Movie Night, A blog of reviews by Tim K.

How do I go about explaining this?

I want to write a script, I'm trying to write a script, but forcing myself to sit down and write has proven to be fucking difficult. When presented with no deadline, I'm the type that lets everything languish. So I was inspired by the heroic creative efforts of Andy Cosby's 365 Days of Sci-Fi column. If I can sit down and force myself to write every day for a year then maybe I can instill a little itch inside of me that I can only scratch until I sit down and write.

Now, what do I have to talk about? Nothing much at the moment. I'm still fairly uncomfortable talking about personal stuff online; social networking holds little appeal to me and talking about my story ideas, writing blocks and other creative stuff makes me paranoid that it will be purloined and used by someone else (Which is another reason I admire Andy Cosby's column, as he seems to have little fear of this).

So, I decided to talk about movies, specifically I will write a little review of a movie every day and see where that takes me. This will also give me the chance to catch a lot of movies I've never gotten around to seeing. The idea may evolve over time to become more like a personal blog, but I'm not going to force it to.

Though, there is a problem. My essay skills are lackluster at best. it's not that I don't know what I want to say most of the time, I just say it to my satisfaction using a lot less words than the average writer. To get over this I'm shamelessly stealing some of the Movie of the Day format from this site and will embellish it with other categories of my own making. Also in an effort to make this painless (and therefore less of a chore and hopefully something I grow to enjoy) there is no minimum length set for a review.

I'm curious to see how long I can keep this up. There will be days I'll miss, but I'll force myself to make up for it by writing multiple reviews.

Categories
Questions I will answer within a review
(the list might change over time as I think of more things and some categories might fall out of favor as well)

What movie is it?:
Self explanatory.

Have I seen it before?

If yes then:

How does it compare to the memory of my previous viewing?
Better, worse, the same?

Why did I choose to watch it?

What is the Movie about?
Optional and only really included if i feel that the film is so unknown that most people don't have a clue what the premise of it is. (added on 1/24/2012)

What did I like about the movie?
I HAVE to answer this question even if I have no positive thoughts about a movie.

What did I not like about the movie?
I also HAVE to answer this question. If I find the film to be perfect, this might just be filled with nit-picky stuff, but it can't be left blank.

Did it pass the distraction test?
I have a bad habit of multitasking when watching movies. If a movie passes the distraction test it means that I got so engaged that it made me stop whatever I was doing (usually I'm doing work on my computer) and watch it with my full attention. This will be my equivalent of the two thumbs up, though I still can like movies that doesn't pass this test. In school terms think of a pass as a + added to a paper that already has a high grade.

Would I recommend it?
I'm going to approach this category in a very selfish way, basically it could also be called "Was it worth my time?"

Any thoughts or nagging issues?
This optional and will cover my ramblings that don't fit in the like or dislike categories.

What was my favorite part?
Optional as well, in case there is a moment that stands above the rest.


List of Blog Entires
(alphabetically updated with each review)

A
A. I. Artificial Intelligence
The Adventures of TinTin
The African Queen
The Americanization of Emily

B
Bagdad Cafe
Barton Fink
Bedazzled
Big
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Bullitt

C
Catfish
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

D
Dante 01
The Departed
Dirty Harry
Duck, You Sucker

E
8mm

F
A Face in the Crowd
Fury

G
Gambit

H
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
The Hunt for the Red October

I

J

K
Krull

L
L.A. Confidential
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

M
MASH
Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol

N
Natural Born Killers

O

P
Predators

Q

R
Rubber

S
Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World
Season of the Witch
Silver Streak
Splinter
Snake Eyes
Start the Revolution Without Me

T
13 Assassins
The Tunnel

U

V
Very Bad Things

W
The Watcher in the Woods

X

Y

Z
Edited by Tim K - 2/22/12 at 11:33pm

1st entry.

What movie is it?

Silver Streak


Have I seen it before?
No

What did I like about the movie?

Pretty much everything, the film is among a rare breed of movies that manages to juggle two generes effortlessly. It works as a comedy and it works as a thriller. I also loved how real the characters in the movie seemed to be. Unlike later Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor efforts, their characters didn't just go along with the increasingly ridiculous circumstances, they recognize that they are two straight men in a world completely out of their control and just try to make the best of situational lemons given to their characters. Trust me, the comedy works, and works in a way that avoids all cheese and most clichés. Even when Wilder dons blackface as a disguise he sells it with a very real uncomfortable undercurrent of "I don't want to be doing this." in his performance, which keeps the scene from turning cringeworthy.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
What didn't I like?

The villain. The actor that played him was too clean cut of a guy. I couldn't buy him as man who has ordered the deaths of over a hundred people for pride and personal gain. I can't elaborate much on why this might be, I just didn't feel the evil of his character.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Definitely.

What was my favorite part?

Has to be when Wilder is practicing being black and the black Shoeshine Guy walks in on him. What makes the scene gold is that the Shoeshine guy, instead of being offended, recognizes that Wilder is trying to hide from the cops at the train station and then gives Wilder some tips to make his performance more believable.

2nd entry.

What Movie?

Natural Born Killers


Have I seen it before?

Only pieces, but never as a whole. So not really.

What did I like about it?

The performances are spot on all the way through, and I loved expressionistic style the movie exudes. The movie's story structure was also interesting, straddling the line somewhere between two and three acts, arguments could be made either way. A two act film because Mickey and Mallory are caught halfway through the film, splitting the movie and story into two. But it is also three act film if you apply the classic structure. The flashbacks in the beginning could be thought of as the call to "adventure", the capture is the turing point of the second act when things start going bad, then the escape is the third act climax.

What didn't I like?

Oh boy, quite a bit. Structurally the film is pretty sound, but I disliked all the characters, there is not a redeeming quality amongst them. In a way it makes the murders easier to take because I just didn't care enough, but it also means I have no emotional investment in the film as well.

Also, the message of the movie was delivered in a bad way. The whole media love affair with celebritizing (not a word, but I'll making it one) criminals is played up so strongly that the film beats you over the head with it. It's like begin forced to receive a stern lecture for some perceived transgression you didn't even do. At some point I wanted to scream "I get it all ready! Can't we just move on?" But no, even after the escape the movie has to yell at you, "See you dumb shit, Mickey and Mallory are still the same! Shame on you for holding out hope for a redemption." So yeah, thanks for that Oliver Stone. I already didn't like the random media storm that sometimes arises around criminal cases before seeing this movie, but now that little rebellious voice in me wants to like it just to show the you the finger.

There were other little things I disliked as well, but most of them were nit-picky stuff which had to happen in the service of the story. Like the rattlesnake bites, and the Warden letting the inmates watch the interview. Stuff that probably wouldn't have happened in a more realistic movie, but the movie lets you know that it's not going to be very realistic from the get go.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Strangely yes, on occasion. It grabbed me and then lost me several times.

Would I recommend it?

No, because a movie trying to make a moral point can still be a piece of entertainment. It doesn't have to sacrifice one to achieve the other.

What was my favorite part?

The abusive and molesty sitcom flashback with Rodney Dangerfield is a stroke of genius. To bad none of the film's other abstract expressionistic sequences come close to rivaling it.

What Movie is it?

The Americanization of Emily



Have I seen it before?

No

What did I like about it?

James Coburn's performance and just about everything else, but first here is the IMDB's description of the movie: An American naval officer's talent for living the good life in wartime is challenged when he falls in love and is sent on a dangerous mission.

Who knew it would be one the most glorious dark comedies I've seen in a while?

James Garner is a coward in the Navy, and for a coward in the Navy he has found perhaps the best postion possible. He is the 'dog-robber' to a Rear Admiral, A man who's job it is to make sure that the Admiral get all the food, women and booze he wants. Not an easy task in bombed out WWII London, but there is little chance of risking life, until that his one day his Admiral goes off his rocker. I won't say much more other than seek it out. And by the time you reach this scene:



You'll realize what is about to happen and laugh at one of the darkest moments of any political comedy in history.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Garner's and Andrew's love is worth noting as well. I'm not much a romantic comedy guy, but the actors had great chemistry and I liked that neither had 'dumb' moments in the script where they inexplicably did stupid stuff so that the relationship would be put in jeopardy. While they do have their ups and downs, the love feels real and in a strange way desperate for both characters. Like they needed each other to patch up old wounds.

What didn't I like?

The ending.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Did it pass the distraction test?

With Flying colors.

Would I reccomend it?

Fuck yeah.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

The title doesn't fit well. Though Emily in the movie is clearly resistant of what she thinks is being 'Americanized' it's more of a subplot to the main story. Emily herself isn't even the main character, it's Garner's show.

What was my Favorite part?

James Coburn. Yes, just James Coburn.

4.

What movie is it?

A Face in the Crowd


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this movie?

Because I've heard great things about it and I'm all for early indictments of TV. Also I'm a fan of the "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" theme in film.

What did I like about it?

...

The fact that I've been sitting staring at this question for the last five minutes is a bad sign. I guess you could say that I liked the concept of the film. The rise and fall of a media personality by his own hand is a great idea, but-

What did I not like about it?

-I didn't feel the main character arc here. I admit Andy Griffith is great in the role of bumpkin turned media giant, 'Lonesome' Rhodes. Though, that isn't enough. The 'absolute power, corrupts absolutely' storyline is only really effective if the character starts off being genuinely good or innocent. When meet Rhodes, he's in jail for being drunk and disorderly. He is rude from the get go and only agrees to do reporter Marcia Jefferies's radio program, A Face in the Crowd, because he's promised he'll be let out jail a couple of day's early and he finds her hot. Both selfish reasons. Because of this it feels as if his character undergoes little transformation in the film. Their is no grand arc that makes these morality tales so gripping. He a selfish attention whore from the start and when he gains power there is little surprise that he becomes an egomaniac.

I suppose some of my disappointment could be from the fact that I built up this movie to be great before ever seeing it. With all the creative talent involved in one of my favorite types of morality tales and Elia Kazan at the helm, what could go wrong?

Character. That's what went wrong. You need a likable guy from the start to get the biggest arc and impact. A good example is the arc of Michael Corleone in the Godfather, not quite absolute power type story (It's more of a man's journey into becoming a dictator), but one that gets it's power from the HUGE change the main character undergoes.

Did it pass the distraction test?

With no one for me to latch on to emotionally except the reporter Marcia Jefferies, no.

Would I recommend it?

Not really.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

Yeah. I can't say I hated the film, as I actively hate very few films (I mean it's just a movie, not liking it doesn't automatically mean that I loathe it to the very depths of my being). I just was left with a feeling of doubt. Was this the same movie everyone else says is an under appreciated classic? I mean there are films out there that do really fit into that category, but maybe this one is under appreciated because it only clicks with certain people and personalities.

What was my favorite part?

The internal struggle of Marcia in the control room when she realizes that the destruction of her creation is just a volume knob away. It is a brilliant piece of acting which few actors could have pulled off. My hat is off to the skill displayed in Patricia Neal's performance.

5.

A Warning with the review.
I can't help but spoil the movie's ending, because the it's the ending that occupies most of my thoughts.



What movie is it?

A.I. Artificial Intelligence


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this movie?

I bought the DVD in a used bargain bin at blockbuster way back in 2002 and ever since it's been languishing in my collection. The other day I thought it might be time to get off Netflix for a while and try to correct the fact that about a quarter of the movies I own are still unwatched. When I started browsing though my collection A.I. came up first.

What did I like about it?

Okay, time to admit I'm a romantic sentimental guy. I also try to make the case that I'm not dumb, but it's arguable. I can recognize this film film as an overlong, manipulative piece of saccharin storytelling, but it worked on me. I don't cry at the movies, do not take this in the wrong way. Sometime in my teens I lost the ability to cry, even when I lose someone close to me I can't produce tears. I feel the emotions, but I've lost the ability to display them somehow. The closest I get to crying is getting choked up. By the end of A.I was choked up.

I minored in folklore in college, and perhaps because of this I'm a sucker for fables and fairy-tales. This sci-fi interpretation of Pinocchio is a really good film. Most of the emotional beats hit me well in all their manipulative glory and I only walked away from film feeling slightly used.

The acting was spot on for the robotic actors. Their performances were living in the uncanny valley, not usually a good thing, but it makes this film work. A lot of this is due to a well written script. Sure the shiny makeup helps, but it's the phrases that the characters repeat constantly that makes their performance straddle the line between real and fake, like "Gigolo Joe, what do ya' know?" & "Is it a game?". Not to mention their responses to to certain questions resemble an internet search engine. Like this exchange:

David: ...Mommy will love a real boy. The Blue Fairy will make me into one.
Gigolo Joe: Is Blue Fairy Mecha, Orga, man or woman?
David: Woman.
Gigolo Joe: Woman? I know women! They sometimes ask for me by name. I know all about women. About as much as there is to know. No two are ever alike, And after they've met me, no two are ever the same. And I know where most of them can be found.
David: Where?
Gigolo Joe: Rouge City. Across the Delaware...

The third thing that stood out for me is the special effects. For a eleven year old movie that relies almost exclusively on CGI for its larger effects they still hold up remarkably well. I could see some not quite hidden compositing artifacts around the Nanny robot's mostly missing head, but the other stuff was almost seamless and didn't distract from the film at all.



I can even see a tiny bit of the layering lines created by compositing it in this still, it's even more noticeable in motion. Kudos though to the SFX team for doing stellar work otherwise.

What didn't I like?

The manipulation and pandering. My gripes could have been mostly fixed if they had just left out the talking Blue Fairy manifestation near the end, it wasn't necessary and weighed down the end of the movie with too much fantasy for a Sci-fi film. The genres don't work well together unless they start off being both at once.

This film also suffers from the malady that quite a few epics had in the last decade, MES (Multiple Ending Syndrome). It could have ended when David jumps to his(its?) death and become a wonderful tragic moment to end a film on. It also could have ended with David at the bottom of sea staring at the statue of the Blue Fairy forever, constantly wishing to be real (what could be more human than endlessly hoping for the patently impossible?)

I suppose that I do like the ending as it is, but the whole idea that you can clone a person in such a way to bring back all their lifetime memories (somehow stored within the fabric of the universe?) is also too fantastic an element for a Sci-fi which so far has been pretty realistic.

I also think the design of the otherworldly super advanced Mechs at the end could have been handled differently. I only found out that what I thought were aliens actually were machines when I looked it up online. The creature designers should have known that, with a director who has a few friendly alien films under his belt, any tall humanoid in the film would be mistaken as an alien instead of a super machine.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes, though it was slow going in the beginning when David is with his family. Specifically they could have shortened the David and Martin rivalry stuff, and not have jeopardized the story in any way.

Would I recommend it?

Hell yes. Had I have watched sooner, I might have had a drastically different 00's draft.

Any thoughts, or nagging issues?

Yes, a bit of both actually. I really wish Kubrick had found time to do this, I think with him at the helm it could have been a modern classic instead of being just really good. I can't back up this statement with any evidence other than a hunch, after all in an interview Spielberg said that all the Blue Fairy stuff and the Clone Mommy ending was in Kubrick's original treatment so it's not an invention of Spielberg's. I think that Kubrick's version would have had a more mysterious quality to the ending akin to the feeling of the ending of 2001, which could have gone a long way in lessening the layering on of saccharine emotions.

I also liked that the film avoided the machine uprising cliche which occurs entirely too often in similar Sci- Fi tales.

What was my favorite part?

When David finds out he isn't unique and decided to commit suicide. I think this may be the first time I've seen a film in which a robot tries tot kill itself out of despair and sadness.

6.

Doing this one early, because I'll be busy the next few days and might not get a chance to post.

What movie is it?

Dirty Harry


Have I seen it before?

Yes.

Why this Movie?

Because my memory of it was dim at best, and felt like I needed to watch it to completion as previous viewings were interrupted ones.

How did it compair to previous viewings?

I has improved greatly. I guess my adolescent mind couldn't handle the 1970s pacing.

What did I like about it?

The violence. Despite the blood being that strange red paint like variety prevalent in the 70s I found the action invigorating in how swift it happens. It kind of reminded me of Driver (2011) in that respect.

I also love how much Harry Callahan comes across as a force of nature. He's a like superhero in this film. He has a sixth sense for crime and, god damn it, he can be just about everywhere at once if he wants to be. What cemented this feeling for me is the final encounter with Scorpio. Harry had little clue as to where Scorpio is heading with the bus of kids and yet he somehow manages to get there ahead of time and pose on a railway bridge like Batman would before jumping on to the roof of the bus. It is one of the most awesome moments in an action film I've ever seen.

I also like that Harry has a reputation in for hating everybody, but his heart doesn't seem to be in the racial epithets he spews. He just doesn't have the energy to spare to actually hate non-criminals he's never met. It's like he does it because it's habit and a good way of testing the calluses of other people. His hate is sizing them up for how well they'll be able to keep pace with him on the street.

Also, even though it is one of the most over quoted phrases in film, the ... You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel Lucky? Well, do ya', Punk?" line deserves it's badass reputation and I had totally forgot about the callback to it in the final scene. It's russian roulette, via cop and one of the greatest callbacks in cinema.

The performance of the actor that plays Scorpio also is worth a mention. Few villains can make you loathe them this much and without a truly hate-able villain there would be no great "fist pumping" moment at the end when Harry says his callback and then fires the 6th bullet into to guy.

What did I not like about it?

There's a few half finished ideas in the film which never got traction or much of a resolution. The one that stands out the most is when Scorpio hires a thug to beat him up and then says Harry did it. Not that it isn't a good twist in the plot, there just doesn't seem to be a follow-up to it. When the media uproar makes the department superiors order Harry to stop following Scorpio the subplot just dies. There is no formal hearing or even a police brutality investigation.

Another moment that seemed only partially thought out when Harry throws away his badge at the end. I get that he's sick of the impotence of the department and how his superiors are forcing that inaction upon him, but it didn't seemed to bother him much before and I never got the feeling that this was truly the last straw for Harry. (Evidentially it wasn't, judging by how many films are in the franchise)

Did it pass the distraction test?

I can't honestly say it did. It was an enjoyable watch, but it didn't engage me enough or require all of my attention to follow.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, it is a cop film classic and deservedly so.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

This is very much a non-sequitur, but Harry's new partner, Chico Gonzalez, looked a lot like a guy I buy custom shipping cases from for my business. It was humorous and distracting.

What was my favorite part

Aside from the classic line, It has to be the railway bridge pose he does before jumping onto the bus:


"Hello, my name is Harry Callahan. You injured my partner, prepare to die."

I'll try to do two posts today as well as I'll be flying out of town tonight to attend a cousin's wedding reception.

7.

What movie is it?

Hunt for the Red October


Have I seen it before

No. Shocking, I know.

Why this movie?

Because it was the only title that really jumped out at me from my Netflix instant queue last night.

What did I like about it?

I cannot recall ever having seen a thriller about a military defection, so the film (and the book it was based on) gets props for originality. I try to see most of these films cold to minimize hype and raise my chances of being pleasantly surprised. Before watching the film the only things I knew about it were that Alec Baldwin and Sean Connery were the stars and the defection concept of the film. So I was surprised by the amount of acting talent on screen. I kept on smiling to myself as the film continued and I started to recognize more and more faces like Sam Neil, Tim Curry, James Earl Jones, Scott Glenn & Courtney Vance.

I alos thought Alec Baldwin's Jack Ryan really is the best Jack Ryan out of them all. He gives the character a vulnerability that makes Ryan so much more human than Harrison Ford's Version and also plays him with more charm than Ben Affleck. It really is too bad that the studios dropped him for the sequels.

What didn't I like?

This time I'm hit with the problem of having nothing really to write on the dislike side. I guess I should say that there are few faults with the movie that I noticed in my first time seeing it. The most critical thing I could say about the film is that I never felt it became more than the sum of it's very good parts. It all works very well as a thriller, but I wasn't ever on the 'edge of my seat.' The frustrating thing is that I can't elaborate much on why with only one viewing under my belt. It's a feeling, not an opinion that I can back up with examples from the film. So I'm left with metaphors to explain my position. The film is like eating a really good meal which is missing one key ingredient which would bring all the flavors together and turn it great. I can feel that the right words describing why this is are at the tip of my tongue, but no matter how much I stall writing this review, they just won't come.

Did it pass the distraction test?

No, which is part of the reason partly why I expressed the opinion above.

Would I recommend it?

Yes

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

I really enjoyed the transition from Russian to English on the Red October. So many films are content just making all the foreign characters speak english in situations which they would not do so. It's a given for most hollywood films so it is refreshing to finally watch a film that draws attention to this fact. The zoom in on the mouth of the Russian Political Officer and have him seamlessly switch from speaking russian to english was a great way to acknowledge the unreality of such things in film and still do it. It's as if John McTiernan is saying "The studio is leaving me with no choice, the russian crew has to speak english because they think the average audience member can't read and watch at the same time, so are we cool?"

~Edit~

I forgot to add that another reason why, to me, the film didn't seem to amount to more than the sum of it's parts. My viewing of it was fragmented. Netlfix instant was cutting in an out all through last night and I had to wait for the movie to reload several times. This could have definitely killed the way the director paced the action on screen and influenced my opinion of the film.
Edited by Tim K - 1/13/12 at 3:49pm

8. Spoilers ahead!

What movie is it?

The African Queen


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this movie?

Because it had suddenly jumped to the top of my Neflix Suggestions for You category and I thought why the hell not. It's been a while since I've seen a Bogart film.

What did I like about the film

The actors, It's that simple. Hepburn and Bogart are at the top of their game here and bring the goods. I like how both their characters offer surprises and become much more than the stereotypes they start off as. Bogart as an uneducated, and somewhat simple riverboat captain turns out to be smarter than he initially appears and has a great arc from coward to hero. Hepburn, in the beginning, comes across as a prudish and disapproving missionary who is rarely happy, but she is much more open to new experiences than expected and outright surprised me at the end of the first act when she proposes to turn Bogart's boat into a steerable torpedo and drive it right into a German warboat which has taken over the lake down river. Suicide holds no fears for her.

Because the characters kept on revealing more layers to me as the film went it made me like them all the more and in effect made their love story more believable. After all if I'm growing to like them then it make sense that they are growing to like and then love each other.

What didn't I like about the film?

The Deus ex machina of an ending. Right when they're about to carry though with the final stage of their plan, a storm hits and the African Queen sinks. Then in an ironic twist, they are rescued by the very boat they planned to sink. Onboard the Germans sentence Bogart to death as an English spy and then Hepburn comes in and says it was her idea, so they both get the death penalty. Before they are due to hang, Bogart asks the german captain to marry them which he does after some confusion.

Here's my problem. After they get married the german boat all of a sudden runs into the sunk hull of the African Queen and blows up. Letting the new couple escape with their lives. It's too much of coincidence and doesn't work. This is felt like a case of tragedy with a happy ending forced upon it. So out of curiosity I read the synopsis of the C.S. Forester novel this film was based upon (spoilers and all) to see if how the endings compared. The novel does have a different ending, but I wouldn't call it a tragedy. After the German boat rescues them they both refuse to say why they were in the middle of the lake and then the Boat's captain recognizes Rose (played by Hepburn in the film) as a local missionary and he raises the truce flag to give them over to the english forces. I guess you could call this more believable, after all its a WW1 story and in that war it was looked upon as bad form to kill civilians, especially "peaceable" missionaries. Later both characters find out that the english forces sank the german boat all on their own.

Now, I can see why the ending was changed, it isn't a very good payoff if the film is building up to a climactic scene of a german boat going down only for it to happen when the main characters are elsewhere. But if you are going to change the ending, why have the African Queen sink at all? Wouldn't it be easier and more believable if they succeeded by the skin of their teeth rather than through a Deus Ex Machina type coincidence?

I think so, but maybe someone else would see that as sacrilege.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes

Would I recommend it?

Yes! The fun I had in watching the journey of the characters far outweighs my gripes about the last few minutes.

What was my favorite part?

The reaction Hepburn's character has to the rapids. Instead of being terrified like Bogart, she loves it and wants to do it again. It was a reaction totally against the stereotype I assumed her character to be and had an effect that added even more layers to her humanity.

Hey, my hotel wants $50 from me for internet so I'm s stuck doing this on my phone. I'm just posting to say that I'll probably do two reviews on Monday because posting a full entry on Sunday looks like an impossabilty.

I'm in SF right now. Suffice to say half of the wedding reception's guests were watching the game. It was so bad that even the food was postponed untill the game was over. Though, the bride and groom were very understanding about it and watched it too. I think they were glad that the actual wedding was ten days ago. It would suck to have to compete for attention with a playoff game on the happiest day of your life.

I can't wait to get out tonight, the city is celebrating and I can hear people partying outside my window. A lot of hangovers will be had tomorrow. Go Niners.
Edited by Tim K - 1/14/12 at 8:54pm

9. Copied and pasted from last night.

I'm writing this on the text edit application on my computer at 12:41 am in my hotel. We'll se how well I do without my wikipedia addiction to back up assertions in this review

What Movie is it?

I just came back from seeing Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why This Movie?

I wanted to see a popcorn action flick and Brad Bird's first live action film. I can't recall any other director moving from animation to live action films, though quite a few have live action directors have dabbled in animation. I admit Brad Bird probably isn't the first, but anyway my curiosity was piqued.

What did I like about his movie?

The mistakes. For once it was nice to see a spy film in which things go wrong and the hero doesn't always make the death defying jump gracefully or without injury. I and the audience seemed to love both times when Tom Cruise cracked his head in completing a miscalculated aerial manuver. They were good smacks too, the sound effects really sold them as painful. Not to mention the numerous failings of the traditionally infallible gadgets in Hollywood Spy films. All those little errors and the moments in which they are too late and have to change their plans on the fly really made the group dynamic work.

I liked how every character had a moment that made them human. The nervous babbling of Pegg during the Kremlin operation, the instance of Cruise to save a pal when he was breaking out of prison, Patton's rage and then murder of the assassin who killed her beau (the relationship she had with the agent killed in the beginning was never really touched upon, were they just lovers? or husband and wife?)and then when she had to restrain herself from kicking the ass of the Media Mogul in India until the time was right. Even Renner, who starts off as pretty unlikable closed off character get his moment to explain his motivations and make us root for him.

The action set pieces got the blood pumping the right way and aside for some un-ignorable lapses in physics and logic, (so curling up into a ball and dropping toward a spinning turbine and then spreading out will make you rise even higher than you were before?) I had a fun time.

It was nice to see certain hallmarks of the Mission Impossible series toned down, specifically the seemingly magical masks they wear that can make anyone a carbon copy of anyone else was limited to only one use and I was thankful for it.

What didn't I like?

Like a lot of action films, there are turns in events which upon closer inspection make little sense. I still have no idea why the Villain felt the need to show up in person (disguised as a henchman in one of those stupid masks). I just didn't get it. There would have been no downside to sending in the actual henchman to do the trade off. Hell, the henchman probably had better fighting skills than him as the villain was a professor for most of his life.

And then it makes you wonder why, it if was actually the professor disguised under a mask, wouldn't he have been smart enough to recognize either Patton or Pegg during the trade off? After all, with an IQ of 190 he'd have researched the enemy that would most likely try to stop him, just like they pulled up pictures on him at the start of the mission.

I feel like I'm pulling at a thread only to see I'm unraveling the entire sweater. Anyway you kind of have to toss out logic with this types of films to enjoy them, but I feel compelled to throw out just one more question before ending this.

It alway adds a little bit of an extra (meta) thrill when watching an action film if the cataclysmic event the film is building up to, happens to be targeting the city you are currently in. So is was fun, in a "nudge your friend in the shoulder kind of way" to think hey they're trying to bomb us (San Francisco) with a nuclear warhead. But I can't help to ask why, with the Kremlin destroyed, target San Francisco? Surely if the villain wanted to start a war between Russia and the United States a military target similar to the Kremlin in stature would make more sense.

I guess San Francisco is just more recognisable than, say, the CIA head quarters or the Pentagon. I can almost hear the producer's internal monologue when watching that seen: "See everybody, it's a pyramid shaped building and a red bridge you now instantly know where we are*. As opposed to some office buildings out who knows where? Amiright?'

Did it pass the distraction test?

Seeing it in the theater kind of demands that it does, just from the size of the screen and the fact that there is little else there to compete for attention.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, Brad Bird did a good job. Not anything I would call a classic of the genre but defiantly up there with the best action of 2011.

Any thoughts or nagging Issues?

In the scene in which Renner and Cruise were exchanging the diamonds for the documents I kept on waiting for a fat old bruise to blossom on Cruise's face. It makes sence considering how hard he smacked it on the frame of the window when jumping into the building not five minutes before. I was disappointed when it never came, but wouldn't a scene like that would be great in a film? Our heroic spy is betrayed in an undercover operation when a real shiner shows up on his face during a vital conversation.

What was my favorite part?

Tom Cruise really getting the crap kicked out of him. Finally Ethan Hunt is allowed to be fallible and feel pain in these movies.



It is now 1:53 Which shows you who much times I do devote to these things. I hope I'll get quicker at it.


*Little did i know that a day after writing this my Brother-in-Law would come up to me and ask what city was atomic bomb heading for in last night's movie. Bear in mind, we are both standing in Downtown SF with the TransAmerica Pyramid in full view (the building the bomb knocked a chunk out of in the movie) when he does this...

10.

What movie is it?

L. A. Confidential


Have I seen it before?

No, this is another modern classic I've somehow managed to avoid all my life.

Why this movie?

I found the Blu-Ray for $6 in a bargain bin and couldn't pass it up.

What did I like about the movie?

The period setting really works and makes the film. Everything is colored by the by being in the presence of Hollywood's golden era and that romanticism draws you into the story before the noir plot really gets going. Almost all the actors feel perfectly cast and in their element. Just a superb film overall, a perfect storm of a great script finding the right casting and directing.

I also liked how the film never lets the audience know if anyone was going to be safe from the conspiracy, and this feeling is intensified after the death of Spacey's character. By the end it would have been totally believable if all the main characters had died during the shootout.

Not to mention the great character arcs in the film. Guy Pierce plays the department snitch who cannot stand corruption and comes across as a very meek character in the beginning. Though he turns out to be anything but meek by the end. The scene in which he plays the suspects interrogations against each other is wonderful character defining moment for him and makes the audience completely question their assumptions about who he is. Then there is Russell Crowe's redemption from as a man on the path toward being a corrupt cop to a good cop. It is just as engaging to watch as Pierce and also has it's moments.

What didn't I like?

I'm at a loss to say why Kim Basinger won her Academy award. Her's was the one performance and character that left me cold. She's not a strong enough character to be called a Femme Fatale, but at the same time she too weirdly self involved to be the love interest. I also felt no attraction toward her. The people in the film kept on telling her that she was better and more attractive than who she was dolled up to impersonate, but to me she came nowhere close to being as magnetic as the real Veronica Lake in her movies. Go watch Sullivan's Travels, Veronica Lake steals every scene she's in. Your eyes are just drawn to her whenever she's on camera, quite the opposite to the cold and distant way Basinger comes across in this film. Because of this, about every scene in which a character falls for Basinger after just meeting her feels false.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes

Would I recommend it?

Without hesitation.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

Before watching the film I had seen Spacey's death numerous times thanks to the spoilerific montage sequences shown during the award shows and various top ten programs. It seems to me that every fucking time L.A. Confidential is mentioned on TV they have to show that scene. So Fuck All TV for spoiling that moment for me and, if sometime in the future you are responsible for assembling a bunch of clips for a show or Youtube video, fuck you too if you put that scene in without a spoiler warning. Even though I did like L.A. Confidential, I will never have any idea how much I would have liked it if I started the film not knowing who the villain was.

Also, what the fuck is wrong with Chrome today? The browser's spell check is failing me big time. I type in Villian not realizing that I mixed up the letter order of the I and the A and Chrome's spell check is telling me it has no idea what word I was trying to spell.

What was My favorite part

Everything surrounding Rollo Tamasi.

11. SPOILERS

What movie is it?

The Adventures of TinTin


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this movie?

I was anxious to see the touted second coming of Spielburg. Okay that's a little harsh, but I wanted to see the adventure genre revived by the very same guy who dealt it it's near fatal blow with the Crystal Skull. The Golden Globes last night gave me hope he had done it.

What did I like about this film?

The bits and pieces of brilliance littered throughout. The Pirate battle flashback was a joy to behold and the sword-fight between shipping cranes was inspired.

The voice acting is superb and the animation of the actor's performances was seamless and went far to try to overcome the uncanny valley occupied by such films.

What didn't I like?

This movie irked me, overall I liked it, but watching it was like riding a motocycle without a hemet. Every second a bug would hit me in the face and it grew annoying (this is not a comment on the 3D as I saw the film in 2D). Listing all the things that did this would take more time than I'm willing to devote here, but I'll try to give a enough info to outline my problems with the film.

While I praise the detailed animation done here I wonder why it was needed. Live action could have been done here just as well, or 2D hand drawn animation would have worked too. I can answer my question to some degree. They probably wanted to make the characters look more like the comic than a true live action film would allow and a 2D animated film would have probably only been marketable in Europe as the character of TinTin is relatively unknown in the U.S. But because of the chosen animation style the film kept me at arms length. At times the film's animation was so real that the movie became real and this transition kicked me out the movie, then when it clearly became a computer animated film again it lost me again. By straddling the line between reality and unreality my absorption into the story was compromised every time my brain had to decide which was it? Funny, if the film had made more dramatic moves between live action and clearly unreal animation I don't think It would have bothered me as much.

Now to the content of the movie. I would have liked more of an introduction to the character of TinTin. As the average viewer who has no experience with the comics, I was left with rumor and a few news clippings on the wall to glean what I could before the plot got rolling. Because of this I was left with very little of what TinTin was capable of (mostly reporting and sleuthing judging from what the film told me). So seeing this young teenager punch guys, fire guns and pilot planes was a little unbelievable. Some may say, in Raiders of the Lost Ark Indiana Jones did the same things with little introduction. Yes, but we first met Indiana in a dangerous environment and he was in charge and had confidence in what he was doing. So we immediately knew that he was capable of surviving in such situations because his confidence implied that he had been similar places before. TinTin could have grabbed me the same way if we had met him at the climax of his previous adventure instead of in a sedate market square. Not to say his introduction isn't clever, it just doesn't show those new to the series much about who we are dealing with.

Then there is the nonstop action. The movie barely gave me time to breathe between the numerous actions scenes. Things come so fast and furious that we're on to the the next set piece before I had a chance to get my bearings again. Some more space for the characters to talk so we could get to know them better would have been nice. Instead we get exposition and another action scene. There were places where the action was so overwhelming that I was left wondering where certain things came from by the end of it all. For example the the chase for all the scrolls in the Arab city (can't remember the name) was so confusing that I had no idea who had the papers at any given time and had to ask 'Did that tank inside of the building materialize out of thin air?'. Too many ideas were on display in too short of a time which made the scene less spectacular than is should have been because it decided compromise comprehensiveness (for lack of a better term) to shoe horn in one more good idea.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Even though I was in a theater and gave it my full attention, I don't think It would have held me at home. So no.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, don't take my criticism above as a message of hate. It is an opinion on why this good movie wasn't a great one.

What was my favorite part?

It was the flashback to the pirate battle and how elements of it were recalled when Haddock was fighting the villain in the climax.

To tell the truth the most recent film I watched was 13 Assassins, but I'm going to need Wikipedia to help me with that review. Else I fear I might really fuck up talking about the characters which I had trouble keeping track of when watching the film. So here is a recent rewach I did.

I have a feeling horrible grammar lurks within this review, but I am too tired to spot it all. So fuck it, I'm hitting submit.

12.

What Movie is it?

Krull


Have I seen it before?

Yes.

Why rewatch it?

Because I had a craving for some childhood nostalgia.

How did it compair to my memory of my previous viewings?

I admit I watched this thing through rose tinted glasses, but I have to say it held up better than my recent rewatch of the Goonies, a far more beloved film from my childhood.

What did I like about it?

I enjoyed quite a bit of stuff that had nothing to do with the actual quality of the movie. This time was the first time I could recognize all the english actors. So half of the movie was me going "Holy shit I had no idea Liam Neeson was in this." "Wait, is that Robbie Coltrane?" and "Isn't that Wizard guy the teacher from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?"

Now to get to the actual film. I never before really realized how insane this film is. It's like the script was written from by a guy taking suggestions from elementary school class.

"Lets have the most awesomest weapon ever! Like a boomerang with blades"
"All Stoies have to have a Wizard."
"And they have to fight off and alien invasion with magic."
"And the Aliens will fire lasers from tridents like in the Rocky Horror Picure Show."
"We need Bandits."
"How about when the henchman die the alien thing inside of them escapes an buries itself in the ground."
"Flying horses that run on fire."
"Giant spiders too!"


And so on.

So how does one judge this mess?

They only way I can, with complete bias. It is clear that this film will not please everyone, but it really appeals to my immature half which feels the need to rebel against traditional story archetypes and structure. So I liked how the movie doesn't really bother to explain anything and all the questions you throw at it seem to boil down to one answer: Because.

Why Is the Glaive the only thing that can defeat the Alien? Because it is.
Why Are the Firemares only mentioned near the end when they would have been much more useful to our heros in the beginning of the film? Because that is were they are in the story.
How is is it possible that a man can create a flame thrower from the palm of his hand? Because he can.
Why is the Widow of the Web doomed to be cut off from the world by man eating spiders? Because that is where we needed her to be.

Apart from the insanity of it all, the film has a great cast. Their chemistry and performances go a long way towards making it watchable. I liked every character even though there was little in the way of actual character development because the film did allow them their moments that got me to root for them. Like When the Wizard Ergo turns himself into a puppy to help raise the mood of the Seer's Young Apprentice after the Seer died. And Liam Neeson's talk about how much he really does love all of his wives, though they may not know of each other's existence.

What Didn't I like about it?

That all the questions you have when watching this film boil down to Because and that the script feels as though it was written from the suggestions of an elementary school class. It is one of those cases in which what works for the movie aslo works against it and the lack of a standard story does get tiring. Things just happen, one after the other without any real sense of progression. Also my eyes started to roll when a coincidence in favor of our heros would always rescue them from danger.

You can either look upon these things as attributes or flaws. Whichever side of the coin you come down on will tell you if you'll like this movie or not.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes, my nostalgia for the movie forced me to pay attention.

Would you recommend it?

Yes, but only to those who grew up watching similar films and for lovers of deeply flawed 80s fantasy.

What was my favorite part?

Hard to choose. I guess it's when Ergo the Wizard goes all Tiger on the Alien guards. It's silly tiger verses laser action, but I love it.

Okay, crazy fucking day, but now I actually have a window of time to do this in. It might be shorter than I'd like, due to time contraints.

13.

What Movie is it?

13 Assassins


Why this movie?

Because I was in the mood for epic action and not adverse to seeing a foreign film. Personally I could take or leave Takashi Miike as a director as some of his films blow me away and others fall flat, but I heard good things about 13 Assassins so I pressed the play button.

What did I like about it?

I liked that it went toward realism (for first half of of the film) rather than romance. I think it's the cinematography that brought the feeling of a realistic feudal japan home. Compare this film to the whimsically shot Memoirs of a Geisha and the grit and brutality of the 13 Assassins really shows though.

I also loved how the film shows the viewer how ingrained protocol was within Japanese society of the time. The amount of anguish the advisers have to go though when deciding what to to do with the truly evil brother of the shogun is great and drives home the point that such assassinations were rare and hard to arrange.

There is all the quintessentially Miike touches to film. Like when he is establishing how evil Lord Naritsugu Matsudaira is. Killing children, dismembering women and raping wives and then killing their husbands in front of them. It is restrained for Miike, but few films go farther in establishing such a deplorable character, really all Naritsugu needed to do was kill a dog and we'd have the full set of ways to get the audience to hate a villain.

Then the film joyfully throws realism out the window when it comes to the final battle. I had fight back outright laughter when the first wall of wooden death slides across the street and traps Lord Naritsugu's retinue of 200 samurai in the village. So unrealistic, but oh such a great holy shit moment.

What didn't I like about this film?

Because most of the 13 Assassins in the title looked so much alike I had trouble keeping track of them in the final battle. I had to pause the film and look up each of the character's names on wikipedia just to understand the order in which each one fell in the climactic scene. Part of this was due to my inability to remember names and partly because of how the camera in the battle never seemed to back up and let me take in what was going on from a distance. Unlike other such battles committed to film (like Helm's Deep) I cannot really say where the battle started, where it ended, and who died where. It is likely that this was purposeful as it does exhaust the viewer making us sympathize with the 13 Assassins as they get more and more tired as the battle progresses, but I felt it made things too confusing to be fully enjoyed.

Also I would have liked a greater role for the villain in the battle. The film spends so much time in the beginning establishing Lord Naritsugu and making me hate him only to have him become a prop for most of the climax. He is just shoved to a fro by his senior Samurai, Hanbei, while they look for a way to escape from the fortified village. By time Lord Naritsugu actually has active role in the story again, the battle is nearly over and I kind of lost my hate for the guy. He came across as a very bland character at the end when he is killed.

I would have liked him to do more evil in the battle in order for his death to be a "fist-pumping" triumphant moment. As it is he just dies and it isn't as gratifying to watch as It should have been.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Yes.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

Yeah. I have no idea what to think of the Bandit character they rescue from the cage in the forest. He takes a sword through the neck and gets disemboweled in the battle. He then shows up alive and happy at the end . When questioned about his still visible injuries he says he's had worse from bear attacks and then prances off. Was he a Japanese Puck? An Immortal spirit. I mean there is quite a bit of talk amongst the 12 Samurai highed to be the Assissins about only being able to succeed if luck is with them. Then they meet this guy who becomes the 13th of their group. Is he supposed to represent some sort of personification of luck? Anyway he's a weird story element which I can't decide if I like or not. Right now I think I like him, but in order for him to fit this interpretation of mine I feel the film needed show a bit more overt superstition or magic in its first half.

What was my favorite part?

When, at the start of the battle, the leader of the 13 Assassins displays the banner written by the dismembered woman demanding Total Massacre of Lord Naritsugu.

14.

What movie is it?

Rubber


Have I seen it before?

This was my third viewing.

Why rewatch it?

My roommate had friend over and they began talking about the good movies they saw this year. My roommate brought up Rubber and it turned out that his friend hadn't seen it. Ten minutes later I find myself sitting down for my third viewing of Rubber in less than a year.

How did it compare to my memory of the previous viewings?

Pretty good. It didn't drag as much as my second viewing did.

Don't get me wrong, I like Rubber. It's original and enormously entertaining when viewed with a receptive group of people, but it's not what i'd call a eminently rewatchable film.

What did I like about it?

I'm just peppered with thoughts when I think about this film so I'm organizing this with bullet points rather than full paragraphs.

-The Hilarious opening monolog.

-The Stunningly composed Cinematography.

-The 'No Reason' motto the film follows.

-How it follows the three act structure while rebelling against it.

-How it is a love letter to B movie shlock while at the same time hates the genre and wants to kill the audiences that spends their money to see such crap.

-How there is a modern equivalent of an old fashioned greek chorus in the film.

-How some of the actors know that they are in a terrible movie and others don't.

-The low budget, yet totally mystifying effects. I still have no idea how they controlled the tire in some shots, it's seamless.

-Same goes for the apparent animal deaths on screen. I have no idea how they did the Rabbit and Crow deaths. It looks like they took them out with a shotgun just off camera, but that can't be it because this film has no animal cruelty press surrounding it.

-How, through editing and cinematography, the director managed to wrangle a honest to god performance out of tire. This guy studied the russian montage movement of the 20s and proved everything the russians discovered was true. As long as you design your shots well and edit them correctly you can get the audience to believe anything can live and have emotions.

-I also like how there were quite a few meaningful "meaningless" scenes which are demonstrations of it's 'No Reason' motto. Such as the many shot of the tire "watching" (who can tell?) other tires on cars (Does it view them as slaves needing to be freed? No because it is just a Tire!), people burning tires (Mass murder? No just tires) and it latching on to a girl who escaped it's grasp (it likes a girl, therefore it's a guy. No it isn't it's just a tire!).

Anyway it's a thought provoking film as well as being hilarious so long as the meta upon meta nature of the film doesn't bother you.

What didn't I like

It is hard to fault the film for much because the entire movie seems so planned out. The time spent in preproduction can be felt here and I bet every single shot was discussed and every edit agonized over before a single frame was shot. So the film itself has very few flaws if you buy into the concept.

The biggest thing I could say is that It drags in places, especially on repeat viewings. Shots could have been cut down and some tire "reaction shots" could have been excised completely without any detriment to the message of the film.

Also the end with the tires going to Hollywood is unnecessary. The story and message of the film ended with the final audience member dying and then when it kept on going it just made the film overlong. It feels like the director got cocky. Like he's patting himself on the back because he thinks his tire movie will put hollywood in it's place. Why do I think this? No reason.

Did it pass the distraction test

On a third viewing? no.

Would I recommend it?

Yes. It's a cinemaphile film for those who love to study the elements of editing and style.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

A friend remarked that the opening monologe about 'No Reason' would be an instant comedy classic if it was repeated by Christopher Walken. Now I have to see that happen.

What was my favorite part?

When Lieutenant Chad pulls a tire off a car and tells the rest of the police that this is what the killer looks like. It's a sublime moment of absurdist comedy.

Fuck another day in which it took me forever to find time to sit down and write. This entry will probably be my shortest, I wish I had more time.

15.

What movie is it?

The Watcher in the Woods


Have I seen this movie before?

No.

Why pick this movie?

Because my experiences with Disney horror when growing up were limited to the very good Sleepy Hollow animated short, and Something Wicked This Way Comes. When I was told that Watcher in the Woods belonged in that pantheon as well it was a no brainer when I saw it in a $5 DVD bin at Walmart.

What did I like about it?

That stuff happens.

For a family aimed horror movie, Watcher in the Woods has a surprising amount of supernatural activity which is more than most family horror can claim to have. I could just see a younger me loving this film because there is aways someone in danger and by the end of the film the characters survive what feels like dozens of close calls with the supernatural.

I also loved the settings and atmosphere the film had, Betty Davis in particular looks likes she is enjoying her role in this film. (Though she has delivered better in Baby Jane and Burnt Offerings)

What didn't I like about it?

How the weirder it gets the less everything makes sense.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The end just didn't work for me.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Not really.

Would I recommend it?

Only to families with children interested in exploring the horror genre.

16.

What movie is it?

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this movie?

I wanted to catch this in the theater way back in 2002 but with one thing and another I never got around to seeing it. So when the blu-ray release came out back in November I had to pick it up.

What did I like about it?

Sam Rockwell knocks it out of the park. For the longest time I was huge fan of the Game Show Network which showed many of the 70s game shows over the summer break. While the Gong Show was far from being my favorite of choices to watch I did see quite a few episodes of it and Rockwell nails Barris's on camera persona.

I also love the cinematic quality present in Clooney's direction. His has a great instinct for framing and staging that really brings the powerful moments home. In particular I admired the setup and playing out of the last two deaths in the film.

The twists were also good and a few really took me by surprise. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
What didn't I like about it?

I felt that film in a way was modeled after Chuck Barris. Like him, it has a really hard time jugging the Games Show and CIA stuff. Both build to great moments, but once the other comes in to take over for a while the film looses its momentum. I get that It's trying to be true to his autobiography, but I would have liked to see more of one and less of the other. Preferably more of the CIA Chuck. So many killings happen off screen (if we are to believe the autobiography, 33), but I didn't really get to see him become professional enough to believe that he was able to survive that last twist.

Did it pass the distraction test?

No, I wanted it to, but I had to rewind several times because my mind started to wander.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, but it wouldn't be the first on my list for the spy genre or the biopic genre.

What was my favorite part?

I loved Clooney's death. Just a beautifully poetic scene.

17.

What movie is it?

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World


Have I seen it before?

Yes.

How does it compare to my memory of my previous viewing?

Better and worse. The brilliance shines all the brighter causing the flaws glare even more.

Why choose to rewatch it?

Because I was listening to an interview with Edgar Wright on a podcast and got the urge to see it again.

What did I like about it?

That it's one of those films that knows what it wants to be and does its own thing without caring one bit what the audience thinks. Don't assume I'm saying that this isn't an audience movie, it's just so perfectly planned out from the first frame to the last that it's obvious no compromises were made in the name of making the story or the film's style more accessible. You pretty much need to have some knowledge of how the old videogames from the 80s to the 90s work in order for the structure of the plot to even make sense. And Good luck buying into the whole extra life thing at the end unless you understood what was happening during the battle of the bands scene. So any film that says "Fuck it, you'll either get me or you won't and I don't really care" has got my vote as long as it is obvious a lot of love went into it's production.

Edgar Wright really goes balls to the wall with his direction here and it works wonderfully. The story on paper really is simple when it comes down to it, so Edgar deserves a lot of credit for bringing so much life to the film that there might be enough left over for Frankenstein's Monster.

What didn't I like about it?

Michael Cera. I have a hard time rooting for this indecisive, petulant, actor. I really dislike him, especially in this role. I find him too weak of a guy to really triumph in the battles that actually require him to use strengths other than his brain. He's too much of a nerd and because of this, if his character shows prowess at any type of athleticism, the suspension of my disbelief is lost. If I could somehow create a wormhole in space-time and get this movie made in the 80s, I view the Scott Pilgrim Character working best if played by Michael J. Fox around the same time he was in the first Back to the Future. Not really a nerd and not an athlete at the top of his game, but more of a loner type interested in music and girls.

My other problem with Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World is its style. Yes I know I praised it up above, but that stupid idiom 'too much of a good thing' comes into play. I don't know why it is, but the very style and energy infused within this film turns from charming and entertaining to annoying and abrasive at about the same time when the 4th ex shows up to do battle. For me it was a pretty sudden transition and it's a mystery that only time can heal. If I stop the film right at that point and give myself an hour break, when I come back to watch, the rest the film's magic has been restored and I can enjoy it to the end. It's like I was gorging on my favorite food until I got sick, but If I stopped to give myself some time to digest halfway through, I could finish and still enjoy the meal.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes, which is surprising for a second viewing.

Would I recommend it?

Without a doubt, but I'd also suggest that an intermission should be added after the 3rd Ex goes down.

What was my favorite part?

There are so many high moments in this film that I can't really pick one, but I did really enjoy the detail that whenever someone was defeated they'd dissolve into a shower of coins.

I watched something a little different tonight so lets get this rolling.

18.

What movie is it?

The Tunnel


Have I seen this movie?

No

Then why watch the Tunnel?

Because I was interested in how it was made. The funding to make this little horror film was raised over the internet from sites similar to kick starter. It is the first film made under the 135k Project banner, where an independent filmmaker raises (you guessed it) 135k to make a film by pre selling stills from the print over the internet before starting the production. I tried looking into this more, but there seems little info out there and the site for the project has not yet been made, so I'm not sure if after it's first and only film the project is already dead in the water. The Tunnel was released eariler this year via torrent and you can download The Tunnel for free, no strings attached, over at Vodo if this review makes it sound appealing to you.

What is it about?

I tried avoiding this question for a long time because writing summaries is not that fun, but I feel that since this film is so unknown that I need to say a little about it.

The Tunnel is a cross between the Descent and .REC. A local tv news crew sneaks into a system of abandoned subway and utility tunnels to investigate rumors that the homeless who live down there are disappearing. The film itself is a found footage type of horror movie, but with stronger faux documentary framework than .REC

I guess it could be said that it has something in common with Lake Mungo too, as it starts off being a talking heads type documentary.

What did I like about it?

I feel dirty admitting it, but I'm a bit of a sucker for the whole found footage/mocumentary subgenre of horror. Not every film in the genre works for me, such as the Last Exorcism, the Paranormal activity sequels and other more recent films. That said The Tunnel did get under my skin quite a bit. Which is a testament to the atmosphere in the film because it tells the audience who is going to die right in it's first act. There are only two chracters being interviewed in beginning for the 'talking heads' segments, but there are four people in the footage of the news crew, therefore the two not being interviewed after the fact aren't alive.

There were some little homage touches to the Tunnel that made me smile to myself. Like a reference to Grizzley Man when the reporter listens to the tape the sound guy recorded as he died. I really should start taking notes because I know I recognized a few more documentary homages in the film, but can't remember them at the moment.

Finally the monster was quite the beast. The movie does a good job of making this thing seem like an all powerful bastard of a creature to take on, especially after the second attack and death. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) I liked how the film never give the audience a full view of what the monster looks like, though it appears to be not all that different from the humanoids in The Descent.

What didn't I like about it?

I like that this film finally tries to explain away the question that plagues found footage films: "Why insist on keeping the camera running if your life is in danger?", but the explanation falls apart soon after the monster shows up. Then this film becomes one of the greatest offenders when a character is knocked unconscious and still manages to have a grip on the camera as their body is dragged away, then thrown into water where the attack continues. Not only is the camera apparently superglued to the reporter's hand, but is waterproof too. How foresighted of the News Crew.

Then there are all the genre chiches that films like this cannot seem to shake:

- They keep on denying that something is wrong long after they get into deep shit.

- If the monster relies on sound, then the token woman can never keep her mouth shut even if the thing is right in front of her.

- It's dark, so of course light hurts/scares the monster.

- If it's dark they must have limited batteries and malfunctioning lights.

- Once they all agree that they have to try to find a way out they will instead move deeper in and find the creature's lair.

- After the events in the film are over a government conspiracy prevents the incident from being investigated, even though it makes no sense why the government doesn't want to take out a man-eater living below a heavily populated city.

I've seen all these things done multiple times before and seeing them repeated here drags down the experience.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Yes. It was one of the best horror films I've seen in a while.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

I never knew there was such a thing as double decker subway trains.

What was my favorite part?

The second death I detailed above in the spoiler warning.

19.

What movie is it?

Start the Revolution Without Me


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this Movie?

I found it in an out of print section of DVDs at Amoeba Music and the cast list caught my eye, Gene Wilder, Donald Sutherland, and a bunch of others. The box said it served as the inspiration to all of the Mel Brooks parodies that came out fo the seventies. I thought that this could be a great undiscovered gem.

I was wrong.

What is it about?

Its a switched at birth comedy that takes place during the beginning of the french revolution. A nobleman's twins are mixed up with the twins of of a french pesant and later when they are fully grown men mixups ensue. It is the Prince and the Pauper during the french revolution.

What did I like about this film?

Orson Wells always steals the show, but here he is only the narrator. He was probably only employed for one day on the shoot, but the film could have definitely used more of him.

I also like how the peasant pair of twins seem to catch on pretty quickly to the mixup and at least try to play the part of aristcrats. too many of these types of plots dwell too long on the stranger in a strange land type comedy. Mercifully, in this film those types of awkward jokes were brief.

What didn't I like about it

It's bad. I didn't laugh once. There were a few moments that made me smile, but the entire film is bland and unmemorable. I wouldn't remotely call this an inspiration for the Mel Brooks Comedies (unless this movie made him want to prove that such films could be done right). As it is, It's not really a parody, there are no jokes that refer to other historical films and very few puns. If I were to draw a comparison to any film I'd say that this is in the style of A Funny Thing Happend to Me on the Way to the Forum, but without the music and laughs. Then the film's the final act becomes so confusing with the mixups and the peasant army storming the palace that it resembles a poor attempt at imitating Benny Hill's chasing skits.

I suppose the only thing that this has in common with films like Blazing Saddles is that the action breaks the fourth wall entirely at the end when the Narrator, Orson Wells, is killed by Donald Sutherland to keep the audience from finding out the ending. This happens exactly when the Twins meet face to face for the first time and it's a disappointment. These types of stories build up the final meeting of the switched characters and to rob the audience of even that is like spending an hour building up a joke only to refuse to say the punchline. it is obvious that the writers had written themselves into a corner and couldn't find their way out. (I sympathize with them, but when that happens get someone else's opinion)

Some more things I dislike about the film is that usually in these types of tales there is some goodness that reveals itself in the aristocratic characters when they spend time and get to know the pesants they originally despised. It is one of the classic characters arcs that the Prince and the Pauper established and it is completely absent here. The noble versions of Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland are as hateful and selfish in the end as they started out as in the beginning. Not to mention that the pesant twins start to do some reprehensible behavior once they realize they have power.

One scene in particular has Gene Wilder's character getting the army to go and retrive his fiance from her farm and bring her to him. They naturally assume that she's a criminal and chain her up in the dungeon on a spinning wheel. When he comes down to see her, she recognizes him and begins to give him an ear-full. His response is to spin her around on the wheel of torture until she shuts up. It's really bad, obviously someone thought that this would be funny, but he is essentially torturing his girlfriend and it made me lose what liking I had for his character.

Did it pass the distraction test

No.

Would I recommend it?

Only for those looking to make fun of bad movies, though I'm at a loss to say what MST3K might find here worthy to laugh at.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

Yeah this film really made me want to watch A Funny Thing Happend on the Way to the Forum again, if only to see madcap done right.

What was my favorite part?

The holy shit moment when I saw Orson Wells's face staring back at me in the opening shot. There really is no listing of him on the box and to see him in a movie I just pulled off a shelf really gave me hope that it would be a good film.

20. I don't think I need to hide the plot when discussing this film as most people already know the twists, but Just in case you don't here's a big, fat old:

SPOILER WARNING

What movie is it?

Barton Fink


Have I seen it before

No, someday I hope to have seen all of the Coen Brothers films and this one moves me a little closer to that goal.

Why choose Barton Fink?

I went back to my DVD collection today and chose the next film I owned but never had seen. This was first down the line after A.I.

What is it about?

The turmoil of a writer who has been gobbled up in the studio system of the 40s. Echoing the trials that F Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, and countless others lured to hollywood during that time, might have undergone.

What did I like about it?

It was great that every single character Barton comes across is not who he thinks they are. All the side characters have depths to them that surprised me and made everything great. I especially loved John Goodman as the goodnatured tenant in the hotel room next to Finks. He becomes Fink's one true friend in the film and the turns out to be an infamous serial killer "Madman" Munt. I loved the burning hallway sequence in which Goodman takes down the Detectives down with a shotgun and then comes in to Fink's room like it wasn't a big deal and releases him from his hand cuffs. Even a serial killer values his friends.

There were many emotions I identified with in Fink's character, The agony of writer's block, the mixture of frustration and joy you get when given a diversion or an excuse to stop looking at a blank page for an hour or two, and the intoxicating elation of finally finishing a creative work. I also really identify with the feeling of being in it so deep that you feel like you are drowning. I can't say it has ever happend to me, but I've seen it happen to others.

I also loved the atmosphere the the film exudes from the peeling walpaper leaking puss to the ghostly presence of the other hotels guests. At times the film felt Lynchian in it's surrealism, and at other times I found myself laughing aloud at the humor, but it was the Ambiguity of the story that lingers the most with me. The film left me with so many questions which there are no right answers to. This will inevitably make it stay in my mind far past my memories of more conventional stories.

Here are the few questions circling around in my head right now:

- Did Barton kill Audrey and W.P. Mayhew? Sure the M.O. fits John Goodman's character more, but Barton had an emotional motive because his writer hero turned out to be an abusive drunk who probably didn't even write his more famous works. Did he Kill Audrey because she was a willing part of Mayhew's facade? If Goodman did kill her, how come it never woke Barton up? And if Barton did kill Audrey and Mayhew it may explain some of the camaraderie Goodman's character had for Barton.

-What's in the box?

-Did Goodman Kill Barton's family when he was away in New York?

-How did Lou Breeze get fired and hired back so quickly?

And a few others. There are no correct answers, but it's fun to ask anyway.

Finally I liked that last bit of dialoge. Throughout the entire film Barton has been idolizing a picture on his hotel room wall of a woman in a bikini looking at the ocean. Then at the end a woman walks by on the beach and trikes the very same pose. Barton asks "Are you in pictures?" She says no.

What didn't I like about the film?

I'm hard pressed to find something about it that bothered me, but if I were to put words around my view of the film I'd say it was very good but not great. There were plenty of really good moments, and the atmosphere was almost perfect, but I'm left feeling like it never reached quite the mindfuck territory I was hoping it would. I'm a big fan of these types of films and the moment my mind latched onto the comparison to Lynch I found that the film doesn't quite reach to that level of surrealism. If it did it would have hit the sweet spot for me.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes, my eyes were locked to the screen the moment Barton found Audrey dead.

Would I recommend it?

Yes.

What was my favorite part?

The final scene with John Goodman from the beginning to the end.

I'm not feeling wordy today so this will probably be short. I may add more to it later as I find myself thinking more about the film.

21.

What movie is it?

The Departed


Have I seen it before?

No, though someday I hope to have seen all of Scorsese films.

Why this movie?

I was browsing through my DVD collection for more unwatched films and this one came up. Alphabetically I skipped a few dramas (Broken Flowers & Capote) because I was more in the mood for a thriller.

What did I like about it

A lot, but the thing that is occupying most of my mind is how much I liked that Scorsese sets the story up so that I knew Matt Damon's character from when he was a kid and that I didn't meet Dicaprio's character until the academy sections. It has the effect of making the me care about Damon's corrupt cop as well as caring about DiCaprio's good cop. So Scorsese had me rooting for both in this film. While I didn't want Damon to succeed, I also didn't want him to fail totally. I hoped that maybe he'd turn before it was too late.

I also think this is definitely Scorsese's best of the decade and while I see the cinematic genius in Raging Bull and Goodfellas I found the Departed to be more entertaining. Now before anyone accuses me of blasphemy here is an analogy, think of it as me choosing a Touch of Evil over Citizen Kane. Without a doubt Citizen Kane is the more influential and better film, but Touch of Evil is more fun.

What didn't I like about it

I have not yet seen Infernal Affairs, but I can tell that the Departed tried to fit too many plot points from that trilogy into a single film, While I was still on the edge of my seat by the end I would have liked to have some breathing room between scenes. The breakneck pace at which the plot travels makes the entire movie hard to recall in specifics of what happend and when did it happen in the story. I'm sure I could get it all straight in my memory after a couple more viewings, but one is not enough. I can't even remember what the names were of some of the characters. A good example of this is at the end when the second rat in the police force shows up, I know I probably saw him earlier in the film working with Damon, but I'd be hard pressed to identify the scene and what his positon at the police force was.

Did it pas the distraction test

Yes. The story actually had me so riled up in parts that I couldn't sit still in my chair and had to pace the room a bit. Am I the only one that has this reaction to good "edge of your seat" thrillers?

Would I recommend it?

Definitely.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

After finally seeing it, I don't believe in the claim that Scorsese's Best Director win for this was more of a lifetime achievement award than an award praising his direction of this particular movie. Now if Hugo wins him another directing oscar, that will be his Lifetime Achievment award because Hugo was only a good film, not great.

What was my favorite part?

The entire cat and mouse game DiCaprio and Damon play trying to find out who is the rat.

22.

What movie is it?

Bagdad Cafe


Have I seen it before

No.

What choose Bagdad Cafe to watch?

I had to get some work done on the computer and wanted to put something on the TV to make the time go by faster. I couldn't do action because that requires me to pay too much attention to the plot if I want to follow the events. An independent comedy (less emphasis on plot and more character development) fit the bill.

What is it about?

A german tourist on the desert road from Las Vegas to LA gets in a fight with her husband and decides to get out of the car and hoof it. Soon she comes across a dilapidated motel and cafe which encapsulates the entirety of a small town called Bagdad on an indian reservation. After a while her presence and optimism bring a little life back to the people who live there.

What did i like about it?

I liked how the movie doesn't feel all that pressured to do anything. It allows every cynical bastard living at the hotel to get to know Jasmin (the German Tourist) and then like her. While she does win a few people over right from the start, Jasmin, has trouble with the others for quite a while. The whole emotional change of the pessimistic staff and apathetic residents into content, happy people is, for the most part, believable because each one has time to develop their own friendship with Jasmin.

The performances are great across the board. I especially found the Jack Palance as the Old Hippy and C. C. H. Pounder as the depressed/angry Cafe owner engaging.

I also found the element of whimsy in the film to be infectious. I call it whimsy because I don't think it exactly qualifies as fantasy. There are things Jasmin does in the film I found to be totally unrealistic. No one in their right mind would take it into their head to EXTENSIVELY clean and repair a motel they were paying money to stay at. Rather than just cleaning her one room Jasmin cleans the inside and outside of the motel including the roof and (pictured in the poster above) the water tower. But I have to say that while I was shaking my head during these sequences, they work and really got me to smile.

What didn't I like about it?

This will sound contradictory to my statement before, but the I don't think I would have been able to sit though this charming picture if I didn't have something else occupying a part of my attention. It really does move too slow for my normal tastes.

I know that a weak thing not to like about it, but I'm being honest.

Did it pass the distraction test?

No, It never really drew me away from my work.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, for those who are willing to be patient and let the film take its time. Though I rarely found myself laughing out loud, this films got me to smile all the way through.

What was my favorite part?

The very last scene before the film cuts to the credits. It's a great final moment for this film to have.

23.

What movie is it?

Splinter


Have I seen it before?

Parts of it, yes.

Why rewatch it?

I caught the tail end of it on cable once and always wanted to see the thing from the beginning.

What is it about?

It's horror film that take place pretty much in a single location. The classic senario of people trapped inside with a monster outside. The monster here is somewhere between the thing and the Blob. its a cellular fungus or mold that takes over a body and then forces that body to find another host by following heat sources. The film is called Splinter because the fungus appears on it's host as spikes and it allows it to easily penetrate and infect new animals.

What did I like about it?

It is really a good old fashioned monster movie and I liked that the human element of it goes in the opposite direction than most other movies that have the characters trapped in a single location like Night of the living dead and the Mist. The people at the titular location, in this case a gas station, start out at odds with each other and then the events get them to settle their differences and start working together. There are no tedious scenes or subplots in which one character denies everything that is going on and works actively against the heroes.

I liked the creature effects and I only wish the film gave me a better look at it, I watched the Blu-ray of the film and from what I could tell the effects looked good except for one completely CGI shot at the very end. Looking through the special features they said that most of the monster effects were done with puppetry work and it's a shame that the camera never lingers more than a half second on the full creature puppet. I think they could have given it some more screen time. As it is it just feels like they didn't have that much faith in the quality of the prosthetics and the ability of their puppeteer.

The effects on the gore side were really good too and they at least aren't afraid to show it. The way the infected characters are broken my the creature inside of them, arms bending backwards, fingers breaking all on their own, really gets the skin crawling and the amputation scene using a box-cutter and a cinderblock is especially effective.

I also liked how the film runs at a brisk 82 minutes and never lets boredom take hold.

What didn't I like about the film?

Though the creature is pretty original, I do wish that it had a different modus operandi. There have been a lot of heat seeking monsters in the horror genre's past and they could have gone a different route with that. Because of this the characters way of fighting the creature is pretty standard stuff, Ice one guy to be colder than the outside temperature to make it him invisible and use fire to mislead the monster away from the escape route. I could see these events coming and from that point the film became pretty much standard fare.

Did it pass the distraction test?

No, though having seen the climax before might have something to do with this.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, to any genre fan looking for a new creature feature.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

I would have liked more discussion on the origins of the fungus or whatever it is. The special features state that the location was near one of the oldest untouched forests in America and that it evolved there unknown except by the wild animals. Thats fine, and the characters in the film do say that this is one of the oldest forests around, but I still would have liked a small discussion in the film on where this thing came from, ending with them linking it to this undisturbed part of of the wilderness.

What was my favorite part

Dunno, nothing really stand apart from the rest. I suppose it's the homage to the Evil Dead in the film when, in two different scenes, an infected hand gets loose inside the gas station.

A lot of movie watching happend over the weekend so I'm spoilt for choice today.

24.

What movie is it?

Duck, You Sucker


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this film?

Because I love Sergio Leone's films and thought it was high time I start looking at more of his stuff instead of rewatching his four most famous westerns A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and Once Upon a Time in the West. To tell the truth I was half worried that nothing could stand up to them and also half wanted to put off the moment of discovery.

What did I like about it

Oh, so damn much. I loved how this film is from the beginning a class struggle. The one sequence at the start inside the stage coach is masterful in how it shows the economic and class gap between the Mexicans and the upperclass townspeople. It's a beautifully uncomfortable moment of genius character work to that got me to immediately identify and sympathise with central character Juan. It, in effect, made his robbery of the stage coach in the next scene a triumphant moment rather than an act that could have made him unlikable from the start.

A short time later James Coburn, playing an IRA explosives expert, showed up in a chance encounter and it was a joy seeing him match wits Juan in their first meeting. It is here that the film gets it's title, as Coburn's trademark phrase (just before he is about to blow something up) is "Duck, you sucker". Part of what makes his performance so electrifying is how he plays the character so mischievously. There's a glint in his eye and yet also a sense that he's playing with Juan because he so rarely has a chance to joke around in his line of work.

From then on its a game between Juan and Coburn. Though they eventually become friends, the battle of wits between the two characters never ends. This game has a profound effect on the character of Juan. He starts out as a selfish bandit and becomes a selfless revolutionary fighting for the freedom of Mexico. Thanks to Coburn eye opening manipulations, Juan, for the first time in his life, witnesses the massacre of the mexican revolution and can no longer kid himself that he and his family are the only things he cares about.

Finally how could I talk about a Leone film and not talk a litte about the beauty of the film's cinematography. From the quiet desert landscapes to the chaotic nighttime battlefield, this entire film is gorgeous and placed me right in the middle of the time period.

What didn't I like about it

I think Leone underestimated the acting ability of Rod Steiger as Juan. I don't think he thought Steiger's performance was enough to get the audience to believe in his character's change. What makes me say this is because there are way too many lingering shots of Juan watching the massacres, executions and open graves. It's great tragic filmmaking, but as Leone keeps on presenting more and more slow shots of violence and death the less and less impact they have and by the end it no longer is emotional, just wearying. Steiger gives a great performance witnessing all this, but I would have still believed in his character's choices even if theses scenes were shorter.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Certainly. I'd say it's definitely better than For a Few Dollars More and possibly surpasses a Fistful of Dollars.

What was my favorite part?

The reveal of what is actually inside the "bank" Juan was robbing.

25.

What movie is it?

Snake Eyes


Have I seen it before

No.

Why choose to watch Snake Eyes?

I honestly don't know. I saw it listed on netfilx instant under one of their subcategories and realized that I have never suffered the film geek baptism of fire that is a bad Nicholas Cage movie. Then when I saw that it was directed by De Palma I hit play, figuring it would be at least an interesting mess.

What did I like about it

I liked the overall atmosphere the film had, how it takes its time with its shots and avoids the modern fast editing styles almost entirely.

But the thing that grabbed me the most is the film's cinematography. It opens with what must be one of the greatest steadicam shots ever put on film. It goes on and on introducing us to all the players of the thriller about to unfold and how they relate to Cage's corrupt cop, Rick Santoro. I'm at a loss for words on how to describe how awesome this shot it, really it should be presented along side Goodfellas as one of the best following long takes ever put on film.

See for yourself: (the steadicam stuff starts at about 2:20)

I cannot even guess how much time and planning went into that. All the extras and actors must have required a ton of choreographers to make sure everyone hit their mark. Sure, there are probably edits hidden by whip-pans and extra's wiping the frame, but it still feels so fucking seamless. Another thing that is so amazing about that shot is that it supplies the viewer with all the pieces of the mystery about to unfold and the film constantly flashes back to parts of that shot as more and more info surrounding the assassination is gleaned. It's a classic Hitchcockian piece of filmmaking. De Palma gives the audience just about everything they need to know to about the crime before it happens and then the rest of the film is Cage deciphering what he saw in the events that came before the crime. It's Genius.

Later there is another flash of genius when DePalma's roaming camera flies above the action and, from a bird's eye view, starts to search the hotel rooms for the same woman Cage is looking for.

What didn't I like about it?

The dialogue is shit. It is so bad that it makes the actors, who are obviously trying to give real performances, seem flat and dumb. Because of this their characters cannot make the audience suspend disbelief for the story and the whole mystery comes crashing down into an illogical mess. I can't say I've come across many movies where the film is within inches of becoming a classic only to fail so hard in one area that the entire movie becomes a piece of crap. it's like a beautifully designed building constructed without a foundation. So much work went into this that it is a tragedy that no one pointed this out to the Writer or De Palma that the screenplay was badly in need of script doctor specializing in dialogue.

Did it pass the distraction test

Yes, that opening shot did grab my full attention and I kept on watching in the vain hope that the rest of the film would live up to it.

Would I recommend it?

I wish I could type the sound of me sucking in air though my teeth. I'm on the fence about this. The film is a failure, but I did get quite a bit out of it. If you are interested in camera work and pacing I say go for it, it is a very different type of thriller than the ones coming from the studios today and worth watching just to see what De Palma was trying to achieve. If you are looking for a film purely out of a need for entertainment, I'd say give it a pass.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

Yes. This was such an interesting experience that I've been emboldened to check out the other Nick Cage classic failures. I don't think I'm ready yet for the Wicker Man, but I could do 8mm or Season of the Witch. We'll see.

What was my favorite part?

Just watch the clip.

26.

What Movie is it?

8mm


Have I seen it before?

Nope.

Why choose 8mm?

Its another on of those Nick Cage movies that seems to exist in a realm where people like it or pan it. I've heard it come up in conversations enough on these boards to finally take the plunge.

What didn't I like about it?

As a director, Schumacher often confuses me with his work. Quite a lot of his better films, like Falling down, Phone booth, Lost Boys and the Client, have every element necessary to create a satisfying story, but they all feel like they are missing something integral which I cannot put words to. It's a feeling that resembles a hollowness when I try to delve deeper into the movie's story. I get the same feeling when reading Stephen King. Though I can repeat all of the plot and what the characters arcs were, I, contrary to all evidence, am left with a sense that nothing much happend. It's a weird thing to encounter and is perhaps why I'm always a bit interested in in what Schumacher has to offer, in the same way a child constantly probes the space left by a lost tooth.

8mm also has the feeling that some of it's core is missing and the vacancy fascinates me, but not in a good way.

What did I like about it?

8mm is the least empty Schumacher film I've encountered which is a plus. Though the story is kind of by the numbers it's the ending that made me take notice of this film. So many thrillers are content to solve the mystery and leave it at that, but this film continues into one of the most morally questionable territories I've seen a film go. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) It's a dirty blast of a turn and made me like the film a whole lot more because of it.

So many heroic characters seem concerned about morals and not becoming like who they are chasing, but in 8mm Nick Cage's character doesn't give it a second's thought. He doesn't care if he sinks to their level as long as he can destroy them in the process.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes, once the revenge part kicked in.

Would I recommend it?

Let me put it this way, if you are looking to watch a Schumacher film you could do a lot worse.

27.

What movie is it?

Dante 01


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why choose this movie?

Remember when John-Pierre Jeunet was new on the feature film scene and had come out with the really good Delicatessen and the amazing City of Lost Children? Well he co-directed both of those with a French Cartoonist by the name of Marc Caro. Dante 01 is Caro's first solo effort as a filmmaker. It came out in 2008, I don't know why it took him so long to get his own project together, but he did and once I found out about the movie I kept an eye out for it in bargain bins.

What is the movie about?

A new unknown prisoner arrives at a lonely space station for the criminally insane orbiting a forsaken, fiery planet known as Dante 01. No this is not a horror film version of Solaris, but that would have been better film than this. It is revealed that the prisoners living at the space station (only seven of them) used to work for a unnamed company, when they were convicted of their crimes they were given two choices, execution or volunteer to be a human guinea pig. The people at this place are the ones who "volunteered" although they don't know for what. It is revealed that the scientists plan to do gene therapy on them with nanotechnology in an attempt to cure them of their homicidal tendencies, though the process is so painful that it is doubtful that anyone will live through it. But a problem arises, their new unknown prisoner, named Saint George by the others, starts curing the innmates of their conditions on his own.

What did I like about this film?

In Dante 01 I can clearly see the stylistic elements common to Caro's co-directed features amplified here. The wide angle lenses and extreme closeups abound and enhance the claustrophobia of the environment.

I also appreciated the little details in the art design of this film like when the film does closeups on the nano particles in the prisoner's blood, I realized that the particles look just like the space station.

What didn't I like about Dante 01?

Just about everything else. You could call my synopsis above a very liberal interpretation of the story here as the film is no where near as clear with it's elements. I could go into extensive detail about it, but I'm just not in the mood, but here are a few of my beefs with the film.

-I couldn't discern why this film had to take place in space. Apart from the ending the main story could have happened on earth, and the climax when the station is in danger of crashing into the planet Dante 01 feels tacked in an attempt to try to put a little action into this largely actionless story.

-If the nanotechnology treatment is so painful that it might cause death, why in the hell did the doctor conducting it refuse to use painkillers? When it is brought up all she says is that they don't need it.

-When Saint George pulls the pain and sickness out of a person in the form of a parasitic creature he eats it. Fine that's no different than the Green Mile, but... Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
-The point of view shots of Saint George as well as the other patients are so disorienting that I can hardly believe that they are lucid let alone able to fight amongst themselves.

-The film is UGLY. Though the Art Direction is good, the closeups of wet faces and sweat-stained clothes gives the film a rank feeling that repulsed me. Not to mention the vomit inducing scenes when Saint George eats the starfish like "parasites" he pulls out of people.

-The ending scene was obviously trying to ape the end to 2001 A Space Odyssey in it's strobing repetitive lights, but here there is no awe. It hurts to watch and I had to turn away because it was too much fast repetitive motion.

Did it pass the distraction test?

I had to give it my full attention because the subtitles, but if I was fluent in french I get the feeling that, no it wouldn't have passed.

Would I recommend it?

I wanted to like it so much, but no, I do not recommend it.

28.

What movie is it?

Season of the Witch


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why subject myself to this movie?

I have experienced two of Cage's lesser films in the last week and found both to be an interesting if not exactly entertaining experience. Here I am presented with a film which not only has Nick Cage in it but Ron Perlman which is another favorite. I'm also a fan of the Sword and Sorcery genre so there are two things going for this film. On the other hand there is it's score on Rotten tomatoes, 10%. But that mean 10% of the people out there actually liked it. Maybe I would be apart of this minority.

What did I like about it?

The concept of the film is pretty good. A road movie set in the during a magical version of the Middle Ages. Two knights, deserters from the crusades, have been tasked to deliver to a witch to a remote monastery or face trial for betraying God. They agree, but this is no ordinary Witch, she claims to be the one who started the black plague. If they kill her like any other Witch her curse won't leave with her, but the remote monastery has a copy of an ancient book which can strip a witch of her powers. They must take her there to undo the curse.

Overall I is an okay setup. the film gives the viewer plenty of reasons to care about every character in the troupe and off we go.

The only other thing I can say about the film is that I liked the ending twist Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
What didn't I like about it?

The film isn't bad per say, it's just grey from beginning to end. There is not one exceptional quality about the movie I can think of other than it's premise. On the other hand, there are several bad elements that drag this mediocre film into a near bad film territory.

Season of the Witch doesn't know what genre it wants to be. Yes a lot of the sword and sorcery elements are there, but usually a film of this type tries to be more than a generic example of it's genre. Conan the Barbarian (1982) does this by also being a revenge film. Lord of the Rings, also was an action movie and a adventure. This movie seems like it wants to go into the horror genre, but the film itself feels neutered in that area like the director's heart wasn't in it or maybe there was some memo sent down from the higher ups in the studio to tone it down. At other times it tries to become just a plain adventure film, but there isn't much to do for the characters other than stick with prison cart.

As it is the obstacles they encounter on their way are not original nor exciting. There is a scene where the Witch runs only to be caught after tricking one of the group to his death, then there is the ricketly wooden bridge of doom cliche that the film spends too much time on, and finally they are attacked by wolves. That last scene is pretty comical, because for some damn reason the wolves's faces are changed via CGI into something someone thought was scarier, but looks like a red eyed, furless face of a rat with wolf teeth.

As far as the acting is concerned, it isn't bad and Nick Cage doesn't get close to the overacting he's known for in his other bad films. Though I can't fault the other actors for bad performances either, they do not seem to put in the effort to make their part rise above the suffocating mediocrity of the movie. This ultimately makes the film forgettable and a bore.

Did it pass the distraction test?

No.

Would I recommend it?

No. it isn't a terrible film, but there is nothing about the movie worth watching, all of these elements have been done before and better in other films and the movie isn't bad enough to warrant a drunken bad movie viewing with a crowd.

Any thought or nagging issues

Yes, I really get the feeling that there was something good here, perhaps in the script a long time ago, but it was diluted to near nonexistence by time and the development process.
Edited by Tim K - 2/4/12 at 12:26am

29. Back to the classics and more SPOILERS.

What movie is it?

The Bridge on the River Kwai


Have I seen it before?

No and as I come to think of it I should post that in this thread.

Why watch this film?

I needed a pallet cleanser after the bland Season of the Witch. This film is one I've always wanted to see and is also my first viewing of a David Lean picture.

What did I like about it?

Where do i start? I suppose I'll tackle the movie from beginning to end.

The introduction of the Alec Guinness and the Soldiers under his command is an overwhelming piece of filmmaking. You can't help but root for them the moment they appear on screen whistling Colonel Bogey. It tells you a great deal about the relationship between Alec and his troops. That they are still under his command even thought they have been captured, but their whistling shows that he is a good leader allowing them their own way of rebelling against their captors.

You know what? All this shit is obvious. I don't think I need to delve into it more. That opening is now one of my favorite intros in film history. It sets up everything to come and shows the flaws both in Guinness and the Warden of the POW camp.

It also sets up one of the greatest battle of wits in cinema history between Guinness's Colonel Nicholson and Hayakawa's Colonel Saito. it is mesmerizing seeing these two on screen hold their ground as both occupy an interesting position. Colonel Saito has all the power, but cannot utilize it lest he risk not building the Bridge he has been tasked to build. Colonel Nicholson has only one power, his men's loyalty, but will not allow Saito to control him like a chain gang worker. The resolution to this battle is played out beautifully. The weaker Guinness physically gets over time, the more power he gains. Saito's only weapons against Guinness are heat, hunger and thirst, but that takes time and more time passes the more the bridge languishes. So when it comes down to it there is a beautiful visual irony in the image of Guinness, barely able to stand on his own, winning against Saito, a man at the top of his health.

But does Guinness really win? Colonel Saito in his isolation of Colonel Nicholson seems to drive Nicholson mad. Guinness's character is so preoccupied with his little disagrement with Saito on whether or not the officers should do manual labor, that he forgets what it is to be a POW. When finally released and tasked with building an asset for the enemy, he sees no conflict of interest in the construction project, but instead views it as another way he can best Saito. To Nicholson the construction becomes a symbol of British ingenuity, a way for him to prove the inferiority of Japanese army. It is a strange bout of madness, fascinating to watch. I still wonder what was going on inside of Guinness's head.

While I was less intrigued with William Holden's story, I loved the catch 22 his character encounters during the course of the film. He impersonates an officer in the POW camp because he thinks he'll get better treatment. But because of this, when the navy finds out he is still impersonating an officer after he escapes they "volunteer" him to go on a the mission to blow up the bridge. It's is either that or a court marshall.

Then there is the ending. I think everyone is familiar with the image of Alec Guinness falling senseless over the detonator, but I have to say even though this moment was spoiled for me long ago, seeing it in context did not lessen it's impact. Personally I fall into the camp of people who think it was a conscious decision on Colonel Nicholson's part. But what really took me by surprise is the actions of Major Warden. So wrapped up in not wanting his charges, William Holden and Lt. Joyce, to get captured he kills them as they both are struggling with Nicholson over the detonator. It's a really dark twist that I wasn't expecting and loved how it made the main theme of the Madness all the stronger.

What didn't I like about it?

William Holden just didn't grab me. I don't know why, but to me he had no charm and the selfishness of his character turned me off for most of the movie until he puts himself in danger to help Lt. Joyce at the end. This made a good portion of the movie feel longer than it should have.

That's pretty much it.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Yes.

What was my favorite part?

The reveal of what Major Warden has done and how he tried to defend his decision to the horrified expressions of the native women around him.

30. Just to tell you this review is going to be full of spoilers about a film that is best approached with a little info as possible, I even recommend you don't watch the trailer.

That said.

What movie is it?

Catfish


Have I seen it before?

No

Why this movie?

Because I have an unhealthy obsession with documentaries that blur the line. Just like the film Exit Through the Giftshop, Catfish has had people calling it a faux documentary from day it debuted at festivals. These films fascinate me like no other and my recent discovery of a used Blu-ray of the film for $4 at a closing Blockbuster video got me more excited than I have been in a while.

What is this movie about?

Okay, I don't know how reviewers are able to review this film without spoiling it, but let me give it a shot before getting into the spoilerific details of the next section. A young New York photographer receives a painting in the mail one day of the first photograph he got published in a major paper. The painting was done by an 8 year old girl called Abby and becomes the seed of a pen pal relationship which spreads until he is conversing with Abby, her Mom Angela, her dad Vince and her older sister Megan. As the friendships grows, Abby keeps on sending him more paintings of his work and he starts up a romantic internet relationship with Abby's older sister Megan. Then he decides to meet this family in person...

I can tell you the film doesn't delve into the macabre or try to do a found footage horror twist, but everything else from here on will be laced with

SPOILERS

What did I like about it?

Geeze, my mind is still trying to wrap around this film. I really like how the truth, when it is revealed, doesn't maliciously tear down everything that came before and leave everyone involved hurting. I, myself, find lying difficult. Yes, I do it every day, but I wouldn't go out of my way to me to fabricate a fake image of my life in order to impress someone I didn't know. The Pathological nature of the lies that Abby's mom, Angela, creates, fascinates me.

I just spoil it to get it over with. It turns out that everyone associated with Abby does not exist the photographer, Yaniv (Nev), thought they did. All the posts and Facebook accounts were created by Angela. The paintings are Angela's, Abby's sister, Megan, who he sexted with was Angela, everyone is a part of an elaborate fantasy Angela was acting out online.

What really makes me love this film is the way Angela is not vilified once the truth comes out. She admits it and as more of the truth is revealed I really identified with Angela and felt sorry for her. The male midlife crisis is well documented and a well trodden topic by now, but Catfish turns out to be the rare film about the female midlife crisis. Angela is the mother of two daughters and, through her marriage with Vince, also the adoptive mother of twin sons with severe mental disorders. Though the film never states how old the sons are, they are old enough to need to be shaven daily. When Angela tied the knot with Vince she basically gave up all the freedom she had and is anchored to these two boys. They are incapable of taking care of themselves and Angela and Vince do not have the means to higher a caregiver. She cannot leave them alone for more than a day and is only just realizing that this will be her life for the foreseeable future. All her dreams growing up, of becoming a dancer, traveling and having what some would call an interesting life, will not happen. It is the sad truth.

So Angela's way of dealing with this is through lying about her life online, though I prefer to say what she was doing was creating a wistful fantasy. There is no truth check software online built into the browser like spell check. So through Facebook she can at least appear to be who she's always wanted to be. And then she comes across Nev's photo in the paper. It's of couple doing ballet in a field of grass. It speaks to her, she always wanted to be a dancer, so she paints it and on a whim send it to Nev. She wants him to be impressed by it and thinks he'd be more impressed if it was painted by an 8 year old girl. From there the lies get bigger, and through her correspondence with Nev she makes at least one person out there to believe that she really is the interesting woman she always wanted to be. Her dreams are alive and well in someone else.

When this facade comes crashing down we feel sorry for her. It is better that the truth is out, but now the avenues she built to escape her life are gone. Though she is happy in her marriage, by the end of this film she really starts to mourn all of her dreams that she will never be able to realize.

I also find it funny how her lies never truly end. it seems she got so used to doing it, that it is a natural reaction to lie, because of the comfort it brought her in the past. She, by the end of the film, still maintains she had cancer and says that her older daughter Megan, the one Nev thought he had an online romance with, is at rehab for alcoholism. The final titles of the film reveal that both these statements are untrue, and, though the films never say Megan doesn't exist, I wonder if she does.

I especially loved the ending line to Catfish that gave the film it's title said by Vince, Angela's Husband.

Angela is a Catfish, and so is this film if it is fake.

END SPOILERS

What didn't I like?

The trailer spoiled to damn much of the film.

Other than that I'm drawing a real blank on this.

The only other thing I can think of isn't really a flaw. My discussion above, and my recommendation below will probably make it seem like I'm rating this movie higher than most. While I liked the film, it does not rival Bridge on the River Kwai or other classics.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Yes, and try to go into it with as little info as possible.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

Yes. I can see the truth in arguments against this film being a real documentary. How could they capture every turn in the story on film? Why start making a documentary about a painting and Facebook correspondence so early on in the relationship, before anything unusual happens?

But even after admitting to myself that the people calling it fake have a point, I still want this film to be true.

31.

What movie it is?

Hellboy II: The Golden Army


Have I seen it before?

No

Why Choose Hellboy II?

Because I had a sudden realization that it was the only Guillermo del Toro film I haven't seen.

What did i like about it?

I really enjoyed the soaring imagination of Del Toro on display here. He really knows how to make an action fantasy and fill it with colorful characters.

The battles were great and peppered with the pathos that is laced into the story of all of Del Toro's films. The death of the forest God was a beautiful and tragic moment in this film in particular. In a way it made me dislike the villain more, because by unleashing the last of the forest gods he effectively decided to use and endangered species as a weapon. Like man a unleashing the last of the rhinos into a battle, the creature panics and the person who kills it isn't as responsible as the person who brought it there and decided to use it as a tool to win. Anyway that isn't even the end of the film and the battles that follow are just as good.

I also liked that Abe Sapien got more screen time here. His character is the one I wanted to see more of in the first Hellboy and his brief romance with the Elf Princess Nuala provides his character with a nice little arc for this film.

What didn't I like about it?

It irks me whenever the terms all powerful or unbeatable are used to describe a villain or weapon in a film. It just feels like lazy storytelling. So this Golden Army is unbeatable, unkillable and every other "un" you can think of.

Why?

It seems the answer is "because of Magic," but then the question becomes why didn't they use this magic in their warfare before? And why was it necessary to build the men of the army out of cogs and metal, couldn't they just have easily used clay and created golems?

These kind of questions abound in a film like this and one way to deal with them is to establish some laws of magic (like our world's physical laws) in order to describe how magic may be weiled in the in the world and state why they can't just use magic to do every little thing and win every battle. They are no such established laws in this film. This has the effect of making it all seem a bit arbitrary. Things happen because the plot requires them to, not because the world of the film demands that it must happen in a certain way or it won't work. I feel this lessens the story of the film.

Then there are certain things that happen in this film that really are too coincidental for me to suspend disbelief. Like when the group are trying to find someone who will save Hellboy from the deadly spear tip lodged inside him and it turns out that the spear tip is the perfect payment for for the cure. Then there is that weird coincidence of Hellboy having the right to challenge the villain in one on one combat. Why didn't the film tell me this before? It is an awfully convenient way of getting the "Unbeatable" Golden army out of the picture.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Yes. In spite of my problem with the film's plot being a little bit too convenient, I had a good time watching it.

32.

What movie it is?

Fury (1936)


Have I seen it before?

No

Why watch Fury?

It's Fritz Lang's first American film, do I need another reason?

What is it about?

Spencer Tracy is in love with Silvia Sidney, but when he is on his way to marry her is is pulled over by a small town Sheriff. It is revealed that the Sheriff is following up on a tip he got about some infamous kidnappers in the area who happen to be driving the Same car a Spencer Tracy. A few other coincidences about Tracy's character pile up (Tracy character likes eating peanuts and the ranson letter had peanut residue) and give the sheriff enough reason to bring Tracy in. Through a blabbing deputy, word gets out to the town that they got a suspect in the kidnapping and as gossip spreads, so do tempers and a lynch mob forms. Tracy manages to survive their attempt to kill him but now this once harmless man will not rest until he gets his revenge.

What did I like about it?

LITE SPOILERS

That this film actually had some teeth to it's message. Spencer Tracy's character starts out as a man who believes in the goodness of the masses and actually states that one of the key traits of a criminal is that it is a person who moves against the social norm. This make the complete disenfranchisement of Tracy character so powerful, because it turns out that the it was the social norm was wrong. He was an innocent individual who was trapped in a cell that the social norm tried to burn down. Having them kill his dog was a nice touch to drive the point home.

I also liked the revenge took the form of a trial for murder rather than Death Wish type vigilantism. Through the trial the whole town denies that they were there and they have their neighbors back up their alibis. This wholesale perjury is then exposed by the District Attorney in a wonderful scene I won't spoil. In fact the District Attorney is so good in in the trial that all Spencer Tracy really has to do is keep his head down and anonymously provide a half melted engagement ring as proof that he perished in the blaze.

The film is shot really well, it is more hollywood than Lang, but there are flashes of Lang's visual flair throughout and I especially liked Tracy's entrance in the final scene. Not to mention the cut between the women of the town gossiping and the hens in the henhouse.

I also loved the callbacks in the film, they are really well done.

What didn't I like about this film?

HEAVY SPOILERS

I have my usual complaint for the time period. I didn't think it went far enough in it's indictment of mob mentality. Again probably because of the Hays code. So, while I did say this film has teeth, it doesn't bite hard enough. I get the feeling that Fritz wanted a less happy ending. What I can't determine is how exactly this film originally would have ended. Having all 23 of the people proven to be in the mob given the death penalty for a murder that didn't happen is a little too dark, even for Lang. But I didn't fully believe in Tracy's change at the end which rescues the convicted people.

Did it pass the distraction test?

My pride says that I should say yes here because it is a Fritz Lang film and saying no would mean that I'm not the mature cinephile I present myself to be, but the fact of the matter is I was perfectly able to answer a few emails while watching this and it never really forced me put my computer down to give it my full attention until the final sentencing scene.

Would I recommend it?

Yes.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

I bought this film as a part of a boxed set of classics containing A Face in the Crowd, Advise and Consent, The Americanization of Emily, Blackboard Jungle, Fury and I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. The only film I had seen before this purchase was Chain Gang, but I figured if all of the films in this set were of similar quality than I was in for a treat. So far two of the three movies I watched from the set have surprised me with their messages and I hope both the Blackboard Jungle and Advise and Consent are just as good when I put them into my PS3 sometime in the next month.

33.

What movie is it?

Big


Have I seen it before?

Yes, twice before. Once as a kid under 10 and once as an adolescent.

Why rewatch it?

I realized the other day that I had never seen this movie from the perspective as an adult. I was curious to see if my perpective of the film would change now that I'm viewing it as an adult.

How did it compare to my previous viewings?

I remember loving this film, and Tom Hanks in particular when I saw it as a kid, As a young teen I felt the film was too sappy and way to slow. As an adult the magic of my first viewing has been restored and I find that interesting.

What did I like?

Tom Hanks really dives in to his performance here and doesn't hold anything back. He is so believable as a kid in a man's body that I'm surprised that this film wasn't his first Oscar win. It is a much better performance than Forest Gump, but I supposed nominations for best actor for a comedic performance don't often attract wins at the Academy Awards.

I also loved how fresh this film felt in its story. Less original films would provide Josh with complication after complication and essentially try to get kids to fear growing up. Instead Big presents both the good and the bad about being an adult. While it is true that you can do anything within your means and even turn an apartment into a funhouse, the responsibilities, petty workplace jealousies and tough choices are wearing and eventually make the happiest of adults long for the carefree life of a child.

I especially like how the film presents the character of Susan as a stereotype. The type of business woman who would sleep with anyone she sees climbing the corporate ladder so long as they give her a leg up as well. It is really enjoyable to see her character completely change for the better when she meets Josh, a Man/child who has no preconceived notions and doesn't expect anything from her except friendship.

What didn't I like about it?

I think my major disconnect of viewing this film as a teenager is partly due to Tom Hanks great performance. He played Josh Baskin too young. What made me come to this opinion is thinking back to my previous viewings and remembering that I loved it the first time and disliked it the second. I this was because my under 10 self completely identified with Hank's character and would have done exactly what he was doing if I found myself in an adult body at that time. Specifically getting a job making toys and filling every aspect of my life with playtime and horsing around. When I saw this film for the second time I was around 13, the same age Tom Hank's character is supposed to be in the film. At that age I thought Tom Hanks played Josh too immature for a 13 year old and I couldn't identify with him.

Just to set the record straight it could be that I was unable to root for Josh in my second viewing because I was a tall kid and already could go on any rides that I liked at a carnival.

I'm smiling to myself now after rereading that last sentence. Something about that memory just encapsulates the selfishness of adolescence. It makes it sound like that If I couldn't identify with all of Josh's problems in the beginning I completely ceased to care about him. To be fair, this might have been the case.

As an adult another thing I find strange about this film is that the implied sex between Josh and Susan now feels a little dirty. Josh is physically an adult, but mentally 13 when he and Susan get it on. At the time the film came out I don't think this would have been thought of as all that creepy (as opposed to the other way around), but now with storys of female teachers being arrested for statutory rape appearing on the news regularly, my opinion of this particular aspect of Big's coming of age story has been tainted.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes

Would I recommend it?

Yes. I'd say that everyone should see it at least twice. Once from the perspective of a kid and once from the perspective of an adult. Doing so really adds new dimensions to the story.

What was my favorite part?

The first time Josh brings Susan to his apartment. Watching her cynical facade melt under his genuine enthusiasm as he tries to make her his new friend is one of the best scenes in all of modern romantic comedy.

Well I knew the day would come when I just couldn't fit a movie into my schedule let alone the time to write a review about one. But this is a my blog so I guess I could attempt a regular blog post.

As I said in my first entry, the reviews were just a way of getting me to write every day and happily I've broken through the block on one of my older scripts. A couple of days ago I decided to go through all my unfinished writing and read it. It took me a while but I got through it all and one script in particular recaptured my imagination. I had left the script at page 36 because I was agonizing over how a huge event should go down. The script is actually a pretty wild take on the found footage haunted house tale and I needed a big event that would separate my main group of characters from the outside world.

Originally I just wanted them to get lost by accident, but that wasn't dramatic enough for my tastes. So I decided that I needed an event that would make it impossible for them to turn back and force them to go deeper into the house to find a way out. The writer's block I had about this is that one of the main themes of this story is dishonesty, to re-enforce this theme I wanted this accident to be directly caused by one characters doing a dishonest act and not by the haunted house itself. Today I found a happy medium to accomplish this. One of my characters causes a structural collapse completely by accident, but it happens as a result of a trick he tries to play on the rest of the group. Not a dangerously mean trick, he just was climbing in the rafters, hiding remote speakers to make the place sound like it had ghosts and while up there he breaks some structural beams by accident.

I know this doesn't sound like a big deal to most people, but figureing this out has got me pumped and now I'm going to go back to writing.

34. Making up for yesterday.

What movie is it?

Gambit


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why choose Gambit?

It is a 60's Michael Caine crime film, sign me up.

What is it about?

Its a heist film and follows conventions pretty well except for it's unique structure.

What did I like about it?

It's structure. For the entire first act the film shows us how the heist should go in detail, but It turns out that this whole sequence is just inside of Michael Caine's head. Then the rest of the film shows how murphy's law can wreck the best of plans. It is a beautiful way to present a comedy. You let the audience know how everything should go and then keep them laughing and wondering how the characters will cope with the every turn in events.

Shirley MacLaine is a particularly a joy here. In the first act Michael Caine has yet to enroll her help, so her character acts like a prop in his vision on how the plan should go. She doesn't speak and fills the heist role of being the distraction and eye candy. But when Michael Caine finally talks to her for the first time it turns out that she has an outspoken bubbly personality that might ruin his plan from the start. Then it turns out that not only does she not ruin the plan, her personality saves plan on more than one occasion.

What didn't I like about it?

That this film is an offender of the much talked about Hollywood whitewashing. As much as I think Shirley MacLaine is great in this, they should have hired an Asian actor to play her part. Her Character's name is Nicole Chang. They try to explain her looks away by saying that her mother was white, but really? Having a red haired blue eyed, freckled woman playing a half Asian showgirl? Why try to make her Asian at all?

The ending was one turn too many for me. I appreciated all the twists and finding out what was behind the heist, but they should have ended when Michael Caine and Shirley MacLaine kissed, the scene that came after was unnecessary and I could see it coming from a mile away after how little the character Emile reacted to Michael Caine's actions.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend it?

Yes. It is perfect viewing for any fan of the 60s crime genre. I also feel that Bond fans would like it's style as well.

35.

What movie is it?

Bedazzled (1967)


Have I seen it before?

No, but I did see the remake in the theater when it cam out.

Why watch Bedazzled?

I'm quite a big fan of 60s british comedy. My interest in it started (like everyone else) with my exposure to Monty Python in my teens, then after a bit of overexposure it waned until six month ago when I saw the original Italian Job for the first time. Now I want to watch all the old comedies again, but I'm trying to put some space between viewings to avoid getting burned out.

What did I like about it?

Though this film obviously had a much smaller budget to work with than the remake, the scrip here is much more imaginative. I especially like the way Peter Cook plays the Devil. He is not presented as evil incarnate, but as a working stiff angel paying penance for defying God millennia ago. He does his evil deeds not out of any particular joy, its just habit. If Dudley Moore leaves any wiggle room in his wishes, Cook must exploit it because that's part of his job. It's a different kind of devil than the one played by Elisabeth Hurley in the remake and by the end of the film I felt a little sorry for this angel forced to do evil deeds when he would much rather be back up in heaven reclaiming his role as God's favorite.

I also lie how the film wasn't afraid go deep into the absurd for some of the wishes. I don't want to give them away, because figuring out how the wishes will go wrong is half the fun of the movie.

What didn't I like?

I didn't find the girl Moore is infatuated with in the film to be all that attractive. His love could be explained away as years of built of emotions for the girl, but the extent to which he goes to get her is extreme. I am left wondering why this film didn't just have Raquel Welch play that role. I mean she is already in the movie, so it is possible that she could have been cast as the object of affection. Instead Welch has a one scene cameo as the personification of the sin of Lust. It's a great scene, but no other woman could compete with her in a plot like this and her cameo just highlights how average Moore's object of affection is.

Though I did like this movie, it really does sag in places. Wishes 3 and 6 in particular are slow to get through. Wish 7 does redeem some of this with it's absurdity, but the film overall felt longer than it should be.

Did it pass the distraction test?

No.

Would I recommend it?

Yes.

What was my favorite part?

I actually really enjoyed some of the sequences between the wishes. The many manifestations of the Devil were amusing. Helping birds to spread their "doo doo", causing parking meters to expire prematurely and doing other little things to drain the joy out of the average Joe. I found all these small petty acts really amusing and liked the way Cook acted like hobbyist while doing them.

36.

What movie is it?

Predators


Have I seen it before?

No

Why Choose this film?

Didn't want to watch anything serious. I recently picked this up used on dvd and thought I'd throw it in to the player. A acton horror sounded good.

What did I like about it?

Overall it entertained me, I did roll my eyes a few times, but the film was fun if somewhat insubstantial.

I liked the action and the set pieces. I applaud the directer in his confidence showing all the violence in a coherent way. I could follow all the battles well and the camera never got too close to the acton to throw me off. The death of the Yakuza character in particular was a nice little respite from all the shooting, though I couldn't figure out exactly why his character stopped running and turned around to fight.

I also like how the film referenced the first movie by turning the Predator's heat vision against it

What didn't I like about it?

That the end is pretty much telegraphed in the beginning. I knew who was going to die and who wasn't from the start, it was only a matter of guessing who would go in what order. I also could have done without Topher Grace's character's twist because it really throws off all of his previous motivations and the more I think about it the less it makes sense. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Did it pass the distraction test?

No

Would I recommend it?

Yeah. Its a fun popcorn flick and better than all the other Predator films except the first one.

Any thoughts or nagging issues?

I'm still undecided about the whole Über Predator vs. Predator class war thing. I'm not sure if I like it or dislike it.

I also never before thought that i would see a movie in which Adrian Brody takes off his shirt, smears mud all over himself and then tries to do his best to impersonate Schwarzenegger at the end of Predator. It is a singlar moment which made me wonder if the nerds really have won in todays society.

What was my favorite part?

I'll go with the Yakuza with katana fighting the Predator with arm blades scene.

37. Short and Sweet tonight because I'm tired.

What movie is it?

Very Bad Things


Have I seen it before?

No

Why watch this movie?

When writing my stories they always seem to gravitate toward dark comedy. I like the genre largely because it fits so nicely within my cynical world view. So a comedy about trying to hide an accidental murder should be right down my alley.

What did I like about this film?

Not much. The cast is quite good and it was also enjoyable watching Cameron Diaz beat in Christian Slater's skull with a coat rack, but that's about it.

What didn't I like about this film?

A dark comedy should be morbid and cynical which this film is, but it also should be funny. I didn't find anything very funny in this. The characters are played too seriously and the motivations for the murders are more and more tenuous. If they wanted to create a true comedy all of the murders should have been accidental. There would be actual humor in a killing spree caused by a group of friends who didn't mean to do it.

The Cinematography was distracting with it's uncomfortable dutch angles and closeups of the actors sweating like pigs. It was like this movie took Natural Born Killers as it's visual point of reference for how to make a comedy.

Slater is a bit unhinged in the beginning, but I don't get why he becomes a killer after the death of the prostitute. He wasn't even the one that killed her in the first place. His whole villainous arc is confusing.

I could go on, but it largely boils down to the fact that this movie didn't connect with me in any way, and repelled me in more ways than one.

Did it pass the distraction test?

No.

Would I recommend it?

No. I am a fan of many a dark comedy like Heathers or the Hospital but this film had little satire and even less comedy to make it worthwhile.

38. Tonight a palate cleanser.

What Movie is it?

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)


Have I seen it before?

Of Course.

Why rewatch it?

I was hit with the urge to watch it today after catching a bit of the soundtrack being played over the radio. The bug bit me and bit me hard when I realized that, though I did own the extended edition blu-ray, I had never played it on my new HD TV after my older 720p set bit the dust in September.

How did it compare to my previous viewings?

The same, the effects on the other hand are starting to show their seams. Though mostly it's only regulated to a few compositing shots, like in the intro when Isildur puts on the ring to escape into the river from the orc bandits.

What did I like about it?

Watching this movie now after countless viewings is like snuggling up to an old friend. The blu-ray is astounding in it's looks and I felt like I was back in the theater again. the colors pop and the amount of detail in the shots is a wonder to behold. Now more than ever the film takes on the look of storybook fantasy especially in the opening vistas of Hobbiton.

I was also surprised to see some of the more dodgy effects cleaned up. The battle between Gandalf and Saruman inside Orthanc before contained what I considered to be the worst sfx shot in Fellowship. it occurs when Saruman has Gandalf spinning on the floor and then shoots him up to the ceiling. I always thought that Gandalf looked really fake in that shot, but now he no longer does.

The movie didn't take more than twenty minutes to get it's hooks into me this time and I'll think I'll stop there lest I leave fanboy drool all over this blog entry.

What didn't I like about it?

Nit-picky stuff. Now more than ever I can see that eye lines don't match up between the Humans and the Hobbits in some scenes. It's a bit distracting and really pulls the reality out of some of the forced perspective shots. I've also noticed some errors in the forced perspective stuff that escaped my attention before. Near the beginning Gandalf sits down at a kitchen table at Bag End, the front half of the table shakes from Gandalf's movements but the part of the table directly behind him remains still highlighting the fact that there are two separate tables there.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes.

Would I recommend the Blu-ray?

Without hesitation.

Another non review entry today. I was going to watch the Extended edition of The Two Towers, but I'm beat and can't even see myself staying awake for the first disk.

By the way I was wondering why, if blu-ray can hold over 50 gigs of info per dual layer disk, did Warner Bothers feel the need to still split each film in the trilogy onto two disks?

Anyway writing progresses on my script at a snails place. An interesting idea hit me the other day while writing. It suddenly occurred to me that the my script could avoid the horror genre entirely and go straight into dark satire. Modern reality Tv shown through the lens of Network if you will. Before I was more going for a .REC feel, but goddamn if this new idea isn't tempting.

Maybe I should stay the course, I could aways rewrite it to follow this second idea later. After all this new idea might just be a something my mind is throwing up because of the trouble I'm having pressing on. A tempting distraction from the job at hand. Come to think of it I've never found myself sticking to my actual treatment further than the middle of the second act. I really need to see what I can produce when I force myself to stick with what I planned to write from the beginning.

Fuck. I hope this doesn't becomes another 146 page first draft like my last script.

Won't be posting updates tonight or this weekend. I'm going to do this event. As you might be able to guess I'm a bit of a theme park geek. Some people have their Star Trek Conventions, I have my roller coaster gatherings. Not a terribly expensive hobby and I justify my nerdiness of it by saying that I at lease burn more calories on a day visiting a theme park than a day walking between panels at a convention.

I highly recommend you go through Theme Park Review if you want to attend one of these. Their events are cheaper than most and they are always are on the ball. They do events around the country (and even sometimes in europe). Their weekend events are once a year for each region. So Cal, Nor Cal, Midwest. the South (usually Georgia) and East coast. If you have money to burn, they also do elaborate world wide tours where they get a bus load of people and try to hit up as many amusement parks in a region as they can in 10 days time.
Edited by Tim K - 2/17/12 at 9:27pm

No blog entry tonight either. The West Coast Bash event I went to over the weekend was awesome and has drained me of all energy. My feet are aching and I've been napping all day. I have to say that my mood his been greatly improved by it and how friendly everyone was at the parks. There is a little story concerning this group that I may one day tell, nothing big in the scheme of things, but one of those moments in my life when my klutziness really ruined a year. This past weekend was the first time that It really seemed to be in the past, people who I thought didn't like me went out of their way to say hi sincerely and shake me by my hand. I feel like a chain of regret has been cut and I'm now floating in my life.

It is a holiday after all so I might as well take today off, though it pains a part of me to do so. There is this little voice in my head accusing me of slacking off of my writing only a month after making the commitment. I admit that I am finding it more difficult than anticipated, but I still intend to continue...

To tell the truth I am debating to maybe cutting down the reviews to 5 days a week so I can allow for days in which I could not find the time to watch something. I didn't realize when starting this that it amounts to a daily 3 hour commitment even for a short entry. I think my strategy now is to marathon movies on the weekends and write about them over the week.

39. Life goes on.

What movie is it?

Bullitt


Have I seen it before?

I have lied, No. I drafted it in my 60s draft, but I admit that it was because I had to pull a choice out of my hat and Bullitt seemed like the best choice.

Why Bullitt?

I thought it was time I saw it.

What did I like about it?

I loved it's realism, very little music and overall treating the police like humans instead of action heroes. Of course Steven McQueen is a badass, but he is also human instead of a Dirty Harry like superhero. The film does have it's flights of fancy like the iconic car chase, but even then the chase has an element of realism that is hard to find in modern films. The cars don't do anything outside the realms of possibility, granted a hit man and a cop are unlikely to have enough skill behind the wheel to fly through the streets of San Francisco like these guys do.

Overall I don't understand the dislike for this film. Many people seem to deride it for being boring outside of the chase but I found the film pretty great. The same thing is said about the French Connection. People need to have patience. There was a time that a police thriller didn't always mean balls to the wall action, but instead a mystery that needed to be solved. Sure that might involve a chase or two, but it also involved interviewing people, following hunches and some good detective work.

What didn't I like?

While I'll defend this film for being what it is and taking it's time I do agree with the criticism that the film's car chase overshadows everything after. It is a setpiece that the climax cannot match and the film feels lopsided because of it.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes

Would I recommend it?

Yes, so long as you know not to expect the pace of 80s cop action films like Lethal Weapon or 48 hours.

40. "Suicide is Painless"

What movie is it?

MASH


Have I seen it before?

No.

Why this movie?

I can't honestly say why I decided to purchase this and put it into my PS3. I'm not particularly attracted to Altman's films and hated the MASH tv show. I'm left thinking that the fates somehow conspired against me and played up my pride. I harbor a fantasy that if was ever to die I want the person who finds my Blu-Ray collection to think I had better taste that I actually do. I knew MASH was a milestone film and finding for cheap in HD caused the money to jump out of my pocket so that I could reenforce the good taste of my collection.

What did I like about the film?

Where has this film been all my life?

This movie clicked with me so strongly that it has instantly earned itself a place in my lifetime top ten films. I cannot yet name what most of those film are, but I can say MASH is one of them. The dark humor, the pacing, the gore, the characters and the satire, it all was perfect. I don;t know what else to say or how to elaborate. This film dug into my brain and flipped all the right switches, it felt like it was made for me.

What didn't I like about the film?

It was strange, but I have to say that until the mock last supper shot I was somewhat bored with the film. I think it was becasue my indifference toward the MASH franchise was so great that the movie really had to push me hard in order for me to get it. I was raised watching the TV show with my parents and there was years of built up boredom that the original source matirial had to overcome. Even to this day I think the TV show MASH is boring sitcomy stuff with no bite and only a little bit of pathos.

So there I was watching this movie and not really getting what it was about until the camera pulls out and I see this:



Then the movie clicked in my brain and everything that came before this scene became great retroactively. This whole film is about giving the middle finger to authority when that is the only option left available to you. These people were drafted, they are trying to save the lives of other poor schmucks who were drafted as well just so some politicians back home can get reelected. The same politicians who drummed up the war in the first place to get the heat off of them and their constituents. You either serve or get arrested. In situations like that humor is the only way to stay sane and those people who are against humor like "Hot Lips" are the enemy. Life sucks, but joking around helps distract from that fact.

Did it pass the distraction test?

Yes

Would I recommend it?

In a heartbeat. Even though I might really like a comedy, I don't often laugh if I'm watching one alone. To really get laughs out of me I need to feed off the energy of an audience. MASH made me laugh more than any movie in recent memory.

Wow, got a lot of writing doen this week (although very little of it is displayed here). I'm really going to try to push myself to write to WGA standard just to see if I can so I doubt I'll be able to do many posts to this blog. Essentially I want to be able to complete a script in two months. The first week is the idea and outline, the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth weeks are dedicated to putting that first draft on paper and then the last two week are devoted to editing so I can clip off obvious loose ends and clean up the draft so that it is readable.

This sucks, but what sucks more is seeing people around me go on to their fifth script while I have only one completed script and several stuck in the middle of the second act. Why is it so fucking hard for me to do this? I really hate the way I can't seem to force myself to type when that little voice in my head is telling me that everything is all wrong with the script so far and I'm just making it worse by plowing on.

To work hard I need the self confidence that I can do this. In order to get that confidence I need to work hard. I hate when my mind goes in circles.