Filmpozium

the Birds...

2011-11-20T16:45:00.000-08:00

So, this new (hopefully permanent) job is taking up most of my time, but I have to note that "the Big Year", starring Steve Martin, Owen Wilson, and Jack Black is fantastic. The three leads are surprisingly lacking their usual annoying or sad-sack qualities, but mostly, it was a movie that avoided the "Hollywood Twist". We've all heard people whine about the "Hollywood Ending," but when I can call at the beginning of a film "oh, he's nice, he's going to die," that means there's something wrong.

True, having seen every single episode of "Murder, She Wrote" has made it easier for me to sense when a character is going to bite the dust, but sometimes they make it so obvious by going with the formula: (likability of character + seriousness of movie) / how many people can die in the genre at hand = possibility of character dying. Of course.

Anyway, this movie avoids those obnoxious formulas, making something that seems new and interesting. It was enjoyable but not cloying, somewhat tense at times, but mostly something that felt like a relaxing hobby that you were sharing with some friends. This movie made me feel like things could work out, even if everything isn't perfect--and honestly, right then, I needed to feel like that. I've always felt that the best thing about movies is that, when your life is being a raging disappointment, they make you want to keep looking for that better life. This movie in particular made me think "why not me"... although birding isn't quite my cup of tea.

I'm all for realism and meaningful, educational entertainment, but sometimes I just want to laugh. Once in awhile, it's nice to only worry vaguely about a character, as opposed to being afraid for his very life. This is a purely entertaining movie with some mild drama and occasional laughs. I highly recommend this to anyone who needs a break, or who likes birds. There are birds. Hence "the Birds". Speaking of which, that movie makes me giggle.

Incidentally, I went to look up a word at Merriam-Webster Online and found who but Ingrid Bergman on the main page. Nifty. Her picture was next to a list of favorite quotations about words. Her quotation was “A kiss is a lovely trick, designed by nature, to stop speech when words become superfluous.”

I know, this review is brief and not that helpful, for which I apologize. On the bright side, I wrote something ... right?

Move Over Miss Marple

2011-08-03T18:00:00.000-07:00

(I'm just reposting an old one from a few years ago... but I like it and it's all still true... next up will be the "Harry Potter" review, followed by a brief dissertation on children's movies... if I make myself write it...)

I don’t know what you were planning to do tonight, but trust me, “Hot Fuzz” is way more fun.

Did you see “Shaun of the Dead”? Doesn’t matter. “Hot Fuzz” is probably the best movie I’ve seen in theatres since 2005, and that’s saying something. Each joke is carefully, lovingly laid out, and even when I saw it coming, I didn’t see it coming. I laughed so hard at some parts that my stomach started to hurt. Even when I wasn’t supposed to be laughing, the smile lasted long after the punchline had been delivered.

Simon Pegg plays the lead, “Nicholas Angel,” a cop who’s too good at what he does. He is sent to the country to mind a peaceful village so he no longer makes his London coworkers look bad. Angry, tense, but somewhat defeated, Nick heads to “Sandford” in order to take over as sergeant. Soon after his arrival, a death (or a few) occur, and it’s up to Nick Angel to find out what’s going on.

For those of you who’ve actually seen “Shaun of the Dead”, you’ll recognize Nick Frost returning as Pegg’s right hand man. The movie pushes them together in a manner less lazy than that of “Shaun,” but it feels more natural. Nick Frost plays “Danny,” but I’ll let you find out who he is in terms of the town. It’s part of the fun.

“Hot Fuzz” is about as silly as they come, but it’s also endearing without trying to be, and it entertains better than, well, anything else I’ve seen in recent memory. The acting was convincing, and while the leads made the movie, the side characters were necessary to the magic. Jim Broadbent (Gangs of New York, Brazil, Bridget Jones’ Diary) was solidly iffy as the Chief Inspector of Sandford. Paddy Considine (In America, highly recommended) did a bang-up job of being an hilarious ass, and Timothy Dalton (Bond, James Bond) was smarmy personified as a local merchant. Really, everyone was fantastic, and the script was so good that it probably hid anyone who wasn’t.

The jokes start so early in this movie that you’ll have barely settled into your seat, and they don’t stop. Every time I wanted something to happen, it happened. Once, I hadn’t even realized how badly I needed that kick to the face to happen, but the makers of “Hot Fuzz” took care of it for me anyway. Never has murder been so funny, so riotous, and so delightfully un-subtle. It oddly has all the charm of a traditional English murder mystery combined with some Monty Python type humor and then some new twists all its own.

The best part about the movie was that it didn’t seem self-conscious and awkward. It was the ultimate buddy flick, and it didn’t seem uncomfortable with that. If I ever needed a way to say to my friends, “I love you guys”, taking them to this movie would be it. One scene in the movie takes place in a grocery store, and involves a comment about a freezer. The brief exchange that follows is one of the sweetest moments in a movie that I have ever witnessed, and I love Pegg and Frost for creating it.

There was a line I really loved, but I’ll have to wait to see it again (and remember a pen this time—I know, that doesn’t help you, sorry.) In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this thought: what do "He-Man", a sea mine, and Harry Potter’s "Argus Filch" have in common? To find out, watch “Hot Fuzz”!

I recommend it to anyone over the age of 17. ANYONE.

With Song-Like Tread…

2011-06-29T23:01:00.001-07:00

Musicals are a tricky genre. If you’re not careful, you’ll find something so saccharine it makes you sick, or songs so offensive you’ll cringe to the beat. However, then you’ll get something amazing, thrilling, or just so catchy you can’t escape. Then, it’s all worth it, and you don’t mind the hours spent listening to the duds.

An obvious, newer example of awesome is “Moulin Rouge”. The songs are classic, inspired, colorful, and sung by popular actors. It’s silly, romantic, and honestly, been rewritten a thousand ways. A more interesting, if older example is the “Pirates of Penzance”. It’s a rip-roaring expanse of Kevin Kline preening, Angela Lansbury prying, and a couple of pop-stars pretending to be actors. The songs, by Gilbert and Sullivan, are entertaining, lively, and effective when you need something to sing as you walk in a large group down a street at night.

Now, “the Sound of Music” is fun and a sentimental favorite, but it can turn people away (Rex Harrison, for instance, hated the movie with a passion). “Mamma Mia” is polarizing—some people love disco, and some people don’t know a good thing when they hear it. “Across the Universe” was such a good idea, but lacked the ability to take it anywhere beyond a middle school history project.

Modern “Rent” and classic “Fiddler on the Roof” are well done but huge downers. “Grease”, “Meet Me in St. Louis” and “Hair” are dated, despite being period pieces and thereby movies that should be exempt from being dated (not that it makes me like “Hair” any less). “Singing in the Rain” is cute, but learn a few of the songs and you could easily become the most annoying person in the world. “West Side Story” has, need I say it, been done before. “Chicago” was chipper, sleek and shiny, and I would actually recommend that one. Huh.

For something fun and different, you could try “Yankee Doodle Dandy” which contains an exuberant James Cagney dancing his feet off, singing his heart out, and making you think “Tom Powers who?” (which you might be thinking already). Another interesting take is Frank Sinatra in “On the Town”—despite the fact that he was a singer, it still makes me laugh to see him dancing around New York City in a sailor suit like a character from “Glee”.

“Mary Poppins” is practically perfect in every way, except for that unresolved chemistry between Poppins and the chimneysweep;“Oklahoma” is sweet and corn-fed. “Phantom of the Opera” can be electric if done well, and “Aida” will be amazing if they ever get around to it. I’ve never liked “Carousel” or “South Pacific”, although I’m sure they have their merits, and there are so many more musicals I have yet to see.

So where has this random list and vague opining of musical film brought us? It has brought us to the dredges, the depths, the Disney.

Now, I like some Disney (and Disney-esque) movies, and I feel there is some positive effect from most music and telling stories. However, I will briefly rip into a few choice mistakes. “Pocahontas” and “Anastasia” take the lives of real people, scribbles over them with pretty pictures and catchy tunes, and pretends to be taking you on an adventure. Really, though, they’re leading millions of children into believing that they are what really happened, and insulting the real people they pretend to be about. They are about as lazily, insipidly creative as Philippa Gregory and her armies of Tudor lies, and they all hold hands and sing charmingly as they stupefy the nation. Then we have “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”, “the Little Mermaid”, and about half the stories Disney has retold in cartoon form. Here, they rewrite classics to make them cute and appealing, thereby removing much of what made the stories fascinating to begin with. Why… why?!

At any rate, that’s my take on movie musicals. At least, that’s as organized I can be two days before a move. Hopefully, if you’ve taken anything away from this, it’s that Jimmy Cagney is a bully song and dance man, Kevin Kline is the fellow to see, Disney makes rum films, and disco is back!

the Ghost of Valentine's Day

2011-02-07T21:43:00.001-08:00

Valentine’s Day is a nice idea—celebrating love and warm colors. However, rather than wait until February when you’re cold and angry at the cold, why not watch “The Ghost and Mrs Muir” just about any day of the year? Far more restrained than today’s romcoms etc., this still manages to evoke all the humor, sadness, and longing that make romance the fascinating topic we all love… no pun intended, of course.

Gene Tierney is a young widow feeling free for the first time in her life, not due to spite, but to the constraints of society and her chosen life. Given a second chance, she escapes to the sea where she finds an undesirable house, deemed so due to its otherworldly resident. Rex Harrison (whom some of you will recognize as the vocal father of Family Guy’s Stewie Griffin) plays the titular ghost who refuses to leave his erstwhile home. He stubbornly refuses to leave any new tenants in peace, having gotten the house just to his liking. Mrs. Muir, however, is just as obstinate, reasonably believing that she has every right to live in the house, since it’s, for that particular purpose, empty.

The banter between the two is enjoyable, the cinematography and scenery are lovely—the fact that they lack color does nothing to lessen their beauty. I’ve always looked at black and white films as a sort of memory. Whereas new movies generally push color and sound and even themes until I stop believing in them, some old movies like this one have a sort of dreamy quality that mixes with some gothic sensibility. It makes for an experience that seems like sifting through the thoughts of some mysterious person who one can only tell has lived long. The only people who seem able to make subtle but stunning movies today are Guillermo del Toro (subtle when he wants to be—Pan’s Labyrinth) and Peter Weir (stunning in his subtlety—Picnic at Hanging Rock).

Rex Harrison and Gene Tierney make for a believable couple, who seem to love each other as much for their similarities as their differences. One is worldly and bored by his current approximation to life, and one unwilling to accept limits in her actual one. It sounds like something we’ve often heard, but rarely done so well. It was also at a time when it was not unheard of for a woman to be a free spirit and to think and make a life for herself, but it certainly wasn’t the theme in every other movie proclaiming to be about and for women. Tierney is convincingly tenuous in her attempts at adventure, and I root for her wholeheartedly as she shakes off every non-believer, including herself. I wonder if some of today’s actresses could watch her performance and see that there is something to be said for restraint, even when taking life for all it’s worth.

This is the Dave I Know, I Know...

2011-01-18T23:58:00.001-08:00

I ask people all the time if they've seen "Dave". No, Dave is not a person I know, or a six foot tall rabbit, but rather a mild, immensely amusing comedy from the 1990s. "Dave" stars Kevin Kline--fantastic actor and singer, Sigourney Weaver--good in maybe one other movie, and of course, those other guys. It is funny, flighty, friendly, and fittingly simple, as its brief-but-to-the-point title would imply. Kline is "Dave", the wide-eyed protagonist to Weaver's eye-rolling love interest. They dance down the well-worn path of romcoms, breaking through facades and shadowy dealings, and they do so well and efficiently. However, the best parts of the movie involve side characters, like a stuffy secret service agent who would look more approachable in a v-neck, and a delightfully evil villain with a pleasantly witty minion. The dialogue is, to me, the true star of the film, though. The delivery is fantastic, but somehow--even on paper--those lines would make me laugh until I'm awkwardly trying to stop because my stomach is kind of hurting due to the lack of breath (this same problem occurred during multiple viewings of "Hot Fuzz").
I could have, I know, reviewed a more recent movie--or at least one most people have heard of today. But when considering my recent trips to the theater and the fact that of all my owned movies, only "The Vikings" made me want to write anything, I found that "Dave" simply wanted to be discussed. I highly recommend viewing this movie, not least because that lady from "the American President" shows up in it, which was neat.

Abbreviated Swan

2011-01-18T23:35:00.000-08:00

The other day, I saw Black Swan, and have discovered that someone can have a brilliant eye, but no ear for music. Darren Aronofsky presented us with some top notch acting (Natalie Portman, Barbara Hershey), some entertaining performances (Vincent Cassel), and a beautifully choreographed tale of desperation to be perfect. Every step seethes with potential to succeed magnificently or crash magnetically. Each wave of an arm seems ready to create or destroy. I was swept up in a story too cold and contained, but burning with desire. Then, suddenly, the sound effects push their way into my trance. I'm listening to incessant slurping while a character is experiencing a breakthrough. Then, in the climactic moment of a woman surging into life too powerful for her own mortality, I am pushed away by the repetition of a song that had already--perhaps too soon--played its part.
The movie itself seemed too short, yet too long at some scenes. It overstayed its welcome, but seemed unable to achieve its aim. Perhaps it strove too hard for perfection, like it's protagonist, and fell. However, it was so much less elegant, tragic, and poetic in itself and its failure, that it made me wonder why the director focused so much on the movie and so little on the story. Strange as it sounds, that's how I felt-- like he was so overly-focused on creating a metaphor that he missed the point...no pun intended.

Favorite Actors

2010-10-10T18:37:00.000-07:00

Paul Newman
Clive Owen
Jimmy Stewart
Kirk Douglas
Sidney Poitier
Cary Grant
Jesse Eisenberg
Djimon Hounsou
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Ingrid Bergman
Catherine Zeta Jones
Katherine Hepburn
Rachel Weisz
Natalie Portman
Kate Winslet
Gene Tierney
Imelda Staunton
Jamie Lee Curtis
Emma Thompson

A Note

2010-10-05T21:06:00.000-07:00

Now, I haven't written anything in awhile, but I have to say that I'm psyched that people are giving props to Jesse Eisenberg. I first noticed him in Adventureland, a lip-bitingly average movie with an acceptable cast and cute storeline. However, I first realized that I was a fan when I saw him in Zombieland, a combination awesome monster flick/Woody Harrelson masterpiece. I said to my friends "it's Michael Cera with talent and a variety of emotions!" (I should note that I like Michael Cera, and loved Arrested Development.)
Eisenberg is one of those actors who I believe and want to see become a star (or at least, frequently cast). I have yet to see "the Social Network", and have no interest in the story itself. However, I am psyched to see what is being lauded as a great performance. I'm a huge movie nerd that hasn't seen a movie in awhile due to the stress of a mediocre life, but I'm going to drag myself out of it long enough to show fiscal faith to a promising actor (although I'll be out soon after to see "Red" because... well... how can you not?)

The end of my little pro-actor rant. For a full list of favorite actors and actresses that I like, see the next time I get dorky enough to write something.

Oh, movies

2010-01-17T00:46:00.000-08:00

So, it's been far too long and I need to post something. It's quite likely that no one reads this, but I feel like a little more of a failure if I don't post at all.

I'm unsure though; what should I write? (Is that grammar even correct?) I saw Avatar--someone has smurf, race, war, and animal issues. Yes, it looked neat, and sure, I saw socio-political messages dripping and decrying from every angle. However, it lacked a certain level of storytelling quality that I foolishly expected. I wasn't expecting a Robert Altman movie, but this was so close to George Lucas I wanted to cry. The acting was acceptable, but honestly, I never needed to see Sigourney Weaver naked.
I did need to see Sherlock Holmes, and it wasn't Sherlock Holmes, but it was fun. Jeremy Brett was the Great Detective, and anyone who tries to mimic him is a poor copy, and updates of the character seem silly and pretentious. Still, the best part of it was that Holmes oozes pretension, which almost made the movie more fun. Downey Jr has yet to disappoint me, and I fully appreciate that.
I saw Zombieland awhile back and found that I quite like Woody Harrelson, and that Jesse Eisenberg is a really neat Michael Cera. If one of them doesn't start deviating from type soon, they're going to have to fight it out. I bet it will be so awkwardly funny I'll peek through my fingers as I cover my face with my hands.

On another note entirely, I'm reading an advance copy of a children's book by an author who had, it seems, only written books for adults previously. The book itself is fairly engaging, adequate story, good word choice, and a neat idea in general. It reads like a text book, though, and I'm not sure that most children would enjoy it. It explains everything the way I would (only worded more professionally and in a timely manner. The names are both the laziest and most fascinating part of the book. If I could just confirm my theory about the name-origin of the town central to the story, I'd be the happiest history nerd this side of the Mississippi.

Anyway, I know it's not much, but I had to write something. In my current job of photocopying and trying to figure out if I'll ever get to sub again, I feel like my brain is turning to mush (as much as I appreciate the opportunity to photocopy.) This is kind of like doing a word search, only the bank is my head and the puzzle is my unwritten review.

Aw, cute, my mind is trying to make an analogy...this has to be the most tangential and stuccato entry I've ever written. Finis.

Up to the Atmosphere, Up where the Robots Resolve their Age-Old Battle

2009-07-05T22:48:00.000-07:00

I like to go to the movies. Yes, I enjoy "good" movies, and a plot is usually a plus, as well as good acting, realistic visuals, and a soundtrack that does not detract from the story. However, I'll generally go to a movie if it looks like fun or if my friends want to see it--generally my major criterion is the escape from reality.

That may be why I laughed through all of "Wanted", "Transformers II" and "Year One", as bad as they were. My friends had fun, and I enjoyed the silly antics of people who should either be capable of far better work, or people who are probably just running with the momentum that lets them play pretend for a living. Hell, if I were given a chance to be in any of those movies, I'd take the opportunity, and I wouldn't be even remotely ashamed for it. Why not have fun? Why not accept that people like loud noises and skimpy clothing and document it on film so someone can escape their dull or stressful lives? So it's dumb and not even remotely realistic--does that make it wrong? Does that make it inferior? My thought is: only if we believe in it.

My friends and I recently went to see the new Transformer's movie, and for the most part came to the consensus that it was utter crap. However, one pal saw it as fantastic, and I can't say that I blame him. It delivered all that it promised--explosions, Megan Fox, robots from space, Megan Fox running, epic-type battles, and Megan Fox running amidst explosions. ...

So it was inane, poorly acted, and frivolous. Well, I saw "Public Enemies" this week as well, and that lacked any sort of plot that people saw anyway (although I happen to believe that when it's history, it doesn't need any more of a plot than what actually happened). I enjoyed watching Depp and Bale together, and Depp was great with Cotillard, who convinced me that I have to see "La Vie en Rose". However, the cinematography in "Transformers" far outperformed that of "Public Enemies". The acting in "Transformers" was a little nauseating, but the camera work in "Public Enemies" actually almost made me sick. The shaky vision deal had its place and time, just like Dillinger and Purvis had theirs--it was not the same. The new trick made the old dogs seem less relevent somehow, reverting a fascinating tale to some sort of art school project that had the right parts but the wrong person putting them together.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like doing this. I hate to admit that "Transformers" was better than two of my favorite actors in a historical drama. It's a damn good genre when done correctly, and the movie had the potential to be amazing. I think, though, that it crumbled under its ambitions and instead turned into that proverbial road to hell. No, the film wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that good either, and the disappointment hurt. At least I didn't expect anything from "Transformers".

For that matter, I'll bring this to another movie that did something interesting. I saw "Up," a movie that turned out to be as spectacular as the hype had implied. It was beautiful, both visually and emotionally. It was stunning in its ability to elicit whatever feeling it wanted, and I felt myself laughing through tears, so sharp were the turns and bizarre little twists. The art was impressive, the music sweet and charming, and the characters were all engaging. However, when I left the movie, I was still crying. The themes in "Up" were all real, painful things that tend to stick with me when they crop up. Every time I thought back to a specific scene, my eyes watered and I felt my stomach do that flipping thing that people talk about in books. I mean, yeah, it was a cartoon, and the conclusion was crowd-pleasing enough. But the basic idea never ceased to be a reality that hangs around until the day we die.

When I left "Up", I felt sad and empty, like I'd been to a funeral. Despite the joy and humor in the film, it seemed that I'd lost something. The concepts of mortality, failure, unfulfilled dreams and loneliness are not enjoyable, and no matter how lovely the story tellers and sets are, the raw honesty of the themes cannot be erased. Leaving "Transformers" was sort of like leaving the house of that friend of a friend who likes to eat erasers and firecrackers. Maybe I felt a little dumber, and maybe I could have been doing something better with my time. But I'd laughed a lot, not thought about anything really troubling me, and I'd been with friends. Sure, it didn't teach me anything, and it didn't stun me with its prescience, but it was the definition of entertainment.

So, what am I saying here? Was "Transformers" a great movie? No, that I'll never say. Do I think "Year One" deserves any Oscars? No, not even for costumes. Was "Wanted" done justice by the movie world? Nope. No. Nuh-uh. But movies are often meant for entertainment, so they did their jobs. Art does not have to pretend to be something it's not. I think of movies like "Transformers" as comic strips. They're often cheap, glib, and trite, but they make me chuckle, and they distract from things I can't change in real life. "Public Enemies" had its good points, and "Up" really was brilliant in its way, and I'm glad I saw both of them. But I guess I'm saying not to trash the trashy films, because they, like Modern Art and Pop Music, have their place in the world. "Copper still makes a coin when gold is too heavy."

P.S. for genuinely good trashy fun, watch "Beowulf" or "Role Models". You won't learn anything from them, but they make for a marvelous time.

the Times, They Are Estranging

2009-06-28T14:56:00.000-07:00

I've recently been preoccupied to the level that I went about three months without seeing a single movie in theaters. I saw Quantum of Solace (passable) with some friends, and then avoided the film world until I suddenly saw Watchmen (unimpressive). My reason for the distance from what I so enjoyed? Well, let me know when you figure it out.

Either way, Watchmen was an interesting return for me. Gratuitous, stylistic, whiny, and so close to being good it hurt. The graphic novel has such compelling ideas, contrasting human frailty and desire with the fantasy of super powers and invincibility. Irony and honesty seem to work together and simultaneously against each other. They point out goofs in life and idealism while maintaining that there is some magic in all the science. Unfortunately, in the film, the honesty only seems to emphasize the painful realities--something that is ironic as the movie itself is all about denial and trickery.

The characters that should elicit some feelings of empathy, but instead made me cringe with sympathy or antipathy (in all of this, I feel like I should note that the movie is all about pathology, which is what's making me go for all the pithy "pathy" talk.) Malin Akerman was uncomfortably bad to watch, and she was the worst of the bunch -- although the music was a pretty damn bad actor. During one "love" scene, the music took what was already an awkward, sloppy looking thing and made it downright creepy. I don't suppose that I'm picky with those sorts of scenes, they always have that hint of the ridiculous, but this one just made me laugh uncontrollably when the silence in the theater and the noise from the screen became too much to handle.

Carla Gugino and Patrick Wilson were either awful or they were just the victims of irritating, sad characters. Billy Crudup did all the footwork in making me dislike his character, but I think that was the idea. We were supposed to go from appreciating his humanity to mourning its loss, but by the time it was done, I thought it was better off than being in the world he'd so clearly left ages ago.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan was solid to Crudup's stolid, and his virtual insanity simply marked the times and developing (or devolving) society around him. Side characters were effective enough, I suppose, and Matthew Goode lived up to his own name, putting just enough sulkiness into the role to make me believe the incongruity in his words and actions. The best part though was the most human-like, messed up character I think I've ever seen.

It's funny, because I once saw a movie called the Lesser Evil and thought it was so innately true and frightening that I never made an effort to see it again. Some things are better left alone once learned, as the knowledge doesn't always do so much good as it creates fear when nothing can be done about it. Things like black holes are fine for some people to study, but I have no control over them, and the same goes for other natural disasters (or phenomenons, depending upon your point of view) and some diseases. Worse than those are the evils of other people that make us defend ourselves and our world. The fact that we must sometimes become a form of the evil we so disdain is terrifying and paralyzing in a way that FDR would address in a speech. We spend enough time worrying about such a thing that one of our most eloquent leaders made history by telling us, basically, to stuff it. He was right, too, because fear is the only thing short of death that keeps us from living.

The point of that hopefully-not-too-confusing tangent is to serve as a preface as to why Jackie Earle Harvey was so powerful in his role as Rorschach. The man deserves an Oscar for his role in a much-less-than-Oscar-worthy movie. He was so insistantly angry and retaliatory, but his motives never seemed wrong. It was unsettling to agree with someone who did things so violent and sharp, and who seemed to have let his humanity burn away with the first man he murdered. In the end though, it led one to think more carefully about such things as vigilantism and the criminal system. One is unnerving, one is simply the mob-mentality version of the other. Agreement, it seems, is what makes the world go round, and I don't think I want everyone agreeing on such actions. Even as I rooted for Rorschach in the movie, I knew that I wanted no part of that sort of reality. I am ambivalent towards vigilantism, but feel that for the most part, it won't work--and I think that in order for it to work sometimes, one must either accept all types or decry them. If no concordance can be reached, then I feel it is best left alone. There are simply too many people in the world for it to function, which is incidentally why I think there are such a large number of vastly differing societies instead of one human nation.

That said, Rorschach and his thought-provoking existence are the only part of the movie that really works or has any lasting effect. The fact that I could understand his horrific actions is a testament to Harvey's talent, and making a sociopath "relatable" is something to see. In fact, I'd recommend it solely for that performance--otherwise, this was a silly, interesting looking but otherwise rather empty attempt at bringing the written word to life. People need to either leave literature alone, or understand it before they try to animate it.

A Brief Comment on the Subject of Remakes

2008-10-24T04:39:00.000-07:00

Ok. Some movies it's ok to remake. Some movies had good plots the first time around, but bad acting. Some movies were based on great books, but failed as films due to lack of special effects or poor production quality.

But a large number of popular movies that were successes were so because of the times, the people involved, and the novelty. The Birds, Rocky Horror Picture Show, and even Planet of the Apes, (as much as I hate it) have been or are being remade. Planet of the Apes annoys me, the Birds was incredibly silly, and well, I haven't seen Rocky Horror. But they are the magnificent messes that people love because of Alfred Hitchcock and his cast, because of John Waters and his cast, and because of Charleton Heston. Talking Apes were never going to work out, and being afraid of birds is a joke, even if the things are kind of creepy. The best part of the movie is the dumbest part, and it still manages to call itself a Hitchcock film.

We should never try to recreate the glory of old hollywood--we just shouldn't. I mean, they even tried to redo Judgement at Nuremberg and Rear Window. It's a crime.

That's it for now, but expect to hear more on the subject later...

It's Nearly Dawn...

2008-07-29T13:31:00.000-07:00

When “Dark Knight” starts, it looks rather like an ordinary action flick, with the superhero setup, waiting for the caped crusader to save the day. A familiar evil is waiting, almost like an old friend, for Batman to show up—you even get the feeling that he doesn’t mind getting caught. That was weird.

Then, we’re brought up to date on all of the recent goings-on in Gotham City, our brooding home-away-from-NYC. There’s the new D.A. in town, Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent, a handsome, Prince Charming type. There’s his love interest and Bruce Wayne’s old flame, Rachel Dawes, played this time ‘round by Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal is an improvement on Katie Holmes, who played Rachel in the last movie. Where Holmes wavered and looked dolefully out from lowered eyes, Gyllenhaal stared straight at her opponent, seeming stronger and more defiant. She seems to challenge people where Holmes would have nagged. Gyllenhaal’s determined Rachel seems a more worthy partner for our cloaked hero, although their future together seems, to say the least, shaky.

As for Eckhart’s Dent, he is an admirable man, himself an insistant, unafraid fighter. He is prepared to work with Batman to save Gotham. When he becomes Two-Face (and I’m sorry if that’s a spoiler, but it’s Batman… it’s more or less all been done before in that respect) his sudden change from such a good man to one of such evil is wholly believably, moving, and frightening.

This fear is what leads me to the ongoing discussion of what was undoubtedly the biggest draw for this movie: Heath Ledger. First, I’ll say that Ledger was hugely talented, and that he was a beautiful man, and far too young to die. That stated, his Joker was, well, one of the more brilliantly conceived villains in any comic-movie. He was empty and full at the same time, heartless and wildly defensive. He seemed like someone whose humanity was stolen from him, and now he wanted to steal something, anything, from everyone else. He seems like a child whose favorite toy was stolen, so he just goes mad trying to get everyone back for what happened to him. We never find out why he’s so horrid, but that just makes him more terrifying. What drives a man to do such things, to think in such a way? What makes a human forsake its own kind? Watching Ledger play this horrific role was great fun, and in the end, quite sad. We’ve lost a great actor, and that is the only thing detracting from “Dark Knight”.

Christian Bale is once again convincing and impressive. He does torn so well, but can seem so composed and so focused. He can get so many things done, but cannot seem to control his own life. He’s dark, dwelling on the past, and stuck on an endless clean-up mission.

Now, I don’t know about you, but Batman’s always been my favorite. His costume seemed somehow less ridiculous than some others, and he had the coolest toys. He wandered around at night, and was just a human being for whom the mind and body were tools for justice. He didn’t murder people, though, but brought them into the authorities so that they could be dealt with in a (one would hope) righteous manner. A trial awaited the criminal victims of Batman, not some insane plan. It was what set him apart from the villains—while he and many of his adversaries were strange outsiders, he did not hate the society that seemed to exclude him. Rather, he distanced himself from it in order to help it survive.

I like that idea; that concept that people can feel different and not hate each other for it. I liked that he was alone, and that no one seemed to understand him, but they didn’t hate him for it. What fear they had led them to keep their distance, but in general, Batman was a hero—a man who just wanted to help. He wasn’t insane, just separate.

After this movie, I’m not sure what Chris Nolan thinks of Batman. I think he must like him, because Christian Bale makes for such a humane hero. But at the same time, I think Nolan expects people to recoil from Batman, and I’m not sure that I like that. That said, Nolan is doing something interesting with the franchise. He’s making what might be a more realistic story with more flawed characters. As a result, he has a unique opportunity. He has the chance, moreso than anyone before, to make Catwoman into a great character. Yes, she’s forever portrayed as the crazy chick in the tight cat costume, but she could be more. She could be the quiet, put-upon girl who is murdered. She could come back, still the sweet, kind hearted person she was before, but with something markedly different about her. There could be something deep inside that wants revenge for the first life lost. They could have each life she sheds lose more of the human inside of her. They could create a character slowly being drained of its soul, and it could be a brilliant, heartbreaking movie.

Chris Nolan has the ability to do that, I think, because he has shown us a sociopath, a megalomaniac, and a man crushed by life but wanting so badly to do good. They say that the night is darkest before the dawn, so I'm hoping (at the risk of sounding punny) that Nolan will come through and make a truly grand finale to this series. The only question is, will he follow through on the promise he’s made by creating such great movies? Or will we have yet another case of three’s a crowd?

Whatever happens, I’ll still go see the third movie. Bale is the single most compelling super-hero out there, with Hellboy in a close but fantastical second.

Strip Poker? How about Strip Classic Literature!?

2008-02-29T23:43:00.000-08:00

Ok, so "300" was cute. Lots of half naked men running about, yelling a lot, and some half-assed attempts at a message (unless they were just messing with us, which I respect).

But "Beowulf" has to be the best action/adventure movie I've seen in, oh, ages (leaving the holy "Hot Fuzz" out of this mortal equation).

The cast was stellar, so let's get that out of the way. Robin Wright Penn did wonders with a wise, sorrowful queen, and Anthony Hopkins was splendid as a tired, old, corrupt king. Beowulf himself, played in all his CGI glory by the winsome Ray Winstone was magnificent, full of himself, and quite human. The fact that the near-animation made the people look like a two hour long game of "the Sims" made the humanity of the voices and characters all that much more impressive.

Some side characters deserve mention with Alison Lohman as a naive mistress, a whiny Crispin Glover as the monster Grendel himself, Brendan Gleeson as the most likeable character in the movie, and of course Angelina Jolie, creepier than ever before (somehow). The best was John Malkovich, though, without a doubt. Even as a young, unrecognizable character, my friends and I decided it had to be him, so detestable was the vaguely innocuous man. By the end of the movie, we were sure of it, and cursing the character by using the actor's name. I love to hate that man.

That said, let's get to the look of the thing. So shiny, so pretty, so grotesque (one of my favorite words, so you know I liked it.) It contained some of the bloodiest, goriest things I've ever witnessed--it was so bad at parts that I had to look away. If you're not too slow about it, they even give you pretty fair warning... the monster moves slowly enough.

The gold glows, the costumes are neat, and the script is every King Richard's nerd's dirtiest dreams. There were wenches in low cut blouses, (peasant blouses, because they were really peasants!) and swilling of mead from goblets and mugs. There was yelling, carousing, merriment, many battles. Monsters, demons, dragons, and ghostly apparitions. There was even a naked Lara Croft, covered only in gold, water, and a tail-like braid.

The best part, though, by far, was Beowulf's way of intimidating his enemy. I'm sorry, but the most wonderful thing in any movie I've ever seen in the last ten years was Beowulf slowly but surely stripping off his clothes. If he's going to win, then damnit, he'll be nude! He's going to win by the strength of his mind, his hands, and his fantastic nakedness. My favorite scene may have been later in the film, when he scares off a would-be assassin of a sort. My friends and I were yelling "yeah! take it off! strip to prove your power!" as the man tore off his armor and ripped his shirt from his chest.

By the end of the movie, we'd decided that really, "Beowulf" was just a sort of antiquated version of "Arrested Development", that glorious, gone-too-soon tv show. These were human characters, with human problems, and slightly inhuman ways of dealing with them. This CGI masterpiece was ridiculous, witty, fun, and creatively messy. Still, beneath it all beat a sweet little heart... a heart that a one-armed Ray Winstone will probably wrest from your chest.

Post-Apocalyptic and Pro-Love

2008-02-20T20:31:00.001-08:00

I've been watching movies lately. Post-apocalyptic type things, like the hyper-relevant (if accidentally so) "V for Vendetta", which brought about all sorts of declarations, debates, and alliteration to the unwashed masses. Others, like "Equilibrium" and "the Island" are cute, violent little gems that show some depressing end-world or human disaster that is not completely devoid of hope. Then there's "Requiem for a Dream," in which the horrors of drugs and a wasted life are pushed into your mind against your will. It is the most hopeless thing I've ever seen on screen, and it makes you feel empty and pained. These movies, even the comedies, are designed to make you think about your life, about what could happen and what could go wrong. There are message movies, zombie flicks, "meaningful" depression rides, and optimistic realism playing like a cautionary tale.

Then, there's "Juno".

A romantic comedy, perhaps? A high school dramedy? Maybe. But as a young woman recently out of school, I saw it as a post-apocalypitc tale in which someone made it out alive.

In "Juno", the worst has already happened. The film starts out with the title character pregnant, scared, and confused. She's sixteen years old and has the possible beginnings of a person inside of her. The decision she must make first is both important and known to the whole advertizing-absorbing world. The zygote turns to fetus, and eventually, will emerge fully suited in armor--wielding a spear--from her mother's head. Wait, that's how Jupiter gave birth, not Juno.

At any rate, Juno becomes an outsider, a stranger in her own home, it seems. She has to explain herself constantly, and must be wary of the freaks around her. People in this movie may not be dripping blood, heads lolling to the side as they trudge towards her, but many of them may well be a sort of metaphorical zombie. They are not in the lives they expected, nor are they living in the world they thought they knew. People change, things aren't what they seem, and Earth is a scary place. But Juno gets through it with a smirk on her face.

The acting is great, the cast is professional and believable. Ellen Page is likeable and smart as the protagonist, and Michael Cera is adorably confused, but at the same time he seems to have to much more together than one would suspect. That's the funny thing about a lot of teenagers. They don't know it all, but they're not as dumb as we think. At the same time, they do crave the stability and love that seems absent from their lives. They need guidance, and sometimes manage to look to the adults in their lives for answers.

These grown-ups are great (all four are dear favorites of mine, Allison Janney, J.K. Simmons, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) and they play like a background that reaches out for you. Sorta like zombies. But cooler. They are in some ways just as screwed up as the kids, but with certain knowledge that keeps them from being quite so naive, or quite so nice.

The music in the movie is cute, the script is sharp and trendy, and I'd wear the cinematography with a hip belt and knee high boots if I could. The way that it barely deals with abortion is honest, if skimpy, but at least it acknowledges the concept. This is less a story of politics, or even romance, and more a tale of survival. Mistakes are made, hearts are broken, and through it all, the panicked mentality hides under a veil of bravado and an unwillingness to look too deeply into the consequences. The result is a darling little end-of-the-world scenario in which you hang out with some fun people, and leave feeling somehow more secure in a world that can easily turn you upside down.

Swashbuckle and Roll over in the Grave

2007-11-24T06:53:00.001-08:00

I went to the video store the other day. I was in the mood for a real swashbuckler--perhaps a pirate flying on a rope from the bird's nest to the deck to fight the evil captain of another pirate ship. Maybe, I thought to myself, I'll find Tyrone Power as the world's best Zorro, or some incarnation of Errol Flynn wearing tights and dashing about with a sword.

About five minutes into my sojourn, I realized that I was in for a disappointment. Not one Errol Flynn movie was in that store. Not one classic entitled "The Adventures of..." anything sat on the shelves, unless you count "Adventures in Babysitting"... which I don't.

I looked in adventure, in classics, in comedy, even in suspense. Nothing. I found, as I looked, the "Zorro" starring Antonio Bandaras. Now, that was a good movie, but it was also a different kind of movie. It looked more for realism than stylish Hollywood fun. It was fun, but it was also about a different Zorro. If nothing else, it was a well-made sequel (I'm afraid I can't say the same for its sequel), but I wanted the original. Tyrone Power is a careful, watchful Zorro, with a glint in his eye and a talent for playing a daft dandy who is too bored to possibly be the masked hero. The lines are snappish and witty, the fighting is good and classic, and Power plays Zorro with a wink and a nod (he is quoted as saying "The secret of charm is bullshit" and I think he must have been absolutely full of it). He could just as easily become serious, and he was a talented actor who always looked like he was on the verge of laughing, but it would be a short, sardonic burst.

As I gave up hope on finding my classic Zorro adventure, I came upon something that made my heart sink and my stomach do one of those flips that books are always talking about: "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves". Yech.

Now, I could go on and on about how much I dislike Kevin Costner, but I'll let this movie do most of the talking. Suffice to say that I feel this film bastardizes the idea of Robin Hood the way that "Men in Tights" never could. The story telling is half-assed, the cast just isn't that great, and the worst part of the whole movie is Costner himself. He didn't even try an accent, and he didn't appear to try acting. It's just all so wrong, I'm a little upset thinking about it.

At any rate, what I'd been looking for instead was, of course, Errol Flynn as Robin Hood. The classic, smug, too-sure-of-himself king of all golden age swashbucklers. For every wink that Power implies, Flynn actually follows through. The laughs that look like they're about to appear with Power burst out of Flynn, and the charm that is so quiet and determined in Zorro is thrashing and gleeful coming from Robin Hood. It's good, messy fun, with neat lines and techicolor.

Why, I asked myself, why do they only have to newer versions of the great classics? Why, I asked the cashier, why is there no Errol Flynn, but an abundance of Kevin Costner? How has it come to this?

I don't know, but I'm going to make it my mission to trick my friends (or if nothing else, convince them) to watch the real Robin Hood and Zorro. They deserve it-- "they" being both my friends, and the brilliant stars who made the heroes come to life.

Saints Overload

2007-11-09T21:21:00.000-08:00

When I was in high school, I watched "Boondock Saints" for the first time.

The ideas weren't revolutionary to me, but it was recommended by my college-aged brother, who was then cooler than anyone else I knew. The two leads were unreasonably attractive, the music was adrenaline inspiring, and the humor was just dirty enough to keep me amused without offending me.

Freshman year of college I spent a lot of nights awake til sunrise, and one of those nights, I watched "Boondock Saints" three times. I didn't sit through each one, but over about twelve hours, that movie played not once, not twice, but thrice! By the time the light broke through the shade, I could say every line along with the actors.

Four years of college went by, and I watched Troy Duffy's drunk-punk masterpiece countless times--both with others and alone. I laughed when Willem Dafoe impressed my friends with his screaming crime scene recreation. I shuddered when Ron Jeremy stepped on scream, and applauded when "Wyatt f---ing Earp" took out the baddies. The acting is convincing (though a tad amateurish), even if the stereotypes are worn to the bone. A couple of scenes are played to silly effect, but in the end, it's the feel of the movie that makes me love it.

Watching this movie makes me think of hanging out with my friends. I think of the McManus brothers as old pals, Agent Smecker as that kid I hung out with once a week, and of the Russian Mob as those drunks I tried to avoid walking back to my dorm at night. All of the memories of college seem to be summed up whenever I watch "Boondock Saints".

Perhaps that is why, on my last official day of college, I watched it again, three times in one night. I figured, I should end the way I started. The movie still feels like that comfortable jacket I refuse to throw out. It might be faded, and it might not be designer, but I like it, and its quirks are what make it mine.

"Boondock Saints" is something that makes sense to me, and to many of my friends. It contains the sort of vigilantism that people in this generation seem to find necessary. It asks questions that we find compelling, even if it's not really anything new. We like to think that the art we find is original, that the thoughts we have are unique. This is, to me, a generation of people who want what people told us to be true, without wanting to admit that we believe it possible. We are, I think, self-consciously cynical; naive but on the verge of understanding just how out-of-the-loop we are. At the same time, I think we are optimistic almost to the point of being stupid--optimistic that isn't sunny so much as being determined to change our situations. This in turn causes us to take extreme measures to improve our lives. For some people, this results in tragedy, for others, success. In this case, it results in a movie that almost gets us to an answer, but then backs down and lets the viewer decide.

For so many people who want answers, this may not be enough. But for a generation that desperately wants a choice, this movie does what it can to satisfy that need.
And for me?

For me, it's an old friend that I like to hang out with once in a while. We talk politics, listen to music, and then, we think carefully before shutting off and sleeping through the day.

Nothing's Gonna Change This World

2007-11-08T21:33:00.000-08:00

So, I did it. I sucked it up and went to see "Across the Universe". It was named for my favorite song by my favorite band, and let's face it, protagonist "Jude" was super cute. But it looked like the sort of thing artsy folks would die for, and sane people avoid in favor of more solid movies that make a little more sense.

I walked in, prepared to hate it, wanting desperately to love it. I left feeling weirded out, a little ill, but mostly--strangely-- satisfied.

Julie Taymor's bizarre little film (and it must be called a film... it's too "creative" to be called a movie) was disjointed and frayed at the edges. Certain parts made little sense, others were absurd to the point that I couldn't tell if I should laugh or shudder. There were parts that were dreamily artistic, and parts that were really pushing it--I mean, seriously, soldiers singing "She's So Heavy" while carrying the Statue of Liberty and trampling Vietnam? Please.

But there was a sincerity in the tone of "Across the Universe" which asked (if not demanded) that the audience listen. Even when the drunken college boys stumble around town singing and falling all over each other, the feeling that it all meant something never disappeared. When the high school cheerleader sang "I want to Hold Your Hand" while walking through a field of tumbling football players, the earnestness behind it all stayed my laughter.

Beyond that need to be taken seriously, though, the movie was mostly just a very pretty music video. The covers of the Beatles' music ranged from beautiful (Because) to boring (It Won't Be Long) to silly (Revolution) and finally, in my opinion, practically perfect (Across the Universe, what else?). Anything Dana Fuchs (Sadie) sang worked out very well, as did anything sung by Martin Luther McCoy and Joe Anderson. Bono and Eddie Izzard made cameos, the former better than the latter, although both were appreciated. "Come Together" was done brilliantly, and "Oh, Darling" could not have been covered better. Jim Sturgess sang an eerie and nice version of "Girl", and "Hey Jude" was managed cleanly and to good effect.

The acting was sturdy, the characters mainly likeable (the six main characters, Jude, Lucy, Max, Sadie, JoJo, and Prudence were all people I could deal with for more than an hour) and the story was sweet. But the film went on a bit long, and the political message was a little heavy handed. It said things that need to be said, but it said them the way I might have in a middle school history class (see: project from 8th grade history involving bandanas and a bag of oregano).

To be honest, I expected much worse, so "Across the Universe" did a good job of handling something that needed care. The Beatles and their music have taken some seriously hits, mainly due to advertising and Michael Jackson. They deserve better, especially the songs. "Hey, Jude", while not my favorite, is probably their best song, and it's treated with the respect it deserves, as are "Let it Be" and the titular song. So, despite the rather silly, pushy agenda of the well-meaning director, I feel that "Across the Universe" was a success.

p.s. "Gone, Baby, Gone"? GREAT movie.

Back to School...

2007-10-14T22:06:00.000-07:00

so, I've been away, more or less, all summer. Long summer. A lot of changes, but I'm back, more or less. A quick summer review, then when I get a chance, some new reviews.

So, this summer/fall, I've seen the following movies (with 1-5 points)
-Pirates of the Caribbean 3 (3)
-fun, but a bit too long and with some too-depressing parts. Still, I love me a good ship and ocean battle

-Ocean's 13 (3)
-again, fun, but too long. still, I loved all the returning characters, and felt it was well worth the wait

-Live Free or Die Hard (3)
-silly but fun and enthusiastic

-Transformers (2)
-too much, and except in the cases of a few of my friends, too confusing and pointless

-Harry Potter 5 (4)
-well done, better than the other movies, and who couldn't love Luna and Neville?

-the Simpson's Movie (3)
-ever want to see a super-long episode of the tv show? watch the movie

-Stardust (4)
-well done, fun acting, and one of the few times I've liked Claire Danes. I love Robert Deniro, but then, I already did.

-Superbad (4)
-so funny that I couldn't stop laughing. In fact, it almost made me sick. Brilliant, touching, heart-felt, and revolting. Highly recommended

-3:10 to Yuma (5)
-just oh so very good. Fantastic, brilliant acting, and I've never been so attracted to Russel Crowe. In fact, it was the first time I didn't find him innately offensive. Classically entertaining, with a new, more human touch to the old favorite cowboy theme. I recommend this movie to anyone who appreciates action or character studies... it pulls off both.

Well, there's that for now. Go out and watch a movie!

Graduation

2007-05-17T14:07:00.000-07:00

I'm about to graduate from college. After four years--two great, two not so much--I am finally done with school. I am so happy about it, but a bit nervous, and for the most part, a dull, empty feeling has set in. In short, as much as I see possibility in the next few years, I feel a bit like Dustin Hoffman looks at the beginning of "the Graduate".

I've been trying to watch "the Graduate" for two years, and managed to do so just the other day. It began slowly and laboriously, trudging through Simon and Garfunkel's tunes like a man walking to his death. Hoffman's Benjamin Braddock did the same, acting as though his life was already over, even if it was just beginning. He seems apathetic towards everything, sitting and staring into space. His life is about to start, but he has no idea what to do, and that scares the hell out of him.

So, what does our young protagonist do? He lumps around his house, floating aimlessly in his pool and trying to avoid all of the congratulatory parties and friends his parents throw at him. He should probably be doing something, but he feels safer doing nothing. Either that, or he doesn't know what to do even if he wants to.

The movie itself is shot mostly in a dim light, and the slow music of Simon and Garfunkel add a feeling of sadness to it all. The songs aren't so out of date that it makes the movie seem silly, but they're classic enough to recognize them. They do not, though, distract from the movie--it seems, rather, that the songs are playing in Benjamin's head as he slumps through graduate life. It reminds me of hours spent on busses and at bus stations, waiting in offices or lines, and the songs that come to mind, punctuating the passing of time.

The acting is convincing, and the anger the characters feel is believable and understandable. The story is interesting, and the end of the movie--classic in its own right--opens it up to all new questions. Normally, I hate that sort of open-endedness, but here, it works.

I don't know what I'm going to do with my own life. I know I want to move around and live in a few different places. I want to teach, and I want to have a family someday. But for now, all I'm doing is sitting still and trying to figure out how I'm going to do anything. That, and watching as many good movies as I can. I'll take suggestions, and I'll recommend "the Graduate" to anyone who appreciates a good story and a movie well done.

Bring Back Double Features (and some others)

2007-04-22T00:53:00.000-07:00

Bring back the double feature! Moviegoers pay good money to enter the hallowed halls of film, and we deserve a day at the cinema. Matinees, too, would be a welcome friend returned home, and doing it once in a while would be a nice gesture (and would make my year). Besides, I know enough people who would spend a day at the movies if places did it. Maybe once a month, or perhaps just letting people buy passes that allow for two movies. It wouldn’t waste too much money, and I know I’d spend more time at the theatre if it didn’t involve forking over ten buck a movie.

Item the second: please, leave your kids at home, at least during an R rated movie. I understand that people can’t always find a babysitter, but really, if you have to take your kids to the movies, don’t take them to something that will make them cry. It ruins movies for them, and for the people around you. Then, you come off as a careless jerk, and you waste everyone’s time. Maybe I’m being unfair; I’m not a parent yet. But if I’m wrong about this, then don’t worry, I’ll get my comeuppance when I do have kids someday. Until then, I reserve the right to think badly of you when you act like a moron and bring your two-year-old to rated-R movies.

List of 10 best movies (I’ve seen in theatres) in the last nine years

1. Hot Fuzz

2. Finding Neverland

3. Pan’s Labyrinth

4. The Wind that Shakes the Barley

5. Children of Men

6. Gosford Park

7. Clerks II

8. Walk the Line

9. Batman Begins

10. Lord of the Rings

Top Three Movies I Should Have Seen in Theatres

1. Good Night and Good Luck

2. Capote

3. An Inconvenient Truth

Kill Taste, Volumes I and II

2007-04-22T00:45:00.000-07:00

I’m not a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino, and I’ve only seen maybe one and a half movies by Robert Rodriguez. Why did I go see “Grindhouse”? Two words: DOUBLE FEATURE.

And Hot Damn, was it ever worth it!

My friends and I walked into the theatre amazingly early (right when the movie was about to start). We sat near the front since our usual seats were taken up, and we made sure not to sit in front of anyone else. This movie-going-experience was all about movie watching—not the movie. I was ready for about three hours of revolting idiocy that would be punctuated with in-jokes and bad acting, none of which I’d really appreciate. The only zombie movie I’ve seen is “Shaun of the Dead”, and while I’ve watched plenty of Tarantino, I always come out of it feeling dirty.

By the time we left the theatre, my ears were ringing and I was exhilarated. Neither movie was very good, and I still don’t think that Tarantino is one of the best (despite what so many friends of mine say). But I know without a doubt that the man loves movies as much as I do, and I respect that.

Tarantino’s movie started off slow… really slow. In fact, halfway through it, I started wondering why people were saying it was the better of the two. By the end, I was pretty damn sure I knew why. It’s dead-slow pace picks up speed, and at the conclusion, I was ready to jump up and join the actresses in their… dance. You really need to see it to know what I mean. Either way, Kurt Russell seemed to be having a hell of a lot of fun, and his dead-on impression of another film great was half the fun of his performance—even if I’m pretty sure most of the audience didn’t catch it.

As for Rodriguez’s movie, it was slimier, grimier, dumber, and actually, way more fun. It could have been the explosions, the ridiculous blood spurts, or the shiny colors. Probably it was Freddy Rodriguez as a preposterous but peppy gunslinger, and the music. What failed miserably in “Brokeback Mountain” succeeded here; playing the same song over and over and over again. Sappy romances can’t handle something like that, but a movie with this much going on (and explosively awry) can take it, even with just one leg to stand on.

Not great, and if you don’t like zombie movies or slashers, don’t watch it. It’s very simple really, because the movies and the accompanying trailers are violent, offensive, and disgusting enough to turn off most sane people. But if those are your preferences (or if you’re a diehard Tarantino fan), really, don’t miss this.

I was right, really. The double feature was worth it. That, and when I left, I felt—well, good and dirty.

Warm, Fuzzy Dealings

2007-04-22T00:24:00.000-07:00

I don’t know what you were planning to do tonight, but trust me, “Hot Fuzz” is way more fun.

“Hot Fuzz” is about as silly as they come, but it’s also endearing without trying to be, and it entertains better than, well, anything else I’ve seen in recent memory. The acting was convincing, and while the leads made the movie, the side characters were necessary to the magic. Jim Broadbent (Gangs of New York, Brazil, Bridget Jones’ Diary) was solidly iffy as the Chief Inspector of Sandford. Paddy Considine (In America, so good) did a bang-up job of being an hilarious ass, and Timothy Dalton (Bond, James Bond) was smarmy personified as a local merchant. Really, everyone was fantastic, and the script was so good that it probably hid anyone who wasn’t.

There was a line I really loved, but I’ll have to wait to see it again (and remember a pen this time.) In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this thought: what do "He-Man", a sea mine, and the Harry Potter films’ "Argus Filch" have in common? To find out, watch “Hot Fuzz”!

I recommend it to anyone over the age of 17. ANYONE.

"Can I Come Back Again?"

2007-04-12T00:55:00.000-07:00

I love "Field of Dreams".

The moments before I hear “the Voice” are so terribly exciting I can barely contain myself, and I’ve seen this countless times before.

I have a powerful dream of going to Iowa, seeing the field, and just basking in the glory that is baseball in a field of corn.

The first time I saw "Field of Dreams" was probably around the time it came out in 1989. I was four, so I don’t remember it, but I remember having always loved the movie. As a little girl, my father tried to interest me in baseball, but my appreciation of the sport took years to grow. This movie only fed my nostalgia and hope, making baseball seem like a pretty great idea.

"Field of Dreams" starts with a brief background history of Ray Consella’s life. Baseball has played a large role in his life, but he seems to have tried to put it behind himself. Ray has a good life, living on a farm with his wife and young daughter. He’s in Iowa, a place that looks like a never ending baseball field even without the lines drawn in the dirt. It seems to be a perfect connection between Heaven and Earth. There’s a great exchange in which a character asks Ray “is this Heaven?” “No,” replies Ray, “It’s Iowa”. Damn skippy.

Kevin Costner plays Ray, and it’s about the only time I like him. He’s actually completely believable, and surprisingly likeable. I root for him as he chases after an inexplicable goal. He believes that, if he builds a baseball field on his farm, the ghost of a once great baseball player will return to play. He creates something “completely illogical” and it turns the world into something brilliantly magical.

The movie is beautiful, with long shots of the sky and the fields. It has good one liners, a great supporting cast—which is nifty, even though Costner, for once, doesn’t need it. Amy Madigan is fun and amiable as Ray’s wife, Annie. Ray Liotta and (his magnetic eyes) make a fantastic and believable ghost while James Earl Jones (and his voice) make a hilarious and intelligent reclusive writer. The best scenes in the movie have Jones, and the most beautiful ones have Liotta.

There are heartwarming scenes, and individual triumph. There are acts of heroism, and painful sacrifice. It sends a message all about following-your-dreams, and it’s one of those few times that the theme doesn’t seem selfish or smug. It just seems lovely.

In the end, though, this film is a love letter to baseball, and this review is a similar message to the film. Not everyone will like it, I’m sure. However, if you like baseball, apple pie, family, magic, or feeling happy, then you might share my appreciation for "Field of Dreams".

If you haven’t see it, I recommend watching it. If you have seen it, please, watch it again. Either give it another chance, or revisit something you liked. It’s a neat movie, and besides, almost everyone deserves a second chance, and "Field of Dreams" is all about that.

Forces of Procrastination

2007-03-28T03:39:00.000-07:00

I just spent an hour listening to "Delta Dawn" "Funkytown" and "Stuff Like That There". I should be writing a paper. When I'd listened to those songs until my brain felt a little bit like warm mush, I turned the tv on, and flipped through stations until I found something that didn't look awful. I found "Forces of Nature", which just looked bad.

Now, "Forces of Nature" is not a good movie, and I won't argue that. But I will say a few things in its favor that render it, if nothing else, a nice movie.

First, there is Ben Affleck. Affleck is one of the most hated good actors out there. He was mediocre in some of his films, and most of the time--just like in this movie--he seems awkward, confused, and out of place. Perhaps, more than confused, Affleck is simply unsure. Either way, in this movie, his character is lumbering, uncomfortable, and amiable. Whatever Affleck does, he's vaguely likeable, and I can appreciate that.

Second, there is Sandra Bullock. She plays annoying often, but is as oddly likeable as Affleck. She can be charming even as she plays the stock "free-spirited" character. Her odd-ball is as formulaic as they come in such movies.

Third, there is the visual effect of the movie. It is warm, even during the storms. It seems clean, even when it's in the dirt. It's pleasant, like the two main characters. The lead actors play the same character almost always, but here it works, if only because it's inoffensive, dumb fun. It's the same sort of thrill provided by "300", but it works for a different crowd. It is a chick flick, but that's ok. Sometimes, when you just want to stop thinking about whatever worries you, it's alright to listen to bad music and watch a cheap movie.

It's sunlight now, so I guess I should write my paper. Wish me luck.

Leave Me Shaking

2007-03-24T16:15:00.000-07:00

My friends and I walked into the theater about ten minutes into "The Wind that Shakes the Barley," directed by Ken Loach. The movie is about the Irish War of Independence, taking place during the early 1920's, and as we moved to our seats, murder, sobbing, screaming, and fury were on the screen. Instead of discussing the seats we chose, my companions settled near the back of the room silently, eyes fixed on the commotion in lights ahead of us.

"Barley" concerns two brothers, first on the same team, then on opposing sides of a violent political conflict. The English have occupied Ireland for centuries, and the Irish want independence. Damien (Cillian Murphy) is a young doctor, intelligent, and hesitant to join the Irish Republican Army. Teddy (Pádraic Delaney) is his brother, a prominant figure in a local IRA group. The movie is languid, cold, open, and light, despite the heavy darkness of the theme. It is beautiful and cruel, the best combination of artistic elements (they are deravitives of the ultimate contrasting ideals, love and hate; it doesn't get better than that).

The actors were up to the challenge, emoting the hell out of lines both ordinary and impressive. Impassioned political debate mixes with brotherly squabbling that turns from persuasion and logic to desperation and determination. Liam Cunningham plays Dan, an older man who has been in the IRA longer than the brothers, and he seems to anchor Damien to the earth, at least at first. They meet in prison, where the lines seem clear and the danger is a defined enemy. Later in the movie, Damien realizes he's gone too far, but the momentum is too fast to let him off. Suddenly--or has it slowly been happening since the beginning of the film?--the lines between right and wrong begin to blur. No one seems completely sure which is which, even when he declares his cause to be just. People were fighting for the same goals--peace and freedom--but some chose one over the other. I found it difficult to agree completely with either brother, for they were both passionate and earnest, and both championing what seems to be a righteous cause. "Barley" contains a convincing argument that reasonable men can be forced to do things they would otherwise avoid at all costs.

Perhaps what makes this movie so good is the scenery, the lovely Irish country. It could be the realistic delivery of the dialogue, the solid direction, or the lines themselves. Hell, it might have been the new theater, the current political climate, or history that has always fascinated me. Really, all of those factored into the equation of a damn good movie. What makes me call it great, though, is that my friends, so easily distracted and bored (like myself) were transfixed, reacting to everything in it. They declared it a win, and I myself was left nearly breathless in the end. The ebb and tide of human relationships, on a large or small scale, will always be what make film, literature, and music so compelling, and the more believable the story, the better the art.

That said, "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" is some truly amazing art.

Running with it...

2007-03-12T14:45:00.000-07:00

A great man once said what another man, possibly great, once wrote: "shit happens"

In "Running with Scissors", shit happens alright, over and over and over again. The movie was amazing in its ability to make my friends and I hate most of the characters. The alcoholic father was by far more sympathetic than the insane, pill-popping mother, who is then more likeable (but not by much) than the sociopathic shrink. The Good Doctor(Dr. Finch) is an amazing array of messed up , too-enlightened-to-the-point-of-apathetic, and possibly evil. He lives in a massive, dilapidated house in Western Mass with his sad, creepy wife (Agnes), his haughty, too-close daughter (Hope), and another daughter (Natalie), who would be likeable if she wasn't so careless with the people around her.

Our narrator (Augusten) is the son of the aforementioned alcoholic and pill-popper. The former leaves when things get too crazy, and the latter gives away her son to Dr. Finch, who proceeds to make his life even worse than it was before. Augusten enters the house neurotic, unhappy, and detatched. He leaves it neurotic, unhappy, confused, betrayed, and desperate. The whole movie is one depressing cut after another, and my friends and I were furious, at the end, that we had watched it. Here was a movie with no joy, no pay-off, not even a genuine smile, nor any retribution. The few moments of humanity are tainted with cruelty or apathy, and all but three of the characters just infuriated us beyond redemption. We thought.

In the last few moments, though, something happened. I'll not tell you what, because you have to see it yourself, but just know, my previously despondant friend declared it "one of the best movies I've ever seen".

Watch it. Watch Jill Clayburgh as Agnes, the enigmatic creature that lurks until a moment of directness that hurts to see. Watch Joseph Cross as the nervous and uncomfortable Augusten, even if he is a bit dull at times. Even Alec Baldwin managed to make his alcoholic human, despite the mistakes he made. If you like Annette Bening, you might like her here--I hated her character thoroughly, and that might be your cup of tea. Perhaps you like quirky, out of control teens, and Evan Rachel Wood piques your interest, or the creepily bizarre young woman Gwyneth Paltrow plays could be more of a draw. Whatever your reasons, though, please watch this movie. You'll thank me... and if you don't feel like that at the end of it all, well, at least you'll be glad when it's over :)

300 bottles of mead on the wall...

2007-03-11T14:27:00.000-07:00

"300"

My friends have been "psyched" about seeing it for weeks. Ever since they saw the numbers, bloodspattered on the screen, for the first time, they've been aching to watch it. The trailers with men being crowded off a cliff and massive battles with big swords didn't hurt their anticipation. In fact, they couldn't wait to see the epic battle between Sparta and Persia. Funny, I thought to myself, they never seemed interested in history before.

"300" was like a history lesson on speed, souped up with leaping and explosions, naked women and half naked men. There are massive, distorted badguys, incredibly good looking good guys, and some drunk, naked teenage girl dancing and mumbling. Oh, what fun. It was as though someone took "Gladiator", "Sin City" and "the Matrix", mixed them all together, and added some half-assed philosophy.

Still, the crowd loved it. There was a retribution scene that had the audience clapping and cheering, a bunch of fakes, and battles that just seemed like oodles of fun. In fact, the movie was like watching a football game minus the football.

Despite the fact that the movie wasn't quite my cup of tea, it had some very good points. Lena Headey played a strong Queen Gorgo, and Gerard Butler played a powerful King Leonidas. Butler had an advantage over all but perhaps three of the cast (an emissary from the Persians, the tall, pretty god/king Xerxes, and someone else I'll get to in a moment)--he seemed like he was having fun. In fact, Butler seems like he was having a grand old time, enjoying the making of this silly, loud movie as much as my friends enjoyed watching it. He actually persuaded me to give a damn, and that's a tough job with a film like this.

Finally, there's the "someone else" I was going to get to, and that would be David Wenham, who looked like he was having a better time than anyone else on set. He narrated the tale with such gusto and emphatic interest that I had a hard time ignoring him while I was supposed to be watching the blood spray. He made it viewable, and the fact that he's actually a good actor (as opposed to the many, many narrators I've heard before) made it all the better.

Would I recommend this movie? Sure, to anyone who likes dumb fun and David Wenham. Otherwise, just make sure you're with a good crowd, a crowd that cares, and you'll be fine.

Best Quotation: "This is madness!"

"Madness? This. Is. SPARTA!"

theFountaininHead

2006-12-03T22:01:00.000-08:00

The idea of life after death is a beautiful idea, comforting and simple... if only.

The idea of a fulfilling life before death is frightening but comforting...

The idea of eternal life is stark and enthralling...

and the idea of the unknown is terrifying, fascinating, magnetic, and crushingly lovely.

Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" covers all of these themes, and any of the above words could describe it.

Now, I'll stop playing around with ideas and just talk about the movie directly... if I can. "The Fountain" begins with a bang, then panders into pretention, then somehow, involved me in the story and its characters' concerns.
Hugh Jackman is at once a wise, weepy warrior, each alliteration describing a different character who is actually one in the same... I think. Rachel Weisz is his muse, his savior, and his downfall. She is dying, he is trying to save her. The movie dances through a brilliant, gorgeous world over several centuries, with backdrops of various societies and to be honest, I'm still not sure how to describe this movie. The only thing I can really think of right now is that, if you're worried in the first ten/twenty minutes, hang in there, it gets much, much better.

Altman State...

2006-12-01T23:10:00.000-08:00

Robert Altman, 1925-2006

In November, Robert Altman, a fantastic director, among other things, passed away. Gosford Park is by far my favorite Altman movie... the others that I've seen were all good, well done works, even "The Company" wasn't bad, even if it wasn't great...
But "Gosford Park" was entertaining and interesting... well acted (i've frequently told my friends that I think Altman owns all of the best actors in hollywood) and well directed. Granted, my friends didn't quite like the slow pace of the movie, but it gave me time to think about it, to notice things i would otherwise have overlooked, and I also ended up liking some of the characters. Besides, it's a movie, and I'd rather sit around in a movie theatre watching a story unfold than count the people that come into the all night dunkin donuts while my friends and i are there. Altman was good at making entertainment, not just a tacky quick fix... sometimes, the fun can last awhile :-)
In my opinion, Altman was the best. No other director came close to being as talented as he, nor could anyone else get such a fantastic cast all together with such an amazing expectation: he wanted to see what they would do... he wasn't just there to order them about... they had to bring their own view to the movie... perhaps that's why his work was so good.

Either way, my writing in this entry isn't so good (who knows if the rest of my blog makes sense :) ) but I felt that I needed to say something about Altman, lest anyone forget that he was the best.

Here's to Robert Altman, to his great work, and to hoping someone will be nearly good enough to follow-not too far behind-in his footsteps.

Just Beware the Post-Shower Scene...

2006-11-19T09:22:00.000-08:00

Well, I finally saw "Borat", that charming new-comer from Kazakhstan, and his lovely little movie. Interestingly enough, people have become upset because they were "tricked into" saying things they "otherwise would not have said".

After watching this movie that can only be described as a prologued, hilarious candid camera tv show, I have come to a conclusion about all the hoopla: people need to stop whining. They weren't tricked into saying anything--they just didn't think they'd get caught. Is a thief any less guilty because no one sees him steal something? Is a guy any less of a jerk because no one is going to tell his girlfriend that he cheated? In my opinion, no.

That said, Sasha Baron Cohen has balls of steel. To get up in front of so many people who are pretty much just going to hate him whatever he does, and say things designed to make them furious was an insane undertaking. "Borat" didn't have to try hard to make some people sound like creeps (see:frat boys), while in other situations, he tried extra-special hard (see: rodeo). By the end of the movie, I was amazed that this man had not yet been shot.

My friends and I were thinking about this, and one friend lauded the fact that Baron Cohen had been kicked out of "everywhere". I corrected him, "no, he was only kicked out of a few places...", prompting a count. We figured that while he had been ridiculous and maddening in any number of places, his marvelous bizarrerie had won him no fewer than seven banishments, but perhaps no more. The most brilliant achievement in this film was not, however, the fact that "Borat" was thrown out of a dinner party, a hotel, and an antique shop. Rather, it was the way that he managed to do this, and managed, in other places, to be accepted.

In some situations, it was simply apathy that let "Borat" remain. In others, it was a false sense of propriety and charity. Some people who came across "Borat" were just the kinds of jerks who appreciated the racist, prejudiced, sexist attitude "Borat" had, and still more just weren't privy to the more insulting things he said. (It should be said here that I don't know, of course, what was said when the film stops, or beforehand, but in some situations he appeared to be less of a creep.)

Well, this review is mostly rambling, as I just woke up and am not sure that I've even processed this movie fully. It was bizarre, in some places realistic, and in others, clearly staged. It was entertaining and funny, but uncomfortable. While I managed to like some players, most were wholly unlikable. Not only that, but I'm still having trouble with the fact that so many people are such jerks. But hey, I'm pretty sure that was a big part of what this movie was about. Baron Cohen shouldn't be sued by the frat boys for making them look bad--he should be thanked for making them realize how bad they really look.

Let Us Eat Cake!

2006-10-22T18:13:00.000-07:00

Well, if you can't tell which movie I saw from reading the title, then you might want to stay away from "Marie Antoinette", which opened this weekend. A basic (and I mean BASIC) understanding of the history of the woman herself helps in enjoying this film, although an appreciation for fashion could easily act as a substitute.

"Marie Antoinette" is a fun movie, and if it isn't entertaining because it brings to life a fascinating story of a young queen, it compensates in other departments. The costumes for this movie are the best I've seen in recent years. Maybe Lord of the Rings come close with its interesting but reliable choices, but it still pales in comparison to the brilliance that is "Marie Antoinette". A new, extravagant gown in every scene, lovely shoes, ridiculous hairstyles, and sparkling accessories bedeck this visual confection of a movie. Marie's costumes are the centerpiece of the table, and this is the proven intent as one woman notes "she [Marie] looks like a cake". It doesn't hurt that the 18th century queen really had an excessive penchant for pretty things, nor that the movie's director has a similar attraction. Sophia Coppola has a talent for showing the beautiful side of things without discounting the less pleasant aspects (In "the Virgin Suicides," the languid tone is set to a cool, relaxed light, but the dark tone of the movie never quite disappears). The costumes in this film work similarly, dressing up the unhappy-- and doomed-- monarch, without hiding the pain still visible in her face.

Granted, Kirsten Dunst doesn't quite look or sound the part, but one cannot discount her theatrical talent. As the titular character in "Marie Antoinette," Dunst shows the queen's obsessions to be desperation in an unhappy situation, although she rarely notes it verbally. Rather, her expressions--along with some helpful editing--work to explain Marie Antoinette's over-expenditures. I must admit I had been undecided at the beginning of the film as to whether or not I would sympathize with the spoiled queen, but Coppola and Dunst had me convinced: Marie Antoinette may have been a bit of a ditz, and she may have wasted money on foolish things... but she was a human being, and one that probably would have lived longer if she hadn't had such shoddy advice.

The music in this movie adds to the feeling of youth mixed with stodgy ceremony and questionable influences. Marie Antoinette runs away from her unfortunate situation to upbeat songs, dances to modern hits, and pines to the same songs that many a current adolescent may appreciate. Intertwined with these songs is a classical score, and the contrast makes for an interesting thing to think about while you watch the emotions steamroll through Versailles.

While one is watching the rather liberal rendition of the life of Marie Antoinette, one must not forget her husband, a young man who was awkward, insecure, and considered by some to be stupid. Louis XVI was just as unlucky (and unwise) as his wife. He misplaced his trust and misjudged his subjects. Jason Schwartzman, however, is as talented as ever in this movie, and plays his role to perfection. He first appeared in the wonderful Wes Anderson's offbeat "Rushmore," where he played awkward and clueless. Perhaps the young actor was already preparing for this role as a king that also lacks bearings. Schwartzman's character is likeable, though, if pitiable. He changes, too, growing into someone that could have been respected had he not inspired revolution and his own beheading. It is a rare thing for characters to change in a real way, but these folks accomplish it nonetheless.

"Marie Antoinette" leads one to regret that Louis and Marie could not have been simple farmers. The most pleasant sequence in the film hints that such a fate would have served all involved well, but it was not to be. The two monarchs were young and foolish, then older, wiser, stronger, and still, for all intents and purposes, fools. Unfortunately, while art may understand and forgive such people, history does not take kindly to those who ignore it.

Luckily, here, we're dealing with art.

2006-08-25T22:53:00.000-07:00

Movies are...
Well? What are they? How would you end that sentence?

I think of them as a therapy, entertainment, historical document, and an escape. As a therapy, movies are hit or miss. They either make me feel better about the world ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Saved!") or worse ("Requiem for a Dream"). I can go into a movie crying and exit laughing, or I could enter the theatre excited and happy and leave feeling gutted. A good film can make me feel any range of emotions; connected, happy, devastated. A bad movie can still make me laugh or cry, although the feeling doesn't last, and I feel like I'm being ripped off even as I shed a tear.

As entertainment, movies need no explanation. When I'm bored, I watch a movie. When I want to think of something to do with friends, I suggest a movie (that or wandering around outside, of course). Movies were created, first and foremost, as entertainment.

To call movies historical documents is taking a bit of a leap--but only a bit. Read any history book, and it's going to be biased (one of the aspects of human nature is to be biased, even if it's subtle. Bias is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is existent). Read many history books, and you're going to find a good deal of fiction. Movies are often fictionalized accounts of how people see the world, or how they imagine it. Either way, a movie (as well as a working knowledge of how well the movie did and how it was presented) can supply a fairly reliable idea of the society in which it thrived or failed.

Finally, movies can be an escape. As a child, I looked for the magic that I imagined to be manifested in something I could actually see. My teenaged years brought me running to the movie theatres with the hope of becoming wiser, brighter, and perhaps even a better person. They were a way to connect with the realities of other people. Now, movies are fun, dark places where I can relax and become involved in something that is decidedly not real. Throughout the years, whenever something went horribly wrong, I could go watch a movie, and for at least an hour following, the world would seem a more stable place. For some reason, going into a movie and seeing that it was the same every time made me happy. Repetition, while not necessarily stimulating, can be a comfort, and as the movies say: IN A WORLD WHERE THERE IS NO HOPE AND EVERYTHING IS FALLING APART! movies are a constant that some people really need.

I suppose that I should note again that movies are primarily a form of entertainment. One must not forget that even Samuel L. Jackson's character may not have all the answers, and Dianne Wiest is not actually your best friend's mother. However, that remembered, movies rule, and can be as important to someone's life as a good book, and healthier than a good drink. So good luck, and have fun at the movies.

On second thought...

2006-08-23T21:29:00.000-07:00

I'm back, rewriting about "Snakes on a Plane"...

So, I have the horrible habit of seeing movies more than once. "Clerks 2", all three "Lord of the Rings" movies, and countless others have been thrown in my path numerous times, and each time I gladly watched them. The great thing is, these multiple viewings allow me to sit back, watch the movie, and see some of the things I missed the first time around. I am so easily swayed by the emotion or hype of a movie that sometimes, I come out of the movie a raving maniac; either entranced, overjoyed, or furious. The second time, I come out a raving maniac--but a raving maniac who knows what's going on...

This time, I noticed several scenes that could have been laughed at, and could have been cried over. There was one moment during which the women in the audience laughed (dare I say cackled?) and the men groaned. Ever see "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"? Yeah, guys, it's like that.

There are the adorable children who actual look like siblings, the glorious-but-gruesome (and brief) reappearance of a disliked character. There was the background story: the very reason for the snakes on the plane. It was so weird and neatly contained that it almost didn't work. Almost.

I don't know that explaining much more would help. But I do know that this was a good movie, fun, random, surprising, and predictable--all in the right places.

Like I said before, see this movie, if only for Samuel L. Jackson. He is the man...

Ssssssssssssssssssss...........

2006-08-22T21:16:00.000-07:00

And now, a review:

"Snakes on a Plane";

What can I say? The hype, the cliches, the tiny purse dogs--they're all there, and they all do exactly what they're supposed to do. So, what does that mean? Is this a good movie? A great movie? A terribly silly movie with a too-oft-done-style? Or is it a movie so awful, so disgusting, so gloriously predictable and surprising at the same time that it completely "blows the mind"?!
It's that last one.

Samuel L. Jackson is a cool fed, tough but amiable. Nathan Phillips is Jackson's charge, a protected witness against a sick little bugger, played by Byron Lawson. Julianna Margulies is a flight attendant with enough of a sense of humor to handle working with David Koechner's irritating but funny pilot. All of that said, this movie was amazing.

The snakes were slithery, the festering bites were revolting, and a few of the attacks were even rewarding. (There were maybe two people I didn't like being killed... just TWO... that's a record for me). The people who survived were interesting enough to keep the movie going even after the initial excitement of HOLY CRAP SNAKES ARE POURING OUT OF THE... HOLY AAAA, SNAKES EVERYWHERE!

If you're anything like Indiana Jones, then you probably don't want to see this movie. But to anyone who can deal with a couple of creepy crawlies, even if you don't like horror/panic movies, this is a fun one. The cast is fantastic, even if it clearly isn't their best acting. The characters are as fun as they are annoying, and some are even as likeable as they are supposed to be, and in this sort of movie, that's amazing. It's gross, exciting, even nervewracking at times, and in the end, people came out of the theatre smiling... and for once, I think the smiles were ALL thanks to the movie.

I'm not a big fan of this type of movie. The only reason I saw "Towering Inferno" was for Paul Newman, and "Poseidon Adventure" and any subsequent remakes give me the willies. Somehow, though, this movie was just fine. Maybe it was the idea that Samuel L. Jackson had it all under control--maybe it's like my friend said: "Samuel Jackson is everyone's dad."

Whatever the reason, I don't care what other reviewers may say. The most fantastic moment in that movie was when Samuel L. Jackson yelled his eagerly awaited line: "I've had it with these mother f-ing snakes on this mother f-ing plane!" Doesn't matter who you are; that line, from that man, makes this movie a hit!

:)

(I'm trying out this not actually swearing thing... what do you think?)

The Grand Facade

2006-08-21T22:03:00.000-07:00

Hello, folks
welcome to my blog, "Movie Poz". I'll be using this space to post, guess what... movie reviews! I'm pretty judgemental, but at the same time, I like to have fun. I suppose that's some sort of warning. Other than that, well, I suppose you'll be figuring out anything else sooner or later in your own time.

I just had a debate (well, sort of...) with a friend about whether or not movies are indeed a facade... I'm not sure that the conversation went anywhere productive... but what do you folks think? And does it even matter either way? Is asking that sort of question just a potentially massive waste of time?!

So, have a good day and all that jazz...