4StarMogwai

The Princess Bride (1987)

2012-01-28T11:42:00.004-05:00

I think the Princess Bride has an off putting title to many. Most men are not going to voluntarily sit down and watch a movie called The Princess Bride. I first saw it as a child, maybe eight or 9, and I was told about it long before I watched it. Even then, I did not want to actually sit down and watch a movie with that title. It just evokes so much crap that I don't give a shit about (namely, princesses and brides). But then you start watching the movie, and the opening shot is a video game from the 80s. So you stick around for a bit. And it progressively draws you in. And it doesn't take long, usually around the time of the first challenge (the sword fight), that the movie completely engrosses you and you're in for the rest of the ride. And it doesn't end up being just a great movie, it ends up being one of the best movies of the 80s. Easily.

But how do you classify The Princess Bride? It fits into just about every genre. First and foremost it's hilarious. There is a lot of Mel Brooks style comedy in it. But it's not a full fledged comedy. It's a fairy tale. It's a swashbuckling action movie. It's a love story. It's a drama. It's a family film. It quite literally has just about everything.

I'm not going to bore you with a plot run down because quite frankly the plot makes it sound almost as unappealing as the title (at least to me). With names like Westley and Princess Buttercup. I will say there is a Giant (played by Andre the Giant), a sword master (played by Mandy Patankin), and a master of wits (played by the incomparable Wallace Shawn). The battle of wits may very well be one of my top 5 favorite scenes from an 80s film. William Goldman, the writer, working from inspiration from his two daughters, quite literally struck gold with this. He's written a lot of good shit, but this is probably at the top of the list.

The Princess Bride came at time when director Rob Reiner was ON FIRE. According to the making of doc on the BD, he filmed it right after This is Spinal Tap and The Sure Thing. I find that odd seeing as how it came out in 1987, and Stand by Me came out the year before. So I can only guess that The Princess Bride sat on a shelf for a good year and Reiner had enough time to make YET ANOTHER 80s classic (Stand by Me) before The Princess Bride was released. Or they just neglected to mention Stand by Me in the doc. Either way, Reiner was ON FIRE in the 80s and early 90s. He followed up Princess Bride with When Harry Met Sally, then Misery, then A Few Good Men. That's like SIX all time classics right there. And it seems like most people don't notice. Probably because he's not an auteur and he doesn't have a distinctive style. Well F that, I think it's just as impressive to make movies that are radically different from one another than to have an overriding style. Maybe even more impressive.

RATING: 5/5

Moneyball (2011)

2012-01-21T22:07:00.004-05:00

Seeing as how I know next to nothing about baseball, everything I know about "moneyball" is now from the movie Moneyball. So whether the movie is accurate or not I don't really know, from the general reception I guess it is, although from what I understand there are complexities that are for more detailed than what is shown in the movie. But then the movie would be boring to us normal folk. After all, Moneyball isn't a documentary, it's primary goal is to entertain. And at 133 minutes, it entertains for every single one of those minutes. I was glued to my screen.

Brad Pitt stars as Billy Beane, the General Manager for the stuggling Oakland A's. They're ranked toward the bottom of the American League. They're losing three of their top players, and the whole team is in drastic need of an overhaul. Things start out normally enough, with Beane sitting down with his committee, trying to come up with new prospects. And seeing as I know little to nothing about baseball, and Moneyball is teaching me, I was shocked to discover that they pick guys mainly by considering jawline and body build rather than other seemingly more important issues. If a dude is fat and round faced but can hit a gazillion home runs would he not be considered? I don't know, but I found this scene fascinating.

A big part of baseball is making trades and cutting deals, and after Pitt decides what prospects he wants to pursue, that's exactly where he heads next. 'Cept the team he's dealing with doesn't seem to want to work with him on any of his prospects. He does notice that the portly fellow (Jonah Hill, if you didn't know from the description) seems to carry some importance in the way the team manager makes his decisions, so after the meeting he corners him at his desk. After picking his brain, he discovers that the portly kid is a Yale economics grad who is a big proponent of looking at stats and base percentages over anything else. He hires him shortly after. The next time he has a meeting with the committee, he shoots down their old hat techniques for finding prospects and decides to go in a completely different and damn near unheard of direction (outside of their creator, Bill James, and his books on the subject, no one has really put them into play). He starts looking at guys based solely on their stats and whether or not they can get on base. The committee is outraged, but he doesn't care. He has a plan and he's sticking to it.

And the rest of the movie is watching him stick to it. And watching him as the plan doesn't work. And then watching him when the plan starts to work. It's both a character movie and an inspirational movie. It's a movie that, as I said, kept me glued to the screen for every minute. The performances are great and the story is just as good. Bennett Miller, who's last movie was Capote, is proving to be an A-list director. Moneyball is a fresh take on a tired genre (the baseball movie), and it's definitely worth watching.

Oh, did I mention Phillip Seymour Hoffman is in this sumbitch?

RATING: 4/5

Bronson (2008)/Hard Times (1975)

2012-01-19T12:07:00.003-05:00

For me, the brilliance of Tom Hardy is a revelation. He's been around, I guess, for a couple years, judging from the fact that Bronson has been out for a good while. Before a week or two ago, I had known him only as the British guy from Inception. Now I know him as the guy from Warrior, and even more impressively, the guy from Bronson. But the Whammy's don't end there. Bronson is also directed by Drive's Nicholas Winding Refn. And all the things you liked about Drive are here as well, except it's far more gritty and possibly even more violent. And even more obviously influenced by Kubrick, particularly A Clockwork Orange.

Where Malcolm McDowell had one of the more physically demanding roles of the 70s (probably THE most physically demanding role of the 70s and even beyond), Tom Hardy has one of the more physically demanding roles of the 00s. He has to strip down, all the way down, multiple times in the film, and he has to grease himself up with blood or butter or whatever the hell he can find to try and make himself harder to grip when the guards come in to take him away. Yeah he doesn't have to get his eyes pinned open (they don't do that shit anymore), but he does have to do physical comedy, physical work outs, physical disability, and demanding fight scenes.

The story is real simple. It's about a fella nicknamed Charles Bronson, and he's known for having spent almost his entire post-teen life in prison. He's basically just a giant pain in the ass, extremely abusive to guards, and not the least bit friendly to most folks. It's narrated onstage by Bronson, who does a variety of acts in a variety of make ups and costumes. It's all very bizarre but entirely hypnotic.

The music is all either 80s New Wave style stuff and classical. And it may seem like a striking contrast to the content, and it is, but is also manages to work wonderfully. One of the great things about Drive was Refn's effective use of music, and it's a very similar style to the music in Drive. So if you liked the music in Drive, you'll dig the music in Bronson.

Speaking of Bronson, 1975's Hard Times stars the man himself (the actor, not the felon). There is a short sequence in Bronson where Tom Hardy fights for money. Well, Hard Times is like a full movie of that sequence. Charles Bronson plays a drifter who arrives in town. He seeks out a fight manager, played by James Coburn, and asks him to set up some fights for him. Bronson's character is pretty much the biggest bad ass on the planet, plowing through one fight after another. A rival manager is pissed because Bronson takes out his top guy, and he wants Bronson in his stable. But Bronson don't want none of that. So the rival manager gets the toughest guy he can find and sets up a winner take all match in a warehouse. Good movie.

BRONSON: 3.5/5
HARD TIMES: 3/5

Nashville (1975)

2012-01-11T21:27:00.003-05:00

Nashville is one of those movies that I should have watched a long time ago, back in my days of watching as many highly acclaimed movies that I could get my hands on. But for whatever reason, it slipped through my fingers. In fact, I think almost all of Robert Altman's movies have slipped through my fingers. He's a director I never really got into. I did see MASH a few years ago and I actually really liked it. I guess I wasn't in the mood for McCabe and Ms. Miller though, because I turned it off about 40 minutes in (*ducks fruit*), but Nashville I thoroughly enjoyed.

For starters, the opening credits are great. Very original, they play like an infomercial for a star studded country album. And star studded it is. The movie has 24 main characters, all interweaving over 5 days in Nashville. They include Keith Carradine, Ronee Blakley, Karen Black, Shelly Duvall, Scott Glenn, Ned Beatty, Jeff Goldblum, Lily Tomlin, and in a cameo as himself Elliot Gould. There are a lot more than that but those are probably the most recognizable names. Actually, Ronee Blackley probably isn't a recognizable name, but I always wondered why she got the part in A Nightmare on Elm Street, because she seemed like such a terrible actress in that movie. Not here though, she plays the part of a country superstar on the verge of a nervous breakdown to perfection.

From what I understand, many of the actors had a hand in writing their own songs. Or maybe I'm remembering that wrong? Shit, I don't know. And I'm too lazy to look it up. To hell with it. I know Ronee Blakley wrote a lot of the music, and I know Keith Carradine penned "I'm Easy," which according to the American Film Institute is one of the top 100 movie songs of all time.

Speaking of Keith Carradine, I loved him in this movie. His storyline is probably my favorite. I liked how he keeps harassing Lily Tomlin, finally inviting her to a club to watch him perform a song he supposedly wrote for her, and before she's even out the door later he's calling up some other bitch to come hang out with him. But at the same time, you get the feeling that he truly does have a thing for Tomlin, because he seems more than a bit disappointed that she bails on him.

There is just far too much going on this movie to really explain it properly. It's 160 minutes of wall to wall characters, plus several long musical numbers thrown in. Some people don't get what all the fuss is about but I loved it. I loved the setting, I loved the billion characters (almost all of them are interesting), and I liked the 70s style country music. And I loved the climax. The movie is almost all comedy, but it gets serious every once in a while, and it works. As a forecast of December 8, 1980, the climax is rather chilling.

RATING: 4/5

Top 10 List 1975

2012-01-11T21:21:00.002-05:00

Cooley High (dir: Michael Schultz)
Dog Day Afternoon (dir: Sidney Lumet)
Hard Times (dir: Walter Hill)
Jaws (dir: Steven Spielberg)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (dir: Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones)
Nashville (dir: Robert Altman)
Night Moves (dir: Arthur Penn)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (dir: Milos Foreman)
Smile (dir: Michael Ritchie)
Three Days of the Condor (dir: Sydney Pollack)

Fright Night (2011)

2012-01-08T11:25:00.002-05:00

Fright Night had two big strikes against it before it even got out of the gate. # 1, it's a remake, therefore there is already a certain amount of people against it (small, maybe, but always vocal). # 2, it's another release in the ridiculously played out vampire genre. Seriously, after the last of the Twilight movies are released, Hollywood needs to let vampires rest for a good decade. But regardless of those two things, it still manages to be a decent movie.

Colin Farrell is the movie's drawing point, as far as I'm concerned. Just as Chris Sarandon was the main attraction of the original Fright Night (for me), Jerry Dandridge once again steals the show. Farrell is up to the task, and he takes the movie to another level than it would have been if he wasn't in it. Also adding to the likability factor, again mirroring the original, is the role of Peter Vincent. When I first read that they were changing Vincent from a late night horror TV host to a Cris Angel style Las Vegas magician, I groaned. But clearly they either knew what they were doing, or David Tennant took the role to places they didn't imagine. While I wouldn't say he's as good as Farrell, there are others who are convinced that he steals the show.

But how about the kids? Anton Yelchin stars as Charley Brewster, and he's probably one of the better choices for the role. Charley is a bit of a nerd, but here he seems to be going through a Patrick Dempsey in Can't Buy Me Love stage, which makes him slightly annoying to me. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, the current go-to nerd for playing nerds, works his magic on Ed, Charley's childhood best friend who is currently on the outs. I enjoyed his blackmailing of Charley to get him to hang out with him, but I think they missed the boat on exploring a more interesting dynamic between these two. My biggest beef with the movie is that everything happens too quick.

It's a capable entry in the never ending era of remakes. We can either groan about every single one that comes out, or try to enjoy them for what they are: modern updates on childhood favorites. Some of them are atrocious, some of them are awesome, and some of them fall somewhere in between. It's best to just let them be, and if you don't think your childhood is being raped by all of these things, give them a chance to impress. You may be surprised.

RATING: 3/5

Warrior (2011)

2012-01-06T23:21:00.003-05:00

If The Wrestler and The Fighter had a baby (while Rocky watched), it would be Warrior. And I mean that as a compliment.

While it may be formuliac at times (and a bit reminiscent of other recent films), there are plenty of things Warrior has going for it. For starters, it's a fresh sport. Most MMA movies so far have been cheesy straight to video DVDs. This one takes the world seriously and creates three dimensional characters that the audience cares about. I think that 15, 20 years from now, it'll be one of those time capsule movies that captures a certain culture in a moment of time, and it will have a very nostalgic quality to it. And luckily, it has a very strong character driven story as well, so it could be in the same league as Rocky. Only time will tell.

The gist of the story is that two brothers enter a mixed martial arts tornument, both for very different but very important reasons. The younger brother is being reluctantly trained by his estranged father (Nick Nolte, in a superb performance), a man neither brother has forgiven for being a drunk. I don't really want to say much more than that, because the movie kind of reveals information when it's ready to give it to you. I'll just say that the characters are well drawn, and the movie really drags you into the relationships they have with each other.

Besides Nolte, both leads give strong performances. Tom Hardy, fresh off Inception and getting ready to take on Batman, is very good as the younger brother. He's an Englishman, and he does a really good tough guy/cool guy voice. It didn't even click with me until mid way through that it was the British guy from Inception. Once I realized that I paid close attention to his accent and I think he is spot on here. Joel Edgerton is the other brother. I recognized him from Animal Kingdom (as one of the more likable characters in that film), and I almost couldn't get over his striking resemblance to Conan O'Brien.

It's a real crowd pleaser, this film. And like most good sports movies, you don't have to be a fan of the sport to get enjoyment out of it. If the characters and the story are there, you can be the world's biggest non sports fan and still find it immensely entertaining. And the characters and story are definitely here, so much so that if I were a filmmaker looking to make a respectable movie set in the world of MMA, it'd almost seem like a pointless task, because Warrior has done such a great job of it. But I'm sure there are other stories that can be told, they just have a pretty big hill to climb.

RATING: 3.5/5

Three Days of the Condor (1975)

2012-01-04T00:07:00.004-05:00

It starts off with that cheesy 1970s style porn music that everyone loves, and it kind of sets the stage for a light weight comedy of some sort. Even in the opening scenes, Robert Redford seems to be playing the role for laughs. But don't be fooled, I think director Sydney Pollack is keeping the tone light because the rest of the movie is so serious. So really, the credits don't properly set the stage for the movie, which is technically a flaw, but Three Days of the Condor is a really good movie, so I'll let it slide.

Redford plays Joseph Turner (codename: The Condor), a man who works at a top secret government agency. His job is to read books. Every book, really, and look for lines that could be construed as codes for potential plans, plots, connecting the dots, etc. He takes a quick trip to a deli around the corner to grab some lunch, and while he is gone a couple of armed men dressed as U.S. Postal Workers infiltrate the agency he works at, and they shoot everyone (including a girl Redford is fond of). By the time Redford gets back to the agency, the violence has ended and the men have left, but he soon realizes everyone is dead. He rushes to a pay phone to make a phone call, and he is given very specific instructions. It isn't before long that more shit starts to go down, and before he knows it he can't trust anyone, because everyone he knows is trying to kill him. His only refuge is to take an innocent civilian hostage (Faye Dunaway) and hide out in her apartment, trying to make sense of what the hell is going on.

The plot just thickens from there. It's a conspiracy movie, and I normally don't care for those types of movies but I found this one to be really good. It's interesting how it kind of foreshadows some issues that we are dealing with nowadays. The World Trade Center and killing people over oil is a big part of the conspiracy, so it's somewhat chilling to see that much of the movie features the exterior of the towers and several interiors were shot in the buildings as well. If I were a whack job conspiracy theorist I'd say "That's too much of a coincidence, I bet Bush saw this movie on TV on 9/10 and devised his master plan!" As funny as that may be, and as much as I like to dismiss such nonsense, if any of the actual conspiracy theorists spent three real days like Robert Redford in Three Days of the Condor I wouldn't argue with them.

Redford in the 70s (or any time, really) is hard to dislike. He always seems watchable and I rarely find myself bored watching his movies. Three Days of the Condor is just another in a long line of classic 70s Redford performances. While he may not have much in the way of range in character, he certainly knows how to get the audience on his side. Faye Dunaway is likable here as well, although I found their relationship to be a bit too fast moving for the movie, but it doesn't kill it or anything. I also THOROUGHLY enjoyed Max Von Sydow as a cold blooded assassin. He's almost like an Anton Chigurh for the 70s, without the 70s hair.

A great ending. And I think if anything is to be considered relevant from this movie today without being too whack-jobby, it's probably the ending. I like how Redford is sure that he's got these guys by the balls, but then the guy says one thing that makes Redford doubt his whole plan. And we don't know for sure that Redford doubts it because he doesn't say anything, but we can see it on his face. Who do you trust when the government has a hand in everything?

Horrible Bosses (2011)

2011-12-30T23:01:00.004-05:00

Horrible Bosses is a great example of a modern ensemble comedy. It has a great premise that it takes in a rather over the top direction, and I think it could have failed miserably. But with this cast, it's almost impossible to fail. And not only that, the over the top direction makes it more fun (it's like a lighter Very Bad Things). The movie is just flat out wall to wall comedy. Not a serious bone in its body. Usually you find some sort of dramatic character arc to tie everything together, but you don't really get that here. The characters start off stupid and they end up...slightly less stupid? But still pretty damn stupid. It's basically a really funny, stupid movie.

The movie follows three men, and their respective bosses. Jason Bateman's boss, played by Kevin Spacey, is an abusive, lying douche bag who makes Bateman think that he's in line for a big promotion, only to change his mind at the last minute. Charlie Day is a dental assistant who has to endure day after day of sexual abuse and borderline rape from his female dentist boss (played by the lovely Jennifer Anniston, back to her great comedic form). And Jason Sudeikis' boss is actually a lovable father figure played by the great Donald Sutherland. Unfortunately, Sutherland doesn't stick around too long and his cocaine addicted son (Colin Farrell, in a great performance) inherits the company.

At the end of the day, these three gentleman like to hang out at a bar and complain about how terrible their jobs and bosses are. They all seem to be at the end of their rope, and they begin to hypothetically wonder how much better their lives would be if they killed their bosses? And then it stops being a hypothetical question, and it may just be a plan that they actually decide to put in motion.

Like I says, the cast really helps make the movie. Jamie Foxx is a standout as Motherfucker Jones (great name), a man who has been recently released from prison, and who may be able to help the three leads kill their bosses. Charlie Day is great as well. Jennifer Anniston is fantastic as the filthy mouth dentist, and Jason Batman and Sudeikis effectively round out the cast. Also, Kevin Spacey and Colin Farrel are really unlikable in this, in the best way possible.

RATING: 3.5/5

The Help (2011)

2011-12-13T21:43:00.003-05:00

Based on a best selling novel aimed at women, The Help tells the story of a group of African American women in the early 1960s, and their constant struggles with the white families that employ them, all while the Civil Rights movement is taking off in the background. Emma Stone plays a young white woman who was damn near raised by her Help growing up, and she isn't like all the other Southern ladies who abuse or don't appreciate their help. She's a writer, see, and she wants to tell their story. She wants their voices to be heard, because she doesn't think the Help should be held down any longer. She thinks for any change to occur, their stories need to be heard. And she may just be risking serious repercussions in doing so.

The strongest aspect of The Help is the performances. Everyone from Stone on down the line is damn near award worthy in their roles. A stand out, who arguably steals the show from Stone, is Jessica Chastain. She plays a ditsy but lovable Southern belle who hires on a black maid that no one else will hire (her former employer spreads nasty rumors about her). This was probably my favorite storyline in the film.

The Help doesn't really break new ground. It actually doesn't even really examine its subjects all that closely. It's just more of a feel good type of crowd pleasing entertainment instead of a super serious look at black house workers in the early 60s. That's not to say it's a flat out comedy, because it's not, but it does get over the top, with Bryce Dallas Howard playing a super villain of sorts.

There are some who are dismissing it for being too thick with well known Hollywood cliches, like the famous Magical Negro character. And that may very well be the case, but when push comes to shove it needs to be looked at for what it is, a piece of entertainment inspired by very touchy and very serious historical subject matter. It's not a documentary, it's not going to be void of any formulaic touches. Its goal is to entertain and make people (ie, women) feel good. It's about a group of characters and their stories, and for that it accomplishes what I'm sure it set out to achieve.

RATING: 3/5

Cooley High (1975)

2011-12-10T00:15:00.002-05:00

It's been called the black American Graffiti. And that's strikingly accurate, as it's clearly inspired by it. It's a nostalgic look back at a decade prior, featuring lots of top 40 hits, and it follows a couple of young men as they're about to finish school and decide what to do with their lives. Granted, it has none of the star power and polish that American Graffiti has (not to mention the big studio release), but it still struck a chord with 70s audiences. Especially black audiences. It's considered by some to be a blaxploitation classic, but honestly I don't think it fits that mold. It really is the mirror of American Graffiti. It even has a similar follow up story. American Graffiti spawned the successful sitcom Happy Days, and Cooley High spawned the successful sitcom What's Happening.

I don't think it's nearly as good as American Graffiti, but there is a lot to admire here. The use of music is great, there is no denying that. Every song that pops up is great and it works with the scene. It also manages to mix comedy and drama fairly well.

It's more about capturing a time period than telling an overall story, although more of a story does finally kick in toward the last act. One issue I had is that it felt more 1970s than 1960s. The music helps set the time period stage more than anything else, but I think it could have taken place in 1975 just as easily. When I watch American Graffiti, I often forget that I'm watching a movie that was made in 1973. It feels like a night out on the town in 1962.

There are SOME fairly known names in the cast. The Mayor from The Wire (and the science teacher from Gremlins) is the main character. Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington from Welcome Back Kotter is his best friend. And Garrett Morris, I'm guessing right before his SNL fame took off, is one of the teachers. The rest of the cast consists of, quite literally, no names. Just looking through the cast list on IMDB reveals that Cooley High is the only credit for a good number of them. One cast member was even murdered a year later, not too far away from the real Cooley High in Chicago.

RATING: 3/5

Beginners (2011)

2011-12-03T10:37:00.003-05:00

A bit of a downer of a film about a man (Ewan McGregor) who's mother dies, and shortly thereafter his father (Christopher Plummer) reveals that he is gay. A couple years after that, his father is diagnosed with terminal cancer and dies. McGregor spends much of the movie kind of sadly moping around, but his spirit is brightened occasionally by a girl he meets at a party he didn't want to go to, and his dad's dog, Arthur. They begin a serious relationship, but it starts to follow the same pattern that all of his other past relationships have followed. Is he wise enough to make a change? How does his dead gay father effect his outlook on life?

It' s a good movie, but a bit too gloomy for my tastes. Christopher Plummer continues to find great roles as an aging legend, and McGregor actually does an American accent really well, something I've never really heard him do (I'm sure he's done it before, but I haven't seen a lot of his artier fare). It has a lot of the conventions of "indie art movie," and some people are probably going to hate it for that (cutesy first meeting, slow narrative, a scene with roller skates, crying on the bed, gay couples, etc.), but overall it gets the job done.

RATING: 3/5

Bridesmaids (2011)

2011-12-01T11:56:00.003-05:00

It's no secret. I'm a big...scratch that, HUGE, fan of 1999-2000 short lived television series Freaks and Geeks. There were two forces behind that show. The main force, and the one who doesn't seem to get as much credit for it outside of the solid fans of the show, is Paul Feig. The second force, and the man who gets all the credit for it, is Judd Apatow. I'm a fan of Apatow's brand of comedy. I think it's the Caddyshack/Animal House/Stripes/Ghostbusters of our generation. I know it has been overexposed for a while, but that's the age we live in. And I think looking back, it will be looked at as a golden age of comedy. And in Bridesmaids, it continues, and it's the first time that I can recall that truly brings the combo that brought us Freaks and Geeks back to the main creative line-up.

That's not to say it's as good as Freaks and Geeks. It's also not to say that there isn't another HUGE comedy force on the creative side. It is co-written by Kristen Wiig, another comedic talent that many feel is over exposed. I like Wiig. I like her a lot. But there are certain characters she does on SNL that I can't stand. In Bridesmaids, she is much more where I like her. A semi-serious but still hilarious character that can drive a movie. Her fingerprints are all over it, especially if you're familiar with her SNL characteristics. The scene where she and Rose Byrne try to endlessly one up their toast to Maya Rudolph is a perfect example of her style of humor.

I think the key to this movie is that the makers went after what has to be the best female comedic talent out there right now. The only people missing are Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. Just about any other lady that is considered funny at the moment is in this movie. Melissa McCarthy is particularly amusing and getting high praise as Rudolph's husband-t0-be's sister.

The movie does follow the late 90s/2000s trend of featuring at least one gross-out scene. I'll say that I pretty much hated a good portion of that scene, not because it was gross but because bathroom humor never really does it for me. It does, however, allow for one of the funnier lines later on, so I guess I can forgive it. And what do I know, some people love that scene and think it's the best in the movie.

It's not just wall-to-wall comedy. Much like other Apatow related work since 2005, there is a strong character story in here as well, one that allows from some actual drama and character growth. Or at least as much drama that can be allowed in a comedy. The other thing that makes Bridesmaids stand out from the rest is that up until now, almost all of Apatow's stuff as been male oriented. Even Knocked Up was more about how Seth Rogen's character dealt with getting a girl pregnant than Katherine Hiegel being impregnated. But here is an entirely Apatow style comedy entirely based on women. And this time the male characters that DO show up are extreme male stereotype characters, like the extremely douchey Jon Hamm or the extremely likable Chris O'Dowd. It's definitely female driven, and it's not shock that it was a big hit. Women like this style of comedy too, you know.

RATING: 3/5

Smile (1975), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

2011-11-25T00:05:00.004-05:00

Some lazy capsule reviews, since I pretty much hate reviewing comedies:

Smile (1975)
A bit of a hidden gem from 1975, Smile stars Bruce Dern as the head judge of a beauty contest. The entire movie basically follows a group of girls from the rehearsal period through to the actual contest. It's better than it sounds. My favorite bits were just about anything involving Bruce Dern, and the subplot with his son and his son's friends trying to get naked pictures of the girls. Just about anything that the kids did was gold. Bruce Dern I always enjoy when I come across him. Coleen Camp and Melanie Griffith have early roles in this. Definitely worth a look if you're into this style of humor and the 70s.

RATING: 3/5

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
An all-time classic with a legion of dedicated fans. There are some people that will probably turn this off after the first scene, completely not getting the humor or enjoying it. I'll freely admit that there is a certain type of fan for this movie, and the word "nerdy" comes to mind. I like the movie, but I don't think it's the greatest comedy of all-time as a lot of other people seem to think. Yeah it's quotable and yeah it has some very funny moments, but overall I wouldn't say it's funnier than Airplane. But obviously that's my own personal tastes speaking. My favorite parts are the fella who always wants to break out into song and the "rescue" that follows it, the killer rabbit, and the bridge that can only be crossed if three questions can be answered. I also dig the ending, but I think it would be better if they hadn't hinted at it throughout the movie. But I guess that would have been too similar to Blazing Saddles.

RATING: 3.5/5

Once Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

2011-11-24T01:19:00.005-05:00

Back in middle school, probably around 1994 to 1995-ish, I used to carry around The Academy Award Handbook, written by someone I can't remember. Back in those days, I didn't give two shits about what was being taught in class. Instead of studying the table of elements I was studying this goddamn Academy Award Handbook. I used to be fucking AWESOME at having people ask me random questions out of it, like who was nominated for such and such for such and such year, and I fuggin' RULED at it. I'm nowhere near as good as I once was at such things, but I'm getting off track. I always remembered getting to 1975, and looking at the list of Best Picture nominees. And I always wondered to myself...how could anything beat JAWS? How was it humanly possible? And I'd always notice that the movie that did, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, not only beat Jaws, but it won EVERY major award that year. Well that must be one hell of a movie, I says to myself. And I distinctly remember checking it out from the library, and being told by my mom that the Indian on the back of the box had no tongue. I found this to be quite unsettling, and I remember spending a good chunk of the first part of the movie being terrified that the Indian would reveal his severed tongue. Turns out she was wrong about that little plot point, and it also turns out that if there was any one movie that could beat Jaws for Best Picture in 1975 that I wouldn't argue with, it'd have to be this film (and I would even listen to a case for Dog Day Afternoon).

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of those rare, near perfect movies that seems so good, year after year, that it's hard to imagine a time when it didn't exist. The last scene is so iconic that I find it hard to believe there was ever a time when it wasn't iconic. Jack Nicholson is so charismatic and likable as McMurphy, that I couldn't begin to imagine anyone else in the part (apparently Milos Foreman could: he wanted Burt Reynolds). The supporting cast is so solid that decades later, members of the cast were cherry picked for other projects like Taxi, Tim Burton's Batman films, and Rob Zombie's directorial efforts. Just about everything about it stands the test of time, and it probably always will. Yeah, Jaws is an all-time favorite, kick ass movie, but Cuckoo's Nest...yeah, I could see that beating it for Best Picture. It's that good.

Some of the more interesting aspects of the movie are the group dynamics. It's interesting to watch McMurphy swoop in and turn a place of ritual upside down, and it's interesting to watch as the hospital staff try their hardest to keep everything under strict control. Particularly great is the all-time classic feud between McMurphy and the head nurse, Nurse Ratched. It's interesting to note that there is a portion of viewers who cannot comprehend why she is considered the villain in this movie. And to that I say how can she not be? She drives these patients insane, and most of them are already insane. She forces issues in group therapy that don't need to be discussed, she revises her rules on a whim to whatever fits her needs, and she has an unnatural obsession with bringing up Billy Bibbit's mother to him, when she knows that it's traumatizing. She directly causes him to commit suicide, just because he had sex. What was so terrible about that? He's a grown man. If that's not a villain I don't know what is, and yes I have no problem with Nicholson giving her a what for. And don't think for a second that she didn't have heavy input into the decision to give McMurphy a lobotomy. And why does he get one? Because he turned the patients into free thinkers and broke some hospital rules? It's madness! I will say, every time I watch this, when the Chief is smothering McMurphy with the pillow, and McMurphy starts kicking wildly, I always want him to lift up the pillow to see how he's really doing under there. If he was completely brain dead would he be able to have such fluid kicking motions? I don't know. One of the great endings of all-time.

It's a story everyone can relate to. The type of anti-establishment movie that any generation can get behind. And no matter which side of the fence you land on, the side of McMurphy coming in, winning over a group of people while flipping off the rule makers, or the rule makers who think they're helping people when in reality they're enabling them to live in a self contained ritualistic prison, you are going to find something to relate to.

RATING: 5/5

Night Moves (1975)

2011-11-12T00:11:00.003-05:00

After being almost tragically disappointed when re-watching the critically acclaimed The Conversation, I was a bit hesitant to even give Night Moves a chance, because it sounded like similar territory. But with the magic of Netflix, sometimes it's hard to resist. I mean it was right there, looking at me. So I watched it, and I'd say that I enjoyed it quite a bit better than The Conversation. For starters, at least it feels like this movie actually went somewhere, and it doesn't cheat the audience with a trick twist ending. Although there is a twist.

Anyway, it's about a P.I. (Hackman) who is hired to track down an aging actress' whore of a daughter (played by an underage and almost always naked Melanie Griffith...who sounds almost exactly like Parent Trap-era Haley Mills for some reason). It doesn't take long for him to pin point her location. And while doing so, more things start to unravel, as they tend to do in these things, until eventually he finds himself knee deep in double crosses, murder, artifact smuggling, erect nipples, and boats.

Hackman is very good here. I found this character more appealing than his character in The Conversation. I found the story more appealing than whatever story was supposed to be in The Conversation. And while it lacks the arty flare of The Conversation, it makes up for it by being an entertaining movie. The same of course cannot be said about The Conversation. But everyone remembers The Conversation, I don't think a lot of people remember Night Moves, so I'm probably completely wrong about all of this.

RATING: 3/5

Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)

2011-11-10T15:58:00.004-05:00

With the exception of Little Miss Sunshine, I think it's safe to say Steve Carrell's film career hasn't really been setting the world on fire since The 40 Year Old Virgin. I know a lot of people liked Dan in Real Life but it really didn't do much for me. I haven't seen much of his other films, but I have watched him on The Office for several years, and I enjoy the man's work. He just seemed to flounder for a while on the big screen. Which is why I'm happy to say that Crazy, Stupid, Love may be his best movie to date. Yes, even better than 40 Year Old Virgin, in a way.

Steve Carrell plays a man who, in the opening scene, is told by his wife (Julianne Moore) that she wants a divorce. Instead of fighting for his marriage or even wondering why, he just kind of silently accepts it and doesn't really object. He does, however, jump out of a moving car.

He soon finds himself spending his evenings at a bar, talking to anyone who will listen about his wife and the man who came between them (Kevin Bacon). This bar happens to be frequented by a man who has the solutions to his problems. Ryan Gosling plays a ladies man of the highest order. A man who can talk any woman home with him (well, almost any woman, with the exception of Emma Stone, but more on that later).

Soon he's being trained by Gosling, Karate Kid style, to take back his life and take charge of his love life. Gosling helps him change his wardrobe and overall appearance and demeanor. He helps him change his pick up methods. He gives him his life back. But soon Carrell realizes that maybe the only place he wants to really be is back home, with his wife and kids.

There are some other subplots in the movie that are seemingly semi-unrelated, other than the fact that they focus on love and relationships. Emma Stone is a young lawyer who is about to pass the bar, and she is fully expecting that her boyfriend (Josh Groban?!) is going to propose to her at her celebration dinner. Meanwhile, Steve Carrell's 13 year old son is madly in love with the family babysitter, who happens to be madly in love with Steve Carrell himself (unbeknownst to Carrell). All the while Julianne Moore continues to see the man who ruined her marriage (Kevin Bacon), and Ryan Gosling sleeps with as many women as possible, with the exception of Emma Stone, because she's the one girl who didn't fall for his suave act.

And somehow, it manages to fit together.

It's the kind of story that only happens in a romantic comedy, but this is one of the better ones. The story is solid and the actors really help drive it to above average territory. The cast really is spot on. Carrell, Gosling, Moore, Bacon, Marisa Tomei, Emma Stone, everyone brings their A-game. Even if something doesn't work, it's followed by a scene that does, so the movie keeps you fully entertained.

It's a banner year for Ryan Gosling. His character in this couldn't be any more different than Drive, and if you think back to Blue Valentine, it really helps you appreciate that the man can probably do anything. He can do romantic comedies (can Christian Bale do that? We've yet to see), critically praised dramas, and art house action flicks. And he excels at all of them. If he isn't on the A-list yet, he's getting pretty damn close.

RATING: 3.5/5

X-Men: First Class (2011)

2011-11-03T18:47:00.005-04:00

I've seen the first three, missed the Wolverine one, and now we have a borderline reboot with X-Men: First Class. I always kind of forget how much I enjoy the X-Men series until I'm actually watching one. The only one I didn't really care for was the first one, oddly enough. I know everyone likes to piss on the third one because it was directed by Brett Ratner, but I actually didn't mind it. I thought X2 was great, but I haven't seen it since it came out.

X-Men: First Class deals with the beginning of the X-Men. Call it X-Men Begins, if you want. And while it may not be quite as up to quality as Batman Begins, it's still a very enjoyable super hero film that has moments of greatness (and moments of ultra cheesy-ness as well, but that goes with the territory). It's basically the story of Professor X and Magneto as they do battle against the evil Kevin Bacon. It's also the origin story of several of the X-Men, including Beast and Mystique.

The performances are strong. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender in particular really help draw you into the characters and the film. Jennifer Lawrence also has a prime role as Mystique, and she is quite good as well. Kevin Bacon is a welcome turn as the main villain, as I feel like I haven't seen him in anything big in years. Perhaps the only major miscasting is January Jones, just because I'm still not convinced she's a great actress, but her cleavage sure does put on a hell of a show.

I like how it acts as a prequel and a reboot. There are a couple cameos in here, one of them being one of the greatest cameos I've ever seen. It connects to the original trilogy but leaves enough wiggle room for a follow up with this cast. If it wants to. And judging from the overwhelmingly positive critical and audience response, I can only guess that there will be another one.

RATING: 3/5

Horror Movie Month 2011

2011-10-31T23:05:00.003-04:00

Horror Movie Month 2011

For my own record keep purposes:

Day of the Dead
Return of the Living Dead
Night of the Living Dead '90
Dawn of the Dead '04
Psycho
A Nightmare on Elm Street
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3
The Exorcist
Hell Night
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
From Dusk Till Dawn
The Funhouse
Halloween '78
Halloween II '81
Ed Wood

Bold means double feature

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

2011-10-22T22:44:00.004-04:00

After Pulp Fiction turned Quentin Tarantino into a superstar director of epic proportions, he did something weird. He started acting a lot more. Before he was limited to his own movies or quick cameos in the movies of friends, but in 1995 he wanted to be an actor. He had a small role in Robert Rodriguez's Desperado, and he starred in Destiny Turns on the Radio (a movie that I've still had no urge to ever watch). As a mega fan of Pulp Fiction, I didn't give a shit about his acting. I wanted to see his next directorial effort. So in that respect, I skipped From Dusk Till Dawn in theaters. It didn't help that the critics kind of shat on it, too. And the word of mouth, at the time, really wasn't that strong.

I saw it on video, and I immediately loved it and I regretted not seeing it in the theater. I was sorry I ever doubted it. This movie had everything. It had Tarantino's trademark dialogue and humor (and even more than a hint of his directorial style), it had plenty of gore, it had a cool structure (it turns into a vampire movie...OUT OF NOWHERE!), nudity, the Titty Twister, creative vampire deaths, super likable supporting characters like Sex Machine. I mean really, there isn't anything I would change. And if you think about it, looking back, it was really the first Grindhouse style movie from these two. This was Grindhouse before they called it Grindhouse. It more than hints at Tarantino's later style of genre mish-mashing and loving homages.

It's a combination of genres. First, it starts out as an on the run road movie. Two deadly brothers, Seth (George Clooney, in an early starring role...don't think he'd be caught dead in this nowadays) and Richard Gecko (Tarantino himself, still trying to act, but he's good here), are on a multiple state wide killing spree. They're getting closer and closer to the border, but they need something to get them across. That something turns out to be a camper, owned by a former Pastor named Jacob (Harvey Keitel) and his two teenage children. It's just what they need to get across the border to The Titty Twister, a rowdy biker bar where they are to meet their business partner. After a night of downing shots and enjoying the entertainment, a brawl breaks out. A bloody brawl. And it just so happens that after hours, The Titty Twister turns into a vampire feeding frenzy. The movie completely switches gears midway through. What starts out as an on the run road movie turns into a vampire survival movie that probably isn't too far off from a zombie movie if you really get down to it (the vamps aren't the seductive vampires of Twilight or True Blood...they're more in line with ugly flesh eating zombies with sharp teeth).

It had enough of a following and it made enough money to warrant a franchise (I've yet to see the two direct to video sequels). I guess it's just one of those movies that some people get and love, and some people don't get it and hate it. I've seen, on more than one occasion, people criticize it because "it turns into a vampire movie out of nowhere!" Yet, as any From Dusk Till Dawn fan will probably tell you, that's precisely why we love it. How many movies have you seen that start steering you in one direction for a good amount of the run time, and then BAM, out of nowhere, it's a completely different movie than what you started with? There aren't many of them. There is From Dusk Till Dawn, and Psycho. And that's about it, that I've seen.

RATING: 4/5

Top 10 Movies of 1974

2011-09-26T19:09:00.002-04:00

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (dir: Martin Scorsese)
Blazing Saddles (dir: Mel Brooks)
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (dir: Sam Peckinpah)
Chinatown (dir: Roman Polanski)
The Godfather Part II (dir: Francis Ford Coppola)
Lenny (dir: Bob Fosse)
Macon County Line (dir: Richard Compton)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (dir: Tobe Hooper)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (dir: Michael Cimino)
Young Frankenstein (dir: Mel Brooks)

Well, that didn't take long. If it weren't for Godfather II, I could honestly say Texas Chainsaw Massacre is my favorite movie on that list. Heck, even with Godfather Part II, on the right day...

Mel Brooks has two great movies in one year, that doesn't happen too often and is a first for my top 10s. Coppola could have been on too, but then I re-watched The Conversation and decided against it.

Next up the Summer Blockbuster is born and the golden age of the 70s continues.

Lenny (1974), Young Frankenstein (1974)

2011-09-26T18:58:00.003-04:00

Lenny (1974)
Director Bob Fosse's follow-up to his Academy Award winning Cabaret is about as far removed from a big Hollywood musical as you can get, but it still deals very much with the effects of being in the entertainment industry. It's the true story of Lenny Bruce, played brilliantly by Dustin Hoffman, starting from his days working in the Catskills all the way up to his many battles with the courts over obscenity charges. It works especially because Hoffman is so good, and also because it's one of the few movies about a comedian where many of the jokes are actually funny. I think it helps that Lenny Bruce's routines were more spur of the moment than punchline oriented. Hoffman was nominated for an Oscar and in another year, he could have won for this performance. But 1974 is one of the more notorious Best Actor races in history, where out of Hoffman, Pacino, Nicholson, and Albert Finney, Art Carney won.

Young Frankenstein (1974)
How Mel Brooks managed to make Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles in the same year is beyond me. It's like striking gold twice. Both are still heralded comedy classics to this day, and I don't think anything he's made since then has even come close to matching their quality, no matter what Space Balls fans may try to tell you. Marty Feldman as Igor is particularly awesome, but Gene Wilder is no slouch either. Peter Boyle as the Creature is once again inspired casting. Terri Garr is surprisingly hot and Madeline Kahn once again brings her comedic genius. An all around great comedy. It was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay...which would mean it contains perhaps the most prestigious penis joke of all time.

Both movies: 3.5/5

Chinatown (1974)

2011-09-25T11:37:00.003-04:00

I've seen Chinatown a couple times now, and while it's yet to blow me away (ie, I don't hold it in as high regard as the rest of the movie buff universe), it's still a good movie. It's not like the experience I had recently re-watching The Conversation, where I was wondering why so many people consider it on par with Godfather Part II (yeah...ON MARS!!!). Chinatown has a ton going for it, my problems are more just personal tastes than anything the movie does wrong.

Jack Nicholson plays a private detective who specializes in catching men in the act, usually hired by their wives. One day a woman comes into his office and says that she suspects her husband is having an affair, and what starts out like a run of the mill "catch a guy in the act" case, it soon gets much deeper than that. L.A. is suffering from an extreme drought, but late at night, when watching this man, water is drained out of a pipe. The man sees this. Nicholson sees this. Soon the man ends up dead, and the more Nicholson digs, the more corruption and lies he uncovers. He encounters Faye Dunaway, who is the REAL wife of the man he was sent to follow. Needless to say, the whole movie is very complex and the story has many, many layers. You're really going to want to pay attention to it, because it's not easy to follow and it doesn't spell everything out for you. It's kind of up to you to put a lot of the pieces together, but it does give you the gist of it.

Which is one of my problems. It's a bit too hard to follow for my tastes. When I have to put on subtitles 15 minutes in to make sure I'm hearing shit and names correctly...yeah, it's a complex movie. I feel like I need to take notes on it or watch it about twenty times to make sure I'm getting everything correct. And really, I don't have that kind of time and I'm not a big fan of movies like that. I'm not saying a movie can't be subtle, but I'm not one for digging so far into them that you have to write a 20,000 word essay to convey everything that's hidden in it. Call me lazy, call me a Michael Bay lover (negative), but the movie is just over my head. I think it's supposed to be confusing, because it is a mystery, but still, it's a confusing mystery.

Plus, I'm not sure how interesting Water Supply corruption is. I read that people are enthralled by this movie, but I'm sorry, I just don't get too pumped about corruption in the water company. It doesn't feel exciting, it feels boring. They make it somewhat exciting, the best scene in the movie is when they flush the water on Nicholson and follow it up with him getting his nose sliced, but at the end of the day, it's still about corruption at a Water company.

On the whole I think the performances are very good, and I know this is one of Nicholson's signature roles, but I did't feel blown away by it. There isn't that scene stealing, all-time great vibe to it. And he's in every scene. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, a year later, has an all-time great vibe to it. Chinatown has more of a subdued vibe to it, with a couple of chuckle-worthy one-liners.

The movie is almost a film noir tribute, but not really a full fledged film noir. It's a dark movie, about corruption and sticking your nose too far in where it doesn't belong, but I think it's been done better since. In particular, I think two movies in the 80s pretty much trump it, for me, in every way. I'm talking about Body Heat and especially Blue Velvet.

So yeah, Chinatown is an all-time classic. But like anyone else who loves movies, there are some movies that are heralded as all time classics that leave you kind of scratching your head as to why. No matter how many times you see them, no matter how many chances you give them, you just sometimes have to come to the conclusion that maybe this movie wasn't made for you. And that's perfectly fine, not everyone is going to like every heralded classic. And while I like Chinatown, I've still never really gotten what all the fuss is about. Maybe I will one day.

RATING: 3/5

Drive (2011)

2011-09-24T10:05:00.004-04:00

Just when I start reading articles about why Hollywood sucks, why the studio system is terrible and a detriment to good film making, something like Drive comes along and shuts that little voice in my head up. Yeah, most movies that get released are shit and a waste of shelf space, but every year, there is always that handful of movies, studio or not, that manage to sneak through and really hit it out of the park. Regardless of the fact that Hollywood has their head up their asses with 3D and remakes, there are still movies like Drive getting made, and as long as that keeps happening, I really shouldn't have too much to complain about.

The story for Drive isn't THAT original. The main character, played by Ryan Gosling, also isn't that original. He's basically a hybrid of a late 60s/early 70s Clint Eastwood/Steve McQueen character, who has been thrown in an 80s clothes hamper and came out in the 2010s. And I love him for it. The thing that makes Drive so invigorating, such an EXPERIENCE, is director Nicolas Winding Refn. I've never seen any of the man's other movies, he works over seas and I admittedly don't see a lot of non-U.S. output, but he seems to be a revelation. Everything about this movie works because of the style he brings to the table. Every scene is dripping with style. There is so much style in this movie a lot of people are probably going to dismiss it because of it. But it's exhilarating style. It's a movie that makes you FEEL the movie, not just WATCH it. From the credit font to the spectacular shots to the music to the graphic violence that erupts throughout out of of nowhere, Drive is a movie that is all style with a good amount of substance. But it's the style that makes it so great.

There are so many shots that are instantly striking and potentially iconic. This is the type of character that people can wear a replica jacket of and a pair of driving gloves and people will instantly know who you're supposed to be. This is the type of movie that if someone doesn't see it in the theater, and they come across it by themselves from whatever means, they're going to feel like they've discovered something fantastic. I have a feeling people are going to be watching this one for the decade-plus to come.

Drive has a little bit of everything. There is a love story, action, graphic violence, even a nod to a horror movie or two. It's a movie lover's dream of a movie. The credit font may immediately take your mind to Risky Business. Some shots are taken from the David Lynch/Stanley Kubrick playbook, while others could be straight out of Bullitt. And that's not to say there isn't enough originality in here either, because there is. Because just like a Tarantino film, the different styles are woven together masterfully, with a pitch perfect ear for matching music to scene, that it creates a world that is almost beyond hypnotic. If you're watching this movie and you think it's too slow, as audience scores seem to suggest, I can honestly say your mind has been poisoned by Michael Bay and video games. This is a movie that has a strong character, a strong story, and a strong plot. And oversee it with all this style (there's that word again), and you have a must-see film in my book.

All that said, I do need one more viewing to decide just HOW MUCH I loved the movie. There is a small feeling in the back of my head that I was just so captivated with the style (!) that it blinded me to everything else in the film. I honestly don't think that's the case (Gosling and Albert Brooks' performances are just too good to be all about style), but for now I'm giving it a 4 star review. On a second or third viewing, it could be even higher. Regardless, it's a must see.

RATING: 4/5

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

2011-09-18T10:37:00.003-04:00

When one thinks of 70s Scorsese, their mind may immiedietley go to the big ones. Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and even though it came out in 80, Raging Bull (it's still very much a 70s film in terms of feel and pace). Often lost in the shuffle is Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (and New York New York, but that's probably better left forgotten). And when one does remember Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, and if they haven't seen it too many times, they may forget just HOW Scorsese-like it actually is. I mean it's all here. The whacky camera set ups, the use of rock tunes on the soundtrack, and the wonderful performances. Even a little bit of sloppy editing is thrown in for good measure. These are all Scorsese trademarks, and it's great to re-watch an almost forgotten Scorsese film and seeing them all in play. Although I don't blame it for being forgotten, it's sandwiched between Mean Streets and Taxi Driver, for crissake!

Ellen Burstyn, hot off the heels of the mega blockbuster smash The Exorcist, plays a Alice, an unhappily married woman and mother of one. Just when things look like they can't get any worse at home, her husband is killed in a traffic accident while going to work. While she thought she'd love to live without him before the news, as soon as it hits her world is turned upside down, nearly proving that she can't survive with a single child and no man to support her. But it's the 70s goddamit, women were really coming into their own, and she decides to take her kid on a road trip looking for work, their final destination to be Montery, California. She can sing, and she used to sing, so she has aspirations to be a singer in a club by day and take care of her kid at night. But as anyone who has lived a life can tell you, things don't always work out as planned.

During her escapades her son befriends a tom boy who is nothing but trouble (played by a very boy-ish looking Jodie Foster), she begins and ends a relationship with a seemingly friendly bar fly who turns out to be a psychotic wife beater (Harvey Keitel, in a small but highly effective and hilarious role), and she eventually begins work at a small diner where she really connects with the staff that she initially hates, and she strikes up a relationship with one of the common patrons, played by Kris Kristofferson, in all his beareded glory.

All of this gives us one of those slice of life character movies that is, for the most part, irresistible. All it takes is great actors bringing great characters to life, and someone behind the camera who knows how to keep it constantly moving and constantly interesting, and I'm set. Alice Doesn't Life Here Anymore fills that criteria to full effect. It's the best Scorsese movie you've never seen.

RATING: 3.5/5

At Close Range (1986)

2011-09-08T23:52:00.004-04:00

At Close Range, a somewhat obscure 80s true crime drama, has kind of been able to fly under the 80s movie radar. Even now it seems under-appreciated, and I'm not really sure why it hasn't caught on. It came out in a time period when most 80s movies automatically equaled cheese, and while I guess it contains some 80s elements that people tend to not take seriously (the music, namely, altho I think it works extremely well), it's also damn good film making. And better yet, it's fantastic acting, particularly by the two leads, Sean Penn and Christopher Walken.

It's about two brothers, the main one played by Sean Penn and his younger brother played by the late Chris Penn. They recently re-connect with their estranged father, and the main brother is looking for ways to make good money in life without having to work a shitty 9 to 5 job. He's already pulling petty crimes with his pals (a group that consists of Crispin Glover, Stephen Geoffreys, and Kiefer Sutherland), and since he doesn't get along with his mom's new boyfriend, he'd like to work/live with his crime oriented dad. Or at the very least, learn from him. He also has high hopes of impressing a young 16 year old girl played by Mary Stuart Masterson.

While everything looks smooth at first, despite a few minor bumps in the road, it all starts to go downhill when Penn is initiated into his father's gang. Then he witnesses something that makes him change his mind. To Chris Walken's character, nothing is more important than keeping his operation top secret, even at the price of his own two sons.

It's almost an all-star cast, or at the very least a very capable cast. I didn't even mention David Strathairn has a small role as Tony Pine, the epileptic. The more well known names in the cast, like Crispin Glover (this is after Back to the Future, although I suspect it may have been filmed before it considering the size of the role) and Kiefer Sutherland, barely have any lines or time to shine. But they weren't big yet, so it's interesting to watch them play supporting characters that don't really have a lot to do but are still an asset to the overall story.

Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's just because I've seen the movie a number of times and I had a good grasp on the characters when viewing it this time, but it comes across as one of the more realistic character movies of the 80s. Yeah it has it's movie moment type scenes (the climactic showdown between Penn and Walken in the kitchen is fuggin' phenomenally acted, I don't care how implausible it may seem), but for the most part the town and characters are captured in a very realistic way. I do not have a hard time believing these characters are real. Not in the slightest. It's that rare 80s movie, that even though you can tell it was made in the 80s, it feels almost like a 70s film. The movie takes place in the 70s, but it'd be hard to tell based on the hair styles. Nevertheless, At Close Range reaches a realistic tone throughout, and I think that's one of the main reasons it still holds up really well. It may be an 80s movie but it lacks a lot of the cheese that made 80s movies 80s movies. If you follow.

There is a lot of weird, subtle comedy. Walken referring to Tony Pine as an epileptic every time he's introduced. Pretty much anything Walken says in this movie is gold, and funny. But he's still a savagely scary character who seems to be capable of just about anything (I'm curious where his Oscar nom was?).

And if you needed any more reason to check out At Close Range, remember that it's directed by James Foley, a man who gave us one of the best character movies of the 90s...Glengarry Glen Ross.

RATING: 4/5

The Beaver (2011)

2011-09-03T22:15:00.004-04:00

After sitting on a shelf for a good year and a half, or however long it took for Mel Gibson's marital/anti-Semitic problems to die down, The Beaver finally makes its way to home video, following a rather lackluster theatrical performance. From the looks of the trailer and from the reception of the critics, I figured this movie really could go either way. But the premise, about a depressed man who communicates to the world with a stuffed beaver puppet, was too good to pass up.

Gibson is perfect in the lead role. On another planet, where celebrities aren't judged upon their personal problems as if we're better than they are, this would have been a great comeback vehicle. But the premise is still probably a bit too out there for the mainstream public, and I have a feeling that this would have bombed regardless of whether or not it was Gibson in the main role.

The movie also does a good job of paralleling Gibson's character with that of Anton Yelchin's, who plays his son.

While on the surface it's a goofy movie about a man who communicates through a puppet, when it gets further into the story it becomes a rather serious look at dealing with depression, and how it can effect the people around you.

RATING: 3/5

Macon County Line (1974)

2011-08-16T20:45:00.002-04:00

During breaks of filming The Beverly Hillbillies, who knew 'ol Jethero was mapping out the screenplay to a "redneck nightmare" exploitation flick that takes place in the deep south. But that's what 'ol Jethero was doin'. And it became one of the most successful independently financed movies of 1974, and from what I understand a pretty big hit at the drive-in. But it's long been forgotten, swept under the rug. Maybe a footnote in 70s trash cinema. But watching it now, it's actually really quite good. It has cheesy elements, but as is the case with b-movie cinema of the 70s, that's entirely apart of the appeal.

It's about two brothers who have recently enlisted in the marines, thanks to a court order. Lucky for them they have 2 weeks freedom before they have to enter boot camp, and they're hell bent on living it up. The movie sets the stage for these two as if they're like 100 other redneck characters we've seen on the screen in the past. But part of the movie's theme is that things are not what they appear. There is enough ambiguity to these two characters to keep you guessing.

Not only did 'ol Jethero write the movie, he wrote himself the juicy part of the county sheriff. His character also has some questionable traits. The great thing about this movie is that it never really spells out any moral code for the characters. It kind of lets you decide for yourself who is good and who is bad.

Meanwhile, there is a subplot of two hillbillies who are on a little crime joyride of their own.
It introduces the sheriff's young son, fresh out of a day in military school. There is a young female hitchhiker that causes a bit of dissension between the two brothers. There is also a nice stretch with the ubiquitous Geoffrey Lewis as a dim witted mechanic. All of this adds up to an engaging movie that builds to an explosive and suspenseful climax.

This is the type of movie that comes on TV or you come across by whatever means, and you feel like you've discovered something. I'm not calling it an all-time classic, but as far as 70s exploitation movies go, it more than gets the job done, and the acting is of a higher quality than what is normally associated with the genre, or even the cast.

RATING: 3.5/5

Top 10 Movies of 1973

2011-08-15T00:16:00.002-04:00

American Graffiti (dir: George Lucas)
The Exorcist (dir: William Friedkin)
High Plains Drifter (dir: Clint Eastwood)
Mean Streets (dir: Martin Scorsese)
Paper Moon (dir: Peter Bogdonavich)
Papillion (dir: Franklin J. Shaffner)
Scarecrow (dir: Jerry Schatzberg)
Serpico (dir: Sidney Lumet)
The Sting (dir: George Roy Hill)
West World (dir: Michael Crichton)

1973 is one of the banner years of the 70s. With all-time classics American Graffiti and The Exorcist leading the way, not to mention Mean Streets, Scarecrow, Paper Moon, and Serpico. And the other movies aren't anything to sneeze at. Really, I think it's one of my stronger overall lists, quality wise, and at times I didn't know if I was going to be able to narrow it down to a top 10. I thought maybe I'd have to do a top 12 or honorable mention list. But I got it pretty much where I want it.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

2011-08-14T13:33:00.003-04:00

It's pretty hard to take a movie with "Planet of the Apes" in the title seriously in 2011. In fact, one would probably be inclined to give a roll of the eyes when initially hearing about a new movie called Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But once the trailer hit, it looked like it was light years away from the rubber masks in the 1968 original. It also looked like it was nowhere near as silly looking at Tim Burton's 2000s remake. So maybe, just maybe, we really were getting the Batman Begins of the Planet of the Apes franchise reboot, as director Rupert Wyatt has been quoted as shooting for.

The overall quality of the movie pretty much lives or dies by the portrayal of Ceaser. If they didn't get this part right or they didn't make his relationships believable, this movie would have been a disaster. Lucky for us, the go-to guy for believable CGI motion capture was available, and Andy Serkis (Gollum, King Kong) was available to bring this lovable sweater wearing ape to life. The first half of the movie is basically Ceaser's journey. We follow him as a baby ape, all the way until he is involved in a rather violent incident with a jerk next door neighbor. We learn that he's not like normal apes. His mother was a medical chimp, and she was given a new treatment drug for Alzheimer's, and she passed it onto Ceaser. So needless to say, Ceaser is a smart ape.

It isn't long before all hell breaks loose. The treatment used to treat Alzheimer's is spread throughout a group of medical apes, and led by Ceaser, they start an ape revolution against the humans who ran horrible tests on them. And this is really only the beginning. The movie really only gets super action-y toward the last act, which means if we get a sequel, which the director seems to really want to do, it will be even more action packed than this. I really would like to see the next chapter.

If you're familiar with the previous Planet of the Apes movies, you'd recognize that it's being treated far more realistically here. Don't get me wrong, it's still completely ridiculous when you think about it, but so is Batman. It's all about the execution, and the tone is, for the most part, realistic. Maybe in the sequels they will evolve into the more human-like apes that the other franchise portrayed, but for right now they're realistic apes who go on a rampage.

The special effects are good. I'm not going to say they're great because you can tell they're CGI monkeys and it will probably date the movie in the future. But, if it's anything like the initial Planet of the Apes from the 60s, if the F/X age badly I'm sure they will retain a camp value. And besides, also like the original Planet of the Apes, the story and relationships are the main driving force of the movie, it's the F/X that help bring the characters to life. So while I was fully aware that I was watching CGI, after a while once I got wrapped up in the story and the character, I didn't care.

Ceaser is by far the star of the film. James Franco is good too, but he's not doing anything groundbreaking. Andy Serkis, I feel, has really created a character that belongs in the upper echelon of cgi characters. And he most definitely steals the show from any human in the cast. If there was an Oscar for best Motion Capture Performance, and I wouldn't rule that out for the future, Andy Serkis would be the major contender this year, hands down.

RATING: 3.5/5

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)

2011-08-08T19:58:00.003-04:00

Sam Peckinpah said that Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia is the only movie he made that is 100% his vision. And that's probably true. Look at most of his other big movies, like The Wild Bunch and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, and you're liable to find multiple different versions of those films. BMHAG, on the other hand, has one version. One vision. No studio interference. At the time of release, it was pretty well panned by critics (cept for Ebert) and audiences. One well known critic even included it on a list of the 50 worst films of all time (this critic, I can only assume, is retarded) Over the years, as is the case with almost all of Peckinpah's films, its reputation has grown.

It opens with a pregnant woman relaxing by a lake. Her tranquility is interrupted when she is informed that her father will see her now. She is brought to her father by two armed guards, and he demands to know the name of the man who impregnated her. She refuses to tell him. He orders her arms broken until she talks. She gives him the name. Alfredo Garcia. He tells his henchmen that he will pay a million dollars to anyone who can bring him the head of Alfredo Garcia.

Two rather organized looking henchmen look all around for him. They can't find any good leads because no one wants to talk to them. They recruit a bar pianist named Bennie (Warren Oates) who looks harmless but competent enough. He immediately gets good leads and it isn't long until he's on a road trip with the prostitute he probably loves.

This is one of the more bizarre road movies I've ever seen. And it's not in your face LOOK HOW BIZARRE this movie is type of bizarre. It's just the entire scenario is bizarre. When Bennie is driving along the highway with Alfredo's head in a burlap sack in the front seat while more than a dozen flies circle the bag, I think it's safe to say that you probably haven't really seen anything like this.

Warren Oates is magnetic. His relationship with the prostitute seems genuine and far more complex than many movie relationships. It's interesting that Peckinpah's usual attitude toward women rears its ugly head on more than a couple occasions here, but the lead character eventually uses her as the catalyst for revenge. There is even a near ship sinking "rape" scene with an almost miscast Kris Kristofferson that comes across as far more interesting than it would have in the hands of a different director.

I've seen a good number of Peckinpah's films now. The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs, The Getaway, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, a music video for Julian Lennon, and now this. And as it stands now, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia has jumped to the top of the list. There is just something about the story, the performance, the direction, and the issue of the head that is all very alluring to me. Not only is it 100% Peckinpah's vision, it just may be the most personal of all of his movies.

RATING: 4/5

Cedar Rapids (2011), Source Code (2011)

2011-08-07T23:37:00.003-04:00

Cedar Rapids is, from what I can remember (and I'm too lazy to do actual research), Ed Helms' first starring role in a motion picture comedy. He's a nervous man who sales insurance policies, and he's sent to a prestigious awards conference in place of a recently deceased salesman. When he first arrives it takes some work to coax him out of his shell, but with the help of some new friends, he really starts to let lose, while at the same time finding out some terrible secrets about the company he works for.

The movie hits a patch where I really didn't think it would come back from, but it recovers well enough. It has its moments, most of them involving Clay Davis from The Wire, but it lacks truly likable characters. I guess each character is likable at some point during the film, but they're also completely annoying at other points.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays a man who finds himself in an unheard of situation (well, unless you've seen Groundhog Day...and maybe a little bit of RoboCop...with some Avatar thrown in). Basically he continually lives the same eight minutes, over and over again, with a mission to find out who set a bomb to blow up a train. It starts out as an engaging enough plot device with some good action sequences, but by the end it gets far too ridiculous for my tastes, and the super happy cop out ending certainly didn't help with my overall opinion of the movie. Still, the performances are strong and the majority seem to really dig it.

Both movies: 2.5/5

Rango (2011)

2011-07-30T20:13:00.003-04:00

A pet lizard ("Rango") is thrown from a vehicle (while still in his glass tank) and lands in the middle of a long stretch of desert highway. He makes his way to a ghost town occupied by all sorts of hideous creatures (mostly rats, mice, other lizards, and at least one mole, from the looks of it). He is soon made the sheriff, due in part because of his heroic antics in the local saloon. Meanwhile, the town is running dangerously low on water, with the town water supply threatening to dry out in less than six days. It's up to Rango to bring water and peace to the town, but an evil mayor and a sleazy snake have other ideas.

The voice work in this is almost beyond awesome. Depp is better in animation form than he has been in any of his recent live action fare. The supporting cast holds their own, bringing their respective characters to life. One of them is voiced by Ned Beatty, who gives a completely different kind of vocal performance from Lots-o-Huggin Bear from Toy Story 3.

There are so many references to westerns and other films that it's damn near impossible to keep track of all them (and I'm sure more than a couple of them went over my head, not to mention the heads of the target audience). One of my favorites is toward the beginning. I won't give it away entirely but let's just say Rango has a brief face to face with another Depp character from the late 90s.

The look of the movie is stunning. With visual consultation by Roger Deakins under the watchful eye of director Gore Verbinski, the visual appeal of Rango cannot be denied and is probably the most fetching aspect of the movie.

While there is no doubt that Rango is entertaining, and highly amusing, it seems to be missing any real classic characters outside of Rango himself. The rest of the cast is no doubt brought to life by the voice acting, but I don't think any other single character is nearly as memorable as the main character. I'm also not sure how well kids are going to enjoy it, especially since a good chunk of the movie is referencing westerns and western conventions that they aren't aware of.

Still, a top notch non-Pixar animated feature. These seem to be getting a bit more prevalent these days. Looks like Pixar has some serious competition on its hands, and that can only be seen as a good thing.

RATING: 3.5/4

Body Heat (1981)

2011-07-23T00:18:00.003-04:00

An older review that somehow never got posted here after I closed my site. Well here it is, seeing as how I just re-watched this film and all:

Body Heat could be looked at as one of the early “tribute movies,” where it takes its look and themes from an almost forgotten genre, and it isn’t ashamed to do so. In fact, it wears its influences on its sleeve. And what a nice looking sleeve it is! I guess you could say it it’s the Raiders of the Lost Ark for film noir.

William Hurt plays Floridian lawyer Ned Racine. One stiflingly sweaty night, while walking a boardwalk and listening to local orchestra music, he spots a beautiful young lady in a white dress (Kathleen Turner). Being the womanizer that he is, he immediately strikes up a conversation with her. At first she seems put off by his considerable charm, but slowly she grows to accept him. They meet again later in a bar, then it’s back to her place so Hurt can get a look at her “chimes.” She tells him to leave, and she locks the door. He goes out to his car, but he doesn’t want to leave. He’s got a chubby goddamit! So he goes back to the front door and looks in, and there she is, standing there, rather seductively. Then, in one of film history’s most memorable acts of sexual confidence, Hurt hurls a chair through a glass door, and they passionately screw (I for one would have been terrified to even break the glass, I mean that could kill the entire mood, what if she got angry?!). They carry on a secret love affair, but when her husband comes back into the picture, she realizes just how much she hates him. Dropping little hints of how great their lives could be with hubby out of the picture, they eventually hatch a devious plan to kill him. Explosives and Mickey Rourke get involved, and a pea-brained murder plan is put into motion. The results are, as expected, disastrous.

This movie holds up exceptionally well, even today. Especially when you catch on to the style, when you realize that it’s an erotic mystery that is also a throwback to 1940s film noir. Sometimes it even has a sleazy, almost 1970s porn movie vibe to it (I can see why George Lucas wanted to keep his producing involvement a secret). But it’s still exceptional in many other ways, and unexpected bursts of comedy linger throughout. It has a story that is fun to follow, like trying to guess whether or not Turner is playing Hurt, or trying to guess what the characters next steps will be, or how certain situations might end up screwing them over in the long run. It keeps you interested.

In addition to the magnetic aesthetic (wonderful rhyme), the performances are spot on. Hurt is great as the semi-sleazy lawyer who almost seems smart enough to know what he’s getting himself into, but at the same time you kind of shake your head, realizing how stupid he really is. Turner gives a debut performance that instantly puts her on the map. She hits all the right notes, a real find for the time (I don’t think she ever topped this performance). The supporting cast, consisting of Richard Crenna, Ted Danson, and a young Mickey Rourke, are also highlights.

The score is top of the line, with a memorable hook used time and time again when the plot is really starting to cook. Sometimes it echoes older 1940s film noir score, and other times it echoes steamy romance saxophone music (like the music played over the credits). Either way, it works.

While it didn’t receive any major award nominations, I think its reputation has grown a little bit over the years, but it’s still kind of a hidden gem. Writer/director Lawrence Kasdan went on to have a solid directing career of his own, including the classic 1983 Big Chill and other flicks like The Accidental Tourist and Grand Canyon. He’s kind of stayed out of the limelight this decade, like a lot of successful directors who got their start in the 80s. His most recent movie was the shitty Stephen King adaptation Dreamcatcher. Not for nothing though, he’s probably sitting back and advising his son Jake’s successful directing career. He also co-wrote a number of George Lucas’ biggest hits, which undoubtedly explains why Lucas helped get this borderline softcore porn movie off the ground. But it was worth it, Body Heat is sssssteamy fun!

Wet Hot American Summer (2001)

2011-07-19T15:59:00.003-04:00

Ten years ago, when Wet Hot American Summer was first released on DVD, I rented and watched it and didn't like it. I was expecting, I think, a more straight forward comedy in the style of Meatballs. What I wasn't expecting was an over the top, if not downright ridiculous, camp movie spoof. I think it probably has a tendency to throw people off on the first viewing. And in all honesty, I hadn't seen it since.

So fast forward 10 years later, I notice it shows up on Netflix streaming, and I decide to give it another go. And this time it hits the spot. I think it was ahead of its time, and I think within the last couple of years people have finally caught up to it. It now enjoys a strong cult following and fan base, and it's one of those movies (like Dazed and Confused and Fast Times at Ridgemont High) that featured a cast of near unknowns at the time, and a good many of them have gone on to further stardom.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is still downright ridiculous and over the top, but that's exactly why I liked it this time. I don't know if I didn't get that it was a spoof 10 years ago or what, but this is how a parody should be done. Not the Epic Movies or Disaster Movies. It's something that is its own thing and sends up the conventions of the genre that it's spoofing, but at the same time it can stand on its own as a story and still be completely ridiculous (like Blazing Saddles and Airplane).

Just about everyone in the movie is pitch perfect in their role. Paul Rudd, Christopher Meloni, Janeane Garaflo, David Hyde Pearce, Amy Poehler, Michael Ian Black, David Showalter, Elizabeth Banks, Bradley Cooper, and the rest of 'em. There are so many people in this movie, and they're all on top of their comedic form, that it's just impossible not to find something to enjoy out of it. From the visual gags to the various lines of dialogue, Wet Hot American Summer offers something for just about anyone. Definitely worthy of repeat viewings.

RATING: 3.5/5

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

2011-07-18T15:42:00.002-04:00

Starting with 2007's Grindhouse, exploitation tributes or tongue-in-cheek spoofs or whatever you want to call them have been on the rise. The excellent Grindhouse double feature featured fake trailers, one of which was made into a feature length movie last year (Robert Rodriguez's Machete). When Grindhouse was coming out, there was a competition for best fan-made Grindhouse trailer. The winning trailer, titled Hobo with a Shotgun, was featured in some Canadian theatrical prints of Grindhouse. And now, it's been made into a real feature length film starring Rutger Hauer as the hobo.

And much like Machete before it, it suffers from "all the good parts were in the fake trailer" syndrome. And that made me remember something Eli Roth said when he was discussing his Thanksgiving trailer. He said something along the lines of "with the fake trailers, you can just film all the good parts and leave all the not so good parts out of it." At least, I think I read that. Don't quote me on it. But regardless, that's pretty much how Hobo with a Shotgun feels to me. It has its moments, and most of those moments were in the fake trailer (with a different cast, but still in the trailer regardless). It's also how Machete felt to me. With Planet Terror and Death Proof, they didn't have fake grindhouse trailers to compare them against, so they didn't have that same "all the good parts were in the trailer" feel to them.

A traveling Hobo stops into a crime-ridden city with hopes and dreams of buying a lawn mower that he sees in a pawn shop window for $49. He comes across some money, degrading himself for one of those bum fight type videos, and he's well on his way to getting the mower. But just as he's about to purchase it, the pawn shop is robbed. Above the mower is a shotgun. The decision for the Hobo is an easy one. He grabs the shotgun and kills the robbers. He pays for the shotgun and goes on a vigilante justice rampage, taking the carnage all the way to the top of the corrupt town's crime hierarchy.

There are some good lines, but it's just too over the top for my tastes. The first 25 minutes or so are borderline unwatchable. It picks up a bit when the hobo gets the shotgun, but not enough to push the movie over into the recommended territory. I think there is definitely an audience for this movie, and I'm not one to dismiss a good exploitation flick, but this one just didn't really do it for me. Maybe it just struck me on the wrong day or I wasn't feeling it or whatever, but it just seemed like even at 86 minutes, it was stretched out too long. It really does work best as a 2 minute trailer.

RATING: 2/5

Die Hard with a Veneance (1995)

2011-07-02T20:40:00.003-04:00

As a youngin', one of my favorite movies was Die Hard. I still remember the very first time I became aware of it. My mom was watching it on video one afternoon, and I happened to walk in at the scene where Bruce Willis is in the ventilation shaft. I was pretty much hooked from that moment forward, and for a while, as a youngin', I considered Die Hard to be my favorite movie of all time (and Beverly Hills Cop, fwiw).

When Die Hard 2: Die Harder came to the big screen in 1990, it became the first R rated movie my mom allowed for us to see in the theater. I remember being very excited/nervous about it, and it was a pre-show message from the Bundy's that calmed my nerves. And miraculously I enjoyed it.

So it was with great anticipation that I saw Die Hard with a Vengeance in a theater. I even remember getting the novelized book and reading it a few weeks before it came out (I would never do such a thing nowadays). I guess I liked the novelized version because I was very much looking forward to the film. And it didn't let me down. To this day, Die Hard with a Vengeance is still my second favorite Die Hard movie. And while it may have grown a tad bit ludicrous over the years (it probably always has been, I've just never noticed), it's still unmistakably a Die Hard movie. It just has that classic "Die Hard feeling," if you know what I mean.

Once again starring Bruce Willis as John McClane (and the last appearance of McClane's classic hair style), the movie opens about as good as a summer action flick can open. It starts out with the attention getting 60s pop tune "Summer in the City," and the title appears in loud metallic tones, announcing that Die Hard with a Vengeance has begun. And barely a minute in a store front explodes, and the movie is off and running and it doesn't stop to take a breath until the ending.

It's funny, one of the things I remember thinking when 9/11 happened was how much some of the scenes from the New York streets looked like something straight out of Die Hard with a Vengeance (except, amazingly, amplified by 10, and this was REAL LIFE). It has a great tone and feel that is different from the first two movies, but McClane is still there and it is indeed a Die Hard movie, especially by the time Jeremys Iron actually shows up (halfway through the running time if my calculations are correct). It's got the language, the violence, the over the top action, and the goofy supporting characters. Not to mention foreign terrorists.

There was a time when I thought that Die Hard III was on par or just a smidgen below the original Die Hard. While I don't think it's quite that high anymore, it still rings true as a solid action movie and a welcome addition to a strong action franchise. And while it spirals out of control in the last 10 or 15 minutes, the build up is still strong enough to warrant a viewing whenever one is in the mood for a race against time type of action flick, or a Die Hard movie.

RATING: 3.5/5

Blazing Saddles (1974)

2011-07-01T00:00:00.005-04:00

When I see lists of the greatest comedies of all time, there are always a few mainstays. Airplane! is always present, as it should be because it is easily one of (if not THE best) comedies of all time. This is Spinal Tap is another. And usually festering around the top five or top 10 is Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, a movie I'd kind of dismissed for years as being not that funny (because I had tried watching it years ago and fell asleep...I guess it never occurred to me that I was probably just really tired). Well, I'm here to say that it IS funny. I don't know if I'd call it gut bustingly hilarious, but there are plenty of fantastically smart lines that it's just impossible to ignore. It seems to get funnier as it goes along. While not all the gags resonate with me (blatant fart humor is really not my thing, and that is apparently one of the most popular scenes), plenty of them do, and I loved the breaking of the 4th wall in the last act. It just brings the movie to a whole new level of zaniness. I was reading some internet discussions for the end and I was shocked to discover there are people that don't like the ending (or Monty Python and the Holy Grail's). Those people should be shot.

Since there really isn't a whole lot of of insight into why I enjoyed the movie other than it has great lines, funny performances (Slim Pickens in particular, not to mention Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little), a great set of tits (even if they do stay clothed), and a completely insane last act, I'm going to post some of the best lines, stolen directly from IMDB.

Taggart: I got it! I got it!
Hedley Lamarr: You do?
Taggart: We'll work up a Number 6 on 'em.
Hedley Lamarr: [frowns] "Number 6"? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that one.
Taggart: Well, that's where we go a-ridin' into town, a-whompin' and a-whumpin' every livin' thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.
Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?
Taggart: Naw, we rape the shit out of them at the Number Six Dance later on.
Hedley Lamarr: Marvelous!
---------------------------------------------
Taggart: The surveyors say they may have run into some quicksand up ahead. Better check it out.
Lyle: Okay, I'll send down a team of horses to check out the ground.
Taggart: *Horses*?
[hits Lyle's head]
Taggart: We can't afford to lose any horses, you dummy! Send over a couple of niggers.
---------------------------------------------
[Bart returns unexpectedly after being sentenced to death]
Charlie: They said you was hung.
Bart: And they was right.
---------------------------------------------
Howard Johnson: [reading] As honorary chairman of the welcoming committee, it's my privilege to present a laurel and hearty handshake to our new...
[looks up and sees Bart]
Howard Johnson: ...nigger.
---------------------------------------------
Bart: Well, Jim, since you are my guest and I am your host, what's your pleasure? What do you like to do?
Jim: Oh, I don't know. Play chess... screw...
Bart: [quickly] Well, let's play chess.
--------------------------------------------
Jim: [quickly] Why, Rhett! How many times have I told you to wash up after weekly cross burning?
--------------------------------------------
Hedley Lamarr: Men, you are about to embark on a great crusade to stamp out runaway decency in the west. Now you men will only be risking your lives, whilst I will be risking an almost certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
--------------------------------------------
Taggart: I hired you people to try to get a little track laid, not to jump around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots.
--------------------------------------------
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.
-------------------------------------------
Bart: What's your name?
Jim: Well, my name is Jim, but most people call me... Jim.
--------------------------------------------
Reverend Johnson: Now I don't have to tell you good folks what's been happening in our beloved little town. Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped. The time has come to act, and act fast. I'm leaving.
--------------------------------------------
Buddy Bizarre: [yells into the ear of an actor] WRONG!
[hits the actor in the head]
Buddy Bizarre: Watch me! It's so simple! Give me the playback! Watch me, faggots!
--------------------------------------------

RATING: 3.5/5

Paper Moon (1973)

2011-06-21T21:17:00.003-04:00

How I managed to get through the 90s with renting just about every highly praised 70s movie known to man and I still somehow managed to miss Paper Moon is beyond me. I loved The Last Picture Show the first time I saw and I absolutely loved it the last time I watched it, so I'm not sure what was keeping me from another starkly photographed black and white 70s period film from Peter Bogdonovich. Maybe it was because it was a comedy and it had a little girl in it. I'm usually weary of movies starring children. But I really don't know what it was.

But regardless, I've finally gotten around to watching it. That's the cool thing about going through movies year by year, I get a chance to finally watch movies I probably wouldn't have been tempted to ever watch any other time. And I'm glad I did because I thoroughly enjoyed Paper Moon. It's just one of those movies that is so spot on that it's very easy to see why it holds the standing that it does. While it may not be another Last Picture Show, it really is a perfect follow up movie because it takes the nostalgic look to a different era and it has a completely different tone to play with.

Obviously, the film is known for Tatum O'Neal's Academy Award winning performance (still the youngest winner ever) as a little girl con-artist who travels the highways with her "father," played by Ryan O'Neal. At first Ryan O'Neal doesn't want any part of her, but once he sees that she can be useful in his petty cons, he has a change of heart. The two go on a humorous journey that takes them to front doors and small shops and carnivals and hotels. It's definitely a classic in the road movie genre. Amazingly, Tatum O'Neal's performance isn't really supporting at all. She's just as much the lead as Ryan O'Neal, but I guess the Academy just didn't see it as a leading lady role. Plus, her chances for winning were probably much better as supporting actress. It's too bad her career peaked here, I would've thought she'd be another Jodie Foster based off this performance. It most certainly isn't one note.

Peter Bogdonovich really was a prodigy in the early 70s. It's a shame that his later career never matched the promise of Last Picture Show and Paper Moon. It kind of makes me wonder what went wrong. Did he just get too much of an ego and his movies started to suffer for it, or did he just lose the magic touch he possessed in his earlier films? Whatever the answer, at least these two movies still hold up and can be enjoyed as timeless films until probably the end of time.

RATING: 4/5

Super 8 (2011)

2011-06-17T22:46:00.003-04:00

I probably couldn't have seen Super 8 at a more perfect time. I'm just getting off a Spielberg kick, having just viewed Jurassic Park, Jaws, and E.T. Not only that, but I've just been in a classic Spielberg kind of mood lately. And here comes this movie, produced by Spielberg and directed by J.J. Abrams, that is 100% tribute to the Spielberg kid adventure films of yesteryear. It's such a tribute that I would even go as far as to call it a Grindhouse for kids. And when I say it's a Grindhouse for kids I don't mean that's a tribute to B-movies directed at kids, although I guess there is a little of that in there, but it's more of the Grindhouse concept done with Spielberg. Meaning, the movie knowingly uses Spielberg devices and aesthetic to create a movie that is entirely reminiscent of a late 70s/early 80s Spielberg movie, but can also stand on its own two feet, just like Planet Terror and Death Proof.

The best part is that the movie knows it's a movie, so it can get away with pretty much anything. It can get away with being overly sappy, because the movies it pays homage to had ample amounts of sap. It can pretty much get away with anything and it has free reign to do so, much in the vein of the Kill Bills and Grindhouse. I know these seem like weird movies to compare it to, but I can't be the only one who saw the movie in that vein. It's a movie inspired by movies, not real life. And it totally works. These types of movies stand on their own for people who aren't familiar with the influences, and they stand on their own for people who are. And if you don't dig it, you're probably the same person who isn't digging the Kill Bills and the Grindhouses. Hey, not everything is everyone's cup of tea, but as a movie buff I love this concept. And it's really nothing new. It goes all the way back to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars and probably even earlier. And when it's done well it's something that I really enjoy. And Super 8 does it extremely well.

So what is this movie about? It's about a kid who loses his mom, and he is now being raised by his dad. His best friend (fat) is obsessed with watching movies (loved the Halloween/Dawn of the Dead posters in his room) and making movies, and the main kid helps with the make-up f/x and odds and ends. There is a whole group of these kids who are willing to sneak out in the middle of the night to shoot a scene by the railroad (PRODUCTION VALUE). And it just so happens that during one of these night shoots, they happen to bear witness to a horrendous train/car collision. They barely escape with their lives, and it's only the beginning of what lies ahead.

The performances from the young cast are exactly the kind of kid performances you would see in E.T. or The Goonies or any other 80s kid movie that Spielberg slapped his name on. They curse, they do the things that kids do that a lot of filmmakers try to shy away from, but Spielberg can get away with it. They seem like real kids but they also seem like classic movie kids. The kind of kids you want to follow every step of the way during an adventure. There is the main kid, the main kid's love interest, the fat kid, the firecracker kid, the sensitive kid. They're all stock characters but they mix so well that you just get wrapped up in the fun.

The adult cast consists of Kyle Chandler (from TV's Friday Night Lights) and that's pretty much it. It's the kids' movie all the way, and they do an ample job of carrying the entire thing on their shoulders. J.J. Abrams put together a great mix, and the story is exciting and builds to one of those great third acts where all hell breaks loose and the adventure reaches an all time high. Abrams has done a great job of not only paying a huge tribute to classic Spielberg but creating a new classic that a whole SLEW of kids are going to grow up with. And those kids are going to grow up wanting to create their own adventures, just like Abrams did, just like Spielberg did, and just like the kids in Super 8 do.

RATING: 4/5

Top 10 Movies of 2010

2011-06-09T19:25:00.003-04:00

127 Hours (dir: Danny Boyle)
Animal Kingdom (dir: David Michod)
Blue Valentine (dir: Derek Cianfrance)
The Fighter (dir: David O. Russell)
The Kids Are All Right (dir: Lisa Cholodenko)
Let Me In (dir: Matt Reeves)
The Social Network (dir: David Fincher)
The Town (dir: Ben Affleck)
Toy Story 3 (dir: Lee Unkrich)
True Grit (dir: Joel and Ethan Coen)

High Plains Drifter (1973)

2011-06-08T00:02:00.003-04:00

Clint Eastwood, in one of his first directorial efforts, really fucks with your mind with High Plains Drifter. In the first 15 minutes or so you range from thinking "Man, this character is a total badass" to "Man, this character is a total asshole." He goes from slaughtering some town scoundrels to raping a woman who bumps into him. This is our hero? Yes, AND no.

No one ever says he's the hero, he's just a guy comes into town. A town that just so happens to be under threat from a trio of dangerous men who have just been released from prison. Those men are out for revenge against the town that put them there, and the town is desperate to fight them off. Clint's early antics have them convinced he'd be the perfect man for the job. So they pretty much offer him the town on a silver platter, and he takes it. Thing is, Eastwood is out for revenge as well, on seemingly everyone in the town (cept for the midget). You're never quite sure what is going on with Clint's character in this, but I will say that there is a SMIDGEN of the possibility of something supernatural at the root.

Just when you think he's doing The Man With No Name again, Eastwood throws in enough original stuff to keep you glued. Also, early on there is a captivating scene at the barber shop that I absolutely loved. I love a good shaving scene, and this, by God, is one of the best.

There is some very striking imagery. I loved any one of the shots of Eastwood's silhouette against a fiery backdrop. I also absolutely loved the look of the town once it's literally painted red. Very memorable imagery indeed and one of the more badass things I've seen in a Western.

RATING: 3.5/5

Jurassic Park (1993), E.T. (1982)

2011-06-04T20:45:00.005-04:00

Having watched 3 classic Steven Spielberg movies in three days (the other one was Jaws, which I've already reviewed), I figured I'd just group the two reviews together. Surely I saw E.T. first, but I'll start with Jurassic Park.

I remember hearing about Jurassic Park in elementary school. I was probably in 3rd or 4th grade. It was during recess and I remember a friend asking if I was going to see "Jurassic Park." I don't remember what I said, but I remember I had seen a commercial for it prior. Anyway, from that point on it became the movie to see that year. I remember going to see it in the theater, and before it started I heard a kid talking about how violent it was, and that the only reason it was rated PG-13 was because they wanted kids to see it, otherwise it would have been rated R. I'm not sure what the logic is behind that but I distinctively remember hearing that because it gave me an uneasy feeling before the movie started.

Well it started and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I remember walking out after the movie was over and talking about how REAL the dinosaurs looked. Saying things like "That has to be how they really looked! They were so real!" At that point in time I didn't know what the fuck CGI was, I don't think anyone did. So it was pure movie magic at that point. Jurassic Park was able to whisk everyone away to a theme park that featured real life dinosaurs. It was pretty f'n great at the time and it left a huge impression on kids my age. It still ranks as a great example of a great summer blockbuster.

The scene where the the electric fences break down and the T-Rex starts to slowly terrorize the neon Jurassic Park jeeps...I STILL love that stuff. It scares the shit out of me, and a little known fact about myself is that probably since 1993 I've had nightmares where a T-Rex terrorizes my town. I have at least one a year, probably more that I don't even remember.

Jeff Goldblum was probably my favorite character, because he's just so damn cool, in a nerdy sort of way. Re-watching the movie I think it's quite clear that he was set up as a sex symbol of sorts. There is a scene in the third act where he's laying on a table with his shirt open, his bare chest glistening with sweat. I'm sure the ladies in the audience were glistening in their pants.

The raptors are pretty fucking scary too, but I haven't had many dreams with them. I didn't even find out until recently that raptors probably didn't even look like that and they were mostly a creation of the film. There I was, all those years going by thinking that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were as real as dinosaurs could look on film, and the fuggin raptors didn't even look like that in real life. Not to mention that the little critter who spits shit at Newman doesn't really do that either. But no matter, this is a fun movie and without those things it wouldn't be nearly as memorable.

E.T. I've been aware of since, quite literally, birth. It came out in 1982. It was the highest grossing movie of that year. I happened to have been born at the tail end of 1982, and while it wasn't the top movie at the box office the week I was born (that honor goes to a Richard Pryor vehicle called The Toy), it was still the talk of the Earth. I think there is still an E.T. photo book in my mom's shed, filled with pictures from the film.

But, even though I've always known who E.T. is, I can't for the life of me remember the first time I saw the movie. I'm willing to bet anything that it was at the YMCA, probably a double feature with Mac and Me. But I didn't truly see it with a really conscious mind until it was re-released in theaters in 2002. It was there that I truly saw it for what it was, a masterpiece in the family film genre and one of the sci-fi classics of all time. It didn't matter that Spielberg fucked with some of the F/X (a practice that he has apparently gone on to regret, so take that George Lucas), it was still a magical movie. And I'm not the type to cry at films when others are around, but I distinctly remember feeling like I would burst out in tears in the theater, especially during the scene where E.T. is white and shriveled up by the water ravine.

What more can be said about E.T.? I think everyone has said it. It enjoys a reputation as one of the most classic films ever made. Every kid knows who E.T. is. Every kid will see it sooner or later. It's like The Wizard of Oz, it'll never die. And reading up on it, I know there are a lot of people who have a true phobia of the film and of E.T. himself. I can understand being a little scared by him at first, because the movie wants you to be, but once you get to know the little bugger you can't help but fall in love with him. And while it's rated at a very high 7.9 overall score on IMDB, it isn't on the Top 250 movies of all-time. I find that a little strange, but I think it's one of those movies you kind of forget how great it is until you're actually watching it. Then once its over you remember everything about it but you start to second guess yourself, thinking it's schmaltz or whatever, and you don't want to admit to yourself that it's a great fucking movie.

Where has this Steven Spielberg gone? The Spielberg who gave us Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park, and so many other summer blockbusters? He's still pretty great at giving us the serious pictures, and I'm one of the few people on the planet who didn't hate the 4th Indiana Jones, but I have to wonder where the Spielberg magic aura has gone to. It sure as fuck isn't in War of the Worlds.

Jurassic Park: 4/5
E.T.-The Extra Terrestrial 5/5

Caddyshack (1980)

2011-05-28T00:03:00.003-04:00

I believe I saw Caddyshack II before I saw Caddyshack. I just remember being a very young kid in the late 80s and seeing a Caddyshack II poster or display at the video store, and I remember watching the movie numerous times. I wasn't, however, allowed to watch the original movie, because it was rated R. My mom seemed to have no problem letting me watch movies like RoboCop and Die Hard, where violence and drug use was in full force. But anything that contained nudity I was not allowed to watch. Until one day, she miraculously gave in and allowed us to rent the original Caddyshack. Probably because we were really big Ghosbusters fans and wanted to see other movies with the Ghosbusters in them. I still remember seeing the cover art on the shelf. It actually looked a bit scary.

As for the movie itself, it's one of the first movies I remember seeing nudity in. So that kind of stuck with me, which is nice. It was also probably one of the oldest movies I'd seen up until that point. Even in 1988 Caddyshack looked old. In general, I've probably seen Caddyshack more than a lot of other movies that I love. It was just around that time when I could watch the same movie over and over again endlessly.

Watching it now, I see that it's not a perfect movie and it's not without some dated elements. It has a disjointed quality to it, where it seems like it's not really sure who the main character is, and there is one storyline that doesn't seem to have any business in a movie that contains a dancing gopher (Danny and Maggie's storyline, the absolute worst thing about the movie). It helps to know a little bit about the behind the scenes story of the movie. The original script focused a lot more on the actual caddies and Michael O'Keefe and Ted Knight. Originally, Rodney Dangerfield, Chevy Chase, and Bill Murray weren't supposed to be much more than cameos. But when they got there, they started improvising a ton of stuff, and eventually they took over the entire film, becoming the main characters when essentially it was supposed to be Michael O'Keefe and Ted Knight's movie.

It still holds up to those of use who have grown up with it. If you didn't grow up with it, you're probably not gonna see the appeal. I can almost guarantee it. But if you saw it at a young age you'll still dig it. In fact, there are plenty of other jokes in here that are just funny for funny's sake, and I think people who think they don't like the movie are being a bit unfair in their dismissal of it.

Caddyshack (and Animal House before it) helped usher in an era of comedies that are still looked back upon fondly. It pretty much announced the arrival of raunchy 80s comedies, for better or worse. Some were good, some were bad, but none of them are still held at quite the same level that Caddyshack is.

RATING: 3.5/5

Somewhere (2010)

2011-05-24T20:37:00.002-04:00

After a pretty big misstep (in my estimation), Sofia Coppola returns to more solid and respectable material with Somewhere. This is the kind of shit she is really good at. And while it may seem a bit too reminiscent of Lost in Translation at times, you can't really fault her for it. She's writing from the heart, and from what she knows, and if certain themes are recurring in her work, that's where her artistic drive takes her. So what? There isn't anything wrong with that.

Stephen Dorff, no doubt dusted off from Hollywood's attic, plays an actor who has everything but really has nothing. He is on a press junket for his latest movie, and he spends his evenings being entertained by a variety of women. There are two twin strippers who give very elaborate dance routines, and there are plenty of other random women he meets at parties. But his life doesn't truly light up until his daughter (Elle Fanning) comes to the hotel for visits. It seems like he can put up with all of the shit that goes along with Hollywood: friends who aren't friends, hundreds of meaningless women, hours in the make up chair, weird massage appointments. But it doesn't do anything to make him feel alive. The only thing that does is when he starts to spend more time with his daughter.

This is the type of film that will no doubt test the patience of modern movie goers. But I'm guessing the people who would even put this in their movie player in the first place know what they're getting into. There are also cynics who will dismiss it as hipster garbage, but F 'em. This is a solid, well made film with a lead character we don't know a whole lot about but we want to watch. We want to see if the movie actually goes...Somewhere. *giggles*

RATING: 3/5

That's What I Am (2011)

2011-05-23T00:20:00.003-04:00

This is a family film, essentially, produced by WWE Films. Which means it was made primarily as a vehicle for a professional wrestler to act in, but amazingly the wrestler that this was made for (Randy Orton) is only in three small scenes. It's mostly a morality tale against bullying and being yourself, set in 1965.

The time period seems like a good fit to tell the story, but they don't really go out of their way to make it entirely believable. The main kid who is ridiculed, Big G, called as such because of his red hair (the 'G' is for ginger, which wasn't even remotely a popular term back then...) and height, teaches us about tolerance. His main goal is to sing in the talent show so that people will realize he's just doing what he loves and he doesn't care who knows it or what they say about it. It's a good message.

Ed Harris is the school's most popular teacher, but soon a nasty rumor is started, and he has to stand up for himself and fight for his job (because, as Randy Orton so menacingly says in the trailer, "I'll go to the papers if I have to.") He's basically forced to answer whether or not he's a homosexual, but he can't for the life of him figure out what the hell that has to do with his job as a teacher.

The one thing I don't get is that the main character (not the bullied one, the non bullied one) has a love interest who is apparently the school whore. At first I thought this was another lesson of the movie, that her reputation was blown out of proportion by the student body and that she wasn't really a whore and that was her character's tolerance issue. But nope, turns out she's a slut who has made out with the entire eighth grade. Hmph.

It's a pretty cheesy movie. Perhaps a good movie to teach kids tolerance, but if they're around the age of the kids in this movie, I'd just show them Brokeback Mountain or Boys Don't Cry.

RATING: 2/5

Blue Valentine (2010)

2011-05-23T00:04:00.005-04:00

When watching Blue Valentine, I couldn't stop myself from comparing it to another Ryan Gosling romantic drama from a couple years ago, The Notebook. It struck me how two movies with the theme of love starring the same actor can be so different. One is a fantasy, based on the the universal idea of true everlasting love. The other is reality, where such a love may seem like it's there at first, but then shit just gets complicated, fights constantly happen, and two people may end up going their separate ways. It happens all the time in life, and this may be one of the best portrayals of it to hit the screen in years.

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are a couple who care for their young elementary school aged daughter. Their marriage is not perfect. The movie does a great job of showing their current situation, and then brilliantly contrasting it with how they initially meet and fall in love. It's an absolutely fantastic examination of a relationship and a great way to tell the story. I really felt that with each addition to their backstory, the current story becomes that much harder to bear.

The performances are mind bogglingly good. Ryan Gosling was robbed of an Oscar nomination. This feels like a real couple. It feels like a real relationship. It feels like real issues. It's the type of downer of a movie that doesn't really get made much anymore, and the only way it can get made is on a low budget with an art house release style.

The Notebook is the type of movie couples want to watch together, Blue Valentine is the type of movie that they'll want to watch apart, and then, if everything is still going smoothly, it may remind you how thankful you are that you haven't gotten to that level, and you'll hope like hell that you never do. But it happens. All the time. Probably more often than The Notebook and Nicholas Sparks would like you to believe.

RATING: 4/5

Cyrus (2010), Youth in Revolt (2009)

2011-05-08T11:16:00.003-04:00

Cyrus is a bit of a dark comedy starring John C. Reilly as a man who has been divorced, and doesn't seem to want to get back in the game. Ironically, with the help of his ex-wife, he goes to a party and meets Marisa Tomei, and they really hit it off. Things start to get hot and heavy, but she keeps mysteriously leaving in the middle of the night. So Reilly follows her to her house and is greeted by Cyrus, her 21 year old son who is still living with her. The more he gets to see them together, the more weird and strange it becomes. They're a little TOO close, and Cyrus eventually starts to drive a wedge between them.

It's a good movie. John C. Reilly is funny, ditching the Will Ferrell Sr. act that he's been doing in comedies as of late (for the most part) and going back to the wounded ugly guy routine. Jonah Hill goes against his usual character traits and plays a convincing modern momma's boy. He still talks like Jonah Hill, but he's different. I liked the scene where he introduces Reilly to his music.

Another movie that I watched that kind of fits snuggly with Cyrus on a double feature is Youth in Revolt. It's a couple years old now and I never got around to it when watching 2009 movies, but it's pretty good. It reeks of future cult classic. Much like his Superbad co-star, Michael Cera plays a bit against type. Not at first, but when his alter ego is introduced he's actually quite funny and dare I say convincing as a conniving Frenchman with terrible facial hair.

Both movies: 3/5

The King's Speech (2010)

2011-05-07T22:40:00.004-04:00

I have avoided seeing The King's Speech because I couldn't get past the Oscar-bait feeling in the pit of my stomach. It simply looked like a movie that was made specifically to win awards. It may have a good story to go along with it, sure, and it may even be inspiring to people who suffer from a similar ailment, but it looked to me like a movie that was dying to win Best Picture. And it did win Best Picture, and I didn't want to see it. Ever. But then I was told that it's really actually quite good and it may not be pure Oscar-bait after all, so I decided to give it a chance.

I really, really wanted to dislike it. But the opening scene really pulled me in. I just felt really bad for the guy. I wanted to see him overcome his stuttering problem. That's not to say that the movie still didn't seem a bit too Oscar-bait-y to me at times, because it definitely did. But it has its moments, and it's actually a pretty decent flick. Do I think it's the best picture of the year? No, I do not, but I guess the Oscar movie has to win the Oscar every once in a while.

Colin Firth really is quite good. Best actor worthy? Actually, I don't think so. I actually would have given the Oscar to James Franco for 127 Hours, but Firth is really good. Geoffrey Rush is also delightful as the man who teaches the King how to give a speech without stammering. The relationship between the two characters is easily the most interesting part of the film to me, and anytime they share the screen, which is a pretty good chunk of the runtime, the movie is definitely watchable.

And to chime in on the "it's not historically accurate" issue: I don't give a shit. These types of films are "INSPIRED BY" true stories, they're not documentaries. It takes its story from real life or real life relationships, it's not a history channel re-telling of a life. These types of films are always going to be dramatized and events restructured, it doesn't mean they're of any less quality. You're watching a dramatization, not a home movie of The King.

RATING: 3/5

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

2011-04-30T00:35:00.003-04:00

I first came across Dog Day Afternoon on a late night cable TV channel. I'm pretty sure it was TBS, back when they used to play classic movies in the wee hours instead of replays of Conan and George Lopez (I do love Conan, tho). I didn't catch the first part but I saw enough to know that I was watching a great movie. It just has that aura about it. Then I'm pretty sure I checked it out from the library. Could have been one of the video stores I frequent, but I distinctly remember the cover art being on it and having Al Pacino's messy bangs on top of my entertainment center for about a week.

It's about as simple of a story as you can get. A man robs a bank to pay for his gay lover's sex change operation. Things don't go as planned. When watching it this last time, after having not seen it for about 4 or 5 years, I realized that everyone in this movie is stupid. From Pacino on down. And it's great because director Sidney Lumet knows they're stupid, so there is a great sense of comedy to almost every scene. And it's subtle comedy, too. It's the kind of comedy that comes out of real life from idiots, not the kind of comedy that comes out of movies.

Al Pacino was pretty much an acting God at this point. De Niro was getting there, but he hadn't done Taxi Driver yet so I think Pacino may have had him beat here. It's great watching him play Sonny. When he's in the bank he doesn't do a very good job of hiding his fears and concerns from the hostages, but when dealing with the police and the crowds outside, he's like a whole other character. He gets the crowds riled up with chants of "Attica! Attica!" and he keeps the cops on their toes. And I know I said he was an idiot earlier, and he is for even attempting to rob a bank without in depth plans, but he still keeps a bit of a cool head under pressure and he's definitely a leader of sorts. Just not a very bright one when all is said and done.

The theme of the media is also played up in this, how it exploits real life danger for entertainment. And it's played for laughs on more than one occasion. It is particularly amusing when a news channel interviews Pacino and they get a shot of him inside the bank, and one of the lady hostages is behind Pacino mugging for the camera the entire time. It's even funnier when Pacino starts cursing and they have to take him off TV. Exploiting a robbery when it may lead to live violence on TV is fine, but when the robber starts using bad language, GET HIM OFF THE AIR!!!

The supporting cast, starting with John Cazale as Sal and going from there, are all perfectly cast and seem to understand their characters very well. Chris Sarandon in particular is a standout, in a role that requires him to be flashy but not too over the top. It still works 35 years later. Another compliment to Pacino and Cazale: these two play brothers in The Godfather and I completely buy it, and when I see them here I rarely remember that they're both in the Godfather. They do such a great job of projecting these characters that they make you forget about MICHAEL and FREDO when you're watching them. True talent indeed.

Sidney Lumet was truly a craftsman. He was the type of director that could excel in whatever genre he was working in. A lot of people like to laud the auteur theory, and that's fine, but there is something to be said for guys like Lumet who can work in pretty much any genre and almost always make a good to great movie. Throw him in New York and you're guaranteed a classic.

RATING: 5/5

Papillon (1973)

2011-04-20T20:35:00.003-04:00

Papillon is perhaps the last great Steve McQueen vehicle. By the time he did Towering Inferno a year or so later he really started to look old and weathered. He was probably getting closer to the illness that would eventually kill him. But here is the last of classic McQueen, and it's probably one of his best performances. It's kind of the old school style of acting, whereas Hoffman brings more of the new school method acting to the table, and watching them on screen together is, for me, riveting stuff.

Basically, McQueen is a wrongly convicted prisoner, and Hoffman is a rich man prisoner who needs protected while inside. Together they hatch a deal, and along the way McQueen comes up with numerous escape plots. And that's pretty much it. It's a prison escape/jungle adventure film from the 70s.

It's epic in scope and budget. It's 12 million dollar budget, at the time, was looked at as monstrous. And I think that's why a lot of critics kind of dismissed it at the time. Roger Ebert gave it only 2 stars. Considering some of the shit he's given three or more stars to over the years I'd say he should definitely consider re-visiting this movie. I've seen it twice now and while it's not perfect it definitely holds your attention and while it feels long it doesn't quite feel overlong. It's a good flick.

My favorite scene is probably when McQueen and Hoffman and their gay friend have to stop by a leper colony for supplies. The whole sequence is the good kind of dated. The make up is bad but still grotesque, and it gives off a "They don't make 'em like this anymore" kind of vibe, but in the best way possible. An enjoyable scene.

Hoffman's character gets progressively funnier as the movie goes along. By the time it's close to concluding, you may be laughing at his interactions with the pigs that he keeps on his island prison farm. "Freddy, that's not for you! That's for Adam!"

It's not without flaws. The scene where McQueen has been in solitary with no light for several weeks...he somehow morphs into James Stewart, voice and face mannerisms and all. It's very strange. I also think his characterization gets a bit weird at the end. His voice turns into Clint Eastwood's, essentially. So while overall this may be one of his stronger performances, it's not with out a smidgen of goofyness.

One of the last big acts in the movie is Steve McQueen jumping off a very high cliff. When I watched it, I thought to myself "good stuntman work." But then, OF COURSE, this is Steve McQueen we're talking about here. He did the jump himself. God I love that man.

RATING: 3.5/5

Marwencol (2010)

2011-04-19T00:16:00.003-04:00

Marwencol tells the story of Mark Hogancamp, a man who was savagely beaten by 5 teenagers outside of a bar. He recovers, but he remembers next to nothing about his previous life. To help with his dexterity and creativity, he builds a small town in his yard and populates it with GI Joes and Barbies. And he decides to take pictures of the stories that these dolls are having in his head. The results are staggeringly original and entirely awesome. And as the film progresses, more and more of Mark's eccentricities come out of the closet, and the film ends with a good message. It's interesting to compare this to Exit Through the Gift Shop, because that movie was about an artist who seemingly threw shit together in the most unoriginal ways possible, and here we have a story about an artist who literally lives his art, and it clearly comes straight from his heart. Very interesting indeed.

RATING: 3.5/5

Mean Streets (1973)

2011-04-18T17:15:00.003-04:00

"You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it." --Charlie (Harvey Keitel), Mean Streets

Well, if you want to get technical, it's actually Martin Scorsese delivering those opening lines, but they're Charlie's thoughts. And they usher in Mean Streets, which in turn ushers in Martin Scorsese to modern cinema. It's his first classic, the first real Scorsese movie. It's the first time he really went crazy with the pop tunes, the slow motion, the street violence, the wicked cool camera angles, the rough editing, and of course, his first collaboration with Robert De Niro.

The movie follows Charlie, played by Harvey Keitel, and his group of friends. He is a conflicted but nevertheless religious man, and he has dealings with some local underworld big shots. His biggest problem, though, is keeping his best friend Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro) in line. Johnny Boy is a bit of a loose cannon, and he owes a local gangster named Michael a lot of money. What makes it more awkward is that Michael is actually one of their friends. But business is business, and he literally spends the entire movie trying to collect what Johnny Boy owes him, and Keitel spends the entire movie trying to get Johnny Boy to man up and pay it, all the while buying as much time as possible. Keitel also carries on a secret relationship with Johnny Boy's epileptic big nippled cousin.

The result is highly memorable and at the time, highly original. It's influence can be seen on more than just Scorsese's later films, but also in several other filmmakers and street crime cinema in general. All roads lead back to Mean Streets.

Obviously, De Niro steals the show. This is classic 70s De Niro at his finest. He's still a scrawny bastard, he's obnoxious, he's exhilarating. And if you compare it to his performance in Godfather Part II or even Taxi Driver a couple years later, it really hits home how versatile an actor he is. Keitel too gives a great performance, and together with De Niro all of their scenes are hard to take your eyes off of. They're magnetic together.

Is it a perfect movie? No, but it's flaws are pretty much excusable. There is no real story to speak of until the last act. A lot of it is random vignettes amongst Charlie and his friends, with a thin thread of Michael trying to collect from Johnny Boy. It's rough around the edges, there are shots that are too soft or out of focus, but that could be a result of the condition of the negative and not so much how it was filmed. And it does slow down to a snail's pace and get a bit too slow on a couple of occasions. Still, it's an easy movie to watch.

Scorsese uses a lot of great tunes. From the opening credits onward Mean Streets is like listening to the best vinyl jukebox on the planet. And it's pretty much all recorded directly from Martin Scorsese's personal record collection. It doesn't really get much more personal than that.

Mean Streets is the direct result of John Cassevettes seeing Boxcar Bertha, and telling Scorsese that he just spent a year making a piece of shit (it's not that bad, I even included it on my top 10 for '72, but that's mainly because '72 was lacking outside the heavy hitters). He told him he should try to make something more personal. And judging from all the Scorsese work that followed, and how hints of Mean Streets can be seen in a vast majority of them, I think it's safe to assume that Scorsese made it about as personal as he could. And it helped change movies from here on out.

RATING: 4/5

It's Kind of a Funny Story (2010)

2011-04-16T00:29:00.005-04:00

This is a bit of a tough one. At first glance it kind of tricked me into thinking I had watched a decent or even good movie. But it has it's flaws, flaws that I was fully aware of when watching the movie, but it wasn't until after it was over until I realized how much they kind of annoyed me. And then I go and find out that these are the same writers who gave us Half Nelson, and I thinks to myself, I thinks "THIS is the best they could come up with? A glorified teen Cuckoo's Nest?"

A young high schooler becomes so stressed out about the future his father has planned for him that he contemplates suicide. He has a bit of a history with depression (he has been prescribed Zoloft) and he has a terrible habit of nervous vomiting (I actually enjoyed that bit of nastyness). He convinces a doc that he's suicidal, so they put him in the psyche ward of the hospital, which is under renovations, so kids are mixed with adults. It is here that he meets all sorts of whacko characters and learns a very important lesson about himself, and that maybe his namby pamby problems aren't so serious after all.

Zack Galifinakis, in a role he was clearly instructed to take on the advice of his agent ("You've had your blockbuster comedy, Zack, now you need to do your 'quirky,' semi-serious follow up, like when Steve Carell did Little Miss Sunshine"), is tolerable, but I simply could not shake the feeling that he was going for something more important than what we ended up with. I think he was shooting for a Best Supporting Actor nod or something. He just seems a bit forced in the role, and I found his presence to be distracting more than anything else. He has his moments. I will admit that it could be my problem entirely. I just can't shake his stage persona and take him seriously.

The lead character, again...he's okay, but the vibe I got from him is that he was a bit of an overdramatic assclown. And he looked like Justin Long. Not a good mixture. His love interest was far too attractive and her scarred face was far too obviously put there to make her more believable as a resident of mental ward. It didn't work. She's was still too hot.

And don't get me started on the 'Under Pressure' concert number. So much awful shit has happened to this song in its lifetime that I'm amazed it can still come out unscathed as a great song (ICE ICE BABY), and even here, with the terrible costume ensemble that accompanies it, the music is ALMOST strong enough to overcome the ridiculous cheese factor on screen. Another dark spot in ZG's role is this sequence. It's a bit embarrassing to watch.

I think I'll stop here. It should be obvious that this movie didn't really do it for me. I'll give it props for having some okay moments and themes, but Christ, these are the people who conceived Half Nelson. I'd expect something a bit more substantial than this.

RATING: 2/5

Flipped (2010)

2011-04-08T00:05:00.004-04:00

When is the last time Rob Reiner made a really good movie? I'll tell you. You have to go all the way back to 1992, with A Few Good Men. And once the words THE END come up, they may as well have spelled the end of Rob Reiner's winning streak to end all winning streaks. We're talking an eclectic mix of genres and a wave of classics that would put almost any other filmmaker to shame. This Is Spinal Tap, Stand by Me, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally..., Misery, and A Few Good Men. All the same dude. Not to mention The Sure Thing. The dude was unstoppable. Then what happened? He made North, and his career went South.

Now some would consider An American President a return to form. Eh, it's OK, but does it even stand a chance next to any of those first six movies I mentioned? Didn't think so. And the last movie I saw of his, Rumor Has It, was just godawful. So I've been kind of keeping my eye on Reiner. The Bucket List seemed to have won over audiences, but it didn't look like my thing and I've heard that I wouldn't like it. So I guess it's appropriate that the first movie in a decade to begin with his Castle Rock logo (my favorite movie company logo ever, by the way) is easily the best thing he's done since A Few Good Men. Yep, add Flipped to the list of quality Rob Reiner movies. And while it may not be the all-time classic that most of his early work is, it's still a very enjoyable, if a bit too cute at times, family flick.

It basically follows a young romance from kindergarten to pre-teen years. It takes place in the late 50s to early 60s, so the times are much more innocent (although there is a good joke about whacking it to Playboy that is left in). It's told in a very unique structure, where the audience sees the main scenes play out twice. Once from the point of view of the boy, and then it flips to the point of view of the girl. It's narrated by either depending on which point of view we're watching. It makes for a unique viewing experience, even if the movie does feel like something we've seen countless times before. In this day and age, that is bound to happen, but here it has a different structure, so it makes for a different experience, which is really all I ask for.

The performances from the two kids are good. I think they were both outdone in the kid acting department in 2010's Let Me In, but they're still very good. The boy more so than the girl, as she has a couple of moments of spotty delivery. But the boy is great. I found out afterward that he is Australian. Well I'll be. He did an American accent flawlessly. Shit, adult Australian actors don't do American accents as well as he does here. John Mahoney is another stand out, delivering his best old man performance since probably Say Anything.... Three 80s relics are dusted off for our viewing pleasure, as Aidan Quinn, Penelope Ann Miller, and Rebecca De Mornay all give good performances. The only one I had slight issue with was Anthony Edwards. He just seemed a bit too...I dunno, obvious in his delivery. I think he should have gone more subtle. But he's alright. He doesn't tank the movie or anything.

This is the type of movie that will be discovered on home video and TV. I have a feeling that it will be showing on TV on Sunday afternoons, ten years from now, and people will come across and just have to watch it. It has that watch-ability factor that pretty much all early Rob Reiner movies have (and all post A Few Good Men movies were missing). So I would say it's a return to form for Reiner, and while it may have received a mixed critical reaction, it's a definite crowd pleaser, if you're not in a cynical type of mood.

RATING: 3/5

The Sting (1973)

2011-04-05T23:39:00.002-04:00

I'd only seen The Sting one other time before this, and I remembered liking it a lot. I liked it enough to buy it. And watching it a second time, I think it's a movie that works best on the first viewing. That's not to say that it isn't an entertaining or even good movie, because it certainly is, but it doesn't seem to have the replay value of some other 1973 classics. Once you know the score, it's hard to be shocked a second time.

Paul Newman and Robert Redford team for the second time in their careers (the first being Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid...duh). They play a couple of con artists who are seeking to avenge the death of a long time pal. Their main target is a business man played by Robert Shaw. My favorite sequence in the film, by far, is when Newman and Shaw have their poker game on the train. Newman's entrance in that scene is just hilarious. I believe he says something along the lines of "Sorry I'm late I was taking a crap." And speaking of Robert Shaw, he's awesome in this movie. I'm pretty sure he's been one of the main highlights of every movie I've seen him in, which admittedly isn't a whole lot.

The movie is rather beloved, and it did hold up a lot better for me than my second viewing of Butch Cassidy, but at the same time I can think of a handful of movies from 1973 that I would choose over it for Best Picture of the Year. This is the year of The Exorcist. If it were up to me, I think that would have been my no brainer best picture winner if I were an Oscar voter. But it's still a solid movie.

RATING: 3/5

Black Swan (2010)

2011-04-04T18:04:00.005-04:00

"Wrestling some consider the lowest art—if they would even call it art—and ballet some people consider the highest art. But what was amazing to me was how similar the performers in both of these worlds are. They both make incredible use of their bodies to express themselves." --Darren Aronofsky

Not that Black Swan is the near documentary style film that The Wrestler is, but I love this observation from Aronofsky. And I think Black Swan was the perfect way to follow up The Wrestler. It doesn't necessarily break new ground, but it does manage to be a tour de force in directing for Aronofsky and Natalie Portman gives an Oscar winning performance.

It deals with themes that we've seen countless times in movies from David Lynch, Roman Polanski, Brian De Palma, and even David Cronenberg. But it's done in a way that is unique to Aronofsky. He takes the same grainy art house look that The Wrestler had and applies it to the "high art" of ballet. Add in some psychological weirdness and strong sexuality and you have a winner.

The interesting thing about the sexual scenes in this film is that they're very hot, but at the same time something disturbing happens in them. Like when Portman is humping her bed, just when the audience might think "Wow, this could be a porno," BAM, the camera pans over and her mom is in the room with her. Or during the much talked about lesbian sex scene with Mila Kunis, there is some weird lizard skin stuff happening to Portman's legs that make the scene kind of unpleasant to watch. So while the film is very sexy, at the same time there is a hefty helping of disturbing to go along with it.

I love movies where weird shit happens to people's bodies. Here Portman's character seems to be scratching herself unconsciously, ripping off hangnails that take off FAR too much skin when she tries to remove them, and coarse black hairs are growing out of her back (like The Fly). Just creepy, nasty shit. This is the part of the movie that reminded me of Cronenberg's The Fly, and while I don't think it quite out does it in the "weird shit happening to people's bodies" department, it comes pretty damn close.

2010 is actually a stronger year for film than I initially anticipated. And it's thanks to movies like Black Swan. I really enjoyed the movie, I liked that it's hard to pin point it to one genre (I prefer to think of it as a horror film, but it's really not), but it still wasn't quite enough to crack my top 10 of the year, just because it doesn't really cover any new ground. It just does what it has to do wonderfully. And sometimes that's all that really needs to be done.

RATING: 3.5/5

The Fighter (2010)

2011-03-21T14:49:00.003-04:00

There have been so many boxing movies now, that it's probably hard to make a good one. And not only is it hard to make a good one, it's hard to make one that doesn't feel like we've seen it a thousand times already before. But it can be done. And The Fighter proves it.

It is highlighted by an amazing Oscar winning performance from Christian Bale. He plays Dickey Eklund, a former professional boxer (he went toe-to-toe with Sugar Ray Leonard) who is the subject of a documentary. He keeps telling everyone that the documentary is going to be about his big comeback, but in reality it's about something far more grim: his addiction to crack. But his half brother, Mickey (Mark Whalberg, in a great performance) looks up to him, and counts on his advice to take him to the top. But Dickey has a big habit of fucking up when it matters most, and in turn it drags his brother down with him.

In the background of this tale of brotherly devotion is the family, lead by Melissa Leo in the film's other Oscar winning supporting role. She too does an excellent job, and the sisters are quite memorable, quite annoying, and often very creepy looking. Amy Adams is splendid (and delicious!) as Mickey's girlfriend, a Yoko Ono of sorts who could be the driving wedge between Mickey and his family.

It's directed by David O. Russell, and one of the cool things he's done, visually, is shoot the boxing scenes in standard old school HBO style. He even used the same exact cameras and crew from those boxing specials, so the look is very authentic. I like how the rest of the movie feels like the HIGH DEFINITION real life tale, and when the televised boxing happens it looks like old school TV. Brings a sense of realism to the non-boxing scenes and a sense of time period appropriate-ness to the boxing scenes. A very cool move on Russell's part.

So I guess the secret to making a good boxing movie is to make sure you have good characters. And The Fighter has some great ones. It now joins a long history of boxing movies, and makes it even harder to choose the best one. I'm sure Rocky and Raging Bull (polar opposite characters, mind you) will always be at the top of the list, but The Fighter isn't backing down. It's an underdog of cinema's boxing genre, but it has enough heart to go the distance. DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

RATING: 4/5

127 Hours (2010)

2011-03-16T00:16:00.005-04:00

It's been about 4 days since I watched 127 Hours, and it has yet to leave my mind. It's one of those movies that stays with you long after it's over. It probably helps that I've been watching countless youtube clips featuring Aron Ralston and interviews with Danny Boyle and James Franco. Not to mention reading the screenplay for the movie and ordering the book. But regardless of all of that, it's one of the best stories I've heard in recent memory.

127 Hours illustrates, better than just about anything that I've ever seen, what human beings are capable of when thrown into dire circumstances. Here we have a guy who is quite literally all alone in the world, completely trapped, with very little in the way of food and drink. His situation is hopeless. Nothing else matters. Everything that he's ever owned, everyone that he's ever known, all of it nowhere to be seen. Society is gone, he's by himself. And he doesn't want to die. He doesn't want to end up a corpse in a canyon trapped under a rock. He realizes now that the most important thing in life is not isolation and testing the limits of his physical being, but living life with the people that mean the most to him. It's a situation where one doesn't realize how much they value being alive and the value of other people until they're certain that they're about to die...alone, by themselves, far away from any sort of civilization. It's inspiring.

James Franco does an extraordinary job bringing Aron Ralson to life on the big screen. He captures the sense of adventure, the sense of living for the moment, the sense of humor. He makes the audience feel the situation he is in. It really feels like we're stuck in that rock with him. And the pure exhilaration when he's close to getting freed, it's graphic and brutal but unlike anything I've really felt when watching a film. It's pure relief when all is said and done. And the way Danny Boyle puts it all together is just phenomenal. The music, the camera angles, everything just builds and builds to a truly inspiring conclusion.

It's as close to a documentary on this story that we're ever going to see. I actually don't think a documentary could have captured the true essence of this story any better than this dramatization. Danny Boyle has made a lot of good movies. Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Slumdog Millionaire, but I honestly think this surpasses all of them. It's a masterwork for a filmmaker who has really hit his stride, and it brings to life a story that is so exceptional and so refreshing in an age where such stories and such people seem few and far between. I really, really, loved this movie.

RATING: 5/5

Never Let Me Go (2010)

2011-03-09T22:46:00.003-05:00

In a downtrodden alternate reality, children are bred to eventually donate all of their organs to more "deserving" people. It's a terrible existence, so when a couple of these children find true love, it becomes very important to their future existence. But another school mate gets in the way, and a love triangle forms.

The performances from Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield are excellent. Kiera Knightley holds her own, but the other two are in a whole other league. You can see every ounce of pain and joy in their characters, and they're probably the main reason the movie ever works at all.

The film has a very bleak, very depressing feel to it. I was begging for a scene of sunshine. It's very much a downer of a film, and not one that one would want to watch over and over again, for fear of offing oneself. But it's probably worth watching at least once, when you're in an ultra dramatic sort of mood. The rules of the alternate reality kind of keep a layer on the film that is not easy to relate to, but at the same time there are universal problems that people can relate to no matter what type of society the characters live in.

RATING: 3/5

Winter's Bone (2010)

2011-02-21T00:16:00.003-05:00

Jennifer Lawrence plays a young girl who is nearly the sole caretaker of her two younger siblings. I say "nearly" because her mother is there, but she is practically an invalid. Her father is a meth addict who is involved in what basically amounts to a hillbilly mafia. The movie picks up when he has recently been released from the slammer. Jennifer Lawrence is told by the town Sheriff that if she can't locate him within a week, they will lose the house (because he put it up for his bail, see). So she ventures out into the backwoods and tries desperately to find her father, unraveling pieces of the puzzle along the way.

I don't really feel like I've seen this type of setting before. I can't recall ever seeing a movie that involves a hillbilly underground of meth dealers. So I applaud the movie for its originality in that department.

Jennifer Lawrence gives a heck of a performance. I read that she learned to shoot guns and skin squirrels for the role. That takes some dedication. Altho in the squirrel skinnin' scene, I could kind of see the disgust in her face, not unlike the skinning scene with Jeff Bridges in 1972's Bad Company.

Another great performance is from John Hawkes. When he first shows up on screen he is not a likable character in the least. But when his presence continues to be known, he slowly grows into the most likable character in the movie, as far as I'm concerned. A great performance that definitely deserved its Oscar nom.

Winter's Bone takes a little bit of time to get moving, but the strong performances from the two leads help make up for that. Some of the acting from some of the lesser parts is a bit on the amateur side, but that's because a lot of them are amateurs, cast for their authentic flavor rather than their acting chops. Which is admirable, but kind of a double edged sword. Still, for the most part it's a very well acted film with a bleak and original setting.

RATING: 3.5/5

Nowhere Boy (2010)

2011-02-18T12:16:00.005-05:00

As a fairly intense Beatles fan I'm already pretty familiar with the story portrayed in Nowhere Boy, but it was still interesting to see it played out on screen. Aaron Johnson (Kick Ass) gives a surprisingly intense and dramatic performance as the young John Lennon.

Young Lennon is an English student who is trying to re-establish a relationship with his mother while dodging the watchful eye of his Aunt Mimi. He also becomes very interested in rock 'n roll music and decides to form a band.

It's not as musical-y as one would expect, altho there is plenty of that. It's more of a character drama about John juggling his newfound (and somewhat creepy) relationship with his mom and his auntie. But there is still plenty of music oriented scenes, even a scene portraying Lennon and McCartney going over a song together one chord at a time.

It's good that they stayed away from getting cheesy look-alikes and doing spot on impressions of the Beatles, because that always comes across as, well, cheesy. One thing I found distracting is that the kid they got to play McCartney looked like he was 11 years old. And I know from reading books about The Beatles that Paul was a very fresh faced teen, but at the same time, I don't think his stature was quite as kid-like as the kid they got to play him here. I could be wrong, but it was a bit distracting.

There are times when the movie drags a bit, and maybe becomes a tad bit indulgent. I'm really not sure why all the brief flashbacks of waves in the lake were needed.

The movie's biggest attribute is that it gives one an understanding on how Lennon may have ended up the way he did. These are serious, serious issues for a young lad to deal with. The movie does a good job of making the emotion resonate with the viewer and I walked away feeling like I could actually understand why Lennon ended up being the way he was. And for those that don't know, I'm not talking about the peace loving public persona that the whole world loves, I'm talking about the darker, troubled soul who was a violent drunk and was known to smack his wife around from time to time.

Doing The Beatles story in any dramatic form can be a fine line between cheesy, or getting it completely wrong. Nowhere Boy walks that line, and I don't think it ever really falters.

This is the kind of movie that no one really hears about or knows about, like the ones you would pick up off the shelf at the video store back in the day and read the back and decide to rent it.

RATING: 3/5

Easy A (2010)

2011-02-14T00:00:00.002-05:00

Sometime after 1989, they stopped making movies like Easy A. It is so enthralled by its 80s inspirations that by the end of the movie it's literally using the theme from The Breakfast Club while directly referencing Say Anything and Can't Buy Me Love. Sure, there were a couple of glimpses of the overly optimistic 80s cheese in movies like Can't Hardly Wait and 10 Things I Hate About You, but for the most part this type of movie lay dormant for nearly twenty years, replaced by crass "gross out" comedies and lately Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen's respectable brand of dude love stories.

But Easy A is squarely set in the 80s as far as structure and content. But it's still very relevant to today's audiences and modern popular culture, so it pulls off a rather impressive juggling act. And to top it off, the lead performance by Emma Stone is so good that it kind of made me forget the name of whatsherface who played Juno.

Stone is a high school student who discovers the power of the rumor when she is overheard lying to her friend about how far she got on a date. Before long the whole school thinks she is a slut because of one sexual escapade and it snowballs from there. She gets the idea to spread countless other rumors of her so called promiscuity, with the help of a gay friend and several other unfortunate nerdlings. Eventually it gets to the point where she can't really function properly in her normal high school food chain, and she may have to figure a way out of it (while learning a valuable lesson, of course). Throw in a groan-worthy gratuitous musical number and the biggest slice of teen movie cheese since the John Hughes days, and you got yourself a modern youth flick that can comfortably sit alongside the 80s classics.

RATING: 3.5/5

Let Me In (2010)

2011-02-10T12:11:00.004-05:00

The child performances in Let Me In are amazing. Not since, I don't know, My Girl, have I seen two kids give such mature, grown up performances. And they lead an outstanding cast that includes Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas. You really can't get much better than this in the acting department in 2010, but none of the major award givers seemed to notice. Probably because these are kids.

When I first read that they were doing this movie, I admit I cringed. I had just viewed the excellent Swedish film Let the Right One In, and I saw that they were doing an American remake already, and it was going to be called LET ME IN. I thought "shit, they're already dumbing it down." Then I heard the director of Cloverfield was handling the duties. "Cripes, can it get any worse?" But the word of mouth has actually be really strong and it got really good reviews. So onto my Netflix queue it went. And here I am now, writing about one of the best movies I've seen from 2010, and probably the best horror movie I've seen in the last 10 to 15 years.

A lonely young boy who is ridiculed by a bully at school meets the new girl in his apartment complex. They strike up a friendship and eventually he starts to notice some weird things about her. Like how she never wears shoes. How she violently argues with her "dad" through the wall, and how she throws up when she tries to eat candy. Eventually, all of her secrets are revealed to him, but is their friendship and connection strong enough to overcome the fact that she's a vampire?

The cinematography is beautiful. A lot has been written about the look of the Swedish movie, and it's a good looking movie, but I prefer the look of this one. It sets off a creepier tone, whereas the other movie made me literally feel COLD the whole time. It was a bit unpleasant to look at, at times. This is pure beauty.

It takes place in the 80s, and the director could have easily fallen into a trap of giving this a soundtrack filled to the brim of 80s hits, but he keeps the 80s hits in the background for the most part, and whenever they do show up there is a source for them in the scene. Well done, great use of 80s tunes.

My only major complaint is that the CGI attack scenes were pretty badly done. And that's kind of shocking considering how well done the rest of the movie is. But I can only assume that is how the director wanted it to look, jerky and synthetic. For whatever reason, I'm not really sure, but it's a tad distracting. But luckily the rest of the movie is so strong that it doesn't really take much away from the overall punch of the movie.

For the most part critics dispensed positive reviews for Let Me In. There was some initial backlash, like the director of the Swedish film not understanding why it even needed to be made if his was so well done. A valid point, but unfortunetaley we live in a day and age where some people don't want to watch movies with subtitles (some people can't even get through Inglourious Basterds...idiots). And American versions of foreign movies are nothing new. Even ones with quick turnarounds. The Departed was an American remake of a foreign film. So it's not new ground here (someone needs to explain to me the purpose of the Death at a Funeral remake, though). Mark Kermode, a critic whose views on classic horror are great, but as soon as a REMAKE is announced, he makes up his mind before he even sees the movie, and he gives it zero chance. He calls Let Me In the most redundant movie of the year. I guess he missed the fantastic child performances. To dismiss it so easily is absolutely silly, and stubborn anti-remake nonsense. But as a light at the end of the tunnel, the author of the book that both films are based on says that both versions are fantastic and he has been very lucky to have not one, but TWO excellent versions of his book on screen. He's right on the money.

RATING: 4/5

Grease (1978)

2011-02-03T21:23:00.003-05:00

I think I really started noticing Grease around 1994, when Pulp Fiction came out. I may have been aware of it before then, but I didn't really see it until '94. You see, in 1994, John Travolta was enjoying a career resurgence after YEARS out of the spotlight. It's not that he wasn't working, it's because his career was in the shitter. In the late 70s and early 80s, John Travolta was one of the biggest movie stars in the world. Thanks to the success of Saturday Night Fever, Grease, and Urban Cowboy, the man was a bonafide powerhouse. But sometime in the early 80s, probably around Perfect, his career fizzled out. It took Quentin Tarantino and Pulp Fiction to give the man his spotlight back, and that is when people such as myself went back into the Travolta vault and dug out movies like Urban Cowboy, Saturday Night Fever, Blow Out, Carrie, and Grease.

Grease was a big TBS favorite. It used to be one of the rare movies that they would play in widescreen, and sometimes they would even show it with the lyrics going across the bottom of the screen, singalong style. And that is probably where I first saw it, one of those Turner stations. And at first I didn't really care for it. But there is something magnetic about those early John Travolta movies. They're kind of hypnotic, and you can't really take your eyes off of them. There is a sense of fun that a lot of other movies around that time period seem to lack.

But I've really come around to digging Grease quite bit. I'm not a big musical fan either, so it's all the more impressive that I dig this movie. It's not perfect or even flawless, but it's good. The songs are all catchy and pretty much immortal, and the performances all gel tremendously. It's a very stage-y movie, all the characters are over the top caricatures, but it works, and it helps fuel the fantasy feel of it so when characters start singing out of nowhere, it actually doesn't come across as incredibly goofy in Grease. Well, sometimes it does, but usually it fits in with the tone of the movie, and that is where a lot of musicals miss with me. Grease works.

My favorite scene/song has to be "Stranded at the Drive-In." Not sure why, it's kind of a silly song and Travolta has a really goofy look on his face the whole time he sings it, but something about this sequence really does it for me. I especially like the part where Travolta is in silhouette and there are laser lights and smoke all around him. It's very brief but it really hammers home just how much of a star he is.

Grease is pretty risque for a PG movie. Just look at the lyrics to "Greased Lightening." If it were made today, it would probably get a PG-13 and even then it wouldn't have been made the same way. The cigarettes would be gone, the pre-marital sex talk would have been dramatically toned down, and the "Greased Lightening" number wouldn't even be in the movie. It's actually pretty shocking that parents still have no problem sitting their kids down to watch this. I think they've forgotten just how "adult" it is, but then again, I'm not so sure if kids get all the references. I as sure as shit didn't.

RATING: 3.5/5

Serpico (1973)

2011-01-29T00:10:00.004-05:00

"How am I gonna do my pee-pee in the dark?" --Frank Serpico

Al Pacino, fresh off the wave of the most successful movie of all time at that point (do I really have to tell you what it was?) plays Frank Serpico, a New York veteran cop who is so disgusted with the amount of police corruption and bribery in all the precincts that he works in that he has to decide whether or not he wants to blow the whistle on the proceedings. And when he blows the whistle, he eventually has to decide exactly WHO he can blow the whistle to, because it seems like every place he turns, there is someone there turning a blind eye and skimming off the top.

Pacino was a marvelous actor in the 70s. Somewhere along the line he got caught up in the showier aspects of acting and kind of went off the chain, but in the 70s he was fantastic. Subtle, restrained, high voiced, short stature. Serpico is probably his best role outside of Michael Corleone. Like Michael he is able to play the character spanning a number of years, and the audience gets to see exactly what kind of toll his cause takes on himself and his personal life (what little he has).

Serpico, as a film, has that pitch perfect 1970s feel that I absolutely love. It's the type of feeling you can only authentically get out of the 70s classics. These movies are so good, so groundbreaking, that I have a hard time imagining them being filmed. There is just an aura of grit and prestige that lingers around them, and I can't seem to get it from any other decade. And it's not just a cloud of nostalgia that informs my opinion on these movies, for fucksake I wasn't even born until 1982. It's just that I truly feel, when watching a movie like Serpico, that this is as good as Hollywood movies have ever been.

It's also quite funny. I don't know how much of the humor is intentional, but there is some legitimate laugh out loud stuff in here. Al Pacino spent a lot of time with the real life Frank Serpico, so I can only assume that the real Serpico is a man of good humor and Pacino wanted to incorporate that into the character. Or he could have pulled it out of his ass. Either way it works.

It isn't flawless. It has some cliche 70s cop genre music. Some of Pacino's outfits are a tad on the goofy side. It takes its time getting moving and it may seem too slow paced to those who aren't really all that interested in the character. I'll freely admit that I didn't think this movie was cracked up to all I thought it would be when I first watched it. But every subsequent viewing I appreciate it more and more, and I love how Serpico sticks to his morals and his beliefs even in the face of extreme pressure to cave. He's one of the most admirable characters to come out of 70s cinema, but that isn't hard to do as a majority of the 70s most memorable characters are morally corrupt scumbags (but they sure are fun to watch). I can see why Tony Manero and Dirk Diggler keep his poster on their respective walls.

RATING: 4/5

Animal Kingdom (2010)

2011-01-24T00:24:00.003-05:00

Animal Kingdom is the type of crime movie that keeps you glued to the screen. It is seen through the eyes of a young man named Joshua (or 'J' for short) who is left to fend for himself after his mother dies of a heroin overdose. He seems a bit dim witted and not all there, and he tends to not say much. He ends up staying with his uncles and their mom, played by Jacki Weaver, in an Oscar nom worthy performance. The family happens to be rather involved in crime, one of them even being on the lam and wanted by a corrupt armed robbery specialist force team.

Guy Pearce also stars as a lead investigator. He wants to keep an eye out on J because he thinks he's crucial in helping him get to the young man's uncles. J wants to stay loyal to his family at the same time, and a compromise is eventually agreed upon, but only after other more permanent plans fall through (I'm being purposely vague for fear of spoiling too much).

It's a tough story to get a grasp on, especially since most non-Australians are unfamiliar with the evens that inspired it. Not only that, but the movie doesn't spell everything out for the audience, so most of the time you have to kind of fend for yourself. But that's fine, because it'll leave you with questions after it's over and you'll want to discuss it.

There are fine performances throughout the whole movie. The before mentioned performance from Jacki Weaver is probably the most notable, but there is also a chilling performance from an actor named Ben Mendlesohn, a man that I've never seen before. He plays The Pope, the main man that the authorities are after. He's a loose cannon and he has a way of making just about everything he does seem extremely creepy. It's a great and memorable character. Joel Edgerton plays perhaps the most likable person in the movie, kind of a more rugged (and Australian) Conan O'Brien.

I really enjoyed the score in this. I heard a little bit of Clockwork Orange-y influenced stuff, as well as at least one great use of an Air Supply song. When a director can make good use of a song by Air Supply, you know he has to be doing something right.

It's the debut film from writer/director David Michod, and it will be interesting to see what kind of films he'll follow up with. He has struck gold with this.

RATING: 4/5

The Godfather Part II (1974)

2011-01-23T00:59:00.005-05:00

The second to last scene in The Godfather Part II pretty much sums up the entire Godfather saga. It's a flashback scene, going all the way back to the early 1940s, when the Corleone family is prospering and Vito is about to celebrate his birthday. Anyone who matters is around the table waiting for his arrival. Sonny at the head of the table, Tom Hagen, Fredo, Connie, her soon to be husband Carlo, Tessio, and of course, Michael. What's great about this scene is that it comes after witnessing the majority of Part II, which is a downfall of a crime family. So to see all of these characters again as we first met them in Part I gives the viewer a very nostalgic feeling.

But what's even more awesome about this scene, is not the sense of nostalgia that it brings, it's the point that it makes. It sums up the character of Michael Corleone more brilliantly than just about anything else in the first two movies. There is Michael, apart of the family but dead set on doing things his own way. It's the day of the attack on Peal Harbor and he has decided to quit his Ivy League school and enlist. Sonny wants to tear his head off. Fredo congratulates him. Tom Hagen tells him that these were not the plans he and his father had for him. But Michael, and rightfully so, makes the point that it's not about their plans. It's his life, he can do things his own way. He doesn't want any part of the tradition. When the Don comes through the door, everyone else rushes out to heap birthday wishes and praise, while Michael sits alone at the table, young and pondering his future. He's in the family, but at the same time he's by himself. And in the very next scene, the movie jumps back to Michael as the head of that very family, having just ordered the murder of his brother Fredo, sitting alone by the lake at his house, middle aged and pondering his future (or reflecting on his past?). Head of the family, but by himself.

The structuring of the movie may seem jarring at first, and at times it can seem a bit intrusive. George Lucas famously told Coppola to cut the flashback sequences out, because he seemed to have two movies playing on top of each other. But Coppola had a master plan in mind. The juxtaposition of the rise of Vito Corleone and downward spiral of Michael Corleone as a human being is a fascinating one, and worth the risk of the non traditional structure. I must admit that during the start of the movie, I find myself far more interested in the rise of Vito Corleone than Micheal's business affairs. But as the flashback winds to a close, I find myself more interested in Micheal's side of the story, because the stories meet in crucial places. Vito's ends with him getting revenge on the man who killed his family, and Micheal's ends with him emotionally abandoning, and even killing, the family that Vito worked so hard to attain.

Al Pacino in the first two Godfather movies gives one of the greatest performances of all-time. Micheal Corleone is the heart of the Godfather movies. His performance is subtle, starting as an idealistic war hero and morphing into a cold blooded sociopath mob boss. It's absolutely fascinating to watch, and one of the crucial pieces of the puzzle that makes the first two movies so great.

Robert De Niro as young Vito Corleone is masterful. Here is a man who had to step into the biggest acting shoes of all time and not only hold his own, but also believably add to an iconic character. And he does it. He does it so well that one can easily picture this being the young Vito Corleone from the first movie. And every other part is methodically cast and played to perfection. Without the brilliant cast and brilliant performances, this movie once again would have been missing one of its key ingredients.

And there are so many other factors. The direction from Coppola. The script by Coppola and Puzo. The unforgettable music by Nino Rota. The astonishingly beautiful cinematography by Gordon Willis. The list goes on and on. Take out one of these pieces and replace it with something inferior and the whole thing could have collapsed upon itself. Just ask Sofia Coppola.

In this day and age, if a story like The Godfather were told, it'd be told as a TV series. The first two movies are almost six and a half hours. That's about half the runtime of a dramatic series with 12 episodes. There is so much story and character development in these films that they'd be split into 5 movies thanks to the short attention span of audiences and the fact that 3 hour movies are death at the box office. But lucky for us, they were made in a time when the director was gaining power, and audiences were willing to sit through an epic tale of Godfather proportions. And they last to this very day as two of the greatest movies ever made, and one of the greatest stories ever told, yet to be topped.

RATING: 5/5

Top 10 List 1972

2011-01-23T00:47:00.003-05:00

Bad Company (dir: Robert Benton)
Boxcar Bertha (dir: Martin Scorsese)
The Candidate (dir: Michael Ritchie)
Deliverance (dir: John Boorman)
Fat City (dir: John Huston)
Frenzy (dir: Alfred Hitchcock)
The Getaway (dir: Sam Peckinpah)
The Godfather (dir: Francis Ford Coppola)
The Hot Rock (dir: Peter Yates)
The Mechanic (dir: Michael Winner)

When I think of 1972, I usually think of it as a really good year for movies, because The Godfather came out that year. But in reality, it's a fairly mediocre year for movies. What I neglect to remember is that The Godfather saved Hollywood from a lull. It was pretty much in the shitter before The Godfather came along. There was the occasional bright spot, but it was The Godfather that pushed New Hollywood into high gear, and from '73 on is when some of the greatest movies ever made came out. When I look at my list, I see some greats: Obviously, The Godfather is great. It's my favorite movie of all time. Deliverance is also great. In another year that would have been the best movie of the year. Bad Company, The Candidate, and The Getaway are all solidly on the list. But everything else is filler. I used to think Frenzy was a great movie, but I couldn't get into it when I tried rewatching it. Boxcar Bertha is included simply because it's early Scorsese and 1972 sucked for American movies not named The Godfather or Deliverance. Fat City, The Hot Rock, and especially the Mechanic are all semi-good-to-good, but in a stronger year they wouldn't be anywhere near a top 10. But it's going to be looking up from here until the early 80s, thanks to The Godfather.

The Getaway (1972)

2011-01-22T16:39:00.003-05:00

The Getaway is probably the last Steve McQueen movie where he plays his "King of Cool" persona to maximum effect. He still had Papillion and The Towering Inferno, but by the time he did Inferno he started to look REALLY old. He looks old here too, but he doesn't look ancient like he does a mere couple years later. So this is, arguably, McQueen's last MCQUEEN style role. And it's a good one.

McQueen is a man who is recently released from prison, thanks to the help of his girlfriend on the outside (Ali McGraw), although it's help that he soon learns to regret. Instantly he's back to organizing a bank robbery. But as is wont to happen in movies such as this, things don't go as planned.

It's a fast paced heist/on-the-run movie from Sam Peckinpah, who I believe was walking on eggshells in Hollywood by this time. And even though it's fast paced, the movie is separated into very distinct sections. It's filled with memorable set pieces and over the top characters, like Al Leterri (he was Solozzo in The Godfather, I noticed), and Sally Struthers (she may be annoying but she had a helluva rack on her ).

Peckinpah does a lot with the editing (as he did in Straw Dogs). They may seem like antiquated techniques nowadays but they still pack a punch. His use of musical cues, on the other hand, seem a tad on the dated side, but there are some period appropriate songs in the background.

RATING: 3.5/5

Buried (2010)

2011-01-21T16:48:00.002-05:00

Buried is a gimmick movie, like an old school Hitchcock movie. You know, like Rope or Lifeboat. The entire movie takes place in a coffin, and it takes place almost in real time, only cutting away occasionally, and I'm pretty sure the character is asleep in those sequences so essentially the audience is going through what Ryan Reynolds is going through. It's definitely an interesting premise.

Reynolds plays an American truck driver who is working in Iraq. When his convoy is ambushed by an unknown group of assailants, he wakes up in a coffin. He has a lighter, a cell phone, a knife, and some glowsticks, in addition to some other minor things, like a pencil and a flask filled with some sort of alcoholic beverage. The assailants left him with a lot of shit, but unfortunately they cleaned out his wallet, which happened to have an emergency rescue number in it. So he has to start calling just about anyone he can think of who may be able to help him out of this situation. And with the amount of oxygen wearing thin and his cell phone battery running down, it makes for an intense situation.

I have to compliment the filmmakers in executing a feature length movie that takes place entirely in a coffin and keeping it watchable. That in and of itself seems like a next to impossible thing to do. It's not done perfectly, and there are a couple of shots and camera tricks that up the cheese factor (like the slo-mo), but a good chunk of the movie is done fairly well. Ryan Reynolds does a good job for the most part. I still associate him with primarily comedic stuff because he's such a goofy looking dude and he's hard to take seriously, but he works well in this part. I do have to wonder if the reception would have been better if someone with bigger acting chops was in the part and a director with less cheesy flare were behind the camera...not that it was panned but it was kind of...well, buried, in the 2010 release shuffle.

Overall I'd say it's a mixed bag. It's hard to believe that the phone he's using can't be traced, but if you ignore some of the necessary plot devices then you may end up enjoying it. It probably could have been done better, but it's not terrible.

RATING: 2.5/5

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

2011-01-20T17:21:00.004-05:00

There has to be a point, I would think, for any reasonable person purchasing art to think to themselves "What exactly am I paying for, here?" Exit Through the Gift Shop more or less examines that question. What price is reasonable? How much work and thought should go into a piece before one actually feels like they're getting their money's worth? This isn't strictly what the movie is about, but it's definitely the most interesting question that arises from it, except for maybe the whole "is it real or made up?" thing, and at this point that discussion is getting so tired for documentaries that I sincerely do not give a shit anymore. As long as the movie is entertaining, that's good enough for me, and Exit Through the Gift Shop is an entertaining movie. The fact that it leaves you with intriguing questions is icing on the cake.

It's about a man who is obsessed with filming every waking minute of his life. He'll film himself doing the most mundane things, and his goal is to keep it forever for prosperity. He has a job that brings him enough money to basically do nothing for a living. He eventually films his cousin (I think it was his cousin) making homemade space invader art that he plasters in public places. From there he is turned onto a very popular street art scene, which is basically the evolution of graffiti art in the 80s, except they post their work on the internet for all to see and some of the better artists are actually quite famous. Like Banksy (he happens to be the "director" of this film). Banksy puts on art exhibitions that attract the likes of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and his street art gathers national attention. When he makes a flippant request to the obsessed man to focus on his art, the man takes it to the extreme.

The movie is an examination, real or not, of what exactly art means, and when the artist becomes an artist. How many dues must an artist pay before he is respected by his peers as the real deal? What exactly is different about Banksy's art and a man who thinks up of random shit like pink cars and painted tomato spray cans? In actuality there is no difference, except maybe the level of seriousness one takes it. If it's presented in an exhibition as if it's the latest in cutting edge art, people will spend thousands of dollars on a piece that someone may have shat out in their sleep. It's like that Simpsons episode when Homer fucks up building his outdoor fireplace and he is happened upon by some artists. As ridiculous as that episode seems the real life equivalent is portrayed in Exit Through the Gift Shop. Whether it's real or a put on by Banksy is irrelevant, the questions remain the same either way.

RATING: 3.5/5

Urban Cowboy (1980)

2011-01-19T19:36:00.003-05:00

I'd love to know where someone gets the idea to center a love story around a mechanical bull. Although saying Urban Cowboy is centered around a mechanical bull is a bit of an exaggeration, it doesn't change the fact that all of the movie's crucial moments take place either because of or in the presence of said mechanical bull. I know it's based on an article that appeared in some magazine, so I'm actually kind of curious to read that article. I'd love to know how big of a character that damn bull is in the article, because the movie's characters are borderline obsessed with it.

John Travolta first sees the bull at Gilly's; a huge, real-life honky tonk bar that once existed on the outskirts of Houston, TX (it has since burned down). It starts out innocently enough. He sees another fella on it, and it looks like it may be a hell of a way to kill eight seconds of an evening, so he rides it. And he does an okay job at it. He's with his new bride, Sissy (Debra Winger), and when she wants to ride it too, Bud starts to get a little shitty about it. But Bud gets shitty about anything. He gets shitty if his hamburger isn't as well done as he likes it, he gets shitty when Sissy pinches his arm (so shitty that he gives a good slap in the mouf), and he gets shitty when his bitch rides the mechanical bull as well as he does. And he definitely gets shitty with Wes Hightower (Scott Glenn), a recently released Jesus-ripped ex-con who likes to wear see-through fishnet shirts and drink worms out of whiskey bottles.

Bud and Sissy aren't married for more than a week before there are serious dents in their relationship. Bud is pissed at Sissy because she doesn't clean the house, doesn't cook him good food, and doesn't make good love to him (scratch that last part, you know that's good, but it ain't enough). Sissy is pissed at Bud because he's a colossal douche, he slaps her occasionally, and he refuses to let her ride the mechanical bull. Things go sour as quickly as they started, and it's not long before Bud is courting a new, classier whore named Pam. And it's not long before Sissy is sucking Wes's worm out of his pants.

And there is something completely appealing about all of this. On the surface it sounds like the most ridiculous love story ever made, and it may be. But director James Bridges captures a culture and time period that doesn't exist anymore (at least in this exact form, although it's still readily available) and he captured it with memorable casting and a solid mixture of music, acting, and story. While it's not a perfect movie and it's far from flawless, there IS something endearing about it and it is one of those movies that I find myself watching fairly often, as much as I may hate to admit it.

It's essentially a country western Saturday Night Fever, except the characters are more fleshed out and the female lead is actually likable. The movie draws you in with the classic country tunes and the hypnotic atmosphere of the redneck honkytonk bar keeps you glued to the screen. And while I personally would never get into this scene, it's enjoyable watching a lovable train wreck populated by a tobacco spitting hick, a cowboy loving cowgirl, and an unbiased mechanical bull.

RATING: 3/5

The Godfather (1972)

2011-01-17T01:34:00.003-05:00

It's hard to believe that I've been doing reviews on the internet in some form or another for the better part of a decade, and I've never really written one for the movie that I consider to be my favorite of all time. It's not a groundbreaking choice as a favorite, in fact it's popular opinion among most film buffs that the Godfather is one of the greatest movies ever made. So I guess I'm going with the herd on this one, but as someone who is really into movies, it's nearly impossible to not love The Godfather. Everything about it is magnetic. I can't think of one flaw. It is, essentially, the perfect movie.

I almost don't feel the need to go into why the movie is so great. There are books about it (The Godfather Companion by Harlan Lebo is my favorite) that cover every conceivable detail and fact about the making of the movies. So what more can I add? Nothing really, except the story on how I personally came upon it, so I will do just that.

Back in the old days, they used to have places called video stores. And I used to frequent these video stores, starting at a very early age. One of the movies I'd notice on the shelf from time to time was The Godfather. And I don't necessarily remember the title as much as the art for the box. I distinctively remember an old man holding what I thought to be a dead cat. Is this a movie about someone's grandfather who loves his cat, perhaps? I really didn't know. These videos were set up in alphabetical order, so of course right next to it was a similar cover art, featuring a younger, pale man with slicked back hair. I remember thinking he had something to do with death. And for a movie's box art to conjure up such an impression to a young mind such as myself, that is quite the feat (side note: I now own the skinny posters for those video releases). I also remember seeing a GIANT black box next to both of those, with gold lettering on it that said THE GODFATHER EPIC, 1901-19somethingrather. I also eventually remember seeing The Godfather Part III's box, but it was gold and kind kind of crummy looking compared to the others (just like the movie itself).

It was a good while before I got around to watching any of these. YEARS, in fact. But by 1994, my interest in seeing as many great movies as possible really started to come into play, and eventually I had to rent it. And so I did. I rented it and I couldn't believe it. I just sat there, in complete awe, as the images unfolded. And right around the time where Michael ends up in Sicily, I was so enthralled that I...fell asleep. And not only did I fall asleep, I equated falling asleep with thinking the movie was boring, therefore, for at least a year, I actually thought The Godfather was...GASP, boring (I don't know why I didn't rewatch it right away). But I got around to it again, as its rep continued to make itself be known to me through numerous movie books and people in general. So I decided to give it another shot. And this time I rented the second (and third) to go along with it, and I was going to give it a real chance. I distinctively remember settling into my second viewing with a bag of Cheetos, and I remember it being the summer. And this time I really was in awe. The movie was working its magic, the images and the music and performances were all working their magic, and I saw what everyone else saw. I saw one of the greatest movies I'd ever seen. It hadn't been coasting along on some sort of undeserved reputation as I had originally concluded. It really was the real deal.

Some snippet reactions from my most recent viewing: there is a good bit of stock footage in this that I never really noticed before, but it's probably the best use of stock footage out there. Nothing major, just shots of Vegas in the 50s and what have you, but still. The scene where Vito dies is wonderfully shot. It's one of those scenes that doesn't seem staged for a movie, it just seems like a moment that was captured. It's so simple but so effective, and almost humorous. It's wonderful. Micheal's character arc is the greatest in movie history. He starts out a war hero and ends up being a lying, cold hearted mafia don, and the subtle hints that are dropped along the way are simply brilliant. The shot where Carlo is killed in the car and his feet are kicking through the windshield as the car accelerates is fantastic. It has perhaps the greatest ending of all time.

RATING: 5/5

Piranha 3D (2010)

2011-01-15T19:05:00.003-05:00

I'm still not won over by 3D films, but I have to admire the feat of making a 2D version of an obviously 3D film and still making it entertaining for the non 3D audience. I don't believe I've ever seen such a film. The closest would have to be Friday the 13th Part III, I'd guess, and even that is a piece of shit. But Piranha 3D does the near impossible. It manages to stay vastly entertaining even in its 2D form, and it actually made me somewhat curious to see the actual 3D version. Now I could live my whole life and not really care if I see the 3D version, but the 2D version still does everything a movie called Piranha should do. It knows its camp, it knows what people are wanting to see, and it delivers on every conceivable level.

A spring break community, during the annual festivities, is suddenly besieged by man eating piranhas. They travel in schools and can tear a human being apart in approximately five seconds. When a Wild Wild Girls (or whatever it was called) crew calls upon a young teen boy to show them around on their boat, they head right toward a cluster of fish. In the meantime, on shore, the spring break festivities start off wild and fun. But things soon get crazy. And incredibly gory.

This is about as good as man eating piranha movies can get. It's even better than Joe Dante's original, which itself was a direct b-movie rip off of JAWS (endorsed by Steven Speilberg himself). It has oodles upon oodles of glorious nudity, and oodles upon oodles of glorious gore. There is a horror movie edge, and this movie crosses it, I'd say. I'm amazed it got an R-rating, to be honest. But that's fine, more fun for the gorehound. It's not perfect by any means, and there is some eye rolley teen crap to sift through, but there is some fun stuff in here. Including pleasant performances from a damn near all-star cast that includes Elizabeth Shue, Richard Dreyfuss, Ving Rhames, Jerry O'Connell, and Christopher Lloyd.

RATING: 3/5

The Town (2010)

2011-01-12T12:11:00.004-05:00

If someone would have told me in 1998 that Ben Affleck would be on his way to becoming a great director, I would have laughed. Obviously the man knew how to write, as he proved with Good Will Hunting (everyone just assumed Harvard grad Matt Damon did all the work, tho). But he proved to everyone that he could make a heck of a movie when he did Gone Baby Gone, and now he follows up with another Boston flavored crime flick (this has to be like the 10th one in the last decade, from various filmakers including Eastwood and Scorsese), The Town. If it seems slightly familiar that's because it is. It strongly echoes portions of Heat and Point Break (yes, THAT Point Break). But it does what it's supposed to and adds to what those movies started, and it's also entirely its own thing. So while it may seem like familiar territory at times, it's directed with enough action flare that you can't help but get wrapped up in it. It's the mark of a great director.

Affleck also stars, as the leader of a local Charlestown group of robbers. The movie opens with them robbing a bank (while wearing masks, like Point Break...when they whip out the Nun masks later on it's chilling, funny, and entirely memorable), and they force the assistant manager to open the safe. One of them (Jeremy "Hurt Locker" Renner) decides to take her as a hostage. They do let her go, but they discover that she lives within a four block radius of all of them, and they (mainly Renner) become paranoid that she will eventually make them. Affleck decides to test the waters and see whether or not this will be a problem. This is where the movie differs from most other heist movies I've seen, because it shows the effects of what a robbery has on a hostage victim, which I've never really seen before. Affleck's character then begins to develop real feelings for her, and everything is put in jeopardy. Meanwhile, Jon "Mad Man" Hamm is leader of an FBI unit hot on their trail. He'll damn near stop at anything to get at the group and catch them in the act (Heat).

It's a superb cast and a superb movie. I saw one fella dismiss it as being too cliche, and I don't really see it. I saw one major cliche, the scene where Hamm answers a call and says to "close the bridge" in a mumble, and then his partner says "what?" and Hamm starts getting up and says "I SAID CLOSE THE FUCKING BRIDGE!" and then they cut to a different scene. I'll give them that one. But everything else is inspired. And while it has shades of other heist films, it always feels like its own thing, which is the mark of a good movie. The characters drive it, and the relationships between Affleck and the hostage and even more Affleck and Renner help keep you glued to the screen. There is a fantastic scene where Renner spots Affleck and the hostage having lunch in an outside cafe. Gut wrenching to say the least.

Affleck has done a good job at re-establishing his worth. In the late 90s through to the early 2000s, his career started going down the wrong path. He became an overexposed joke. But a few years off and some smart career choices here and there have really done well for this guy. Now he's on his way to becoming a future Clint Eastwood, actor/director. And in addition he's a pretty good screenwriter as well. He's got it made.

RATING: 4/5

I'm Still Here (2010)

2011-01-10T18:17:00.005-05:00

So much has been written about the whole Joaquin Phoenix situation that I don't really have much more to add. All I can say is that I suspected it was a "Borat" style comedy thing since the Letterman appearance, and in the end that is exactly what it turned out to be (I will also say I wasn't 100% sure, either, just to show that I'm not one of those smug douche bags who insist that they know the true meaning of something right from the get go). Unfortunately, the final result isn't nearly as funny as Borat, but it does have a train wreck quality about it. And there is one fairly hilarious scene where Phoenix debuts his tracks to Diddy. Other than that I can see people getting tired of this pretty quick. I do think that the quick confirmation that it was a "hoax" shortly after its release shows that even Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix knew that the movie wasn't going to make a lot of money, because no one knew what it was. And even now, I still don't know what it is. It's played as if it's real, but it's also supposed to be humorous. It just doesn't work. I do still wonder what all was faked, because certainly the scene where Joaquin blows chunks in the bathroom after a scuffle at a rap show was not faked. Was it? Either way, the movie works more when you know the aftermath of the "experiment", which isn't really featured here. So it just seems like part of the story.

Who knows, who cares at this point. It's all been swept under the carpet. I think I'm Still Here can be chocked up as a failed experiment. Trying to take the Sascha Baron Cohen style to the next level, and pretty much failing. But as far as a character, "JP" is certainly interesting, I'll give him that much. And his rapping is actually a bit too intricate to fully dismiss. He's actually quite into it. That Phoenix devoted to years of his life to this movie is a bit disheartening, but at least it's more creative than sitting at home doing nothing. Still, I'm really not sure who this is aimed at, and as a movie I can't even really rate it, because it's just kinda there.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

2011-01-02T23:58:00.004-05:00

Initially, when seeing the previews for this movie, one may want to dismiss it as another "quirky" indie movie. "Oh look, a trailer that shows two characters riding a motorcycle with helmets on, haven't seen THAT before," you may say to yourself. But you'd be doing yourself an injustice if you go into The Kids Are All Right with that kind of attitude. It's a movie with strong characters and strong relationships and it's exactly what a low budget indie movie should be. You shouldn't want it any other way.

It involves two teens (a 15 year old boy and his 18 year old sister) who have lesbian moms. Both moms happened to use the same sperm doner to conceive their children, and the kids want to look up and meet the father. They find out who he is and contact him. Turns out the father is a pretty laid back and cool dude played by Mark Ruffalo. He gets close to the kids, and their moms allow it, but it seems to be driving a wedge between the family.

Ruffalo is magnetic. I don't think he's ever been this likable. I mean I've always liked him, and he's a big part of one of my favorite movies of all time (Zodiac), but here he is really charismatic and his character just jumps right off the screen. The performances from Julianne Moore and Annette Bening are also very good. And the two kids hold their own with the acting powerhouses. Just a really solid cast all around.

I really enjoyed examining the dynamics between the characters. It's a very smart, well written movie. The writers also seem to like characters behaving in the opposite of what you'd expect. Like when the lesbian moms decide to watch a movie, you immediately get a vibe that they're going to watch a porno. So your mind instantly goes to "Ah, they're gonna watch hot lesbians doin' it!" But things don't quite turn out that way. And there are other character interactions that are surprising, often to comedic effect.

The Kids Are All Right is just a flat out good character movie. These are the kinds of characters that I just want to watch, just to see how their lives unfold. It's nice to have movies like this, slices of life on the screen for everyone to enjoy and learn from.

RATING: 4/5

True Grit (2010)

2010-12-29T19:29:00.004-05:00

Yessir, even the almighty Coen Brothers have gone the remake route. And as much as they may swear up and down that it's not a remake, it's still a new version of a story that has already been filmed before, so whether people want to admit it or not, the Coens True Grit is a remake. And what exactly is wrong with that? If this is a remake, then this is how you do it. I've seen the original film, it was in need of an update and by no means perfect. Its reputation coasts to this day based on America's love with John Wayne, and that's that. This new version trumps the original in every single way, including Bridges outdoing The Duke in the acting department.

It's about a 12 year old girl whose father has been murdered, and she wants to hire someone to track down the murderer and get vengeance. She's a ridiculously smart and saavy young lady, and watching her interact with the adult characters is great. In the first movie, Kim Darby came across as just pure annoying. In the remake, the character comes across exactly how she is supposed to; yes she is annoying but the Coens know it, and they play with that. And to make it even better the actress who plays her is OUTSTANDING. She's an unknown and this is her first movie, so congrats to her and congrats to the Coens for finding her. She's certainly a discovery.

Bridges is superb. He speaks with a marbled approach that some people may balk at, but f 'em. He's all at once hilarious, intimidating, and heroic. He's a flawed man, but he does what he wants, and when the young girl earns his trust, he'll take the agreement with him to the grave if he has to.

There seems to be a weird theme of characters talking with weird voices in this movie. Matt Damon starts out normal enough, but something happens to him later that changes his speech. Josh Brolin, who doesn't appear until very late in the movie, also has very strange speech mannerisms. And it all works. It's a way for the Coens to be quirky while doing what is essentially a traditional western. Whether it was all conscious on their part I don't know, but it's very amusing.

The pace is slow going at first but it gets moving, and even when it's slow going there are more than enough character exchanges to keep the audience laughing and entertained.

The photography, by Coen brother mainstay Roger Deakins, is outstanding. There is just no other way to describe it. It's an absolutely beautiful movie.

It's a very strong motion picture that will definitely have legs. With most Coen Brother movies, their reps tend to grow a couple years after they come out. But lucky for them, they're in a creative peak in their careers and they are getting rewarded right away with their latest movies. True Grit will be no different. There are definitely some Oscar nominations in its future.

RATING: 4/5

The Hot Rock (1972)

2010-12-26T21:21:00.002-05:00

I always enjoy a good caper movie, and extra points if it takes place in the late 60s or 70s, and even extra points if it takes place in New York in 1972, as The Hot Rock does. The setting alone can make me excuse a lot of the dated comedy that is in the film, although there are a fair amount of chuckles as well.

Robert Redford plays a man who is just released from prison. And literally as soon as he gets out, he is picked up by his pal George Segal, and he's already pitching Redford on his latest illegal plan. Segal has been commissioned to steal a priceless diamond, and he needs Redford's criminal expertise to get the job done properly. So they devise a plan and attempt it. And it all goes wrong. Then they have to come up with different plans to get it back, and before long we've watched 4 or 5 attempts for them to get the diamond. It's whacky.

The supporting cast is strong and the ensemble works well together. I especially like Ron Liebman as the driver. Greenberg started out cool enough but he gets progressively annoying as the movie goes along. Redford is Redford and George Segal once again does an adequate job, as he was seemingly prone to do in the 70s.

One scene of note is when the guys fly a helicopter through New York in an attempt to land on a police station. It's interesting because they fly past the still under construction World Trade Center. It's even more interesting because a couple of shots are literally right next to the buildings, one of them I think is even THROUGH the buildings.

It's a good, fun 70s flick. While it may have some lame comedy lines here and there (director Peter Yates did the same thing with misplaced comedy later in the decade with Breaking Away), it's strong enough to hold up in entertainment value.

RATING: 3/5

Big (1988)

2010-12-18T11:46:00.003-05:00

One of my first memories of being inside a video store involves the movie Big. It's nothing crazy, I just remember seeing the poster for it before it came out. I don't think I really knew who Tom Hanks was at the time, but I definitely saw the movie at a young age, and I must have watched it a hundred times, because I still remember pretty much everything about it. I even went ahead and watched the extended edition just to see if I could spot all the added scenes. I could. They stuck out.

Big came out in a time period when body switching movies were all the rage. Just compare it to the Judge Reinhold driven vehicle Vice Versa, and it's pretty obvious why Hanks was nominated for an Oscar for playing his man child, while Reinhold was relegated to obscurity. Big was the only one that seemed to be covering any new ground. While those other movies involved some sort of body trading, like a young man switching into an old body and an old man switching into a young body, Big was able to focus on one switch, and one character, and it benefits from that.

Hanks's character makes a wish as a 12 year old to be "big," and he wakes up as a fully grown adult in the morning (lucky for him he didn't wake up with something different...like a giant Dirk Diggler penis perhaps? Or maybe that should be "unlucky for him"...). Hanks plays the character with superstar-making skills. It would never be the same for Tom Hanks after this. A lot of people like to deride Hanks, but no one I know in real life. Those people exist solely on the internet. He does a very believable job as a kid in an adult body. He doesn't play it over the top (see Reinhold, Judge), he plays it just right. He conveys the childlike sense of being scared out of his wits and wanting to go home on his first night away, and he conveys the childlike sense of being able to adapt to whatever situation they are thrown into rather quickly. It's a very strong performance.

The movie does a good job of keeping it simple. Where some movies would want to explain where the Zoltar machine came from, Big keeps it simply as a mysterious plot device, and it allows the characters and the situation to carry the movie without the audience constantly asking how all this shit is happening. Are there some inconsistencies? Sure (like how quickly he changes from Big to small when it took all night the first time), but it's nothing that kills the movie and it keeps a fairy tale aspect in tact.

Of course it's not possible to review Big without mentioning the now iconic scene of Tom Hanks and Robert Loggia playing the super sized piano in the toy store. The entire toy store sequence in general is one of my favorites in the movie, and it's even longer in the extended cut. The piano scene is just one of those scenes that plays naturally and is completely believable within the context of the movie, and it's so memorable and fun that it's simply impossible not to achieve instant classic status. They probably knew they had something special as soon as Penny Marshall yelled "cut!"

Before watching this again, I had downgraded Big in my mind to "good movie status, but not great." After watching it again, I'm moving it back up to great status, because it pretty much is. It still works 22 years later, which is a good sign that we may be looking at a lighthearted timeless classic. Where all those other body switching movies missed the mark, Big hit it square in the middle. It turned Tom Hanks into an A-list player, it helped solidify Penny Marshall as a sought after female director, and it told its story about as perfectly as it could.

RATING: 4/5

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

2010-12-12T11:23:00.005-05:00

Earlier last week, I had a thought about summing up each decade of movies since the 70s with just a couple of words. I came up with this: in the 70s, movies were uninhibited art. In the 80s, they became over commercialized. In the 90s, with a rise of independent film, they neared toward uninhibited art again. And in the 00s, they became video games. Little did I know there was already a movie out that literally plays like a video game/movie/comic book hybrid, and it does so quite brilliantly. Of course I am talking about Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (not Super Mario Brothers).

The movie is a hard sell. The trailers looked fairly unappealing to me. I was really giving it the benefit of the doubt. The only reason I really wanted to see it is because I am a fan of Edgar Wright and I was interested in seeing him work outside the Brit-comedies that made him famous (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). And I'm glad I did because while it's not perfect, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World does something that no other movie this past decade has had the guts to do. Where action movies of the past decade have kind of pussy-footed around the fact that they had video game mentalities oozing out their ears, Scott Pilgrim goes all out (it even had one ups). Not only that, but it takes a page out of earlier movies of the decade like Kill Bill, and goes all out as a live action comic book as well.

It has plenty of laughs, too. At first, when Scott Pilgrim has to fight the first of the evil ex-boyfriends, I didn't really know what to think. It felt like the fight was interrupting the story that I was getting into. But I quickly realized what the movie was doing, and once you make the decision to go with it you should be finding it highly entertaining. It is very different though, which means it will alienate people looking for a more traditional love story, but those who want to see something different and innovative have come to the right place.

It uses music very well. Scott Pilgrim is in a band, and many of the battles seem to revolve around concerts or band competitions. And the music during these sequences is actually quite good, so that's a big plus. I also like how the music sequences have a unique feel to them, with the camera doing what can only be described as a weird pulsating zoom thingy. It's very cool.

There isn't much I can fault the movie for, other than it may be a little bit overlong. But that's not really that big of a deal. It definitely may have a feeling out process for those that aren't getting it, but it should offer enough to be appealing to a good number.

RATING: 4/5

Fat City (1972)

2010-12-05T01:15:00.004-05:00

Fat City examines two characters, one on the way up and one on the way down. Stacy Keach stars as Tully, a veteran professional boxer who has fallen on hard times. It's all his own doing, though, as he is more interested in boozing and lying around in his own filth all day than actually training to get ready for any future bouts. On one day, when he actually has the urge to train, he heads to the gym and sees a younger man training there already. Jeff Bridges is that younger man, and Keach asks him if he wants to spar a bit. They do. Keach tells Bridges he's got what it takes to go pro, and he gives him the name of his old trainer. Bridges takes him up on it and begins his journey as a pro boxer.

The movie divides its time between the two characters. There are stretches where it focuses solely on Bridges, and there are other stretches where it focuses on Keach. It's kind of unique in that way. And while it sort of examines the relationship between the two characters, they don't really have a whole lot of scenes together. They spend most of the movie apart, and really only run into each other when one is on the way up or the other is on the way down. They're never on equal footing.

It's got that classic 1970s feel to it, and it drew me in right away. For instance, I tried re-watching Frenzy earlier in the week and I just couldn't get into it. But with Fat City, as soon as it started it had my attention. I guess it's just special like that. It's just one of those movies that pulls you in from the start, if you're into this sort of thing (bleak character studies).

The performances are all great. I will say that one of the supporting female characters greatly annoyed me (the barfly that Keach hooks up with). When watching the movie I thought to myself "I bet she got an Oscar nomination for this role" and it turns out that she did. I just don't know why Keach wastes his time with this woman, but she's necessary to illustrate that whenever he tries to pull himself out of the dumps, other forces make him realize that maybe he just wasn't meant to live outside of the dumps.

The boxing scenes were not very exciting. But I'll give it a little bit of leeway, as this was before Rocky and Raging Bull. But there is something very staged about a lot of the action. But the movie isn't really about boxing anyway, so this is just a minor complaint.

The final scene is classic 1970s dreary outlook on life. It's amazing how many Hollywood movies from the 70s had such downbeat endings. You just don't see many movies like this nowadays, and when you do, they're not being made by big Hollywood studios. Maybe they're being DISTRIBUTED by them occasionally, but not made from ground up like so many 70s classics were. Maybe when the 3D shit calms down...

RATING: 3/5

Back to the Future Part II (1989)/Back to the Future Part III (1990)

2010-11-29T12:22:00.005-05:00

Back to the Future Part II is definitely my least favorite film in the trilogy. It's not horrible, but there are horrible moments. It's not great, but there are great moments. It's the pure definition of a mixed bag. The future stuff is far too over the top for my tastes, with the comedic tone of the series reaching an all time goofy high (Michael J. Fox is playing his own daughter for chrissake). When they get back to a dilapidated 1985, things start to pick up, but there is still an inherent goofy quality to a lot of it, like Biff inexplicably explaining in near pornographic detail (with dates and locations) how he came across the sports Almanac that turned him into a billionaire. But it's a necessary step to go back to 1955, and that is where the genius of the movie takes over (and saves the overall quality of the flick).

Robert Zemeckis is no dummy. He and Bob Gale came up with the original Back to the Future, these are smart guys. Some people have dismissed the replaying of the original movie's climax as lazy writing, but I strongly disagree. I think it's brilliant writing. For starters, it's a subtle commentary on sequels.

What is everyone's biggest complaint about sequels? It's usually "they just made the first movie over again." Okay, so they can't make it exactly the same. What is another big complaint? "It's nothing like the first movie!" Well, they can't make it completely different. So how do you keep it close to the original without straying so far away that you abandon the fan base? It's a hard question for a writer to answer...but when you're writing a movie with a goddamn time machine in it, you can do something that no one has ever done before in the history of movies. You can do something that you have to be pretty swift to even think of in the first place. You can GO BACK (in tiiiiime) to the first movie's climax, in good 'ole 1955, and build your NEW climax directly over top the OLD climax. It's both familiar and fresh, it's both the same but different, but not too different. It's exciting, it picks the movie out of its doldrums, and it sets up Part III about as perfectly as a sequel can be set up.

Let me ask you...what the fuck is lazy about that? It's not lazy at all. It's something that no other sequel will probably never get the chance to do, so I say it's a good thing they did it. I've seen someone say "well you're paying to watch 1/4 of the first movie again" and I say to them "and you're NOT paying for 1/4 or even MORE of the first movie again when you're watching any other sequel ever made?" At least Back to the Future Part II had the balls to do it this way. It's so in your face that it's IN YOUR FACE. It's an absolutely brilliant concept. So while the overall execution of the movie may not be up to the standards of the first, the "lazy" last act is by far the best thing about the movie.

And speaking of fan reactions, Back to the Future Part III gets an unfair bad rep as well. I admit it may seem like it's going to be a tough movie to like at first. At the end of Part II, it shows a trailer for Part III, and it looks bad. I'm not gonna lie, it looks really bad. The DeLoreon is being pulled by horses in the old west? Ugh. But it's out of context, and judging it out of context is not fair. So you start watching the movie, and if you're like me, and you like a good deal of westerns, you'll start digging it right quick. And if you're not like me, you should still be able to get into the characters about midway through and you should have no problem getting totally amped for the great train climax. And if you're like the naysayers, you have an extreme inability to let go of your idiotic "it's too different" or "the old west is retarded!" mindset and you should just stick to the mostly terrible future scenes in Part II. It's what you want, and you know it.

Alright, enough naysayer bashing (something that needs to be done every once in a while when it comes to fanboy franchises such as this), is Part III really any good? You're goddamn right it is. It's second only to the first movie. It's far and a way exactly what a sequel should be. It's not the same as the first movie, the characters go through dramatic changes, but it keeps the formula we all know and love completely in tact. I love what they do with Doc in this movie. In the first two he's pretty much the sidekick comic relief, here he gets a three dimensional character who keeps most of his comedic traits but he's finally able to stop being a living cartoon for a lot of it and show Doc's human side. It's a wonderful performance from Christopher Lloyd, and his chemistry with Mary Steenburgen is entirely believable. I can totally buy his risking of mucking up the space time continuum because I completely buy their relationship. It's very well played.

The other big highlight of Part III for me is Thomas F. Wilson as Mad Dog Tannan. In the first two movies he's great at being the bully Biff (and fugging HYSTERICAL at playing the old apologetic Biff who waxes the McFly's car), but here he really gets a chance to show his acting chops and play a completely different type of character (at least in the vocal and physical mannerisms sense). He does a great job. If I were an Oscar nominatin' man, he'd get a slot in the Best Supporting Actor race in 1990. Yeah, he's that good.

Anyway, Part III, is an extremely solid sequel and a great close to a trilogy. I'd think if they had planned the entire trilogy from the first movie forward it would have been even stronger, but for an originally unplanned sequel it's hard to do any better than this. Zemeckis took the ball and ran with it, and he made two sequels of varying quality that still fit alongside the first movie and don't just seem like money grabbing movies but they actually seem to have a purpose. Someone should have clued George Lucas into that concept before he started making those damn Star Wars prequels.

Part II Rating: 3/5
Part III Rating: 4/5

Back to the Future (1985)

2010-11-20T11:53:00.004-05:00

Back to the Future is one of the classic movie ideas of all time. It took an already established subgenre, the time travel movie, and thought of a brilliant idea to go along with it: what if you accidentally traveled back in time and had to go to high school with your parents? What kid couldn't relate to that? What human BEING couldn't relate to it? It struck gold in the idea department. But a movie needs more than just a good idea to send it over the edge. It needs a good overall story around it too. Well Back to the Future has that as well. And not only does it have a good overall story, it has a good director. And not only does it have a good director, it has a great cast. The movie hits on all cylinders.

Michael J. Fox is at his charismatic best as Marty McFly. It's easily the part he was born to play. He spends his days dreaming about playing music and skateboarding, and hanging out with his girlfriend. Oh, and hanging out with a crazy inventor named Doc Brown, played by Christopher Lloyd. I'm really not sure how their friendship developed, but it seems like a rather close one. Brown wants Marty to video tape a new invention that he has over at the Twin Pines Mall. Marty obliges. Long story short, it's a time machine. Shit goes wrong with some plutonium supplying terrorists, and Marty ends up being sent back to 1955. But almost immediately he runs into his parents, and he disrupts a crucial event in his parents' mythology. So instead of falling in love with George McFly (Crispin Glover), Marty's mom falls in love with HIM. How fucking brilliant is that? He must spend the rest of the movie trying to get his parents to fall in love, otherwise he will be erased from existence. He must also figure out a way to get back to the future. It's the kind of script they can use to teach screenwriting. And they do.

What I want to know is...where was Lea Thompson's best actress nomination for this movie? She f'n rules in this film. From the very beginning playing the mom as an overweight drunk, to when the real fun begins, when her own son is her love interest, she absolutely kills every scene she is in. Just her facial expressions alone are hilarious. I never really realized it until now, but it may very well be my favorite comedic performance from an actress ever. Just the look of conviction on her face when Marty is having his battle with Biff and his gang and she turns toward the camera and say "He's an absolute dream!" is better than anything I've ever seen Kate Hudson do. A fantastic performance. If they ever give out retroactive Academy Awards, she'd be at the top of the list for 1985.

Crispin Glover is a strange guy. He plays George McFly as an effeminate nerdling most of the time, and he has a creepy vibe to him every time he approaches Lorraine. But it's hilarious. He counteracts Marty's macho tendencies (if you want to call them that) quite well.

Christopher Lloyd was not going, I would guess, for realism in his portrayal of Doc Brown. He is so over the top and so character-y that it works wonderfully for the character. He has outlandish mannerisms, often looks at the camera, and speaks like an actor from a different era. Yet it all works. It's like a crazy decision Johnny Depp would have made that most people would have thought was sinking the movie until it was cut together.

The score is iconic and obviously goes hand in hand with the movie. The Huey Lewis songs, as much as I'm not a fan, also are so associated with the movie at this point that it's hard to imagine it without them. It's just another one of the ingredients that fell perfectly in place when making this sci-fi time traveling classic.

And to top it all off, it's followed by two decent sequels. The whole franchise was a gold mine. It's kind of surprising they stopped after three or it hasn't been put on the remake block (yet).

RATING: 5/5

The Karate Kid (2010)

2010-11-19T23:21:00.002-05:00

As a HUUUUUGE fan of the original Karate Kid and growing up with it, I had a slight interest in seeing this new version, but only because it got decent reviews and it was a pretty big box office hit. I just had to see what all the fuss was about. And it's actually truer to the original than I thought. It follows the formula closely and many of the original's scenes are re-done here. The main problem I have is that the characters are not believable. I'm sorry, but I didn't believe Jayden Smith and the Chinese girl "falling in love." They're 12 years old for fucksake. They don't know what love is. They're not gonna bang, nothing is gonna come out of the relationship except a few eskimo kisses, I couldn't get behind it. I also felt like Jackie Chan's Mr. Hahn character was about ten times lazier than Mr. Miyagi. Miyagi at least mixed up his weird training techniques, Mr. Hahn just makes Smith take a jacket on and off 1000s of times, and all of a sudden he knows kung fu. It's not believable. I did like how they got around Mr. Hahn beating up 12 year olds, as he essentially makes them beat themselves up.

The only time the movie really picks up is during the last act, when he's at the kung fu tournament. It is only then that the overlong pace quickens and some actual excitement is felt. Altho I still don't know what the fuck the last move was.

RATING: 2/5

Get Him to the Greek (2010)

2010-11-14T18:58:00.004-05:00

So I guess Russell Brand is playing the same character from Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but Jonah Hill is not. Hill is playing a young record company underling who comes up with an idea to put the company back on track: a 10 year anniversary concert of Aldis Snow live at The Green theater in LA. The record company boss, Sean Combs, sends Hill to England to fetch the star and get him to the Greek theater in two days. Needless to say it's not as easy as it sounds.

There are a few laugh out loud moments, but they're kind of few and far between. Still, when it works, it works pretty well. My favorite bit was at the Today Show. But a lot of it falls rather flat. It never really feels like it's hitting on all cylinders. I never completely got into it. But everyone does a good job and there are some good laughs sprinkled throughout. So if you ever come across it on a pay movie channel or for free, have at it.

Rating: 2.5/5

The Candidate (1972)

2010-11-10T13:06:00.005-05:00

Sometimes you can watch an older movie, and be blown away by how amazingly relevant it still is. Especially when they're dealing with topical issues. It seems impossible that a movie released in 1972 can still have any sort of social relevance almost 40 years later, but that is certainly the case with The Candidate. And what makes it all the more sad, if you really think about it, is that we've gone almost half a century, and nothing has changed. Politicians are still phony as hell, everyone still gets riled about the same shit, everybody still reacts the same way, everyone still has the same circle jerk debates, it just goes on and on and on and on. And what do we really have to show for it? What about the people who want to run for the right reasons, who actually want to make a difference, but then when they get there and they go through the corrupt process, when they get spit out of the other side of the machine, they all realize that in the end they can't do a majority of the shit that they promised. The Candidate is about one such election. Or, in other words, it's about every election.

Robert Redford plays Bill McKay, a young lawyer who is coaxed into running for state Senate by a political adviser played by Peter Boyle (a great performance; watching him in this and having seen him in Joe made me realize what a great talent he was). He is told he will lose, so he doesn't have to worry about what he says or his stance on issues. It seems like a win/win situation for Redford, as it will get his name out there, but it isn't long before the machine kicks in. Before long he is being told how to answer questions by a group of advisers (he believes abortion should be a woman's choice, he is told to say "there would need to be more research" before he can make a solid stand), he is out on the town with a video camera shaking hands and talking to young folks, his advisers are editing together ads that make him look like a man of the people. What about the footage of him talking about health care? Oh, he didn't look cool in that footage, so they decided not to use it. It's all the same shit you see on TV every time there is an election, as if all the footage in these things ISN'T completely manufactured bullshit. But they must work, because they continue to run the same BS ads 40 years later. Anyway, Redford realizes what he is becoming, and he realizes that no matter how much one person thinks they can make a difference, in the end it comes down to how well you can impress a group of upper class old ladies at a meaningless function and how well your smile comes across on television or how articulate your stance is on an issue that probably won't ever be solved. It's a pretty brilliant movie in that regard.

When watching this, I was trying to recall if I've ever seen Robert Redford in an unwatchable movie. And I don't think that I have. He either picks really good material or he is so magnetic as an actor that you just can't take your eyes off him. And while I don't think he is known for having an incredible range, he plays each part very well. Here, I think he probably gives one of his best performances. Toward the last act of the movie, when he's just going through motions and realizes the sham that it is, he really shows a humorous and outlandish side that you don't see too often. My favorite scene is when he is rushed to a television studio to tape a promo, and he only has a limited amount of time, but he can't do it because he keeps cracking up every time the boom mic is lowered over his head. It seems very genuine and it seems like the kind of thing that could break someone up if they've gone a little goofy. It's a really good performance.

My only complaint is that it kind of meanders a bit in the middle act, but the first and last parts are strong enough to overcome that, overall.

I am by no means a political person. I never have been. And it wasn't until recently that I've come to the conclusion that DAMN, how can anyone trust these phony bastards? How can anyone be swayed by these RIDICULOUS ads? Do people even KNOW what they're voting for, or are they just voting for the best smile and best haircut? It's all ridiculous, politics. People get so wrapped up in the election and campaign process that they fail to realize the synthetic nature of it all. They get into these heated debates, no one ever convincing the other side of anything, just for the mere process of being in a heated debate. It's akin to picking your favorite football team and riding it out all the way to the end. When your side wins you cheer and scream, when you lose you feel the same sort of emptiness in your stomach. It's just another THING to do. But since it involves very important issues, since it involves your way of life, that's what scares me the most about this whole things. These are really the people in charge of making things happen? Shit!

RATING: 3.5/5

Bad Company (1972)

2010-11-09T23:47:00.003-05:00

Westerns are a bit hit and miss with me. There are some that I absolutely love, and then there are a good chunk that I can barely sit through. So it's always a gamble when I put one on that I haven't seen. Lucky for me, Robert Benton's Bad Company is right up my alley. Pretty much from the opening scene onward the movie had me. It's fast paced, well acted, and it has some memorable moments.

Barry Brown plays a young man who is dodging the war. The opening scene shows a cavalry going door to door capturing all the young men who didn't show up for duty, and many of these young men are wearing dresses of disguise. But not Barry Brown. He is being stashed away by his parents, and they successfully convince the recruiters that he is nowhere to be found. His parents send him on his way, to a jurisdiction where he won't be required to serve. His father gives him about $100 dollars and they say their farewells. Early on Brown runs into a street wise young man played by Jeff Bridges, and from their first meeting onward they carry on a rather untrustworthy relationship. It's the relationship that drives the movie. Bridges invites Brown to travel with him, through Indian territory, and he obliges. The movie is their journey.

One of the more memorable scenes is when the gang shoots a rabbit, and Bridges orders them to skin it and prepare it. None of them have ever done such a thing before, so Bridges shows them how to do it. What follows is a wonderfully unsettling but mesmerizing scene in which Bridges, just outside of camera view, guts and skins and prepares the rabbit, while his supposedly hard edged gang looks on in subtle disgust. Bridges himself looks a bit on the green side before it's all over, and I've read that Bridges was really skinning and gutting a rabbit for the scene. I believe it too, because it's played almost too real. A wonderful scene.

Another memorable scene has the gang coming up on an older man and his female companion. The man offers her up for some cash, and once again there is some discomfort among some of the gang. Particularly Brown, who outright says that he's waiting for marriage to lose his virginity, and wouldn't dream of partaking in such an activity. And after Bridges is done, it brings some of the bigger laughs of the film.

The performances are all solid. From Brown to Bridges to a young John Savage, everyone is believable in their role. After the movie was over, as is my custom, I looked up many of the filmographies and biographies, and I was a bit shocked to discover that Barry Brown died in 1978, at a very young age. I was even more shocked to find out that it was by his own hand. I never would have guessed by watching this movie, but I read a quote from him in which he says the only time he's not unhappy is when he's acting. Oh well, a strong performance from an actor who never really got out of the gate.

A solid flick from Robert Benton, who would win a Best Director oscar at the end of the decade for Kramer vs. Kramer. Combined with the always wonderful cinematography of Gordon Willis, a wonderful and simple movie Western has been crafted. Underrated as well, if the description from the Netflix envelope is to be believed. But I have a feeling most who see it, at the very least, find it to be a more than credible western.

RATING: 3.5/5

Showgirls (1995)

2010-11-07T19:33:00.003-05:00

I think everyone past a certain age remembers when Showgirls came out. There was quite the fuss about it. There were a couple of things that caught the attention of many movie goers. First and foremost, it was quite a shock to hear that TV's Jessie Spano from Saved by the Bell was going to be the lead in a movie called Showgirls. And not only was she going to be the lead, but she would spend a majority of the movie completely naked. AC Slater eat your heart out! The other shocking thing is that the movie was NC-17. To this day most people don't know what the fuck an NC-17 is, because for some lame ass reason that I still can't figure out, movie theaters across the country equate NC-17 to pornography, even though it was explicitly created to specify that the movie is NOT pornography, but simply for Adults Only. Meaning no one under the age of 17 is admitted under any circumstances. But nope, theater owners still refuse to advertise such films in local papers, therefore movie studios are terrified of the rating and they will fight tooth and nail to either get it reversed or edit the offending content out.

Amazingly, though, Showgirls was made by a major studio with EVERY INTENTION of receiving an NC-17. If you're making a movie with naked girl on girl grinding and various scenes of nipple suckage, you know you're making an NC-17, it's that simple. And even more amazingly, the ads were on TV. I remember seeing them. Showgirls, rated NC-17, right there on the TV screen. Hell, I even remember a kid in my class saying his dad was going to take him to see it, not understanding that NC-17 meant that NO KIDS were admitted, regardless of whether or not they had an adult guardian. To this day NC-17 movies rarely go out that way. And it's kind of a shame. I think there should definitely be an Adults Only rating that allows for more graphic content, but those don't seem to make any money. But if you watch the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated and see the kinds of things that get a movie threatened with an NC-17, and I guarantee the shit will be annoyed out of you.

But anyway, how is the movie? Well, frankly, it sucks. I can't figure out what the TONE of the movie is, let alone whether or not the hilarious-ness of the thing is intended. There is evidence that points to it being intentionally terrible. It's directed by Paul Verhoeven, the same man who made RoboCop, and that movie is a very tongue-in-cheek type of film. The problem with Showgirls, though, is that the acting is laughable, the lines are laughable, and the content is laughable. So if it was intending to be this terrible, job well done. If not, then congrats on becoming a genuine cheesy cult film.

I will admit one thing. I've seen it described as a satire on Hollywood, just using Vegas shows as the backdrop instead of movies. And I actually think that is fairly valid. It's still ridiculously over the top and stupid, but I think it probably is a comment on how a certain aspect of Hollywood operates. It's just very badly executed.

RATING: 0/5

How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

2010-11-06T20:13:00.004-04:00

This is a movie that you don't really think you'll get into, but when you're watching it you'll probably start to enjoy it. It's not really on the level of a Pixar movie (altho some seem to think it is, and I'd say it's better than Cars and A Bug's Life), but it makes for quality computer animated entertainment.

The story is easy to follow, which is surprising since it has dragons in it. Essentially, a small village has a long standing feud with a variety of dragons, and the vikings routinely kill them off. In fact, it's such a tradition that killing your first dragon is your rite or passage into becoming a burly viking. One boy, who is scrawny, wants very badly to prove he can be a viking, and when his time comes to slay a dragon that he has caught...he can't do it. When he lets the dragon go, the dragon spares him his life in return. He notices he has injured the dragon, and he tries to nurse it back to health, to very beneficial results.

PROS: While the lead boy is okay in a sarcastic sort of way, the real character that I liked was the main dragon, who the boy dubs Toothless. He doesn't have any dialogue but he's a memorable and lovable character that will surely go down in the upper echelon of great animated characters.

It's easy to follow. Being a story about dragons, I feared that it would be filled with a bunch wretched hard-to-follow words that make the plot indecipherable, but seeing as how it's geared toward kids, that problem was not evident. So that's a big plus.

What it lacks in character development it makes up for in action and the relationship between the main kid and Toothless.

MIDDLE OF ROAD: It's just...it's not Pixar. It's spoiled animated movies for me.

OVERALL: So it's not Pixar, but that doesn't mean it's not enjoyable. Kids will like and so will adults.

RATING: 3/5

Boxcar Bertha (1972)

2010-11-05T21:00:00.003-04:00

Boxcar Bertha is a Scorsese movie I've been aware of for years. Probably since I first started watching the man's films. But I've always kind of avoided it. For one, I knew it was the one off expoitation film sandwiched between Who's That Knocking at My Door? and his breakthrough film, Mean Streets. Plus I hated the title, so I just never got around to viewing it. Until now, as I start my journey through 1972.

It's about a young woman who's father dies in an airplane crash, and she starts jumping on trains and traveling the country. She strikes up a relationship with an out of work railroad worker (because of the Great Depression) played by David Carradine, and they begin to commit crimes to make ends meet (kinda Bonnie and Clyde-ish, in that sense).

PROS: The pace is fairly fast and it's not long, so that's a plus. It's also very interesting to see Scorsese operate before he started on his slew of classics.

I enjoyed the ending for its bizarre aspects. It's obvious Scorsese had the Christ fixation early on. It's a stuck-in-the-70s style ending and it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you really think about it, but it was entertaining in an exploitation kinda way, and there were some cool, whacky 70s style shots.

CONS: The movie lacks a truly engaging character. It's mainly watchable if you're a Scorsese fan and you know this is one of his first movies.

It also contains a very terrible airplane crash. I think Scorsese may have made The Aviator's plane crash so graphic to make up for the terrible one here.

OVERALL: It's an ok film. But it's definitely worth watching if you're a fan of Scorsese and want to see him try his hand at low budget exploitation.

RATING: 2.5/5

Who is Harry Nilsson (And Why is Everybody Talkin' About Him?) (2010)

2010-11-04T12:12:00.005-04:00

Harry Nilsson was a singer/songwriter who I'm sure most people are familiar with, although probably not by name (although if you were born before 1980, you probably are familiar with his name). He had a very wide vocal range, to the point of being unrecognizable from one song to the next. He was the master of multi-tracking his voice, and he has given one of the most beautiful vocal performances of all time with his cover of Badfinger's "Without You." If you don't know who he is, watch this doc, and you'll discover a very underrated musician and very interesting human being.

RATING: 3.5/5

Here are some of his better known songs:

Horror Movie Month 2010: Week 4

2010-10-31T23:46:00.005-04:00

October 23: Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) 1/5
Shoulda called it Shitraiser III: Shit on Earth.

October 24: Christine (1983) 3/5
Decent if not underrated horror flick from John Carpenter. Features a very entertaining performance from Keith Gordon and a great soundtrack filled with golden oldies.

October 25: Suspiria (1977) 3.5/5
I already wrote a longer review for this.

October 28: Halloween (1978) 5/5
The one and only classic. Longer review is on here somewhere.

October 28: Halloween II (1981) 2.5/5
Not perfect, but probably one of the more decent slashers of this era. But has an impossible act to follow.

October 30: Spellbinder (1988) 0/5
Terrible movie starring Tim Daly and Kelly Preston.

October 31: Halloween (2007) 3/5
It's becoming a Halloween staple at my house. And I never plan on watching it. This is the second year in a row that I've spur of the moment put it in on Halloween when the trick r treaters are done and there is nothing else to do. Compared to the vast amount of shitty slasher movies out there, this really is a top of the line. Bad rep for being a remake of a classic, but f 'em. It's good stuff for the open minded.

And that concludes Horror Movie Month for 2010. 21 movies. Not bad at all.

10/2: Dark Night of the Scarecrow (1981) 2.5/5
10/4: Happy Birthday To Me (1981) 2/5
10/8: Grindhouse (2007) 4/5
10/11: Crawlspace (1986) 1/5
10/11: The Prowler (1981) 2.5/5
10/11: The Toolbox Murders (1978) 3/5
10/12: Hellraiser (1987) 2.5/5
10/14: Fright Night (1985) 2.5/5
10/14: The House on Sorority Row (1983) 2/5
10/15: An American Werewolf in London (1981) 4/5
10/17: Night of the Living Dead (1968) 4/5
10/17: Dawn of the Dead (1978) 5/5
10/18: Candyman (1992) 3/5
10/21: Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
10/23: Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) 1/5
10/24: Christine (1983) 3/5
10/25: Suspiria (1977) 3.5/5
10/28: Halloween (1978) 5/5
10/28: Halloween II (1981) 2.5/5
10/30: Spellbinder (1988) 0/5
10/31: Halloween (2007) 3/5

Suspiria (1977)

2010-10-26T23:37:00.004-04:00

I think Suspiria may be the very definition of style over substance. And I don't mean that as a knock, I just mean that it's a movie that I don't even really care about the story. I just watch it to experience the pure nightmare-ish quality. It's all atmosphere. Director Dario Argento pretty much put everything he had into this one basket, and while he has a loyal fan base, I think most of the general horror public would agree that Suspiria is the top contender for his masterpiece. I've seen a couple of his other movies, and none of them really come close in terms of hitting all the right notes. He does it here. And while it's not without its flaws, it's certainly worth watching if you have any interest whatsoever in 1970s horror films.

The plot is pretty thin. A young American woman travels abroad to Munich to attend a prestigious dance academy. It isn't long before strange things start to happen. Things like maggots falling from the ceiling, fainting while in practice, and other bizarre occurrences. While this may not sound like a lot, it is all done with a sense of style that is so...STYLISH, that when something is actually happening in this movie you can't take your eyes off of it. Oh yeah, and there are witches.

The plot description above didn't really allow me to mention that there are some pretty gruesome murders in this movie. The first one is so pornographic in its portrayal of murder that you can almost hear Argento behind the camera whacking his slobgoblin. Okay...so maybe not THAT pornographic, but it is quite jarring how much Argento marvels in the killing of human beings. The first murder alone shows a woman getting her head smashed through a window, getting stabbed NUMEROUS times, a close up on the knife going INTO HER EXPOSED HEART, getting a noose tied around her neck, breaking through a stained glass ceiling, and her friend's brains being spilled on the floor while said stained glass is impaled in said friend's face. Pretty sick stuff.

I'm not going to lie...the movie is almost comically bad whenever the style isn't in play. When there aren't any cool red or blue lights overpowering a scene, chances are it's not worth paying attention to. But I will tell you, when those wonderful colours are on display, the movie can drag you in like no other. And combine it with the wonderfully appropriate and genuinely creepy score by Goblin, and you have yourself a hell of a one two punch. It's combos like this that just seem so perfect that you can't imagine the movie working nearly as well if one of them were taken away.

It all boils down to a hellish nightmare that is hard to predict. The dream like quality of the movie is not an accident. The fact that a character can climb through a window and end up in a room where she is apparently being strangled by giant slinkys is a testament to that. It's not going to appeal to everybody. It takes a certain amount of appreciation for 70s horror and cinematography to appreciate why this movie is so damn cool, because if you're lacking an appreciation for either of those things, it may end up seeming like the silliest damn thing you've ever watched. But those who can see its finer details are in for a nightmare ride unlike anything ever put on film either before or since.

RATING: 3.5/5

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

2010-10-22T23:23:00.003-04:00

Back in 1981, director John Landis was on top of the world. He had made two smash hits with Animal House and The Blues Brothers, and he was given the opportunity to film a pet project that he had been thinking over since the late 60s. It would only be a year later before everything would come crashing down (you see what I did there?) with the Twilight Zone tragedy (and even then, he still had some mega blockbusters to come), but the fact remains: An American Werewolf in London is a helluva good horror film. And to make matters even better, it's a great comedy as well. It's a win/win.

It stars David Naughton as an American in London, backpacking with his best friend, played by Griffin Dunne. When they stop into a lonely pub, they are treated as outsiders. When they ask the wrong questions, they are banished, but they are warned to stick to the road, or else. Of course they forget that important bit of information and end up straying far from the road. Then they start to hear a godawful howl. Then again. And before long, they're being attacked by a wolf creature. Griffin Dunne isn't so lucky, but it's not the last we see of him. David Naughton is rescued by the guilt ridden pub folk, and he is sent on his way to recovery in a hospital, where he meets a nurse, falls in love, and discovers that he's turning into a monster.

A great premise, a great opening, some wonderful tunes on the soundtrack, and ground breaking special f/x by make-up master Rick Baker make this a winner till this day. It's a perfect mix of comedy and horror, playing each one to a height, but knowing when to back off at just the right moments. My favorite bit of comedy is one of the more subtle moments at the end, when Naughton is in a porno movie theater, and he starts to transform into the werewolf.

The transformation scene is still lauded today. While it make look primitive to a generation who has grown up on CGI f/x, to those of use who still have an appreciation for practical f/x it is a timeless moment in horror history. It ushered in the 80s era of crazy make ups and prosthetics, all of which have been replaced by computers in the mid 90s-to-now. It's a long gone era that can still be looked back at fondly thanks to movies like An American Werewolf in London.

There are some great camera moments here. The scene with the man being stalked in the subway terminal is brilliantly shot. It's a damn shame Landis' career has to be tarnished by tragedy, but here we are seeing a visionary director at his peak best. And while he may have given audiences Trading Places and Coming to America later on, it's an American Werewolf in London that truly solidifies his spot in the horror history.

RATING: 4/5

Horror Movie Month 2010: Week 3

2010-10-22T19:05:00.004-04:00

October 15: An American Werewolf in London (1981)
I've seen it before but I haven't seen it in a while...but yeah, it's pretty damn good.

It's one of the best mixtures of horror and comedy out there. Usually they go too much in one direction, but I think this one got it just right. Even the last shot, which is pretty tragic, is quickly broken up with the upbeat end credits. I really enjoyed this, even more than the last time I sawr it.

Longer review coming soon.

RATING: 4/5

October 17: Night of the Living Dead (1868)
Classic. Even with the flaws and bad acting, it's a timeless classic.

Longer review here

RATING: 4/5

October 17: Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Even better than the original. Simply one of the funnest movies ever made, in my most humble opinion.

Longer review here

RATING: 5/5

October 18: Candyman (1992)
I enjoy Candyman. It's well directed, has a nice atmosphere, and a strong lead performance. Plus Tony Todd is awesome. He put bees in his mouf!

It's kind of weird that two early 90s horror films centered on ghettos as a big part of the story (the other one is The People Under the Stairs). But neither of them are as scary as Boyz N the Hood.

RATNG: 3/5

October 21: Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
This actually felt more like a really gory sci-fi movie than anything resembling a horror film. Not really much to write about, it kind of jumps into the story right in the middle and the last 40 minutes are the exploration of hell. It's all rather bleh.

RATING: 2/5

10/2: Dark Night of the Scarecrow (1981) 2.5/5
10/4: Happy Birthday To Me (1981) 2/5
10/8: Grindhouse (2007) 4/5
10/11: Crawlspace (1986) 1/5
10/11: The Prowler (1981) 2.5/5
10/11: The Toolbox Murders (1978) 3/5
10/12: Hellraiser (1987) 2.5/5
10/14: Fright Night (1985) 2.5/5
10/14: The House on Sorority Row (1983) 2/5
10/15: An American Werewolf in London (1981) 4/5
10/17: Night of the Living Dead (1968) 4/5
10/17: Dawn of the Dead (1978) 5/5
10/18: Candyman (1992) 3/5
10/21: Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) 2/5

Horror Movie Month 2010: Week 2

2010-10-14T20:56:00.004-04:00

October 8: Grindhouse (2007)
It took three long years for the movie that only a few people saw in the theater finally made it to home video in its proper form. Such a fun movie. It makes me wish it was a huge hit so they could do one every couple of years with different directors. Damn it.

I give it 4 out of 5. I think I had it at 5/5 when I left the theater the first time, but on subsequent viewings I concede that the girl talk in Death Proof gets unbearable by the second group of girls, and the girl driver is beyond annoying during part of the case. So I'd say Planet Terror is my favorite of the two overall, but nothing in it matches the pure gut wrench-a-tude of Stunt Man Burt (er, Mike, lolol) terrorizing the car with Zoe on the hood. Definitely the best car chase I've ever seen, but I haven't seen the 70s flicks this movie mentions so I can't say if any of them contain a better chase.

The trailers add so much to the DOUBLE FEATURE feel, it's great.

RATING: 4/5

October 11: Crawlspace (1986)
Starring Klaus Kinski as a landord who spies on his tenants through the ventilation system. He spends most of the movie being creepy and scaring people with rats. Then he puts on some eyeliner and lipstick for the big showdown with the final girl.

It's a piece of shit. But watchable.

RATING: 1/5

October 11: The Prowler (1981)
It's probably in the upper echelon of the post-Halloween craze. I don't know if I'd call it GOOD, but it's certainly entertaining. I enjoyed Tom Savini's f/x, and I was reminded of Maniac during the last scene with the prowler. I'm seeing it compared to MBV but honestly I think this was better and a little less ridiculous.

It's actually a well made slasher flick. The lead actor reminded me of Chris Walken circa Deer Hunter. He doesn't look exactly like him but his hair and face structure certainly had me reminded of him the entire time. And better yet he was actually a decent actor (all the acting was decent, really) and I didn't want him to get killed.

The scene where he calls the fat guy and the fat guy acts like he goes to the cabin is excruciatingly and hilariously boring.

RATING: 2.5/5

October 11: The Toolbox Murders (1978)
I'm going to go out on a limb after looking at a lot of negative reviews...but I really quite liked it. It does fall apart in the last act, and there is some sketchy character problems to be sure, but there is a certain atmosphere about it that I thoroughly enjoyed. The murders during the first 20 minutes (the first part of the movie is ALL murders, graphic murders) had me wondering if the entire movie would be sadistic, misogynistic murders, but then it actually did introduce some characters (and the murdering pretty much stops).

The murder scenes are staggeringly wonderful. I think you'd have a hard time justifying them to someone else, but I loved how they were shot and I loved the weird use of country western romantic music that plays through most of them. I read afterward that Stephen King considers the murder with the nail gun to be the best murder in 70s slashers.

I think I liked this so much because it pre-dates the slasher formula (I think it was made before Halloween) but it's still very much a slasher movie. It's definitely different. I can see why someone wouldn't like it, but F it, I enjoyed it. At least the first viewing anyway. Not sure if it'd hold up on multiple viewings considering how silly it gets. I'll give it 3 outta 5 anyway!.

RATING: 3/5

October 12: Hellraiser (1987)
It's...I dunno, CLOSE to being good, but it's missing something. I can't quite put my finger on it...perhaps it's the obvious and terrible voice overdubbing and a lack of an attractive female lead. I really don't know. I think Clive Barker did a fine job directing (he could've made a hell of a career of it if he didn't have so many damn interests), and there is some disturbing imagery and the Cenobites are really cool, but there was no real characters to latch onto, except for maybe Frank, just to see him slowly regain his flesh.

The one liners spoken by the cenobites are great. Cheesy great maybe, but great. And Pinhead, stripped down to his minimum (does he have more than 8 minutes screen time total?), is a pretty terrifying looking character.

I'm on the fence with this. It's kind of slow paced and the climactic battle of moving the puzzle around and pointing it at the cenobites to get rid of them (with some pretty bad f/x I might add) left a lot to be desired.

RATING: 2.5/5

October 14: Fright Night (1985)
I'm not THRILLED with it, it's a decent flick and everything, but I hate the Married with Children lady. I've never found her attractive and all I can do is associate her annoying character on that show with her whenever I see her. Plus her character is pretty annoying here.

Chris Sarandon is the best part about this movie. William Ragsdale is fairly annoying, but somewhat likable.

I took a gander at Evil Ed's filmography, and boy was I surprised at some of the titles that showed up there. How he can go from Fright Night and 976-Evil to Men Who Crave Big Cocks and Butt Blazer is beyond me. And it's like...instantaneous. One year he's in an early Roland Emmerich flick, then the next he's getting his hardcore gay porn on. So bizarre. He turned down Fright Night 2...but 4 years later he's having sex on screen for money? How quickly they fall.

It's a decent movie, but I don't think I'd rush out and join the Fright Night fan club. I know it has a lot of fans, and I can see why if you grew up with it, but I didn't get to it until later in life and the main thing I fondly remember about it is seeing the video art at the store for years upon years before I actually rented the movie.

RATING: 2.5/5

October 14: The House on Sorority Row (1983)
Not much to see here. The main actress looked like Kristen Stewart. Moving along...

RATING: 2/5

I also ATTEMPTED to watch: Return of the Living Dead II, The Toxic Avenger, The Crazies, and The Video Dead. I turned them all off before they were done, or I paid very little attention to them.

So, to recap so far:

10/2: Dark Night of the Scarecrow (1981) 2.5/5
10/4: Happy Birthday To Me (1981) 2/5
10/8: Grindhouse (2007) 4/5
10/11: Crawlspace (1986) 1/5
10/11: The Prowler (1981) 2.5/5
10/11: The Toolbox Murders (1978) 3/5
10/12: Hellraiser (1987) 2.5/5
10/14: Fright Night (1985) 2.5/5
10/14: The House on Sorority Row (1983) 2/5

The Social Network (2010)

2010-10-09T21:53:00.004-04:00

Leave it to David Fincher (and Aaron Sorkin) to turn a movie that is essentially the rise of Facebook into a high level drama. Anyone else wouldn't have gotten the class and prestige that drips off of this movie, and no one else could have crafted such ambiguous characters. The audience doesn't really know who to root for, and it's not spelled out for them, but if you're into it, you're on board every step of the way. The movie is essentially two hours of talking. So if explosions and action is a requirement, you may as well not even try. But if it's high end character drama you're looking for, look no further. The Social Network delivers by the handful.

Jesse Eisenberg stars as Mark Zuckerberg, a young Harvard student who spends his spare time angrily blogging about ex-girlfriends and writing computer codes and creating websites like facemash.com, a site where students can vote for which females are hottest. It's a huge hit and he gets an offer from two athletically gifted twins to helm a Harvard exclusive dating site. He agrees. But then he decides he has an even better idea, and he creates thefacebook.com while essentially blowing the twins off. When the twins discover that Zuckerberg has "stolen" their idea and added improvements, they are furious and want a piece of the action. Zuckerberg is not alone in the site. His CFO is his best friend, Eduardo Saverin. And while initially they're in it all the way together, when Napster creator Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) enters the picture, Saverin starts to lay low. And he may just be screwing himself in the process.

There are so many different things going on between the characters that the above paragraph doesn't even really scratch the surface. But it all makes for a fascinating movie. It's part character drama, part courtroom drama (without the traditional courtroom), part tech-nerd bio-pic, part college party life. It doesn't really fit into one exclusive genre, other than to say it's a high class drama with tech brats.

The performances are outstanding. There will possibly be more nominations coming out of the ensemble in this movie than any other movie released in 2010. Jesse Eisenberg carries the movie. It may not seem like a stretch at first, but he's usually playing Mr. Nice Guy. Here he can be Mr. Nice Guy, but he can also be Mr. Grade A douche bag. It's a hard rope to walk and he does a spectacular job. The rest of the supporting cast are all fantastic, ranging from Armie Hammer in the dual role of the twins to former teen pop sensation Justin Timberlake, who does a great and believable job as Sean Parker.

The music, headed by Trent Reznor, is memorable and appropriate. It's also the first time in almost two decades that I've heard an ACTUAL Beatles song with the ACTUAL Beatles from an ACTUAL Beatles recording in a movie that has nothing to do with the Beatles. And once again Fincher chooses the perfect song to end his movie with.

It's another winner from David Fincher, and a good bounce back from Benjamin Button (obviously I'm in the minority with that opinion, as it was nominated for gobs of Oscars so clearly he had nothing to bounce back from, but you get what I'm sayin'). It proves that no matter how ridiculous the subject matter may seem, with the right attitude and the right script and the right actors, talent can make it work. And it works beautifully.

RATING: 4/5