Sick on the couch review: Blue Hawaii

Another day sick on the couch. Another cranky day watching movies.  You may have to forgive my tone. It's been so long since the last time I saw Blue Hawaii (Taurog, 1961), I think I was younger then than Elvis is in the movie, maybe even younger than the school girl crushing on him. Now I'm older than Angela Lansbury who plays his mom at only 10 years his senior.

Older than naggy Angela Lansbury... I thought Hubs and I being the same ages as Dianne Wiest and John Lithgow in Footloose was bad. You can't rebel against the stuffy old farts anymore if you belong to the same club. Can you? Well I don't really belong to their club anyway. I'm not stuffy, I'm fabulous at 36. And furthermore, my kids can have a high school dance if they want, and even become tour guides instead of working in the family pineapple business! I'm a cool mom like that. But I think they should grow up first.  Preschool is kind of young for being a tour guide. 

I think I used to like Blue Hawaii. What a different movie it is to me now. A film degree, a family, a bunch of baggage and a chronic illness later and... It's ridiculous.

Remember how charming Elvis is in this movie? Well if you're like me, then your memory won't match reality so let me walk you through it anyway... When we first see him, he's kissing a stewardess (we're not in the age of flight attendants yet) and he's doing this in front of the girl he's returning home to after two years away in the army. He giggles about making her jealous. She only barely seems to mind. The girl I mean, the stewardess is naturally thrilled. No, his girl is fine, after he corrects her mild upset with one of his magical kisses, of course. I wish I had magical kisses. I would have to be careful though!  Just think of the evil that could result if that kind of power made it into the wrong... er... lips.

Anyway... They're on the way home from the airport, and she asks what he's been doing for two years while she's been pining and waiting for him. Perfect time for a song! Being Elvis Presley, he just so happens to have one ready for just this occasion. It's about being faithful *most* of the time he's been gone... Oh no, stop that thought right there! Just wait a minute... It's not subtly buried in the lyrics. I'm not twisting words around or doing in-depth analysis to find that meaning. Really. The chorus goes like this: "I was always, I was always, well... I was *almost* always true to you." Almost always? Oh you!

Damn catchy song though. I caught myself singing it as I made a sandwich in the kitchen just now. I think I'll sing it to the Hubs when he gets home. Babe, I've been *almost* always true to you in the years we've been married. Except those other times, but they're in the minority so they don't count. But most of the time I've been so true to you! I'm charming you right now, aren't I? Despite yourself, admit it! You love me. Wait, where are you going?

Then... is it just me or are most of the ethnic Hawaiians in Blue Hawaii actually Latin? Well, brown people are all interchangeable after all. Their music is too apparently. I won't even get into race in the movie in general. Well maybe a little bit.  There's just enough of a mixture here in the extras and bit parts to adorn the movie with the appropriate amount of Hawaiianness.  And as far as Latins portraying indigenous Hawaiians and playing Caribbean-style music on ukuleles and bongos goes, on a scale of Breakfast at Tiffany's to... I don't know, what's the perfect depiction of race in a white-centered movie? Well anyway we're definitely several notches up here from Mickey Rooney's ghastly Mr. Yunioshi. Not because their skin colors are similar, but because their race and culture are not being made a mockery of.  No, the only caricatures we see in Blue Hawaii are of an overbearing southern mother (Lansbury, ugh! That voice!) and the buffoonish Mr. Magoo type that Elvis goes to work for at a travel agency. Yep only white idiots here. And actually though there's a little exoticism going on, and a lack of diversity in roles that matter, the indigenous are the only people Elvis wants to hang out and have fun with aside from his girl friend, who is supposedly part Hawaiian too. All you need is dark hair and a flower in your hair to pull that off, right?

I wish I could speak with more certainty on the race issue but, you know, IMDB is woefully lacking in detailed information on the race, ethnicity and heritage of actors. I found this out when I was researching whether or not Dexter used *any* Cuban-American actors on the show. Dexter is one of my all-time favorite shows, but it's supposed to be set in Miami and Miami is full of Cuban culture. Cubans are not Mexicans are not Puerto Ricans. They're also not Hawaiians. So while I'd like to be able to report the ratio of Latin to truly indigenous Hawaiian, I can't. All I have is my gut and a couple of suspect names on the cast list. I'd love to hear from some Hawaiians on this if they're out there. You know, if anyone is reading this. 

Moving on... Elvis is starting his new job as a tour guide and now there's an "older" woman who may or may not have her eye on him. A school teacher. And by older I mean 18 months older than Elvis, because if you're a woman over 23, you're a marm.  Marms can have fun too though. And this marm is looking for love.

Elvis's girl: "of course if you'd prefer another guide I'm sure the office could arrange it for you, we like to keep our customers perfectly satisfied."
School marm looking at Elvis and apparently unaware of her own innuendo: "what do you think Mr. Gage? Do you think you can satisfy a school teacher and four teenage girls?"
Elvis, in his best dopey impersonation of Goofy: "Uh... I don't know! I'll sure try!"

Naturally everyone from the teenagers to the marm throws themselves at him. He's beating them off with a stick. Literally. Ok not with a stick, just with his hand because then it's ok.  He throws the 17 (20) year old over his lap and spanks her to tears. That's cool, he's 20-25... I don't know, how old is someone coming home from 2 years in the army?  Anyway he's totally the fatherly type in the movie obviously and beating kids (or barely legal hot chicks who are actually grown women in real life) is totally cool to keep them in line.  Also cool?  Forcing a woman to dance and generally believing you know what she wants better than she does. She's a sour puss anyway, you know how to set her right. You know how to set all women right. Except your mom. She's hopeless. Well she's a woman over 40 (30), so naturally she's unreasonable and obnoxious and controlling... And hopelessly out of touch with youth. Even her husband (who looks about twice her age) points that out to her.  Because he gets it. He's a man. Even as men get older they stay in touch with youth.  Apparently through their continued connection to underage girls. Did I mention the middle-aged man at the bar who hit on the 17 year old in front of his smiling wife? Is this a movie about swingers too? No? Blech. I'm going to put on some Doctor Who.

But before I go, how do we get our culture to ditch men's saggy big board shorts and wear these hot little swim trunks Elvis and his beach buddies wear? Come on! It's been eight years since Daniel Craig emerged from the ocean in those sexy James Bond trunks. What is taking so long?

Review - Love in the Time of Cholera

I feel like a real reviewer today, because I actually get to review a movie that hasn't been released yet. Last night I saw an advance screening of Love in the Time of Cholera, which opens tomorrow:

Love in the Time of Cholera (2007, Newall)

A naive Florentino is instantly smitten with a young beauty, Fermina, who has just moved to town (late 19th century Cartagena, Colombia). Their love grows through letters, but is forbidden by the girl's father who hopes to find a more suitable husband for his daughter. Now, many decades later, after her husband has died, Florentino tries again to court his lady love.

I was a little nervous about the kind of movie I was in for when the line to get in was peppered with silver and white coifs. It confirmed the fears I'd had from the previews that this was going to be a very straight-laced, snooze-fest of a period piece. I couldn't have been more wrong (or more ageist). This film was delightful, witty, romantic, and beautiful. I especially loved the wit of the approach to this film. Not having read the book on which the movie is based, I don't know if this comes from the original source material, or if it was infused with wit by the director, Mike Newall (Four Weddings and a Funeral). Either way, I liked it. That element alone elevated this movie for me to something beyond the typically dreary-but-good period film. That, and there is a whole lot of lovin going on as Florentino drowns his sorrows in the bosoms of hundreds of women over the course of his life.

This film completely won me over and made me want to pick up a copy of the book. [SPOILER WARNING] I have to also applaud the filmmakers for depicting elderly lovers in a way that felt honest, intimate, and touching. This is reality, and one that personally gives me hope that real emotional and physical love will go on as I enter my old age. And I have to wonder if there will be more elderly love scenes in movies now that the Baby Boomers are getting up there. [END SPOILER]

There were really only two downsides to this movie, and one of them I'm not sure whether I can even blame on the movie. Can someone please tell me if the guitar music sounded warped throughout the movie at your theater too, or if it was just my theater? The debate rages on in my group, but some of us believe it had to be intentional because nothing else in the film's soundtrack sounded distorted, including other music. If this was intentional, what a terrible choice! It was unbelievably distracting and annoying and really compromised my ability to let go, and connect with the characters and story. The other issue I had was with the age make-up, which I both loved and hated, but never stopped being aware of. Sometimes it was astoundingly real, sometimes it looked like a cheap high-school theater production trying to pull off "old people." The actors also needed to work with some coaches a bit more to achieve a more realistic elderly gate and speech. [SPOILER WARNING] I wonder if the frontal nudity of an elderly woman was more palatable because the audience was keenly aware that the actress was young and underneath lots of make up. [END SPOILER]

I have another tiny complaint to add: John Leguizamo is not good at accents. He hid this in Moulin Rouge with a silly lisp. Here, he is unintentionally comical as Fermina's angry, ranting father, spitting a thinly-veiled New York accent out at his movie-daughter. I couldn't help but laugh at him when I should have been connecting with Fermina's crushing disappointment.

Review - Reign Over Me

Reign Over Me (Binder, 2007)

Adam Sandler is still struggling, years after a terrible loss, his entire family in one plane crash, and Don Cheadle hopes he can help him face his grief.
A weepy-sad little movie, Reign is like a male-bonding, buddy-movie version of a classic, tear-jerker chick flick. The story is simple and straight-forward, so simple in fact, that it almost seems lacking; a man has lost his wife and three daughters all at once, and does everything he can to avoid the painful memories. So what? When his old college roommate, played by Don Cheadle, reappears in his life, he can't even remember his old friend. That's not all that remarkable. Also unremarkable is the sub-par performance by Liv Tyler, who is flat as an eternally soft-voiced therapist determined (though I'm not sure she feels anything quite that strong) to help Sandler's character. [SPOILER WARNING] Rather unbelievable is the story of another female character who sexually harasses Cheadle (tries to force him to engage in sexual activity with her through threat of lawsuit) and yet becomes a viable love-interest for Sandler at the end. [END SPOILER] Remarkably forgettable is Jada Pinkett-Smith's character as a semi-nagging wife to Cheadler. But what is truly remarkable, and worth the four stars I gave this movie, is the fact that someone finally figured out how to humanize and personalize the tragedy of 9/11 for me. Reign makes quiet mention of the fact that that was how Sandler's character lost his family, but it doesn't dwell on it, because it is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is the immense personal loss that occurred, and it is that loss, manifested in Sandler's pained face, that draws out the tears and then the renewed empathy for all the victims' families.

Movie-a-Day Challenge, Week 1

Day One -- THURSDAY, JUNE 7th
Movie: Various online shorts

My first day on the challenge was somewhat difficult. I had to juggle taking care of my crying babe while trying to squeeze in movie watching which I haven't done much of in a while. Added to that, I didn't have any Netflix or anything on hand. I decided I would start with a series of online shorts. These proved to be a challenge in of themselves just to find! It's so easy to publish your videos online anymore, that it's difficult to find the "real" shorts, whatever that means. Most of what you see is just YouTube viral video crap. The best of which is likely to be something like that crazy bride hoax. That isn't a short film. At best it's a scene from one. And if this is among the best of what you see on all the online video sources (iFilm & Atom Films included), how hard that makes it to find the real deal! Well I watched one or two films on Atom films before finding other sources. Unfortunately, Firefox crashed on me before I could grab all the names of the films and their sources. I saw some interesting things though, that ranged from kids screaming in SloMo (an experimental film) to a weird animation with a monkey that had a balloon for a head. Mostly it just made me angry at myself for not making my own films. I had planned to revisit them to write more specifically about each film, but like I said... Firefox. Such is the internet I guess.


Day two -- FRIDAY, JUNE 8TH
Movie: Pan's Labyrinth (del Toro, 2006)

I was really excited to see this movie. In the previews, it seemed weird and fantastical. They advertise it as a fairy tale for grown ups. And this was pretty accurate. It was darker than the darkest from the Brother's Grimm or H.C. Anderson, yet followed this young girl on a course that took her through a magical maze, and introduced her to fairies and a faun. It amazed me though just how very dark it was. I was at times reminded of such movies as Irreversible or the Hellraiser series. They really mean it when they give this movie an 'R.' In fact it's more than dark, at times it's a little twisted. But enough about the fact that this movie could almost belong on the horror shelf at Blockbuster, what about the fairytale story? It was all right, pretty decent in fact. But I'm not sure if it was worthy of all the effort and money put into the special effects. I spent much of the movie being largely consumed by the question: "What is WRONG with that guy?" 'That guy' being the (evil) stepfather of the little girl. I just had a hard time getting past his unbelievable cruelty. It's because of that and the rest of the movie's deep depression that I can't enjoy any kind of whimsy this movie tries to create, dark or otherwise.

Movie: Ladies Man (Hudlin, 2000)

Holy crap this is a bad movie! I was surprised that the hubby had rented it, but I'll watch almost anything, so I was game. But we weren't more than 30 seconds in before we realized how incredibly bad this movie is. I wasn't surprised by that at all. I mean come on, check out the preview. It looks dreadful, and it is. Hubby swears that he'd gotten it mixed up with another movie he'd meant to rent. Either way. Yichhh. One can forgive the overwhelming cheese of it if only it were funny. Well, it wasn't. Not even a smidge. It was turned off by about 5 minutes in.

By the way, being how hard it is to squeeze in movies when I have a baby begging for my attention around the clock, I'm going to go ahead and count movie viewing attempts like this one. Why bother finishing it. We know it'll continue to be just as bad throughout.


Day three -- SATURDAY, JUNE 9TH
Movie: Billy Elliot (Daldry, 2000)

What a sweet movie. Joyous and fun. A working class young boy in northern England decides he's much more drawn to the movement and expression of ballet classes versus the 'manly' boxing classes his father is paying for, so he takes the dancing lessons on the sly. Soon Papa finds out, and boy is he ticked off until he learns what kind of talent this boy really has. It's no Whale Rider, but it's got enough heart and comedy to bring you plenty of smiles and maybe even a tear or two. Be warned though, the dialog is nearly impossible to decipher without subtitles. The accent is difficult for even me, and I grew up in England.


Day four -- SUNDAY, JUNE 10TH
Movie: Man of the Year (Levinson, 2006)

Robin Williams is a comedian with a political talk show (a la Bill Maher) who decides to run for presidency himself. Guess what? He wins! Guess what else? He shouldn't have! His win was a glitch. So now what do we do? An interesting satire, and in my mind, perhaps not so far off from what may really have happened in the last election. Definitely a little more humor was expected here, given the cast, well, really just given Williams. Some of the humor is also missed because dialog is a little too fast at times.


Day five -- MONDAY, JUNE 11TH
Movie: Nosferatu (Murnau, 1922)

Here I thought I was bending the rules or making an exception for this movie because I thought I'd already seen it. Turns out, I haven't! Phew! 28 (let's stay optimistic) new movies for my 28-day long Movie-a-Day Challenge. I guess between having seen Murnau's Sunrise, and having talked/read a lot about Nosferatu, I just thought I'd seen it. Well now I have. And I have to say I'm really kind of in love with this movie, as far as my love for silent movies goes. It's so fascinating to see the little nugget from whence sprung an entire genre of movie-making. Nosferatu is to horror as Metropolis is to sci-fi. Yeah, ok, it's filled with silent movie schtick that comes off corny now, but it also has some fantastic, dramatic shots. And with movies like this, you have to wonder how they achieved special effects, back when that happened with a little more ingenuity than a few flicks of the computer mouse. One shot especially is one you've perhaps all seen. When Orlok rises out of his casket. This shot was redone (as a kind of tribute to the original) in Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's at about 1:22 on the trailer. Also, the make up on Orlok is perfection. Love it. Why do we not see vampires with this look in later movies? Actually, we did see it a little in Dracula. Oh I feel like watching that again now. Overall, this movie is well worth a look, but perhaps only actually enjoyable to real, hardcore movie buffs.

Interestingly, Nosferatu is viewable in its entirety on YouTube since it is in public domain. You can also see the shot I was talking about at about 49:13. Oddly, the characters have been renamed to be the same as the characters in the Bram Stoker novel rather than the actual original character names in Nosferatu. Some people are even using it for their own experiments, re-edits, & adding their own soundtracks since it's in public domain. Maybe they're on to something. Might try something like that myself soon.

By the way, even though you can see it on YouTube, if you're going to watch it, you should still rent it. The one I got from Netflix was more similar to the original complete with color tinting and the original character names, etc..


Day six -- TUESDAY, JUNE 12th
Movie: Goodbye, Lenin! (Becker, 2003)

I became interested in the topic of people waking up from comas recently after reading a couple of stories of men waking up after pushing 20 years of sleep. Seems like a great movie waiting to happen. Then I saw a preview for this movie on Netflix and thought I'd check it out. A mother falls into a coma in East Germany right before the fall of the Berlin wall. She wakes up 8 months later and her entire world has changed, only her son, having been advised by her doctor that any shock could kill her, does everything in his power to make it seem to her as if everything is the same. Nifty idea. So I watched it. It wasn't bad, but I felt a little gypped. I mean, the preview made it seem like there was significant comedy in the son's extreme efforts to reconstruct his mother's reality. But in truth, this movie wasn't really trying to be all that comedic. Too bad. Not that it should have been, but my expectations were way off base. Still, it was a decent movie, and a great one for practicing my German!


Day seven -- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13th
Movie: none

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to do this challenge. Life, and especially babies, get in the way. And next week proves to look even more challenging as I have an out-of-town video job.


Days of challenge complete: 7
Movies watched: 7



Back to the full blog...

Movie Reviews -- Exorcist, Lake House, Zero K, SW4, Silent Hill, Edmond, Prime, Stay

I know, I know. I go and make a grand promise to keep up with the blog and finally start my how to articles... and then nothing. Well, I guess at least I can update the reviews. I haven't really been watching many movies lately since we've have been sucked back into TV watching, and now we are full-on obsessed with several shows. I may have to do something similar to the May Movie Diet I did this year, and put us on a month without TV before my brain goes to mush. Of course, if I do, it will definitely have to coincide with the Lost winter hiatus. But even with the current TV obsessions... I have still managed to see some movies over the last month. They are: The Exorcist: Restored, The Lake House, Zero Kelvin, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (original version), Silent Hill, Edmond, Prime, and Stay

The Exorcist: Restored (Friedkin, 1973)
A movie star mom is helpless and desperate when her little girl becomes possessed and starts displaying some unusual behaviors. Eventually, though reluctantly, the church comes to her aid in the form of Max Von Sydow and some other dude.
This is quite possibly the most important and highly acclaimed horror movie of all time. I'm not quite sure why it took me so long to see it, but I have heard for decades that this is probably the scariest movie ever made. It was, however, inevitable (as a lover of scary movies) that I eventually take a look. I chose the new, restored version, because I thought it would be presented with higher quality sound and image. What I didn't realize is that this is not the original, theatrical version. Many deleted scenes have been added. I wish I'd known this prior to having rented the movie, as I always aim to see the original version of a piece first. This additional footage, added to the fact that I was viewing this film on a 15" laptop display, and that I have years of scary-movie training (read: I have been desensitized), made this quite possibly the least scary movie I have ever seen. The pace was unbearably slow; the first act must have lasted a good half of the movie! And I must agree with some of this movie's critics when they say that the story was poorly constructed. Maybe this is because it was adapted from a novel by the novel's author, but this movie suffers from severe lack of focus. It rambles on about insignificant things and then eventually abandons these irrelevant plot lines. For instance, the movie begins, perplexingly in Iraq, where Max Von Sydow (the priest that eventually performs the exorcism) is busy overseeing an archaeological dig. We spend a significant amount of time in this location, and discover a statue of a demonic like face that Max likes to stare at contemplatively. But we never see this image again. Nor do we spend any further time whatsoever in the middle east or revisiting any theme begun in this segment. In fact, although we begin with Von Sydow, and we learn to see the world through his eyes, he ends up having an extremely small role in the film. Yes, we see him later on when it comes time to finally exorcise those pesky demons from poor little Linda Blair's body, but at that time, his part is so short, and almost insignificant, that it feels like a cameo. This is terrible storytelling. What a waste of time! Having said that, I did have to note how beautiful some of the shots were, and how seldom we see such wonderfully moody and stylish shots anymore. Furthermore, the special effects still hold up admirably. Sadly though, I was never once even nervous watching this movie, and I spent much of the time (once possession was finally in full swing) in horror wondering how Linda Blair's parents could consent to their daughter saying (and doing) such shocking things. What can I say? I am pregnant. Maybe I'm a little more sensitive to that stuff right now.


The Lake House (Agresti, 2006)
Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock find a love that really, truly stands the test of time. No I mean, really!
Ok, so we thought they were great together in Speed, right? So why not throw these two kids together in a love story and see if we can catch some of that spark again? Well, yes, if you threw them in a fun or spunky script, I think they could perhaps give us some of that chemistry again, but putting them in a "straight" love story just isn't going to swing. This combo can't cut it. Sure, the notoriously flat Keanu fared ok in Sweet November, but that was only because he had the exquisitely emotional Charlize Theron to counteract the very wooden Mr. Reeves. Sandra and Keanu together, and without that fun little script, just can't do it. Even if you were to overlook this dull pairing, there are some obvious story issues. You know, sometimes stories that use some kind of time-crossing device just don't work. Let this movie be 'exhibit z,' as if we needed it. Ok, there are some sweet moments, sure, and I was tearing up slightly at the end despite myself (have I mentioned that I am pregnant and hormonal?), but there isn't even enough good-quality fluff to make this movie a nice chick-flick. I've seen worse though, I mean it did pass the time for me on a flight, and it's probably better than airline food. So if you're into this sort of movie, you may just find a way to get into this one.


Zero Kelvin (Moland, 1995)
A naive Norwegian author leaves his love-filled life with his girlfriend to spend a year in Greenlandic isolation with a couple of arctic fox trappers. What he gets is a little more than research for a new book.
I had absolutely no expectations going into this one. The only thing I knew about it was that it was in Norwegian (I got it for practice). I didn't even know until halfway through the movie that one of the trappers was played by none other than Stellan Skarsgard (the teacher from Good Will Hunting). Man is this actor genius! He seems to just become the essence of whatever role he needs to play. And he was just astonishing here. He was almost unrecognizable. The young author, played by somebody called Bjorn Sundquist, was kind of a nice surprise too. I think what was missing here was some intensity in the writing and editing. The movie hinges on the animosity that exists between these two characters and plays out in the lengths that this might take them to when they are so isolated, and sure, the actors play that hatred pretty well, but the stakes never seem high enough. Sadly, this means that the story feels a little slow. On top of this, I have to look at this from a post-colonial perspective, and I can't help but think of how this is really an old-fashioned story of how a man goes wild in a wild environment; the civilized become uncivilized. An extension of this then is to think of the people that are natives of this region. They, the people that spend their entire lives and are the very products of a wild and uncivilized land (like the tribesmen of an untamed Africa, or the jungle-dwelling "savages" in the Amazon), must also exhibit some of these same characteristics. This is dangerous thinking. And on top of that is how painfully obvious it was to me that and Greenlandic people were completely absent from this film. It's as if their presence is implied to me, but their existence is just wiped away. I am aware though of how much of a stretch this all seems to the rest of you, and though the hint of reductionism, colonialism, and racism is there for me, it is anything but overt, so it's easy to get past. In the end, this was a mixed bag for me. There are some problems, certainly, but overall, I still think it's worth watching.


Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope -- THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSION!!! (Lucas, 1977)
A completely unretouched, un-color corrected, unchanged version of the much beloved sci fi fantasy featuring young Luke and his fight against the evil of the galaxies.
Lucas listened to Star Wars fans, and gave us what we wanted: our movies back, the way they were when we fell in love with them decades ago. And guess what? I HAVE MY MOVIE BACK! Sure, when you look at it in its raw 1977 form, it's clear that there are some lighting and sometimes even focus issues, and it certainly stands out as missing something against today's tastes for hyper-saturated colors and high-contrast images, but I have to say that it's still gorgeous. The special effects by and large are spectacular (without any CG help) and there are no annoying story additions and changes. Griedo doesn't shoot Han Solo first, there's no jelly-like Jabba, and the cantina scene is its old, charming self. The only thing I really, truly miss is sound. It has authentic 1977 sound. No surround, no booming subwoofing bass, just plain old-fashioned sound. I must say, I love my intense, 3-D, sound of the 2000s. But I will trade it. Because I have my movie back dammit! And I love it. Now, Lucas hasn't completely changed his spots. He's still sleazy enough to sell the original trilogy boxed together with the newer versions of each, and packaged as if the new versions are all that's contained (the original versions are on the bonus features discs), but it's all mind games. I'm sure it helps inflate his figures and his ego, so that he can continue to run around and talk about how much better the new versions are ("Look! The new versions are still selling like crazy!"), but who cares. Let him have his ego intact. Just buy it and use Disc 1 as a Frisbee or coaster. Or better yet, let's tell him what we think of the new versions and send them all back to Skywalker Ranch with nastigrams scribbled on them with Sharpees. If you happen to rent the movie instead, MAKE SURE YOU RENT DISC 2 ONLY IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL VERSION, otherwise you will only end up seeing that terrible new version uh-gain!


Silent Hill (Gans, 2006)
If your adopted daughter was doing some dangerous, cliff-edge sleep-walking and kept mentioning some place called Silent Hill, would you take her there? Even if you found out that it was a ghost town with a tragi-horrific past? Well this woman does. I wonder if she will pay for that decision.
Ignore those people who tell you that this one is surprisingly good. It's not. Decisions are bewilderingly stupid, characters are caricatures, and there isn't so much creep as mildly gross. It's not even so bad it's good. Also, I was well aware of the secret/twist at the beginning, so getting this to be spelled out for me on-screen was a little bit tedious. Skip it.


Edmond (Gordon, 2005)
William H. Macy is dissatisfied with his life, so he enters the underbelly of the metropolis and becomes his darker self. He even (almost inadvertently) goes on a murder spree and it all kind of goes downhill from there.
Within the first minute of the movie I was asking myself what was wrong with this movie. Something felt.... weird. The dialog felt... not right. It was, hmmm... doesn't this feel like a bad play? Yeah, it feels like a play. Then from there I was asking why it had to be so overwhelmingly offensive, the word "nigger" being flung around like mad was just the beginning of it. (By the way, WHM is so not convincing when he uses the word. It's like a bad, outrageous piece of fashion that wears him instead of him wearing it.) After further offensive material and strange, brutal scenes, and incessantly uncomfortable dialog, I had to turn it off. I just couldn't make it through. And then I discovered that it was written by none other than David Mamet and based on his play. I called it! (Just like I totally called it within the first few minutes of Closer.) And Mamet made the offensive material make some sense. I was force-fed his play, "Sexual Perversions in Chicago" when I was just barely in college. The man loves uncomfortably offensive speech. It's a wonder he has managed to write such decent screenplays such as The Untouchables, Wag the Dog, and Ronin, or even Hannibal. That one delved into the distasteful, certainly, but in a whole different way.


Prime (Younger, 2005)
A therapy patient discovers that she is sleeping with her therapist's son only, she finds out much later than her therapist does. Oh yeah, and there is a rather substantial age difference between the lovers.
From one miserably bad movie to another. Ugh. There was absolutely no comedy. I was almost embarrassed for Meryl Streep who was sadly over the top and ridiculous. And the young man in question was so flat he was almost concave. Let's not even get started on story. It was a one-liner with too much set up and nowhere to go after the payoff. Please. Stay. Away. From. This. Movie. Otherwise you'll wish desperately like I did for my two hours back.


Stay (Forster, 2006)
Ewan McGregor is a psychiatrist to an impenetrable and enigmatic Ryan Gosling. As if this wasn't difficult enough for any shrink to handle, there is an element of the supernatural that surrounds this odd patient.
I really do have a special affinity for movies that challenge perceptions of reality. I adored Dark City, The Sixth Sense thrilled me, and The Matrix was crazy fun. Any well-constructed movie that I see that gives me a little blur of reality and unreality (anywhere from the works of Charlie Kauffman to Finding Neverland) and that makes me think a little bit, is really one of my favorite kinds of movie experiences. This movie works well in this genre and I really enjoyed it. Before you run out and rent it, let me clarify. This isn't the kind of movie that will suck you into its world. It keeps you on the outside, always wondering what the heck is going on. For many people this is frustrating and intolerable. For me this is, at least in this case, intriguing. And when you add creative filmmaking and storytelling to the mix, it really gets my juices flowing. Some are left even after the movie ends wondering what happened. I don't think it's all that complicated, read the clues that the movie is giving you. It's pretty clear. Even if you fully get exactly what happens, you'll surely be thinking about the movie for hours after you see it. How great is that? Plus this movie has a fantastic scene in which the reality is peeling away and an argument between McGregor and Gosling has the characters spontaneously changing places with absolutely seamless editing. Wait, who is yelling at whom here? McGregor is the aggressor, no the victim, no the aggressor. Fantastic!! Forster, who also directed Finding Neverland, certainly has a knack for playing with that line between reality and fantasy, for him it seems to be more of an overlapping weave than a solid border.




Until next time... happy viewing!

Back to the full blog...

Reviews - Gotta Give, Shining, Lavender Hill, Soylent Green, Syriana, Triangle, Spirited Away, Lost 2

In my haste to catch up on reviews it looks like I accidentally skipped a couple movies, so I'm adding those to this batch. This time I am covering Something's Gotta Give, The Shining, The Lavender Hill Mob, Soylent Green, Syriana, The Triangle, Spirited Away, Lost, Season 2.

Something's Gotta Give (Meyers, 2003)
Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson are both involved in May-December romances when what they really want is a December-December romance with each other.
I ended up watching this on TV recently. I am glad I saw it on TV and didn't waste any money on it. Yeah, it was refreshing for an older woman to be seen as beautiful, sexual, and desirable, and Keanu Reeves is yummy as a doctor, but the movie is just plain hokey and contrived. Nothing about it comes off as genuine. And I am still sick of Jack Nicholson playing the same damn character in every movie. It may have worked for Easy Rider, Witches of Eastwick, The Shining and even more recently in As Good As It Gets, but it gets old. And now he has done it so much, with so little variation, in his old age, it's like he's doing an impression of himself.


Netflix Rolling Roadshow: The Shining (Kubrick, 1980)
Nicholson takes on a caretaker job to watch a remote Colorado hotel over the winter. What happens next? Let's just say that one can go a little stir CRAZY when locked in a spooky hotel for months.
As some of you know, I really don't like or get Kubrick. So why would I elect to watch this movie uh-gain? Because I dig special screenings & movie events. Nothing is more fun than gathering around a bunch of super fans that erupt in full cheer when their favorite flick appears on screen. And I love seeing movies in different ways. Having grown up in Europe, where there are no drive ins, you wouldn't believe how thrilled I was when I went to my very first one here in Colorado a few years back. So when I heard that The Shining was being played outside the Stanley hotel in Estes Park (the very hotel that inspired the novel, and the location where Stephen King penned the novel) I jumped at the chance. Did it make me like the movie more? Don't think so. Was it fun? You bet. Well, I mean, it would have been if I had checked the weather report beforehand and worn more than summer clothing on a cold Estes evening.


The Lavender Hill Mob (Crichton, 1951)
Alec Guinness stars in this comedy as an unlikely bank robber with an almost perfect plan.
This was actually surprisingly funny. Even the hubby (who isn't always a fan of older movies) found himself laughing out loud. Guiness is absolutely perfect as a stuffy bank clerk who's tired of being so perfect, so trusted, and never touching any of the gold bullion of which he oversees for production and transport. And he would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those rascally kids. Another nice little surprise for those with keen eyes is the tiny walk-on part that a very young Miss Audrey Hepburn played.


Soylent Green (Fleischer, 1973)
Charleton Heston is a cop in a dystopic future who struggles to unravel the truth of a murder case.
This is one of those movies that you have to have seen in order to participate in political and social discussions. Like "1984" (the famous book by George Orwell), it is supposed to have all kinds of implications and relevence in modern society. Although it's nice to have another "classic" movie under my belt -- thereby giving people one less opportunity to say, "What???? You haven't seen that movie????" It's also nice to know what people mean when they say, "Oh that's just like Soylent Green." So, if you want to get the reference, maybe you should watch the movie too. Otherwise, it's a complete waste of time. It's boring, and the BIG REVEAL, is really not that exciting or shocking. And Heston didn't even react to it in the movie, so why should we? A lot of people think this movie is mind-blowing. I on the other hand think you're better off just asking someone who saw it what the big secret is, and then you can spend your time on better things.


Syriana (Gaghan, 2005)
Some bad things happen here and in the Middle East.
Sorry my synopsis is so vague, but it is difficult to be more specific about what happened in this movie without just spewing descriptions of scenes. This movie is fairly difficult to follow and therefore angers me. There are far too many characters to keep track of and so many intricate plotlines woven together that I think I am extremely lucky to have gotten the general gist of what happened. Yes, it disturbs, as any political commentary on US-Middle East relations would, but above anything else, this movie just frustrates. Maybe the book explains things better.


The Triangle (Baxley, 2005)
A TV mini-series with many recognizable faces that attempts to dramatize & solve the big mystery of the Bermuda Triangle
This was fun. Yeah, some of it was a little silly, but not unforgiveably so. The first two parts were fun and sometimes exciting. The final part did leave a little to be desired, but overall it was fun. Of course it did end up going into issues of time, and they end up having problems with a grandfather-type paradox. It's definitely not a Lost or 4400, but it's passable. It's biggest flaw is how quickly the big mystery gets answered. I think it would have been a much stronger show if it had been a series that explored other theories thoroughly. It would have been a bit more believable and probably more compelling.


Spirited Away (Miyazaki, 2001)
The much beloved surreal, Asian animation.
I think I don't really do children's animations quite so much anymore. Everyone loves this movie it seems. But I really didn't get it, and I was impatiently awaiting its ending from about 20 minutes in. It's very creative. The imagination it took to come up with the story astounds me. But I think I am done with these asian animations. Not that the American ones are soooo great. I am kind of tired of computer animated features. But I have been known to really enjoy an animated flick now and then. And I love working in animation myself, so you'd think I'd be all over the genre. But this one seemed kind of silly, maybe juvenile, and the story seemed almost unbearable to wait out. I shouldn't blame the genre for that though, right?


Lost, Season 2 (Abrams, 2005)
A TV series about a group of plane crash survivors who must adapt to live on a strange, supernatural island.
Oh my gosh, I just love this show. I am so addicted, you wouldn't believe it. The hubby and I watched the entire second season in 4 or 5 days. This season is deeper and grittier than the first. And people are starting to get a little darker, and a little crazier. Some answers are finally given this season, but leave you hanging just enough to completely salivate over what may be revealed in season 3 which airs October 4th. I do think we're moving away from some of the supernatural that we had in season 1 and I am missing it a tad. But it's still and incredibly exciting show, and quite possibly one of the best (if not the best) ever put out there. I think the show's producers are going to have a helluva time not disappointing us when they give us the big finale for the show. Any clear cut and full answer at this point seems like it couldn't live up to the tantalizing mystery they've built up.


Well that's it for now... Until next time, happy watching!


Back to the full blog...

Catch Up Reviews - Extra Mini

I'm so far behind on the reviews now that the only way I can catch up is either jump ahead to only do my current reviews and therefore skip all the movies from the last couple months, or to do extra-mini reviews. I don't want to skip, so the latter it is! There are too many movies to list them all in the intro here, so let's just get right to those reviews.

Pelle the Conqueror (August, 1987)
Oscar-winning Danish film (in Swedish & Danish) about a Swedish immigrant father and son who have rough lives working a Danish farm.
Good, but looooooooooong. We wanted to yell at the TV. Come on Pelle! Conquer already! Plus, largely this movie is just one big (looooooooooong) downer. And the ending doesn't change that to any great extent.

Out of Africa (Pollack, 1985)
Semi-autobiographical account of Danish author Karen Blixen's life in Africa.
Ok. But I'm unhappy that the ethnographic aspect (as disconcerting as it may have been) of Blixen's (who wrote as Isak Dinesen) story was largely lifted, and the romance between her and Denys was played up (something that was more or less only hinted at in the book). It seems that Pollack didn't want to tell about an experience of Africa as the book was meant, and instead wanted to tell a love story.

Pink Panther (Levy, 2006)
A new pink panther movie, with a new Clouseau.
Pathetic. The accent was distracting and bad, not funny. In fact, humor was lacking almost entirely. The only one more clueless than Clouseau is Steve Martin who penned this disastrous drivel. The only good thing was his car. I loooove his car. I want a Smart Car so bad!!! Not only is it totally cute, but it's enviro-friendly. It gets 60 mpg! (It was also the car that Audrey Tautou used in The Da Vinci Code.)

11:14 (Marcks, 2003)
A multi-perspective story about moments leading up to a car crash, and lives that are changed and lost forever in those moments.
Fun and unusual. But I have seen so many non-linear films in the last decade that at some point they just begin to play as gimmicky. I just couldn't decide if this mode of storytelling added much to this particular movie, or if we are just supposed to find the device clever and artistic in and of itself. The latter doesn't fly for me.

MirrorMask (McKean, 2005)
A teenage daughter of a circus-owning family enters a crazy dreamworld and must save the surrealist day in order to return to her real life.
Hmm.... I was excited, but disappointed. Lots of crazy, surrealist imagry, but some of the images were so screwed up they were hard to understand. Also the plot was just uninteresting. Too bad.

Barefoot in the Park (Saks, 1967)
Newlyweds Jane Fonda & Robert Redford discover the challenges of early marriage.
This is one of my all-time favorites. I throw it on when I feel like a pick-me-up. Great for a rainy day or sick day on the couch. The jokes still work, and the couple is as cute as can be. Can't beat the Neil Simon wit.

Three Days of the Condor (Pollack, 1975)
A sort of post-Hitchcock, pre-Enemy-of-the-State story about an everyman thrust into a spy plot.
Not as exciting as I'd hoped. But pretty good anyway. Lost a little sympathy for Redford's character when he kidnapped and then had sex (rape?) with Faye Dunaway's character.

Funny Face (Donen, 1957)
Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire fall in song-and-dance, um, I mean... love.
Very cheesy, but I just love Hepburn, and this is one of my favorite versions of her. Plus Astaire (as unlikely a love interest as he may be) always entertains with his awesome dance.

Red Eye (Craven, 2005)
A stalker-thriller that begins on a plane ride.
I think there was much better tension on the plane, the movie maybe would have been better if it had stayed on the plane. But it was still good enough to get a passing grade. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Funny. Didn't know till now that Wes Craven directed it. Interesting.

Topaz (Hitchcock, 1969)
Spy plot partly set in Castro-regime Cuba.
One of the worst Hitch movies I've seen. But there is still one "ooh" moment where you see that amazing visual brilliance that Hitch possessed. It was worth it, just to see that one shot. Course, I'm a nerd for stuff like that. Not sure it would be worth it for most people.

In the Mirror of Maya Deren (Kudlacek, 2002)
Documentary about the life of Maya Deren, one of the original experimental filmmakers, and a woman ahead of her time.
Enlightening and wonderful. Took a moment to get into the structure, but I really enjoyed this film. Always awesome to see my fave filmmaker (and former prof) Stan Brakhage, who was interviewed in this film.

The 4400, Season 2
Supernatural TV series featuring an investigative team that work to solve the mystery of the 4400 people that appeared in a ball of light.
This show is genius. Right up there with Lost. I literally can't wait until season 3. Luckily Lost, Season 2 comes out on DVD on September 5th! Wahoo!

This is Spinal Tap (Reiner, 1984)
Mockumentary about a ridiculous rock group.
One of those that's much funnier to talk about than to actually watch. There was little humor in it for me while watching. Mostly it was just way too silly. Maybe I just don't get it. Still, there are a couple memorable parts. At least I got that it was a mockumentary. I really feel sorry for those who didn't.

Why We Fight (Jarecki, 2005)
An anti-war documentary.
Certainly interesting. But the doc didn't really explore the areas I would have liked it to. For instance, did you know that there is a term ("Blowback") for the unintended consequences of secret CIA actions. I.e. the CIA goes out and messes with some country's this or that, and years later, the messed-with country retaliates against us. Now they have to lie and tell us it's an unprovoked attack and fill us with ridiculous nonsense like they were motivated to attack because of "their jealousy of our freedom" or some such crap. They can't tell us the real reason, right? Then they'd have to talk about some classified (and likely embarassing) operations that left this other country or group PO'd enough to retaliate. Now that's really interesting. But we didn't delve into this at all.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (Gibney, 2005)
What went down at Enron.
Don't watch this movie unless you have a degree in economics or some similar expertise. The language was over my head at times and I eventually tuned out and went to sleep. It made me angry that they don't care for people who don't know oodles about this stuff to watch their film. How rude to not explain some of these terms and concepts so we all can follow along!

Rififi (Dassin, 1955)
Jewelry-heist, French film noir.
Pretty good. I'm actually surprised I wasn't forcefed this film in film school. There is a lengthy scene (the heist itself) that takes place in complete silence. That's just the sort of thing that would get some of my profs off. Some people believe that action that takes place without dialog is "pure cinema" and that explaining things verbally is weak story-telling. It was a decent scene. Many consider it the highlight of the movie. But I think these days it plays uncomfortably. You start thinking gosh, how long has it been since someone spoke? Wow it's been a really long time, will they ever speak again? Did I make a mistake and rent a silent movie? Have these guys gone mute? SPEAK GODDAMMIT SPEAK!!!!! I guess it does build some tension as a result which does work for the scene. Interestingly, it looks like Pacino is working on a remake. Hunh. I wonder if there will be a lengthy silent scene in this new one.

Marilyn Hotchkiss Ballroom Dancing & Charm School (Miller, 2005)
People find connection through dance.
What a pleasant surprise this movie was. I mean pleasant because it was really fairly unsual and interesting. I however don't mean pleasant in how it made me feel. I was thoroughly depressed after watching this movie. But, I guess, in a good way.

Cool Hand Luke (Rosenburg, 1967)
Well-known classic, Paul Newman vehicle. Basically just a prison movie when you get down to it.
Another classic lets me down. I'd rather watch Shawshank. The story just didn't compell me. Newman is simply a man with mythical defiance. It doesn't matter how much it will hurt him, or how stupid it is, he won't stop fighting. His spirit will never be broken. Whatever. The ending was anticlimactic too. Still, it wasn't miserable to sit through, and there are some stylish shots.

V for Vendetta (McTeigue, 2005)
Anarchy, under the mask of Guy Fawkes, hopes to bring down a totalitarian state.
Very 1984-ish themes. Very dark. I still can't figure out what was missing for me that I didn't love this movie. Maybe it was too comic book, I don't know. I mean, yeah I know it was a big-screen adaptation of a graphic novel, but still. I felt like I was supposed to be profoundly shaken by the movie's message, I mean it's quite bold to make the protagonist a terrorist in this day and age, but I still couldn't take it much more seriously than Spiderman or Batman. Still, I did find myself admiring the writing at times. And I did love that they snuck a Bush sign in at a political rally. Nice. Maybe I should see it again. Don't know.

Scenes From a Marriage (Bergman, 1973)
Intimate episodes of a crumbling marriage by Swedish film-genius, Bergman.
This is a relatively lengthy movie (166 minutes), and the scenes are sometimes quite long and even uncomfortable in their frankness. And yet I never once was bored. This is absolute brilliance. One word of caution though: Just because a movie is labelled "theatrical version" doesn't mean you are getting the original version. In this case, the original version was a television miniseries, so apparently much had been cut out for the version I saw. Dammit! I'm not sure I can sit through it all again (as good as it was) just for the additional material. Dammit!


Well, if you can believe it, after a good 4 plus months of being behind, I am finally caught up in all my reviews. Phew! Now I will do my best to keep up with it regularly again and provide regular posts. Hopefully I haven't lost all of my readers by now, or if I have, maybe I can gain some new ones. I promise I will do my best to keep putting stuff out there again. So keep reading!


Happy watching...


Back to the full blog...

Reviews - Da Vinci, Memoirs, Zhivago, Wal-Mart, Illuminated

So, back in the saddle again, and over a month behind. So let's catch up! Here is the first batch: Da Vinci Code, Memoirs of a Geisha, Dr. Zhivago, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, and Everything is Illuminated.


Da Vinci Code (Howard, 2006)
On the run as possible murder suspects, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou solve riddles leading to the answer of a great mystery involving 'the great lie' told by the Christian church.
I'll admit it. I was hooked on the book. I don't think it was particularly well written, but still it completely hooked me. My husband and I listened to the audio version all the way from Denver to Austin (and then some) last summer. We were so into the plot, we couldn't wait to get back to the road at the end of each pit stop so we could pick up where we'd left off in the book. The book certainly has its flaws, but it's also a very compelling read/listen. So we eagerly awaited the release of the movie version this year. We could hardly stand to wait until May, and when we realized that we'd have to wait until June (because of my Old Movie Diet for May) we were beside ourselves. It's never good to walk into a movie with that kind of anticipation. It almost never measures up. And it didn't. For me the biggest flaw is the same flaw that the Harry Potter movies suffer from: over-dependence on source material. If you concern yourself with trying to get all the details of a book right in a movie adaptation, you will miss the essence of the book's heart. After all, a book has hundreds of pages, and a movie has (typically) less that two hours. The movie will inevitably be bogged down with details and facts, and rely on clunky methods of story-telling to keep everything moving. The worst part about The Da Vinci Code was that it took so much time out to explain things to the audience. And for me, this exposition was so overt that it felt almost patronizing. We're now going to give you some information and barely even pretend to disguise it as part of the story. In a book, exposition is common. You can spend a hundred pages just on these explanations if you wish (although I generally hate it when it's done this way); you have the space. Cinema is a visual medium, and overt explanations (versus demonstrating through action/plot/story development) is considered extremely lazy filmmaking. There are a couple times when they make an effort to really disguise this exposition as a debate between scholars. But that's when I find it most patronizing. Come on man! I can tell what you're doing here. Do you think I am stupid enough to believe this argument is really something that would happen? I also hated the obvious change in the depiction of the Opus Dei characters so as to reduce the story's inflammatory portrayal of the group. Overall, there was so much concern with detail that there just wasn't time to provide enough excitement to sustain such a lengthy movie. Definitely read the book instead.



Memoirs of a Geisha (Marshall, 2005)
An adaptation of the popular novel that chronicles the difficult life of a legendary geisha.
I was never all that interested in this book. I am generally not into sob stories for the sake of sobbing, and on top of that, I would have to read about the idealization and maltreatment of women. Why would I want to spend my time that way? I wasn't interested in the movie either until I found out that it was directed by Rob Marshall. Being a huge fan of his first movie, Chicago, I became eager to see how he would present this tale. I imagined that some of the exquisite drama of his images would be found here. I thought he would instruct the actors like dancers to move in rich gestures. However, I found that this movie was a little more ordinary than Chicago was. On top of that, I had to sit through something that just isn't my kind of story. Furthermore, I found this movie problematic from a feminist perspective. Sure, you can make feminist film about the struggle of an oppressed woman. But when the camera starts to objectify her also, this is a problem. Marshall's camera delighted in fetishizing her, in making her the object of our gaze. If he wanted to, he could have shown her going through the same actions, same emotions, without fetishizing her for us. He could learn from Mira Nair, whose Monsoon Wedding showed a young woman flirting with a young man, her facing us, his back to us, and our view of her slightly obstructed. This means that we are permitted to see the action without partaking in the objectification of this girl. It can be done!


Doctor Zhivago (Lean 1965)
Love and adultery amidst the Russian Revolution.
This is one of those old epics with such notoriety that people look at you funny when you claim to be some kind of movie expert and yet you haven't seen it. This is also the reason that so many women fell in love with Omar Sharif in the 60s. Sure, he had already been the dashing arab in Peter O'Toole's shadow in Lawrence of Arabia, but Doctor Zhivago made him a household name. But here is yet another example of how old movies are so forgiven for their flaws, because Doctor Zhivago certainly has many. I couldn't ever connect with these characters. The woman is a slut, and the man loves his wife completely. And when they become infatuated with one another, I just can't care. Zhivago! Why are you messing around with this floozy when you have a wife you adore? And why do I care when that "love" goes south? Another reason I couldn't connect is that the score was so unbelievably overwhelming that I almost felt the movie was spoofing itself. Never has one musical theme ("Lara's Theme") -- beautiful though it may be -- been so overly exploited. It seemed like it was used in every scene of the three-hour movie! It was fun to see a pre-Star Wars Alec Guinness though, but not fun enough to make sitting through the rest of movie worth it. Sorry. I just don't get this one.


Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price (Greenwald, 2005)
A documentary looking at the negative impact Walmart has on employees, communities, and our country.
Ok, this movie was absolutely terribly made. Well-researched, but horribly made. Still, I can't help but recommend that people see it for its sociopolitical importance. Yes, the argument is one-sided, but that doesn't negate everything this film has to say. You want to know what's happening to the world? Capitalism, globalism, and lots of other nasty isms. And Walmart is one of the ones at the front leading us into it all. You don't care about that? How about the fact that the reason that Walmart is so cheap is because we pay for it to be with our taxes. Don't think so? How about the overwhelming number of employees it has on welfare. How about how our local governments help pay for Walmarts to come. Guess what, you give the little Mom & Pops a big chuck of money to bring their store into town and they can offer cheaper goods too! Poor factory conditions is no news to us by now, but that's also not something to become complacent about. Check out this movie! And stop shopping at Walmart (and other chains!)


Everything is Illuminated (Schreiber, 2005)
An odd young man, obsessed with collecting the little items of everyday life, goes to the Ukraine in search of his grandfather's past.
I really enjoyed this movie. It was odd, quirky, funny, sad, moving, you name it. Kudos to first-time writer/director Liev Schreiber (who has acted in such movies as Scream) for pulling off something that is really, truly quite unique. Of course, he didn't go it alone. He had a unique book to work from by Jonathan Safran Foer (who is also the main character in the story). But the movie is still something in its own right. And I love the fact that he could incorporate the humor in language barriers without becoming offensive or insensitive.


Back to the full blog...

May Movie Challenge -- My Old Movie Diet

It's not like I don't like older movies. Most of my all-time favorites are from several decades ago. But for some reason I just don't watch them very often, now that I don't watch movies (or anything else) on TV anymore, and now that I am no longer in film school. It's not because I don't have the option. Netflix has a wonderful selection of oft-forgot cinema. But we cinephiles often find ourselves in the inescapable cycle of previews and new releases, previews and new releases. We get so caught up in what is coming next, we find it difficult to look back at the myriad movies that already exist for us to see and fall in love with. In many cases, these older movies are far superior in quality to the ones being churned out every week. But how can we make the time to view them when we can't escape this "New Movie Cycle?"

Well, as I wrote in a previous post, this past May I made the conscious decision to do it, and like someone who quits smoking cold turkey, I cut myself off from new movies completely for one entire month, no exceptions. I even checked with the hubby first, since I knew it would also affect his viewing tremendously (we rarely watch anything apart.) He was hesitant, though game, so we rearranged our respective Netflix queues and reacquainted ourselves with the ghosts of movies past. The parameters were simple: I could view any movie at all, from any genre or any country, as long as it was at least 20 years old. And even though I received a new movie from Netflix (due to my error in proper queuing) that I was dying to see (Everything is Illuminated), I promptly sent it back so as to faithfully stick to my new, Old Movie Diet. I wouldn't even consent to watching rented TV series that were newer, so as not to stray from the diet in any conceivable way.

So the question is... what happens when you exit the New Movie Cycle? Do you find yourself falling in love with old movies, and vowing never to watch anything new again? Do you become bogged down with the weight of old movies, and wish to switch all that high fiber for your high fructose corn syrup that is the modern Hollywood movie? Do you find that old movies are just as light and fluffy and don't add anything to your cinematic nutrition? Who knows? But one thing was apparent fairly early on: the hubby really wasn't excited about watching only old flicks. He mysteriously became tired or responsible and had to sleep or pay bills or fulfill other obligations every time movie time rolled around. Well that's the thing, isn't it? Whether they're good or not, most of us dread watching them. We want the cotton candy that is dangled in front of our faces. That's where our cravings lie. Anything else seems like it might be work, and who wants that? But is it really all that bad? And are old movies really even all that much better for you? Let's see...


The first night began with the 1977 version of Fun With Dick And Jane:

Fun With Dick And Jane (Kotcheff, 1977)
The original version of Jim Carrey's recent comedy featuring a corporate bigshot (George Segal in this case) who loses his job and must, along with his pampered wife (Jane Fonda), resort to armed robbery to make ends meet.
What better way to ease into a month of movies past than with the original of a movie remake I have recently seen? It allows for comparative analysis based on how each era's society is reflected in it's version of the movie. What's especially interesting here is how little has changed: the prevalence of sleazy corporate practices, the instability of corporate jobs, lay offs, living at the edge of or beyond one's means (instead of saving oodles), and apparently house servants (at least in the media) have been latin since at least the late 70s (I wonder when the black-latin switch occurred!) The differences between the two versions are slight, but they have mostly to do with class. The '77 version has Fonda's character coming from the upper crust of society. Her parents and her son are all completely snobby. The movie has her marrying down to be with Segal, and is now "reduced" to the lowest level by having to work and then resort to crime to make ends meet when hubby loses his lucrative job, and mommy & daddy won't help. Their son isn't so snooty as to be disgusted with their situation. Rather he is proud of Mom's take-charge attitude. Still, he has a nose-in-the-air manner about him. The '06 version, however, has the main couple as being on the very top of middle class. But the kind of top that shows they both worked their butts off to get there, and their work has payed off in job raises. She (Tea Leoni) is a working stiff and is absolutely miserable at her job, he (Jim Carrey) has worked hard for his company and can't believe his luck at being promoted to a top exec job. Their son is not a snob at all. In fact, thanks to all the time he spends with his latin nanny, he identifies more with her than with his parents (this is underscored by the fact that he speaks mostly only Spanish). What does this mean for the two movies? Well, the '77 version has us looking up at the starring couple. Their status is beyond our reach and we enjoy watching them fall. Whereas the '06 version has us mirrored in the main characters (we could all achieve this status if we worked the corporate ladder) and we laugh at our own misery of job layoffs being played out onscreen (granted in a bit of an exaggerated way). It could also be fun to look at the two movies differing attitudes towards women (particularly in the two leading lady roles). But I'll spare you all for now on that one. Overall, this one was cute but not nearly as funny as the remake.

So far, so good. I am definitely interested so far by the differences I am seeing between old and new movies. But then again, this one isn't super old, how about something much, much older? How about those Howard Hawks movies I had missed due to an illness while in film school? Yeah, let's do those...

Bringing Up Baby (Hawks, 1938)
Paleontologist übernerd Cary Grant is so caught up in his work that he doesn't notice that he's completely unfulfilled by his relationship with his fiancée, even just days before his wedding day. That is until cooky Katherine Hepburn throws a kink in his pre-wedding plans.
Why is it that we are so forgiving of weak plots and overacting in older movies? Naturalism reigns in the tastes of today's audiences, but in days of cinematic yore, we had no issues with instant love, unmotivated actions, and lots of odd plot occurrences without need for explanation. If you are the type to view older movies through forgiving, rosy glasses, and don't mind an overwhelming amount of Hawksian banter, you'll probably adore this movie. I liked it okay, and I laughed at times, but I'm almost ashamed to admit that I thought the 1980's Madonna remake, Who's That Girl, was funnier and the plot made more sense to me. Then again, that movie was made for my generation. I am eager to see the story as performed by Robert Redford and Barbara Streisand in What's Up Doc. As a lover of 60s kitsch and a big fan of Redford in Barefoot in the Park, I suspect this 60s version of BUB would we great fun to watch. Hmm... We have a version from the 30s, 60s, and 80s, seems like we're due for another remake, eh? I wonder who would be the cook in today's version.

Hmm... not as good as I'd hoped after all the Hawks hype I've heard. And making me think that older movies are maybe not as good as we think they are. It reminds me of when a friend of mine once told me she hated watching a certain movie, because she thought it was really boring, but still thought it was a good movie. When I asked her how she could have such a bad experience watching the movie and still say it was good, she told me it was because she knew it was highly regarded and she could "tell" it was a good movie. So, if that movie hadn't been considered a classic, would she still have thought it was "good"? How much do we let general consensus dictate our feelings? I know the answer to that. I think we all do. People joke about how it's the art critics who decide what art is, and the rest of us smile and nod. How many people are ready to say that Shakespeare is the greatest playwright that ever lived? And how many of those same modern-dayers actually do enjoy his stuff? I know that I tend to go against the grain and detest the general consesus. Still, I adore Shakespeare, so let's just say, I make my own decisions. Here, my gut tells me that the movie is cute, but not great. As far as romantic comedies go, this is no more a masterpiece than, say, French Kiss, and certainly not as funny to my palate.

Silk Stockings (Mamoulian, 1957)
Fred Astaire is a Hollywood filmmaker trying to convince a diplomat from communist Russia to allow a fellow comrade to compose his film's score. If this diplomat were male, all hope might be lost. Thankfully it is the lovely and slinky Cyd Charisse herself, and who is she to resist the charms, song, and dance of Fred Astaire?
Here's another one that needs a lot of forgiveness for weak plot and character motivations. Astaire & Charisse's love is totally insincere and what's worse, there are two amazing dancers here and there aren't very many decent dance numbers. Still it's somewhat entertaining. But what's perhaps more interesting is how balanced the movie is politically. Sure, the Russians are portrayed as ridiculous, but only in their actions. Their words, on the other hand, are level, clear, and you can see merit in their beliefs. If the movie were made today with Middle Easterners, it's doubtful that Hollywood would be so kind in presenting their dogma. I'm adding this to my mental list of movies that prove we have regressed politically in film.

Oh I was so looking forward to that one. I used to love Astaire movies so much. But now that I am a dancer, I fear that I may be a little more critical of the dance numbers (and Astaire used to be my absolute hero!) Also, now that I have been to film school, I am certainly more critical of film and stories. Yes, it makes it harder for me to enjoy a movie, but when I do, I think I enjoy it on many more levels than a non-film-educated person would. Alas, this one was disappointing. Not the "classic" I had believed it would be.

Airplane! (Abrahams, 1980
The prototypical 80s spoof movie featuring such can't-miss comedy such airplane-food poisoning, war trauma, lost love, pedophilia, and Leslie Nielson.
Can you believe it has taken me all this time to see this movie? I have heard it quoted so often that I know whole segments by heart, yet, till this month, I had still never actually seen it. I must say that some of the comedy really is truly funny. Most, however, is just plain silly. It's also fun to find out where your comedy differs from others. There are segments where my husband can barely breathe from laughter as I sit silently (like the whole jive-talking gag), and there are other segments where I can't help but laughing and my husband looks at me as if I am a total idiot (like the drinking problem joke -- Haha! Sorry, I chuckled just now, simply remembering the joke, and I KNOW it's soooo silly.) This is definitely a good junk-movie (best watched when in your flannel PJs and engorging yourself with copious amounts of junk food.)

This was fun. As silly as it was, it was like eating a heaping bowl of comfort food. Still the silliness did get to me at times. And I certainly couldn't say that this a movie of any kind of major quality. I couldn't call the comedy all that sophisticated either. But there was something about watching this movie that felt so comfortable. Maybe it was the nostalgia for the past, or maybe it was because it reminded me of modern-day fluff that I haven't watched in weeks. Still, I am in search of movies with substance, so moving right along...

Altered States (Russell, 1980)
Pre-What-The-Bleep movie about a scientist experimenting heavily with drugs and sensory deprivation in order to access another reality.
This ended up being a really interesting flick. One I can definitely recommend with one caveat: don't expect more than a super cheesy 80s ending. The ending notwithstanding, this movie explores some interesting areas of philosophical debate, namely our experience of identity, time, and reality. There is also some fun experimenting with image during these experiences of alternate reality, and a healthy dose of tension in what ends up almost being a sci-fi thriller. Less interesting is the relationship struggle between the overzealous scientist and his neglected wife. He's obsessed, and his obsession leads to his ruin, just as it leads every other obsessed scientist before and after him to the same fate (sometimes with redemption, and sometimes without.) Still, this one is kind of fun in a really out there kind of way. Definitely worth checking out.

Ok, yes, some effects are so cheesy in 80s movies. But there is something so lovable about them; something so endearingly naive. But it's not like we don't have cheesy effects these days. Cheesy effects abound and I cannot WAIT till the world decides we were so ridiculous to believe the CGI effects that are so popular today. I cannot WAIT till I am not a minority then. And I will point back to my blog and say, look! I knew from the get-go that those effects stunk, that they looked like cartoons or computer games (Harry Potter, LOTR, Star Wars, etc., etc., etc..) But you all wouldn't listen to me then! Anyway, even though there are some cheesy effects here in Altered States, doesn't mean that the movie lacks sophistication. Unlike movies of today, these effects aren't a substitute for content.

The Elephant Man (Lynch, 1980)
An early David Lynch take on the tragic, true story of the unfortunate young man, known as The Elephant Man, who was born into 19th century England with massive facial and body deformities.
It's not entirely a waste of time to make or watch a sob-story movie with no other reason than to make you sob, but isn't it more interesting when you have other layers of drama and conflict? It's easy to show a man be beaten down repeatedly only for him to finally die and have audiences affected by it. They'll probably even praise it above all other movies because to say that they were not affected by it would be like admitting they are heartless (or not Christian as in the case of The Passion -- which is, in my opinion, quite possibly the most flawed and overrated movie of all time.) But what if, on top of a heart-breaking tragedy, you had moral dilemma?

There are three main kinds of struggle: man against nature, man against man, and man against self. (Yes, I know, what about man against woman, ha!) Man against nature is usually intense and exciting, but there is no grey here, only good and not even any bad, just a man's ability to overcome the immensity of nature's wrath (or not.) With man against man, you have another layer. You have man's ability to be good or bad, or both. But in most cases the audience is given a clear choice of which character to support (i.e. good), and the outcome is usually fairly simple as well, either the good guy wins, or is crushed by the bad. The only other variable there is whether the bad guy turns good or the good guy turns bad. But with man against self, you suddenly have a million possibilities, and no definitive, forgone conclusion. Change occurs, and usually the man learns more about himself, and hopefully gains a stronger sense of identity, but there isn't one person to root for. There isn't a good and a bad for you to categorize this character under; he's neither and he's both. And it's in all this complexity that things can get really intriguing. And this is one of the best parts of this movie.

So if you thought Mask was somewhat moving, but a bit flat, then you should see The Elephant Man. Not only do we explore the depths of pain of a disfigured man's life, but also the darkness in the hearts of those that help him, and the compassion in the hearts of those that hurt him. Two men in particular represent these two not-quite poles. Anthony Hopkins plays the Elephant Man's doctor, who studies him, helps him, and grows to love him as a friend. But how different is he in the end from the carnival man who used him for his own gain? To discuss these complexities, you may forget the quality of image in this film. This would be a shame as there is a wonderful grit in the black and white presentation, and the image is drenched in mood. It has dark, menacing shadows, complex, thick fog, and all the grime and polish of 19th century London. Wonderful.

Now we're talking! I can't imagine the gloss Hollywood would have put on this today. An independent would have maybe done something interesting with it, but then the make up effects would have undoubtedly been inferior. But now the month is almost over, and after this movie, I almost wish I could get my husband to agree to an extension of the diet. There must be so many movies like this (or even better) that we're missing when we are in the New Movie Cycle. And at the end of this exercise, how can I not return to that cycle? It's so seductive! Well, I still have a little time left of my Old Movie Diet. Best enjoy what's left of it. What's up next? Oh yes, more Howard Hawks. Now, when we watched BUB, the hubby was certainly a bit non-plussed by all the Hawks-style banter, and definitely wanted to skip out on any further Hawks flicks. So, though he gave it a go for about half an hour, I was pretty much on my own for...

His Girl Friday (Hawks, 1940)
Hawks does it all again with Grant again playing the lead. This time he is a newspaper publisher trying everything he can to get his best "newspaper man" and ex-wife back -- they just so happen to be the same person."
I have to say I found this one more entertaining than Bringing Up Baby, probably because the plot points were a little less hokey. Plus, I must say that it's good to see a strong woman (Rosalind Russell) portrayed in 1940 who is not only the best "newspaper man" out there, but is also feminine and very desirable. In fact she is desirable to Grant in part because of her writing prowess (typically a man's skill, at least in this movie's world) not in spite of it. Yes, there are plenty references made to the proper life for a woman, and that this is not it. Still, Russell's character breaks this mould, does it with sass (it is she that solves the current mystery), and doesn't lose any fem points for doing so. Usually, even in today's films, when a woman wields this kind of strength or power, she is killed, portrayed as evil, masculinized or must submit in the end. Not the case here. Submitting to a traditional role is depicted as the wrong choice for her. And not only is she the only person equal enough to match wits with Grant's character, but she is also the only one who is always one step ahead of him. Too bad women aren't this strong anymore. If this movie were remade today, Nicole Kidman would star, she'd speak with a soft voice, and in the end realize she had chosen the wrong path when she'd chosen career instead of family.

This one is also going in my arsenal of movie info for when I once again debate the progression/regression of feminism in modern cinema. And the more of these particular movies that are remade today (starring Nicole Kidman or anyone else), the more evidence I will have to prove my case. The worst example for me is Nicole Kidman's remake of the 70s feminist film, The Stepford Wives. In this one movie, Nicky the Kid took feminism back several decades. She is not, of course, to blame for all that ails our society. Still, how could any woman agree to make a movie that de-empowers us so? And after all our predecessors have done for us!

Well, the month is over. Looks like I won't be seeing nearly as many old flicks in this diet as I had hoped. Still this awakened something in me. I think I am going to have to make sure I watch more of a variety of old and new movies in the future. Having said that, I have been new-movie deprived for a month now, and I want the biggest, baddest new release I can find. Ooh! How about...

King Kong (Jackson, 2005)
Jack Black heads a film crew bent on bringing real excitement to the silver screen by shooting on an uncharted island. But what waits for them there? A big, killer beast, of course. And who can wait to see this monstrous beast swatting the airplanes when he is brought back to New York City?
So I can't view this one without seeing it relation to the several movies I have just watched over the last month. It's such a big contrast! Emphasis on the word 'big.' Woah! The first thing I notice is that our 7.1 surround sound system is kicked into high gear, and I hear booming sub-woofers and a full rain-forest of sounds surrounding me. I never even noticed that this had been missing from the old flicks, but now that I have it back, I love it. This movie does offer the excitement of the modern-day action/adventure, and I kind of appreciate the tongue-in-cheek presentation that says "we get how silly this is, so we're going to play up the silly." Why else would you cast Jack Black in this role? Still, the movie is chock full of nasty CGI, and though I may be hyper-sensitive to it after seeing only old flicks for a month, it makes me wish that we'd never ruined film by adding anything CG. The photographic image is so beautiful in its pure form. And old-school effects are so ingenious. These modern-day live-action cartoons just nauseate me. Compounding this is LOTR filmmaker, Peter Jackson, who is apparently so incapable of telling a succinct story, that he once again presents a loooooooooong, draaaaaaaaawn ooooooooout, three-hour non-epic which is barely even filled with fluff. This movie could have been edited down to a 30-minute short, and that probably would have been an exciting movie. But as it is, King Kong's story is so spread out that one struggles to stay awake. Ugh. Give me my old movies back again!

Wow! I know the movie isn't a great one, but I couldn't have been more turned off by some of the modern aspects of moviemaking here. Who knew that I'd lost a little bit of my taste for modern movies while on my Old Movie Diet. This reminds me of people who go on actual, healthy-food-only diets and when they finally get to taste their favorite junk food once again, they find it absolutely disgusting. Somewhere along the way, their taste buds have changed, the high fructose has lost its grip on them, and now they want only the best foods. I know I certainly lost my taste for soda when I gave it up. Still, I am not ready to give up new movies forever. Besides, they will be old movies too in twenty years. It's not like I am going to suddenly like them just because they age, right? That would be ridiculous. No, there are good movies to be seen both before and after that 20-year mark. The trick is to not get sucked back into the cycle. So what to do? Well, I have decided that I will make sure that every other movie in my Netflix queue is an old flick (whether I am in the mood for it or not), and though I will still try to keep myself abreast of all the new releases, I will not let all the hype and previews dictate my movie viewing in general. And I will stop moving all the new releases to the top of my queue. Most of them will stay at the bottom of the queue, getting added to the bottom as they are released, and only being moved to the top when it is something I am really, truly aching to see. Let's just hope I can resist aching for the highly-hyped cotton candy that Hollywood shoves down our throats every day.


Back to the full blog...