Movie #48 Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

I checked my records and saw that I have reviewed 7 documentary's so far in this project.  Not too bad if I do say so myself.  That is roughly 14% of the films I have seen have been non-fiction.  I also have 2 more doc's on my Netflix queue ready to ship within the next month I'm sure.  This review is for a straight to DVD release called Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices.

Where do I even start?  This movie is not good.  It is 100 times the worst doc I have seen so far and probably the worst film I have reviewed.  I'm not going to blog about the nature of documentary's.  I have done that already.  I am not going to blog about attempting to impose your opinions through a visual medium like film because I have already covered this ground.  So instead I will just complain about all the things that I hated about this movie.

It relies too heavily on found footage.  There are hundreds of clips of local new broadcasts reporting on Wal-Mart.  It comes off as lazy.  The film tries to argue both sides of an issue.  For example:  It starts by complaining that Wal-Mart moves into town and pushes small "mom and pop" stores out because they can't compete with the cut rate prices.  It then states that Wal-Mart receives tax breaks and incentives.  Both are true and both make this megalith a villain in the movie.  But then the films complains that the small shop owners don't get the tax breaks.  So what is the problem?  If the tax breaks are the issue, then why argue that the little shops should receive and split that money? 

The film complains that many workers don't work full time and therefore are not provided benefits.  Then it complains that those who do work full time pay too much for lousy benefits.  The question you have to ask then is "why would you want to work there"?  Then it goes further to say that there are people that work far too many hours.  So they complain about not enough hours, and too many hours.  Also if Wal-Mart wasn't in town, do you think the little "mom and pop" stores would be providing a better health plan?  Do you think the corner hardware store has dental? 

The films claims that Walmart takes jobs away from communities.  Then it goes on to talk about how many hundreds of thousands of workers are miss-treated.  That is hundreds of thousands of workers.  How many of them would be employed by small town boutiques? 

Then it marches out some Chinese people to complain about the working conditions in China.  I can't prove it, but I think the film makers just found some stock footage of Chinese workers talking and imposed a poorly written American translation over it.  I have connections to China, and she told me that the working conditions everywhere there are as bad if not worse that what was presented in the film.  Again, the film makers want to complain about the cheap labor, but if Americans made these products, and sold them in small shops, I would expect you could pay upwards of 6-7 times what you do now for these goods.

Towards the end it makes note of all the crime in Wal-Mart parking lots.  It blames Wal-Mart for this.  They complained that they didn't have cameras so Wal-Mart added cameras.  Then they complained that there is no one watching them 24/7.  Tell me one company that does scan their security cameras around the clock.  Then it goes as far as to suggest that a rent-a-cop in a golf cart would drop the crime rate in Wal-Mart parking lots to ZERO PERCENT.  No crime.  It is absurd.  Wouldn't that just put the rent-a-cop in danger.  It is not like Sam Walton is hiding out in his parking lot waiting to beat and kidnap you.

The movie is soaked with Christian and American imagery as well as flat out propaganda.  The big bad wolf coming to town to LITERALLY rape your daughters in their parking lots.  I can't decide which side of the political fence this film is on.  At times it seems extremely Right wing.  Ingrained with a bible toting, flag waving, conservative vibe that would make Sarah Palin proud to be a real American.  But then when it is faced with the ugly underbelly of Capitalism that conservatism promotes, it turns into a Marxist, commie, "share the wealth" love fest that would make Al Gore cry. 

One part I liked is when it highlight two communities that rallied to keep Wal-Mart out of their towns.  One of them was Ingelwood, CA.  The woman who lead the protest takes the camera crew out to an abandon lot wrapped in chain link fence.  She is very proud that this litter filled, drug dealer heaven didn't get a Wal-Mart.  Thank God.  Because we all know that the last thing Inglewood needs is another 200 decent paying jobs for people with a GED or worse.

The film has no focus.  There is no true north.  It doesn't say "this is right and this is wrong and Wal-Mart is wrong".  When it tries to it never backs it up with any proof.  It turns to local access TV report shows to do the heavy lifting.   I guess that is the real problem with the movie.  It comes off as if it were directed by someone with an axe to grind.  You can make a documentary intended to get your beliefs, opinions and prejudices broadcast to the masses.  But if you just want to bitch about something stick to blogging.

I went in to this movie on the side of anti-Wal-Mart.  This was so poorly constructed, and it attempted to be so manipulative that it actually made me change my mind.  I am pro Wal-Mart now.  I give this movie a .5/5 stars.  My lowest rating ever.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiSmlmXp-aU

Movie #47 Unstoppable

Every once in a while it is good to shut the ole brain down for a bit and enjoy some stupid, fun nonsense.  That is why I could not wait to go see the new Tony Scott film Unstoppable.  It is a movie about an unmanned train movie at 70 miles an hour through several small towns in Pennsylvania.  Did I mention that is is pulling 5 cars of high explosives?  Did I mention that it is barreling towards a train full of school children?  And so forth and so on.

One preconceived notion about film nerds like myself is that we only like weighty, dramatic dramas.  Just because I go out of my way to see re-releases of Sam Fuller films, or because I have several Criterion Collection films in my DVD catalog, just because I enjoy films not in my native tongue or structurally challenging films doesn't mean that I don't know how to relax and have a good time with a puff piece like this.

It is the argument popcorn movie fans use anytime a critic bashes a superhero movie, or a spoof film, or another generic horror movie.  They accuse us of over thinking.  They say we can have fun.  They say not everything has to mean something.  The tell us basically to sit back and be entertained by whatever stupidity flickers on screen in front of us.  I will not abide that.  My retort is that I love "fun" movies as long as they are well made.  And as a cinephile I have seen them.  Why can't a movie entertain and make you think.  Why can't a movie make you feel something as well as satisfy your primal instincts?

The answer is they can.  I see them all the time.   Review #42 and #43 are perfect examples.  Young Frankenstein and Shaun of the Dead are funny, smart, well constructed movies.  Ironman 2 and The Grown Ups aren't.  They are lazy cash grabs that appeal to the lowest common denominator of society.  Take a movie like Scott Pilgrim vs the World (review coming).  Did it achieve everything it set out to?  Probably not, but I admire it's director for even trying.  It took risks and some of them flopped, but many of them succeded.  Take the latest installment of the Harry Potter series (a franchise where I have strongly liked some of the films).  It was made for fans of the book and that is all.  The producers knew that as long as they stood true to the book they would make a gajillion dollars.  They clearly didn't care at all about the average movie go'er.  That film was boring.  I don't care that in the book event A sets up situation B.  I shouldn't have to read the Cliff Notes to enjoy a film.  A movie is a movie is a movie.

This review hasn't really been about Unstoppable if you couldn't tell.  What really is there to say?  The films is kinetic, fast pace, the camera doesn't stop moving the entire time.  The film stars Denzel Washington and Chris Pine.  As veteran and rookie train men respectably.  They of course harass and iterate each other, but when it is time to get down to business they find a way to put aside their differences and in the long run find  a common respect for each other.  Blah blah blah.  I feel like the movies promo guy.  This film is cliche after cliche.

But none the less I found myself wrapped up in it.  Not quite as much as the mouth breathers sitting beside me, but is has enough action to keep you interested if not invested.  I give this film a 2.5/5 stars.  If you need a place to get out of the rain from, you could do worse than a theater showing Unstoppable.  Check out the link below for the trailer.  Also check out how many times the train runs into stuff.  Ha ha.  Great fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM-0Ywc7wNY

Movie #46 Day of the Jackal

One of my favorite parts about being a cinephile is catching references or homages to films that other people might not.  Have you ever seen an episode of The Simpsons where there is a line of dialogue or a particular frame that is totally lifted off a different film?  You know the rush you get of explaining that to you buddy of significant other?  That brief moment where you get gloat that you know something that they don't that fleeting thought that you are smarter than they are.  I love that feeling.

I had that feeling about 1,000 times during my viewing of The Day of the Jackal.  Released in 1973 and directed by Fred Zinnerman (who also directed From Here to Eternity, High Noon and A Man for All Seasons) "Jackal" is the story of a French group of terrorist or self proclaimed patroits who disprove of giving Algeria their independence.  There plan is to assisinate the French president.  Better yet have a foreigner do it since all of their attempts have been foiled so far.  The man they hire has the code name "Jackal". 

At this point we are taken on a two hour long procedural of the up's and downs of the life of a professional assassin.  This film takes it time, but in a beautiful way.  There are long stretches of  time where there is no speaking on screen.  It develops characters through action and reaction.  It spends time on segments that today's Hollywood films would either skip over or try to summarize in a montage.  This is the type of film that the Hayes Code would have never allowed because you kind of get an idea of how to kill the president.  Or at least you think you do.

Another reason this film works is because the law chasing the Jackal is just as sufficient and intelligent as the Jackal himself.  I have long said that the reason so many comic book movies don't work is because the villians are just characterizations.  There is no way that "The Sandman" is going to beat Spiderman.  The penguin didn't stand a chance against batman.  Now contrast that to The Joker in The Dark Knight.  I really thought that the Joker could defeat Batman in that movie.  In The Day of the Jackal that assassin has a several day lead on the law.  They have to play catch up and they do.  They then start putting the heat on him.  He then becomes a rat in a trap.  He is no longer thriving.  At this point he is less James Bond and more Jason Borune. 

The Jackal is played by Edward Fox.  A talent that I was unaware of before this film.  If this had been set in America I can easily see this role being offered to Steve McQueen.  I want to point out the detective who has been tracking the Jackal.  Michael Lonsdale is the actor.  I was really amazed with his performance.  Most of the other character have smaller parts and are only there to move the plot forward.  There are a few female roles in this film and they are all filled with beautiful actresses.

This is a 70's movie in every since, and I mean that as a compliment.  This year I saw a film called The American.  It did it's damnest to emulate this film as best it could.  However it couldn't generate the mood and feeling Jackal does.   There were a surge of these films in the early 70's.  A product of Watergate and other government conspiracies I guess.  While there is a lot of company for films like this, I think this one stands above all the others.  I instantly added this to my DVD to Purchase list.

I could go on singing the praises of this film, but as usual I am way behind on my reviews.  I usually tell you what I though of a film and leave it to my readers to see if they want to check it out.  This is the rare exception where I am urging you to see this if you haven't and if you have see it again.  And a third option is buy it for me for christmas on DVD and come over and I'll have a Day of the Jackal party.  We can have some pop corn and a couple of cold ones and try to figure out how we would kill the president.  Just kidding internet police.  I give Day of the Jackal a 5/5 star rating and place it high up amoung the films of the 70's.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6xMnTPEzPo 

Movie #45 The Brothers Bloom

There is a film maker a lot of people haven't heard of.  His name is Rian Johnson.  He has two features to his name.  The first is called Brick.  It was a critical darling including this critic.  It was a very atmospheric noir thriller set in a modern day high school.  What really sets this film apart is the dialogue.  It is a mix of current teen slang mixed with 40's gumshoe movie speak.  The other identificating factor is Johnson style and the way he puts his vision onto screen.  Brick is also the film that in my opinion re-launched Joesph Gordon Levitt's career.  Who has a very brief cameo in the film.

But that is a review for another day.  This review is about his sophomore project The Brothers Bloom.  It is the story of globe trotting con artist brothers attempting their final con (of course).  The Brother Bloom are played by Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo.  Their non English speaking third part is Bang Bang.  An Asian explosive expert played by Rinko Kikuchi.  Their final mark is Penelope played by Rachel Weisz. 

This is a globe trotting movie for sure.  They visit Montenegro, Prague, Mexico, Romania and a slew of other places.  Johnson's camera work can best be described as playful in this movie.  It is adventurous and bold and can at times be a little silly.  There are moments where I have had to watch a few times to even catch what he was going for.  I am glad that I did, but perhaps a slightly better film maker could have conveyed his message a little clearer.  I'd like to note that the 3 con artists in the movie are all very well played.  This is the movie where I first developed my minor man-crush on Mark Ruffalo.  I will say that Weisz kind of wore a little thin on me.  She was adequate, but I don't think she was the right choice for the role.  Keano Reeves and play the dumbest guy in the room.  She can't.

Do you know how hard it is to make a con artist film now a days?  The views of movies are so climatically smart.  Movies like The Sting, Paper Moon and House of Games have put the audience in the know.  Everyone is ion on the con.  Once you revile that it is a con movie the viewers immediately go on the defensive.  No one wants to be con'ed.  Every plot point from then on is questioned.  "Is this for real or part of the con", "what is this characters motives" and "who benefits from this situation" all become question that the viewers ask themselves.   

So how do you get around that?  There is the double cross but that is a dangerous technique.  If you don't provide the audience with the clues to put it together they will feel cheated at the end.  This practice was used wonderfully in The Usual Suspects.  I know the ending and I am still surprised when the final twist happens.  There is the red herring but here again with such a knowledgeable contingency it is becoming harder and harder to pull this off.  So what film makers do is they add con's on to con's on to con's.  The problem here is you run the risk of confusing the audience leaving them again unsatisfied. 

So how do you get around this?  What Mr. Johnson did was make a con movie that wasn't about the con.  I can't spoil anything here or I would defeat the purpose of the review which is to get you to take an interest in this movie.  What Johnson does is he wraps you up in a cocoon of romance, intrigue, travel, beauty, exotic characters and danger.  At times you forget that you are watching a con movie all together.

Then towards the end when the Persian rug is pulled out from under your feet you are left satisfied.  Then when it is reveled that there is a second rug under the first rug and that gets yanked out from under you, knocking you on you ass, you feel enlightened.  Light you have experienced something that you rarely do.  You were outsmarted by a movie.  

There is a line in the film that I think perfectly sums up the entire movie.  While looking at some distorted photos taken from the marks pinhole camera Bloom says "It's the lie that tells the truth".  My girlfriend had never even heard of this movie and she really enjoyed it.  I give The Brothers Bloom a solid 4/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBuPI4m4pO8

Movie #44 Stagecoach

John Wayne never told a lie.  At least not on screen he didn't.  I know there is a stigma that goes along with John Wayne movies.  It's the limping, chawing, shotgun at his side, "little missy" characterization that is associated with Wayne.  And for good reason.  A lot of his films used variations on the same character and he was happy to fill that role.  But let's not forget about the actor inside these characters.  According to IMDB Wayne has 173 roles in movies and TV.  Many of which took place when there were only a hand full of actors working.  Wayne didn't write the scripts.  He just filled the characters he played with honesty and integrity.  That is what I mean when I say he never told a line on screen.  And lets not forget about the breakout roles.  His roles in movies like Red River, Rio Bravo, The Searchers, The Green Berets and True Grit just to name a few are roles that will be remembered as long as there are movie lovers.  This review is about 1939's Stagecoach.

To call Stagecoach a "John Wayne film" is an abomination.  It is 100% a John Ford film.  He is the director.  He is the master.  Today's movies and movie makers would still be trying to perfect the zoom and the tracking shot if Ford hadn't done it 70 years ago.  I know old movies scare some people off.  So do westerns and black and white movies.  I don't care.  If you love movies, you should love this one.

The story is pretty simple. A stagecoach filled with a variety of different people is heading to the next town when they get word of a Indian posse that could attack them.  This is loosly the plot of 60 percent of today's road trip and traveling conflict movies.

What impressed me the most with this movie was the movement of the camera.  Something that Ford was not particually know for.  There are some shots that were 30 ahead of their time.  Including one where they must have had to dig a 20 foot hole in the desert dirt in order to have a stagecoach and horses pass over the camera.  There are pans and zooms that perfect highlight the actors in them and that bring us (the audience ) right into the picture. 

I am a fan of the late 90's movie Tombstone. I think Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday was a once in a lifetime character played to perfection.  After seeing Stagecoach I found his inspiration.  John Carradine as Hatifield had to be the inspration for Holiday.  Tombstone directly owes A LOT to Stagecoach.  I'm sure a lot of other films do as well.

I really enjoyed this movie.  It moved at a brisk pace.  The story was engaging, the acting was good for the period, the action was classic Hollywood.  John Ford wasn't a genius, he was a master and this film is evidence of that.  I give Stagecoach a 4/5 stars.  Check out the link below for an early trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBuPI4m4pO8

Movie #43 Shaun of the Dead

I talk about being behind on my blogs and then I go missing for a week.  Sorry.  Life happens.  Death happens too.  And sometimes, as evidence by this review, it is harder to tell the difference between than you might think.  The review is Edgar Wright's 2004 zombie movie Shaun of the Dead.

This is one of my favorite films from that year.  Shaun is in a state of arrested development.  he can't commit to his girlfriend.  He has a no where job.  He is still living with a dead beat roommate.  He hates his step father.  And he spends all his available time a pub called the Winchester.  Sound like anyone you know?  My guess is that if you are between the ages of 28 and 36 it sounds like almost everyone you know.  But Shaun mundane life is about to change.

A wide spread plague and panic is about to overtake his little town as well all of England.  The dead are rising from their graves and devouring human flesh.  At first Shaun seems numb to this. All of his daily activities stay the same, but the surroundings have changed.  Shaun is so self absorbed that he doesn't realize it.  Once he is confronted with the imposing apocalypse he is forced to develop a plan to save his mum, girlfriend, and flatmate.  A slacker turned hero.

The team of Edgar Wright, Simon Peg (Shaun) and Nick Frost (Ed) were paired together for a hilarious BBC program called Spaced.  In Spaced they used every cinematic trick up their sleeves to parody pop culture elements from all mediums.  The same goes for Shaun of the Dead.  They do stick to zombie movie troupes more than anything else, but there are a few TV and video game references thrown in there as well.  The film succeeds because it parodies the zombie movies without spoofing them.  It is clear that there is a deep love and respect for the source material.

Everything about Shaun of the Dead is top notch.  The writing is sharp, witty and funny without being too precious.  The acting is great.  Everyone knew exactly what they were supposed to be doing.  Therefore the directing is great.  The camera is in the right place at the right time.  The edits match the action which is paced very well.  The soundtrack is out of this world accumulating to a zombie attack to Queen's Don't Stop Me Now.

This was Wrights first major film.  He has since done Hot Fuzz and this years Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (review soon to come).  I like zombie movies, but I am not a fanatic.  Mostly because very few of them are as good as this one.  I give Shaun of the Dead a 4.5/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhBGFqldAvk

Movie #42 Young Frankenstein

I am excited about my next two reviews.  They both are in the same genre.  That would be horror/spoof.  This review focus's on Young Frankenstein and the next will be Shaun of the Dead.  I watched both of these movies with my lovely girlfriend last weekend.  She is a fan of Evil Dead, so I thought she might enjoy these films.  I am glad to say that I was proven correct.

Young Frankenstein was made in 1974 and directed by Mel Brooks.  I think this movie might be under seen because the same year the same director released Blazing Saddles.  That films is thought by many to be his best.  I disagree.  I think Young Frankenstein is his crowning achievement.  It is my opinion that YF ages much better the BS.  It is still as fresh and relevant as it was over 35 years ago.

Young Frankenstein subject is a young professor who is lured to his great grandfathers castle in Transylvania (of course) where he studies the experiments his grandfather did in an attempt to reanimate dead tissue.  In other words he becomes the new Dr Frankenstein.  "Fronk-en-steen" as he pronounces it is played to perfection by Gene Wilder.  He is aided by I-gore (Marty Feldman), Inga the lab assisstant (the beautiful Terri Garr) and Cloris Leachman as Frau Blucher (cue a horses whinnie).  Peter Boyle plays the Frankenstein monster.

As most Mel Brooks movies go this is a spoof.  But instead of spoofing a particular film of series of films like most of todays spoof movies do, its polestar is Frankenstein films.  It takes cues from various of the Frankenstein movies and blends them seemlessly into one solid, well told story.  Much like Tarintino does with all his movies.  If you catch the homages then good for you.  If not, you are not hindered in any way.  You can still enjoy the story.

Gene Wilder is AMAZING in this movie!  His comedic timing has never been better.  He is the perfect blend of rationality and insanity.  Terri Garr is a beauty to behold as well as a great performance.  Madeline Kahn has a small role as the young Frankenstein's fiancee and she pretty much steals every frame she is in.  There is a small role for Kenneth Mars as Inspector Kemp that cracks me up every time I see it.

This film is filled with wonderful jokes and the set up's are perfect.  It is in black and white which I know turns some people off, but give it a chance and I bet it will pay off in a big way.  This is a 5/5 stars film for me.  Check out the link below for the trailer. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOPTriLG5cU

Movie #41 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

If you have never read any of my blogs before allow me to restate a common thread through out.  I don't read.  The only books I read are books about movies or movie makers.  On my coffee table right now is a book about the late 90's independent film movement.  On the back of my toilet is a book detailing the interview Francis Truffaut gave Alfred Hitchcock.  I do listen to audio books and podcasts when I drive, but most of them are about films too.  It is should come as no surprise when I say that I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books.  I joke that "if a book is good enough they will make a movie out of it". 

I have seen all the Harry Potter movies.  All the titles get mixed up in my head like a fantasy version of Bond titles.  I was secretly excited about the latest instalment of the HP franchise.  The trailer looked good and all my booky friends told me that the last book in the series was fantastic.  The movie prior to Deathly Hallows was a bit of a let down but mostly because I enjoyed the movie prior to that very much.  Prisoner of Askaban or something like that.

I made this a special night by taking my tween daughters and a friend of each of theirs to the nearest multiplex to see the show.  Before hand we went to a classic American diner for supper.  Once we arrived at the theater we had to wait in line.  Not for tickets (I foresaw this problem) but instead we had to wait for the prior showing to be over and the theater cleaned before we could enter.  Security was very tight.  You had to show your tickets before entering or exiting the theater.  By the time we found our seats, the 5 of us had to sit in 2 different rows because there weren't 5 consecutive open chairs.  We got there 45 minutes before showtime.  it was madness.

I couldn't believe the crowd.  The couple in front of me were so drunk I could smell the booze on their breath from behind them.  There were people there with babies.  Not small or little children, babies.  Not able to hold their heads up aged babies.  Now on to the review.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This movie moved at a snails pace.  I strongly disliked it!  It wasn't poorly made, it just seemed very grandiose and unnecessary.  I know that all the book nerds rip these films to pieces for either not putting something in the movie that is in the book, or trying to use a little creative license and add something new to enhance the film.  That is no excuse for just being flat out boring though.

This was the first of two films based on the final book in the series.  The run time on this film alone is over 150 minutes.  I know everyone says there was too much in the final book to make one film out of it, but I could have easily shaved 45 minutes off this film without losing a beat.

The Lord of the Rings movies were mocked in Kevin Smith's film Clerks 2.  The characters in that film said it was 9 hours of people walking.  That is true, but at least there was motion.  I guarantee this film has at least 30 solid minutes of characters sitting or standing in deep reflective thought.  There is no activity at all.  This movie doesn't have one single memorable battle.  The jokes in DH seem to be geared 100% towards the younger audience so they don't get board watching people brune, and postulate. 

Then the film tries so hard to tie all the past HP's in with it.  The exposition seems to serve no purpose other than to evoke a sense of nostalgia.  Gobblty gook is what DH devolves into.  It reminded me a lot of the video game "Zelda".  Harry needs to get the sword of perseverance in order to unlock the crystal thing-a-ma-jig.  Then and only then will Pinocchio's secret handshake along with the star of Bartholomew open the Arc of the Covenant.  If you enjoy my writing in this paragraph then I say rush out and see this film. 

The acting in the movie is decent.  Especially Emma Watson as Hermione Granger.   There are too many cameos or secondary characters in this film.  Most of whom either don't have any lines or the lines they do have are merely filler.  They just make for another "Best of Harry Potter love fest". 

The music didn't seem to bother me but for the life of me I can't remember any of it.  There was one scene where the legend of the Deathly Hallows is explained.  At this point in the films it switches to animation.  I was intrigued at first as the animated characters danced around the screen as Hermione narrates their activities, then it grew old and harder to clarify what was happening in the cartoon.

Another thing.  I am sick of films that plan to have a sequel not completing their first movie.  A movie should be a movie.  One part of a series of films like this has to stand on it's own.  The comparison of the other movies in the collection is inevitable, but each need to represent a full idea and concept.  They all need structure.  Intro, action, struggle, resolution, conclusion.  HP has the intro that drew me in.  It was a nod or homage to something I think, but I am not sure what that is.  The films totally skips the action.  It attempts to replace action with character.  The problem is the characters need to drive the story then.  Aimless gazing didn't do anything for me. The film is over-soaked with struggle.  More like strangle.  It bogs down with shot after shot of our leads narrowly escaping a mildly menacing villain or villains.   The resolution might very well be in all the nonsense it puts forward.  I forgot my Hogwarts to English dictionary at home so I was lost.  Finally there is no conclusion at all.  The final shot seems to come out of no where and all it does is set up the final movie.  Take Back to the Future 1 or 2.  Both films knew there would be sequels but they told a full and entire story.  That is what this movie is missing.

Good news is I had a great time escorting 4 lovely young ladies around.  Nest time I will take them to go see a better film.  I give Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows a 2/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EC2tmFVNNE

Standing in line for Harry Potter with 4 tween ladies.

Movie #40 A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop

I did a double feature this Monday afternoon.  I watched the previously reviewed Inside Job, then I went to screen #1 at the Keystone Landmark for this 2010 Chinese thriller based on the Coen Brothers first film Blood Simple. 

The film is directed by Yimou Zhang.  If that name is not fimilar it should be.  He is the director behind 2002's Hero, 2004's House of Flying Daggers and 2006's Curse of the Golden Flower.  These films are all in the vain of the first major Chinese movie to make a huge impact on American audiences Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  While I enjoy CTHD the most, all of these movies present a vision through eloquent design and execution behind the camera.  The Chinese acting style however doesn't always translate well.


As I was saying "A Woman..." follows the story of Blood Simple.  Like almost all Coen Bros films it is about a person that comes in contact with a bundle of money and get's a situation they don't have the skill set to get out of.  Only this time the story is set centuries ago in China.  The basic plot is an adulterous womans husband hires a man to kill his wife's suitor.  The hitman then turns on the husband.  The boyfriend is then drug into this triangle of deception, lies and murder. 

Blood Simple is a minimalist surreal noir.  "A Woman" doesn't really connect with it's more surreal moments.  The biggest issue I had with the film came from trying to make the connections between the two movies.  I feel like "A Woman" rushed scenes that it should have stayed with longer and lingered on scenes that didn't really add anything to the film. 

Like all recent Chinese films the costumes were magnificent.  The colors were brilliant yellows, greens and blues.  All this set dressing only made the backdrop even more desolate.  In Blood Simple it is the Texas deserts and small towns.  In this film it is calico stripped mountains and hills of China.  When the movie was over I was glad I had seen it, but I am in no hurry to rush out and catch it again like I was with CTHD.  I give this movie a 2.5/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMGBQDpfLnc

Movie #39 Inside Job

Back to back documentary reviews.  Inside Job is a new doc by director Charles Ferguson.  Its focus is the 2008 financial collapse of Wall Street.  It is a probing looking into the people, politics and institutions that not only foresaw and allowed this economic meltdown, they caused it.

I credit the film for not dumbing down its content or the issue or even the explanations.  The economic crisis can not be explained with simple metaphors.  The "it's like a fish bowl filled with bologna" type of reasoning or simplifications don't fit this problem.  I won't hesitate to say that a good deal of this film was over my head.  The downside of that is I did loose interest a little.  It was like sitting in a meeting listening to Japanese for two hours.  There I go with the witless metaphors. 

What struck me the hardest about the doc was that when you do boil things down there are about 50 people that can be directly held responsible for this catastrophe.  The CEO's and Board of Directors for the top 4-7 finical institutions all knew what was going on and continued to rake in BILLIONS of dollars personally until the bottom fell out.  Then what really struck me was that none of them have been held accountable.  Not only have they gotten off scott free, they were given millions of dollars in bonuses for they left the company.

I have a saying.  "The answer to your question, and every other question, is money".  When you boil things down every question or action made by mankind is a direct result of the longing for money or sex.  And as we all know (and the movie points this out as well) if you have enough money, you can get the sex.  I couldn't believe the balls on the men involved in this problem.  The director would nail them to the wall with facts and data.  He had all his sources (many of which are public record) in line and he would have these men over a barrel.  Then they would just basically tell him to F-off!  It is a "what are you going to do about it" type of mentality.  It was disgusting display of greed, power, and arrogance.



I give the movie props for staying completely A-political.  It rips every administration from Regan to Obama.  It claims that all of these teams have either knowingly participated in deregulating Wall Street to fatten their own pockets, or at least been stymied by the machine of collective campaign contributions by the lobbyists.     The movie is narrated by Matt Damon for extra credibility I guess?  Over all I enjoyed the film even though occasionally I felt like a freshman in a senior economics course.  I would give the film a 3/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2DRm5ES-uA

Movie #39 Burden of Dreams

It's Doc time.  Yet another documentary in my quest for 365 films a year.  This time it is a film that is directed by Les Blank.  The director of the film isn't as important as the director in the film.  Burden of Dreams is a doc that follows and chronicles of German director Werner Herzog's production of his film Fitzcarraldo.

Fitzacarraldo is a movie about a down and out rubber baron in the amazon jungle.  He dreams of bringing an opera house to his remote village.  In his attempts to fund this insane project he is trying to deliver rubber on the river at a cheap rate.  He has an idea to use the natives to help pull a three story massive steam boat over a mountain in order to shortcut the trade route.  The plan is to up root the boat from one branch of the river into another without going around.  As if pulling a boat of that size over a mountain isn't enough of a challenge, the boat will be dropped off at the preface of the most dangerous rapids the Amazon has to offer. 

Burden of Dream follows the brilliant / mad Herzog as his production is threatened by feuding governments, rival tribes, torrential down pours, cast and crew rebellions, and so forth.  It has been said that Herzog makes things unnecessarily difficult for his teams of  film makers.  He believes that the struggles will lead to a better picture.  This is the man that just last year shot a doc in Antarctica and has worked with Klaus Kinski on numerous times, including the title character of the films Fitzacarraldo.

Did I mention that there was no computer effects used in post?  Did I mention that they actually hired Amazonian natives to pull the freaking boat over the freaking mountain?  Well, that is all true.  Everything that could have gone wrong with the production pretty much did.  Diseases, budget problems, food/energy/facility shortages you name it.  But it all worked out and made a fantastic film.  I guess you could say it made for two fantastic films.

Burden of Dreams is a fantastically shot film considering the conditions.  The camera was right where it needed to be when it needed to be there.  Even if sometimes it wasn't in the perfect location.  Les Blank knows his subjects and he lets them tell the story.  His voice over is nice and not a distraction at all.  Over all I give Burden of Dreams a 3.5/5 stars.  I will say that you should watch Fitzacarraldo first.  You will have a better appreciation of the doc.  I would give Fitzcarraldo a 4.5/5.  Check out the link below for the trailer.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMqjAnMn_RY

Movie #38 Saw

I am WAY behind on my reviews so I will  have to be brief with them in order to get things caught back up.  Fortunately for me the first picture on my list is Saw.  I am not a huge horror aficionado, but some people who's opinion I trust (or used to) on films recommended this to me.  They said it subverted the genre.  They told me that is had both style as well as substance.  They informed me that there was a morale message to the film.  They praised it for its production values.  They clamored on about the devices of torture and the twist at the end.

I did not see hardly any of this.  I saw a mildly clever setup, terrible (and I mean terrible) acting, hokey scenes of violence and pain and a total lack of morality.  There was no "message" to this film.  The twist at the end did surprise me, but by that time I didn't really care.  I had no reason to root for or become invested in any of these characters.  I did really care what happened to them. 

At best there is a subversion to the genre here.  This is the first American film that I know of to be classified as "Torture Porn".  Essentially films that display torture mearly for the sake of torture.  It is shock cinema.  These types of films have been in the grindhouses and underground for decades.  Movies like Saw and Hostel simply put scenes of mutilation and degradation in the multi-plex. There is no horror here.  There is no slasher, or physiological thrills.  No haunting music or disturbing soundscapes.  Hell, there really isn't even any scares.  A few things jump out at you, but there was nothing frightening about the film.  I watched it on my phone while lying in bed.  I turned it off when it was over and fell right asleep.  I couldn't have done that after The Shining, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 

I could care less about a film or film makers morale's.  I just want to be entertained or manipulated into feeling something.  The only thing I felt during and after Saw was cheated.  I am glad there are people that enjoy watching these movies, and now they have easier access to them.  But you won't see me in line to go see Saw 14.  I give this movie a 1.5/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer....if you dare, ohhhhhhh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFQebvkii90

This Weekend

I had a pretty busy weekend.  I watched Young Frankenstein and Shawn of the Dead with my lady.  Then today I watched a new doc called "Inside Job" about the finical collapse, and I watched a Chinese movie called "A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop".  It is a retelling of the first Coen Brother movie "Blood Simple".  Reviewed on this very blog about a month ago.

I will try to get around to reviewing them this week as well as "Saw" which I just finished last week.  I have started the 1934, John Ford film Stagecoach staring a young John Wayne.  I have also started David Fincher's Panic Room with Jodie Foster.

This weekend I spent over 10 hours on the highway.  Most of the time I was listening to Peter Biskind's book "Easy Riders and Raging Bulls".  It is all about the ushering in of the New Hollywood in the late 60's and follows it through the early to mid 80's.  I listened to it on audio book. It was awesome.  I like another one of his books as well.  It's title is "Pictures at a Revolution".  It is similar however it mainly focuses on the 5 Best Picture nominees for an Oscar in 1968.  Among them are Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, In the Heat of the Night, Look Who's Coming to Diner and Dr. Doolittle.  Both are great reads (or listens).

Movie #37 The Friends of Eddie Coyle

After watching "The Town" a few weeks ago I kept reading about a movie that it apparently drew pretty heavily from.  The Friends of Eddie Coyle. So I saw it and man, I would say so.  The Town owes about 40% of it's scenes and shots and even it's location to Eddie Coyle.

The friends of Eddie Coyle stars one of my new favorite actors Robert Mitchum as well as Peter Boyle, Steven Keats, Richard Jordan and Alex Rocco.  Dynamite cast!  The story is about a nice guy thief "Eddie Coyle" played with a cool understated sense of urgency by Robert Mitchum.  Colye is looking at doing a few years in the joint for some minor truck heist he was a part of.  In order to avoid doing that time he is ratting out every two bit thug and thief he knows.  In addition to that he is working with a crew that is holding up banks all across Boston.

This film is held together by Mitchum's performance, but the supporting cast is like the sprinkles on the cake.  Keats and Jordan were both excellent in their roles.  This films was made made in 1973 and it looks like it.  Of course you have the vehicles from that time period, the wah-wah guitar soundtrack and the wardrobe is dated to say the least.  At times it reminded me a little of Dirty Harry and The French Connection.  High praise in both cases.  The direction in the film is slick without drawing attention to its self.  A perfect example of that 70"s action character study.  There is a fantastic scene shot during a Boston Bruins hockey game.  Another scene stolen by Affleck except he uses Finway Park and the Sox instead of Bobby Orr and the Bruins.

I don't have a lot more to say about this film.  It is shot and directed very professionally, the writing is solid, the performances are wonderful.  If I was to nit pick something, it was a little disjointed.  I didn't always understand the bank robbery scenes and how they tied into the overall plot.  This movie also makes its protaginist a snitch.  That is a person that can be a little hard to pull for.  Especially when his motives are unclear of weak.  In Eddie Coyle's case I would say both apply, but Mitchum is so charismatic he can make me overlook those minor flaws.

I would give this film a 4/5 stars and make this a must see.  If for nothing else it is a great example of a heist movie that has been borrowed from for 30 plus years now.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WtR-mi6VtU

Movie #36 Buried

I love a films that can make me have a visceral reaction to them.  I enjoy the manipulation of being made to feel sad or angry or sick to my stomach.  But this weekend I had an experience like I have never had before.  The movie staring Ryan Reynolds (and only Ryan Reynolds) made me squirm from the feeling of claustrophobia.  That is a feeling I have never had before.  Generally I kind of enjoy being alone.  Tight spaces have never really bothered me before.  But this film had me stretching in every direction, attempting to gain some sense of peace and comfort.

The film is a cinematic experiment.  It is the ultimate in single location filming.  It takes place entirely within a coffin that has been buried.  Ryan Reynolds character is a US truck driver in Iraq.  His convoy is ambushed and he wakes up in his own grave.  After freaking out for about 10 minutes straight he finds a few things his imprisoners have left him.  He has a cell phone, a couple of glow sticks, a lighter, a pencil, a small pocket knife and a flashlight that is on the fritz. 

Director Rodrigo Cortes does an excellent job in using every trick in his cinematic bag to keep the visuals fresh and exciting.  Never once do we get out of the coffin.  The farthest we get from our protagonist is once he gives up hope and begins to make peace the camera pulls back making the coffin look 10 feet deep.  Kind of an homage to Trainspotting when Renton OD's on heroin and falls deeply into the red carpet.  The only other reprive from the grave is when Reynolds has a brief halouncination of being rescued.  The coffin lid begins to open and white light pours in.  The light floods out any other visuals and then we are quickly snapped out of it back into the grim reality.

The story is a little thin and you have to overlook a few continuity errors (the coffin depth ranges from inches above his nose to him being able to turn over on his side).  You are also required to take a leap of faith in that he can get cell phone service underground and that he isn't burning up all of his oxygen wiht his Zippo.  But these are nit picky critisims.  This film won me over big time.  It is bold and fearless.  Like many horror films you are comforted by a knowledge that someone has to survive the ordeal.  With Reynolds being the only character in the film, you fear for his life but with that spark in the back of your mind that surely they won't kill him off.

Buried was a Sundance favorite, but hasn't tested well with other audiences.  I was fortunate to be the only one at my screening.  That atmosphere really added to the loneliness and abandon feelings Reynolds character was going through. 

This film has a few weak political threads thrown in towards the end.  It is as much a movie about bureaucracy and the absurdity of governments and business and the relationship between them.  This is like Brazil for the post 911 crowd.

I loved this movie.  I will give it a 4.5/5 stars.  Check out the link below to view the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVMUwoNZs2Y

Movie #35 The Rocky Horror Picture Show

This past Saturday night I got to mark another thing off my bucket list.  I attended a midnight showing of the cult classic The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  For some bonus points I went on the night before Halloween.  In attendance was my girlfriend, an good friend, his girlfriend, and about 200 other freaks. 

We waited in line for about an hour in the freezing cold.  The line wrapped around an old dilapidated theater that looks like it should have been condemned years ago.  The line was populated with people dressed as characters from the film and if you have ever seen the movie you can imagine what a sight that was.

If you haven't seen the movie allow me to attempt to summarize it.  Two virginal newlyweds get stranded roadside and make their way to a castle in the woods in an attempt to get help.  To their surprise the master of the house is a flaming transvestite mad scientist in drag creating male lovers to fulfill his sexual desires.  There seems to be a party going on consisting of bizarre onlookers and perverts.  The party is seemingly to celebrate his (Dr. Frank N Furter) newest creation "Rocky", a muscle bound Aryen dream that is replacing his past creation "Eddie" played as a cryogenicly frozen rock star by Meatloaf.  Did I mention that the house is a space ship and that the inhabitants are aliens?  Did I mention that it is a musical?  Sound like a cult classic huh?

Needless to say the movie sucks.  Tim Curry is brilliant as the good Dr. and the music is cheesy and insane but definitely catchy.  The most recognizable of the songs is "Let's do the Time Warp Again".  What really makes showings of Rocky Horror famous is an entire second script that is yelled out by the viewers.  Along with shouting at the screen those in attendance are encouraged to use props to enhance the experience.  Things like rice, toilet paper, flashlights, news paper, noise makers, and toast are all part of the fun.  It is different than the Lebowskifest in a big way though.  While watching The Big Lebowski with a group of "Achievers", it is common place to shout out lines from the movie.  In RHPS participants shout out and entirely different script.  Also Lebowski is a lighter, laid back atmoshpere.  Rocky Horror is a sex filled seemingly angry crowd.  Many of the things shouted during RHPS are insulting to the characters.

This was my second venture to a RHPS viewing.  I have to say that the first time was better.  It was in a much nicer theater.  Most of the people there didn't know all the alternate lines so when they shouted the lines out it was more clear.  At this viewing everyone was yelling different things at different times.  It was very difficult to understand the dialogue.  The building was filled with a loud white noise.

The cool thing about this viewing was that there was a local acting troupe actually performing the film below the screen.  I was in the back of the room and couldn't see or hear if they were reciting lines or not, but they had the pantomime down pat.  It was very cool to watch.

Ranking this movie is somewhat irrelevant.  People don't go to Rocky Horror to see a great movie.  They go for the experience.  The movie is a 2/5 stars.  This experience is one that I will remember for years to come.  Check out the link below for a trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHNFkqPFBko

Marwencol | OFFICIAL trailer US (2010) ComicCon SXSW Silverdocs IFF Boston

This looks awesome! Great year for docs.

Movie #34 The Parking Lot Movie

I feel like and absentee landlord.  I checked and I haven't blogged in 10 days.  Not too good for a blog that started out with the concept of watching and blogging about a movie every day for a year.  Rest assured though that I have been watching films during this time.  I just haven't committed myself to blog about them.  I will try to catch up over the next few days.

I started out watching a movie I DVR'ed on PBS.  It's called The Parking Lot Movie.  It is a low budget documentary about a small pay-to-park parking lot in Charlottesville, VA.  The lot if controlled and surveyed by a rotating group of grad students, philosophy majors, snarky artists and twenty something slackers.  Many of whom move on from the parking lot to prestigious jobs in equally prestigious fields or occupations. 

Meghan Eckman is the director of the film.  She attempts to add some gravitas to a rather banal story by adding chapter titles and slow motion shots.  It makes the film come off a little self important and only makes the film look that much more amateurish.  It's visual style reminded me a little of the Canadian sketch comedy TV show "The Kids in the Hall".

This film is an interesting one for me.  It made me think about other documentaries I have seen this year.  It made me wonder what makes a good doc, or what makes a doc good?  The lines or rules that used to goveren documentaries are being blurred more now than ever.  Franqois Truffaut said that mock-umentaries were the last oridginal genre of film to be created.  Documentaries now have built in naritives.  Documentaries make you question your surrounding.  Documentaries make you question their authencity.  Movies like "I'm Not Here" and "Exit from the Gift Shop" are really pushing the boundries of what is a documentary.

The Parking Lot movie doesn't really push any buttons like the doc's mentioned above. It thrives on the characters that inhabit the colelction booth.  As a whole it is a soild character study.  I only wish the director had simpily allowed the camera to roll and not try to "pretty up" the films with visual flairs that did nothing for the story.  This film is only about 80 minutes long.  It fills the time without overstaying it's welcome.  I give the film 3/5 stars.  Check out the link below for the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSvZXidLJ3U