Movie #193 Taste of Cherry *1997*

Homayoun Ershadi - Mr. Badii
Abbas Kiarostami (Director)

This is my 2nd Kiarostami film that I have watched during this project.  The first being Ten (Movie #133).  This is also the 2nd film of his that is shot predominantly within the confines of a car.  This is my 2nd film of his that has long scenes of dull, pointless dialogue.  I will say that at least Ten have some conflict.  The boy that played the lead actresses son was an absolute brat.  He alone generated more dramatic tension than the entire film Taste of Cherry has.

This movie opens on Badii driving around the streets of Terheran looking at laborers.  He eventually (and by eventually I mean after 15 minutes of aimlessly driving around) convinces a young soldier to get in the car by offering him a ride.  As the conversation between the men begins Badii offers to pay the soldier to do a job.  At this point the homosexual undertones are brought to the forefront.  Badii really sounded like a pervert.  he did everything but ask this scared young man if he was clean.  By this heavy handed, forced conversation I though I was in for a lesson on the taboo of being gay in a Islamic, Middle Eastern country.  Instead what we find out is that Badii plans to kill himself on that night and he is looking for someone to cover his grave in dirt.  Freaked out the soldier bolts off into the mountains of Iran.

Taste of Cherry is a film that I think is more fun to discuss than it is to watch.  It is an award wining film, but in my opinion it committed the biggest possible cinematic sin.  It was boring.  I will set through a poorly made or "bad" movie if I can be kept interested.  I find it difficult and unnecessary to watch a film that is boring regardless of the production value.

Badii's next victim/co-pilot is a Muslim priest in training.  He again drives around for what felt like hours having a meaningless conversation and avoiding the point of the ride all together.  This is what I call an "Idiot Plot".  This is where the solution to a problem in the script can be solved by the characters just speaking about what is going on or what is needed.  Instead the story needs them to be aloof and vague in order to movie the plot along.  The TV show Heroes was famous for this.  Badii rambles as he drives along all the while the priest is trying to help him so that he doesn't kill himself.  But Kiarostami decides not to have Badii go into what is weighing so heavily on him and instead he becomes mute like.  He stops talking all together like an angry child. 

Despite my negative review there are a few things worth seeing in the film.  First off the scenery is beautiful at first.  The orange/brown color pallet is visually stimulating for a while, but after an hour or so I wanted something more.  There is a scene at a construction site where we can see Badii's shadow and there is a dirt mover pouring dirt on his shadow.  This was a cool effect.

In a very strange edit we jump cut to a Turk in the car with Badii and they have apparently had the typical conversation and the Turk agrees to cover the grave in the morning.  Prior to the conversation confirming the burial, we have never met the Turk.  The Turk then goes on to blather for days (or so it felt by now) without really saying anything profound.  He tries to make an allegory about mulberries saving his life, but it falls on deaf ears.  Both Badii's and mine. Once the agreement is made Badii drops the Turk off and begins to have 2nd thoughts.  I was praying for a meaningful existential conversation, but all we are given is nervous small talk.  I think a person could watch this film in slow motion and not really miss anything.  Come to think of it, It would still be boring. 

Once we make it towards the end of the film (again with the driving?) Badii has taken a handful of sleeping pills and he lays down in his will-be grave.  There is a thunderstorm rolling in and the lightening on his face is stunning as it illuminates an otherwise black screen.  Then we fade up on very cheap looking digital video camera footage.  What had been a brownish orange desert landscape is now lush with greenery.  We are then "treated" to about 5 minutes of behind the scenes footage of Kiarostami and his cast and crew working.

I like a film that challenges me, but not one that seems odd for the sake of being odd.  I really have no idea what was trying to be said with that ending.  If the director was trying to remind his audience that they are watching a movie, then this is the biggest cinematic masturbation I have ever seen.  If is something else then I needed a little more insight.

I wouldn't say that Taste of Cherry is a "bad movie".  It is very well made.  Its structure is unique and its premise is simple and eloquent.  But somewhere along the way the train went off the rails and we ended up with a train wreak of a movie.  I give Taste of Cherry ★★.

Movie #192 Bloody Sunday *2002*

James Nesbitt - Ivan Cooper
Kathy Kiera Clarke - Frances
Paul Greengrass (Director)

Bloody Sunday is about the events that took place on January 30, 1972 in Northern Ireland.  A day where the Catholic majority marched down their streets in a display of sovereignty in regards to civil rights.   A peaceful marched turned ugly when protesters within the march began throwing rocks at the British Army who had outlawed marches and parades.  The British Army retaliated by firing on the protesters and killing 17.  9 of whom were just teenagers.

I knew very little of Bloody Sunday before watching it.  I knew the U2 song and I knew that the IRA was involved in some way, but that was about it.  This film does an excellent job of maintaining a neutral position.  This isn't an Irish movie, nor is it a Catholic or Protestant movie.  It is an exciting, reflective, challenging movie.  Challenging in that it was shot entirely with hand held cameras that put you right in the middle of the march or the military meetings and even the gun fire. 

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched either of the last 2 Borne movies.  Both of those were made by Greengrass.  Both of those movies placed the action right up front and all around you.

One thing that I didn't like about Black Sunday is an editing technique that was used.  In order to get from one point to another the director used a quick fade to black, a small pause, then a fade up.  I thought at first this was a post modern Nouvelle Vague method.  Later I learned that sometimes they would shoot a single take for up to 30 minutes from several different cameras.  My guess is that this technique was born out of necessity.  I found it interesting at first, but it soon began to bother me and take me out of a story that all the other film making was drawing me into. 

I said that the film makers did a great of riding the fence and not taking political or religious sides.  That is until the gun fire takes place.  Perhaps the director tried to stay neutral, but it is hard to do when a military presence has opened fire on unarmed, largely peaceful people marching.  One thing that I think the movie gets right, but I might have drawn more attention to is the rock/brick throwing.  I found it to me more dangerous and threatening than the movie lets on.

The lead performance is fantastic by James Nesbitt.  He really seemed to capture the spirit of Ireland's MLK.  I also wanted to point out a supporting character.  Kathy Kiera Clarke played Frances, she seemed to be Cooper's love interest.  She is only in a couple of scenes, but I thought she had great screen presence.

It blows my mind that in such a civilized country like Ireland that there were people marching and being killed for the right to vote and speak their mind within my lifetime.  Bloody Sunday is a wonderful document of these events made all the more meaningful by the fact that it was made by a British film maker.  I give Bloody Sunday ★★★★.

Movie #191 Drop Dead Gorgeous *1999*

Kirsten Dunst
Ellen Barkin
Kirstie Alley
Allison Janney
Denise Richards
Brittney Murphy
Amy Adams
Michael Patrick Jann (Director)

Drop Dead Gorgeous is a mockumentary about a beauty pageant in Minnesota.  This pageant is being ran by one of the contestants mothers played by Kirstie Alley.  The mother had won this pageant years ago and she is going to make sure that her daughter wins now.  Even if it means hurting or even killing off the other contestants.

A good friend of mine turned me on to this film about 8 years ago on DVD.  I rented it and laughed my ass off.  First off there is the fun natured jabbing at the Minnesota natives and their Lutheran ways.  I had the pleasure this weekend of watching this movie with a good friend and his family.  All Minnesota transplants with a strong Lutheran up bringing.  They thought it was hilarious as well. 

Then the jokes move towards the darker side as Alley's daughters (played with restraint by Denise Richards) biggest competitors start getting bumped off.  The one girl who manages to avoid all these deathly pitfalls is played by a young Kirsten Dunst.

She is a trailer raised girl with aspirations of following in Diane Sawyers shoes.  As we get to know Dunst's character we meet her mother and intrusive neighbor, played respectively by Barking and Janney.  The trailer trash jokes then begin to layer in with the black comedy.  At this point we begin to meet the other contestants, judges, and other towns folk.  It is a rich mixture of high and low brow comedy.

As the story progresses we are treated to the comedic laced pageantry.  I thought every word and music cue was right on the nose.  For a mockumentary, the film makers must have had a good deal of inside information and been to a few too many pageants to get the details down like this.  This film is Spinal Tap for teen beauty contestants. 

Comedy is the most subjective genre of film.  I loved the movie, it's format, it's performances and it's heart.  It also has a very strange ending with a great (all be it an un-needed) coda.  With this much talent attached to a project you are bound to be able to latch on to something.  I give Drop Dead Gorgeous ★★★1/2.

Movie #190 Hearts of Darkness *1991*

It wasn't until right now that I realized this movie was released in 1991.  I would have bet it was an early 80's documentary.  Hearts of Darkness is a documentary about the making of Francis Ford Coppla's 1979 Vietnam movie Apocalypse Now.

Before I get into Hearts of Darkness allow me to comment on Apocalypse Now.  This is my second favorite Vietnam film behind Platoon.  It is a trippy telling of a soldiers mission to travel up river to disarm and bring back a Captain who has gone rouge and by all reports totally insane.  The movie is epic in both scope and pretension.

Hearts of Darkness is a solid doc shot and directed by Coppla's wife.  It explores the tremendous amounts of obstacles that had to be overcome in order just to get the film in the can.

The movie was shot in the Philippines with permission and assistance from the Filipino government.  That is to say when they weren't busy fighting insurgents from the south.  Then three weeks into principal photography Coppla decided that his leading man, Harvey Keitel wasn't working out and the film had to be postponed while a replacement was found.  This would be a common event in the making of the movie.  Martin Sheen was finally selected and filming resumed.  Just in time for a monsoon that ravaged the landscape destroying much of the country and most of the elaborate sets that were constructed.

Where in most films there is a studio backing up a film (at least financially), Coppla was spending his own money in an attempt to be independent from the studios.  A  philosophy he abides to even today.  He had millions of dollars invested, so his neck was really on the line.  

Then there was the problems with the script.  Coppla didn't like the ending of the original script written by John Milius.  He figured he would absorb the jungle and become inspired to write the ending while on location.  But he couldn't get it and all that did was delay things even more.  Then came Brando.  Playing the insane Kurtz he was as stubborn if not more stubborn than ever.  He was notorious for being a pain in the neck.  All the way to the point that Coppla had to threaten to walk away from The Godfather because the studio was so again casting Marlon in the title role.

This movie was shot in the late 70's about a war that was fought in the late 60's.  Almost needless to say drugs were rampant.  Both in the script and in the blood stream of many of the actors and crew of the film.  acid, pot, speed, uppers, downers, booze you name it.  All these of course played a part in the direction of the movie.

Hearts of Darkness did a good job of taking you to the jungle and understanding everything that was riding on the production.  For my money I prefer the documentary "Burden of Dreams" (Movie #39).  There are similarities abound between these two films.  This would make a great double feature.  Maybe even better than either doc and the movie they are documenting.


I give Hearts of Darkness ★★★.

Movie #189 Skyline *2010*

This movie doesn't deserve a full review.  That is bad B-movie schlock from hat to cattle.  This movie was made by a pair of brothers who have 62 credits on IMDB as visual artists, and it shows.  The movie does have excellent effects, but they are used so poorly.  An interesting comment in the movie comes early when Donald Faison (playing an self obsessed actor) mentions to Neil Hopkins (playing his squarmy agent) "How are the effects?" to which the response is "They look like shit, but the director loves them!".

The movie is an alien invasion flick.  It is one part Independence Day, one part Cloverfield, one part Skin-emax softcore porn.  The pencil headed Eric Balfour plays an artist or something, it is never clearly explained.  His recently pregnant girlfriend is played by Scottie Thompson.  Brittany Daniel (who can act, she plays the tranny on Always Sunny) is Faison's bitchy girlfriend.  Faison's personal assistant and part time human pin cushion is Crystal Reed.  Have you heard of any of these people?  There is probably a good reason for that.

The final cast member I would like to mention is David Zayas.  Holly crap is he terrible!  He delivers every line like it is the last thing he will ever say.  I can't recall a better example of over acting.  I would love to go on for days talking about how terrible this guy is, but I have a decent movie to review.

Don't get me wrong.  It's not like these actors had ANYTHING to work with.  This is what happens when you let visual artists make a movie.  Everything is only set in place to show off the cool blue lights that fall onto the LA landscape.  In the equally terrible mockumentary "I'm Still Here" with Q. Pheonix, Diddy points out that he hates it when actors think they can make a good album just because they have a cheap recording studio in their basement.  That is what happened here.

Anyway, avoid this movie.  It isn't even so good it's bad good.  I give Skyline ★1/2.

Movie #188 Sympathy for Mr Vengeance *2002*

Chan -wook Park (Director)

What's in a name?  With a title like Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, and knowing that the film is directed by the same Koren director that gave us the wonderful Oldboy, I expected a sick, twisted tale of...well...vengeance.  What I got was a meditative melodrama with small bursts of gore and exploitation.

Sympathy is the first film in Park's "Vengeance Trilogy".  It is the story of a mute boy that attempts to sell his kidney on the black market in attempt to save his sister how has diabetes and needs a kidney replacement.  When that backfires they are forced to abduct the daughter of a former boss.  This also doesn't go as planed and leads to unfortunate circumstances for everyone involved. 

Let me start by talking about what I liked.  The visuals were impressive, but they did seem a little self important or at least a little too"showy".  There were no bad performances, but that is really difficult to judge with such bizarre subject matter and narrative structure.  I suppose I respect the films ambition, even if in my opinion it's execution didn't match.  Unfortunately that is about all the positive things I can say about the movie.

If you haven't noticed I don't watch a ton of abstract, surreal films.  I have trouble connecting with surrealism.  Metaphor I am all over.  Surrealism rarely impresses me.  To me, with surrealism, it is all about execution.   I love the films of David Lynch and you don't get much more surreal than him.  But in his movies he provides enough reality to ground his films then subverts that with his surreal visions.  Even in a movie like Eraserhead, which is totally non-narrative, his execution of whatever story he is trying to tell is so profound that I find myself drawn in.

With Mr Vengeance that allure isn't there.  As the movies opens I thought I was going to be told a story along the lines of last years Mother.  Another Korean film, this one from Joon-ho Bong.  That was an atmospheric tale of mystery and intrigue.  Mr Vengeance's story is so convoluted and sideways that it took me completely out of any momentum that is was building. 

First off, there is no reason for the protagonist to be mute.  It neither hindered nor helped his situation.  A mute character is a wonderful idea that you could apply all sorts of visual and audible techniques to represent his perspective and struggles (Look at The Diving Bell and the Butterfly).  Then there is the story.  Mad props for attempting to tell such a lush and expansive story.  And props for trying to do it in such a creative way.  But the cross cutting and tweaking of the chronology got me totally lost.  I don't want to sound racist here in any way, but the woman playing the mute's sister and the woman playing his girlfriend looked very similar to me and I had trouble distinguishing them a part.  This is only made more difficult when one might be coming back from the dead and interacting with him.


When the violence does take place it is vicious and visceral.  But I didn't feel like the movie had earned it yet.  It wasn't building up to it.  The killing and maiming seemed like it was just there for the shock value.  It's like here is this sweet, quiet Merchant-Ivory production and then BAM, someone starts slicing their own abdomen with a straight razor.  The violence did nothing to advance the story. 

This was a real disappointment for me.  The second film in the trilogy is Oldboy.  A great example of beautiful pictures of terrible horrors all generated from a sick, perverted story.  What makes the story of Oldboy so haunting is that if you allow for a little excess, you can totally see yourself being put into the protagonists place and once you had been pushed off the edge of madness, maybe even acting like him.

I still plan to see the 3rd film, Lady Vengeance.  Let's hope Park leans more towards his 2nd  film than his first.  I give Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance ★★.

Movie #187 The Lady Vanishes *1938*

Margaret Lockwood
Michael Redgrave
Alfred Hitchcock (Director)

Here goes that familiar feeling again.  My resistance to watching a film made before 1950.  Even a film that I know is critically adored and even though I have watched 8 during this project and I have ranked them all 4 stars or higher.  There is something in my brain that attempts to prevent my from putting in the DVD's or pushing the "PLAY" button on my Netfilx Streaming. 

The film that brings this up again is Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes.  It is the story about a young woman who is helped out on a train by a sweet old lady.  But upon awaking she finds that the woman has not only disappeared, but that no one on the train will admit to having ever seen here.  See begins to think something sinister is happening.  The plot goes as far as to replace the elderly woman with a different woman altogether and the characters on the train act like nothing has changed.  The young woman is helped out on her quest to reveal the truth by a rude, snobbish man she met the night prior at their hotel.

What can I say I was blown away.  I never thought that story telling in the 30's could have been this rich and well constructed.  I complain on this blog all the time about how you can do whatever you want to do on screen if it is in service to the story. 

Hitchcock is called "the master of suspense".  This movies only further proves that, but he goes further.  He is the master of cinematic storytelling.  He really knows the scripts and how he want to convey those words into pictures in a manor that will captivate, intrigue, scare, intimidate, provoke, revolt, seduce and mesmerize.  I get a feeling every time I watch one of his films that I am in good hands.  That I am going to be told a story that might frighten the hell out of me, but that the director is going to be there to hold my hand through it.

This movie open on what is clearly a model.  This was my worst nightmare come true.  I was afraid that the production value was going to be so low that I would not be able to overlook the obvious sets.  Once we got to an interior my phobia's were washed away.  We spend the first act in an overbooked hotel due to an avalanche where most of the major characters are introduced and their back stories are explained in a very natural, organic way.  There is also some great humor in this first act.  humor that I found to be extremely racy for its time.  The second act takes place on the train where the mystery begins and get explored.  The set up and all the back story now comes into play and I was memorized.  The third act comes with a major revelation that was out of the blue, but even tied in more of the elements from the first two acts.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about the use of the camera.  Hitchcock never "got luck" once in his movies.  He puts his camera exactly where he wants it and he uses every frame of every shot to carve some kind of emotion from you.  Again, I was blown away by how effective the framing and shot selection was.  He captures expressions in close up that will still today frighten the crap out of you.  Just an expression, highlighted with just the right light from just the right angle.  No special effects, no CGI, no lavish makeup.  Just a look.

Hitch's films remind me of watching someone sleepwalking.  There isn't any prevalent sense of danger in watching someone sleepwalk,  but there is an uneasy feeling knowing that this person isn't truly in control of their own body.  They are sort of like a zombie.  There is a ghostly aura around a sleepwalking person.  Hitch's films capture that felling.  It is an uneasy feeling that the more you try to keep it from effecting you the more you are sucked in.  It's like quicksand.

I loved this movie.  I give The Lady Vanishes ★★★1/2.

Movie #186 The Law *1959*

Here is a quick 3 Reasons to check out The Law:

Reason 1.  Gina Lollobrigida is as attractive as Sophia Loren and a better actress to boot.

Reason 2.  The drinking game "The Law" played by the natives of this small Italian village.  See if you understand the rules.

Reason 3.  This movie treat objects like women, man.  

I enjoyed this movie from Jules Dassin.  I give The Law ★★★1/2.

Movie #185 The Thing *1982*

I recently bought a book called "1001 Movies to See Before You Die".  I expected to see Fellini and Kubrick on there.  I expected to see silent greats as well as a few contemporary movies that could generate some debate.   I expected to see Citizen Kane and Seven Samurai.  What I didn't expect to see was The Thing.

John Carpenter's The Thing is the story of a team of researchers living in Antarctica.  Their camp is visited by a strange dog from a neighboring team of scientists.  Upon the arrival of this dog strange things start to unfold that leads to tense emotional Mexican Standoffs.

I liked the way this film built tension between the characters.  They were forced to question each other in order to survive.  Not exactly a revolutionary idea, but is was executed in a fresh way that kept my interested.

What didn't keep me interested was the effects.  It is sort of unfair to judge special effects of movies made nearly 30 years ago.  Maybe at the time these looked convincing or "real", but I found them to be stagey and sort of hokey.  The movie didn't seem to be making any commentary on the nature of state of the horror film, so I figured that the effects guy was lacking in skill or budget.

Kurt Russell.  What more do you need to say?  His character in this film is like a hairier version of Snake Pliskin from Escape From New York.  He is a total loner / bad mutha.

Outside of Kurt (and even including Kurt in some scenes) the rest of the cast is pretty stereotypical.  Haggard old doctor, stoner, angry black man, nerd, ect.  But then again, the script didn't give these actor much to work with.  I thought it was very formulaic.  You could have made this film by color in the numbers.

Overall I thought this was a mildly entertaining film with nothing to chew on.  I enjoyed it while I watched it and forgot about it before I went to bed.  I will have to read why this is in my book.  Great, now I am one movie closer to dying and I only enjoyed it about ★★★. 

Movie #184 Network *1976*

Faye Dunaway
William Holden
Peter Finch
Robert Duvall
Ned Beatty
Sidney Lumet (Director)

With the recent passing of Mr. Lumet I decided to re-watch some of his classic films.  I decided to start with Network.  I had seen this years ago and remembered the same scenes that most casual viewers would.  Mainly the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" scene.  But this movie is so much more than that performance.  I was truly surprised that a movie that I remember being so of it's time was still incredibility relevant today with a few minor modifications.

THROW YOUR TV'S OUT THE WINDOW!  I love the basic theme of this movie.  On the surface level it is a film about the decline of integrity of television news, and TV programing in general (reality television anyone?).  At it's core is a theme as old as storytelling its self.  The inevitable struggle between the blind, instinctive nature of youth vs. the experienced unquestionable old guard.  It is King Lear told through the eyes of Archie Bunker. 

By in large I don't watch TV.  With very few exceptions (Always Sunny, PTI).  I find the medium to be generic, bland pandering.  Afraid to offend or challenging the viewer in fear of loosing its audience.  Which in turn leads to few sponsors and on to fewer profits.  TV is a prostitution of culture.  The viewers are categorized and analyzed in an attempt to determine demographics, only to better pollute their brains with detergent and fast food advertisements.  Network is the first movie that dared to take on such risky politics.

I don't have blinders up to the product placement and mass media that have invaded my beloved cinema.  But the films that I gravitate towards tend not to be mainstream and therefore take more chances.  Films like Network.  One risk the film was not willing to take was the possibility using unknown actors.  This movie is crammed full of top notch talent and it paid off.  This is Dunaway's second best performance behind Bonnie and Clyde.  Peter Finch gives a stellar performance as a televangelist and Messiah.  Robert Duval (America most valuable resource) and William hold up very well also.

This movie reminded me of another TV News movie.  No, not Broadcast News.  Good Night and Good Luck.  Both films deal with censorship and integrity.  Both movies have large casts of well known actors.  Both movies deal with the role TV plays in how people get their news, and the responsibility that comes along with that.  Both are commentaries on society in general and both expose the power struggles between the young and the old.

This is difficult subject matter to handle.  It would have taken a master at his craft to direct this big of a cast with this weighty of subject matter.  This film was meta before meta was meta.  Lumet was just the man for the job.  His pedigree and training on films like 12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon perfectly set him up for a film like this.  Thinking about it, I would have like to have seen what Robert Altman would have done with the same material.  But that can be said for nearly any script.

I enjoyed this movie and I look forward to catching up with more of Lumet's work.  I give Network ★★★★.  This film is available on Netflix Watch Instantly.

Movie #183 All That Jazz *1979*

Roy Scheider - Joe Gideon
Jessica Lange - Angelique
Leland Palmer - Audery Paris
Bob Fosse (Director)

I really enjoyed this moive.  However, I feel like being lazy so here are my 3 Reasons:

Reason 1.  Roy Scheider in sequin jumpers unbuttoned to his navel.

Reason 2.  Fantastic dance/music numbers that really express feeling and emotion.

Reason 3.  The movie is 8 1/2 meets Cabaret.

I give All That Jazz ★★★1/2.

Movie #182 Teeth *2007*

Jess Weixler - Dawn
John Hensley - Brad
Hale Appleman - Tobey
Mitchell Lichtenstein (Director)

I have been waiting to see this little gem of a movie for quite a while now.  Let's see...how do I describe the plot...hummmm..oh yeah, it's about a woman that has teeth in her vagina.

That's right, teeth in her vagina.  To expand it is about a teenage woman that is a proponent of abstinence.  She leads speeches at schools to encourage other kids to wait for sex.  She then fall for one of the guys that attends these speeches and decides to break their vow.  It is a precautionary tale of epic portions.

The problem with this movie is that it too removed from reality and it utter and complete lack of subtly.  For example:  Dawn lives in a home that is 2 blocks from a Simpson-esque nuclear power plant.  Gee, do you think that her mutataion has something to do with an exposure to some type of nuclear radio activity?  I do, because the film makes it a point to show the twin stacks about 20 times.  Also she has a step brother who is a total prick.  But he is so over the top that it isn't realist and therefore (as a viewer) I don't care about what happens to him or happens to the people he does things too.

I am not saying that I need a more realistic portrait of a woman with a toothed va jay jay, but I need to become emotionally invested in her story and struggles.  When I am purposed with ridiculous scene after , ridiculous scene I see behind the curtain and loose my connection to the plot.  This film is constantly winking at its audience.  So you just have to go with it.  It has to be a laughable endeavor.  And that is how I took it.

This movie and its director showed a lot of promise.  As did its lead actor Jess Weixler.  I hope she get more and larger roles.  I thought she was playing it straight most of the movie and it worked for her.  Both the brother and the pair of boyfriends were just characters.  The script here is tight and trying to do more than the final product shows.  The director was also the writer, but it is as if he just decided to scrap a solid horror / sci-fi script and make a screwball sex comedy.  Too bad

All in all I had a good time watching this film.  It isn't often that I take the time to watch a stupid comedy.  But I am glad that I did and I am glad that I got to see it with the company that I did.  I give Teeth ★★1/2.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Movie #181 HANNA *2011*

So, I wanted to see how HANNA held up to a second viewing.  Not too bad.


First off let me state that this was the most rude crowd that I have ever had the displeasure of watching a film with.  That's not true really, that would imply that they were watching the film.  The jerk wad down the isle from me talked to his mother for the entire run time of the show.  They took turns telling the other to shhhh.  I thought at first that his edlerly, oxygen dependent mother was trying to be funny or cute.  Then I later changed my outlook to one of them being mouth breathing philistines. 

The orca-like woman behind me must have been cold and she kept fluffing her jacket in an attempt to cover her huge thighs.  How does someone that fat get so cold?  Every time she would fluff her coat (which small children could use and a makeshift army tent) it would hit me in the back of the head.  Never accompanied by an apology.

The two men sitting in front of me had snuck in several bags of chips and other assorted goodies.  Each time they would finish with them they would maticiously roll the bags up crunching and krinkeling the entire time.  Needless to say theses "gentelmen" and the blob of humanity behind me shared many eating habits as well as waistline measurements.

Someone behind me fell asleep at one point and began snoring.  I will admit to falling asleep at a theater during a movie.  Despicable Me put me to sleep.  But not an action, fantasy film scored by The Chemical Brothers.  Also if I started snoring as loud as this guy I would have wanted to be woken up so as not to bother anyone.

All of this during a largely silent film.  At one point I almost leaned over to the loud mouth beside me and asked "Excuse me, did you hear what HANNA just said"?  He would of course have to answer "no".  Where To I was going to say, "Neither did anyone else in this theater"!

I don't mind occasional talking in a considerate voice, maybe you are trying to get caught up on the plot.  But these people were having conversations that had nothing to do with the film.  I know this because they were talking at a volume that I would find offending OUTSIDE of a theater!

As for the movie its self.  I found that it did loose something upon a second viewing.  All the question I was forced to ask myself during the first viewing I of course knew.  The cinematography was still awe inspiring and the action held up fine.  The performances stood out even more.  I have come to really love Cate Blanchett in this movie.

I listened to /Filmcast and they talked about how this is a fairy tale film.  So I went in looking for fairy tale elements and they are everywhere.  I feel kind of like a fraud for not noticing them during my first go around.

I still love this movie.  But now I feel just fine about waiting until it comes out on Blu to see it again.

Movie #180 Blow Out *1981*

John Travolta - Jack Terry
Nancy Allen - Sally
John Lithgow - Burke
Dennis Franz - Manny Karp
Brian De Palma (Director)

I have always been on the fence about Brian De Palma.  I loved The Untouchables when I was younger, before I knew about directors better yet De Plama.  I love elements of Scarface, but as a whole I think it is too over the top and self aware.  I don't like Snake Eyes or The Black Daliha at all.  I watched Sisters as part of my Year of Film (Movie #92) and was less than enthused.  But I keep hearing that he is a master so I keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt.

So Thursday I watched the new Criterion Release of Blow Out.  I had just finished playing basketball and was physically beat.  I put it in the Blu Ray player kind of expecting to fall asleep to it.  Instead I couldn't take my eyes off it.  The film opens right into a slasher flick.  Soon we find out that this is a film that is being viewed by Travolta and that movie's director.  Travolta is a sound guy and they are trying to find the perfect scream. 

Blow out ends up being about Travolta (a sound guy for B movies) recording a car crash and saving one of the passengers, the female while the male dies.  The man in the car was Governor and presidential hopeful.  The woman was a call girl of sorts.  Once the cops begin trying to cover the whole thing up Travolta thinks there is something going on and plans to use his audio recording to prove it.  The film evolves into a gut wrenching thriller with a psychopathic killer, a slime ball photographer, extreme political ambition and a hooker with a heart of gold story lines all interweaving.  The film ends with a crazy chase that leads into a Liberty Day celebration of fireworks that perfectly lights the penultimate scene. 

Q. Tarantino is all over this film.  I have read that he thinks it is one of the 5 greatest movies ever made.  He blantly stole the lead actor (Travolta) for Pulp Fiction, the titles for several films, the phone booth scene (also for Pulp) and the music for Death Proof.  This music is used in a scene that while I was watching it I knew that it must be referencing something else, I just didn't know what.

I can't wait to see this film again and it will be joining my collection when Barnes and Noble have their 50% off Criterion sale in July.  I give Blow Out ★★★★1/2.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Movie #179 Mona Lisa *1986*

Bob Hoskins - George
Cathy Tyson - Simone
Michael Caine - Mortwell
Niel Jordan (Director)

I love when a film takes you in a direction you were not expecting.  I read the synopsis about Mona Lisa and it said that George is a small time criminal fresh out of jail that begins working as a driver for a high price call girl.  I was expecting a gangster story mixed with a hooker with a heart of gold subplot.  Wow was I off base.

First off, I love Bob Hoskins.  He is a big discovery for me with the Year of Film experiment.  I love how he can blow his top in one scene and by the end of the scene be calm and polite without apologizing and we love him for it.  He has a very naturalism about him.  Here he is a grunt for Mortwell.  The lovable looser.  A role perfectly fitted for him that he played to the nines!

Michael Caine plays Mortwell, a role like I have never seen him in before.  I always think of him as the good guy or at least a suave ladies man.  Here he is a low life scumbag leading even lower life, even scummier people.

This film was quirky with the addition of Robbie Coltrain as Thomas.  Geroge's best friend and confident.  They share mystery stories and make odd post modern sculptures.  Then the film goes down the rabbit hole and into the gutter.  Simone (the high class call girl) used to work the streets and had a friend that she shared a pimp with.  She got out of that abusive life but the friend never did.  She asks George if he would help her find the friend. 

There are other surprises that I won't dare to spoil, but several time my jaw fell wide open.  This film deals with a few sides of society (if you can call it that) that are not commonly addressed in film and especially not in "popular movies".

I really enjoyed this movie.  The script and acting was top notch, the camera work had moments of brilliance without being showy.  Music was used in a strange and interesting way.  There is a lot of Nat King Cole songs in the film (Mona Lisa being one), but there is a Genesis song that I thought wasn't going to fit in at all, but it worked great and made the scene 10X better. The movie reminded me a lot of Scorsese's Taxi Driver in a lot of ways. I give Mona Lisa ★★★★.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Movie #178 Four Lions *2010*

Kayvan Novack - Waj
Nigel Lindsay - Barry
Riz Ahmed - Omar
Adeel Akhtar - Faisal
Christopher Morris (Director)

Four Lions is film about a group of British jihadists and their plans to maytar themselves by blowing them and anyone in their path up all in an attempt to make a statement about their Muslim faith and receive the greatest after life they can.  This doesn't sound like the breeding ground for comedy, but this was one of the funniest movies I have seen in a while.

Shot in a documentary style that adds an almost uncomfortable realism, them film follows a bunch of screw ups with dreams larger then their collective skill level or intelligence will allow them to pursue.  The script is a razor sharp commentary on extremists of all faiths and the balance of ideology vs practicality.

I find it difficult to critique this movie without just listing all my favorite scenes.  The film is high brow comedy with dumb jokes.  If Monty Python were making Islamic mockumentarys, Four Lions would be a great fit for them.  The absurdity of the situations make for great humor, but the plausibility of the same scenario is a little frightening.

I give Four Lions ★★★1/2.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Movie #177 Le Doulos *1962*

Jean-Paul Belmondo - Silien
Serge Reggiani - Maurice Faugel
Fabienne Dali - Fabienne
Monique Hennessy - Therese
Jean Pierre Melville (Director)

I know, I know.  Another French / black & white / 1960's  / Gangster movie.  What can I say?  I love this stuff.  And Le Doulos is a great example of why.  I have commented on other Melville reviews about his patience and how he allows a story to unfold.  In Le Doulos he goes beyond patience into with holding information.  He totally changes his narrative structure.  When in his other movies the viewer learns information as the protagonists do, in Le Doulos (The Hat or The Informer) everyone on screen knows bits and pieces that are not known by anyone else.  Melville is not employing "misdirection", that would mean that he is leading you to an assumption.  He is intentionally keeping data from you and therein you make decisions based on what you see.  All this accumulates in a flashback sequence where every persons motives are laid out and you see the movie from a completely different perspective.  This is nothing short of brilliant film making.

On top of the creative narrative structure there is beautiful cinematography on display.  Nicolas Hayer was his cinematographer.  His used tradition American noir lighting and shadows to better display both sides (the pure or naive and the evil or untrustworthy) nature of the characters.

These characters were portrayed very well by Melville (and French New Wave) regulars Belmondo and Reggainni.  Belmondo was exceptionally good here.  Because of the structure we never know who is the good guy, or is there even is one.  It is for sure though that even if Belmondo is the protagonist he is not a "good guy".   Reggainni was on a bit of a career downturn when he was cast in the role.  He brought a lot of desperation and despair to the role.  I thought he sort of looked like Mr. Bean, but there is not a lot of humor in this film.  The other roles that stood out for me were the female ones.  That is mostly because French noir generally doesn't use the archetype Femme Fatale the way that American noir's do.  And in  this film we might see why.  Both women in Le Doulos are not treated with much of any respect.  We later find out why, but at the time it is pretty shocking to see women not only ruffed up, but really degraded and insulted like they are in this film.  Melville took a lot of criticism for his portrayal of females in this film and as a result he rarely used women in his films afterwards, giving him a reputation of being a misogynist.

This film is a little less straight forward than Le Deuxieme Souffle (Movie #176).  By that I mean that I feel Melville was being more experimental with this movie.  Structurally, thematically, and visually.  There is a great 8 minute interrogation scene shot entirely in one take.  And it is so subtle that I didn't even notice it for probably 4 minutes or so.  Also there is a mixture of American and French landscapes that frames each character.  Melville thought of everything.  Like always. 

I give Le Doulos ★★★.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Lars Von Trier in Space

Click the link below to see the new Lars Von Trier film Melancholia.

http://youtu.be/FQ2ZwlbtBes?hd=1

Movie #176 Le Deuxieme Souffle *1966*

Lino Ventura - Gu
Paul Meurisse - Blot
Jean Pierre Melville (Director)

I have stated a few times on here that Melville is my favorite French film maker.  This film only cements that view for me.  Souffle is about a escaped prisoner (Gu) who meets up with a gang of criminal for a major heist.  There plans are augmented by Commissioner Blot.  A wiley and wildly respected detective.  Ventura and Meurisse were both in the Melville films Army of Shadows (Movie #164).  The two of them kind of made this the French version of Heat for me.  With both a creditable protagonist and antagonist matching wits and wills against one another.

The film opens with a expressionistic prison break that looked like it was stolen from the German films of the 20's.  It then moves to a dolly shot of Gu running through the woods that was very remincient of another Melville films Le Cercle Rouge.  After that it almost abandons its fancy camera work and focus's it's attention on the characters.

I have to be honest and say that this is my least favorite of Melville's works so far.  But to me that is like picking your least favorite Picasso or your least favorite Mozart piece. 

I would probably benefit from another viewing of this film.  I watched it over 3 showings and never got as interested as I could have been.  For the time being I will give Le Deuxieme Souffle ★★★.

Movie #175 HANNA *2011*

Saoirse Ronan - HANNA
Eric Banna - Erik
Cate Blanchett - Marissa
Joe Wright (Director)

I just got home from my viewing of HANNA.  Please excuse me for being a little hyperbolic.  This is the greatest movie of 2011 so far!  Although it is only April and the competition hasn't been stellar yet either.  HANNA however did everything right that all the other films this year has done wrong.

HANNA is the story of a young girl raised in the snowy woods near the arctic circle.  Her father is raising her to be a warrior of sorts.  The mother is not in the picture (both metaphorically and maternally).   It seems her father is some sort of rouge government agent and he is preparing HANNA for what she may have to live with once she leaves the nest.

HANNA is a punch in the face to spring time movies.  HANNA has everything that I have been looking for in both Source Code and Sucker Punch.  It has action, real stakes, inventive and mind blowing camera work, a mostly tight and creative script, a bad ass score from the Chemical Brothers (which I purchased as soon as I fired up my computer and I'm sure I am angering some neighbors by blasting while I type this), fantastic performance even from the supporting cast members.  Basically it is an action movie with wonderful amounts of action.

But being that it is directed by Joe Wright, he also has the sensibilities to perfectly handle the tender moments in the script. I love his use of close ups in all of his movies.  But being that he is Joe Wright he just can't help himself to throw in some mind f'king shots.  There is a single shot that I would guess runs 6 minutes through a bus stop, down the street and into a subway like area and concludes with Eric Bana kicking 5 guys asses!  All one take. 

This film also helped fuel my rage against the good people of Germany.  This film is a globe trotting one.  HANNA and her father as well as those after them movie from Poland to Morocco to Spain and Germany.  While making a stop in Germany Marissa solicits the help of a uber-creepy, warm up suit wearing German and his three stooges.  They are German with a vengeance.  That is to say that they symbolize everything about the German people that I find revolting if not stereotypical.  Every time the leader whistles a children's song and it made my skin crawl.

The performance were amazing.  Eric Bana as Erik was solid.  I find him a bit hammy most of the time, but here he was playing it straight and it worked.  I praise Joe Wright for that.  While still relatively new to most audiences (her biggest role was the lead in Lovely Bones), Saoirse Ronan blew my mind in this.  She plays the title role and she fully embodied this character.  She knew the tone and executed her craft without flaw.  At time the script called for her to be amazed by technology (a scene that has been over done in far inferior movies).  I was afraid that she was going to get all Planet of the Apes stupid when turning on and off a light switch or watching TV for the first time.  And she didn't.  She and Wright must have been on exactly the same page.  They had worked together once before in the film that launched her career, Atonement.  Then Cate Blanchett as the CIA agent determined to bring them down before her secret gets out.   This role could have easily fallen through the cracks like Vera Farmiga in Source Code or could have gone out of control crazy like Jeffery Wright in Source Code.  But she too finds the fine line to walk.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised looking at her track record.  As far as I know she is the only person to play Queen Elizabeth I, Katherine Hepburn and Bob Dylan.  And be nominated for an Oscar for all three!

It is official, this soundtrack is going to be my permanent blogging music.  My dog seems to hate it.  He has poor taste. 

I want to talk a little more about the action scenes and they way they were shot and edited.  That's not true.  I want to talk A LOT about these scenes, but I won't in the name of good taste.  I was hooked on this film once the first shot from a gun was fired and the entire screen was filled with a blood red title card that said HANNA.  From then on there are a few short lived action scenes of Erik training HANNA.  These are brief, but brilliant.  They are constructed in a way to give you a taste of what is to come without blowing its load in the first 20 minutes.  Then when HANNA has to make her first get away, I about shouted at the screen!  It was the most intense camera work I have seen in a while and it was all shot in real life.  I am sure they added or touched up things digitally in post, but the majority of what you see on screen had to have been happening for real.  The editing is rapid fire and it fits in perfectly with the soundtrack.  I thought I had had enough of the circling camera technique, but Wright does it right and it truly added to the sense of panic and confusion.  Later in the film in the shipping yard the camera style bounces effortlessly between long takes, rapid fire cross cutting and Steadicam madness.  Yet it all works and fits together like a puzzle.

  I try not to recommend movies.  I try to simply give my takes on a film.  But this is now the 3rd week in a row where the film I have chosen to go see hasn't finished 1st at the box office.  And for the first time I think that is a travesty.  Support creative and entertaining cinema.  Go see HANNA!

Movie #174 Day of the Dolphin *1973*

What if I told you I watched a film directed by Mike Nichols?  Would that interest you?  What if I added that it was written by Buck Henry?  I bet you would think I was talking about the 1968 classic The Graduate.  What if I added it starred George C. Scott and Paul Sorvino?  Stumped?  What if I told you that George C. Scott played a marine biologist that had taught dolphins to understand and actually speak English?  What if I went on to say that these English speaking dolphins were kidnapped by terrorists in an attempt to blow up the presidential boat in an assassination attempt?  You's probably think I was high, or that this was a delayed April Fools joke.  This is no joke I'm afraid.  This is The Day of the Dolphin.

I had heard about this film by it's movie poster alone.  It read "UNWITTINGLY HE TRAINED A DOLPHIN TO KILL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES".  How could you not want to see this movie.  That tag line alone asks so many questions.  How did he train them? How did he do so "unwittingly"? How does a dolphin commit murder / assassination? At what point, and how often do American Presidents and dolphins really interact?  Good news.  All these question and more are answered during the film.

I watched this late Sunday night.  I was very tired when I fired up my Netflix.  After about 10 minutes I sort of had to question if I had fallen asleep or if what I was seeing on screen was really happening.  The film opens with G.C. Scott breaking the 4th wall with a narration.  Explaining the nature of dolphin, their extreme intelligence and their similarities to man kind.  This was cross cut with an example of what I will refer to as dolphin porn.  This is not to say dolphins getting it on (although there are mentions made of a male dolphin wanting to get a little randy with its female, human trainer), it is more like gratuitous shots of dolphins frolicking.  This imaginary is used frequently throughout this film.  While the closest human get to titilation is G.C. Scott in short shorts.

Paul Sorvino plays a dirty investigative reporter working for an anonymous boss.  He seems to be wise to the very secret training and experiments that G.C. Scott and his interns are working on.  In one of my favorite moments, Sorvino has fallen asleep on a picnic table on the beach.  When he wakes up, without any knowledge of why the dolphins have been kidnapped, he deduces that these trained mammals are going to be used to blow up the president.

Did I mention that the dolphins speak English?  Not clicks or squeaks or normal dolphin speak.  They say things like "Fa loves Ma", "Fa play ball" and "Bad man hurt Fa" in ridiculous helium infused voices .  There is an unintentionally funny scene where G.C. Scott is showing the foundation leader (the institution that funds the dolphin research) how the dolphins language has evolved.  It involves a series of at least 10 reel-to-reel machines being played, one at a time, with Scott announcing the month and date of each recording.  The scene goes on and on like a clip from a Family Guy episode.

There is a point in the film where the dolphins are forced to make a decision.  We break from the dolphin porn and cue the sentimental music.  The cutting stops are we are given long takes of what I think is supposed to be the dolphins "contemplating".  I believe the movie is genuinely asking its viewers to wonder what is going on inside the dolphins mind.  This film takes anthropomorphism to its most extreme.

Day of the Dolphin, or should I say Oscar nominated Day of the Dolphin (1973 Best Score & Best Sound), reminded me a lot of Sam Fullers White Dog (Movie #123).  In that film a dog had been trained to hate white people.  This film is just as exploitative.  This movie was made during a time in America when people didn't trust their government and loved aquatic mammals.  Fortunately there was never much of a risk of the dolphin blowing up Boat1.  The terrorists plans seem to be going well until one of the dolphins escape.  He makes it back to camp and informs the other what is going on (like an aquatic Lassie).  They send this dolphin off to stop the attack.  *SPOILER ALERT* the dolphin with the bomb strapped to his back was stopped not in the nick of time, but more like half a mile from the Presidents boat.  He never even got near it, removing any drama from the scene that might have existed.  It is the equivalent of discovering a bomb with the timer set to go off in 6 minutes.  Then defusing it with 4 and a half minutes left.

I don't want this review to turn into an episode of The Chris Farley show in which I say things like "you remember that one scene?  That was cool".  But their are a few other noteworthy moments I'd like to mention.  Picture a group of rich, old, white men in 1970's business attire, sitting on a dock in the tropics questioning two dolphins.  Then picture a dolphin calling one of the men a liar.  Then picture this man putting down his pipe and putting up his dukes to apparently go fisticuffs with the dolphin.  The other notable scene is once the dolphins have been kidnapped Sorvino mentions that the terrorists will probably kill them.  The female trainer asks why and G.C. Scott replies something to the effect that if the terrorists are caught, the dolphins could testify against them in a court of law.   The movies wants us to believe that a dolphin could be considered a creditable witness in a court of law.

This movie is the pinnacle of "so bad it's good" films for me.  I would grow a dorsal fin to see some of the out takes or behind the scenes action.  I have this image of Nichols saying "cut" and someone handing G.C. Scott a cigar and him kicking one of the dolphins for upstaging him.  I can just hear him cursing the dolphins between every take.  This may have something to do with the less than convincing endearing monologue he delivers to the dolphins, and he udder uncomfortableness while in the water with them.   

So how does the creators of one of the greatest films of the 60's make a talking dolphin movie not 5 years later?  My best guess is that they must have had coke habits to support and they took the first treatment that shoved in front of them.  Still I found enough silliness to enjoy myself in the movie.  I give Day of the Dolphin ★★1/2.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Movie #173 The Long Good Friday *1980*

Bob Hoskins - Harold Shand
Helen Mirren - Victoria
John Mackenzie (Director)

I love it when I find these little gems.  This is a gangster movie from England.  It is the story of a the most polite yet professional gangster you will ever meet.  I'm not sure if is the traditional English manners or what, but Bob Hoskins as Harold Shand is the anti-Scareface.  He is a charming, polite, courteous man that just happens to be a no-nonsense mob boss.

He seems to be attempting to go legit by budding the interests of some American investors in a casino he is trying to establish.  At the same time, different members of his organization begin showing up dead.  Many of whom were blown up in a some fashion.  The film then focus's on his attempt to find out who is responsible for the attacks, keep the peace with his potential investors, and eventually end the slaughter of his men by crushing whatever force is massacring them.

Other than the nice guy gang leader there are a few other characteristics that set this movie apart.  I found the music light and playful.  Even when the action on screen had more of a serious tone to it.  This could be a product of its time and place.  British movies from the early 80's aren't my specialty.  The acting was very natural.  Mainly in the lead roles, but even a few of the henchmen really came across as real people.  It was like watching a stylized documentary at times.  The film also had almost a pro-homosexual message.  More than a couple of the mob members and associates were openly gay, and no one really seemed to care.  I think they went as far as to comment on the issue in extremely passive ways.  This is a topic that came up in the Soprano's as late as the early 2000's and was still not accepted at all.

The movie had undeniable Sexy Beast references.  I have not reviewed that film yet, but it holds a special place in my heart.  I respect nearly everything about that movie, even the stuff that doesn't quite work.  Both films have a very British slant to them that I found refreshing.  Another connection is that when the violence finally erupts in both films it is savage and brutal and sort of comes from no where.  Making it all the more intense and shocking.

Finally I should mention Helen Mirren as Victoria.  She plays the best "mob wife" I have seen on screen since Lorraine Bracco played Karen in Goodfellas.   Victoria is charming, incredibly intelligent (even more so than her husband in many scenes) extraordinarily level headed, with a fantastic business sense.  I don't know who could have played her better. 

I love the gangster genre and this is a wonderful addition to it.  I give The long Good Friday ★★★★.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.  This film is available on Netflix Watch Instantly. 

Movie #172 Source Code *2011*

Jake Gyllenhaal - Colter Stephens
Michelle Monaghan - Christina Warren
Jeffery Wright - Dr Rutledge
Vera Farmiga - Colleen Goodwin
Duncan Jones (Director)

This makes two weeks in a row that I have gone to the theaters and saw the #2 movie in terms of box office draw.  Last week it was Sucker Punch and this week, Source Code.  Another interesting note, both films were beat out of the #1 spot by a kids movie.  Both of which hold zero interest for me.

Source Code held so much interest with me mainly because of the director Duncan Jones and his first film, 2009's Moon staring Sam Rockwell.  A movie and performance that I loved.  Source Code is a much higher budget film with an equally high concept premise.  Source Code is a government program in which soldiers can travel back into a decesed persons memories and relive the last 8 minutes of their life.  Why would they want to do that?  In the film a train has been bombed killing hundreds.  That train can't be stopped.  Time has already passed and the events of that have happened and are forever recorded in the halls of history.  But there is another bomb threat from the person who set off that bomb.  If we could find out who the bomber is, we could save possibly thousands of peoples lives.  Whew, that is a chocked full of plot.   

People are saying this is the action film version of Groundhog's Day.  There are unavoidable similarities, but I think that both films get at different truths.  In Groundhog's Day (a film I adore) Bill Murry's character has to learn to lose his cynical, self loathing characteristics to truly find love.  Both in his self and with others.   Source Code deals with a much different theme.  The protagonist in this film doesn't really have much of a character arc.  His job is to change the lives of those around him.  He is a tough military man in the beginning and carry's that out through out his mission.  He change is that of learning and accepting.  The changes of those around him is what is driving the movie.

The performances in the film are pretty decent.  Gyllenhaal is sound and makes for a believable tough guy and sensitive everyman.  I felt that Vera Farmina was sort of wasted here.  I think she is a wonderful actress, but until that last 10 minutes she wasn't given much to do.  I did think Michelle Monaghan was great in her role.  I hope this movie help her land more meaty roles in the future.  Then there is Jeffery Wright.  Another actor I love.  What the hell was he trying to do in this film?  I think it was sort of a classic mad scientist kinda thing, but he stuck out like a sore thumb. 

Source Code is a solid thriller.  I liked the narrative structure, even if it was a little familiar (no pun intended).  I was a little disapointed in the film but that is because of the baggage that I brought into the theater.  Baggage that was placed there by a visionary first film.  I guess I was looking for a little more eccentricity.  Don't let the bad press fool you.  This will be better than almost every superhero film that comes out in the summer months.  Even if the science is a little sketchy.  I give Source Code ★★★.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

Movie #171 Robocop *1987*

Peter Weller - Robocop / Murphy
Kurtwood Smith - Boddicker
Paul Verhoeven (Director)

Set in the not to distant semi-distopian future of Detroit Robot cop is a sci-fi action flick that has gained a lot of accolades from film geeks.  I figured I should check it out.  This movie was an HOB staple when I was growing up.  I saw it plenty of times then, but I had not watched it since those formidable years.

Upon my re-viewing I found that I remembered a few things (the line "I'll buy that for a dollar" for one) but my memory really wasn't that good on remembering details.  For example, I remember this film felling a lot more pornographic.  This is a gritty Detroit, being ran by criminals both on the street and in the office buildings.  But nearly to the extent that I recalled.  The crime problem in the movie seems centered around a single gang.  When in reality, the crime problem in Detroit is way worse that the film predicted.  I seemed to recall more sex, nudity, cursing and violence.  By today's standards, or my desensitized perception, this films seems almost quaint.

Robocop is a film about a slain cop that becomes part of a corporate program to incorporate real life cops to robot strctures.  At first everything seems wonderful, but then the mostly robotic cop begins having dreams of his lost family and the men who killed or nearly killed him.  He sort of achieves some sort of AI.  From then on the film is a revenge / thriller.

I found the first 2 acts to be intriguing and well constructed.  Then in the final act it sort of goes off the hinges a little.  The introduction of rocket launchers has a tendency to do that in cinema.  The acting is sort of secondary in the film, but I did find Peter Weller interesting if nothing else.  He has been in a lot of "cult films" and has a relatively large following.  Sort of a Bruce Campbell type.  I did enjoy the movie, but I can't say that I drooled over it the way a lot of critics are doing now a days.  I did also like the way that they used news reports to help set the scene in the film.  It reminded me a little of Romeo + Juliet (Movie #159)

This movie has an unexpected connection to my next film to review Source Code, but I won't give away any twists.  I figured Robocop to be a good stupid action film to pass my evening.  It ended up being a decent, thought provoking film asking questions about capitalism, consumerism and other hot button issues.  I give Robocop ★★★.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.

M ovie #170 Rashomon *1950*

Toshiro Mifune - Tajomaru
Akira Kurosawa (Director)

When people talk about the all time greatest film makers Akira Kurosawa's name is bound to come up.  Rashomon is a film about his that takes a different narrative structure than any of his other films I've seen.  Rashomon opens on a rainy war torn structure.  It's soaked inhabitants are both mentally and physically exhausted.   They begin to explain the event of the day to a visitor.

At this point the story moves to flash backs of a trial in which testimonies from 3 different people are heard.  All three tell the tail of a dead man.  The first testimony, told through flashbacks (a dream within a dream) is that of a bandit who claims to have stolen the dead mans wife and killed the man in a fierce sword fight.
The second testimony is that of the wife.  The way she tells the story leads the court to believe that she killed her husband by accident after having given herself to the bandit.  The third testimony is told through a medium who is channeling the dead man.  The audio work during this sequence is amazing.  He tells that after his wife had given herself to the bandit, she provoked a fight between the bandit and himself.  Ending in him clumsily being killed.

As I said before all this is being told by the villagers.  One who eventually admits to seeing the entire thing and begin haunted by it.  This is a great way to tell a story and it asks a lot of questions.  First off, what is truth?  The events described by all 4 witnesses could be considered the truth if each believes it.  Secondly, is role of perception in storytelling.  Kurasawa is playing with this even with his narrative structure.  Then thirdly, who do you believe.  Each person has motives for telling this story the way they did.  The bandit to maintain his persona, the wife to salvage some dignity, the husband to rest in peace and the villager to get it off his chest. 

I love the way Kurasawa uses his camera in his story telling.  This film is shot on black and white, but the landscapes are haunting.  All three flash backs have different usages of music.  The third installment being silent adding to the mystical element of that retelling.  The film really leaves it up to the viewer to basically pick a story.  It does lean a little to the villagers side, and there is a surprise at the end of the film which comes out of nowhere (most surprises do) that feels a little like a cop out I guess, but it does warp everything up in a nice little bow if you are one of "those people".

One thing that I find negitive is the acting of Kurasawa regular. Mifune.  I know he is considered legendary, and that is acting style is a branch of the traditional Japanese Kubiki style.  But it is just too big for me.  He jumps around and laughs like a court jester.  It takes me out of the movie.  Mifune makes Al Pachino look bland.

This structure has been used numerous times after Rashomon.  I find that usually it does get the credit the film deserves.  I mean, would you admit to being inspired by one of the greatest filmmakers of all time?  This is a 50's, black & white, Japanese movie so I know it is not going to the top of everyone's queue.  But if you are interested in getting into Kurasawa and don't want to make the nearly 4 hour commitment to watch Seven Samurai (even though you should), Rashomon is an excellent into to one of cinema's masters.  I give Rashomon ★★★1/2.  Check out the Trailer Park to see for yourself.  This film is availible on Netflix Watch Instantly and on DVD through Criterion Collection.