot more than they showed at the landfill.

Near the end, when Salim lets Latika go (like we never saw his moment of redemption coming, though why he's such as ass in the first place is never established or motivated) he gives her his phone and makes a point to tell her to always keep it with her...and we know Jamal hasn't used his phone-a-friend lifeline yet, so when she gets out of a car in stalled traffic then goes to watch the live (ha!) broadcast of the show and Jamal uses the lifeline to call his brother, oh no she's left the phone in the car and has to run to get it before it stops ringing and Jamal won't be able to ask for help with the question and the whole thing is SO incredibly fucking awful I can't even continue to describe it without wanting to punch myself in the head. Do people really like this dreck?

Don't get me wrong - the film is beautifully made, and would be absolutely exhilarating to watch if it weren't so friggin' stupid. Just because I'm a reformed cynic doesn't mean I can't spot bullshit when I see it, and doesn't mean I'm now easily impressed. The things these filmmakers put the main character through, in order to show the trials he must endure to emerge victorious...complete nonsense. Is it really necessary, for the purposes of the story, to have Jamal beaten and tortured under suspicion of fraud in order to make him an underdog? No...but the filmmakers want him to be tread upon, so they have him beaten and tortured. They could just as easily have framed their story any other way, with Jamal telling his story of how he knew the answers. Because anyone within the story who already doesn't believe he didn't cheat isn't going to buy his explanation, either. If he were telling someone who would see it as he does - that it's destiny - the audience would then identify with the listener and find it fascinating. Even a reformed cynic would be fascinated...if the details weren't so incredibly pointless.

He knew Samuel Colt invented the revolver because his brother pointed a gun at him...he knew Benjamin Franklin is on the U.S. $100 bill because a tourist gave him one and his blind friend told him who it was...this is supposed to be a big deal? He knew things because information was presented to him at some point and he remembered it? Is that somehow unique? Don't we all do that? And if you want to analyze it, the difficulty of the show and others like it isn't simply knowing the information, it's being able to recall it under the circumstances, and the pressure...that's the hard part. Besides, I didn't actually notice his brother saying anything about who invented the revolver he was pointing at him...he did call it a Colt, but he didn't go into a brief lecture on the inventor.

What we have here is a mix of meaningful events in his life that don't actually present the necessary information, and relatively meaningless events that do present the precise information eventually needed on the show. He even answered a question with information that doesn't seem to have been presented to him in any way connected with the story being told in relation to that question...in fact it's so irrelevant we're even shown a repeat flashback of particular images, to make sure we know where the reference was...and this ain't the only flashback for that purpose. This is not a tightly-written screenplay, this is forcing the plot to go a certain way in order to manipulate the desired results. Bad bad bad bad bad.

Frankly it just sickens me when people allow themselves to be manipulated by such drivel. Apologies to those who love this movie, but I honestly had a stronger emotional reaction to Rocky Balboa...because the story itself is well-crafted. It isn't forced. And I'm not even a Rocky fan. That's just an example, because I saw it recently - and not a great movie by any stretch though perfectly decent - but if pressed I could probably name other movies I found more moving that haven't had nearly the impact on others which Slumdog has.

Being a writer, I mainly judge a movie on how well the story works in and of itself. This has good acting, interesting camerawork, solid editing, swell music (if occasionally incongruous with the scene it plays over), and an interesting concept - but they try so hard to make all the little pieces work together, that none of it works at all. And I wish more people were not taken in by this, or fooled by it. That continues to be my wish.

District 9

2009-08-13T22:23:00.010-05:00

I don't get out much. Not to the movies, anyway. It's mostly a time and money thing, mainly the lack of one or both, but also, I'm rarely interested enough in a new movie to spend both time and money to go see it. Not because I don't like movies; I love movies...I just like movies that are good, interesting, compelling, entertaining - and not dumbed-down crapfests aimed at people who don't know any better. Thankfully, my wonderful friend Grace (who indubitably knows better) obtained free passes to an advance screening last night of District 9, I had time to go, and now that I've seen it, I'm actually willing to spend both time and money to see it again. It is that good.

I am, in general, supportive of the "summer movie" that is all about action & spectacle and light on story, as long as whatever story it does have actually works. I may not see those movies, but I support their existence. District 9 isn't one of those movies; it isn't light on anything. It's packed full of action & satire, sympathetic heroes & snarling villains, political commentary & brutal alien weaponry...plus the aliens themselves, which almost never appear to be special effects, even though they are. They look like they're right there in the scene, interacting with props & humans. Sometimes the humans are the props...

What makes this movie work is that the aliens not only don't look like special effects, they're not treated like them either. They're simply characters in the film, a part of the story. No special attention is paid to them; no one is saying "Look at all the work our animators put into making them look awesome, don't they look awesome?" They do, but that isn't the point. They're part of the scene, and only the focus of the scene when the story requires it.

The story itself does not quite go in the direction one might expect. Early in the film, bureaucrat-in-the-field Wikus Van Der Merwe is in the process of evicting aliens from their shacks (during an extended documentary-style opening that is constantly fascinating and entertaining) when he is accidentally exposed to some type of alien fluid...while it's easy to guess what effect this fluid will have on him, the direction the movie takes in the progression of events is not where I thought it would go...and I appreciate that. So if you think the movie is going to be about the widespread effect of these aliens on the Earth's environment...you will be quite happy with the unexpected.

What makes it work is that it doesn't turn into that type of global story; it's a personal story. It actually starts out bigger, with many people involved, and slowly narrows itself down to just a few individuals. And in the midst of this fascinating tale, there are great action scenes, smart writing, quality humor, and extremely heavy satire that doesn't feel heavy at all. The writing and direction maintain the tone of the sci-fi/action movie, when what it's really about is something much more serious and thought-provoking. That's what good science fiction does - creates a story of what is not, while reflecting what is.

Social commentary aside, the movie just kicks ass. It slows down a bit in the middle, but not long enough to lose interest, and there are certainly a few moments throughout where one might question the filmmakers' judgement ("Go on!" "No, I'm not leaving you behind!"), but overall it's just really damn good. The previously unknown lead actor gives an incredibly terrific performance, all the more impressive considering he'd never acted before, and spent much of his screen time talking to characters who weren't even on the set. The action is shot and edited so you can actually see what's going on, instead of most movies where it's cut up so hysterically that I can't even tell what I just saw. And no slow-motion shots at all, if I recall correctly - because when people use slo-mo in their action scene, they just want it to look cool. They usually don't care about the story, and the story in District 9 is definitely driving the film.

Toward the end of the movie, when there's a lot more action and very little downtime, it isn't just about shooting and blowing things up - the actions of the characters are very emotionally motivated. There's truly something at stake for them, good and bad, from beginning to end, and that kind of thing is what makes this film so much more rewarding. Nothing is overdone, everything is well-thought out, and I am thoroughly impressed with the storytelling. Absolutely the best movie I've seen this year. I can hardly wait to see it again.

Redbelt

2009-07-06T17:07:00.009-05:00

So I lied again, unintentionally of course, and haven't been out to see a new movie. Things don't always work out the way you plan, and people don't always do what they say they will. It doesn't matter; I decided I'm going to review any movie I see on DVD that I feel is worth writing about, good or bad, so at least I'll be writing. And today, that movie worth writing about is David Mamet's Redbelt.

I hated it. I started out thinking this movie was maybe pretty good but not quite as together as it should be, but by the time is was over I was angry for having seen it. Has Mamet written & directed some incredible films? Sure. Do I like some of them? Absolutely. I really like State & Main, and Heist is a guilty pleasure - it's enjoyable and entertaining and fun to watch and is certainly not what I'd call a brilliant piece of cinema...but it's a good movie. Redbelt is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to start.

How about we start with Mamet. Whenever anyone talks about his writing, they first mention the dialogue. And throughout his career he's written some great dialogue. None of that made it into this script. Here's a small sample:

"You ain't got no bouncer?"
"Just weekends now."
"Officer Joe?"
"Joey the cop? Quit."
"Why'd Joe quit?"
"Hold on a second."
"Officer Joe, why'd he quit?"
"What?"
"Why'd Joe quit?"
"'Cause Bruno wasn't payin' him. They never paid him."
"They never paid him?"

Half the movie is like that...all sorts of repetitive dialogue, and people repeating things as a question. I kept waiting for someone to spout off, something like "What the fuck did I just say? Why do you keep repeating what I say with a fuckin' question mark on the end of it?" But no one did. This is not good dialogue, because it's neither interesting nor entertaining, and it has to be one or the other if it's not going to be realistic. And that little snippet quoted above isn't even the whole conversation; I left out the part with another guy interrupting them, talking about sleight-of-hand magic as he's doing it, which, gee, you think might be important somehow later on in the story?

Speaking of the story, it's a big mess. Like all Mamet films, there's some kind of long con, a grand scheme that ties up the hero in a big knot and we're supposed to hope he finds a way to untie it - only in this movie, there's no point to what they're doing. Call this a spoiler if you like, but apparently a whole bunch of people wanted to get this one guy to fight on the undercard of a mixed martial arts championship so they could fix the fight without him knowing and have him win...but if all they wanted was a fixed fight, why go through the trouble of forcing Mr. Honest Goody-Goody into debt so he'd go against his principles and enter a competition? They had their plan in place to fix all the fights, so why the big scheme? Why involve this guy in the first place? Pointless.

There's an incident early in the story when a woman accidentally fires a police officer's own gun at him, breaking a window. Supposedly this is what sets the whole story in motion, but the entire sequence is so ridiculously staged & shot that nothing which follows it is at all believable. The woman even picks up the ejected shell casing and hands it to the officer - which anyone would do in that situation, naturally! And of course this puts her fingerprints on it, but that won't be an issue later in the story, will it?

The main character just happens to see things that clue him in to the scam being run on him, to the fixed fights, and any viewer with at least half a brain should be asking "Why are these people doing these things right then?" Why is the sleight-of-hand magician "practicing" in front of a mirror in his dressing room with the door open, doing the very same trick he expertly performed right in front of the main character earlier in the movie? So we the audience will realize it was all a setup? Isn't that just a little too convenient, story-wise? Isn't Mamet supposed to be better than this? Shouldn't anyone making this kind of movie be better than this?

Considering this is meant to be a fight movie, the climactic scene involving our hero and his strongest opposition is one of the most boring movie fights I've ever seen. And all he was trying to do was get to the ring and tell everyone the fights were fixed. Just get up to the ring! But the champion, who's agreed to have his own fight fixed, stands in his way. At least I think it was the champion; a lot of minor characters are never properly introduced. Anyway, he's got to fight the champion in order to get to the microphone and tell everyone why he dropped out of his own scheduled fight, but everyone ends up just watching him fight the champion down on the floor instead of in the ring.

So he finally wins this incredibly dull fight and gets into the ring and just stands there, until his mentor, who just happened to be in the crowd, comes up and gives him the red belt, of which there is apparently only one, though we're never told what it's for, or why the old guy carries it around with him, and the movie is over. Sorry to spoil the ending, but if you're reading this far I should hope you decided not to see the movie. We're meant to assume the red belt is given to the most honorable something-or-other, or the master, or some big shot who's somehow better or more important than anyone else. But what it really means, who knows? And who cares. The whole movie is worthless.

The actors are good, but what does it matter when their words and actions are so ridiculous? Director of photography Robert Elswit won an Oscar for his previous film, There Will Be Blood, but Mamet has the most annoying habit in this film of framing many compositions so an object or person is obstructing the view of whatever or whomever we're meant to be looking at. I don't know if that's a conscious choice and it's supposed to mean something, or merely the result of a haphazard shooting method, but either way it's really annoying and doesn't serve a purpose. A good director who composes shots with obstructed views does it in a way that doesn't annoy the viewer's eye and actually conveys meaning - check out Wong Kar Wai's In The Mood For Love for a prime example - but here it's just crap filmmaking.

The worst part of all this is the DVD extras, which is full of people talking about how brilliant David Mamet is, the great dialogue, the layered storytelling....people, reputation has to be maintained, okay? Past work means nothing on current projects. Just because it's Mamet doesn't mean it's great. It has to be great on its own. And this falls far, far short.

Back In The Fiddle-Faddle

2009-05-19T12:11:00.010-05:00

That title makes sense - because I don't ride horses, but I do occasionally eat popcorn, and this page is about movies, so...well I only said that it made sense, not that it was funny or accurate.

It's been a long, LONG winter which has finally subsided, and I believe the time is nigh that I'll be seeing more new movies, thus giving me greater purpose to actually write something here. I have been watching a lot of older movies at home, and kept meaning to mention them here, but the semester was just too crazy to let up and I simply couldn't manage. I even saw a new movie, in a theater, before it officially opened, and absolutely intended to review it here, but...no such luck.

That movie was The Merry Gentleman, screened at the Midwest Independent Film Festival, and I like it enough to recommend it - though the film is not without its problems. A well-written script by Ron Lazzeretti, a wonderful performance by Kelly Macdonald, and a decent directing debut from co-star Michael Keaton make the film worth seeing. The pacing is too slow in spots, it doesn't quite have an ending, and large portions of some characters' motivations don't always make sense...but if you need a break from comic books, tv shows, and sequels with big explosions, it's still playing in a few theaters.

So, with that accomplished, I will be back within a week, spouting a brand new diatribe or exaltation, and maybe a new haircut. Thanks for reading!

Andy

Southland Tales

2008-10-26T11:26:00.008-05:00

Ever watch a movie late at night, when you're really tired, and find yourself utterly clueless what is going on in the movie because you're dozing off for several seconds every few minutes? This was my experience watching Southland Tales, except it wasn't that late, and I was wide awake every second. Yet still I kept feeling like I'd missed something.

The structure is a complete mess. It has the feel of a movie that was much longer until the studio or distributor forced some edits for a decent running time. Within the story's timeline, days seem to pass while some characters do nothing but drive from one place to another, never leaving the city...yet other characters manage to traverse citywide distances in almost no time at all, from one scene to the next. Some characters are unconscious until the plot requires them to wake up, whether it's a few minutes or several hours, while others never seem to eat or sleep or even leave their rooms. I know the movie is supposed to have an otherworldly quality to it, and the nature of our known existence may not always apply, but still...even an alternate reality has to have structural integrity - rules of its own - which is not being upheld here. It's a big ol' convoluted mess.

I am a fan of Donnie Darko, more so the director's cut, and I use that as an example of Richard Kelly's ability to set up alternate realities, with different rules from our own, and abide by them. He doesn't do that here. He's attempted something so big and so far-reaching that he can't contain it within this movie. I suppose that's why there are three graphic novels leading up to the events of the movie, but guess what - if the movie doesn't make sense on its own, it isn't a good movie. If I don't know what the movie's about after thirty-five minutes, the filmmakers have done a poor job of telling the story.

For you Southland fans out there, please don't try to tell me I wasn't paying attention, or it's a movie you have to think about, or it was just over my head - I'm a pretty smart guy, and I've seen a lot of movies. I get that it's meant to be political satire in the realm of science fiction. I get that it's a story about things that don't always make sense and therefore it's not always going to make sense. Donnie Darko did the same thing, with psychological issues instead of political issues, and that movie makes perfect sense to me. The difference is in the storytelling, and the story is not being told here as much as it is merely being referenced...as if the movie is made for people who are already fans of, and therefore familiar with, the Southland universe.

I believe it is clear to me what Richard Kelly is attempting to do - it's just not working. He's trying to make a satire, a comedy, by casting mostly comic actors and having them play their roles seriously. But the movie isn't funny. The tone is not funny, or odd, or comedic or sarcastic in any way. It's a bit full of itself, but accomplishes nothing more than making the apparently serious not so serious. The cast is diverse and interesting, including five SNL cast members, one from MADtv, and even Christopher Lambert! What purpose their characters serve in the story, however...I have no idea. I will give Seann William Scott a lot of credit, for turning in a very interesting and more dramatic performance than he usually provides, because he's typically a comic actor in a comic film, and it's nice to see that he's capable of more. Too bad the movie itself doesn't support him.

There's a voice over narration from Justin Timberlake that feels useless and tacked on, a long music video right in the middle of the movie that serves no real purpose, many sequences that go on and on and do nothing but establish mood that doesn't relate to the story in any recognizable way...no real beginning, anti-climactic ending, and two, yes TWO separate third act instances of the jesus christ pose, which is such a pretentious and cliched image to put in your movie, at least when you're so obvious about it, that all I can do is scoff at what a dumb idea it was. And they did it twice.

Hopefully this is one of those things where a writer/director makes a popular, respected movie his first time out, totally craps a big one on the second film, then gets his act together for the third. So I will be looking forward to The Box next year, though I must point out that in adapting a story by the legendary Richard Matheson, Kelly has a lot going for his third film out of the gate - less to prove, more to start with, and a better chance of being able to simply focus on making a good film instead of "doing his thing".

Southland Tales is a big stinking mess. I get it, but I don't like it. The movie isn't whole enough to be appreciated. People who like it may be fooling themselves into thinking confusing means thoughtful, that weird and different is always good and better. Not so. Just watch the director's cut of Donnie Darko again. That's what a weird movie with true depth should be like, and the more I watch it, the more I appreciate it.

Oh, and, Earth to Netflix: the film is not 1 hour 40 minutes, nor 140 minutes; it's actually longer than that. And The Rock is not is this movie. Dwayne Johnson is, but The Rock receives no credit. Get your facts straight, please.

Cult Favorites

2008-08-22T12:53:00.012-05:00

Yes, I'm finally getting around to this. I've been busy writing and working and studying and earning A's in all my classes; that's right! And I decided it's wrong to call these classics, because none of these movies are what I'd truly term classical in any sense. But they're definitely favorites just outside the mainstream, and that gives them a certain clout - a respect, for the half-assed brilliance they exhibit. For their unique oddness, for the oddity of their uniqueness. They're different but familiar. And they're my friggin' choices, so, there's possibly some kind of theme buried within the subtext here. I tend to do that. I also tend to put things in some kind of order, so here's the chronological:

Midnight Madness
It's goofy, it's silly, it's corny, it's part of the bridge from 70's punk to 80's pop...okay not so much the latter, but come on! Co-starring Michael J. Fox as a teenager, when he actually still was one! David Naughton post-Dr. Pepper and pre-American Werewolf! Stephen Furst as a villain instead of the sap from Animal House! Eddie Deezen & Paul Reubens in the same movie!! It's been spoofed on Robot Chicken, for Leon's sake! If you were born in the 60's or 70's, check it out. It'll take you back.

A Muppet Family Christmas
Okay, so it's a t.v. special, not a movie. So what. It has two important qualities that make it a cult favorite: it's a one-shot deal that combines & crosses over previously set boundaries of fictional realms defined by its own creators, and, it's unavailable in its original form. First, Jim Henson was still alive, so the show has all the magic (and voices) that made the Muppets what they were. Second, the show has characters from different parts of the Muppet universe that had never interacted before, and I don't believe they have since, for the most part - folks from the Muppet Show & Sesame Street, all in the same place? There'd been some crossover there before, but not like this...even the Muppet Babies put in an appearance. And the Fraggles turn up! Do you have any idea how weird that is? It's freakin' awesome, okay? Fraggles rock!

It's no longer available in its original form because, I believe, they don't have the rights to some of the songs, so the current video & DVD releases are missing some scenes, and otherwise edited. Also, Disney owns Henson productions, or at least some of the distribution rights, and they're always chopping things up to suit whatever stupid crappy concept they have for it. They suck. The good news is, there are still old recordings and VHS copies of the original special, and while I'm not lucky enough to own one, I would certainly recommend tracking it down if you have the means. Or you could always buy it for me.

UHF
I'm one of the dozen or so people who actually saw this during its ludicrously brief theatrical release in the summer of 1989. And it only cost $1 - back when there were second-run theaters, this could happen! Totally worth it. It was funny then and it's funny now. It's not the most eloquent of films, and the production values are often laughable, though sometimes this is intentional...a good farcical parody (or parodic farce) is hard to find, you know? It's going to be cheesy and cheap if it's going to be good. Look at all the junk they're churning out these days - Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Scary Movie 3...I think it's mainly the same group of guys (you know it's guys; women don't produce this kind of work) pooping them out, stinking up the cinematic landscape. Weird Al is a genius god next to these losers. Even Michael Richards was still talented back then - if there's an Oscar equivalent for playing a dumbass goofball, he earned it here.

Freaked
Not a very widely known film, but that's what makes it a cult favorite. If you ever wondered what happened to Alex Winter, widely recognized as Bill S Preston Esq. of Bill & Ted...well, this movie pretty much tells that story - he turned into a hideous mutated freak and moved behind the camera. It has those same qualities as UHF that make it fun - cheap and cheesy, with good comic timing. Randy Quaid as an evil madman! Keanu Reeves as an uncredited Dog-Boy! A cameo by David Bowe from UHF! Shakespeare with monsters! A movie doesn't always have to be good to be good, if you know what I mean...as long as it isn't lousy.

S.F.W.
This movie is a product of its time - I'm not sure people really get it anymore. Folks of a certain generation will recognize the discontent complacency, the desire to change one's life without making an effort...I know these are contradictory sentiments, but that's what it does. It shows how meaningless life can feel, as if all anyone could do is go along for the ride, whatever the ride is. The movie reflects this, the music reflects this, and Stephen Dorff's performance says it all. He exists, but he's not doing anything about it.

I wouldn't say anything in this movie is brilliant, exactly, but it certainly captures the essence of its own story, by making it a semi-comic satire of the world around it, and within it. Besides, it's got a young Reese Witherspoon...the "fuckin' special" version of Radiohead's first big hit 'Creep'...Jake Busey as a douchebag! You can't go wrong, if you look at it right.

I left out things like Creepshow & Killer Klowns From Outer Space because...well, I've talked about those before, and they're more widely accepted for being what they are, or more well known, or something. I just didn't want to, okay? And no promises this time regarding my next topic, or its expected date of publishment. I does what I does and we'll sees what that is. Thanks for reading!

The Mist

2008-03-27T15:16:00.011-05:00

Okay, so I haven't written anything for a while. I've been busy. And I have seen a few movies since Michael Clayton, but not much that really warranted reviewing, and nothing I had time for. While I have not forgotten about my intended Cult Classics post, it's just going to have to wait. Because I really want to point out how much I hate The Mist.

I heard good things about it. It got decent reviews. They said it was a quality B-movie, suspenseful, creepy...I was totally up for that. I was even willing to give Frank Darabont a chance to prove he might actually be capable of becoming a quality writer/director. Yes, I am one of those people who hates The Shawshank Redemption, because it has some good qualities but is overwritten and overdirected and is possibly the most overrated movie I've ever seen; even the word "overrated" doesn't have quite enough hyperbole for me. But we're talking about The Mist, and since I made a point to put my negative opinion of Darabont aside in order to watch this movie, anyone who disagrees with me about his films in general should put their positive opinion aside and look at The Mist on its own terms. Doing that, I honestly don't know how anyone could even call it decent. It's truly awful.

There is no suspense. There are long drawn out periods in which people talk about bullshit and nothing happens; that's not suspense. Suspense is when there's a thick mist surrounding a full supermarket and nobody knows what's out there...this would be great but it doesn't last, because the first thing that really happens to anyone is when a giant tentacle grabs some idiot bag boy and drags him outside to the loading dock. Okay, so, now we know: there are monsters out there. Suspense over. This is very early in the story. Once you know that, it seems pretty clear: don't go outside. But some people don't believe there are monsters, and when those who've seen the tentacle finally get around to showing those who haven't, oh gee, it suddenly dissolves into a big puddle. How unfortunate. No wait, I mean, how fucking stupid.

That's just the first monster. Later there are cat-sized bugs, and eagle-sized bird/dragon things that eat the bugs. Then big spiders, then giant crab-thingies, and so on. Of course, these monsters are always hungry when people go outside, but never actually try to get into the supermarket. And the same monsters never come back, even after discovering a ready source of food. How convenient for the story, so it can continue introducing newer and bigger and scarier monsters without needing any motivation or plot progression to do so.

I don't even know what to say about the anti-religious aspect of the human conflict. And I'm not a big fan of religion, but if you take out the wacko religious nut character, then these people are doing absolutely nothing, and as it is all they do is talk talk talk talk talk and never act. Often they don't even react, and when they do, they do the stupidest thing possible. They notice all these big bugs landing on the window, so what do they do? Each and every person who is holding a lantern carries it over to the window to get a closer look at the bugs. Um, bugs are attracted to light, duh. One guy even says this, and so what happens after that? Some other guy flips on all their emergency floodlights they've set up around the store, after stating the floodlights are only for when something is in the store and they need these lights to see them. So once they realize oh, maybe we shouldn't have all these dozens of lights on for no reason, they still don't turn them off. They stand around, screaming, or just watching what's going on.

That's a big problem in this movie. Say there are half a dozen people in one scene, and if there are tentacles or bugs or spiders attacking one or two people, the rest of them aren't doing anything. They look on in horror or scream or something. Now I know some might defend this and call it human nature or lack of bravery or something, I mean yeah it's probably not an easy thing to do to put yourself in harm's way when there are giant spiders attacking someone you barely know, but...this is a movie. It's pretty damn boring to watch a bunch of people stand around watching something, then talk about it later for ten minutes. They need to do something! So many times in this movie, people don't run when any normal person would move his ass. They just stand there. Sometimes, they stand there screaming. Stop looking at the big spider and get the fuck out! Pacing is a big problem in the movie, because of things like this; it's nearly two hours when it could easily be twenty minutes shorter, and additionally, it never feels like the story is moving because none of the characters are moving! Literally, not moving! They stand there whenever something happens, instead of acting or reacting. This is simply bad direction.

These may seem like little things, like nitpicking, but these are the things that make bad storytelling. Characters and actions, monster or human or otherwise, need to be motivated. You don't create tension or suspense by not having a number of characters run when the audience is thinking it's time to leave...those characters have to have some kind of motivation not to run, something that outweighs their fear. Stupidity can outweigh fear, but you also have to motivate stupidity. You have to motivate everything, and you have to do it from inside the story, not out. You can't have one character accidentally knock over a bucket of lighter fluid and set himself on fire just because you want your movie to have a guy who gets burned very badly. You have to motivate the story element of the bucket being knocked over. He can't just walk into it, oops, now I'm on fire...that's fucking stupid.

All the characters are one-dimensional or less. Mostly less. The dialogue is bad. The acting is bad. The writing is bad. After the tentacles kill that one guy, everyone who witnessed it stands around talking about how they're going to tell everybody; half of them are drinking cans of beer (thank you product-placement team!) like buddies at a barbecue...why? That's easy - so the main guy who doesn't believe they saw a monster can say he doesn't believe them because they're drinking. Ooh, what a tough situation; how will they convince him now? It's fucking stupid. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but there's no better way to put it.

I'd heard there was some controversy to the ending, in addition to some people calling it brilliant and others saying it was just wrong, and I honestly don't know what they're talking about - there is no ending. Yes, seriously. Nothing happens at the end. Call it a spoiler if you want, but, really, there's no point - five people get away in a car, then run out of gas while they're still in the mist, and the only thing they can think to do, the FIRST action they opt for, is to use their one gun and four bullets to kill themselves rather than let the monsters get them, or, say, I don't know, sit there and wait until they decide they need the bullets, or possibly even get out and walk and bring the gun with them in case they need it at some point. No, they immediately opt for one guy to shoot the other four, and now he feels bad because one of the four was his young son, and oops, suddenly the military shows up and the mist magically dissipates, oh golly, doesn't he feel like a sucker now for shooting his son in the face just a minute too soon. The only thing controversial about this is how anyone could think it was anything but totally fucking stupid.

So there is no ending, because once he kills these four people in the car, nothing happens. The military, who is supposedly responsible for causing all this in the first place, comes down the road with tanks and trucks and flamethrowers, though what they're actually doing, who the hell knows. And of course the mist is suddenly gone. Even though the mist itself had nothing to with anything, ever. The danger was the monsters, not the mist. The only point of the mist is that it hides the danger. That's where the suspense comes in. But we know almost right away that there are monsters out there. Well, if we know there are killer monsters, fuck the mist! It's the monsters that are scary! And there's no suspense. Poor, poor storytelling.

What's really scary is that Frank Darabont keeps making movies, and normally intelligent and respectable people not only let him, but actually praise him. It's insane, really, and while I'm usually content to politely and cheerfully disagree with people who have differing opinions in regards to film, I really don't know how anyone can watch this and not think it's incredibly fucking stupid. Yes, the unknown is suspenseful, and monsters can be terrifying, but these things are not played for their strengths in this awful, awful movie. The tone is all wrong, and the direction is horrible in the way these events are played out. The script's reliance on thoughtless religious zealotry is tired and simplistic and a poor excuse for revelation of character; no pun intended on that 'revelation' bit.

I would not have been surprised to find this movie less than brilliant, but I'm absolutely perplexed by the overall positive response that seems to exist out there. I mean, it's a really bad movie. Really really bad. I suppose because it isn't bad in the obvious, Battlefield Earth/Manos: The Hands Of Fate kind of way that some people still like it, but if you just look at it in terms of story and character, how the film is executed...it really is rather obvious, and I am surprised so many people think there's anything good about it. Just because a movie has quality elements doesn't mean it's a good movie. Eggs and flour and chocolate chips don't make good cookies unless you mix and bake them properly...Darabont keeps proving, time and time again, that he's a lousy baker.

For a good version of this type of story, the group-of-people-trapped-somewhere-with-unknown-scary-monsters-trying-to-get-them, check out Pitch Black. Strong performances, interesting characters, and cool monsters that don't disappear and show up whenever it suits the writing. Everyone has clear motivations they follow throughout, and that includes the creatures. Also, Vin Diesel before he was a joke! But please don't bother with the sequel.

Next time: Cult Classics! I swear I'll do it!

Michael Clayton

2008-01-31T08:28:00.000-06:00

Last year, I only managed to get my sorry ass into a movie theater a few times. Less than a dozen, I think; can’t even remember why anymore. One of those times was for Michael Clayton. I enjoyed it, I recognized its successful qualities, especially several of the performances, but it didn’t quite resonate with me as a filmgoer. It didn’t sink in. I didn’t even review it. But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to be a very strong and moving story, well told and admirable. I even put it in my top five of the year, despite my lack of intensity regarding its impact on me at the time. Now that it’s received seven Oscar nominations and been re-released into theaters, I had an opportunity to see it once more (thanks, Jen!) with a new perspective...and the true strength of this film has finally sunk in.

I mentioned the performances; I knew they were good the first time, but now I’m simply amazed at what these actors did with their roles. Tilda Swinton completely disappears inside Karen Crowder...her insecurity, her sense of responsibility, and guilt, and inability to feel comfortable with anything she’s doing, good or bad. I hardly know what to say about Tom Wilkinson; he’s always good, and a british actor playing an american (which he does often), as well as portraying a serious chemical imbalance, is certainly going to acquire a lot of critical praise...but he’s doing so much more than that. There is such depth to his character; his performance is a great deal more than the mechanics of mental instability. Even the supporting actors without Oscar nominations - Michael O’Keefe, Merritt Wever, the young Austin Williams as Michael’s son Henry, the always wonderful Sydney Pollack...they make a strong impression, and without them the movie wouldn’t carry the weight it needs to.

And of course, there’s the man himself, George Clooney...he gets away with playing a lot of characters using his natural (and naturally overflowing) charm and charisma, like the Ocean’s Eleven series...none of that is in evidence here. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t smile once throughout the entire movie. Everything Michael Clayton is dealing with, all the trouble resting on his shoulders, is clearly evident in every expression, every movement Clooney makes. The film ends with an extraordinarily long take as he sits in the back of a moving taxi, his very soul on display; he seems to be reliving every heart-crushing moment of the story we’ve just seen play out. It’s the kind of thing you never see an actor do; merely sit there and be, in character. This is not George Clooney the heartthrob, the gotta-love-him movie star; this is Clooney the actor...and I’m truly enthralled by what he does in the role.

So what is there to say about the screenwriting, the direction? There’s a plethora of plot events and story points, but I wouldn’t call it intricate. It’s the kind of story that could easily end up convoluted and useless, but Tony Gilroy is better than that. He brings you into it, tells you everything you need to know...there are no secrets, no twists, no sudden surprises that bring everything to new light. It’s all right there, and you’re with him every step of the way. There is tension even when you’ve already seen what happens next, and I’m still trying to figure out how he did that. It’s simply a great way to tell a story, and I admire this experienced screenwriter for taking on his own script as a first-time director. That shows a lot of passion for the film, a true understanding of what he wants to get across and how to do so. It’s definitely something any filmmaker would aspire to.

I’m glad I was able to see this a second time, and in the theater, and with someone who was certain to take notice of the great performances. When seeing a good film a second time, it’s nice to share it with someone who’ll have a strong and unique perspective. That way, you know you’re not saying to yourself, "Gee, this really is good; why didn’t it sink in before?" Instead, you learn to appreciate what you knew was there but didn’t quite feel, and you have someone who can impart a more comprehensive first-time experience. It’s never as simple as just seeing a movie; not for me, anyway. If it were, I couldn’t possibly be writing this.

Go see Michael Clayton, before the Oscars! And tell me what you think!

Great Bad Movies

2008-01-27T19:05:00.000-06:00

So it sucks, but you love it anyway. You watch it, you enjoy it, you know how stupid it is but you don’t care. People laugh when they see the DVD in your home. All the blood rushes to your face when you defend it, because you’re acutely aware of how stupid you sound with every word, but you don’t care because you simply can’t get enough of that movie, awful though it may be. These are mine.

Cliffhanger
Occasionally I can accept an excess of spectacle at the expense of substance, as long as the spectacle is actually good, and I can absorb the minimal substance without taking it seriously, even if the characters do. Precisely the case here. Who cares about the plot, the drama, the backstory...this is a visual movie, and the images don’t disappoint. Neither does the sound; I am always entertained by one particular moment as a bad guy is blown away, with his own shotgun, as he’s being tossed off the side of a very tall mountain, and the moment of his blood spattering the clean white snow is accentuated in crisp, clear sound. Ya gotta love stupid action-movie bullshit like that.

Demolition Man
‘93 was a hell of a year for Stallone, by golly. Cliffhanger in the early summer, Demolition Man in the fall. This is by far my favorite sci-fi action movie that doesn’t take itself seriously...let the world have its 2001 Space Odysseys and Blade Runners (both of which I also like, btw); I’m certain to give more viewings over a lifetime to a movie that successfully makes fun of the very genre it perpetuates. This movie is funny, cool, and just silly enough to get away with its massive ridiculousness. Plus, Sandra Bullock kicking ass pre-superstardom, and Denis Leary verbally abusing people! Who can argue with that?

Dante’s Peak
It’s so dumb. It really is. But it’s that perfect balance of spectacle over substance that actually works, if you don’t take it seriously. Just go into it expecting to laugh at the parts played with the most melodrama, and to say "That sucks for them!" about every ten minutes...you’ll be fine. The effects are good, anyway; they still hold up.

Evolution
I don’t care what anybody says; this movie is funny. And a good thing, too; it was originally written as dramatic sci-fi action, with no jokes whatsoever. Imagine that! It would have sucked alien cytoplasm with that tone. Playing it goofy means everyone is in on the same joke - that this movie is beyond ridiculous. So just go with it, baby!

Identity
So its big mystery is easy to figure out, and that’s certainly not how SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER a multiple personality disorder works, and the actions of pretty much everyone, real or imagined, are generally quite stupid...so what, man; the actors chew up the scenery and spit it at each other. That’s fuckin’ fun to watch. Great lighting, too.

Paycheck
I suppose I could put any one of John Woo’s american films on this list, but honestly, I don’t like the rest of them quite enough to call them bad but good. They’re neither bad nor good, but moderately enjoyable; I like them all to some degree. But this one stands out because it seemed to get more lousy press, more bad word-of-mouth, more public vituperation than any of the others. Probably due to Ben Affleck. But whatever; it’s a fun movie in a long line of Philip K. Dick adaptations, many of which are less-than-brilliant. It’s a turn-off-your-brain-and-just-let-the-images-and-sound-impact-you movie. So do that, and you’re all right.

The Running Man
Where would this list be without the crap of Arnold’s "acting" career? I could have picked so many...Total Recall comes to mind, after that Philip K. Dick comment, but this is probably the worst movie of Arnold’s that’s actually any good. It’s better than Commando, but more ridiculous than...well, Total Recall. Its very stupidity is what makes it enjoyable. And that’s not an easy trick to pull off, so...ya gotta respect it.

Soldier
This movie is so full of cliches and plot holes, I don’t know what it is that kept me from rolling my eyes and wishing it were over when I first saw it, but...I didn’t. It just looks good, I guess; it’s simply a treat to focus your eyes on. If you can disconnect the logic center of your brain (which I don’t often do, but I’m capable), you might be able to appreciate the pure cinematic gut-punch that is this movie. Don’t think about it, just watch it. That pretty much goes for every movie on this list. Tell your inner film student / movie critic / cineaste to shut the fuck up, sit the fuck back, and enjoy it. If I can do it, anyone reading this can do the same.

Next time: cult classics!

Prozac Nation

2008-01-15T09:43:00.001-06:00

I remember hearing about this movie while it was in production, back in 2000, and learning the next year that it would not be released...not even on DVD. Who knows why these things happen? Typically there are legal issues, as I believe was mainly the case here, but more often, the movie is hideous, and the studio cuts their losses before distribution, to avoid the embarrassment and expense of failure. Once this movie was eventually released, a couple years ago, I don’t think it was quite a failure, but it didn’t make much of a splash, either. And that’s too bad, because it’s quite solid drama, and it deserves attention.

Reportedly, Elizabeth Wurtzel hates the movie. She thinks it’s horrible. I can’t say I blame her; it’s her book, her life, her psyche being opened up and put on display...but it couldn’t possibly come across the same way as her own personal truth, which I assume is in the book. Is the movie going to be accurate in regards to her feelings, her emotional pendulum, her turmoils and triumphs? Of course not. It wouldn’t play. If she stays tied to what she feels, she’s going to hate the movie. It’s a different animal, and will do what it must to grow strong and survive. This is why I’ll probably never read the book...because the movie may not be the same as what she went through, but it reveals the truth of her experience. And that’s what I’m really interested in.

I was thoroughly amazed by Christina Ricci's performance in Black Snake Moan last year...not because I didn’t know she was that good an actress; I did. She was simply that amazing to watch. So it’s fascinating to see her with the same intensity here as Lizzie, the same immersion in her character, considering this movie was filmed more than five years earlier, when she was barely twenty years old. Every moment of pain, her constant emotional anguish, the occasional bout of elation or clarity...it comes pouring out of her, except when it needs to drip, slowly. I can always feel what the character is going through.

Now that might have something to do with my own experience, depression, insomnia, mania, awareness, self-analysis...everything the character finds herself doing throughout the story, except the drug use. Maybe that’s why I like the movie. I always understand what she’s dealing with, why she doesn’t want to deal with it, and why she does want to. People who don’t understand depression, especially the idea that those afflicted often can’t do anything about it, will get a very clear picture after seeing this film. I think that’s what Elizabeth Wurtzel may be missing in regards to the movie: it isn’t about being right, or wholly true; it’s about making the impression come off the screen. It’s about getting a viewer to understand the feeling from the inside. I believe the movie succeeds in this, and I think more people should see it.

I also think more people should consider what an anti-depressant is really for, and what it does, before opting to take one every day for years and years. The movie isn’t even about Prozac, or pharmaceuticals of any kind; it’s about a girl with emotional problems and the family and friends in her life. The movie doesn’t make any statements or take any positions on any issues. It’s a character study, and a good one. Christina Ricci is definitely the center of attention here, but takes nothing away from the performances of all the other actors, who are equally admirable. I always enjoy drama when it comes from somewhere real, which is all too rare, but it’s that much better when I find something beautiful and true. I’ve found that here, and I’m pleased to share it.

Bad, Bad, & Worse

2008-01-06T09:31:00.000-06:00

I am often more disappointed in lousy movies when I want to see them, when I think they might actually be good. Expectation does play a part. With the best movies, there are some I left out because they were as good (or even better) than I expected, and I was not alone in that. Ratatouille, for example. I loved it, but I thought I would, so it didn't make the list. Still a great movie.

But the bad ones, even if I expect not to like them, are often so terrible that they exceed my expectations in their badness, just as the good ones can exceed my expectations of their goodness. And that is why the bad list has a top five (or bottom five, depending on how you look at it) and a big list of runners-up. Despite my recent reviews for Haute Tension and No Country For Old Men, they didn't make this list because they're not quite bad enough. The reviews are negative, but High Tension is well-made, despite being such crap, and No Country is really quite excellent until 3/4 of the way into it, which I reiterate is not a bad story, but a bad way of telling it. Go read the review if you want to know why.

Also, I again mention the means by which I saw the movie. Keep in mind, on this list, many of those I borrowed from the library were checked out because they were there, and they were free; I would otherwise not have bothered to see it, thinking it was probably not a good movie. Same deal with some of the cable viewings. Others I'd heard good things about and was in utter shock how seriously awful the movie turned out to be. A prime example...

Babel (rented, full price)
I made an effort last year to see each of the Best Picture nominees before the Oscars, and as many of the other major nominees as well. Some, like Showgirls, I refuse to ever see, because it looks SO awful I know I can't sit through it. It amazes me how anyone can look at a performance in that movie and award it. But, that's a rant for another post. This is about Babel - A highly respected movie that I picked up at the video store on Saturday, one night before the Oscars. I couldn't believe how terrible it is. Most of the various characters do the stupidest possible thing to get into these situations, then they do even stupider things to make them worse. It was horrible. I can't remember ever seeing a movie so contrived that wasn't a dumbass low-budget horror movie one might see spoofed by MST3K or Svengoolie. And when the characters aren't doing the dumbest thing they could possibly do, they're caught up in five-minute music video-type segments, that seem to go on much, much longer, and do nothing to advance the story...what story there is, anyway. I feel sorry for the decent actors in this mess, made to look stupid by the pathetic excuse for storytelling. They deserve better.

I admit that I should have known better; remember the BMW films of a few years ago? The worst one of the eight was as equally stupid and contrived and horrible as Babel. What I didn't realize until the Oscars were all over is that Babel and this BMW film Powder Keg were written & directed by the same two guys. So I looked up the other films they've made together, now no longer surprised to discover I'd heard good things about those too, and cleared them from my must-see list. Good riddance.

Little Children (rented, full price)
I'd seen In The Bedroom about a month before the Oscars, simply because I wanted to see Todd Field's first movie before I saw his second, and the first one had been up for a few Oscars in its time, much like the second one was this past year. In The Bedroom will show up further down this list, but I will also say that it was not as bad as Little Children, which again, I wanted to see before the Oscars. I love Kate Winslet, and she was very good in her portrayal of this character's emotions...too bad the character's actions were so stupid, as were those of pretty much everyone else. There was no reason for anyone in this movie to do anything that they did, say anything that they said, or feel what they were supposedly feeling. Bad, bad writing. No motivation. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I hate when movies like this are generally respected, because they're so awful, they're just so stupid...nobody acts like that, nobody thinks like that! Suspension of disbelief is for larger-than-life stories, not introspective dramas. There's a ridiculous voice over, and a whole scene devoted to the outcome of a football game played by about ten people. Three married women see their married friend suddenly kiss a married man they just met and they run away like they're in immediate physical danger. It's all just so stupid, I can hardly believe it.

The Fountain (rented, with coupon)
No big Oscar nominations that I recall, but still highly touted. And I like Darren Aronofsky's first two movies. Why he turned out pretentious garbage his third time around, who knows? And who cares. Even if the movie made perfect sense, it's still pointless. And I'm pretty sure I get it; it's not complete nonsense. But it's just stupid...except for the music, which is really good but not nearly enough to save the story from its own stupidity.

Here's an example - the modern character, Izzi, has some kind of brain tumor that affects her nervous system in such a way that she can't feel even extreme changes in temperature. That's not the ridiculous part; that's 100% medically feasible...the ridiculous part is that Aronofsky demonstrates this character trait to us by writing a scene in which her husband comes home to find her sitting on the snow-covered roof without a coat, and her feet bare. Hello?!? She may have lost sensation in her nerve endings, but she's not totally stupid, right? She does know that snow is cold, doesn't she? What really makes this lousy writing is a follow-up scene in the tub that demonstrates the same inability to feel extremes in temperature...except this second scene is actually touching and poignant and makes its point in a very natural way. If you take out the scene with the bare feet in the snow, this tub scene works great. But he had to do it twice. A big rule of screenwriting is: never say twice what you can get across saying once. He should know better.

Brick (library)
This is one I managed to find in the library that was actually on my must-see list. I'd heard so many great things about it, nabbing it for free was quite thrilling. That was the last thrill I had in relation to the film. The story is so stupid. Nothing these kids do makes any sense. Nothing these kids SAY makes any sense; I could barely understand a word. I had to turn on the subtitles. The language, with its made-up slang and pseudo-noir tones, was absolutely clear to me once I knew what words they were actually saying. But the constant mumbling and garbled tones and fast-speak is just lousy filmmaking. And as for setting a story in a modern high school but playing it as film noir...nothing but a gimmick. And it wears off real fast. The movie has no style, no flair, no reason for being. Skip it.

Wedding Crashers (rented, with coupon)
It made a lot of money; everyone said it was funny...what a sad group of moviegoers we have when this is what they call funny. Putting people in ridiculous situations and making them act silly is not comedy. Comedy is creating interesting characters who find themselves in situations of conflict and watching what they do, in character, to resolve it or get out of it. And the two main characters in this movie are such misogynist assholes in the beginning that there really is no way to overcome it. It's too extreme, because in movies these days, extremism is substituted for actual characters and actual comedy. All of the characters are extremes of one-dimensionality. Pick a personality trait, blow it up, give it to someone. It's pathetic. Some people will laugh at anything.

I believe those are the worst five. Here are some others that truly suck.

Must Love Dogs (library)
I didn't think it'd be super good, but I hardly expected it to be truly awful. Watching this movie is like watching a dog with no legs swim upstream...it tries so hard, but it's got nothing to work with.

Happy Feet (cable)
Yes, I already bitched this movie out in a previous blog, but it's so, so horrendous, I had to mention it here. I found out after writing my review that this Oscar-winning Best Animated Feature used motion capture for the dancing. Sounds like a bullshit shortcut to me; why does that not disqualify it? Who cares, really; the movie is so boring and stupid. A friend of mine said even her three-year-old could not tolerate it. I love that kid.

Moulin Rouge (library)
So many people are so in love with this movie; how many times were they dropped on their heads as infants? It's just a mess. Why is it cut so fast even in non-active scenes? Why are they using known music & lyrics for songs and dialogue the characters are supposedly making up on the spot? That's damn close to plagiarism, not to mention just plain stupid, and not at all entertaining. Happy Feet did the same thing...not a pattern to emulate, if you ask me.

My Best Friend’s Wedding (library)
A friend of mine told me this is her favorite movie...she's still my friend, but, ouch...I have to question her sanity. People do not behave like these characters. And the plot was so utterly predictable. Not a good sign, when your characters are totally unrealistic yet their actions are completely predictable. That is not good writing. And when such talented and charismatic performers like Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz do nothing but annoy the crap out of me...that's lousy direction. Toss this one into the fire.

American Dreamz (library)
I thought it would be stupid but entertaining...I was half right. It has a few good ideas, but the whole thing is very badly executed, and occasionally offensive. Nice going.

Bus Stop (library)
I thought this was supposed to be a classic! I can't help but love Marilyn Monroe, but the script is so awful, the characters so badly drawn, and the scenes so incredibly long...this story should never have left the stage.

In The Bedroom (coupon)
Same problems as Little Children, only not as bad. Unbelievable characters, lack of motivation, good performances. A conflict that nobody tries to resolve is not really a dramatic conflict; it's a device of the writers to keep their characters in jeopardy. Try again, please.

Catch and Release (paid)
Terrific screenwriter Susannah Grant becomes a director here, and forgets to work on the script until it's actually good. Quality performances can't save this mess.

The Black Dahlia (coupon)
Brian DePalma is one of those long-time directors who is generally considered an auteur, but only seems capable of doing half the job. He's great with camerawork and atmosphere, but is consistently unable to tell a decent story. Considering it's based on real events that remain unsolved, there's very little mystery in this predictable plot, less than half of which has anything to do with actual history. And the rest of movie, in following the lives of its fictional characters outside the pursuit of information related to the title character, is rather unfocused. A major disappointment.

Spider-Man 3 (coupon)
Sam Raimi used to be a real filmmaker, but the Spider-Man movies have half-assed screenplays, lousy acting, and over-direction. Three strikes; he's out. He should wait in the locker room with Bryan Singer until they're ready to do something good again.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend (cable)
I figured Ivan Reitman would be able to make this movie at least somewhat decent, but I was wrong. It isn't funny, or interesting to watch; not even to watch it fail. But it was expensive!

Borat (cable)
The jokes go on too long, and the bit isn't funny after the second time he acts like an ass in front of people who don't realize it's an act. The character is meant to be annoying so anyone who's in on the joke will find it funny, but it isn't funny; he's just annoying. I only laughed at the throwaway jokes, like hearing the pet bear ran away and seeing her head in the fridge. Now that's funny...because they did it in a wide shot, not a close-up. More gags like that and I'm closer to being on board.

Eragon (cable)
I knew it'd be kinda lame, but I overestimated the ability of anyone involved in its production to judge a story. I don't know how they can show themselves in public. It's so bad, it's practically a parody. If they played the Naked Gun theme over a couple action scenes, maybe it'd work better.

Miami Vice (cable)
Michael Mann is like DePalma in that he's a strong filmmaker in some areas (mood, design, research for his actors & department heads) and incredibly weak in others (geography of a scene, story development). There's no emotion here, like it's not even about anything. I gave this a chance because I like Collateral...my mistake.

Bats (Netflix)
This is one of those movies I've always wanted to see just to know how bad it is. And wow, does it suck. It's so laughable, it was totally worth it.

I expect to have less free time this year, and I'll be without HBO pretty soon, as they're going to want to charge me for it, so hopefully I'll see fewer crappy movies overall. It'd be a welcome change.

Best of the Year

2007-12-28T16:50:00.000-06:00

I've seen a lot of movies this year. Not many that were released during 2007, because going to the theater all the time is just too expensive, and movies are like food - get it free when you can. (In case anyone is a nerd like me, and interested in these nerdly details, I've noted how I saw each movie, to the best of my recollection.)

Anyway, instead of picking the best of what's come out this year, and therefore inadvertently dismissing the many films I haven't seen, this is a list compiled from the films I have viewed, for the first time, during the past twelve months, no matter when they first came out. They are in no particular order, and are not ranked, though some of them have been chosen over others for specific reasons.

The Dead Girl (free; rented with coupon)
Okay, so they're not ranked, but this is definitely my favorite. Every aspect of filmmaking on display here is what the cinematic medium is all about. The acting, lighting, writing, direction...a true and brilliant use of the craft, across the board. This would make the list no matter what, because it's just that strong, but it's also deserving of any recognition I can give it because it hardly received any earlier. Limited release, very little promotion, passed over by all the big awards and many small ones...it's shameful how an incredible movie like this fails to garner the attention it deserves. I strongly recommend renting the DVD. If you believe in the great power of little movies, you won't be disappointed.

Pan’s Labyrinth (half-price; rented with coupon)
Really, it's El Laberinto Del Fauno, but that's okay. It's still amazing. Guillermo Del Toro has created an exceptional faerie tale, brilliant and moving and entertaining and astoundingly beautiful to look at. I generally don't like to call creative and artistic people "genius", but he really is. I wish I'd managed to get out to this one in the theater, and see it on the big screen, but beauty is beauty wherever you see it, and Del Toro continues to amaze me.

Michael Clayton (free; ticket purchased with movie pass)
I have to admit that there isn't a lot about this movie that really sticks with me. I wasn't moved or amazed by it like I was with the first two on this list, and it isn't a movie that I couldn't wait to buy or see again. But it is one of the few movies I saw in the theater, and part of an even smaller group I saw in the theater and truly respect. There is nothing about this movie that is bad or wrong or doesn't work. The script is extremely well-written, and all the main actors give more than a movie-star performance; they get way down deep into their characters. It's a very high-class style of filmmaking we don't really see anymore, and that's something I miss. It's the kind of thing Sam Mendes has been doing, and the kind of thing Todd Field is trying to do but totally misses the mark. So, while Michael Clayton doesn't make the same kind of impression on me that other great movies have, it's such a strong film that it's absolutely worth seeing, and definitely belongs on this list.

Hot Fuzz (full price matinee - worth it!)
It's extraordinarily difficult to craft a piece of entertainment that parodies the very form and genre it embraces, while making sure it is in fact entertaining in its own right. Last Action Hero tried and failed; these guys have done it twice in a row. They've actually made successful examples of the lousy movies they parody. It's quite a feat, and I don't think there's anybody out there doing a better job of it. Aside from Team America: World Police, is there another movie that manages to be an awesome movie yet parody the crappy ones that are just like it? Hmm...

Planet Terror (free; rented with coupon)
I separate this from Death Proof, which I also really like, because it should stand on its own...and besides, I never saw Grindhouse in the theater as a double feature. I saw them separately on DVD. Oh well. But, like Shaun of the Dead, it takes the zombie B-movie into a near-impossible realm where ridiculous ideas are not ridiculed but celebrated for their ridiculousness, and makes it work. Robert Rodriguez mines those horrible low-budget shlockbusters for all their cliches, all their exploitations, and corrals them into a fun-as-hell flick that never gets old. It's a movie with no real artistic merit, no philosophical meaning, nothing to add to the history of cinema...and it doesn't want any of those things. The Dead Girl has those things, which is why I love it; Planet Terror is the other kind of great movie: the kind that is good at being bad.

For movies that are bad at being bad, and worse at being good, or just plaid old not-good-at-all, tune in again soon for my list of the worst movies I've seen this year. The aforementioned Todd Field may put in an appearance or two. Nothing personal, Todd; I just think your movies suck. But here's five more movies that don't suck:

Honorable Mention (bottom five of the top ten)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (full price midnight show...a friend invited me; I'd never turn her down...yes I have a friend)
I'm not much for sequels, and I hated the first two (both of which I also saw for the first time this year, on DVD), because they look & feel fantastic but fail to tell a decent story. With this one, they finally got it all together. Love the story, love the spectacle. Too bad I had to see the others to have any clue what was happening in this one.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (free; ticket purchased w/ entertainment card acquired through reward points)
Same deal. The other four never quite managed to take the story from the book and tell it properly on film. This one stands on its own. It's also the first Harry Potter movie I've seen in the theater; I had an afternoon free, and the entertainment card, and nothing else was playing I was remotely interested in. Good thing this turned out to be the first of the series I didn't feel like fast-forwarding!

12 Angry Men (free; borrowed from library)
Don't know why I'd never seen more than a few clips of this...a bit dated, but it's a classic for a reason. The brilliance of Lumet's filmmaking techniques on display here is undeniable.

Yojimbo (Netflix...so not free, but certainly inexpensive overall)
Again, it's a classic for a reason. Nobody can tell such a contained story the way Kurosawa did. People have tried to copy and/or remake what he accomplished, but those that haven't screwed it up still don't have the touch.

The Godfather Part III (free; borrowed from library)
I don't know why this has such a bad reputation. Is it as good as the first two? Of course not. But it's still compelling, still a fitting end to the series. For some reason Sofia Coppola has always been a scapegoat; she really wasn't so bad. She's not a true actress, so she was basically acting natural, which is exactly what was called for in the character. It's just different from what people are used to seeing. The only scene that actually made her look bad was a scene with Al Pacino in which they both had to loop several minutes of dialogue, and looping always sounds bad, even with experienced actors. So give the girl a break.

There were a number of movies that didn't make the list but were also really good movies. You've got to rule something out, right? Some of this has to do with expectations (such as a sequel that rises well above its predecessors), or it may be an extra bit of appreciation I feel...a personal affection that causes me to praise it at the expense of omitting others. In the words of my favorite author, Kurt Vonnegut Jr...so it goes.

Next time: wow, did that movie SUCK!!!

High Tension

2007-12-15T13:32:00.000-06:00

A few nights ago I saw about ten minutes of the recent remake The Hills Have Eyes. It was so awful and so stupid and such a ridiculous pile of dreck that it made me curious who the hell would direct such a piece of shit. By utter coincidence, High Tension (also known as Haute tension, being French-made) had arrived that very afternoon, fresh from my Netflix queue, and I had watched it earlier the same night. Very different movies, made in different countries, made for different reasons, with the same guy behind the camera: Alexandre Aja. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Forget about Hills for now; like I said, I only saw ten minutes, and wanted to see no more; I knew it was a stupid movie last year just from the ads & trailers. But I'd heard good things about High Tension. That it was a different type of thriller, it was actually tense, not just needlessly gory with crappy fake scares. That it was actually terrifying because it seemed so real, and not like a horror movie. So I figured I'd give it a shot. I don't know what those people were talking about. They must be brain-dead.

Not only was it needlessly gory (which I don't necessarily object to if it isn't too stupid), and full of crappy fake scares (some guy turns around to find someone suddenly standing right behind him), there was absolutely no tension whatsoever. There are two main reasons for this: one, much of the running time is taken up by the heroine (Marie) either following, being chased by, or hiding from the Big Bad Psycho Killer. There's really no tension here, because we as an audience know exactly what Marie knows - BBPK is after her. There's nothing else to it. Hitchcock always said, show your audience something the character doesn't know, and the suspense comes from wanting the character to find out...usually before it kills him. Not Hitch's exact words, but...that's what he did, anyway.

Before I get to the second reason for the lack of tension, I want to add that in addition to every subjective thing that makes this movie not good, there is an idea, a long-standing concept of storytelling in film, that is so horribly despicable, ignorant, offensive, and just downright lazy for a storyteller, that I am simply appalled by its inclusion as a character motivation. It offends me as a person, as a friend of a certain group of people, and as a writer. Gets to me on all levels. From this point on, I will spoil the movie, even though I believe the filmmakers did their own spoiling, which is actually lack-of-tension reason #2. But if for some reason you really want to see it and think you might enjoy it, by all means, stop listening to me. You're on your own. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Reason number 2: they spoil their own big twist right in the very beginning. Marie is in the car with her friend Alex; two girls driving to the country to stay with Alex's family and study for exams. Marie wakes up in the back seat, describes a dream she had of a man chasing her. Alex asks who the guy was, and Marie tells her "That's just it, there was no guy, it was me chasing me." Well, as soon as I heard that, it was pretty clear to me that later in the movie, when the Big Bad Psycho Killer shows up, that there is no guy, it's just Marie chasing Marie. And yes, folks, that is the Big Fucking Twist. How pathetically lame is that?

Never mind the logistics of how she could follow herself in another car, or hide from herself in a gas station with the attendant looking at and talking to herself and the killer, or see herself chasing someone in a cornfield from the window of a room with another person in it whom she's talking to...forget all that. I don't care about that. How can they state the secret fucking premise right in the beginning! And then late in the movie, after she kills the bad guy, they show Marie on security video in the gas station, killing the attendant. That's how they choose to reveal it. It was so fucking stupid, I couldn't believe it. How is anyone NOT supposed to figure this out! They fucking TOLD you! Up front! How is there any tension at any point in the movie! She's hiding from herself! She's running from herself! She's chasing herself in the car! It just goes on and on, and since I know this guy is not going to kill her, that somehow some way she'll be revealed...I'm not feeling the tension. Bad bad bad bad bad.

But like I said, that's not the worst thing about this movie. Here's the real problem: why she does this. First off, why is it every time a character in a movie is revealed to have multiple personalities, which is now clinically referred to as dissociative personality disorder, one of them is a crazy fucked up psycho killer?!?!! Do the filmmakers not realize how wrong this is? How it creates the wrong impression of serious mental illness? Hello? We've seen that a hundred times, anyway. Fucking enough already. But it gets worse.

Not only is her second personality a Big Bad Psycho Killer, it is killing with oh-so-perfectly-understandable-psychotic-reasoning: repressed homosexual desire. Wow. This is the best they had. This is what they came up with. Because everyone knows that if you think you're gay, but don't want to be, you'd better do something about it before you start killing everybody you meet. 'Cause that's what people do. That's what my very good lesbian friend would have done if she hadn't been able to learn to express herself openly. Oh yeah. And can you believe, someone actually told her she'd like this movie because she's a lesbian. It's so maddeningly stupid...I'm completely flummoxed.

The things is, I didn't even have to wait until the end to realize this was her supposed motivation. Since I knew, after hearing about Marie's "dream", that she was in fact going to be the killer, that made it very easy to determine what brought about her slaughter of her friend Alex's family: the desire to be with Alex. They make it pretty clear, too; she's sitting outside having a cigarette when she sees Alex upstairs through the window, in the shower. In the very next scene she goes to her own room, undoes her jeans, and rubs one out. Pretty obvious where her interests lie, especially after the earlier conversation in the car, in which she not only describes her dream and reveals the twist but also makes it clear she's not dating any guys, and calls Alex a slut for dating a lot of them.

But anyway, while she's got her hand down her pants, this scene is intercut with shots of the killer's truck approaching the farm. Cinema at its best, right? Intercut her lesbian desire for her friend with the "killer", a.k.a. the damaged side of her psyche, bringing murder and hate to their happy little home. Her desire brings out the killer; how absolutely fucking brilliant, oh golly gosh what a story. What really bugs me about that is it's actually a good way to tell the story cinematically. This is what movies are about, this is how they should be told. And it flat out sucks that this is what they choose to portray, this is what they choose as their cinematic vision. It's awful.

But of course, how do we know it's the killer and his truck? Because we've already seen him, who knows where or why or how, apparently giving himself a blowjob with some girl's severed head. Again, logistically, this makes no sense, since Marie is in another car, miles away, and whose head is that? Has Marie killed before? Where did this truck come from? Supposedly she locks Alex in the back of it, alive and screaming, with the blood and torn photos of other dead girls. So where, and when, and why, did Marie kill these other girls. Did Marie kill any other girls? Does any of this add up at all? No, but it doesn't really have to.

I'm getting off-track here. I was bitching about the idea that Marie is unable to confront her lesbian desire for her friend, and kills the girl's family so that no one can come between them anymore. And she says this; she's muttering it in the beginning, and again at the end when all has been revealed. This is such a disgusting notion. That people who have a hard time thinking of themselves as gay would develop a split personality and kill entire families. She kills their dog, too; the dog always dies before the people, but killing dogs in movies is another rant for another day. The issue here is sexual repression.

In the movies, repression = homicide. And I'm sick of it. It's simple, it's stupid, and yeah, it's just a movie, but that's exactly why it needs to be better. It should be more motivated, it should be something specific to that character. It should NOT be something that groups an entire category of people into an over-simplified and essentially WRONG notion of personality and behavior. This is the part that offends me as a writer. I work hard to create characters and motivations that are true and unique and real; it pisses me off to see other people take the lazy approach, to copy what's been done a hundred times, especially when what's been done is so misconceived.

The end result is, it's just a movie, but instead of being pure and compelling and unique to itself, it's a pile of crap that goes beyond worth forgetting and into the realm of being vilified. Alexandre Aja is officially on my shit list. Sorry, pal. You look like you know what you're doing; too bad you're not smart enough to do it well.

The Last Shot

2007-12-12T10:03:00.000-06:00

I believe there's an inherent inequality in a movie about the movies, about making a movie, not getting a theatrical release. I remember seeing ads for The Last Shot on tv, I remember hearing of a limited release for about a week, and I remember its sudden disappearance from any form of media. It eventually came out on DVD, and that's the end of the story. Which is too bad, because if this movie deserves anything, it's a movie audience.

Is it a great film? No...but it's funny. Is it filled with insight into the creative process, the miasmic crossroads of art and commerce? No...but it has a sense of truth and experience. Is there any reason a theater full of people would not be glad they had paid to see this movie? None that I can see. A cruel irony of this is the opening credits, which are mainly played against a background of items and events in an actual movie theater. Though I should correct myself and say opening titles; as one character points out, credits are at the end, titles at the beginning. It's a movie-savvy group of people, y'understand.

Even if you're not a big fan of Alec Baldwin or Matthew Broderick, it's worth seeing for the supporting cast. Joan Cusack, Toni Collette, and Tony Shalhoub each steal the few short scenes they're in. And for anyone who is a screenwriter (like me!), wants to be a screenwriter, or thinks they know what it means to be a screenwriter...the quick montage of Baldwin's character hearing pitches on the street from everyone he sees is so brilliant and funny and true, it's a lesson in humility we could all use from time to time.

I think the story is hampered by the idea that Baldwin's character, FBI man-undercover-as-Hollywood producer, would choose a script set in the desert of Arizona (even titled Arizona) when he needs to shoot in Rhode Island so he can set up the local mob boss there. Seems a little pointless, but, this appears to be one of the based-on-actual-events aspects of the story that really happened. The real FBI man did find a script, written for the desert, and convinced the filmmakers to shoot in New England, even though he knew, and they didn't, they'd never shoot a frame. And I can't help thinking, about Broderick's character or the real guys with the script...way to sell out! And I just don't completely buy it as a story element. Not that I don't believe people sell out; they sure as hell do, but with all the scripts out there, seems like he could have found one that fit the location. Sometimes what's true is too stupid to actually work in a movie.

Speaking of a script, Jeff Nathanson, who has done some decent work in the past, most notably for Steven Spielberg, probably could have rewritten this a bit more, but does a very good job as a first time director. It's really a shame the movie was never released properly and couldn't turn a profit. That's got to be heartbreaking, at least for a little while. But in the end, he has a good movie and a quality DVD. If you want to sit down and for an hour and half and enjoy what you see, give it a look. It isn't perfect, but what is? As long as a movie is fun to sit through, instead of a chore, I'd call it a great success.

No Country For Old Men

2007-11-21T09:57:00.000-06:00

This movie has received nothing but the most positive, glowing reviews through all the major news outlets. It came highly recommended to me by more than one fellow film student. I'm a big fan of the Coen brothers when they're on their game (Fargo, The Big Lebowski); not so much when they're off (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers). Sometimes they're brilliant, and sometimes they're simply doing something different. Who knows what that might be; it's whatever they feel like at the time. This film shows both sides. Unfortunately, the brilliance takes place in the first 3/4 of the movie, while the entire third act is so close to pointless that it completely ruins the experience.

So let's talk about the bulk of the movie first: it's incredible to watch, and especially to hear. The use of sound is really, truly wonderful. What you hear, how you hear it, and many times, what you don't hear...it all brings you right into the story, and they make it seem effortless. The performances are solid all around, with the notable exception of Javier Bardem - he is absolutely terrifying. Part of it is what the Coens have him say and do, but much of it comes from his eyes, his voice, his facial expression or lack thereof...his body language. It's quite amazing to see, and very unnerving.

The story is typically Coen-esque; regular guy Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds two million dollars and a bunch of dead guys out in the middle of nowhere. He takes the money, but goes back later with a gallon of water to see if he can't help one of the guys who wasn't quite dead. I give the writing credit here for having Moss tell his wife that he's going out to do something "dumber than hell, but I'm doin' it anyway." That gets the script off the hook for the rest of the plot hinging on a character's bad decision. He admits it's a bad idea, so for the story's sake, it works. Naturally, the bad guys find him and come after him, and he's got to be smart enough to stay alive.

At the point in the story when it seems as though a number of these various characters, good and bad, will come together in the form of some type of confrontation...well, nothing else really happens. I can't go into detail without giving away everything that actually does happen, but...the Coens dropped the ball. They just stop telling the story here. What happens to this character? Where is another character at this point? What about that plot point? All dropped. None of these questions are answered. We are left to guess or assume at the outcome of events. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I'm being told a story, I like to actually be told the story. I don't want to guess or assume. I can, but what's the point? It's their story; they should tell it. If I want to tell a story, I will, but that's my own screenplay. I'm watching their movie; I expect them to show me what happens. And they don't.

Some people have argued that it works because it defies convention. Yes, it defies convention; the Coens tend to do that. No, it doesn't work, not simply because it's different. It has to be different and good, not different and wrong. There's nothing wrong with leading an audience to believe events will resolve in a particular manner, then turn it around and do it in a surprising way. But you still have to resolve the story you created, and they don't do that here. It doesn't have to be a "happy" ending. It can be anti-climactic. You don't have to end the movie with a big explosion; you can end the movie with a tired old man describing his dream of his father. Subvert expectations; play the downside. I'm all for that. But don't fail to continue the story. Don't leave too many things open to assumption. Tell the story. Show me what happens.

What's so crazy about this is how well they were telling the story, up to the point at which they stopped. It was so good, and so compelling, and so powerful...then it stops. I don't want to say what is happening at the point at which it stops, because I don't want to ruin anything, but I will say this...there is a brief conversation, between a major character and one not seen before, that appears to be meaningless and out of place, and before any meaning of this conversation becomes apparent, the screen fades to black, and I believe that's the first time there's a fade out. After that...well, be prepared not to have any more questions answered from that point on.

The sad thing is, during that scene, and its fade out, I thought to myself: "Gee, this seems rather pointless, but it's a Coen brothers film, so there's probably some meaning in it that will become clear later." But it never did. Not much after that was made clear at all. And I'm a big believer in filmmakers making things clear to the audience. They shouldn't spell everything out, but they should make things clear. There's a difference. At the end of Citizen Kane, showing the sled in the fire...that's making it clear. If a guy had seen the sled and told another person "Rosebud, that's what he said when he died, I guess he wished he'd had a simple happy life instead of the way he grew up and lived..." That's spelling it out. And nobody wants that. No Country For Old Men could have been truly great, had they only finished the story they began.

Happy Feet

2007-11-14T16:48:00.000-06:00

Holy crap. I don't know where to start. I suppose I should begin by saying that I did not watch this entire movie. I know, I know; most people would say it's wrong to judge a movie without seeing the whole thing. I agree. That's why I'm only judging the part I did see.

I barely made it through half an hour, and that's after being ready to give up at the ten minute mark. Rarely will I quit on a movie without watching the whole thing, but this was, frankly, unbearable. How did this win an Oscar? Seriously, WTF? Admittedly I'm a big Pixar fan, I own all their movies, and while I admit that Cars is not as great a movie as Monsters, Inc. or The Incredibles, it's a solid motion picture with a decent story and well-defined characters; certainly more deserving of an Oscar, given the nominees. Happy Feet is a bunch of shit thrown into a pile and then smeared into the proper aspect ratio.

Okay - the animation itself is extraordinary. It's really quite beautiful. Big deal. Artists create art. They're good at it, I admire them for it. Apparently someone convinced these artists they were working on something that was actually going to tell a story and create characters. But there's nothing there. It opens with a bunch of penguins singing well-known songs in order to attract one another. I didn't realize penguins listened to the radio. This is how they get together? This is how they find each other, with what the movie calls a "heart song"? Shouldn't it be a song from the heart, and not the radio? One of these penguins is named Memphis. He sings an Elvis song. He talks like Elvis. This is not a character; it's a characterization. And it's not good filmmaking. It's cheap, it's dull, and it's not amusing.

What little story there is, involving Mumble the son of Memphis and his inability to sing, is constantly interrupted by extended musical numbers. The penguins sing, the soundtrack plays some old good song...again, I just have to say it...WTF? Is there a friggin' story goin' on or what? And it's usually not a good idea to let the soundtrack tell more of your story than, say, I don't know, action and dialogue. It might be a good idea to use an actual musical score in there. Just because Quentin Tarantino often forgoes it doesn't mean it'll work for everyone. You have to actually tell a story at the same time, not just throw a little scene in between the songs.

Here's an annoying hypocrisy: Memphis objects to Mumble's tap-dancing because "It's just not penguin." But Memphis himself is dancing all the time! He does Elvis moves. All the damn time. That's even how, and I can't believe high wide the arc of the roll of my eyes when I saw this, that's how Memphis managed to spill Mumble's egg into the snow before he hatched. He was standing at the edge of the huddled mass of penguins, taking his turn against the wind, dancing and singing. Like Elvis. For no fucking reason whatsoever. And the egg tumbled off into the snow. And he thinks this "accident" is why Mumble can't sing. This is so unbelievably stupid, I can't even believe I managed to recount it without banging my head into the wall.

Now maybe this hypocrisy belongs to Memphis, and not the filmmakers, and it's actually pointed out to him at some point later in the movie, and I'm judging it wrongfully because I didn't watch the whole thing, but...no way. Fuck it. I don't want to see another minute. When the wind kicks up snow to create a ghostly image of a god-like penguin that all of them worship...I just don't know what to say about that. I simply can't believe they thought that was a good idea, during all the years it takes to create the film, and stuck with it the whole time. I'm flabbergasted. It's too astonishing to comprehend.

I gave up watching at the point Mumble and his "graduating class" (don't ask) go swimming, with penguins zipping around like a military air show, but underwater. Wow. The lack of character development and story progression staggers me. Actually, I managed to watch that and the following scene in which Mumble fights over a fish with several birds, who fly away with him still hanging on and then drop him on the ice...at which point they go into another song. I've got nothing against musicals in general, but, come on...they just keep singing songs I've heard on the radio for years. What's the point? How is this telling a story? What does it have to do with the life of a penguin? Nothing.

Okay. They got the idea from the truth of nature; real penguins recognize their mates and their offspring by the sounds they make, so a group of fictional anthropomorphic penguins that fall in love based on the song they sing, and the necessity of being able to sing so you can find a mate and replenish the population of your species...I get it. But if the song itself is so important...why are they singing songs from the 70's? Shouldn't they have their own song? I like that music, but I also know it doesn't belong here! And they actually play this off as if the penguins are creating their own songs! That really pissed me off. There is literally a scene with a "teacher" penguin asking her young students to sing their heart songs for her...and the two kids she calls on both sing songs we as an audience are meant to recognize. Honestly...who ever thinks this stuff is a good idea?

I'm all for animated movies that encourage both kids and adults to be themselves, believe in themselves, and be happy with who they are, but...I think that message fails when the filmmakers themselves fail to create either music or characters to be a part of their movie. They're simply grabbing things that have already been created and putting it together. It's not a movie, it's a collage. It's hideous. I weep for the world of animation, and cinema at large, when this is the type of garbage that is not only approved, but praised and enjoyed. I feel sick. I need to watch something wonderful like Little Miss Sunshine to cleanse me of this disgusting, awful mess. In the words of Elmer Fudd, "Good widdance to bad wubbish!"

Pieces of April

2007-11-09T10:59:00.000-06:00

What's Eating Gilbert Grape is in the top five of my all-time favorite movies, and I've enjoyed the novels of screenwriter Peter Hedges as well, so when I heard a few years ago he was writing & directing a movie about a family on Thanksgiving, I knew I wanted to see it. I simply didn't get around to doing so until now. I can honestly say I'm appreciative, yet disappointed. As often happens when novelists-turned-screenwriters then become directors, his first feature occasionally loses sight of the story it's telling in favor of the ideas he wants to get across. One might think those two go hand in hand, but, not always.

Katie Holmes is really good as April, a girl in a small New York apartment trying to put together a Thanksgiving dinner for her less-than-enthusiastic family, who is driving in from New Jersey. Much of the film covers April's quest to find a neighbor willing to let her use their stove when hers fails to heat up, as well as her family's ongoing reluctance to follow through on their holiday visit as they drive to the city. I liked all of this, up to the point when they finally reach her apartment building. Appalled at the state of the neighborhood, they think they must be in the wrong place, until April's boyfriend Bobby runs up to the car and says hey, you must be April's family, I'm Bobby...what they don't know is that Bobby has spent the day finding a new suit, so he can look nice when they show up, but has just been forced to defend himself against April's previous boyfriend and four other guys...and we come to the point that really bugged me about the movie.

This white family sees a black guy in a torn suit with a bloody lip in front of this crappy apartment...and they leave. April comes down to find no one there; they've driven off. Why? I don't get it. They spent the whole trip there saying how they knew the day would be terrible, that April can't cook, and no one in this family seems to get along, but they were going to do it anyway and try to make a good memory. So why the sudden change? Why the departure? What is it about a black guy with a bloody lip and a bruised face that scares them off? Is that all it takes? I'm not saying this is in any way a racist development in the plot, but...considering how they knew things would not go well, this doesn't seem a strong enough motivation to scare them off. And I see it as the writer taking the story the way he wants it to go, when the story itself simply isn't going that way.

This is a common flaw in first features directed by writers, especially those who started as novelists and eventually became filmmakers. It's not a horrible film by any means; it's really quite enjoyable. I just hate to see a story derailed by its own author. And once the family realizes their mistake, they do turn around and go back, and make an effort, and seem to have a decent time, and the movie ends. By no means do I see this as condescending to an audience; it's nowhere near that bad. It simply doesn't feel like a natural progression to me. I think they needed something more devastating, more shocking to turn them around. They even discuss earlier how April has informed them Bobby is a good guy, so how can they simply turn around upon viewing him in that state?

I'm sorry to reveal the later moments of the film, for anyone reading this who hasn't seen it, but trust me; if you would have enjoyed it not knowing this, it won't be ruined for you. As for me, I'm hoping Peter Hedges' second feature, Dan in Real Life, now in theaters, has a better throughline to the story. I also hope I don't end up waiting four years to check it out.

Review Central

2007-11-05T08:33:00.000-06:00

If I have any consistent readers out there, which I doubt, I apologize for my extended absence of posting. The upheaval of life, the depression of existence, the need for a new mouse compatible with an old and unsupported platform...you understand. Besides, I haven't had that much to write about. But I have been watching a lot of movies, thanks to cable & Netflix, so in the interest of maintaining phalange phlexibility, I thought I'd make an effort to post simple reviews and impressions of whatever movie I happen to set my eyes upon each day.

I would love to be able to use this blog as a means of spreading my opinion about movies newly released to theaters, but let's face it; I just don't get out much. I don't have the money or the social compatibility to join many public viewings. Besides, there's enough crap out there about new movies. Some of it is valid opinions; most of it's crap. I have valid opinions no one gives a crap about, so it all evens out! Isn't that nice?

What would be nice is to see a movie I've known about since its release but never managed to see until now, review it here, and spark some interest in an older movie that really deserves an audience...assuming I myself have any audience at all. See you tomorrow!

Super 8 World

2007-09-25T20:48:00.000-05:00

Today I met someone with an old school Super 8 film camera. I love anything old school, and while this particular piece of equipment had certainly been around for some time (probably since the seventies, she and I agreed), and despite the fact she was taking it in to be repaired, it was in great condition. It had a problem with the motor, or the gears, which refused (I also love anthropomorphizing gizmos) to turn with the film cartridge in place. I'm sure she'll have it back in working order next week, which brings me to my point, assuming I have one: she can make a movie with a thirty year old camera.

I'm a big fan of efficiency at large, in general, and all around, and therefore I do appreciate the abilities digital filmmaking affords any and all of us out here with a dream and a vision, but I also believe there's something to be said for the old school methods. These days you can conceive, plan, shoot, edit, and distribute any dumb old movie you feel like in less than a day. One day! You could do it in half an hour if you really felt like it. But in the seventies, personal filmmaking was a passion. You really had to have something in you, that needed to get out, to go through the trouble of creating it. Now it's no trouble; back then, you needed love.

I'm not saying no filmmakers today have no love for what they do; obviously that's not true. However, the percentage is considerably lower. If you look at every "film" or "movie" under 10 minutes that was made in the past week...how much is made with love, and how much is total crap? People will shoot anything and consider it cinematic genius. And I'm not talking about home movies; that's just garbage, or simply personal, and it's really not a film. I'm talking (attempted) narrative structure here. When it was film or nothing, even though it was a simple-to-use small handheld camera, you needed the love to make the film, to put it all together. And now you don't. And now we have loads of super-crap.

With my mutual interest in things both old school and digi-new, it simply fascinates me to meet a film student with a Super 8 camera. Not only that, she wants to have it fixed, so it will work. So she can use it. So she can create her vision for the world to see. Now that's passion. That's my kind of filmmaker. The modern throwback. It's good to see someone like that still hanging around this city; I hope there are more of her.

In Tyler We Trust - Lessons Learned From Fight Club

2007-09-22T15:18:00.000-05:00

These are some of the ideas and ideals I take from the film, things I tell myself all the time. You can laugh, if you want, at this personal revelation; so what? Anyone who reads these blogs or knows me at all understands that my life is buried in the movies, and it's damn near impossible to dig me out of them.

The things you own end up owning you.
It's more than just the idea of material possessions; it's everything you feel is yours. The more you concern yourself with them, and their well-being, the more they shape your life, your day, your every thought. You want, you need, you earn, you gather, and what do you really have? Objects. Ideas. What do you do with them? You keep them, and that's all. To truly own something it has to be a part of you even out of your possession. You have to let it all go. You don't have to sell everything you own (good luck getting me to sell my DVD collection!), but you have to think of them as not belonging to you. They are there for you, you don't own them.

This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
So whatever you wish you were doing, stop wishing and work for it. Stop wasting time on what you don't want, what no one wants, and move the fuck forward! Human progress means humanity, not personal gain. Where are you going and what are you doing? What have you accomplished that makes you proud? Are you living, or merely alive? Are you a force of positive energy in the realm of humanity? Or is your existence ticking away with the rest of the unconscious universe? Wake the fuck up; this is your LIFE!

Stop trying to control everything and just let go.
So it's your life, but you're not in charge of much. You're only in charge of you. The rest of life is all around you, not a part of you. It's out of your hands, out of your reach, out of your control. To enjoy it you must become a part of it, not try to make it part of you.

I know it's just a movie, but there are always deeper philosophies in the movies than what shows up on the surface. There are even more great lines in the movie that carry a lot of meaning. If you never watched it for more than its entertainment value, check it out and give it some thought. If you've never even seen the movie, wake the fuck up!

Death Proof

2007-09-20T17:12:00.000-05:00

I never managed to get my ass to the theater earlier this year to catch Grindhouse while it was still playing. I'm sure I would have enjoyed the theatrical experience, but for me it's really about the movie anyway, so I don't feel like I missed out too terribly badly. That being said, with Death Proof released on its own this week, I was able to rent it. I think the most significant difference, which may or not be an advantage, in seeing it this way for the first time, is to see the extended cut. I'm sure the whole Grindhouse experience is a thing all to itself, to see Planet Terror, the trailers, and then Death Proof, and in a way I'll always be sorry I missed that. Then again, I've seen the full length feature of Death Proof not having any idea what was cut out for the Grindhouse version, and frankly, I don't care.

The movie works as it is. I'm sure it worked being shorter, but it probably wasn't as interesting and well-paced, and the shorter cut might not hold up on its own being separated from its half-sibling Planet Terror at its shorter length. The funny thing about all this: I think Kill Bill was ruined by being split up. Okay, not ruined, but it suffered. It was over-indulgent, and if anyone but Tarantino had made that movie, I would have been disgusted by a director being so full of himself. Why do I give QT a break? Because I don't think he made it longer so he could release two volumes and make more money in sales, and I don't think he did it because he considers himself so brilliant that nothing should ever be cut from his masterpiece...I think, in fact, I'm positive, he split up Kill Bill because he just loves movies, he's mad about cinema, and he wanted to pay homage to as many of his favorites as he could. He ended up with an indulgent shlock fest instead of a good movie, but that's okay; nobody's perfect. I don't want to get into a review of Kill Bill, but I will say I love the idea, and admire much of technique, but the execution fell flat, if you'll pardon the unintended pun.

Back to the present, and Death Proof. Once again, we have what was originally intended as one film, was in fact released as one film, split into two. And while there is certainly an element of sales involved in the decision, I refuse to fault Tarantino and Rodriguez for this element. Because I believe with all my heart they just want the films themselves to stand on their own. And not in a selfish way; I guarantee you Quentin wants to see Planet Terror be its own movie as much as he wants Death Proof to do the same; vice versa for RR. It's a selfless choice, I'm sure of it.

And it does work on its own; sure there are a few minor references to the other movie, which I have not yet seen, but nothing that detracts from my enjoyment. It's Tarantino back doing what he does best: exploring everyday interactions, under both normal and extreme circumstances, then exploding into violence. Kill Bill went off the deep end a bit; now he's back in the kiddie pool, frightening the children and creeping out the parents. I'm not quite sure what that metaphor means or where it came from, but I'll be damned if it doesn't seem perfectly accurate.

Death Sentence

2007-09-12T21:25:00.000-05:00

Not having anything better to do Monday afternoon, I went to see Death Sentence. Why did I choose this movie instead of more than a dozen others that were playing? This one started the soonest after I got there, and unless I'm sure a movie will be too stupid to sit through and not worth paying for (Balls of Fury, anyone?), I'm interested in checking it out. One of the good things about a lifelong interest in film and movies; you're not very picky about what you're willing to see. I like Kevin Bacon, anyway; he's always worth watching.

I was a bit surprised by the movie, for the most part, because it was not ridiculously gratuitously needlessly violent for the most part. It went a little over the top right toward the end, but one expects that; it's the big climactic sequence. The rest of it, however, does its best to remain subdued. Threatening, yes, but never overbearing, like I'm sure the Saw movies are, which is why I've never bothered to sit through or pay for any of them. I mention those horrible horrors because James Wan, the producer of all the Saw movies, as well as the director of the first one, is the director of Death Sentence. It seems to be in his nature to go over the top, and he must have realized a certain amount of restraint was necessary to make Death Sentence work.

And it does work, although there are long stretches where it turns into nothing more than a family drama, and once that part is over, it becomes a silly chase movie, but is also a very harsh revenge flick at the same time. Confused? Don't be; it's just a movie. It tries to reach into all the corners of the box it's marketed into, but it's too thin to stretch to all four of them at the same time. So it goes back and forth, but mainly, it's a revenge flick. It's simple, really; Kevin Bacon kills a bunch of punk ass gang member shitheads because they killed his son for no reason. And while it never goes too far, it never really goes anywhere.

For you film geeks out there, this movie contains an awful lot of examples of how one might go wrong using major de-saturation in the digital intermediate, as well as one outdoor sequence that underwent skip-bleach processing when it didn't need to, because it doesn't really match the rest of the look of the film. However, this is merely my personal opinion, and not only might I be wrong in regards to how the image was attained, but others may think it looks awesome. I too might think it looked awesome if I thought it was really serving a cinematic purpose, but I'm sure it was only done to give the film that grainy, gritty look, and it just doesn't quite have the impact I think they wanted it to. One can guess they were trying for a look that often came about in the 70's, which was simply due to the film stock and lighting they used at the time, and not through the same processes used today, because Death Sentence is directly related to the Charles Bronson series Death Wish; is actually adapted from the same novel, or something like that. Read up on it if you're interested; it's never a bad thing to learn something new.

Movie Head

2007-09-08T22:08:00.000-05:00

You know your head is stuck inside the world of movies when...

...you relish the opportunity to claim that something will happen "in little less a half a hour".

...you can’t drive into a car wash without muttering to yourself "pretty please, with sugar on top...clean the fuckin’ car" and then giggling about it.

...you attempt to insult someone by calling him/her a "scruffy-looking nerf-herder".

...you fail to remain friends with said persons if their immediate response is not "Who’s scruffy-lookin?"

...you expect people to explain themselves if you ask them "The heck ya mean?!" over and over and over.

...you exclaim disappointment in someone by crying "Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"

...you cannot help but respond to a question of "What’s in it?" with a musical phrasing of "That’s the point of the thing, not to know!"

...you are unable to fight the impulse, on being told you have said something funny, to get in that person’s face and say "funny how, like I’m a clown? I amuse you?"

...you can’t hear "There is no ‘I’ in team" without then going on about meatpies.

...you shout "It’s not illegal!" when accused of something mildly dishonest.

This is not simply a game of "Name That Quote"; I actually do or say these things, or somehow manage, despite the compulsion, not to. Seriously. I’m not well. But if anyone feels like naming all these movies, knock yourself out. They’re pretty easy.

Time Compression

2007-08-23T16:23:00.000-05:00

It might be nice to write a quick little blurb about screenwriting, or storytelling, and my views and ideas on how to do it well and all that fun helpful interesting stuff...but no, this entry is about something much different. Because I'm like that.

I had cable installed in my new apartment yesterday. Not because I feel I need a hundred channels, but I do feel I need to be able to see and hear whatever channel I do happen to be watching, and the reception here was so shitty that I opened my checkbook and signed up for digital cable...during a promotion, of course; I'm no spendthrift. Anyway, this particular promotion includes On Demand (is that trademarked?) programming and 11 HBO channels. None of which I feel I really need, but they show SO MANY MOVIES. And it's all included. Granted, much of it is not widescreen, and I hate the idea of fullscreen/cropped images/pan & scan SO FUCKING MUCH that it's certainly worth a rant on these pages at some point, but still...it's all free.

Okay, yes, I realize I am actually paying for it, but I'm paying for the cable and its regular programming; the HBO & On Demand are included, therefore, free, by certain definition. And how could I possibly pass up free movies? I can't, really, but there are only so many hours in a day and night, some of which simply have to be taken up by things like sleeping, working, and other aspects of modern existence. So I've got about a hundred movies at my fingertips, plus there's a branch of the good 'ol Chicago Public Library RIGHT around the corner where I can borrow all kinds of DVD's for a week at absolutely no cost to me...whatever shall I do?

What I'd like to do is somehow absorb an entire movie experience instantaneously instead of sitting there for 90-150 minutes, actually watching the darn things. Now, don't get me wrong, ha ha, I'm not saying the experience of sitting and watching a movie is too drawn out to be enjoyable and I'm nothing but an impatient lunatic...I may very well be one, but I would not trade a movie-watching experience for anything in the world. I live for it. But this sudden plethora of ready-entertainment is a bit overwhelming, and I'm simply saying it'd be nice to have a time-saving option such as downloading a digital format directly into my brain which would still give me the full experience of having seen the movie but also allow me to do all the other things I need to do with myself such as go to the grocery store like I did this morning.

Would that be so wrong?

The World of Craig Brewer

2007-08-19T13:22:00.000-05:00

Last week I rented Black Snake Moan, because it's been on my list of movies to see since I first heard of it, and when I walked into the video store it was the first title I saw that I could rent for a week. (I have so many movies I want to see, I spend very little time choosing one.) I don't think it's a great movie, but I liked it, mainly because the performances are so strong, and because the story tries to be different. I like movies that are a little bit off, a little bit strange, but not completely crazy impossible to get a handle on. Movies like this usually don't end up having a wide appeal, and often don't do well at the box office, and I don't think this was an exception. But it appeals to me, and I thought I might become a fan and supporter of writer/director Craig Brewer.

I'd heard nothing but great things about Hustle & Flow, so, after renting and liking Black Snake Moan, I figured I might as well see the guy's other movie, which I had at one point intended to see first, for the sake of being chronological, but it just didn't happen that way. And I didn't really like it. There's nothing bad to say about it, it's a strong film, decent storytelling, but I just didn't feel like it was anything new the way Black Snake is. It was all right, but I knew every beat of the story before it happened, I felt exactly where it was going every step of the way, and I just didn't care.

So the end result of this: I can see a lot of love and talent and hard hard work went into both movies, probably a lot more into Hustle & Flow, just because it's his first major film and it's always more difficult to establish oneself the first time, but after all of that work has been done and the movie is in place and it exists on its own, what separates the two? Story. How is it told, what does it show us, what do we experience in the telling? That's really what everything comes down to. The older I get, and the more I write, and the greater number of movies I see, the truer this maxim proves itself to be: story above all.

I don't care if you're a complete nobody with a mini dv and a bunch of friends and no money; you can make a great movie if you tell a great story. You can be a superbigshot badass with two hundred million dollars and a three hundred person crew and the greatest equipment in the galaxy, and if your story is pedestrian, the viewer's interest will walk out on you; heh heh. Story story story story story. Art painted on the sidewalk is still art. Beauty is beauty, truth is truth, in all its forms and incarnations.

Okay, so I titled this The World of Craig Brewer and went off topic a bit, not saying much about his movies, but I said what I feel and that's all I'm trying to do. The guy knows how to make a film, and if he keeps it new and interesting, I'm on board for the next one.

Big Open

2007-07-31T21:07:00.000-05:00

The Simpsons movie opened this past weekend and made a lot of money. I'm not going to look up the precise box office take, because I don't really give a shit; if you do, you're reading the wrong blog. It will stay in the theaters for a little while, and it will make more money, but all the hype will be gone, because it seems to be more important than ever these days for a movie to open big. And I think that kinda sucks.

Movie advertising runs on such a predictable schedule now, that it's all too easy for people like me, who pay attention to what's going on but don't actually care about anything but the movies themselves, to see the big picture all too clearly. There are the early trailers, the teasers, that generally contain no footage from the movie itself, but are designed to interest everyone in seeing the movie several months down the line. If they do use actual footage, typically it's assembled quite hastily, and it shows. Then about two months before release, there are full trailers everywhere. I might be off on the dates here, but this isn't the important part, so lighten up. Trailers online, official websites, on new release DVD's, in theaters before movies believed to have the same target audience. TV ads all over the place. A month before release, you see something every day, often two or three times an hour. During commercials, on buses, billboards, pop-ups...constant advertising. Then it mostly disappears for a while, until the week of release, when they REALLY bombard you. Then it's Friday, and the movie opens, and they shut the fuck up. The gates are open, the bull is loose, and all they can do is hope for a wild ride.

Maybe, during opening weekend, up through the following weekend, you might see and hear ads telling you it's the #1 movie, but after that, almost nothing. That's it. It's over. It's like they figure, if you haven't gone to see it by then, either you're not going to, or you've made up your mind to see it eventually whether you're exposed to more advertising or not, and advertising to you at that point would be a waste of money. So as far as the studios are concerned, they need you opening weekend, or forget it.

And that's the way they have to do it, because there's too much demand on the attention of the consumer, which is generally short and fickle, not to mention the wallet of the consumer, which is also fickle, and not really all that deep, even though one might not think so considering the spending habits on economic display these days. I think it sucks they're forced to advertise this way, they're stuck with putting all their eggs in the basket of opening weekend. Because I remember the days of a movie staying in first run theaters for 3 or 4 months, then moving to second run theaters, dollar shows, and occasionally still being there when they came out on video 6 months after opening weekend. This was not that long ago, people; I'm not that old. But the speed of commerce is accelerating so rapidly, I'm starting to feel old pretty fast here.

Let me put it this way: I remember being amazed by the release of Batman Returns on VHS only four months after its theatrical release. That was practically unheard of at the time. In addition, it was also released FOR SALE on the same date made available for rent. This too was quite rare. The only movies released for sale and rent at the same time were children's movies, Disney stuff, because a lot of people did (and still do) buy those movies for their kids without actually having seen the movie. So for Warner Bros. to do this on a major motion picture, that had done well in theaters, was a totally new thing.

Clearly it was done to increase holiday revenue; the movie even takes place at christmastime. I'm sure it worked, and everyone else said hey, we should do that, we can make more year-end money releasing summer movies in time for holiday shopping. I can't say I blame them, but still, the rush for sales is maddening to someone who just wants to see the movie without all this pressure. Now, it's like I've got to see it right away, or just wait to rent it. There's no middle ground anymore. There was even a time, not too long ago, when movies were released on DVD shortly after being out on VHS for a little while. Sometimes, you couldn't even rent the DVD, it was only for sale. All of this is gone now. Everything comes out in 4-6 months, immediately for sale, often on sale, sometimes advertised more heavily than it was for its theatrical release. Personally, I kinda miss the old days.

Not the old old days, pre-VCR...I'm not a baby boomer or some crazy old fart; give me a break. I just like movies to stay in the theater for a while. They can't do that now; there are too many releases, and if they don't have enough screenings of the newest movie, they won't pull in enough money. Everything's gotta be fast fast fast and move on. What movies opened a month ago? Live Free or Die Hard. Transformers. Something else, I'm sure. I haven't seen an ad for either of those big movies in weeks. But I did go see Die Hard last week. I liked it. And the theater was far from crowded. Pretty soon, they'll only be showing it after 8pm, and the week after that, it's gone, not to be seen again until christmas shopping is upon us, and the DVD shows up.

I actually have extremely vague memories of my father taking me to see Star Wars in August of '77, and I was only three and half years old. Star Wars opened in May. They all have, I think, but the point is, as successful as that movie was in its time, if it opened in May of '07, I'm sure it'd be long gone from theaters, with ads for the DVD just around the corner. And I think that's sad. I think we're missing something. Making movies is a business, but the business is speeding up so fast, the movies are being left behind.

Songs Remain the Same

2007-06-27T17:02:00.000-05:00

I find it very interesting when a song I've heard before, that I'm somewhat familiar with, is used during a scene in a movie, but used so well and so meaningfully that I can no longer hear the song without being taken back to that moment in the film - when the visual and emotional elements in the film become inextricable from the music. Here are a dozen examples off the top of my head - arranged, naturally, obsessively, even, some might say, in chronological order. (Mind you, these are not songs from movies, but songs already written, then used in the movie...songs with a life of their own prior to the existence of the film.)

Twist & Shout by The Beatles in Ferris Bueller's Day Off - How could anyone hear this song and not immediately picture Matthew Broderick on a parade float? Certainly no one from my generation...

Outshined by Soundgarden in True Romance - Brad Pitt smokin' a honey bear bong...those were the days, man.

Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd in Forrest Gump - along with Sweet Home Alabama (also used in Gump), probably their most widely known song...it's shown up in all kinds of movies over the years - the most recent in my memory being Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects (which used the entire song in a really stupid and boring way) - but the scene in which a despondent Jenny, fed up with her life of drug addiction, abuse, and loneliness, considers taking a dive from a balcony, edited to the pace of the music, really makes a strong cinematic impression, and that particular marriage of music and film really sticks with me.

Let's Stay Together by Al Green in Pulp Fiction - Hearing this, I can't help but picture a band-aid on the back of Ving Rhames' neck, and Bruce Willis' unchanging expression. Tarantino in particular is often mentioned as a filmmaker who creates indelible visual associations with certain music...I mean, who could possibly hear Stuck In The Middle With You by Dealer's Wheel and not think of Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs...the dancing psycho, the ear slicer...I mention it only because I listed another song from another Tarantino film, but it's not officially on my list...because it's just too easy.

The Seeker by The Who in American Beauty - Lester whistles the tune after a morning jog, on the last day of his life. The sound of a man who is doomed, yet surprisingly happy.

Where Is My Mind by The Pixies in Fight Club - I'd heard this song on the radio long before I saw the movie, and didn't think much of it...until the explosions went off. Now I can't imagine one without the other.

All Star by Smash Mouth in Shrek - Never a fan of the band, but a big green ogre washing himself in mud seems like a good match for the song...which I'm pretty sure was also used in the trailer for Mystery Men.

Notorious by Duran Duran in Donnie Darko - This movie uses a lot of eighties music to good effect, but for some reason, Sparkle Motion is a more distinct match...which is weird, considering they shot the scene using West End Girls by Pet Shop Boys, but couldn't get the rights to it.

Don't Stop Believin' by Journey in Monster - I don't think I've ever seen a song used so beautifully, and so powerfully, to drive a scene. Astonishing. I won't go into detail about it, because if you haven't seen it, I simply couldn't do it justice here. Rent it - the whole movie uses music very well, and this scene simply stands out.

Don't Stop Me Now by Queen in Shaun Of The Dead - I heard this on the radio yesterday, and totally felt like beating the crap out of a Zed-word with a pool stick. Also, the U.S. trailer shows our intrepid heroes approaching the Winchester, imitating the very crowd they walk amongst, to the tune of Pretend We're Dead by L7. A bit too on the nose, yes, but a great song, and it was still funny.

Something In The Way by Nirvana in Jarhead - I became an instant fan when Nirvana first hit the airwaves nationwide, and I've heard this song hundreds of times off the album, but it's become difficult to distinguish my own personal experience of the song from Swofford's predicament, his frustration, and that image of the sink filling up with vomited sand. Pretty strong stuff.

Super Freak by Rick James in Little Miss Sunshine - The song's been around a long time, and certainly doesn't have any deep psychological insight, but come on...Olive's crazy dance finally brings her family together. What can I say? I just love this movie.

If you want to hear any of these songs and see what they make you think of...well, go look 'em up! You've got an internet connection. After that, watch the movie. Tell me what you think. I like to hear opinions.

Roger Ebert

2007-06-18T14:43:00.000-05:00

Roger Ebert's birthday was a few days ago, so this seems like a good time to tell the story of the time I met him. I didn't approach him at some film festival, or stalk him in the lobby of the Sun-Times; I just happened to meet him, about ten years ago.

I was working in a music store in a terminal at O'Hare airport, and one afternoon, Roger Ebert wandered in, not really shopping but just killing time until his flight. Being an employee and all, I struck up the usual customer conversation; can I help you find something, that kind of crap...then asked him if he'd been to a press screening for some movie that was coming out soon. I don't remember which one, but I remember wanting to know more about it. It might have been Titanic; I'm not sure. But with no other customers stopping in, and he being early for his flight, we were able to stand around and talk about movies for twenty minutes.

I do remember asking what was his favorite movie of the year so far; he told me L.A. Confidential. I hated that movie then, and still do. What I remember most about our discussion is this: even though it's his job to give his opinion, in print and on TV, when you just talk to the man about movies, he's not as strongly opinionated...because it is his job to be that way, not his natural personality. He was very interested in what I didn't like about L.A. Confidential, and why. One could assume he was simply humoring me, but the conversation was more about our sincere respect for movies and film than our personal opinions. He just really loves movies, and loves to talk about them, as do I.

It isn't a very exciting story, I know, but it does support my belief that anyone with a passion for movies and a respect for the opinions of others is no different from anyone else with an equal passion and respect...even when one of those people is famous for his opinions.

Transformers

2007-06-07T17:38:00.000-05:00

I know it won't be out for another month, but so help me, I actually want to see this in the theater. Just for the hell of it. It's summer, right? I don't have to be a film snob...not all friggin' year, anyway.

Not like I expect it to be good, or anything. Fun is not the same as good. Besides, it's Michael Bay, for gosh sakes. The man does not make quality films. But there is something uniquely, visually, cinematically compelling in his body of work, despite how utterly ridiculous the stories are, how stupid and ineffective and unmoving his movies always turn out to be. Anyone see The Island? What a stunningly beautiful load of crap that was. Although, if it wasn't for Bad Boys II, we wouldn't have Hot Fuzz...I suppose I can thank him for that.

Is this the time to set off on a diatribe of the disparity between art and commerce, quality and quantity, films vs. movies, blockbusters vs. moderate success? Nah. Sometimes I want to see a movie just for the sheer thrill of the experience. Say what we will about guys like Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer (who is actually not his exec. producer here); they do their big budget best to bring that thrill, and I have to give them their due. At least they stick with what they're good at; heaven forbid Mr. Bay tries to make a film with meaning, or true human emotion. Oh wait, he already did - Pearl Harbor...and we all know how that one sucked it hard. For the most part, anyway.

Talk about commerce; check these out.

Smoking: Rated R

2007-06-04T15:31:00.000-05:00

I'm going to try not to get either too indignant or preachy, but to put it as simply as possible, here's what these non-smoking groups want: if a character is seen in a movie using a tobacco product, and is not shown suffering any ill effects of said use, that movie should be rated R. Seeing as movies are already given R ratings for certain degrees of language, sex, violence, and drug use, why not do the same for smoking, right? I'll tell you why not; there's no point.

The intention of groups like Smoke Free Movies (click the title for a link to their 'Solution') is not so much to increase the number of R-rated movies, but to give filmmakers and movie studios a reason not to include smoking in their films. Generally speaking, PG-13 movies make more money than R movies. If a studio has a choice between losing a lot of box office cash or editing out a shot of an actor lighting a cigarette...easy choice. I'll buy that. What I won't buy is that any kid or teenager who sees a movie, of any rating or content, anywhere, will start smoking due to the influence of that movie over any other factor in his/her life. And as much as these groups and their studies claim to have data to back up their position, I can't find any instance in which they actually produce it.

I read an article stating "...smoking in PG-13 movies rose 50 percent in 1999-2000..." Okay...what movies? What characters, what scenes? For that matter, how many movies? Honestly; how many PG-13 movies could there be from one year to the next in which characters are smoking? Two or three? Where's your evidence? For that matter, what is the individual demographic information for each and every kid who saw those movies and took up smoking and made several sworn statements and testimonials that he or she started smoking because it was in those movies? There's no direct correlation. Even if there is smoking in those movies, and even if more kids who saw those movies started smoking than kids who didn't...that's only statistical correlation. They're just numbers. It's basically meaningless.

And I've got news for you: kids know how to lie. They're not going to say "My buddy Jimmy stole a pack of cigarettes and we smoked them when my parents weren't home." They won't tell you "I just wanted to know what it was like" or "I just bought 'em to see if my fake ID worked and figured I might as well smoke 'em." And they certainly won't tell you "All my friends smoke and I didn't want them to make fun of me." When you talk to a bunch of kids who smoke, about movies with characters who smoke, and ask if they started smoking after watching those movies...DUH! What do you think they're going to say?

The problem I have with these groups...sure, what they're suggesting isn't such a bad thing, because it doesn't really hurt anybody, and tobacco products do seem to kill a lot of people...it's not their reasoning, it's their reasons. The whole big REASON they want this? To keep kids from smoking. You know what? Talk to the damn kids, then! It's got nothing to do with the movies! I don't care what kind of studies they've done; the film industry is not a marketing tool for the tobacco companies. Either intentional or unintentional, directly or subliminally - movies simply do not cause kids to start smoking.

I defy anyone to show me a direct correlation for even one kid - someone who saw a movie, thought smoking was cool, and decided to have a cigarette with no other decisive influence pushing him to light up. Just one! Won't happen. Because in the end, aside from all the various influences, it's still up to that one kid to decide what to do. His life is his own, as is each of ours. And there's no way to hold any unrelated group of people responsible for the decisions and actions of a lone individual, unless they're explicitly and persistently attempting to influence behavior in precisely that manner. Good luck convincing anyone that's the case.

Just so no one tries to extend this argument to other areas of controversy, such as movie violence or racism, or other things of that nature: smoking may be bad for you, but it isn't wrong. Pulling out a gun and shooting people is wrong, whether it happens in the movies or out here in the world. Maybe there's a connection, maybe not, but smoking on film isn't actually wrong, and shooting people is. How these actions are represented on film can be put up for debate another day.

If you're worried about kids and tobacco - address the kids directly, instead of treating them like empty vessels who do nothing but react to whatever influence forces itself upon them. If teenage smoking is a problem for you, deal with the teenagers, not the movies the teenagers are watching. Am I seriously the only one who finds that kind of thinking offensive and inhumane? This idea that we must stop people from giving kids bad ideas because that means our kids will do those bad things? That they can't help it? That it wouldn't be better to help our kids be informed and intelligent and able to make decisions on their own or consult us when they need to and know they can always talk to us about these things? No, let's just keep tobacco out of the movies they watch, so they'll never even think of smoking and always be perfect little angels.

Give me a break.

Here's a fun link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705898/

20 Things I Learned From 90's Movies

2007-05-29T13:07:00.000-05:00

The cinematic sources for these statements are pretty easy to guess, for the most part; at least I think so. I even put them in chronological order, more or less. Stumped? Let me know.

You can't buy the necessities of life with cookies.

You are what you do.

You can't leave the desk like that!

We covet what we see every day.

Ten thousand years will give you such a crick in the neck.

It's all about the information.

Life finds a way.

Nothing's more suspicious than frog's breath.

There are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give himself away.

Title does not dictate behavior.

Sometimes there just aren't enough rocks.

Life has its little bonuses.

Rockets explode!

Plants don't talk.

Don't fold the maps.

The pen is blue.

Mathematics is the only truly universal language.

Gripes go up.

One of the drawbacks to being intangible is that you have no say in the editorial process.

The things you own end up owning you.

Pirates 3: At World's End

2007-05-25T11:49:00.000-05:00

I would have written this earlier today, after getting home from the midnight show around 5am, but I'm not as young as I used to be, so I just went straight to bed. Pathetic, I know...what can you do?

And the review is...glowingly positive. Seems a change of pace after I bashed the previous two, but honestly, this one doesn't suffer from the problems of its predecessors. Pirates 3 is compelling where the first two are silly, moving where the others are cheesy, and funny where the first two are annoying. And it was really funny; I need to see it again without so many people around so I can hear what was said after some of the better moments. A few of the gags are a bit too easy and lowbrow; a surprising quantity of dick jokes for a Disney movie. There are some great bits with Jack the Monkey; I won't spill them here.

Everything that worked in the first two movies still works here, sometimes even better than before. And while the consensus of early news reviews is focused on how confusing and confounded the many plots and subplots are, I had no problem following the entire story all the way through. And on the second one, it did seem a bit over-convoluted to me, needlessly so. This is even more complex, yet I was never left wondering what was going on. It's possible that, having seen the second one just a few days ago, the plots and relationships were fresh in my mind and that made it easier to follow, but I believe, in addition to my awareness, the filmmakers actually did a better job of telling this story. They made everyone's motivations clear, and they edit the movie together in such a way that I was never left waiting to get back to another part of the story. It all makes sense together, as complex as it is, and I don't feel they succeeded in doing this for the previous two films.

There are a couple things I wasn't entirely sure about, and a few other things that could have been done better, but nothing that detracts from the overall experience. With the first two, I was sitting there thinking "Well that's dumb, but oh well" about every ten minutes. Didn't happen this time; they were minor elements. I won't say what because I don't want to spoil anything.

The aspects I admire in the first two were even stronger here. The visual effects are stunning, the images grandiose and astonishing. Even the simple, non-action sequences were quite beautiful to gaze at. Speaking of beautiful to gaze at, Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom...what can I say; they're more gorgeous than ever, especially when they share the screen. And the best thing about the first two movies...Johnny Depp, the actor, the performer, the movie star...he really turns it up here. Again, I wish to spoil nothing, but in one major sequence, and several minor ones, he gives the most amazing series of performances. Nobody can do what he does with such a perfect mix of charm, bravado, and silliness. As good as he was before, he is that much better here. He continues to be a unique treasure in the world of film, and one of my personal favorites.

The rest of the regular cast are just as good as ever; Geoffrey Rush in particular seems to be having a grand old time. His delivery is so distinctive and precise; he really sets the tone for most of the film. Yes, Keith Richards has a cameo. It did seem to fit the story and serve a small purpose, instead of simply being a casting stunt, but the crowd in the theater kept murmuring the whole time he was on screen, so I can't say for sure how well it worked.

The story, as the third of a trilogy, does a good job of bringing it all back around in a natural way. Nothing feels forced like the other two, as if something needed to happen to push the story toward the next sequence, even if it comes out of nowhere. Everything here feels motivated, and true, right down to the way each character ends up once the movie is over. I've heard it said there are big surprises regarding which characters are killed off, and when, and how, but I wouldn't say I was surprised by any of them. Like I said, it's organic, not forced, and it works for the story. Some fans may be disappointed by the death of certain characters, others may be glad to see them go, but all in all, I think the filmmakers did what needed to be done.

Not than anyone really needs encouragement, if they already want to see this movie, but I think it's definitely worth seeing. If you haven't seen the other two, you probably won't have a clue what's going on, but if you don't like the other two, you could still be impressed by At World's End, as I was, and did not expect to be. So forget about the box office, and just go see a good movie. For me, that's all it's ever truly about.

Pirates....arrrrr

2007-05-23T09:57:00.000-05:00

The new Pirates of the Caribbean movie comes out this weekend, and a friend invited me to a midnight show on Thursday. Since I never got around to seeing the second one, I rented it a couple days ago. Wouldn't want to go to the theater unprepared, now would I? So, with the second movie fresh in my mind, and the third one looming on the horizon, I have pirates on the brain. And there are a few things I don't understand.

The main thing that boggles my sensibilities is the hype. The fandom. I'm often a movie geek myself, and I can really get into the intricacies of a cinematic creation, but, man...these Pirates fans are out there! They are so into it, and I honestly don't see what's so special about the films. They're entertaining; absolutely. They're fun, they give the viewer an enjoyable experience, they star three of the most beautiful people on the planet...but they're really not that good. The story goes all over the place. Events seem to occur for the sole purpose of creating an action sequence, and not out of a naturally developing storyline. It's not great writing. It's creating a script out of a movie, not the other way around.

Okay, so most fans aren't really going to care about the story as much as I do, right? Well, no; they actually seem to care a great deal about the tiniest details. Problem is, they seem to think these details actually make sense. They respond to the character's actions and motivations as if half the things they do don't come out of nowhere, simply so the movie can continue. And I know, people will say that Jack Sparrow's motivations are supposed to be unclear, because he's a pirate, a scalawag, a deceitful, charming rogue...that's not what I'm talking about. That's context; I'm referring to content.

Near the beginning of Pirates 2, Bootstrap Bill Turner shows up to talk to Jack...where did he come from? How did he get there? He grabs Jack's hand and somehow causes this weird black spot to show up there, which apparently means the Kraken will now chase Jack, because he has the black spot...how did he give him the spot? Later, Davy Jones takes the spot away? How? Why? Even later, the spot suddenly grows back! With no provocation? WTF?

I know there are answers to these questions, that the fans I'm referring to know all about these things, but my point is, the movie doesn't make these things clear in the first place, because it doesn't think it has to. I think it should, because I consider it bad writing not to, but, as long as a viewer understands that this black spot on Jack's hand means the Kraken will come after him, that's enough. If you understand that, you know why he gets away from the open sea, and you know why the Kraken shows up later. And the Kraken has to show up later, because it's a big cool action sequence, and, this being a summer movie, it needs to have a number of big cool action sequences. Who cares why, right? I do...

So anyway, these fans get into the tiniest little details about Will and Elizabeth, and whatever Jack is up to, like the movie is a giant tapestry of mystery and there are riddles to be solved...like it's an intricate construct of love and betrayal and supernatural elements and blah blah blah...it isn't. Even though many small details are skipped over for the sake of bringing the storyline to all the major sequences, it's pretty straightforward. The fans talk about clues and hints and the simplest of actions as if they have some great meaning beyond their part in the story...they don't. It's just a fun movie. Let it go, freaks.

Enough about the movies; I've also got real pirates on the brain. Well, maybe not real pirates, but what is referred to these days as piracy, namely, bootleg DVD's. I don't get it. Who would want them? Why would anyone want to buy, even at what might be considered a nice cheap price, what is basically a home video of an actual movie? Someone sits in the theater with a camera, records the movie, and people actually want to watch this recording? Why? It looks like crap, it sounds awful, and if you want to get technical, it's stolen property. I fail to comprehend the inclination. It's low quality, and illegal. How is that appealing? Come to think of it, I may have just figured this out...

This may sound familiar to some of you, if you're reading this; you know who you are: good, fast, cheap; pick two. That's on the production end of making a movie. But this piracy/bootleg problem may be operating under the same dictum, and apparently, there are millions of fools out there choosing fast and cheap for their viewing pleasure. It's pretty stupid, really. I mean, if you need it fast, go to the theater! That's why it's there, for you to go see it right away! If you avoid the theater because you need it cheap, then wait for the video store to sell a used DVD. If you can't wait and you can't pay, you won't get quality. And if you don't need it to be good...why do you even bother? What's the point of watching or owning a movie if it's no good?

Even though I'm not a big fan of the Pirates movies, I do think they're worth the rental price. If I did really like them, I'd certainly think they were worth the purchase price. I even think the third one is worth the ticket price I paid to see it tomorrow night. Because I may not be a fan of these particular movies, but I am a movie fan. I only wish that everyone who buys or views a movie had as much respect for the craft as I do.

Sequels

2007-05-20T10:26:00.000-05:00

I'm not against them...I even get really interested, in some of them. I just wish they would actually make good movies, not only with the sequels, but in the first place. I can think of five second sequels (that's a quantity of third movies, not movies five seconds long, heh heh) coming out this summer, two of which are already in theaters...yes, that's FIVE movies that are the THIRD in what may very likely end up becoming more than a trilogy. I'm sure anyone who reads this has already heard of the movies, but those five, off the top of my head, are: Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Ocean's Thirteen, and Rush Hour 3. Here's a quick cast-off opinion for each.

I used to be a big fan of Sam Raimi; I think the Spider-movies are stupid and overblown. What happened to him? A lot of spectacle, but nothing spectacular. Tobey sucks. Kirsten is so much better than that. I hear a lot of people say the first one wasn't so good, sure, but the second one was near-perfect...I think those people are nuts. The second one was just as stupid, only in different ways. He keeps taking off his mask for no reason; that alone is enough for me to frown and shake my head, but there's so much more...

I like the first Shrek because it's funny, even though the story doesn't hold together, and elements of the animation are quite amazing, such as the lighting, backgrounds, and textures, but the facial expression is really pretty bland, especially compared to the work by Pixar. Now, the only reason I make a direct comparison here is that in 2001, Shrek won the first Oscar for Best Animated Feature, when it was so clearly more deserved by Monsters, Inc. That will continue to piss me off until the end of time. I have not yet gotten around to renting Shrek 2. I'm sure it will be funny and pretty, yet lacking in story and emotionally expressive character animation.

The first Pirates looked great, sounded great, made good use of its large budget...still kinda stupid, though, and I expect the same of the second one, which, again, I have not yet gotten around to renting. I will; I swear.

Ocean's Eleven is not a great movie, or even a good movie, but it is a fun movie. Entertainment for the sake of entertainment, and there aren't enough movies like it these days. I really enjoy it, and I watch it all the time. Twelve, though...blecch. They tried too hard to recreate the fun, and it was simply too ridiculous. Too much plot. If the third one gets back to what made the first one enjoyable, which is the interaction of all these actors who seem to be having a great time, it just might work out okay.

Rush Hour is a dumbass action comedy, an old formula that only works when the characters themselves are more interesting than merely entertaining. These guys are not interesting. I had, and still have, no reason to see the second one; now that there's finally a third, I have no reason to see that one either.

There is a distinct possibility that any or all of these franchises will not stop at three. I don't think that's a bad thing...I just wish they wouldn't spend so much money on sequels, and have more set aside for original ideas, for simple, interesting cinema. I know it's a business, and every business needs a big moneymaker, but...it's just too much. How many other sequels, and comic book adaptations, and remakes, will be out by the end of year? I don't much feel like counting, but the funny thing is, some movies fit more than one of these categories...think about it. How sad is that?

And We're Off...

2007-05-17T18:56:00.000-05:00

For anyone who's happened onto this page, I'll be adding things here and there as I post from day to day, and I assure you there will be something of interest very soon, especially if you love to read and think about movies...maybe even watch one on occasion. Thanks for checking it out.