About Films

Movies I saw that came out in 2009

2009-12-26T11:09:00.000-08:00

My three favorite films that came out this past year were children's films. That never happens. Usually I love Pixar and hate every other film aimed for children. (Except an occasional Peter Pan and Babe 2: Pig in the City.)

Best films I saw were Coraline, Where the Wild Things Are and The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Here are all the films from 2009 I saw this year.

Movies I loved unreservedly and would love to see again:

A Christmas Carol: The 3D was spectacular. Not sure if I'd like it in 2D

Coraline: Really unnerving children's movie.

Drag Me to Hell: I was so right about this one.

Fantastic Mr. Fox : So scared I'd hate it. Very relieved when I laughed all the way through.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: I don't like the Harry Potter movies, but I'm a sucker for camera shots from the viewpoint of malevolent witches going through the streets of London. I wish more movies had them. This is best Harry Potter movie yet.

Inglorious Basterds

Up - Pixar has only made two films that I don't care for. First ten minutes are the best things Pixar has done.

Where the Wild Things Are: My favorite movie of the year. The first fifteen minutes hit me hard. The soundtrack is great.

Movies I really, really, really liked but don't care if I see again:
Extract - Best acted movie of the year. Everyone knocked it out of the park.

Observe and Report - Boy this was dark and funny and touching.

Star Trek - I hate Star Trek but I really liked this.

Knowing - I don't care what anyone says. I thought it was good. I had it playing at the library and the last fifteen minutes everyone in the teen room stopped what they were doing and gathered around the TV. It was a nice moment.

Movies I loved mostly but had parts that I hated:
500 Days of Summers:
This feels unfair because I loved this movie, far more than I disliked it. I really only disliked the scene when they embarrass each other by shouting obscenities in the park. (So what? I'm a prude). The scene made me cringe and made me like the characters less. The rest of the movie was outstanding, but it took awhile for me to like the characters again.

Movies I feel nothing about:
The Hangover: So-so.

17 Again: It seems like I should have hated this more. I didn't find it funny but I was touched in parts.

Zombieland: It seems like I should have liked this movie more. I'm not sure why I didn't.

Funny People: I liked what it was doing and I liked the acting and the story. I don't know. I liked it without feeling strongly about it.

Movies I mildly didn't like:
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs : Why do animated films think I want to see a joke every 4 seconds? I don't. I want a story thrillingly told. The Life of the Party is always a bore. Don't try to be the life of the party anymore animated films. (I blame Robin Williams in Aladin.) No more joke a minute cartoons, please.

Bruno: I loved this film when I saw it. I laughed a lot and thought it had important things to say. But the review in The New Yorker was such a good take down of the movie, that it flipped me from enjoying to mildly not liking. (Does that make me easily swayed or is the reviewer in The New Yorker that good a writer. Probably both.) The best paragraph in the review is :

Brüno” ends appallingly, with a musical montage of Sting, Bono, Elton John, and other well-meaners assisting mein Host in a sing-along. Here’s the deal, apparently: if celebrities aren’t famous enough for your liking (Ron Paul, Paula Abdul), or seem insufficiently schooled in irony, you make vicious sport of them, but if they’re A-listers, insanely keen to be in on the joke, they can join your congregation. Would Baron Cohen dare to adopt a fresh disguise and trap Sting in some outlandish folly, or is he now too close a friend? To scour the world for little people you can taunt, and then pal up with the hip and rich: that is not an advisable path for any comic to pursue, let alone one as sharp and mercurial as Baron Cohen.

Here is the complete review http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/07/20/090720crci_cinema_lane?printable=true

Monsters vs. Aliens: See comment about Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

Movies I didn't like:

Friday the 13th: It gave me a headache. Forgot I'd seen it till I made this list.

Paper Heart: I would have loved it when I was 23. I can understand why others would love it.

Movies I wanted to like but found disappointing:

Jennifer's Body - A horror film by the writer of Juno? I was so excited.

The Invention of Lying: Biggest disappointment of the year. I love Ricky Gervais. Love, love, love him. But this movie just did not work. At all. Except for one hilarious scene where Gervais makes up 10 commandments. I wasn't offended by the religion bashing. That was the funniest stuff in the movie. Everything else was bleh.

Up

2009-08-09T20:48:00.000-07:00

What a film. I hadn't heard much talk about this one, and I was feeling poor, so I put off seeing it until now (I think I saw almost every other pixar movie opening weekend). But don't you make that mistake. If you haven't seen it yet, head on over to the Wynnsong and check out the best film of the year (so far). I wanted to watch it again as soon as it was over. So charming, laugh out loud funny, stunning visuals (I love the texture on his ties and uphostery), and I got all teared up on three separate occaisions.

This was also the first film I've seen in 3D. I was sceptical at first (I purposefully chose the non-3D version of Coraline), but now I'm a convert. At least for this film is added a lot. All those balloon shots, the clouds, the buildings and mountains.

So chalk one up to Pete Doctor and the pixar masterpiece factory. It's wierd, but now I've got to say that John Lassetter is probably my least favorite of the pixar directors. The Toy Story movies rock, but Cars was a little weak. Actually, I think the only problem with it was the music. Lassetter just has lame taste in music. And like that "when somebody loves you" song in Toy Story 2. Please, no. Thankfully, UP doesn't have anyone singing in it.

Top 5 Favorite Comic Performances

2009-06-20T18:04:00.000-07:00

5. Rick Moranis - GhostBusters
4. Jack Black - School of Rock
3. John Candy - Planes, Trains, & Automobiles
2. Owen Wilson - Bottlerocket
1. Val Kilmer - Real Genius

Man On Wire

2009-03-04T14:20:00.000-08:00

90% of Man On Wire was recreated with actors and sets. They’re not meant to be the real thing but rather represent the real thing and yet the documentary plays like a thriller. The first twenty minutes are cut and narrated as if a conspiracy of murder is about to take place. However it is soon revealed that the event in question is really just an elaborate prank not meant to hurt or embarrass but to awe and inspire.

Petit Phillippe is a high wire walker who believes that in 1974, the world trade center towers were being created for him to walk between. He watches as they are constructed and eagerly awaits his chance to fulfill his dream. It’s interesting to see how, for Petit, the world revolves around him but not in an egotistical way. It’s obvious that Petit does his high wire acts for other people to enjoy but he also sees the world as a sort of playground for him to do what he wants.

I saw this film at Sundance in 08 and it’s no wonder why it won the audience choice award. Phillippe tells much of his own story in a close up interview and he tells it as if he still has not come down off the high of it (pun intended). A Documentary's success is heavily based the director's vision or the editor's skills. Man On Wire is somewhat cinematic but I think it's Petit's storytelling that makes it great.

The film challenges you to be original, daring, and enjoy life. To most of us, Petit’s hobby is silly and ridiculous but to him it is serious and by the end of this film, he will convince you that nothing is silly and ridiculous.

The Son

2009-03-01T18:44:00.000-08:00

I was reminded of this film by Drew's post about Baghead. I haven't seen baghead, and the duplass brothers seem like they would annoy me. But maybe not. Anyway, this is definitely a film worth checking out. It's an unconventional mystery/revenge thriller. Shot like a documentary, handheld, with only a 50mm lens (i.e. no telephoto or wide angle shots), and with no coverage. The only editing is between scenes or locations or gaps in time. Something about the way this is done, and how our view is limited is so intense and unpredictable. I would love to try making a film like this. But you'd have to have some seriously good actors to pull it off.

Mermaid Tails

2009-02-28T08:27:00.000-08:00

1. Weta, who did the special effects for Lord of the Rings, is a great company. Pixar great. This is a quick read but absolutely worth it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4839818/Disabled-woman-given-mermaid-tail-to-help-her-swim.html

Baghead

2009-02-27T11:07:00.000-08:00

There’s a fine line between being scared out of your mind and laughing your head off. At first thought it would seem that these two expressions of emotions would be at opposite ends of the spectrum but in fact they are very nearly separated. If you’ve seen a good horror movie in the theater you know this because the audience gasps in horror and then laughs afterward as a way of releasing tension. The Duplas brothers’ want to exploit this phenomenon with their new mumblecore film, Baghead.

The majority of scripts coming out of the beginning screenwriting classes at both USC and UCLA are about one of two things: either they are about making films or about people with OCD. Baghead treads on the former making it a better festival movie than anything else.

PLOT:
After seeing an awful independent film, four adults set out to a cabin in the woods to write and shoot a feature film in one weekend. Strange things begin to happen and they try to incorporate these events into their script.

The movie starts out strong with some good comedic propulsion in the first act. The characters are given motivations and a context to exercise them in. Between the first and second act the film begins to take on a Charlie Kaufmen like quality…maybe something thrown away from Adaptation. But then it wallows in this strange place where the character seem less interested in what they had set out to do then in playing jokes on each other. I became less interested too. The third act picks up again as it begins to resolve some of the questions hanging in the air. However it never really pays off in any way and maybe reaching for realism over structure is a mumblecore staple. If this is the case then why borrow the conventions of a thriller's structure to start the film and leave them out to finish it.

I’m no expert on mumblecore but it seems that the movement freely borrows from conventional Hollywood only to make the statement that they don’t need the conventions of a Hollywood film and certainly not the budget. Their hearts in the right place and I do think the Duplas brothers are excellent at getting genuine performances and taking those performances from something we recognize to something downright uncomfortable. It’s this authentic quality that makes them interesting (see Puffy Chair). They never seem to know how to get back from the uncomfortable and maybe they don’t want to. They enjoy leaving a slightly bitter taste in your mouth. I think they want the audience to feel smart and not betrayed by manipulative conventions. Baghead is effective at being comedic and scary at times but otherwise pretty forgettable.

Last Chance Hoffman

2009-01-25T22:23:00.000-08:00

Harvey is a commercial jingle writer. While his career choice could be mined for much comedy gold, writer/director Joel Hopkins chooses not to. So why else make him a commercial jingle writer? Maybe there is something shallow and detached about commercial jingles that represent how Harvey lives his life. I would love to meet a real commercial jingle writer but for none of the reasons explored in this movie. Emma Thompson is an airport interviewer for a British agency named Kate Walker. I think the only reason is perhaps so Harvey can go looking for her in a crowded place at a key moment in the film.

The movie takes about a half hour to get going which leaves about an hour of good material. This is a simple plot of guy gets girl, guy loses girl, guy gets girl. The audience should hope they get together but fear they won’t. That romantic tension dynamic will keep them in their seats. It's not that the movie has to follow this but that it wants to and doesn't, but nobody told the composer this. The film is scored as if we are already invested and sold on this relationship.

Harvey doesn’t do much but stare at Kate. They never make a connection that is really worth pursuing at least on screen. That fact that he's much older and shorter than she is puts him in the underdog category but not every underdog is worth cheering for. There is one touching moment when Harvey swallows his pride and makes a sweet gesture at his daughter's wedding. Perhaps this is the moment when Kate finds him attractive but but we're never really clued into this, in fact she tries to leave the party.

Somewhere near the last half hour, the film begins to get to some real issues. There is a great scene where Emma Thompson finally expresses her real fear of getting into the relationship and it’s very legitimate. But it never has as much impact as it should because there is no hint of this feeling early on in the film and it comes as a surprise more than a release of tension.

This film is simple, sweet, and enjoyable but if you’re a long time Hoffman fan, you’ll keep wondering when he’s going to do something really interesting and he never does. Maybe he was trying a less is more approach or maybe the script just didn't have enough for him to do. Both Hoffman and Thompson give good performances in fact they were both nominated for Golden Globes. But this not a comedy of manners, it's a love story and it demands more than good acting.

Hoffman hasn’t done a lead role in several years. Maybe this was his last chance to do a romantic film and he took it and didn't look back. If that is true, then it explains why he was drawn to this role, and maybe why Harvey is drawn to Kate.

L'enfant

2008-12-15T05:26:00.000-08:00

It doesn't take long to figure out who "the infant" is in this powerful film by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Jérémie Renier plays Bruno, a petty thief who lives moment to moment selling whatever he can get his hands on and then immediately spending the money on whatever catches his eye. He's completely impulsive, selfish, and childlike. He only places value in his own immediate needs.

But Bruno has a love in his life - Sophie. And the love they share is the one force pulling against his persistent selfishness. And then there's their nine day old baby - Jimmy. The weight of this fact has not settled on Bruno in any real way. To him, their child is like a novelty item - linked to the owners only by material possession. So naturally, when the situation presents itself, Bruno sells young Jimmy on the black market to an adoption ring for a hefty sum.

This isn't much of a spoiler as this plot point is used on the back of the DVD in a summary of the film. The film isn't about this one event as much as it is about an immature and highly flawed person realizing the weight of his sin and desperately trying to claw his way toward redemption.

The direction and acting were amazing (notice the music as well). This is the type of film that gets me excited about watching more movies (there are many that do the opposite).

Ghost Town

2008-11-17T11:14:00.000-08:00

Ghost Town

I've always thought Ricky Gervais was a little over rated. I didn't think he could really carry an entire movie. Ghost Town changed my mind about him and made me appreciate his talent. Ghost town was written by David Koepp, the guy who ruins every major blockbuster franchise but somehow always seems to get the next job. And not only did he write this, but he directed it as well. Koepp gets right to work setting up a predicament for his main character Bertrum Pincas (Gervais). It's a predicament that lends it's self to both comedy and drama and the script is smart enough to let the comedy ooze up through the drama taking advantage of context. I have learned that really funny comedies like this one have terrible trailers because without knowing the context, nothing is funny on the surface. Not once did I get to a joke and say "oh yeah that was funny in the trailer". Gervais creates comedy in the most subtle of mannerisms, you want to watch him for fear you'll miss something. He is best playing the strait man to the whacky events around him but his vulnerability and restraint were what make his performance really work. My one complaint is that Greg Kinear, (who I love), is underused here. His character arc is a bit vague for 90 minutes of the film. In fact I'm still not sure if I was supposed to like his character or not.

I wouldn't say this film is a love story, although there are elements of that here. The romantic tension that goes on between two of the characters is pretty strong. Even when I thought I knew what Koepp was doing with each scene, I fell for each trap he set. Being one step ahead of the audience is crucial for a morality tale which is really what this film is. I think the minute that the audience senses a preachy agenda, they check out. For example, the name Ghost Town.... it's a dumb name and it undersells the movie, but I understand why it was chosen. It's an attempt to keep audience from sniffing out something of more importance. This way, when they discover something of more spiritual significance, they feel it wasn't forced on them.

Intro to Film

2008-10-18T20:12:00.000-07:00

Hey friends. I've been neglecting this site for too long. I'm glad Drew hasn't. I liked getting together over the summer a couple times, it'd be fun to do it again.

Anyways, this semester, in addition to my usual high school teaching responsibilities, I'm also teaching an Intro to Film class at SLCC. Here's a few things we've watched so far:

The Color of Paradise

I like to start the semester out with this one because it's so different from what most people have seen, being foreign and iranian, but at the same time it's so easily accesible, so I think right off the bat it helps to ease their prejudices against foreign film. Also a great example of a pretty obvious but power theme supported by all the film elements.

Annie Hall

I hadn't seen this in a while and it still does the trick. One student mentioned how he thought the whole film was the equivalent of the Audience being Woody Allen's analyst and him trying to explain Why to us. I buy that.

American Graffiti

I've basically got this whole film memorized now. It was interesting how after seeing it a lot of the students said they talked to their parents or uncles and aunts who said this is exactly what it was like growing up in the 60's. So I tried to think of a film that shows what it was like growing up in the 90's. I couldn't think of one that is similar to my life. I'd say the closest thing is Freaks and Geeks. What about you folks?

Pan's Labyrinth

I hadn't seen this film before I showed it to the class, so I got to experience it for the first time with them. I loved all the recurring themes of laying up treasure in heaven vs. trying to hold on to earthly treasure. The ending was initially frustrating but ultimately exactly right. I think he does a great job of getting an adult to feel what a child feels when they read or see a good fairy tale.

Sunrise

I think I've written about this one before. Still love it. On the surface, I love what it says about marriage, and the effort it takes to make it work, but how when you dedicate yourself to it it's the best thing ever. Beneath the surface, I think it's about our relationship with God. Similar to Punch Drunk Love.

Tokyo Story

Man, this film is slow. But it makes it that much more refreshing when after about a half hour a few of the characters start talking about real stuff instead of just small talk.

The Hustler

We were studying "acting" this week, and I thought it fitting to honor Mr. Paul Newman, one of the finest. I hadn't ever seen this film. I really liked the beginning and the end and a few parts in the middle, but overall it could've been trimmed down 20 or 30 minutes and would be great. But still, the ending makes up for all the boring middle parts.

JFK

Studying editing this week, and this is a great example of Mr. Stone using the editing to prove his point. Here's a question: If you believed everything in the films were true and really happened, which one is scarier: JFK or Rosemary's Baby?

Appaloosa

2008-10-17T16:05:00.000-07:00

For a genre that is unique to American culture, it's surprising that we only get about one western a year. Appaloosa is a western by director and star Ed Harris and it's a pure genre exercise in the tradition of great westerns before it. In other words if you love westerns, you'll feel right at home in this film. There's nothing modern, current, or urgent about this film and I mean that in a good way. It could have been made anytime in the last thirty years.

The cast is good. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are lawmen hired to clean up the town of Appaloosa. Jeremy Irons is the source of most of the trouble and Rene Zellweger shows up as a love interest for Ed Harris.

Ed Harris shows a lot of restraint as a director and a little different focus than most here. For instance, the music, cinematography, editing, and lighting all serve the acting rather than the story. The editing is very economic allowing the actors to live inside the frame longer and move about without needing a cut. I think this is because Ed Harris the director trusts his actors to carry the film without much back story from Ed Harris the writer. By allowing their performances to play out just a little longer, with less cutting, the characters can live and breathe on their own. The audience accepts them as real people that diminishes the need for much back story. I'm not saying it totally works, but I think this is what Ed Harris was going for. For example, when Rene Zellwegger shows up at the end of the first act, the movie doesn't explain why she is there or where she came from. All we know is that she is new in town and only has a dollar. The fact that she only has a dollar is detail enough for us to fill in a reason for her to have fled whatever life she had before. Films are less interesting when they have to explain so Harris simply doesn't.

The third act of this film is a strange duck, or maybe this is a comment on the entire film because by definition it does resolve the conflicts of the first two acts, but somehow the conflicts were more interesting unresolved.

I think one problem this film suffers from is that it doesn't know who it's main character is. It starts and ends with Viggo doing the voice over but it feels like Harris' story much of the time. Although they are partners, Viggo's character is much smarter than Harris' and yet Harris is clearly the boss. In the end, it's really Viggo who imparts any action toward resolving the conflicts and somehow its not very satisfying.

I like the first two acts of this film and I think there is a lot to enjoy here but I'm a little confounded by the third act and as a result, never really loved this movie. However in a drought of Westerns, I can still recommend it.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

2008-10-13T18:41:00.000-07:00

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is a teen comedy starring Micheal Cera and Kat Dennings. Each play an awkward teen destined to meet on one fateful crazy night in the big city. Nick and Norah are sober teens surrounded by a world of drunken, sex-starved, kids with misplaced passions and insecurities. Part of my problem with this film is that most of it is told in real time. There is no escape from the drunken girl who's running gag is that she burps or throws up in each scene. There is no passage of time where we get to see decisions played out. The film asks us to accept that when your a teenager, your life can change in one night. I can accept that however this film cheap-shots it's own premise as the night goes on.

The screenplay strains to come up with logical reasons why Nick and Norah have to be together even when they don't want to be. One such contrivance is that everybody in the city is trying to get to a concert by a band called Where's Fluffy. This band's idea of self promotion is not to tell it's fans where they are playing but instead leave clues on bathroom walls and with radio Deejays. In a world of instant communication, especially among teens, I doubt this strategy would last more than five minutes. I also don't buy that kids would drive all over New York checking each club and even buying tickets to "bait and switch" shows put on by other desperate bands. However the film is better when Nick and Norah are together so accepting this contrivance is to our benefit. In fact when they are together, their performances are genuine and funny. Cera has some great lines with great delivery. Good romantic tension is built as the two struggle to connect, unfortunately there's not enough of these scenes in the film. It's overcrowded with sick, gross-out gags, and SNL cameos that don't add up to much comedy and only serve to disgust. There is one scene involving a piece of gum and a bus station toilet that is so gross, that literally everyone in my screening walked out. All the secondary characters in Nick and Norah's world are selfish, drunkards, or gay caricatures leaving Nick and Norah the only characters that feel real. The fact that Nick and Norah's decisions even mean anything is due to the fact that they haven't given into the world that their friends have. For example they are the only two straight-edged kids in the film.

Some of the best moments between Nick and Norah come in the obligatory scene in which they finally become a couple. It starts out really sweet and even begins to reward the audience for sitting through all cheap antics the night brought on. But then it is punctuated by the most undermining scene in the film.

Earlier in the film there is a scene in which Seth Meyers from SNL has sex in the back of Nick's car because he believes it's a taxi. Meanwhile nick are Norah are trying to get to know each other in the front seats. It's meant to be an awkward scene but it's also meant to endear these characters to the audience. This is then undermined by the fact that when Nick and Nora finally do become a couple, the do the same thing in a recording studio.

This film is not about morality, but it uses morality to separate the characters that matter from those that don't matter. Essentially the two main characters I admired the whole film, became as cheap as everyone else in the end.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-19T20:30:00.001-07:00

I can't remember the last time I saw a film on opening day. But I had to for this one. And I was not disappointed.

The thing I love about both of Nolan's batman movies is that there's so much to sink your teeth into. I saw the first one twice in the theatre, and I plan on doing the same with this one. I love how he avoids the gimicky effects shots like in Lord of the Rings or Spiderman, the "Look at these sweet camera moves" kind of stuff. Instead this feels alot more like No Country for Old Men, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and yes, as other critics have noted, The Godfather. It's got that kind of confidence, that great of characters, and that attention to detail. The acting is beautiful. Of course Heath Ledger's the one that stands out, but I particularly enjoy any of the scenes with Michael Kane, Gary Oldman, or Morgan Freeman. Similar to Tommy Lee Jones in No Country or Paul Scofield in Quiz Show, it's those kinds of salt of the earth characters that bring wisdom and goodhumor to a film, and I love hearing everything they have to say.

I guess that goes along with my only complaint about the film. As much as I love all the action stuff, it was almost too fast paced (which is saying a lot for a 150 minute film). I would've liked for it to slow down a little more at some points, and put in a few more great conversations, even if they aren't "essential" to the plot, to give us a chance to really savor these characters. I'd glady trim a couple minutes off a chase or fight scnene in exchange for a few more wise words from Gary Oldman.

All in all, I'm ranking it 2nd best of the year so far, right behind Wall-E. Matter of fact, I should write something about Wall-E on here. Maybe I'll wait til I see it again.

The Puffy Chair, mumblecore, and more...

2008-04-08T11:56:00.000-07:00

I finally saw this film recently after hearing intriguing things after its run at Sundance in '05. Written/Directed/Produced by the Duplass brothers who are part of the famed "mumblecore" movement or group of indie filmmakers out there doing some interesting low budget Cassavettes type stuff. (For some reason that name really makes me cringe. "They" also refer to it as bedhead cinema, slackavettes, and mumblecorps - more on them later.)

Puffy Chair is more than just a charming digital feature shot with non actors and no real story. Why? Well, for one... there is a story. I don't know how much of it was scripted but the Duplass Brothers were able to strike that balance between indie improv naturalism and engaging plot. Of course sometimes with these kinds of films the point is to reject the need for "engaging plot" and to instead focus on the emotions and interactions of characters. That certainly is the focus here as well, but we're also given the safety net of an unconventional road trip story with a clear goal for the protagonist (for those of you into that kind of thing).

But the thing that got me about this film was the way the story allows itself to be unpredictable (not as in unpredictable for shock value or trying to be different). Road trip movies tend to have the obligatory wandering and finding of self or developing of relationships. Eventually the road trip wanderings become predictable and we find ourselves waiting for the next pit stop and the next wise stranger. The Duplass' instead take a note from Truffaut's and PTA's ability to mix a variety of emotional tones and unconventional plot developments to create scenarios where the audience can be watching something that feels totally natural yet they have no clue what is coming next. Then it comes and it feels just right somehow.

It seems the tendency with a lot of well-intentioned films is to rely too much on the ironic plot turns that have become convention to the "indie" film genre. Not to say those films aren't good or interesting. But there is a difference between correctly executing the conventions of your genre (I'm using "indie" as a genre here), and using those conventions to vault you to something new and unexpected and often more honest and real.

The characters in Puffy Chair begin as comfortable, recognizable stereotypes of 20 something hip kids but soon become more than that as they refuse to remain in that realm of stereotype and become tinged with the troubling darkness of reality. The anger of the protagonist begins to settle in as a bit disturbing and that funny new-age brother becomes the real brother or friend who you're just fed up with because of his total disregard for social conventions and civility. But the change is done oh so subtly. Mostly because they allow it to work in us. The Duplass' let us settle in to our voyeuristic comfort zones while we wait for the story to unravel . At the same time they refuse to allow sympathy to color their choices for their characters. The result is a unique pseudo-resolution of plot and emotional undercurrent that feels "just right somehow" (see above).

More on mumblecore:

The apparent need to group these films together comes from the style (cassavettes-like, do it yourself esthetic embraced by the filmmakers), themes, and the interesting fact that they seem to have emerged at the same time and at the same festivals (SXSW and Sundance mostly). It also helps that the filmmakers have embraced their new wave clique and collaborate on projects. Here's an attempt at a mumblecore family tree.

I've really only seen three of the featured films in the so called movement (unless you follow the above mentioned family tree which spuriously links "George Washington" and "The Great World of Sound" through composer David Wingo). "Funny Ha Ha", "Mutual Appreciation," and "The Puffy Chair" (plus some silly shorts by the Duplass Brothers). I've liked what I've seen so far but I'm sure I'll be disappointed at some point. The thing I find with these types of films is that they are high risk/high reward (which I like - it's more exciting). Even within the same film. Bujalski's "Funny Ha Ha" can be at times excruciatingly boring and uneventful and then almost in the same instant extremely exciting for its "so real it's real" interactions.

The films tend to feature a lack of conventional story while centering around the mundane wanderings and relationships of white, college graduates. Sounds fun right? It actually is...well some of the time.

It's interesting to note that Bujalski studied doc filmmaking at Harvard with the intent to shoot narrative features as docs - and it shows. His films feel like cinema verite in the pure voyeuristic sense. But it's not that he's just documenting his life and calling it a movie but rather he's putting normal people in front of the camera and having them interact normally. The result, although "normal," is abnormal and unique (for what we're used to in film anyway). Even Cassavette's stuff carries a dramatic or actorly tone - probably because they were all actors. Bujalski's side character (Mitchell) in Funny Ha Ha is ridiculously real. A realness that is all at once funny, annoying, engaging, and even inspiring in a weird way. It's just so disarmingly honest that there is no way to believe that his nervous awkwardness is not for real.

Skeptics may have trouble getting past the apparent pretentiousness and indulgence featured and I can understand that sentiment but if you look beyond the rough edges and earnest intentions you'll find something nice and different.

- sorry for all the hyperlinks. i got carried away.

The Passenger

2008-03-12T11:31:00.000-07:00

The set up for the Passenger is great. Nicholson is on assignment in Africa to film a documentary when a British man rooming next door dies. Nicholson discovers this and decides to switch places with him, only to discover the dangerous nature of his occupation. Antonioni borrows from Kubrick's 2001 in a great scene showing Nicholson slip into the other man’s life. Antonioni’s cameraman, Luciano Tavoli (who also shot D’argento’s Suspiria) uses controlled camera moves that give the narrative some momentum. The camera leads you through the story rather than merely keeping up with the story. In this way it is similar to Blow Up. You feel as though something is orchestrated or always happening off screen.

The passenger was changed from "Fatal Exit" to "The Reporter" to "The Passenger". In the context of the film, the change is subtle but the newest title gives more insight into the theme. It was made in 1975 with Jack Nicholson coming off of Cuckoo's Nest and Chinatown the year before. In other words, he was a big star. Yet his performance in The Passenger shows how much he trusted Michelangelo Antonioni. He’s very reserved, and understated and almost unrecognizable. It's nice to see him this way in contrast to his larger than life performances of late.

Antonioni can be really good at getting to an interesting idea but seldom has much to say about it. Sometimes this is a good thing. I have seen Blow Up 5 times and each time I think I have discovered something new about it. L'Vventura on the other hand didn’t hook me at all.

Along the way Nicholson manages to link up with a hot young French girl who is willing to help him out of a jam. They become partners in a strange way and Maria Schneider’s performance is fun to watch. It’s almost as if she walked onto the set and started improvising dialogue. Why she is willing to help him out is never really clear but it is charming. The screenplay addresses this by having Nicholson asks her on two occasions “why the f*** are you still with me?”. She never really has an answer...and it's great that way.

The genius of this film is the structure. Intercut with Nicholson's story is another involving his wife and producer. Both think he is now dead and begin trying to make a film that sums up his work. This tribute film becomes a revealing convention for Nicholson's character. We learn more about him and his career and maybe even why he would give it up for another life. One clip shows Nicholson on a past assignment covering a story of the execution of a prisoner. It is so unusual that I was compelled to check it out online. Turns out it is actual footage of a real execution.

The end of the film has one of the best shots in Cinema. It manages to be interesting cinematically, technically accomplished, and gives the story a certain dread irony at the same time. There are some interesting notes in the films commentary track from Nicholson too. The film has long been out of view because its rights belonged to Jack Nicholson, who chose to keep the film in limited circulation. The irony here is that I bought my copy at Big Lots for 3 dollars.

The Hoax

2008-02-25T15:18:00.000-08:00

I'm generally not a fan of films based on true events, and I'm certainly not a Richard Gere fan. I was one who laughed when the film Chicago featured Richard Gere's tap dance from the waiste down while he sang his razzel dazzel number. Having said that, this film is a lot of fun and one of my top ten of last year.

1971, Clifford Irving (Richard Gere) is desperate for money, so, he claims he has Howard Hughes's cooperation to write Hughes's autobiography. With the help of friend Dick Suskind (Alfred Molina), Irving begins his book, banking on Hughes's reluctance to enter the public eye and expose the truth.

Although it's a true story, the director Lasse Halstrom takes some liberties with the narrative that give it a kind of uncertainty that a lot of true-event-films don't have. For one thing, you can feel Howard Hughes presense in every scene. There is a nice blend of humor and tension in the film as the stakes get set higher and higher. There are some moments where Halstrom lets the performances get a little silly such as when Irving and Suskin are trying to steal government documents.

Ther have been films about impossible liars before (shattered Glass) and they usually suffer like so many episodes of Growing Pains once the "gig is up" scene comes. However the screenwriter does something interesting here to get around this. When Clifford Irving has no one left to fool, he fools himself with what becomes a nice third act curve ball. Fun!

The Orphanage

2008-01-24T12:58:00.001-08:00

Prior to seeing "The Orphanage", I hastily assumed that this film was going to be another typical ghost story or haunted house movie with only the Spanish dialogue to distinguish it from the rest of the pack, but I am glad to admit I was wrong. At times, the film toys with the normal conventions of the genre - the shock and startle effects, but never gives in entirely. During the first half hour of the film, you may even start to wonder if you are watching a purely emotional drama. That is how the film captivates the audience - by luring them in slowly and mounting the anticipation until it becomes so agonizing that the only choice they have is to sit riveted until the end.

There are several elements that Juan Antonio Bayona incorporated into his directing approach that makes "The Orphanage" an effective entry in the suspense genre, and only occasionally leaning into the territory of the horror neighbor. For one, there is a single point of view taken from Laura - the mother, once raised in the orphanage. Buying the orphanage years later and living it as an adult, mother, and wife, affects her point of view from the start. Imagine visiting your childhood house years later or better yet your grandmother's farmhouse filled with porcelain dolls, creaky floors, and dark basements. You have a faint memory of happy moments, but now through your adult eyes everything is now unsettling, because you find yourself getting lost in a once familiar place. When Laura's son disappears one day, the audience not only feels the panic and guilt a mother would feel in that situation, but the dread of not knowing the layout or past of your own house. As Laura receives a strange visitor somehow connected to the orphanage, Laura questions her identity and so does the audience. Though opinions from other characters are presented, the film never pulls you away from Laura's point of view.

The cinematography compliments this point of view as well. Not once does the camera wander off with Simon after he runs away or with the father Carlos as he makes inquiries of his own. Rather, the camera stays fixed to Laura even when a psychic tries to communicate with spirits in the dark rooms of the house. The suspense is undeniable, even palpable, because the camera restricts the audience's view to security camera footage and the accompanying sound effects.
At other times, the camera reflects Laura's emotional status. When Laura checks over her shoulder repeatedly, the camera holds steady and imitates her movement without cutting. Ultimately though the camera serves the idea of suspense and point of view the best by the "less is more theory", much like Hitchcock mastered.

When other movies tend to reveal too much to the point of becoming predictable, "The Orphanage" takes Laura and the viewer down multiple paths that all could lead to the truth behind what is really happening. Instead of just prolonging the truth, the film entertains one interpretation after another, much like, "it's the one-armed man, no, it's the man in the suit, no it's the girl trapped in the TV." It keeps you guessing all the way until the end. Essentially not knowing what is going to happen or what is real is what suspense is made of. The real interesting aspect of the this film is how it ends up with the mystery unresolved in the hands of the audience to come to their own conclusions. That ambiguity can be annoying to some, but you would be surprised how much tension it creates throughout this film and even after it finishes.

In summary, "The Orphanage" is the type of horror film that is more suspense than horror or gore. It's the type of suspense that keeps you guessing, makes you ask the questions, and leaves you in mystery even after the credits roll. Even the subtitles add to the suspense. The characters are portrayed in a sympathetic light, the performances are believable, and overall the film is a fresh take on a exhausted genre, like the handful of climbers who have scaled Everest and actually live to tell the story.

Why I like Cloverfield

2008-01-24T09:32:00.000-08:00

It has no stars, no establishing shots, and no soundtrack. The main characters do not solve their dilemma. The people who survive are not who you would expect. Instead of the editing and cinematography informing the story, the story informs the cinematography and editing. Even the flashbacks in the film are handled within the convention of the story.

In a regular film, the cut represents what we don't see...and what we don't see is the real story. That story only exists in the mind of the audience. Cloverfield works similarly because the story largely exists outside the frame, so it too is in the mind of the audience. That's why the shaky cam in this film is not lazy filmaking but actually very precise cinematic storytelling. The genius of Cloverfield is that it does not feel limited to angles even though there is one camera held by one person. The acting and the special FX often live out of frame. Every big FX film tries to convince you that the world the story takes place in is bigger than the camera can contain but none have achieved it like this. Anyone who has played through a first person video game understand the excitement of discovering what's off screen. They even named the man with the camera Hud as in heads up display.

If Cloverfield achieves a certain kind of ultra reality, and truth is the goal of any filmmaker, then why wouldn't this convention be the best way to present all films? I think because people identify with films as dreams and most dreams are in third person. Cloverfield is scary because it violates the conventions of dreams. The embedded love story suggests a take home message, but it's really just there to string the collasal events together. Tell your loved ones you love them before it's too late. Beyond that it's all visceral, reactionary cinema that will tax your body.

Cloverfield is not perfect and it won't be my favorite film this year. It's just so different. One problem I had with it was the performance of Hud. His vocals somehow feel disembodied like they were mixed in afterward. Maybe the DVD mix will fix this. Also his dialogue occasionally feels forced. Luckily there are only a few moments like this. What the film does well, is let the characters be silent at the right times. Consider the scene when Rob deals with the event that involes his brother. He doesn't say a word for nearly 15 minutes. Or when Marlena gets an eyefull of the disaster at hand. She walks around in a daze for the next ten minutes.

I've seen people have the time of their lives in this film and then get mad because they didn't expect the ending. The opening frame is brilliant and it immediately puts you in a weird state. Each time I have seen this film, the first 3 seconds has gotten a theater goer to yell out.."ooooh crap!" because they thought the projector was broken. This is the biggest clue that the ending will be unexpected. Part of the fun of this film is the audience's reaction. Once this film leaves the theater, it will lose much of it's thrill. The technical achievement Cloverfield has to offer is astounding. It is a unique cinematic experience, and for a monster movie, unprecedented.

No Country for Old Men

2007-12-07T14:19:00.000-08:00

Much has already been said, critically and otherwise, about No Country for Old Men’s “hunter becoming the hunted” and the prospects of Javier Bardem winning an Oscar (which would be great). While such clichés citing overt and somewhat elementary symbolism flow like sentimentalism from a Spielberg movie, the more sinister and indicting themes at the core of this story confound such reductive criticism while demanding attention. Contrary to the popular notions of chic hipsters, Country doesn’t settle for merely achieving pop-genre status but, like many of the great films, resists simple classification and generalization to the effect of appealing to multiple tastes and sensibilities while being pointedly insightful. Of course the tense story and action, paced by remarkable editing, grabs our focus as well as our concern. But where the film becomes the most fascinating is in its acute awareness of cultural politics in America.

Although Llewelyn Moss is a sympathetic character who gets drawn into a treacherous stalking match, it’s significant that we understand him as a truly opportunistic guy who is determined to keep a bundle of money he gained by shady chance. That this money is someone else’s never deters him from trying to keep it even though he clearly understands that doing so puts him and his family at terrible risk. This act seems to characterize more of the McMahonian notion of capitalist expectation than one would normally assign to a poor schmuck being stalked by a raging psychopath. To ignore this and idealize a protagonist’s morally dubious actions based on our empathetic support is a remarkably dangerous practice and one that is deftly exploited by the Coens and award winning novelist, Cormac McCarthy.

Similarly, at the center of the film’s parade of ubiquitous and abrupt violence is the idea that no one is exempt and punishment (or dire consequence), however unjust, is inevitable. The fact that neither lawful nor vigilante retribution has a marked effect on minimizing the imminent brutality that Anton Chigurh brings further parallels a culture muddled in paradox and misconception. This is not to say that the film promotes fatalism, but only that it has its finger on the proverbial button of our societal conundrum of violence and terror. As Sherriff Bell’s narration brilliantly bookends the film, we understand the layered and self reflexive irony that veterans returning from conflict are doomed to relive the same madness at home.

No Country for Old Men evokes a haunting vision of social anxiety in America, defying our best efforts to evade responsibility in a way that could generically be considered post neo-western-noir. Despite the ambiguity of such categorization, we could also surmise that the Coen’s have made a masterful adaptation of a striking novel. More importantly, however, the filmmakers appear to have not only been faithful but have had faith in their source material – a virtue to be sure. If artists continue to make comparable renderings because of such stark and relevant works (i.e. if Moss really is America’s redneck Everyman) then our cultural position is bleak indeed.

Assessment: Many stars

[Previously posted @ Boast]

Juno

2007-12-05T13:04:00.000-08:00

Juno is that indie misfit movie that you fear it is except it is very good and very funny. The script by Diablo Cody is a lot of fun. The story moves very well and the comedy accompanies and surrounds the drama but never smothers it. Many of the little details that make up the world of Juno are really brilliant and it's easy to appreciate the writing effort. In fact the film feels very written for better or worse. But what is really nice is that the quirky details actually pay off in some form. In retrospect, There are some structural short cuts towards the end but they are easy to forgive. When Juno finds out that her perfect couple is splitting up she is faced with a dilemma. How does she overcome this dilemma? She pulls over to the side of the road and thinks about it for a while and then decides it's ok. I guess you could say she grew up in that moment but it felt like a bit of a short cut to me. Jason Reitman, does a good job of allowing the film to play both seriously and ridiculously by finding the right tone. Consider the entire scene where Bateman tells Juno he is leaving. It walks a fine line. There are however two scenes that just don't work. The opening scene at the drugstore with Rainn Wilson tries too hard but there are some funny bits. Also the asian girl picketing the abortion clinic doesn't work - but Ellen Page saves it with her story of the Cracken. Ellen Page plays Juno in pretty much the same way as her character in Hard Candy. For the most part she is believable as a 16 year old but a more heightened, sped-up version. The supporting cast is all very good, especially Michael Cera and Jason Bateman. I heard a film critic say that either Michael Cera is the best actor in the world or he is just like his character in this movie. In either case, it's important that you like him for this film to work. I liked him. The soundtrack is good too, mostly the Moldy Peaches, but there is a kinks song (well respected man) and I'm glad somebody stole them back from Wes Anderson.

Into The Wild

2007-10-26T09:57:00.000-07:00

Into the wild is like watching a string of home movies with amazing cinematography. The rest of the film uses mismatched narrative styles and cheap graphic layovers to help convey a sort of scrapbook notation of the events that led up to Chris' final trek. Some are voiced over by his sister denoting a kind of eulogistic tone. These voice overs are particularly important to the films structure because they impose a certain sense of doom by suggesting an absence of Chris' presence.

Going by the self appointed name of Alexander Supertramp, Chris sets out for the open road in search of a more truthful, simple existence. The fact that we accept the journey on this merit is interesting unto itself. Other than a desire to escape from his parents influence, we don't really understand what Chris is specifically searching for or why Alaska is the answer. Along the way he meets several characters who befriend him and enlighten his journey. These moments are the most fun but also feel the most bloated and aimless. I mean that in a good way. These scenes are just moments that feel like smaller parts of a larger event and they are in no way self contained. Sean Penn does a great job of making these moments authentic without making them feel conventional. (Consider the boy with the big wheel hauling the Christmas tree across the frame.) I think this is his greatest strength as a director, and I have enjoyed all of his films for this reason.

I think everyone has dreamed of doing what Chris does at one time or another, and the film is very effective at serving that fantasy. If the film has a fault, it's that Penn romanticizes the journey a bit too much. Only three times does it get called into question. Vince Vaughn has a great turn as a wheat farmer here and offers up the first bit of Resistance followed by Kathryn Keener as a motherly hippy, and finally Hal Holbrook in a heart breaking scene. With one exception, Chris rarely has a unpleasant moment, or meats a unwelcoming person. There is however a tension buried under the surface for most of the film and as Chris' resolve to reach Alaska remains unbroken, it begins to surface. Roger Ebert calls it a fascinated dread.

I am a big fan of Sean Penn (directed) movies and I think this is his most ambitious and his best (although I don't think he has peaked). Consider the number of locations for this story and Sean Penn spends a lot time, a la Terrence Malick, evoking a feeling for each with abstract pieces. If the film is long, it feels even longer. I never grew anxious or bored during it's 140minutes but because of it's lack of conventional structure, I never got a sense of how to anticipate the ending. I loved the experience of watching this film and I didn't want it to end but I'm not sure about how to distill all of it's content into one clear message. This may be it's greatest strength. Some have argued Chris was an selfish idiot, and some have argued Chris was a hero.

Documentaries

2007-10-04T09:55:00.000-07:00

Next week in film history we're having a whirlwind tour of the history of non-fiction filmmaking. What are some of your folks' favorites that should be included? And favorite excerpts from the film would be helpful, too.

Chaplin, D.G. Green, Paul Scofield, and Ken Burns

2007-09-24T11:32:00.000-07:00

Some movies I saw this last week:

Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin, 1936): This was the last time Chaplin played the role of the Little Tramp. Sound films had been around for 8 years, but he still did this one in pantomime, and for good reason: he had perfected an art. We watched this in film history, and the kids were rolling. Highlights: the high-tech eating machine, the eating of the cocaine, the "american dream" sequence. Most of them wrote about how they never realized silent films could be so entertaining and easy to relate to.

A quote from critic James Agee: “To put it unkindly, the only thing wrong with screen comedy today is that it takes place on a screen which talks. Because it talks, the only comedians who ever mastered the screen cannot work, for they cannot combine their comic style with talk. Because there is a screen, talking comedians are trapped into a continual exhibition of their inadequacy as screen comedians on a surface as big as the side of a barn.”

And another: "Of all comedians, Chaplin worked most deeply and most shrewdly within a realization of what a human being is, and is up against. The Tramp is as centrally representative of humanity, as many sided and as mysterious, as Hamlet, and it seems unlikely that any dancer or actor can ever have excelled him in eloquence, variety or poignancy of motion... Anyone who saw Chaplin eating a boiled shoe like brook trout in The Gold Rush, or embarrassed by a swallowed whistle in City Lights, has seen perfection."

All The Real Girls: I finally saw this one (on my own, not with the class), and was blown away. I haven't been this wrapped up in a film in a long time. So many parts in here where it captured exactly how I've felt at some point in my life.

(spoilers)

The scene where he's talking to her on the phone while she's at the party. And she looks at that guy smiling at her through the window and she smiles back, and your heart sinks because you know what she's thinking. And then the scene at the park where he's trying to be all flirty with her and glad she's back, but she's all awkward because she knows (and so do we) she's about to drop the bomb on him. I could seriously feel my heart beating, I felt sick for him. So heartbreaking, and so beautiful. I love the two legged dog, and the conversation between the main guy and Tip, where Tip's sipping on the tallboy (what does he call it? "engine cylinder" or something?) saying how he got a girl pregnant.

A Man for All Seasons: This is the kind of thing that used to win Best Picture, that hollywood used to be proud to make. Now we get... Chicago? American Beauty? The Departed? Give me a break. Sure, it's not the kind of film that will get teenage boys into the seats, there's no shower scenes or exploding heads, but the dialogue sticks with you, the kind where afterwards you say, "Now that was a FILM!" And Paul Scofield! I'll confess a special affinity to Sir Thomas More when he spoke of the teacher's profession:

More: Why not be a teacher? You’d be a fine teacher. Perhaps even a great one.
Rich: And if I was, who would know it?
More: You, your pupils, your friends, God. Not a bad public, that.

The War: Did anyone watch episode 1 of this last night? Great stuff. I especially love the writing in all Ken Burn's stuff. And I was totally caught off guard by that song at the end with Norah Jones. Shows how sometimes documentaries can be the best stuff ever.

Movies I saw in Eastern Turkey

2007-09-13T00:29:00.000-07:00

I got to spend about a week in the cities of Dyabakir and Batman in eastern Turkey. I saw a lot of movies in the heat of the afternoon. It didn't matter if I wanted to see them or not. I didn't particularily want to see The Hitcher or Shooter, really. But it was so hot that I would have seen Bratz if it was playing there.

The movies I saw were Ocean's 13, Breach, The Hitcher, Shooter, Zodiac and Bug. I would have seen Shrek 3 and Pirates of the Caribean 3 but they were dubbed in Turkish. The Hills Have Eyes part 2 didn't come out till the weekend after I went home.

They shut down the movies without showing the end credits. I didn't get to see the ending of Zodiac where it tells what happened to all of the characters.

Ocean's 13 came out in Turkey the same weekend it came out in the United States.

In the city of Batman, the movie theater would only show a film if there were three audience members. So every day that week I'd go to the theater to see Breach and every day they would turn me away. Finally they showed pity on me. I'm glad they did. It was a good movie.

King Of The Hill

2007-09-08T17:43:00.001-07:00

Bryan's post about The Simpson's Movie made me think of my new favorite cartoon - King of The Hill.

A few years back I saw Office Space (written and directed by Mike Judge) and subsequently decided i needed to really give King Of The Hill a chance. Well let's just say since that time, my flirtation with said animated series has blossomed into an abiding love.

Consistently excellent writing and perfect characters are the norm with king of the hill. if you haven't yet seen the light (propane fueled of course) i highly recommend you take a chance.

one of my favorite episodes is from season 6. It's called, "Joust Like A Woman." Hank, Peggy, and Bobby visit a Renaissance Faire where Hank is trying to sell his wares and Peggy takes a job as a wench. Alan Rickman guest stars and is hilarious as King Philip.

3:10 to Yuma and Halloween

2007-09-08T10:34:00.000-07:00

3:10 was Ill! I am a giant Western fan and this one is darker than the original and more violent but all in all it really could've been made a PG13 film. Bale and Crowe are really good and so is Fonda, but Ben Foster is amazing in this role. He really scared me as a bad, bad person! kind of the way Billy the Kid was supposed to be in Young Guns, just heartless and he pulled it off wonderfully. I am not sure if it's the best western since Unforgiven or not but it is really good.

As for Halloween, ehhh. It was dark and creepy like everything Rob Zombie does but a far better film than Corpses or Rejects. It's all the things one would expect a slasher film to be, gore, nudity, and language through the whole thing. Eli Roth should really go and spend a year under Zombie as an understudy because you could tell it was the same style as his flicks just way better, it's probably not worth seeing, use your money for A ticket on the 3:10 to Yuma instead

Superbad, The Simpsons Movie, Evil Dead 2

2007-08-22T17:06:00.000-07:00

Superbad

There was a moment in the first ten minutes when I realized I wouldn't be disappointed with this movie. (Don't read the rest of this paragraph if you haven't seen it yet.) Jonah gets spit on by a bully and is told that there is a party he isn't invited to. Then the bully tells him to tell his fag friend, Michael, (sorry, I know its an ugly word, but it was an ugly moment), who is standing next to Jonah, that he isn't invited either. They both turn around and walk away with blank looks of humiliation on their faces. Jonah says to Michael, "I'm supposed to tell you that you aren't invited to a party tonight and that you are gay." (This is a paraphrase. No doubt it is much funnier on the screen.)

At that moment I wanted to find a print of the movie and give it a hug.

I'm a big fan of all three of Judd Apatow's recent movies - The 40 year old Virgin, Knocked Up and Superbad. I laughed more at these three movie than most movies, because I like the characters. I leave the theater feeling like I know them. Some people have complained that the movies feel sloppy and long. I think those people are correct, but I disagree about it being a problem.

I wish Apatow would make another tv show like Freaks and Geeks with Paul Fieg. His movies have characters that I want to revisit in different situations.

I would love a Superbad tv show.

The Simpsons Movie:
I would have loved this movie if it had been made ten years ago when I was a Simpsons freak, or if it was made now but the Simpsons had been cancelled ten years ago, and I looked back on the Simpsons with nostalgia. The movie just made me shrug, and even though I laughed often, it just felt like a somewhat good episode of the tv show.

Evil Dead 2:
There's this moment when the entire room of the cabin turns demonic. The mounted deer's head gets milky' evil eyes and starts laughing. The lamp bobs up and down. The doors open and shut. And Bruce Campbell, the hero, starts laughing like a maniac. Then he sees the desk lamp bopping up and down, and with a delighted look, starts to mimic the lamp. After about twenty seconds it all stops.

Good heavens I love this movie. When I haven't seen the movie for awhile, I wonder if I just like it because everyone else seems to. Am I poseur? All I can remember is cheesy scary stuff (although it is scary) and funny stuff that doesn't seem that funny when I recall it. But then I watch it again and I laugh and I'm scared. It's a really, really good movie.

Incident at Loch Ness

2007-08-19T17:58:00.000-07:00

Incident at Loch Ness is a mocumentary starring Werner Herzog. A video crew is doing a piece on the life works of Werner Herzog, who happens to be working on a new film called Enigma at Loch Ness. Enigma at Loch Ness is essentially a documentary on the needs of a society to create monsters and focuses on the monster of Loch Ness Lake as an example. What the audience sees is essentially the video crew's document of the making of this movie and it sheds light on, and pokes fun at, Werner Herzog's precarious method of working and the lore surrounding his own body of films.
Incident at Loch Ness was directd by Zak Penn who, in the film within a film, plays the producer of Enigma at Loch Ness which is being directed by Herzog. Penn and Herzog co-wrote this mocumentary and it has some really funny moments. For instance, there is a moment when Zak Penn is arguing with Herzog about whether or not to shoot a fabricated scene involving the Loch Ness monster. Remembering the legendary story about when Herzog directed Klaus Kinsky at gun point, Penn, pulls out a gun and tries to force Herzog to shoot the scene. Herzog disarms him by letting him know that he is holding an unloaded flair gun and that the legend is not true anyway.
It has been said that when making a comedy, you have to give the audience permission to laugh in the first few minutes. With a few exceptions, the laughs in this film are generated in a realistic way. They are born out of context which takes 20 minutes or so to set up. So it's quite a while before you may see any humor in the situation. The performances are very realistic and walk a very fine line between reality and fiction. There are only a few moments when you sense a manufactured tone or a forced laugh. By the end, I was laughing at a constant.
If the laughs are below the surface, I found the film pretty interesting on the surface. It was fun to see a Herzog production from the inside even if he is only playing a caricature of himself. It was fun to see how the crew deals with sound, cinematography, actors, and wardrobe. And in an ironic way, the film that Herzog sets out to make, gets made in the documentary about him.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who likes Herzog, mocumentaries, or filmmaking in general.

Also, Brandon, the film crew making the documentary is treated like one of the characters in the film, similar to your Thems Mutants script, and their footage represent what the audience is watching. You might appreciate how nimbly they do this and how they justify why film is always rolling.

Lost Horizon

2007-08-19T09:24:00.000-07:00

I finally saw Frank Capra's Lost Horizon. In general, Frank Capra movies don't interest me. I've never even seen It's a Wonderful Life. However this is a great story about a plane of westerners who escape from war-torn China and crash in the mountains near Tibet only to be rescued by the inhabitants of an unknown utopia called Shangri-La. Soon the question is raised as to whether the incident was fate, happenstance, or a master scheme orchestrated by a brainwashing spiritualist know as the High Llama. The movie was released in 1937 and was the most expensive film of it's time. Some of the action sequences come off a bit dated but the story is full of ideas and questions about life, happiness, and destiny. Also the dialogue is very strong.

The film has an interesting history as well. It was altered during world war II in order to tone down it's pacifist message and was injected with a healthy dose of anti Japanese propaganda. Much of the film deterioated over time until the mid seventies when AFI began to conduct a world-wide search for any original negatives. The first thing found was an entire soundtrack. From that, the version that exists today on DVD has been patched together out of different reels and digitally restored to it's original Frank-Capra-intended version. However, there are still 7 minutes of film that were never accounted for. In order to be faithfull to the original cut, these scenes have been replaced by production stills with the dialogue running underneath. It's a great watch and a pretty epic movie for it's time.

The Lookout

2007-08-17T23:26:00.000-07:00

The Lookout is a well paced, solid thriller. This movie is an argument for the establishment of "rules" in screenwriting. This is Scott Franks first time directing. He has written such films as "Out of Sight" and "Minority Report". Every scene is clear and drives the story forward. There are no ambiguous characters (except the main one at times). There are three acts and the first one sets up everything well. It sets up the characters and the conflict without slowing the pace or feeling expository. (Joseph Gordon Leavitt plays Chris Prat, a highschool jock who loses brain functionality including memory and has a problem with sequencing) Overall the movie works very well and demonstrates how the established "rules" of screenwriting will serve a story. However there are times when the movie feels a little safe because it never breaks or reinvents those rules. For example: there is a scene where the main character, Chris Pratt picks up a rifle at his parents house. The gun is introduced by a closeup. The "rules" would dictate that at some point in the movie, that gun will have to go off or the audience will be disappointed....and so it followed. This strict adherence to the "rules" of screenwriting might make a film feel like it is on rails. However, (without giving anything away) Scott Frank uses this to his advantage by making sequencing a dominant theme in the movie which is Chris Pratt's problem. In the same way he has to deal with his sequencing problem the audience must sort of do thier own sequencing. It's a cool idea but not fully realized. Still, I thought it was a solid movie.

film history revisited

2007-08-02T15:06:00.000-07:00

So I'm getting ready for my next film history class at the high school. This time around, I'm structuring it more or less chronologically, by different film movements. The class will be 65 minutes a day for 12 weeks, so we'll probably watch two films a week for each category, along with a bunch of clips. Here's a tentative outline:

1. Early Cinema
2. Silent Comedies
3. Expressionism (germany, etc.)
4. Futurism (Russia, etc.)
5. Experimental, Surrealism
6. The coming of sound, Classical Hollywood
7. WWII/Film Noir
8. Documentary
9. Animation
10. Neorealisms
11. New Waves
12. American Independents
13. rebirth of the blockbuster

A lot to cover in one class, I know. I'd like to have a mix of the usual suspects (Citizen Kane, Hitchcock, Bicycle Thieves, etc.) and some stuff they've never heard of that will knock their socks off. What suggestions do you folks have for these categories, either entire films or specific clips?

Ingmar Bergman: in memoriam

2007-07-30T22:17:00.000-07:00

I heard on the radio that Ingmar Bergman died this morning. So lets take a moment and discuss our thoughts on him and his work and his impact.

What are your favorite films of his? What do you think his main contributions were? What is is about Ingmar Bergman that makes him such a titan of international cinema?

I remember when I took Intro to Film at BYU, and we had a unit on "international film", and the three directors we discussed were Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa. Which is appropriate, I guess, since they tend to be the three most well known foreign directors. Why is that? What made Bergman so much more well known than Dreyer or Tarkovsky or Truffaut? Maybe becausw of a little help from Woody Allen?

The thing I appreciate about Bergman is that he made films about the big spiritual questions. Is there a God? What are we doing here? What happens after death? What is most important in life? He spent his life thinking about these things and working out his thoughts through his films. Which is probably why I don't respond as well to Godard and others who seem like they were more just trying to be edgy without having anything to say.

I haven't seen even a fourth of Bergman's films (he made over 50), but the ones I have seen leave a definite impact. You feel like you've really experienced something, even though it doesn't all make sense you can tell there's something There.

Some favorite moments:

In the Seventh Seal when Antonius Bloc and squire are questioning the witch, staring at her eyes as she dies to see what she sees.

The dream sequences in Wild Strawberries where the doctor sees himself in the coffin, and goes to judgement.

The single long take in Winter Light of the woman reading her letter to the Pastor. And also the discussion with the humpbacked church assistant about Christ's suffering.

The fade to red in Cries and Whispers

The Papageno/Papagena song in the Magic Flute where they both remove each other's pull-away clothing (sounds racy, but it's hilarious and delightful)

Anyway, let's here what the rest of you think...

Moviemakers' Master Class

2007-07-26T22:59:00.000-07:00

I just got this book from the library yesterday. It is a fantastic read, very insightful, with some surprisingly important directors: Woody Allen, Coen Brothers, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Godard, Scorsese... It's basically what it would be like to have them visit your directing class for a half hour and share their insights on filmmaking.

From Woody Allen: "Comedy is a particular genre in that it is very demanding and very strict in terms of directing. The problem here is that nothing can ever distract the audience from what is suposed to make them laugh. If you move the camera too much, if you edit too quicly, there's always the ristk that you'll kill th laugh. So it's hard to make a fantasy-looking comedy. You hardly ever get a chance to shoot anything very dramaticaly. What you want, really, is a nice, clean open frame, like you have in the Chaplin or Keaton movies."

From Scorsese: "The biggest problem of young filmmkaers is that they have nothing to say. And invariably their films will be either very unlcear or very conventional and geared toward a arather commercial marketplace. So I think the first think you need to ask yourself if you want to make a film is "Do I have anything to say?" And it doesn't necessarily have to be something literal that can be expressed through words. Sometimes you just want to communicate a feeling, an emotion. That's sufficient. And belive me, it's hard enough."

From Tim Burton: "I origianlly wanted to get into animation, and after a few internships here and there, I entered the Disney animation team. but it quickly became pretty obvious that I didn't quite fit into the Disney style... I was pretty much left to myself for a whole year, and I started working on a lot of personal ideas. One of those proejcts was s tory called Vincent. Oriignally, I saw it as a book for children, but since I was at Disney, I figured, why not use the equipment and turn it into a short animated film? I did that, and the success of it encouraged me to make a live-action short, Frankenweenie, that some people liked so much that they offered to let me direct Pee-Wee's Big Adventure."

Another movie list

2007-07-20T10:13:00.000-07:00

Over at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule they have another quiz. So if anyone wants to fill this out in the comments section feel free. I'll have mine posted sometime over the weekend.

1) Favorite quote from a filmmaker
2) A good movie from a bad director
3) Favorite Laurence Olivier performance
4) Describe a famous location from a movie that you have visited (Bodega Bay, California, where the action in The Birds took place, for example). Was it anything like the way it was in the film? Why or why not?
5) Carlo Ponti or Dino De Laurentiis (Producer)?
6) Best movie about baseball
7) Favorite Barbara Stanwyck performance
8) Fast Times at Ridgemont High or Dazed and Confused?
9) What was the last movie you saw, and why? (We’ve used this one before, but your answer is presumably always going to be different, so…)
10) Whether or not you have actually procreated or not, is there a movie you can think of that seriously affected the way you think about having kids of your own?
11) Favorite Katharine Hepburn performance
12) A bad movie from a good director
13) Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom-- yes or no?
14) Ben Hecht or Billy Wilder (Screenwriter)?
15) Name the film festival you’d most want to attend, or your favorite festival that you actually have attended
16) Head or 200 Motels?
17) Favorite cameo appearance(Try visiting here and here for some good ideas! This question was inspired by Daniel Johnson at Film Babble)
18) Favorite Rosalind Russell performance
19) What movie, either currently available on DVD or not, has never received the splashy collector’s edition treatment you think it deserves? What would such an edition include?
20) Name a performance that everyone needs to be reminded of, for whatever reason
21) Louis B. Mayer or Harry Cohn (Studio Head)?
22) Favorite John Wayne performance
23) Naked Lunch or Barton Fink?
24) Your Ray Harryhausen movie of choice
25) Is there a movie you can think of that you feel like the world would be better off without, one that should have never been made?
24) Favorite Dub Taylor performance
25) If you had the choice of seeing three final movies, to go with your three last meals, before shuffling off this mortal coil, what would they be?
26) And what movie theater would you choose to see them in?

I have seen 3 movies recently

2007-07-13T14:23:00.000-07:00

Azumi: This a japanese movie about a hot chick named Azumi. She is a trained assassin in feudal Japan. She is way too cute and she kills everybody, it is great. The movie kind of slows down toward the middle when she starts regretting being an assassin but then she figures it out and goes on an all out killing spree. There is also this weird 80's guy in the film that carries around a rose all the time. He was kind of stupid but I think he was still able to achieve the desired persona. And if you have seen the japanese Shall We Dance? you may recognize Mr. Aoki in this movie. Unfortunately, he is supposed to be really tough, which is kind of hard for me buy. Anyway, I still really enjoyed because I just couldn't help but smile every time Azumi was on the screen and she was on the screen most of the movie.

Once: This movie makes me wish I could play and instrument. There is a scene where the male lead and the female lead (we never learn either of their names) play a song together and it is really great. It reminded me of the scene in School of Rock when Jack Black and the kids first start rocking together, I cried then too. Anyway, the movie had a really nice non-hollywood feel to it and the music was great.

Live Free or Die Hard: I think the Die Hard series is one of the best action franchises out there. This one suspends disbelief more than the others but it is still quite a bit of fun. Bruce Willis and Justin Long work really well together. I don't know what else to say other than I loved it.

Zardos, Starring Sean Connery

2007-07-06T03:43:00.000-07:00

This isn't a review but it's about a film. I came accross this photo of Sean Connery on digg:

and I immediately sought out the trailer. I have to see this film. Has anyone already seen it?

Ratatatatouille

2007-06-29T18:02:00.000-07:00

Just saw this with the whole family. And loved it. Here it is, I'm gonna come out and say it... I think Brad Bird is the next Hayao Miyazaki. Hold on, let me clarify. Of course they have very different styles and interests. But they also both have remarkable storytelling genius, wonderful attention to their otherworldly details, and all combined with genuine affection and benevolence. And every single thing that either one of them has done is a blasted masterpiece. Granted, this is only Bird's third film, but is there any other director that is 3 for 3 like he is? Lassetter, Stanton, Docter, and the others at pixar are great too, but I personally think Mr. Bird is The Shiz, as in the Army of, whom no one could stand against.

With this film, though, I'm not sure how interested kids are in it, at least the younger ones. It is about rats which is cool to them, but it's also mostly about cooking and relationships and intrigue, which is less interesting. At least my kids were wanting it to be over after an hour. But what a treat for the older folks. Intelligent, hilarious, great music... see it.

Est que tu est mon frere?

2007-06-23T22:34:00.000-07:00

So I've been really diving into French cinema lately. I discussed Malle a bit in the last post. Definitely check out Au Revoirs Les Enfants if you haven't seen it. It was made in the mid 80's, and is about some of Malle's own experiences during WWII when France was occupied by Germans, and it takes place in a Catholic boarding school. Engrossing and moving, and also fits in the tradition of The 400 Blows of films that don't romanticize childhood.

But what we really need to talk about here are two overlooked titans of French Cinema: Jacques Becker and Jean-Pierre Melville. I've only seen two of Becker's films and three of Melville's, but I'm convinced I need to see everything that either of them has ever done. Remember what I said about all those highly respected yet boring french films. Well, these are two guys who know how to deliver the goods.

Touchez pas au Grisbi by Jacques Becker: take everything you love about The Godfather, and set it in France in the 50's in black and white with a jazz score. The thing that's so great about this film is he doesn't focus so much on the action, the typical things that are a big deal in movies. You never even see the robbery. Instead, he focuses on the little details. The guy brushing his teeth, sharing bread and pate with his friend. One of the few pre-60's films that I totally got wrapped up in.

Le Trou by Jacques Becker: Wow. I'm already a fan of prison escape movies in general. Tunnels, disguises, secret passageways, makeshift tools, these are all things that get my little heart racing. But this one is right up there with A Man Escaped and The Shawshank Redemption. There's one shot where they are pounding a hole in the concrete floor of the cell, and the guards could show up for inspection at anytime, in fact they're making their way down the hallway, and the shot goes on for five or six minutes uncut, so you see them breakint this real hole in the floor and it's so intense I love it.

Bob le Flambeur by Melville. This was the first one I saw, largely on the strength of the graphic design on the dvd cover. Not his best, but also one of his earlier ones. But still a lot of interesting stuff going on. Kind of an Ocean's Eleven style plot.

Le Samourai by Melville: This one, on the other hand, is top notch entertainment. It's about an assassin who has to go into hiding both from the police and those who hired him. This is everything I was hoping for but didn't receive when I misguidedly rented The Transporter.

Army of Shadows by Melville: Just watched this one last night (Orem Library bought it just for me). Yes. Yes. Yes. This one about a small group of French Resistance fighters and their various jobs: punishing traitors, rescuing captives, delivering contraband goods, parachuting, etc. Rent it as soon as possible.

My Recent Viewings

2007-06-21T18:53:00.000-07:00

Hey Kids,

It's been a while since I've posted anything here. I've been watching a whole lotta sweet stuff, though. Here we go:

Lacombe, Lucien by Louis Malle. I'd never heard of this film when I saw it at the Orem library, but it's on Criterion and M. Malle is pretty highly regarded, and I loved his Au Revoir Les Enfants. This one is very bizarre. There's something about great French directors. Their films are so fascinating and brilliant and yet so boring at the same time. Truffaut, Godard, Renoir, Bresson. I love all these guys and their films are fascinating, but they just don't give a crap about telling a compelling story. That's how this one was. It's about this teenage kid named Lucien, who is kind of a troublemaker and wants to join the French Resistance. But they don't want him, cuz they've got enough punk troublemakers, so what does he do? He joins the Gestapo instead. Really interesting material. But Lucien is such a creep. Reminiscent of Kit in Badlands, I guess, but without the humor.

The House on Haunted Hill by... who cares, but it stars Vincent Price. Ultimately unsatisfying, but some pretty sweet stuff going on in the beginning with Vincent Price's face superimposed above a shot of the mansion while he talks to us. And some interesting things with ghosts and stuff. Kind of like a live action scooby-doo movie.

Danielson: A Family Movie by... don't know, but it features cameo's from both Sufjan Stevens and Daniel Johnson. This is about Daniel Smith and the band he started with his siblings and how they dress up in doctor and nurse uniforms to symbolize the healing power of Christ. My favorite quote, from a long haired audience member: "They freaked me out. I'm in a metal band myself, so I'm not easily freaked out, but they f---in' freaked me out." It's a great film, with some fun animated sequences, and interesting interviews with each band member.

Riding Giants by Stacy Peralta. Really fun, with some amazing surfing footage. The interviewees are all really interesting guys, and the structure and music are tight.

That's all I've got time for now, maybe we'll backtrack later.

HOSTEL 2

2007-06-13T21:40:00.001-07:00

So I have a weakness for movies that I know are going to be really lame, but I have to see them most the time. This did not let me down, it was a better film than the first one but still wasn't very good. There were only a couple of OOHHH MY GOD DID THEY REALLY JUST DO THAT ON FILM moments, not nearly as many as the first one. And unfortunately there was more male nudity than female scenes that sucked for someone expecting torture porn. I would say its far from it. This is still not a film I would recommend to people of normal standard but if you like jacked up stuff its worth seeing just expect a bad film with mild amusement (Turistas was far better) anyway at least 1408 looks promising in 10 days.

28 minutes later

2007-05-28T17:05:00.000-07:00

28 minutes after seeing 28 weeks later and I am still really shook up. It was really intense and it definately got my adrenalin going. In fact my heart is still beating. I don't think that it is the scariest movie I have ever seen but with the momentum of the movie it really got me worked up. After leaving the theater I couldn't help but think of all the people around me as zombies. Anyway, I didn't find it as satisfying as 28 days later. 28 days later had great structure and kept me thoroughly involved, plus I liked the happy ending. It seems that all zombie movies end with everybody dying and turning into zombies. So 28 days later was kind of nice. There were a few things with the plot that I didn't like with 28 weeks later. I think security would have been a bit tighter and there were other ways around it but over all I think the movie accomplished its mission.

Film Noirs

2007-04-12T11:07:00.000-07:00

I have been watching a lot of Film Noirs from the 40's. I started noticing the difference between the more expensive films ($14.99 each) and the cheaper films (18 for $20). The big budget Hollywood Noirs that have the big name actors are not as good as the low budget B Noirs. In the big budget films there is a lot of attention given to setting up the characters and the situation. They begin making sure that the stars are introduced and shot in a flattering manner. This is not necessary for the genre. The scripts are also more convoluted and the pacing is generally not as tight although the endings tend to be good. The low budget B noirs on the other hand are great, with the exception of some bad third-act twists. They are able to get right to the conflict and usually the main character is put in a predicament. Due to lower budgets, the film is reduced down to less characters, and more scenes cut together to tell the story rather than dialogue and expensive shots. The audience is engaged by putting the pictures together and extracting the story themselves.

the most hated family in America

2007-04-05T04:55:00.000-07:00

Here is a BBC2 documentary about the Phelps family - the church who picket soldier's funerals. It's pretty good. I really like the documentarian.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lluk2

A movie quiz

2007-04-03T14:57:00.000-07:00

You've all probably seen Professor Irwin Corey's Spring Break Movie Quiz at the Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule blog. I thought they were interesting questions and if anybody wants to answer them, they could. I'll post my answers in the comments section in a few days.

1) What movie did you have to see multiple times before deciding whether you liked or disliked it?

2) Inaugural entry into the Academy of the Overrated

3) Favorite sly or not-so-sly reference to another film or bit of pop culture within another film.

4) Favorite Michael Powell/Emeric Pressburger movie

5) Your favorite Oscar moment

6) Hugo Weaving or Guy Pearce?

7) Movie that you feel gave you the greatest insight into a world/culture/person/place/event that you had no understanding of before seeing it

8) Favorite Samuel Fuller movie

9) Monica Bellucci or Maria Grazia Cucinotta?

10) What movie can take a nothing day and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile?

11) Conversely, what movie can destroy a day’s worth of good humor just by catching a glimpse of it while channel surfing?

12) Favorite John Boorman movie

13) Warren Oates or Bruce Dern?

14) Your favorite aspect ratio 1

5) Before he died in 1984, Francois Truffaut once said: “The film of tomorrow will resemble the person who made it.” Is there any evidence that Truffaut was right? Is it Truffaut’s tomorrow yet?

16) Favorite Werner Herzog movie

17) Favorite movie featuring a rampaging, oversized or otherwise mutated beast, or beasts

18) Sandra Bernhard or Sarah Silverman?

19) Your favorite, or most despised, movie cliché

20) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-- yes or no?

21) Favorite Nicholas Ray movie

22) Inaugural entry into the Academy of the Underrated

23) Your favorite movie dealing with the subject of television

24) Bruno Ganz or Patrick Bauchau?

25) Your favorite documentary, or non-fiction, film

26) According to Orson Welles, the director’s job is to “preside over accidents.” Name a favorite moment from a movie that seems like an accident, or a unintended, privileged moment. How did it enhance or distract from the total experience of the movie?

27) Favorite Wim Wenders movie

28) Elizabeth Pena or Penelope Cruz?

29) Your favorite movie tag line (Thanks, Jim!)

30) As a reader, filmgoer, or film critic, what do you want from a film critic, or from film criticism? And where do you see film criticism in general headed?

EXTRA CREDIT: Do movies still matter?

Hot Fuzz, Ghostbusters

2007-03-23T03:19:00.000-07:00

Hot Fuzz:

I don't want to say too much about this movie, because I don't want to ruin any of the surprises or jokes, so let me say this, please, please, please go see this the day it comes out. Don't read any reviews till after you've seen it (I wish I hadn't. I had two plot twists revealed to me.)

I haven't seen an audience respond this way to a movie since Borat. The audience was belly laughing, and gasping (it's scary, scarier than Shaun of the Dead. Funnier too. Also more gory. This is some of the funniest gore I've seen in a long time.) I loved this movie.

Ghostbusters:

Saw Ghostbusters on the big screen a couple of weeks ago. Some thoughts:

1. I didn't realize how much noise made a difference to the movie. Remember the joke when they are on the elevator and they talk about how they haven't tested backpack and that it is basically a nuclear device. When Dan Ackroyd switches it on, Harold Ramis and Bill Murry back away. In a theater with a loud sound system, the noise was kind of scary. It made the joke that much funnier. Several of the moments were generally creepy instead of cheesy because of the sound.

2. Another creepy scene was when the Environmental Protection Agency guy shuts off the ghost containment unit and then the ghosts start taking over the city. On television it always seemed cartoonish, but in the theater was effective. Mostly because of the eighties synth music. That music doesn't work and dates a picture faster than anything, except horror movies. Then the music is perfect for some reason.

3. The EPA is the bad guy. You don't see that very often in a movie.

4. The most dated thing in the movie, and it pains me to say this, and may make me not very popular, is Bill Murry. Now before I explain, let me say that he is one of my favorite comedians and I thnk Groundhogs Day and Rushmore will be watched for the next fifty years. Groundhogs Day even longer. I think he is genuinly funny.

But there is something about his smart assness in this movie that rubbed me the wrong way, and I think it rubbed the audience in the wrong way. Dan Ackroyd received more laughs than Bill Murry did. Something I wouldn't have thought possible when I watched the movie in my teenage years.

Bill Murry seemed too removed from the action, like nothing around him was effecting him. He reminded me a bit of Steve Guttenburg in the Police Academy movies. A lot more entertaining, because he's Bill Murry, and he's hilarious, but still, it seemed the work of a different era. (Compared to say Midnight Run, which was made around the same time, and yet could have been made last month.)

The Killing Fields and Black Book

2007-03-10T12:35:00.000-08:00

The Killing Fields

In Great Britain, the newspapers sometimes contain free DVDs. Since there are several national newspapers, each of them put in free stuff (posters, dvd's, coupons for books, stickers, etc.). Well a week ago The London Times offered free DVD's of The Killing Fields. I'd never seen it but I always wanted to.

1. It is really powerful.
2. It was made in the eighties so the music is very dated. It sounds computery. Usually this ruins a film for me, but for some reason it worked. And it usually only works in horror films like Day of the Dead, because the crappy music for some reason makes the movie even more creepy and surreal. And since The Killing Fields is kind of a horror film (not the make you jump because a Japanese girl is in the sink kind but the kind of movie that makes you feel horror) I think the music actually added to the dread.
3. Then they ruined it by playing "Imagine" by John Lennon at the very end. I hate that song. I hate, hate, hate that song. Yeah, John Lennon, if there was no country or religion and everybody lived for today, I'm pretty sure there would still be a lot of killing. I like his other songs though.

Black Book

I don't believe this has come out in the states yet. I tried to get a friend to see it with me, but he didn't want to because he was bored with WW2 movies. I don't blame him about that. I'm kind of bored with WW2 movies myself, but I'm glad I saw this one. It was WW2 in the same way Raiders of the Lost Ark is, not Saving Private Ryan (And for my money, Raiders of the lost Ark is twice the movie Private Ryan is.) This is a kick-butt adventure movie. It's nice when I can't tell the twists of a movie. And it is nice to actually be shocked by what happens. I admire this movie very much.

Buyer beware, it is a hard R.

Zodiac

2007-03-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

David Fincher has been hit and miss with me, but he has always been interesting. The fincher thumbprint is only recognizable here in a few cases. One is the obvious look of the film. Visually, it is very much a Fincher movie. I have noticed though that this could also pass for a Micheal Mann film. It looks like it was shot on digital with the way the lights in the city illuminate and with the depth of detail you see in the skyline. The other element is the way that people are filmed when in conversation. Very little two shots used, mostly one shots, dead center. I was surprised that Fincher would return to this genre after being the one to invigorate it with Se7en. Se7en is what he is known for and to do another serial killer movie would only harm his reputation, or the films, or pigeon-hole his career. But all this is OK because he really does not rely on any of the conventions of a serial killer movie here. There are a few violent scenes early in the film that get the movie going but then it really becomes a detective story after that, and Fincher shows a lot of restraint in relying on the story and the characters. One of the problems I have with the film is that it works pretty well as a detective story except that it doesn't want to. Midway through the film, the character emphasis changes to Jake Gyllenhaul's character, who is a cartoonist for the San Francisco news paper. The movie stops becoming a film about the Zodiac killings and starts becoming a film about Jake's obsession with the Zodiac and him writing a book about the killer. His obsession with solving the mystery drives him from his family and puts him in a few dangerous situations. This half of the film just doesn't work. It's trying to pay off something that was never really set up in the first act. Also Gyllenahaul seems miscast here. He is too nice and not nearly erratic or eccentric enough to be interesting. Robert Downey Jr. however is great as one of the newspaper's writers. He is essentially written out of the story about half way through, and only referred to later. I am sure that some of the story decision were made because they reflected real life events, but it only hurts the film. There is a lot to enjoy here, but it feels like the film is way too long and never satisfies.

The Host

2007-03-05T02:48:00.000-08:00

I don't have time to write a review but I wanted to say that I highly recommend this movie. It is a very tense and funny, Godzilla-type movie. If you like moster movies - go see it. If you don't like monster movies - still go see it. It is top-notch.

About Films

2007-02-13T12:42:00.000-08:00

Apocalypto
I saw this film at the dollar movie so it had a lot going against it from the start. The screen was small, the stereo sound was way too loud, and a guy on my isle was smoking grass. The opening scene involves a pack of indians killing a boar and then tricking one of the indians into eating the balls. The dialogue could have been lifted directly from american pie or some equivalent. I started to wonder what I had gotten into. As the movie progressed I realized how adept Mel Gibson was at setting up the story with real characters and moving it along. Eventually, the boar, the balls, and the relationships payed off. This film really kept me interested and entertained in a way that I haven't been for a while. Occassionally Mel Gibson goes too far with the violence, or uses too much dialogue. Also the script seems to want to punish it's characters more than necessary (much like passion of the Christ) but it never got rediculous. This is essentially a chase movie, and as such, it works really well. There are great moments of tension such as in the sacrifice scene where Jaguar Paw is put on the alter. This scene also conveys a spiritual subtext and gives meaning to the title of the film. In a way, this scene is kind of the climax of the film and it comes too early, but the film still manages to sustain afterwards and builds again to a nice third act surprise. This is not a low budget movie. If you were turned off by the trailer looking hoaky, don't worry, the visuals are great. What Mel Gibson does here as a story teller is very conventional, but the Native American setting gives it some nuance and allows it to feel fresh. The movie ended with a rain storm and when I left the theatre, it was pooring rain. Somehow, I made a nice connection with the film on a deeper level than I expected. Overall, I had a great time at the movies.

The Queen

2007-02-07T13:43:00.000-08:00

Finally, a good movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the Queen. I found the story quite fascinating. Helen Mirren did a great job and probably desrves to win the Oscar, however, I have only seen one other nominee. It was a much more interesting look at the life of royalty than Curse of the Golden Flower (but with a lot less cleavage). Apparently, all the stuff that was having to do with the royals was shot on 32mm whereas all the Tony Blair stuff was shot 16mm. This created kind of a nice contrast between tones of the two classes. Interesting idea. Anyway, I found the movie to be both educational and entertainging.

A whole lotta crap..

2007-01-30T12:12:00.000-08:00

Dreamgirls: The only other movie that has exhausted me so much was Peter Jackson's King Kong and the Who's Tommy, both for different reasons. King Kong was exhausting because it was so stupid and had excessively long action scenes that weren't that interesting. Tommy was exhausting because it was just music the whole time and crazy images, I was dying for someone to just talk. Dreamgirls is a combination of both of these except that instead of action scenes it just had really boring singing scenes. The story is not all that original, in fact every year at Oscar time we see the same story, whether it is called Ray, Walk the Line, or Dreamgirls. The music is decent at first but quickly becomes over bearing especially when Jennifer Hudson is singing at the top of her lungs for 20 straight minutes. I thought I was going to pass out. Beyonce looked swell but not enough to compensate for the length of the movie. It seemed to go on forever. Had the movie not been a musical but rather a movie with music numbers in it, it would have been okay, but then again it probably would not have been nominated for 8 academy awards. Why is it that musicals are always nominated? Does it make people feel like they are classy because they sat through a musical?

Devil Wears Prada: The first 20 minutes of this movie were fun and interesting. Then it becomes a movie about a girl with no money walking around in designer clothing. All of sudden, she becomes super worker and is really good at her job and as a result all of her friends hate her. Cliche!!! This movie is very predictable and quite infuriating. At the end it has the chance to become a good movie but they blow it and they take happy? way out. All I got from this movie is that if you are in the fashion industry you must be an egotistical bitch. And if you follow your dreams and work really hard your friends will probably hate you. So don't try to get ahead in life because people don't like people that are better than them. It is best to just take the dead end job. I was pretty upset about it. Streep was good, but Oscar quality? Well... I guess Oscar quality is not as big a deal as I imagine it once was.

Curse of the golden something or other: Ostentatious. Did I spell that right? Either way, I'm not really concern and apparently the filmmakers weren't either. I was impressed with the sets and stuff for about 5 minutes at which point I began having sensory overload. The story is not very interesting, and really doesn't seem to have any direction. Anytime something started to happen these people would start singing out the time of day and ruin the mood. I didn't like any of the characters and wasn't able to engage myself with anything in the movie. There was one girl that was really hot but she was kind of weird. The only reason I can think of that this movie was made is that it must be a true story. Why else would someone go to the trouble of doing it. As a result, I feel that if you are chinese or deeply into chinese history you may find this movie interesting. Otherwise, just watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon again.

Well, I am sorry to be so negative. I have really been picking bad movies lately. I hope my next review will be a good one.

The Good Shepard

2007-01-12T16:22:00.000-08:00

This is a long movie in which it doesn't seem like much happens. I didn't dislike this movie but I feel it could of been a lot better. I am very interested in the CIA having played a number of video games in which I have either been part of the CIA or fought against them and it has always resulted in a good time. This movie was not such a good time. I have no problem with taking the action side out of espionage but in return I want some other pay off. This movie only had a couple of those moments and they were not very satisfying. I could not figure out why Matt Damon's character stayed with the job and what he did in the first place to earn it. He never seemed to enjoy what he was doing or get any satisfaction out of it. And after the initial sting he didn't seem to do that much that was out of the ordinary to show what a genius he was. My last complaint is that Billy Crudup's english accent was a bit annoying. I realize it sounds as if I hated it, but I didn't. I just wanted to be better.

Children of Men

2007-01-11T08:05:00.000-08:00

This was one of my most anticipated films of the year. I have been a fan of Alfonzo Couron since his version of Great Expectations. This is the kind of sci fi that is less fun and more scary than anything else because it feels so real and so near in the future. Couron jam packs each frame with so much detail that your first viewing will keep you busy just absorbing the world and getting through the plot. The DP, Lubetzky uses very long shots to show you that this world is real and not a set piece or a series of fx shots. He does an outstanding job of generating a tense, scary, future. Thinking about it afterwards I think it ultimately hurt the film to keep the shots so long (with the exception of one scene). The director and the DP get to show you the movie but the editor does not get enough of a chance to make you feel the movie. As much as I admired this film, and loved some of it's techniques, I can't help but think that it could have been better, or deeper with more audience participation. There is no chance for the audience to read between the lines because there are no lines, (or cuts). I was surprised at two things: One, at how uneasy I was during this film, and Two, at how much humor was worked into the film, although it is kind of generating a nervous laughter. I recommend this film to anyone who loves films, but I can say, that I wouldn't want to watch this film again anytime soon.

Some Funny Movie Links

2006-12-20T16:18:00.000-08:00

try this...

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2720575
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2728283
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2722291
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2748349
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2800615

Stranger than fiction

2006-12-20T16:11:00.000-08:00

About Films
I really like this film and I consider it one of my favorites of the year. I must say that the trailer really left me uninterested but the blend of drama and humor worked really well for Will Ferrell much like The truman show did for Jim Carrey. The plot was something out of Charlie Kauffman's scrap pile. It feels like Charlie came up with this story idea, toyed with it and decided there was no way to make it work and then handed it off to Marc Forrester. Marc Forrester has had a few genius moments in his last few films. There is a brilliant scene here where Will Ferrell is talking to Maggie Gylenhaul on the bus. It happens to be a two car accordian bus and Ferrell is sitting right at the bend. His seat floats in and out as the bus turns corners. It beautifully expresses Ferrells character for the scene as he tries to pick up on Maggie. Visually, this was one of the most exciting, and funny, scenes I have scene in a movie.

What I over the last couple of weeks

2006-11-29T01:46:00.000-08:00

The Departed: I saw this again in the theater and if it was still playing in my small town I'd see it again. This is my favorite movie of the year. I love a movie (however absurd) that has such colorful supporting character moments. For instance, I loved the scene where Dicaprio shot the guy in the leg and the guy started complaining that he hasn't gone into shock. This character was in the movie for a minute and half but he was incredibly memorable. Supporting characters is the secret to a good movie. That's the reason I loved Four Brothers so much. And that's why I love movies from the thirties and forties more than the movies of today. They have better supporting characters.

Breathless: This is my second Godart movie. I really enjoyed it. I'm going to search out more.

Manhattan: This is a pretty good Woody Allen movie but I prefer his funnier, lighter stuff. A little Woody Allen goes a long way for me, so I'm good for another year.

An Inconveniant Truth: Scary and effective. But like all end-of-the-world doom tracts it made me shrug my shoulders. I just don't trust dire predictions. Anyway, I suppose I don't have a car so it didn't make me feel guilty. If I had a private jet, perhaps I'd sell it.

Lonesome Jim

2006-11-15T17:27:00.000-08:00

Boring. I really like Steve Buscemi and I thought he played a great director in LIving in Oblivion, but Lonesome Jim didn't reaaly work for me. I think I like Casey Affleck. I have only seen him in a couple things but I thought he was funny, but in this his character was sooo anti-charisma. He never did anything until the very end and by that time I did not care anymore. Anyway, you get the idea.

Borat and some halloween movies

2006-11-08T06:26:00.000-08:00

Borat: Yes, it's as funny as everyone says. Although not as funny as Borat's clips on the Ali G show. I think the TV show was funnier because they spent more time on the interviews. I wanted more of Borat interviewing people like Bob Barr and Alan Keyes. Oh well. I can't wait to see the extras on the DVD.
Wickerman (1973): You know what? I think the newer one is better. I still love the old one. It's more insane, but the new one got under my skin and made me laugh more. The director did a Q & A after the show and said he will be filming a sequel called Cowboys for Christ next year.
Hound of the Baskervilles: Old Hammer version.
Isolation: Irish horror film that will be released some time next year. It's about a killer cow fetus. They play it straight. It's a very serious movie. I liked it a lot better than the other people in the audience.
House on the Edge of the Park (1980): I saw this by participating in a British Film Board study about films that were hard to classify. This is a cheesy Italian movie that would have been a lot of fun if they didn't have so many rape scenes. Rape is not fun to watch. Cheesy 70's acting is. I hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie.
Severence: I don't think this movie will be released in the US. It's a horror comedy. The tag line is The Office meets Deliverance. Only it's never funny. And never scary. This movie made me feel dirty inside. Even more so than House on the edge of the park.

Halloween Films

2006-10-30T16:33:00.000-08:00

Halloween has arrived again and according to my tradition I have searched the shelves of horror movies to find rare gems I haven't seen or newbies worthy of my top horror films list. Here are all the ones I've seen thus far (good and bad, old and young).

1. Eyes Without a Face - A B&W French film written by the guys who wrote Vertigo (the book). A chilling concept that implements suspense without the gore. Frightening at times, but other times seems dated and drags in areas.

2. Suspiria - Argento film. The film is highly atmospheric in its horror and succeeds in certain scenes not only through gross out moments but the anticipation. The scenes aren't connected well so the movie as a whole suffers.

3. Peeping Tom - Michael Powell film (British). One of my favorite from this batch. A psychological horror in the vein of Psycho. Good performances, deals with a horror that's present in our world - voyeurism.

4. Rosemary's Baby - Watched it again after a long time and enjoyed it even more this time. The script is so efficient and tight. Their is nothing disguised or hidden, which plays with the imbedded audience expectations with horror films.

5. Grudge 2 - Saw it in the theater. A startling film, but nothing too frightening. Like other Japanese horrors, it is very twisted and strange with some story, if you can comprehend it.

6. The Fly - Weirdly enough I hadn't seen this. Cronenberg's version. Another great horror film that definitely grosses out with the weird. But excellent themes and moral at the heart.

7. Village of the Damned - Carpenter version. I was disappointed with this one. Boring and fairly uneventful. But I have hope the original will be better.

8. Pulse - Japanese version. I started this one, but fell asleep. People say it takes awhile to get started, but I don't fall asleep in many films.

9. Silent Hill - Could have been good if the story had more substance rather than the atmosphere. Definitely disturbing in parts, so don't watch it alone.

That's it for now. More to come.

What I saw the month of October

2006-10-20T05:06:00.000-07:00

In order from favorite to least,

The Departed: I'm not a huge Martin Scorsese fan. I admire his films more than I enjoy them. But this film I admired as much as I enjoyed. As a matter of fact this is the most fun I've had in a theater all year. I think what makes a good movie exceptional is when every single character feels like they could be the star of their own movie. No one character dominates, everyone has something shines. It's still not my favorite mob movie, that would be Donnie Brasco, but it has some of the same charm. This movie is up there with Babe 2 pig in the city, Kill Bill Vol 1, To be or not To Be, and Midnight Run.

Also, I saw this in a theater in West Wales, and there were gasps whenever Jack Nicholson said the 'c' word.

The Magnificent Ambersons: I think I enjoyed this more than Citizen Kane, although the script wasn't as snappy.

North by Northwest: I think this works better on a tv screen. The jokes don't seem as creaky then. At the theater I saw this, the audience only laughed twice. The crop dusting sequence is sure intense though.

Jason and the Arganauts: Not as fun as I remember from childhood, but the skeleton fight is top notch.

Volver: This is the first Pedro Almodovar I've seen. I wasn't blown away but I still kind of liked it. It made me want to see his other films. It was the best Lifetime made for TV movie I'd ever seen.

Scanner Darkly: They wrongly marketed it. It wasn't a cool sci-fi with lots of action. I'm glad I was aware of that because I don't think I'd have liked it. As it is, I kind of liked it.

The Leopard: This doesn't deserve to be at the bottom of the list. It's too good a movie, but I was bored and confused. I think it will be much better when I see it again.

What I saw last week

2006-10-06T08:18:00.000-07:00

1. Jackass 2: I love the sound of unrestrained laughter in a movie theater. I want to now write my favorite bits of the movie but I won't. The beauty of this movie is not knowing what will happen next. First the thought, who would be stupid enough to do this. then there is the equally suprising thought, they are going to do it. This is a must see, if you (like me) like to see someone get hit in the crotch.

2. School for Scoundrel: I laughed, but my enjoyment was dimmed because they put the funniest moments in the trailer. Luckily they were so funny that I still laughed. I like seeing Jared Hess in films. I hope he lasts.

organize movie and book lists

2006-10-02T17:09:00.000-07:00

Sorry if this is off topic, but I thought you guys might be interested.

listal.com is a site where you can rate and organize lists of films you've seen and would like to see. You can also form groups, share, get recommendations etc. This site also works with books, music and games.

librarything.com is another great site that's a bit more sophisticated with a deeper toolset, it only works with books for now.

Scarry Movie Season

2006-09-30T23:52:00.000-07:00

In honor of halloween lets get some favorite scaries going so I can know what I need to see.

1. Susperia (CREEPY)
2. The Shining- i love this movie
3. Lady in White - this movie scared the urine out of me as a kid and I love it for it

Movies for the masses

2006-09-30T23:44:00.000-07:00

So i caught some decent flicks this week as seems to be the way to do it I'll go from top to bottom.
1. JackAss: Number Two. I loved this movie, not a film by any means just a movie but it is the funniest 105 minutes I have ever sat through. Its raunchier than the first so its not for all but I laughed for about all but 5-10 minutes of it.

2. Freaks: any movie that was banned by more countries than it was allowed to be viewed in is a great thing especially if it has no real reason to be banned other than being twisted, the ending is possibly the best of any movie not called The Usual Suspects.

3. All the Kings Men: Critics hated it and I can certainly see how they could, its over the top and I didn't really care that much for the story but THE ACTING IS GREAT<>

The Devil & Daniel Johnston

2006-09-27T11:49:00.000-07:00

This is a great documentary about a mentally disturbed kid who lived on the edge of art and insanity. He drew cartoons and wrote and recorded songs in his parent's basement. They try to force him to work but he can only focus on art. He runs away and joins a carnival and ends up in Austin Texas where he solicits his home made album to the people at the South By Southwest festival. He ends up winning "best song writer" and even gets to perform on MTV winning over artists such as Beck, Wilco, Sonic Youth, and Pearl Jam who have since recorded his music. The film is sad, funny, and sometimes astonishing but in the end, I found it inspiring. Although Daniels art is fueled by the demons that haunt him, you get the feeling that his art might just triumph. The filmmaker, Jeff Feuerzeig, wades through much source material including home movies, audio taped recordings from Daniel's private journal, as well as current interviews from his friends and parents. I thought they could have cut about fifteen minutes out of the film towards the end but overall I loved it.

Some Movies

2006-09-25T15:54:00.000-07:00

United 93 - like Bryan i found this movie to be excellent. totally gripping. totally appropriate in my opinion. didn't try to make the event into a grandiose heroic thing - just felt really real and horrifying.

Slackers (not the Richard Linklater one) - Jason Schwartzman is hilarious and charismatic as "Cool Ethan" in this college comedy. the problem is he's the guy we're supposed to be rooting against. The lead character who is the one we're supposed to want to get the girl is completely unlikeable and not in a good way. Just an issue of miscasting I think. Still had some pretty funny parts in it. Many good lines from Schartzman.

The Sentinel - Kind of blah. It was good for a rental.

Tremors III - Just what I expected - almost. It had horrible FX, bad writing, stupid plot, and some pretty campy moments. The problem with this one is that they dangle Michael Gross' gun-toted fanatic in front of you at the beginning showing you his weaponry and huge cement re-inforced compound but they don't really utilize it. He doesn't even shoot a gun after the first five minutes of the movie. That was disappointing.

Funny Ha Ha - First independent feature from writer/director/editor Andrew Bujalski. His stuff has been compared to Cassevettes and Mike Leigh's. He just finished another one called, "Mutual Appreciation." The budget for "Funny Ha Ha" was next to nothing. It's shot on 16mm and all the actors are non-pro and non-paid as well as crew. Bujalski himself plays a hilarious supporting character named Mitchell. While watching the movie I was alternating between bored and fascinated. It's like a Woody Allen with less plot and less jokes. But even in its boring moments its kind of fascinating in the way it feels so real. If you like naturalism then this movie is for you.

Freeks and Geeks - Finally started watching this series. And so far it's living up to the hype. The writing is just great. I find myself asking, "how could a show like this only last one season when Malcom in the Middle has lasted like 7 or 8 or whatever." Not that Malcom in the Middle is a horrible show but it's just not anywhere near as good as Freeks and Geeks. Airing after The Simpsons helped Malcom quite a bit I'm sure.

What I saw 8/29 - 9/25

2006-09-25T07:25:00.000-07:00

This will be quick. No big explanations on how I felt. Although a couple of films probably deserve a little more debate.

In order of favorite.
United 93: A classic. Just as gripping as the first time I saw it.
The Wicker Man (2006): I'm glad I saw it before the reviews came out cause I would have skipped it. I'm surprised how much everyone hates this movie. I loved it. It creeped me out more than the first one. When everybody says this movie was really cool, I want it on record that I said it first.
Tsotsi: Deserved to win the oscar for best foreign film. Held a big punch.
X-Men 3
Nacho Libre
Roadhouse
Grandma's Boy
Crank:
The Illusionist
Scary Movie 4: Pretty good for the type of movie it is. I just don't care for this type of movie.
Little Miss Sunshine: I hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I found the ending to be unbearably creepy. Good acting but what I schmaltzfest.

Charlie Kaufman

2006-09-18T19:50:00.000-07:00

I haven't seen all of Kaufman's movies, but I think I have seen his best three. Those are Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind. The other two, Human Nature and Confessions of a dangerous Mind, haven't received very favorable reviews from people I generally trust ( Although I did really like the Bjork music video "human nature" that Michael Gondry directed). Anyway, of the three that I have seen my favorite must be Eternal Sunshine. My friend Chris would be supremely disappointed to hear me say that. But, the fact is, I loved it. As you may know, this one was directed by Michael Gondry and the other two were directed by Spike Jonze. And, although I really like Spike Jonze, I think I am more in tune with Gondry's style. I found Eternal Sunshine to be very imaginative and very profound. What a brilliantly way to show how we shut out pain. But, without the pain where does the joy come from. Kahil Gibran said something like this in The Prophet and it has always been something I have tried to embrace. I have often thought about how to portray this idea in a movie and I think that Spotless Mind did as good a job as can be done. There are other themes in the movie as well that I really enjoyed but I'll leave it at that. In addition to the "moral", I thought all the actors were terrific. (I think Jim Carey should only do Drama). I really liked the art direction which is signature Michael Gondry. And I am not upset at all that it won best original screenplay. (It didn't really have much competition except maybe The Incredibles).
I don't know if I like Adaption or Being JM better. They both have things that I really like about them and they both have things I don't like. With Being JM I was blown away by the randomness of the story and I loved it. I really like John Cusack and Catherine Keener but I can't stand Cameron Diaz! I think she was completely miss cast for the part. Which is really sad because I think she was supposed to be the empathetic character, not John Cusack, and I really hated her so it was hard for me to feel anything at the end of the movie. Also, I have never been able to look at John Malkovich the same since. Adaptation had an all around great cast and it did some great stuff with story telling and following the rules in screenwriting and all that. So much so that I am not entirely sure I understand it all. I need to watch it again. The problem is that I don't really want to watch it again. That is my problem with both Spike Jonze movies. After watching them I felt like I needed to wash. Maybe I am the only one that feels that way, and I can't really point out what makes me feel it but there it is. While I am watching them I am completely enthralled and taken by the uniqueness of the story but afterwards I just feel kind of ... yucky. Maybe that is good because it is something different but it doesn't make me want to watch it over and I think these movies should be watched over.
All in all I really like all three movies quite a bit, but Michael Gondry's style is more suited to my tastes. And I am really excited about his latest movie "The Science of Sleep". I think it looks fantastic. If you haven't seen a preview go to Apple.com then go to quicktime and look it up in Movie Preveiws. I think it is worth taking a look at.

Nacho Libre

2006-09-07T15:33:00.000-07:00

I loved Nacho Libre. Yes, loved. For me it fits in the category of movies where if you like the character played by the lead you'll like the movie, (e.g. Austin Powers and Anchorman). I thought Jack Black was hilarious as a Mexican. His accent fluctuated between Spanish, Italian, and even a kind of southern twang but it just added to it for me. I loved the look of the film and the Danny Elfman score as well. And Nacho Libre confirmed and strengthened my conviction that CG is most effectively used for comedy or when you don't know it's there or not at all.

I liked this one better than Napolean Dynamite because the Napolean character became hard for me to watch half way throught the movie. He's a hilarious character but he's also kind of a downer. Where as Jack Black's Ignacio is enthusiastic and ambitious and fun to watch.

I'm convinced that Hess is obsessed with weird, funny mouth expressions. Jack Black's were hilarious. His partner, Eskeleto's were a little forced sometimes. But Eskeleto was a fun character.

There were those Napoleanesque moments in the movie where Nacho says things like, "so anyways..." and things like that. It worked for me.
I also didn't mind when Jack Black sang his song and broke character because of the moment when he turns to the camera and sings, "Encarnacion." It took me back to the Novellas I heard on my mission. They totally sounded like that part of the song.

A Tale of Two Films

2006-09-05T11:23:00.000-07:00

Hi.
Over the long weekend, I watched two films. Crank and The Illusionist.
I was rather excited about Crank. It was such an amazing premise, combining the ideas of the film noir classic D.O.A. with the 90's action flick Speed. I had hoped for some great action sequences with what would ultimately amount to a vengeance story.
What I got was a rather poorly written exploitation film that was ultimately pornography for violence and sex.
There's a new documentary that just opened up called, I believe, This Film Not Yet Rated. About how the MPAA rates movies (or rather, how nobody is willing or can tell them how the MPAA actually rates it's movies, why it is harsher to independent films yet soft-tailing to Hollywood...etc.) If that's the case...then, for the most part I think I better look a little closer at the films I want to see. Had I rated this, it would have been an easy candidate for NC-17.
And ultimately, though it had some clever moments and asome interesting action sequences: I wish I would've never seen it.

The Illusionist however was a different story. Though I can't fully recommend it, I found it to be captivating, the performances quite good, the cinematography excellent... In fact, pretty much everything in this film is great...except some of the direction...oh, and the story.
The first half of the movie is wonderful, combining romance with magic...which...well, aren't they the same thing?
And they do it rather well at a nice even pace. It's when the movie begins it's second half that the director and possibly screenwriter begin to lose their way. The drama gives way to thrills that do little to quicken the pulse. The romance disappears like a cheap parlour trick. And we realize that we don't know what we are supposed to be feeling... In fact, it's fairly clear that the director isn't sure either... the latter half is quite uneven. Where the entire movie should build, instead, it flounders.
And yet, even with all of this, the glowing performances and the enchanting world are enough of an illusion to captivate me for the latter hour.

Film History Suggestions

2006-08-29T21:01:00.000-07:00

As some of you may or may not know, I'm currently employed as a high school teacher, mainly teaching their film history and editing classes (it's a charter school that specializes in film). Last year I taught two separate film history classes, one pre 1950's and one post 1950's. This year they're having me teach a beginning class, and then later teach an advanced class that will be more like what I did last time. So for this beginning class they'd like me to show the most important films. "If they only take one film history class in their lives, these are the films they need to see" is how the principal discribed it to me. So, that's where I need your input. What are those films that these kids need to see the most?

Here's the guidelines:
1. the class is nine weeks long, 70 minutes a day every day, so we have time for 1-2 features a week along with a bunch of clips, which means approx 12 features for the term.
2. no rated R movies, although I can show appropriate clips from R movies.
3. I'm considering organizing the class by film component: Directing, Cinematography, Editing, Sound, etc. And then showing historically important films that are prime examples of that component.

So what are your suggestions and why?

What I saw 8/15 - 8/28

2006-08-19T00:25:00.000-07:00

This may be my new favorite review - right up there with Pauline Kael's review of Born on the Fourth of July. http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24309 Be sure to read the talkback section where the director of the movie challenges Vern to a wrestling match.

Jackass: This is a perfect movie. Better than Citizen Kane.

Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang:

Heaven Can Wait: I wonder if it's possible for Ernst Lubitsch to make a bad movie. This movie has no plot, a mildly charming hero, no real jokes (although it's funny.) And yet I was entranced from beginning to end. My list of Lubitsch movies from favorite to least is To Be or Not To Be, The Shop Around the Corner, The Merry Widow, Trouble in Paradise, Ninotchka, and Heaven Can Wait.

Snakes on a Plane:

Caddyshack:

I Heart Huckabees: I liked this movie, although it tended to wear thin by the end. It reminded me of the jejune philisophical debates I used to have as an undergraduate. I suspect, although I'm not sure, having children knocks the desire to discuss these type of existential questions. I used to live for these kinds of questions but now . . . Remember that joke from childhood about bloody bones and dirty diapers? Remember that? This movie seems as removed from me as that joke. I hope that doesn't mean I'm shallow.

Poseiden: It's nice to see Kevin Dillon in movies again. Other than his character I was bored.

In theaters next week I can't wait to see The Wicker Man remake. I love Neil Labute and I love the original Wicker Man. I also want to see Crank. And The Illusionist. But I'll see The Wicker Man before all of the others.

What I saw last week 8/7-8/13

2006-08-09T01:31:00.000-07:00

From favorite to least favorite
Freaks and Geeks: This is as good as the British version of The Office. I watched all 18 episodes and wanted to watch them again. From this I see why James Franco is a star, he's really funny and a little crazy. He could grow up to be Jack Nicholson. Please, somebody put him in a movie where he doesn't just pout. The writing is superb and the cast are all achingly real. And it's funny. Good gravy is it funny.

The Descent: Not as scary as they would have you believe. I heard that critics were wimpering. Really? Wimpering? It was pretty scary but wimpering? I'm glad they didn't do that retarded horror movie thing where the main character fights a monster in a skimpy clothing. Nope they were dressed like spelunkers all the way through.

World Trade Center: I liked it. I didn't like it as much as United 93 but it was much more of a feel good story. Not one for the ages but I cried.

Sanjuro: The Kurosawa films I like best have the most action. I like this a lot more than Rashamon or Ikiru but not quiet as much as The Seventh Samuri or Yojimbo. But there was some good funny stuff and if I had the money I'd add it to my DVD collection.

Night of the Comet: It's funny that movies that embraced the look and philosophies of the eighties tend to look even more alien than movies from the 1930's. This is as dated as anything I've ever seen. In this the same comet that destroyed the dinasours destroys all humans except for those who for some reason spend the night in something steal. And some humans turn into zombies. Not nearly as good as Omego Man (but what end of the world movie is?) but still kind of fun. In a very cheesy way.

Running Time: Bruce Campbell heist movie. Fun. Shot as if it was all in one take. I could only spot a couple of the scene breaks although according to the commentary there were about 30. Not a great movie but I'll see Bruce Campbell in anything.

what I saw last week 7/31 - 8/6

2006-08-09T01:03:00.000-07:00

To Be or Not To Be (1942): This is my favorite movie. I think it is even more funny and subversive than Dr. Strangelove. I watched it with my in-laws and brother and sister's in law, ages 8-16. It played like gangbusters. Big belly laughs. I think the reason it works so well is that it is genuinly tense and they never sacrifice the tenseness for a joke. There is even a half hour section where there is not one joke. Ernst Lubitsch and his screenwriters were that confident.
This is a criminally undervalued movie. Ernst Lubitsch is one of the top three directors ever, and this is his best movie.

Monster House: Good. Liked it.

Hard Candy: Scary and creepy. I found myself looking away from the screen even though it was just a lot of talking heads. Afterwords I felt like scrubbing myself with Clorox.

Coffee and Cigarettes: Pleasant all the way through, some skits worked better than others but so what? The skit between Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan made the whole thing worth it. And GZA and RZA should be in another movie together. They are hilarious.

Firewall: Even though I enjoyed it, I've already forgotten that I've seen it. If I didn't keep a list of the films I've seen, it would be down the memory hole.

V for Vendetta: Pretty good. I liked the foppish character and the inversion of the Guy Fawkes story, but why, oh why did he have to blow up Big Ben? I thought the whole point of the movie was that John Hurt was a bad Prime Minister because he doesn't allow art and freedom of the press and writing. So why did V blow up the parliament building? His movement is just as willing to sacrifice art (and yes, architecture is art) for ideology as John Hurt was. I don't trust whomever of those Guy Fawkes guys will be the next leader of the country after they win the revolution. They will be just as bad, or worse.

Talledega Nights: I loved Anchorman. Loved, loved, loved it. I only sort of liked this. I think the problem is that the main characters are southern rednecks. Not that I don't like Southerners, I just think the well of Southern bashing humor has run dry. Some pretty good parts, mostly when it goes surreal. One scene with a steak knife had the whole audience screaming. But other than that I was a little disappointed. Gary Cole was great. Sacha Baron Cohen was great.

Final Destination 3: Yeah, I saw it. So what? I needed to see how the trilogy plays out.

What I saw last week

2006-08-04T22:28:00.000-07:00

These are the movies I saw last week. They are in order of most favorite to least favorite. (I'm a little embarrassed that I enjoyed Benchwarmers more than The French Connection, but if I can't be honest with this group, who can I be honest with?) I won't comment on all of the movies.

Bad Day at Black Rock: The best part of a gunfight in film is the tense moments before it happens. The holy-crap-it's-going-down feeling. This movie is an hour and a half of that tenseness. I think Spencer Tracy is the best film actor ever. Period.

The Cowboys: If more kids had died, I think it might have been my favorite movie of the week. The end seemed like a big cop-out to me. But of course it's a family movie.

Clerks II: My new favorite Kevin Smith movie. The donkey scene went on way too long though, and there is one shot that made my gord rise.

Mirrormask:

The Benchwarmers: God help me, I laughed. There is a surrealness to Adam Sandler movies that appeals to me. And this movie has that in spades. Sure there are too many fart jokes, but the moment when the coach on the opposing team loses and punishes himself by giving himself a titty twister, the movie had won me over.

The Public Enemy: White Heat and Angels with Dirty Faces are better but this is still pretty good. James Cagney seemed a little stiff. He didn't really know where to put his hands. He got much better in later movies.

Thief:

The French Connection: This would probably have more of an impact when it came out. I suspect that I've seen too many French Connection rip offs to make the original seem fresh. Not the movies fault but there you go.

Magnolia

2006-08-03T13:56:00.000-07:00

His Word is so true,
Oh why did I ever choose you?
You are killing all my wonder.
- Liz Janes

This is the kind of film that pretty much demands discussion afterwards. So sprawling and weighty, so enthralling yet baffling, so many possibilities of meaning; I can only compare it to other monuments like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, Fellini's 8 1/2, or Lucas' Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Wait, scratch that last one.

If I were still in school and had to write a paper anytime soon, I'd write it on the similarities of Magnolia and C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. Despite an obviously different intended audience, I think Anderson and Lewis are trying to accomplish similar goals and even use a similar style.

In one of his essays, Lewis wrote:
“Do you thing I am trying to weave a spell? Perhaps I am; but remember your fairy tales. Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them. And you and I have need of the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness which has been laid upon us for nearly a hundred years.” (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory)

I think Magnolia is all about the same evil enchantment of worldliness. With everyone trying desperately to find happiness through fame, power, wealth, status, addiction, television, etc., but not being able to have a real relationship with anyone. Then the insane ending with the frogs. Was it a biblical plague, like in Egypt of old? A Transcendent moment of the Creator demanding Television's Great and Spacious building to "let my people go"? I don't know, but it was beautiful. What do you folks think?

love,
Brandon

Monster House - Digital 3D

2006-08-03T08:10:00.000-07:00

This aint your mom's 3D. Somebody has developed a new 3D technology, Disney has purchased it and it looks amazing. The glasses are a huge upgrade from the gimmicky blue and red card board model. When you put the audience in a 3D space, you have to tell the story differently. A lot of fast cutting will disorient the audience because you are essentially changing the space around them. Robert Zemmeckis is the guy who understands this and although he didn't direct this film, it feels like he did right from the recognizeable opening shot, (think Forest Gump). He is however a producer on the film and my guess is an uncredited director for many of the scenes. I think it was Vince Vaughn who said "you can accomplish alot in a movie if you don't care who takes credit". I did not know this going in but Monster House features the voice talents of Fred Willard, Catherine O'Hara, Steve Buscemi, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jason Lee, John Heder, Kevin James, & Kathleen Turner. This film has great structure, great characters, great humor. It flows really well and even dares to be original. There are some moments that don't seem right for kids but not harmful by any means. Overall I had a great time at this movie and was enthralled more than recent memory. If you think you might see this film, definately see the 3D version, go early, get the middle and sit close.
Note:
The best part of all of this is that they are currently converting The Nightmare Before Christmas into this format. I saw a few clips at the trailers before Monster House and it looks very impressive. I believe it is due out this holiday season.

Some movies.

2006-07-31T23:51:00.000-07:00

Fitzcaraldo - Very cool Werner Herzog movie about making your dreams come true at all costs or maybe just about pulling a steamboat up a mountain. Bryan did a review on this a while back and I've been wanting to see it ever since. Herzog is nuts. I listened to the commentary and I can't believe the risks he takes in making his films. He's like the German Coppolla or something the way he throws himself into his projects.

A Simple Plan - I liked this one a lot. Billy Boy Thornton was great. I laughed a lot at his little character quirks. He's great at doing the little subtle things that just make a character fun to watch. It's kind of a heavy morality tale so his character was essential to counter that feeling that pervaded throughout. (Dir. by Sam Raimi)

Blood Simple - I watched this one about five years ago and was really amazed by the direction. I think it's the Cohen Brothers second best (after Miller's Crossing). I watched it again - this time the new cut released by Forever Young Films. I like the other version better. They cut out a lot of stuff and added some weird CG smoke rings coming out of M. Emmet Walsh. Still it was great to watch. Walsh is amazing as the sleezy PI. There's two separate scenes where he's sitting there talking to Dan Hedaya and a fly buzzes around his sweaty face and lands right by his eye and he doesn't flinch or anything - it's great. This one has my favorite climaxe and ending to a neo-noir movie. They made this movie just after working for Sam Raimi on Evil Dead which is interesting because there are some horror movie elements to this one even though it's a thriller/noir.

Pirates of the Carribbean II- I really liked this one a lot. It's my favorite of the Hollywood movies this year. I know it's 30 minutes too long but it seems that everything is now a days. I thought the story was better than the first one and I liked all the story sequences except for the part when Kiera Knightley and the two comic relief guys fought off Davey Jone's crew. They became much less menacing after that happened. That whole scene was unecessary. The fighting on the big rolling mill thing was cool but too long as well. Come to think of it they also took a strange detour getting Kiera Knightley to Tartuga or whatever to find Jack Sparrow. Why did she have to go on that other boat and do all that stuff with the ghost dress and everything. Just seemed like a waist of time to me.

But I did like the movie don't get me wrong. I really liked the whole thing with the natives (I thought they depicted that old style of cartoonish natives perfectly). And I loved the corny thing with them swinging in the big bone ball/cages. I also thought the Cracken was really cool and usually I don't like big CG monsters but I liked this one a lot. Davey Jones was my favorite part though. Anyway, the movie exceeded my expectations which was a pleasant surprise.

MIAMI VICE

2006-07-30T04:27:00.000-07:00

I Really enjoyed this film and would have no problem recommending it to Micheal Mann followers. I dont think it was as good as heat but it was good. Collin Farrell isn't horrible although his voice coach should jump into a volcano. HE tries to speak all gruff and such and its really forced. I dont care for Jamie Foxx but he's solid in this role, but then again it's not exactly Ray. The movie is alot faster paced than I expected it to be, I kinda thought it would be a little more Collateral and thankfully it's closer to the aforementioned Heat. The gun play was superb and I have now decided that anyone else that ever does a shootout scene needs to hire Mann to consult them, there are a couple in this film that are just vicious.

On a seperate note before it there were trailers for like 6 good lookin movies, Babel, The Departed, Black Dhalia, The Prestige, The Protector (Tony Jaa is a bad Mo' Fo' dont sleep, watch Ong Bak), and reportedly Jet Li's last kung fu epic Jet Li's Fearless, if you dont like kung fu films you wouldn't like the last two but I though they looked promising. The other three are must see's for my punk ass.

Movies I saw last week

2006-07-24T00:55:00.000-07:00

From favorite to least favorite. This was a pretty good week for movies. I didn't hate any of them. I loved the first four and the last four, on the whole, I liked more than disliked. The last three I don't have a desire to see again but I'm glad I saw them the first time.

Tristram Shandy: I think it was Shel Silverstein who said that some movies make you want to hug yourself. He's right and Tristram Shandy does. If you like Spinal Tap, Christopher Guest movies or The Office, then you'll love this movie. (Steve Coogan and Rob Bryden are two of the funniest men alive. Their commentary track was a real laugh.)

Brick: I have nothing to say about this movie. Except that it almost ties Tristram Shandy for best movie of the week.

The Saddest Music in the World: I concur with Jordan.

Tombstone: This film I loved. It would probably rate higher in the week, except for a few scenes that made my teeth ache. 1. Kurt Russel standing in the rain yelling, "I HURT INSIDE" or something like that, I can't remember, it's been four days. C'mon Wyat Earp. Keep it together. 2. I hated, hated, hated Val Kilmer's death scene. I liked him when he was insolently killing outlaws. I knew he was going to die so why didn't the screenwriters let him die with dignity. Off screen. Instead of laying in bed talking about how he wished he'd married his cousin. Look, I had a crush on my cousin at one time also. But I got over it. That's what grown ups do. They are supposed to be embarrassed by their youthful degenerecies. And you can bet when I'm on my deathbed, I'll be talking about something else.but the good stuff in thee movie is so good, that I'm going to forget about those scenes.

It's Always Fair Weather: It doesn't work, but well worth seeing for Gene Kelly's tap dance on roller skates. Jaw dropping.

Welcome to Sarejevo: Pretty good, and after seeing Tristram Shandy I want to see everything directed by Michael Winterbottom, but this felt like eating vegetables. It was good for me but not very interesting.

Lady in the Water: It was better than The Village. At least the characters made jokes and used contractions in their speech. But I couldn't get past the back story, it just seemed so random and silly. My wife loved it though, so I don't want to discourage anybody from going. I think for some people it will be a fun and profound time at the theater. For me, it wasn't. (BTW, I loved Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs.) (I have a lot of nitpicky comments about this movie, but I'll save those for the comments, if there becomes a debate in the comments section. And boy do I think this movie will be debated. Otherwise I'll keep them to myself.)

Tales From the Gimli Hospital: This was pretty good for the type of surreal movie it was, but I have about a twenty minute attention span for surrealness. Un Chien Andula was the perfect length. Any longer and it would have been unbearable. Gimli Hospital was just too long for me.

Recent Films

2006-07-23T01:54:00.000-07:00

Tales From The Gimli Hospital - If Guy Maddin is "The Canadian David Lynch" then this is his Eraserhead. It was like watching an Icelandic night mare filled with disturbing images many of them you don't know why they're disturbing. Anyway that's how my nightmares are. I liked The Saddest Music in the World better but this one's worth a watch especially if you're a Lynch fan and more specifically a fan of Eraserhead. It's got some pretty funny stuff as well.

Forbidden Games - I'm referring to the Rene Clement's 1952 French version here. Not the 1995 version that looks to be soft core porn according to the profile on IMDB.

With that clarification aside, this film is set during WWII as German planes are bombing France. It follows the daily activities of two kids dealing with the death and destruction around them. Paulette's parents and dog are shot down in the first couple minutes and she wonders the countryside holding her dead dog until Michel finds her and brings her home to his family consisting of an abusive tyrant of a father who is feuding with their rural neighbors. Michel helps Paulette create a cemetary for her dog in an abandoned mill but Paulette's not satisfied. Her dog will be lonely buried without anyone else so more work needs to be done.

It's an interesting film that successfully marries stark realism in a fairy tale like fable. Probably because it's seen through the eyes of the children.

Orange County - For some reason I never wanted to see this when it first came out. I got the feeling that it was a teenager/party movie. I think I didn't know about Mike White at the time and felt that Jack Black was good but not good enough to carry a bad movie as a side character (i.e. Airborne - he's great in it but it still sucks). Anyway I watched it the other night and really liked it. I thought it was fun, clever, and appropriately sweet. The dysfunctional family that has redeeming qualities gets old at times but I liked it here.

Gods And Generals - Thankfully the DVD didn't work on side B so I only was able to watch the first two hours of this most rechid worshipping of the romantic and noble civil war south. Completely boring and self important at the same time, Gods And Generals managed to make the most intriguing war in American history seem silly by attempting to make it seem so important.

Even Robert Duvall couldn't save it.

The Saddest Music In The World

2006-07-22T15:47:00.000-07:00

Guy Maddin manages to tell this bizarre and comical story in a totally fresh way that keeps you mesmorized throughout.

Considered to be "The Canadian David Lynch" by some critics, Maddin readily admits to being heavily influenced by the surreal filmmaker.

"The Saddest Music In The World," though bizarre, surreal, and somewhat dark is an extremely fun and even riveting watch unlike much of Lynch's films.

Maddin has what seems to be more than just a love for the silent film era (which he pays homage to here - though it's not a silent film). It's more like an obsession. And he mixes just the the right amount of stylistic skill, personality, and dramatic absurdity while thankfully avoiding any kind of the adoring reverence and stuffiness that other obsessed filmmakers pour into their homages of days gone by (yes, the poster of the movie displays two glass legs filled with Port Huntley beer which figure prominently in the story).

One of the most enjoyable movies I've watched this year.

Lady in the Water

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

So as stated earlier I would probably let M. Night Shyamalan touch my bikini area so I will admit this movie could have come with a free case of Herpes and I still would have liked it but I loved this film. I cant really think of anything I disliked about the film. Shyamalan does a good job acting, and Giamatti is phenomenal.

I can see where some people may not care for the film in the same way some dont like the village (In my opinion his worst film). You cant go expecting a scary movie with twists, you have to know its a fairy tale, one with a moral point. Its about the concept that it is vital to us that we have ideoligies to grasp on to that give us hope and that we all are semi-destined to certain lives and that we have to believe in our selves in order for our greatness to be fulfilled. Enough preaching from my ass just know i liked it and would recomend it without hesitation.

A Scanner Darkly

2006-07-21T14:00:00.000-07:00

Richard Linklater is one of my favorites so when I heard he was making Philip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkley I was pretty excited. This is the story that Charlie Kaufman tried to adapt but gave up on. You might remember in Adaptation when Charlie's brother Donald is writing his script called "The Three". Charlie mentions that nothing is more overused than multiple personalities in hollywood. He also asks Donald how it is possible to film such a script where multiple characters are played by one person (which is of course what Spike Jonze did in that film) to which Donald replies, "trick photography".
Being a big fan of Waking Life, I was also excited to see more use of the animation software that he developed for that project. It seemed like the perfect solution to the Kaufman problem. The film stars Keanu Reeves, Woody Harrelson, Robert Downey Jr., Wynona Rider and takes place in a future where everybody does a drug called Substance B. I was even excited about Linklater's casting seeing how all the stars in the film have had public issues with drugs.
I understand that Linklater was very faithful to the book and even much of the dialogue is included but I couldn't make head or tails of this movie nor could the four other people I watched it with. I really need to see it again but I'm just not sure I want to. In a strange approach, the dual identidy is revealed from the start perhaps to avoid what Kaufman warned about. The problem is that I don't want to be that far ahead of the main character but I also don't want to have some surprise twist a la Fight Club. There are some very amusing scenes of drug induced paranoia in which Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson steal the show but that's about all I could make sense of or enjoy. I think Kaufman was right to pass on this, maybe there is not way to film it.

Brandies recent viewings

2006-07-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

Hey folks, it's been a while since I've posted. Our third child was born last month, so writing about stuff on the internet has gone down a few steps on my list of priorities. Watching movies, on the other hand, has not. So here's some thoughts about things I've seen recently:

Cars: I don't know if anyone's written about this yet. I went in with pretty low expectations, due to boring previews and mostly 2-3 star reviews. But I was very pleasantly surprised with the result. Man, that John Lasseter, he knows how to make movies. He takes a story that in seems pretty dumb describing it, but fills it with character and detail and charm and the occaisional emotional gut punch. I'd say he's pretty similar to Miyazaki in his abilitiy to create fascintating alternate realities and also in his benevolence of spirit. My main suggestion for improvement: soundtrack was pretty lame, missed some golden opportunities for awesome music+visuals.

The Battle of Algiers: I've been meaning to see this for a while, and the Orem Library recently got the new Criterion (3 disc!) edition. This was made in 1966 by some Italian dude that I'd never heard of, based on the true stories of people involved in the French occupation of Algeria, and the Algerian resistance to said occupation. The film is a great example of both "realism" (almost looks like a documentary) and the "protest film" (similar to Bob Dylan or Rage Against the Machine in the music world). The paralells between this and the current state of things in Iraq are unavoidable. If only our head brass had watched this first before they invaded, they'd have known more what to expect.

The Life Aquatic: Sorry, Wes Anderson lovers, this one didn't work for me. It seemed almost like a Godard movie: a lot of flamboyant stylistic choices that make for great clips to show in intro to film classes, but overall too distant from the characters and not consistently funny enough to keep me interested. I could've turned it off half-way through with no regrets. Rushmore was the perfect combination of fairy-tale ambience and awesome characters and conflict. This one... I don't know. Feels almost like Anderson is stuck in a rut, like he's developed this certain style and thinks he has to stick with it. You know what, I blame Noah Bombauch, which brings me to...

The Squid and the Whale: even though I pretty much hated watching this movie, I have thought about it a lot since then, so that's a good sign, I guess. It fits nicely in the "naturalism" style of looking at people at their ultimate worst, similar to something like "Raging Bull", "Diabolique", "Gosford Park", or Sartre's "No Exit". What I didn't like was how hateful the tone felt the whole time. Most everything the characters did or said (with the exeption of the younger brother) seemed calculated to make them look despicable. I mean, my parents got divorced, and I pretty much hated my dad when I was a teenager, but even then I wouldn't categorize him as 100% dickhead. So it's surprising that Bambauch, 20 years later, would still be so one sided about it. But on the other hand, it does show how awful not just divorce, but the whole mess of joint custody can be for the kids, and could prove to be a nice wake up call. It seems there's a tendency to think, "things are hard being married, it would be so much easier if we just split up." but it's not easier. An interesting side note: I saw the cleanflicks version of this. It seems that their style of editing is to, rather than bleep out or replace the swears, just to cut out that whole scene. Edited running time: 63 minutes long.

My top 3 westerns:

2006-07-19T14:56:00.000-07:00

1. The Cowboys: This is John Waynes best movie. Even those that aren't John Wayne fans tend to like this one. It is a wonderful adventure story filled with great characters and a strong moral theme about the value of hard work. It is all around just a fun movie for everybody to watch. It made me want to be a cowboy.

2. For a Few Dollars More: Although I dearly love The Good, The Bad and The Ugly I find that I am more entertained by For a Few Dollars More. The things that really stand out are: it is shorter, the bad guy is really cool, and the story takes a number of unexpected turns. I love the show down between Lee Van Cleef and Clint Eastwood and the show down at the end with the watch chimes is really great.

3. Big Country: The movie is about the strength of character and self-respect and who better to show us than Gregory Peck. There are lot of great scenes between Gregory Peck and Charlton Heston and even more with just Gregory Peck. This is the kind of movie I wish I could see again for the first time because I enjoyed myself so much.

Other westerns I considered but didn't make the cut: Unforgiven (a little to depressing to be top 3 but definately top 5), My Name is Nobody (a little hoaky but a lot of fun), Tombstone (Doc Holiday is great, but I hate the female lead and scene where Wyatt starts yelling No! and he gets up and runs into the gunfire but doesn't get shot.) High Noon (Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly...Yes)

Movies I saw this week

2006-07-17T01:25:00.000-07:00

From favorite to least favorite:
Play Misty For Me: It is my goal to see every movie Clint Eastwood directed. This was so good and so scary that I'm surprised I haven't heard of it more. I really recommend it. Also the psycho girl friend is the mother on Arrested Development. She was really pretty.
Manhunter: Who is the better Hannibal Lector? Brian Cox is more realistic and a little more scary. Anthony Hopkins is more hammy and a little more fun. I don't know. I like them both. I did like Manhunter more than Red Dragon. Michael Mann might be one of my favorite directors.
Libertine: I almost didn't see this because the trailers made it seem like a worshipful biography. "He dared to blah, blah, blah. He changed a nation." But it was nothing like that. It was a real good biography about a man who chased pleasure above all else, and the cost to himself and his family. (Now I've made it sound like a morality tale, but it's not at all.) I'm curious if he's really a good writer in real life? We see a play he wrote that seems to consist of nothing but references to dildos. The cast members even pass them out to the audience. ANd at one point a midget enters the stage riding on a giant dildo. Not a very good play really. It was kind of funny how the Earl of Rochester takes it all so seriously.
Hostel: If you don't like this kind of movie, not worth it. If you don't like this kind of movie but went and saw Devil's Rejects based on Roger Ebert's review, and really, really liked it, (like I did) then this movie is pretty good. One scene with an American business man is brilliant. So if this is your kind of thing, (Think Straw Dogs but less disturbing,) it's pretty good. (Be warned though, the characters are really obnoxious for the first thirty minutes. I wanted to kill them myself.)
My Pal Trigger: I've never seen a Roy Rogers movie I haven't liked. If you want to see how he got Trigger, this is a good one.
The Fog (John Carpenter): It was okay. Not as good as Halloween, The Thing or Big Trouble in Little China but I'm not going to complain.
The Matador: This was okay also. Pierce Brosnin was funny. I just wish they wouldn't have held crucial plot points from the audience just so we'd be surprised. One of my pet peeves.
Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest: Remember that moment in the first movie where Jack Sparrow escapes the British guys by twirling around on a high up thing, and he's being shot at from below, and he's twirling a little too fast and there's a look of panic on his face? It was near the beginning.
I never once felt any such chaos or danger in this one. Except for the very end. It's a so-so movie that I doubt I'll watch again. I will be seeing the sequel though.

aarrrghhh I put me peg leg in another pirates booty

2006-07-13T14:49:00.000-07:00

So it was only a matter of time before one of us posted about pirates de la carib so here I go. It was pretty good, overall I liked the first one better. Its a better story barbosa is a far better villan than davey jones. The visuals in the movie a nearly flawless they just throw too many in. I think it was about 20-30 minutes too long also. There's a sword fighting scene that is dreadfully long. I also feel that they did way too much cheesey humor in this one, not sparrow's personality as in the first. Its rather juvenile in parts and I thought that took away from depp's portrait of sparrow.

One more thing about this flick I wish Orlando Bloom would go away because he blows! Hard! The guy sucks as an actor look at legolas and see that its the character everyone loves not the manaquin from heaven that is good there, I loathe him. Frankly keira knietly (sic) sucks also, but at least depp saves the day.

Any movie that makes the obscene amounts of cash this one is can't suck and it certainly doesn't see it you'll like it and you'll probably leave as I did excited for three because it looks like it will be the best of the 3 to me, and don't bitch about the ending that part is perfect.

four movies

2006-07-08T23:19:00.000-07:00

The Big White: I refuse to watch Robin Williams films if they are comedies or are heartwarming. I like my Robin Williams as a serial killer or I don't like him at all. But this movie may be an exception. It's pretty good. And the cast is great. (Holly Hunter, Giovonni Ribisi, Allison Lohman, Tim Blake Nelson.) The soundtrack is by Mark Mothersbaugh (my favorite film composer.)

The Ringer: Neither as funny or as offensive as it could be, it still made me smile. It's worth seeing.

Knife in the Water: I thought the hitchhiker would turn out to be homicidal in a serial killer sort of way. Thankfully the movie is a lot more unpredictable than that. (After seeing Oliver Twist, I've decided to see all of Roman Polanski movies. This one maybe his best.)

The Thing: My favorite part is when the dogs face opens. Close second is when the severed head grows spider legs. This is my favorite of these four movies.

Can you drift?

2006-07-08T08:55:00.000-07:00

Zen Buddhism can be applied to just about anything, whether it be painting or commiting arson. Thus, it came as no surprise that it would be applied to street racing. Little did I anticipate, however, the profound effect this would have on my own ability to play Rallisport 2 after learning the valuable life lesson taught in Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift. Little did I understand that "you just have to feel it". Once I learned this seemingly simple principle, it all came into perspective. Right from the beginning of this movie when the football player's girl friend offers herself as the prize of the race I knew I was in for a treat. I was not dissapointed. The racing was good, the cars were cool and it took place in Japan, all be it, there weren't very many real japanese people in it and most of the japanese culture was not very accurate but I wasn't about to let that ruin the experience. It is true that the movie did drag a little in the middle when the actors started talking but a montage was just the thing to get us charged again. And a surprise ending where the hero races the bad guy to settle their differences was just the ticket. Don't miss it.
I also saw Nacho Libre. It was pretty funny but it was about half an hour too long. And, I never really found the sound of farts that funny either.

trailers...

2006-07-08T06:21:00.000-07:00

I understand it's not real wise to get so geeked up over trailer but a couple movies have me so excited to see them I'm going to be screwed once they come out, because as we all seem to agree the more we want to see a film the lower it ranks with us. Well screw it I can't help but get a woody when I see trailers for "Lady in the water" or "Spiderman 3" both look great to me. I am a nut for Shyamilan's movies all of them bad mouth them if you want I got my own reasons to love them and you won't change my mind. I think he's brilliant.

Spiderman 3 looks like it's going to put all other comic book movies in a coffin! Or at least a viking barge, set it sail and ignite it. I was so surprised at how good it looked cause I wasn't that hyped for the first two but it looks stunning.

Thumbsucker

2006-07-06T22:00:00.000-07:00

I've been reading this blog for a while, but this is my first post. So, hi everybody!

I recently enjoyed reading Walter Kirn's fascinating novel "Thumbsucker", so I was excited to see it adapted to film. I was pleasently surprised, and found it a funny and thought-provoking film. The sound track with Elliot Smith and the Polyphonic Spree is nice too.

I think this films deals with the idea that everything might not have an answer (or at least an answer that is as simple as we'd like). The characters mostly seem confused about one thing or another. Keanu Reeves plays an identity-confused dentist, who ends up only feeling sure that it’s ok not to be sure about anything. Tilda Swinton is a married mother and nurse who tries to win a date with a tv star, but eventually treats him at a rehab center. And Vince Vaughn is a debate teacher trying to fit in with his students.

The story wanders around a bit, just as Justin (the main character) seems to be looking for purpose. He is not a protagonist with a clear-cut objective, nor does he have concrete obstacles. But that’s usually how life is and it’s sometimes good to take a look at ourselves and see how funny, sad and inspiring it can be as we try to find our ways around.

Superman Returns...from a 5 year space voyage and...

2006-07-03T14:47:00.000-07:00

Firstly, greetings from New Zealand. I've been here for nearly a month now and life is great! When my friend, Amit, suggested we book online for tickets to the new superman at the special re-opened 3D Imax on opening day, I thought sure, why not?, even though the ticket was $20 new zealand dollars(as compared to the usual $14 NZD). As much as I love the independent spirit of lower budget and arthouse films, I can't really begrudge the occasional epic mind-blowing big-budget blockbuster, in 3D no less. All the reviewers were awe-struck it seemed. I couldn't find one major bad review in my brief perusal on the net. I have no special affinity for Superman but I have to admit, I was fairly excited. Maybe it goes back to the theory of high expectations = bad movie experience, but I left the theater nonplussed, with the feeling I had perhaps wasted my money and night. Superman comes back after an absence of five years. He briefly talks about it and his reasons. He went to see the dead remains of Krpton, his home world. There was nothing left. This is the extent we get from his escapade. I suppose he must have spent most of the 5 years...traveling in space? He seems eager to move on, change the subject. Lex Luther's master plan is fairly dumb and ludricrous for someone who is a genuis. There are some inconsistencies when it come to Kryptonite on superman's part. He becomes helpless when he first becomes exposed to it. Yet, in another scene he is able to fly a giant island of it into outer space and hurl it at the sun somehow. I guess he did just did it real quick before the krytonite drained his powers?
The characters seemed scattered and I almost felt like the writter/s were unsure of what to do with them. The film has an uneasy climax at best. Besides the plot holes and unexplored characters, the action scenes are nothing spectacular when held to today's current CG standards.
I guess the most intriguing thing for me about Superman is the duality of his person. He's the most powerful being on the planet with nearly unlimited powers. Yet by day, he chooses to be a bumbling idoit, who chases Lois Lane around, begging for any scrap of attention. The story is, Lois doesn't give Clark the time of day, but of course falls head over heels for Superman. It is an interesting situation and I was dissappointed how Brian Singer glazes over it without exporing the complexities of human nature involved. I mean, he can have the girl of his dreams as Superman...but Superman is incapable of leading a normal life, having a family, settling down. But as Clark, he's a stooge, as a necessary disguise to hide his super-powers, he can't let anyone take him too serious. It should also say something about how superficial we can be as people when we are presented with the smae person, with a different image. Clark never judges Lois as being superficial but the audience can't help but to. But all the interesting elements are like I said, largely left unexplored, given up to cheesy dialogue and CG action. Also, I felt like Clark was pretty much dissed and compltely disregarded for largely, the whole 3rd act of the film. He just goes away. No one questions where he is, not even Jimmy Olsen, who seems to have this huge man-crush on him. The Clark character recieves no resolve at all.
Kevin Spacey is the closest thing to redeeming the film. That is to say, he is the only character that has any charisma at all. He has very limited interaction with Superman and is somewhat mired by the stupidity of his master plot and all the holes contained there in.
Anyway, alot of others seem to enjoy the film and if I've lowered your expectations, maybe you will too, now reverting to the antithesis of the before mentioned theory, low expectations = better movie experience.

A Decade Under The Influence

2006-07-02T02:07:00.000-07:00

It's hard not to get excited about seventies cinema after watching this documentary and I want to say before my on-the-other-hand paragragh that I think the seventies is a fascinating period of film making. I love the seventies. I probably watch more seventies cinema than any other decade
On the other hand, I think it is the most overated decade of cinema and I think most of the films of the seventies aren't quite as good as their reputation. I hate to be a grump, but all the rhapsodizing over them makes them just a little less fun. (Except of course for The Godfather, Jaws and The In-laws, which deserve probably more praise then they get.)
What I find most obnoxious about that decade is the theory that finally the "artists" were able to truly reigned supreme, before that it was just a bunch of mass market studio guys. What about The Marx Brothers, or Alfred Hitchcock, or Ernst Lubitsch, or Billy Wilder, or Charlie Chaplin or Fred Astaire or Preston Sturges or Howard Hawkes? I would argue that they are just as good of artists (perhaps better) as the seventies filmmakers, the only difference is the artists under the studio system are a little less self important and their movies are just a little more fun.

Don't get me wrong. I love seventies film. Just not the idolatry that goes with it.

Click

2006-07-02T00:09:00.000-07:00

By the way, my goal is to write up every movie I see in July. I don't want to be a blog hog, but I'm afraid that's what's going to happen.

I've been an Adam Sandler fan since Happy Gilmore. (I hated Billy Madison.) So I felt vindicated when I found out so was P. T. Anderson. And at that moment I vowed to stop cowardly calling his movies guilty pleasures. I never felt guilty. I just figured other people thought I should feel guilty.
Click is one of his sentimental comdies. Closer to Wedding Singer than Little Nicky. Not as funny as some, but it's his first to make me tear up. There is a scene with the main character's father that just hit me in the gut. So, yeah, if you like Adam Sandler movies, this is a pretty good one. If you don't, you might not like it so much.
My one complaint, (and I probably even shouldn't be making it, since I need to love the movies Adam Sandler makes and not the movies I think he should make,) In a lot of his movies he's needlessly cruel to a character that doesn't deserve it. Sean Astin's only sin was that he wore a speedo? Why kick him in the balls, later pull down his pants, and then . . . . spoiler . . . flip him off on his death bed?
Other than that it was pretty good. (On the talkbacks I'll give a list of my favorite Adam Sandler movies.

Joyeux Noel

2006-07-01T09:23:00.000-07:00

The message of this movie is pretty obvious so I won't repeat it. Most of the people who didn't like this movie felt it was too sentimental. And had the story not been a true one I would tend to agree. However, as it is a true story, I found it to be truly beautiful. The music adds a lot to the emotion of this movie. And, all the actors do a fine job. There aren't too many movies about World War I. So, it is nice to see one that is well made.

About Films

2006-06-26T09:06:00.000-07:00

A Prarie Home Companion
I was a fan of the radio show because the writing was so incredibly detailed and specific and somehow Garrison Keillor's voice was able to translate that into a uniquely dry and whitty brand of humor. I wasn't however a great fan of the real meat of the show which were the variety acts (with the exception of Guy Noir). I found Robert Altman's film, while low on plot, to be very enjoyable and unique. The performances are great and the music is really good if you like that kind of folkish-americana. While the all star cast does a great job performing as musicians, the real star is of course Garrison, and even more specifically, his voice. But I also enjoyed the photography very much. The camera work will appear very simple at first but it's actually quite amazing the way it effortlessly floats in and around the performers and it seems to always know right where to be. This is particularly amazing considering that the patented Altman style of having actors talking over each other is here in full glory. The overall style works very well with the show's format.

The Proposition

2006-06-22T17:48:00.000-07:00

This movie was kind of boring.

X Men 3 The Last Stand?

2006-06-17T00:26:00.000-07:00

Expectations are a funny thing. And more often then not they rule my movie watching experiences. For instance when I see a movie at the dollar theatre I usually enjoy myself. I go into the movie thinking "I only paid a buck for this because this movie looks awful." and then the movie usually exceeds my expectations and I leave thinking, "That wasn't half bad."

Prime example of this was - "I Robot." - Wasn't really interested in the movie and went to see it at the dollar theatre with my brother and I have to say I thought it was pretty sweet.

On the other hand there are times that I'm very excited about a movie and so I'm willing to fork over the big bucks and see it at the Cineplex... Carmike... whatever they call it. Often times these are movies that I've heard are great and my hopes are pretty high and consequently these movies although good movies often fall below my expectations and I leave the theatre disappointed - example - "V For Vendetta."

I had low expectations for X Men 3. I didn't like the first one and didn't love the second one. But I went to see "The Last Stand" (even paid the full price) with a friend and had a great time. Sure there was corny stuff and holes and all that stuff but for whatever reason, be it Kelsey Grammer's blue Beast or maybe the fact that aton of main characters died, I really liked it. - Maybe it was because of my low expectations maybe I just liked it.