Best of the Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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.