Movie #224 The Hangover II *2011*

Over the weekend my girlfriend and I made a trip to the great northern wilderness of Canada.  Technically we were rarely far enough into the country to the point that we couldn't see the USA.  But while we were over there we decided to see a movie.  I had never seen a movie in a foreign country before.  I keep all my ticket stubs and frame them at the end of the year.  I thought it would be cool to have tickets from a far away land.  Looking back, I guess I could have done without.

I should start this review by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed the first Hangover movie.  I laughed very hard at it and I appreciated what it was doing narratively.  It's structure was all about a hard partying night, but we don't see that night.  We start the night then fade to black.  We then open on the aftermath of the wildest party that Las Vegas has ever seen.  Then the movie becomes a mystery of sorts trying to use clues to put back the pieces of what happened the night before and where their lost friend has gone to. That was a very creative way to tell a story like this.  I saw this film with a friend and his special lady and I remember he actually fell out of his seat he was laughing so hard.  That is no exageration.  He fell out of his seat.  His butt hit the floor.

All that having been said I was apprehensive about going into this film.  I had seen a trailer and it looked bad.  It looked like they were simply trying to rely on the popularity of the first film.  I was curious thought and if this film contained 50% of the laughs I would be satisfied.  I was NOT satisfied.  This movie is a disaster.  It was about 20 minutes in when I realized I hadn't laughed once.  I then started thinking about how many time I had laughed by then at Bridesmaids.  But I looked at my girlfriend and we sort of chuckeled at how bad the movie was so far.  I did tell her thought that I had faith that is could still be turned around.  Man was I wrong.  After about an hour (which felt much longer) I still had only mildly laughed a time or two, there was a scene where Zach G. meditates and finds some clues to the missing person.  This scene would have been enough to justify walking out of the movie.  The last time I remember wanting to walk out of a theater was The Happening.  In both cases though I stuck it out for bragging rights.  And it wasn't just me and my special lady.  The theater had maybe 30 people in it.  I heard less than 10 laughs combined from the entire crowd.  Maybe this was not the target demographic, but this movie fell flat at my showing.

For more detail on the film it's self; it is the exact same plot as the first film only set in Thailand.  Not only is it the same plot, they use the same jokes.  To be more specific they comment on the jokes that they made in the first film.  For example: in the first film Zach G. talks about his pager and if the hotel is pager friendly.  He makes mention that he is not getting a "sig on his beep".  In the context of the film it is a pretty funny moment.  In part II Zach G. makes a reference to his pager and we are supposed to remember the pager stuff from part I and piss ourselves laughing.  It didn't work.  Neither did the shock humor stuff.  It was not as raunchy as the first film, it should have come as a surprise to no one what was going on.  I remember a scene where the Chinese guy is locked in a freezer.  As one of the character was opening the cooler I motioned for the Chinese guy to jump out with my hand.  Which he of course did, just like he jumped out of the trunk in part I.  See, ain't that funny?

If you think that a monkey in a vest is funny, maybe the Hangover II is for you.  Really?  A monkey?  I can see this getting pitched in a board room:

"We plan to do The Hangover II exactally like Hangover I except in a different location".
"I like it but it is missing something.  It needs more.....spunk".
"I GOT IT!  A monkey!"
"Ehh.  Don't get me wrong, monkey = funny, but we need to go bigger."
"How about a tap dancing monkey?"
"No it has to be more risque."
"How about a crack smoking monkey?"
"I like it, I like it...but smoking crack sends the wrong message.  Lets make it a cigarette smoking monkey."
"With a tiny denim Rolling Stones jacket on?"
"That's GOLD Jerry!!!"

I guess that is why they make movies and I write crappy reviews.  The Hangover II has the record for opening weekend top grossing comedy of all time.  It blew the competition out of the weater.

Here are a few other of my complaints.  I didn't believe that these guys would be friends at all.  The Bradly Cooper character is just an absolute ass hole.  I don't know what he brings to the table as a friend and why these guys would like to hang out with him.  Zach G. has taken his character into all sorts of strange places in this movie.  In Part I he was a guy that didn't fit in and surely had some issues.  In this film he borders on sociopath with a hint of retardation.  Sort of like Jonna Hill in Cyrus.  I laughed at him at first, then I realized that this is a deeply disturbed and mentally unstable person.  There is an unexplainable car chase in this movie that served no purpose and just looked bad.  I don't normally mind stereotypes being skewered for comedy, but this film borders on racial hatred.  The whole movie carries a duchebag feel with it.  There is supposed to be a big surprise guest near the end of the movie, but it fell with a thud as well and felt a bit defeatist.

Some things I liked about the movie.  It was shot largely on location and it looks nice to beautiful when it is supposed to.  One of my favorite unintentionally funny scenes is when they are calling the wives at the start of the movie to tell them what is going on.  Brady Cooper says something to the effect of "It happened again". I instantly thought of the fake Scorcher trailer at the start of Tropic Thunder.  Where in a world engulfed in flames they called one man...  When it happened 4 more times...  I laughed hard then, but that was at the movie not with it.

I won't make a big deal about this complaint.   I believe an artist should be able to express themselves as they see fit.  I don't believe in any type of censorship.  But this films finds a way to use the same camera roll gimmick that they used during the end credits of the first film.  In this film the pictures have way less impact until I thing the 2nd to last picture.  It only shows it for a second and I had to check to make sure I was seeing it right, but there is a shot that parody's Eddie Addams photo of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong prisoner .  I found it distasteful and inappropriate.  I am glad to see other critics like Ebert and Roper mentioning it in their reviews as well.

Finally, I wonder how this movie would play for a person that hasn't seen the first film?  Knowing the jokes are coning or that a reference to a joke to be more accurate is coming takes away a lot from the movie.  I wonder if seeing it with fresh untainted eyes would make this as clever and inventive as the Hangover I?  If you haven't seen Hangover I and for some reason you see #2, let me know what you think.

I give The Hangover II ★1/2.

Movie #223 The Big Lebowski *1998*

Wow!  I was just checking my past blogs and I couldn't find my Lebowski review.  Well, I will be attending another Lebowskifest in mid July and I will be writing about the movie again then so for the time being I will give my readers (both of you) a 3 Reasons to watch my 2nd favorite film of all time.

Reason #1 - The Dude.  Jeff Bridges plays the character of a lifetime in Jeffery Lebowski.  He is a burnt out bum that stummbles and falls face first into a mystery movie.

Reason #2 - Walter Sobchak.  If I was making a list of my all time 10 favorite movie characters, John Goodman would make the list.  He plays a overly self confident Vietnam vet with a penchant for getting him self into other peoples business. 

Reason #3 - The plot.  Or lack of a plot.  I tell people that have never seen the movie that it is a story about a rug.  It is that simple.  I was talking with another aficienado of all things Lebowski and we were saying that if you cut everything out of the movie that didn't directly impact the plot, the film would be about 20 minutes long.  However the Coen's managed to fill this story with tons of quirk without making it quirky.

This is a film that pays off with repeat viewings.  I have easily seen it 100 times and I still laugh every time.  And some of the laughs only grow stronger every time I see it.  Lebowski is nearly a perfect movie.  I give it ★★★★★.

Movie #222 Anchorman *2004*

I will admit right off the bat I could review this film in my sleep.  I had just come off of watching Salo and I needed something that I didn't have to think about and something that would lighten the mood.  What better way to lighten the mood than spending 90 minutes with Ron Burgundy and the rest of the crew at Channel 9 News?

If you have been living under a rock or if you don't like to laugh and haven't seen Anchorman let me break it down for you.  Set in the 70's in San Diego (which of course is Spanish for a whale's vagina) Anchorman is the story of an egotistical, charmingly mysogynistic, playboy wanna-be named Ron Burgundy.  Burgundy is portrayed brilliantly by Will Ferrell.  This is far and away his greatest role and I am a big fan of his in Stranger Than Fiction.  He is the anchor at the top rated local news channel.  His associates are made up of a loverboy, sleezebag who does on the spot reporting, a wild card maniac who does sports and a mild mannered although totally moronic (to the point of retardation) weather man.  These roles are played to a tee by Paul Rudd, David Koechner and a still green Steve Carell.  There reign as alpha dogs is about to change as Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is introduced and given a shot as a co-anchor.  It is a "The Times they are a Changin" story.

This film is endless quotable.  That doesn't necessarily make it a good movie, but it doesn't hurt.  My friends and I can speak to each other for HOURS with only using lines from Anchorman.  What does make this a good movie is its approach to the comedy.  It is silly and it knows it, but it never winks at the camera.  There is a news anchor street fight between all the local new teams in the middle of the movie.  This scene is loaded with cameos.  In a straight comedic story there is no way that it would break for something so ludicrous, but in Anchorman it works.

The real secret to the movies success I think comes from its heart.  Ron is forced to act like "a man" around his buddies, but deep down inside that extremely hairy chest of his is a big ole lonely heart.  The relationship between Burgundy and Corningstone is really the crux that the movie hinges on.  Without that it is nothing more than a bunch of skits strung together.

Directed by long time friend and writing partner of Ferrell, Adam McKay has several other projects with Ferrell, but they have never managed to load down a film with so much honest and well delivered humor.  Everything else that I have seen them work on seems at least a little forced.  Anchorman has the feel of an improvised comedy based on a great script.  Watching it you get the feeling that the crew had a great time making the film.

Cinematicly it is not very ambitious.  A common theme with broad comedy's like this.  But that is not to say that it is poorly shot in any way.  The costumes are great but definitely have the scene that they are trying to get a laugh out of 70's fashion, the sets look like mock 70's sets, the hairstyles and makeup are exaggerated to provide laughs.  But you are not laughing at all of these things, you laugh that someone in that suit, with that hair just said that line.  It is perfectly self aware and playing on its audiences expectations.

I love this movie.  "I love movie".  "I love lamp".  I give Anchorman ★★★★.

Movie #221 Salo or The 120 Days of Sodom *1975*

***WARNING***

This film contains extremely graphic content.  It is unavoidable that this review will as well. 

There are few films that have a more notorious mythos than Salo.  Made in 1975 by Peir Paolo Passolini, Salo is a film designed to shock, disgust, horrify and repulse its audience.  It seems that at sometime in the past 36 years this film has been banned in nearly every country.  Still to this day it can not be purchased in many locations.  Criterion first released this DVD and Laserdisk and then had to stop printing them.  Making these first runs collector items.

So what is so vile about Salo?  Set in Northern Italy in the Autumn of the fascists control of that region the film is about a group of libertines that kidnap 18 teenagers and force them to do revolting and degrading sexual acts.  Both to the libertines and to one another.  Interested yet?  This premise doesn't sound like anything that I would normally want to see but it also doesn't sound very different than several other movies in the genre.

What makes Salo infamous is that it pushed the limit of what was shown on screen to nearly its furthest conclusion.  It is nearly a no-holds-barred, show it all film.  These are some of the perversions that can be seen in Salo:

• Watching a man shit, then forcing a teen aged girl to eat it
• Forcing a teenage girl to pee on a man face
• Forced sodomy (both man on woman and man on man)
• Non consensual groping and penetration
• Forcing the teens not to relieve their bowls until it can all be collected at once.  The excrement is collected into a large wooden tub.  Then the teens are forced to sit naked in the waste.
• Forced oral sex
• Burning of the genital with candles
• Branding
• Physical and emotional abuse including being stripped naked and kept that way, being treated like a dog and forced to eat off the floor and being kept on a leash

The list could go on and on.  So what is the point of all this depravity?  That is a good question and one that sparks a debate among film scholars.  There are those who say that the movie is supposed to reflect the attitudes of the Fascists that ruled the area.  Apparently Passolini was raised near the area during the time of the Fascists regime and he reportedly saw what these men and their politics were like.  There are others that say that the movie is simply a provocative and antagonistic, button pushing film.  Grotesqueness for the sake of grotesqueness. And there are those that say the the film is simply pornography without any artistic merit.

I fall somewhere between the first and second camp.  I could see there there were some attempts at drawing parallels between the actions of the libertines and the Fascists ethos.  But for me those attempts fell flat.  I did find it intentionally shocking, but it is far from being without artistic ambitions.  The craft and skill of those involved is very high.  The movie looks great.  I feel like this film could have had an impact on Stanley Kubrick.  I thought often of The Shining while watching it.  Also, for the actors to put themselves in the place of these teens and the men and women torturing these teens must have been emotionally exhausting.  Considering that, the acting was superb.

I read several reviews of this film from many different people.  They all seemed totally shocked at the film and its antics.  I began wondering how jaded, numb and desensitized I am because while I was appalled at the acts taken place on the screen, I never even came close to throwing up or turning it off.  I was all set to watch this film in 2-4 attempts based on its reputation.  It is not unheard of for me to stop watching a film when I get too disgusted.  Ichi the Killer is a movie I had to shut off.  Other Takahashi Miike films have had the same impact on me too.  I remember watching Oldboy in 2 sittings.  I found that movie deeply disturbing, but also brilliant.  So I got to thinking, "How groundbreaking is this movie?" and "How shocking are the horrors in this film for its time period?". So I went on IMDB and started looking up other movies with scenes similar to those in Salo to see which came first.  Here are my findings:

1971 A Clockwork Orange - Scenes of rape and emotional punishment
1971 Straw Dogs - Brutal rape scene
1972 Pink Flamingos - Transvestite eats actual dog feces
1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre - Dismemberment and torture
1970 El Topo - Nearly every act in Salo

All these films were made 1-5 years prior to Salo and none of them have anywhere near the contempt that Salo does.  Is it that Salo put all these terrible acts into one film?  Is it the glee that the fascists seem to be taking in physically and emotional raping these teens?  Is it that the brutal acts are being heaved onto children?  I don't understand it.  If you have any opinions please, I would love to hear them.

So this is one of those films that every cinephile needs to see.  I admit that I have a hole in my viewing history for gross out stories like this.  I am trying to fill that hole.  I have watched Teeth as a primer.  Now I have Salo out of the way.  Next up is Human Centipede.  All of these are being laced with the classic horror films that I never watched as a youth when all my friends were.  Friday the 13th, Halloween, ect.  I am also picking up some of the films from the horror masters.  People like Bava and Argento.

Overall I appreciate what Salo was shooting for, I just think it fell a little short.  I thought it was well acted, and the camera was used well to create a static atmosphere.  I give Salo ★★.

Movie #220 Wages of Fear *1953*

This is a slow burn.  Apparently when this movie was released in the USA the first 30 minutes of the film was cut out.  The reason given at the time was that the run time was 2.5 hours and that American audiences would not sit though a movie that long.  It was later discovered that the real reason that the footage was cut out was that it was deemed to be un-American.  This would have been have been during the Koren War and sensor claimed that Americans didn't want to hear about foreigners that didn't like us.  I would say that for the most part, we still don't.

The version I saw was the original French cut with the first 30 minutes in tact.  Not to sound like a patriot, but I could have lived without that 30 minutes.  Not do to my American alliances but more to the fact that this is a gut wrenching thriller and the 30 minutes of set up could have been skillfully whittled down to about 10 minutes. 

Once this film gets going though, LOOK OUT! It is a take no prisoner, balls to the wall thriller.   It is a film about some dirt poor villagers in a mud hole of a town in Latin America.  They are of all different nationalities.  The film focuses mainly on 4 of these characters.  These four men are contracted by a oil company to haul 2 trucks of nitroglycerin 300 miles through terrible terrain.  It is basically a suicide mission.  But if these men ever want to get out of that crappy little town they will need this money.

The men consist of:

• Mario - A French transplant that has been sulking around the village for months with no way out and the admiration of a waitress at the local watering hole.
• Jo - A new comer from France.  He is throwing money around like he has any.  He is a bully with the towns folk, but when he is really called to be a man he shows his true colors.
• Bimba - A German man that was put to work in the salt mines under Nazi orders.  He escaped to this town and now he can't escape anymore.
• Luigi - A local man that is the comedic relief.  He is portly and funny.  He has a health condition that will no longer allow him to work his job in the cement area.

These four men take the assignment to transport the explosives.  The film does an excellent job of setting up the personalities of these men.  Then breaking them down and subverting things under the highest of pressure situations.

The first obstacle they run into is a washboard dirt road.  The question is how to drive over.  Should you attempt to drive very slowly, trying to control each bump or should you drive quickly along the tops of each bump.  The two trucks decide on different plans without conferring with the other truck.  This leads to a near head on collision that would have ended the mission quick.

The next challenge is a winding road up a steep mountain.  The trucks are too long and wide to make a turn all at once so they have to back down on to a wooden structure.  Of course this structure is made of rotten wood and will barely hold the weight of the truck.  It is about this time that the true characters start to shine through the tough outer shells of these men.  The second truck runs into some even more life threatening situations that I have no idea how they filmed this.  It was breath taking.

Then we find a bolder in the road.  The men decided to blow the rock up and we almost cause both trucks to explode because the rock are raining down on the plastic tanks of TNT.  The final hurdle is a broken oil line has caused a major oil slick that is over 3 feet deep and the truck have to pass through without stopping or they will never make their destination. 

I won't spoil anything for you.  I will say that not all 4 men make it to the final destination.  The ending of this movie totally blew me away (no pun intended).  This is an ending that you would never see in a modern movie.  The studios wouldn't allow it.  I loved it and I loved the cross cutting editing work that went on during this scene.  This is a true masterpiece and every thriller after owes this movie some credit. 

This film was made by Henri-Georges Clouzot.  I already watched his film Diabolique and loved it.  This film made me interested in checking out more films from his cannon.  I give Wages of Fear ★★★★.

Movie #219 Gentlemen Prefer Blondes *1953*

Marilyn Monroe - Lorelei Lee
Jane Russell - Dorothy Shaw
Elliott Reed - Malone
Howard Hawks (Director)

I might be the first person to ever make this claim, but Marilyn Monroe is sexy as all get out.  That's a bold statement I know, but I feel like her breakout performance was in this raunchy musical.  The film is about two women that set sail to France.  One (Marilyn) is a gold digger and the other (Russell) is a tramp to be blunt.  The two of them sail to France, along with the men's Olympic team [what a coincidence].  The bill for this trip is picked up by Monroe's lover.  He is supposed to marry her in Paris but his father won't let him marry her due to her money hungry ways.

The father hires a private dick to follow the girls on the trip to see if Monroe will behave herself or fall for the first guy that flashes a $100 bill in front of her eyes.  She does of course.  She flirts heavily with a married diamond tycoon and gets him to give her a tiara that belongs to his wife.  Russell is there to watch her friend and make sure that she doesn't get into any trouble.  But then she falls for Malone before finding out what he does for a living.  Of course all sort of antics happen and hilarity ensues.

I was amazed at how filthy this script was.  I know this film was made during the Hayes code and they had to insinuate the sex and imply and use suggestive language.  But man, this film was near perverted both in script and in costumes.  Example: During one of the musical number Russell was singing while the Olympic athletes worked out in flesh colored short shorts.  Both Monroe and Russell spent the majority in outfits that made their waists thinner than their wrists and made their boobs stick out like torpedoes.  I'm not complaining, but I have seen more subtly in soft core porn.  There is another musical number in a Parisian cafe where Monroe dances around.  This may have been the beginning of modern stripping.  The only thing missing from a dance like that is a pole.  I swear I have been to a gentleman's club or two where there girls dance mimicked Monroe's all the way down to the hair tease.

I should mention that I thought Monroe was a far better actor in this film than Russell, who was considered more of a serious actor.  The man who played Malone did a good job too.  He reminded me a lot of a young Jimmy Stewart.  Both in personality and in his voice and tone.  I would rank this as one of Hawks minor films, but it is a solid movie and worth the time.  There is a great line in the movie: "I want you to find happiness and stop having fun".  This is a fun movie.  I give Gentlemen Prefer Blonde's ★★★.

Movie #218 Somewhere *2010*

Stephen Dorff  - Johnny Marco
Elle Fanning - Cleo
Sophia Coppola (Director)

This should be my shortest review ever.  My reviews are filled with descriptions of what the films are about, the performances, the films place in history, the technical aspects of the movie making, ect.  Somewhere has almost none of these characteristics. 

The movie opens with Dorff driving his car around in circles.  A metaphor for his life and for this film.  This scene is all one shot.  If when watching this shot you find it intriguing or stimulating then I would say you are going to love this movie.  If you find it pointless and boring then you are going to side with me.

While watching this movie I thought of a concept for a game show.  Celebrity Cabin Fever.  The first third (I won't say first act because that would infer that this film had some type of structure or narrative) is simply about Dorff as a upper B list actor passing the time.  He doesn't really "do" anything.  He watches strippers, he opens the mail, he mingles at a party.  You know the expression "I'd listen to him read the phone book"? That scene could have been in this film.  After that we are introduced to his estranged daughter, Cleo.

He isn't necessarily a bad father, he is just self absorbed.  When they are together they hang out, spend time together, chill.  Again, nothing really "happens".  I kept wondering if I was supposed to be feeling something.  That is a bad sign for a movie.  Ambiguity is nice, but isolation and distance is not.  The nice thing about this movie is that you can put it in the DVD player, go take a shower and brush your teeth and rejoin it in progress and not have missed anything.

I should mention that this is a very well shot film and it looks lush and vibrant.  I do like the way Coppola sets up her camera.  I just wish she did more with what is is filming.  While watching the movie I had plenty of time to let my mind wonder.  While my brain was on vacation it was asking "if this movie wasn't made by Hollywood royalty, would anybody give a shit about this movie"?

There is an element of a common theme in Coppola's films.  That is the "Stranger in a strange land" aspect.  She has done it so much better in all her other films.  I love her first film Virgin Suicides.  And Lost in Translation and Marie Antoinette both tread the same water with lesser success.  But here all her destruction of plot has proven to be dismissive and exclusive.  If she continues down this path, she will not be far from avant garde film making.  One could make an argument that Somewhere is a very polished avant garde film.

Only once is any element of conflict introduced.  The mother calls and needs to get away for a while.  Dorff is forced to watch Cleo longer than he planned.  On a car drive Cleo begin to cry because she feels abandon by here mother.  Dorff says "Don't cry" and that is the end of the scene!  I was pissed!  There is the only moment in the entire film where any emotion other than tedium was shown and it was wasted.  Not only that, I was a bit insulted as a father by the implication that an answer like "Don't cry" can resolve a problem as deep as abandonment. 

This movie is just as shallow and empty as it's main character.  I wanted to scream during the movie "DO SOMETHING!!!"  I was speaking to both the people on screen and those behind the camera.  Then the movie has the gull to try to get me to sympathize with Dorff.  I think that was what it was doing.  Why would I care at all about a person that has no motivation or ambitions.  If he wants to better his life and make it more fulfilling he has the ability.  He is choosing not to.  Therefor I could care less about him or this movie.

I will end of a few positive notes.  The soundtrack would  be great, but I can't find it anywhere online. (maybe that isn't that positive not that I think about it).  Also, Chris Pontius of Jackass fame has a small role as a friend of Dorff.  He is really natural and he adds a little life to an other wise dud of a film.  I give Somewhere ★★.

Movie #217 This is It *2009*

The first time I saw this film I was dressed head to toe in Dr Frank-N-Furter costume and makeup for a showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  I showed up early at the theater for the screening and the management allowed me to join this movie already in progress.  I think they were just trying to get the freak in a dress out of their lobby.

Today I re-watched this documentary.  If I remember correctly it was released very soon after the death of Michael Jackson (the subject of the doc).  I think that it was supposed to be a concert film, but his untimely death didn't allow for any actual concert footage.  So it was made into a concert tour preparation film.  I have watched a lot of "roc-doc's" and many of them include the pre show or pre tour events, but I don't know of any other film that is dedicated to the events and on goings prior to a major concert tour.

And I do mean major!  If this show had actually hit the road it would have to have been one of the most expensive concert sets and shows in history.  The production set up had to have cost more than some small countries Gross National Product.  There were acrobats, boom lifts, fireworks, what seemed like hundreds of dancers and musicians and so forth. 

I am of the age where Michael Jackson songs evoke instant nostalgia.  As a kid I can remember dancing to Thriller and Billy Jean.  I vividly remember where I was when all 4 network and several cable channels broadcast Jackson's Black or White video.  I had a silver glove, I made pedophile jokes, I moon walked (and sometimes still do).  This doc has a way of bringing me back to watching Jackson's videos on MTV and Weird Al's parody's.

What I was amazed by was his perfectionist attitude.  People call James Brown "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business".  Those people have obviously never seen This is It.  Jackson is involved in every aspect of the production.  He hears and sees things that no one else does.  He stops a rehearsal mid song to listen to just the piano, and corrects the pianist on his pacing.  He is critical on the lighting and the direction of the show.  I'm sure the show has a director who is probably on of the most sought after stage directors there is and Michael put him to shame.  The best example of this comes during a new "message song" about the environment (that I didn't like).  On stage there is a screen showing rain forests being destroyed.  Then a large dozer drives on stage at the end of the song.  The plan was to have it lower is scoop as the music faded out.  Michael said it would have more impact if it lowered its scoop AFTER the music stopped.  The dozer needed to lower its scoop in silence. And guess what?  He was 100% correct.  It did carry more emotional weight that way.

But he was never dictatorial towards anyone.  His comments were softly spoken and with respect.  It's just that he knew exactly what he wanted.  And everyone in the stadium respected him for that.  It was great to see his backup dancers and singers and the band fawn over him.  He was beloved by everyone he dealt with.

Another thing that shone through was his unparalleled talent.  He sang and danced totally effortlessly.  He wasn't even really dancing.  It was like the music was flowing out of his body causing it to move in sync.  He was like a marionette and the beats and rhythms were the puppet masters.   I have never seen anyone dance without trying.  His songs and the way he sang them were truly art.  That is something that you can't often say about pop music.  As a general rule pop music is created with the audience in mind.  It is made in an attempt to appeal to the broadest group possible.  Jackson's songs were made for him and we all found a way to relate.  I challenge anyone not to sing along with Human Nature or not to move to Wanna Be Startin' Something".  It can't be done.  It is so easily recognizable that he loves what he does.  He does it for the fans, but there is nothing that gives him greater pleasure.

Michael Jackson made pop music that was artistic, powerful, meaningful and most of all...good.  His stage show was determined to be the same way.  It makes me sad to think that no one will ever see another live show of his.  This is It is an intimate look behind the curtain of a true genius at work.  The film doesn't quite live up to the quality of its subject, but it does a good job of capturing the essence of the man and why the entire planet fell in love with his music.  I give This is It ★★★1/2.

Movie #216 The Apartment *1960*

Jack Lemon - CC Baxter
Shirley MacLaine - Fran Kubelik
Billy Wilder (Director)

In the film The Naked City there is a line of dialogue that reads: "There are 8 million stories in the naked city".  They are of course referring to New York City.  This is the setting of The Apartment.  It is a film about a few of those stories and how they intersect.  CC Baxter is a humble, hard working man just trying to get noticed in an ocean of humanity.  Both in the city as well as in the building and office he works in.  Wilder and the film does a wonderful job of visualizing just how insignificant and indistinguishable he is.

The movie jumps right into the plot.  CC, in an attempt to get noticed and hopefully promoted, loans his apartment out to his superiors at work for them to have affairs on theirs wives.  I found Wilder's approach to this story to be very blunt and I was shocked at how readily everyone was willing to talk about what was happening.  The film was made in 1960.  I'm sure this was cutting edge for the time.

CC his self doesn't seem to have any romantic interests although his neighbors all think he is a playboy because they hear noises through the walls almost every night.  That is until CC meets Fran.  Fran is an elevator girl in his building.    She is quick with a kind word and even quicker a contumelious one.  Fran is the earliest example that I have recognized as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl.  I like the way the movie takes its time in developing their relationship. 

Well, CC's plan works.  He begins loaning his place out more and more.  Even to the point where he is putting his career in front of his health.  Then, when the big promotion is at hand he is sent up to talk to the main supervisor Mr. Sheldrake.  Sheldrake knows about CC's racket and he decided to take advantage of the situation as well.  Sheldrake is another upper management cheating on his wife.  I was amazed at how frank the movie dealt with infidelity.  It was more like a right of passage than an immoral act. 

Everything seems to be aces for CC.  He got the promotion, he is talking and trying to get Fran to see him socially.  He even bought a new hat for the occasion.  This may not seem like much, but it is a way for CC to distinguish from the herds of lemming in the accounting office. Everything is aces until he finds out the the reason Fran doesn't meet him after work is the same reason Sheldrake needs his apartment.  The two of them are carrying on an affair.

It seems that Sheldrake has thoroughly been wadding through the secretary pool for years now.  Fran is just his latest victim.  The same Chinese restaurant's, the same frozen drinks, the sames lines about leaving his wife.  All Sheldrake is looking for is a good time and all Fran wants is a way out of her lonely existence.  And stuck in the middle is CC.  He is torn between his professional aspirations, his feelings for Fran and his  morals.  

At the end of the second act there is an event that will shake the foundation of all three main characters and launch us into a dark and reflective final act.  This film is a romantic comedy unlike any I have ever seen before.  It is both romantic and comedic but it adds a dark and almost disgusting feeling.  My guts were torn out.  I haven't felt so strongly and sympathized so much with the characters in a film for a long time.  I just wanted Fran to be happy.  I just wanted CC to get the girl and stand up for himself for once.

I love a movie that make me want to reach inside the TV and pull the characters out.  The Apartment just fell short of making me cry.  Wilder pulled so many different emotional strings to just the right tension.  I have a good feeling when I get to the end of this project The Apartment will be one of my favorite films.  I give The Apartment ★★★★★.

Movie #215 Dawn of the Dead *1978*

This is the second of the "Dead" films of George Romero.  The first being Night of the Living Dead.  A movie that I adore and consider one of the best DIY movies of all time.  That film inspires me to make my own films.  Dawn of the Dead carries on that tradition.  Made for less than one million dollars using unknown actors and keeping the majority to one real life location, Romero was again able to construct a solid story and represent that story visually in a creative and unique way. 

This movie drops you right into the middle of the action.  There is no exposition at all in the opening of this film.  The zombie apocalypse is underway and our "heroes" have found a way to an area that they think will be safer.  As they leave town the lights in a skyscraper start going out one floor at a time.  I thought that was a great visual and metaphor.  The crew end up at a mall on the outskirts of town.  The crew consists of a black male lead (similar to the ground breaking first film in that it used a black man in a leading role years before Hollywood would), a female, a white cop buddy of the black man, and a nerdy other male.

If there is one thing that zombie movies are almost never about, it's zombies.  People have been using zombies and zombie movies as social commentary for as long as the dead have been rising.  I am new to the sub genre of zombies, but I am quickly realizing that these films are metaphorically wonderful, and very close to pure cinema.  I was thinking at first that this was going to be a movie about race relations, or the feminist movement.  But once they got to the mall I was sure it was going to be a film about consumerism and boy was I right.

Once in the mall they come up with a plan to turn a bland stock room that they believe to be safe into their new residence.  They plan on ridding the mall of all the zombies and living out the rest of their days surrounded by all kinds of consumer crap from the stores in the mall.  The movie is saying that the threat is not so much the zombies, but the lust for material things.  And it turns out that this lust will be the downfall of the group, or at least some of it's members.

Speaking of threats, I didn't find these zombies much of a obstacle or very intimidating.   They are traditional zombies, in that they are slow moving.  They have no brains to speak of so out smarting them should be easy.  And for the most part they are not in large herds.  Picking off the occasional lethargic idiot zombie didn't seem like that much of a problem.  There is one kill I have to talk about and that is when a very Frankenstein looking zombie gets too close to the helicopter and chops off the top of his own head.  I laughed out loud at that moment. One moment where I didn't laugh out loud is when the looters are in the mall and they break out cream pies and seltzer bottle and hit the zombies with them.  If this is an ode to the Marx Brother films or films like theirs, it was totally over my head.  I thought that was really one of the only stupid things in the film.

This movie was a first in many different fields for zombie movies (or at least main stream zombie movies).  It introduced kid zombies.  And kid zombies are not off limits in this movie.  It was the goriest of the zombie movies at that time.  There is a lot of zombies getting shot and a lot of fake blood being squirted around.  There is a scene where the zombies tear into a newly dead body and we get the graphic moments of a human body being shredded like yesterdays newspaper.  I think this is the first time I actually heard the word "zombie" in a zombie movie.  That is the movies commenting on the movies.   I love crap like that.

The soundtrack was done by the same band that did Suspiria's music,  Goblin.  Argento was credited during the opening of the film several times.  I hated the music in Suspiria.  But here it is quieter and I think it fits in better here.  Overall I liked this movie a lot.  Not quite as much as the first one, but it definitely stands on its own.  I am curious now to see the remake.  I give Dawn of the Dead ★★★★.

Movie #214 Crumb *1994*

It's been a while since I caught up with a documentary and even longer since I saw one I really liked.  I'm proud to say that both streaks are over.  Last night I watched Terry Zwigoff's doc Crumb.  This is a retrospective of the underground comic writer and illustrator, Robert Crumb. 

Right off the bat you know you are in for something special when one of the opening title cards reads "David Lynch Presents".  I went into this film with no frame of reference.  I am not even a mainstream comic book fan, better yet a "underground" comic book kind of guy.  The movie shows Crumb as the guest speaker at a school early on.  What a great way to introduce a character and his back story.  Crumb is the artist behind the "Keep on Truckin" animation that was popular in the late 60's.  He also did Felix the Cat.  Which I have never read, but know a little about, and a few other things that has crossed over into more mainstream media.

From the first time we see Crumb and hear him talk it is clear that he is not status quot.  He dresses in Coke bottle glasses, bow ties and pork pie hats.  He has a collection of bizarre erotic figurines in his study.  Many based on his own characters.  He has a lady friend, but she seems a little off too.

We are quickly introduced to his brothers and mother.  Charles is a shut in living with his mother in a quickly dilapidating house in Philly.  Charles speaks of his emotional issues both social and personal.  He talks about being on a steady diet of pills to help control his emotions and keep him steady.  Other than some uncomfortable physical ticks, Charles seems intelligent and well spoken.  I found it disturbing that I was so easily able to relate to a lot of what Charles had to speak about society and relationships.

Crumbs other brother, Max was a totally different type of messed up.  He appeared as a burnt out hippie that has never came down from a major overdose of LSD.  He sits on a homemade bed of nails for hours a day eating a rope that he uses to cleanse his intestines or something like that.  Where as Charles is well spoken and introverted, Max makes no sense much of the time and he is commonly out on the street.  Zwigoff makes it a point to show the horribly stained bottoms of his feet to show that he too lives in swaller. 

So both of these brothers have there own idiosyncrasies to say the least.  But Crumb could have them beat hands down.  His drawings are a window into his psyche, and it is a stained glass window for sure.  He talks about as a child humping a cowboy boot while singing "Jesus Loves Me".  He talks about masturbating 4-5 times a day and often to his own comics.  We meet some of the women he has been with and for the most part they all have terrible things to say about him.  He readily admits to hating women, yet we see him be as charming and respectful as a guy can be to them.  Then at the same time we see a cartoon of his where a man cuts a woman's head off and gives her to a buddy so he can have sex with here without having to listen to her complain.  He tries to explain that he takes his frustrations out on the page so he doesn't have to in real life. 

This movie reminded me a fair amount to another great doc, Grey Gardens.  The Beal's in that movie could give the Crumbs a run for their money in this movie for most eccentric family.  Where the Beals have been "crazy" for a while, it was money and mental disorders that led them to their state of disillusionment.  Unfortunately it was lack of money and abuse that led to the disintegration of their family.  Their father was an abusive task master that wanted three boy nerds to grow up marines instead of drawing all day. Their mother is a pill popping, bi-polar, neurotic monster.

I like this movie because I never once felt manipulated pandered too.  The director let the story play out very naturally.  That might be another reason that it reminded me so much of Grey Gardens.  I give Crumb ★★★★.

Movie #213 Indiana Jones and the Last Cursade *1989*

Big time cheat here.  I have watched all the Indiana Jones movie numerous times and I like all of them in varying degrees.  Here are my 3 Reasons to watch the 3 movie in the series.

Reason 1.  It is the most "old time radio serial" film of the bunch.  The film unfolds like a "When we last left out hero" type of story.

Reason 2.  Sean Connery exudes cantankerous and worldly in this picture.  He is totally charming.

Reason 3.  The movie never lets you exhale.  This is a driven film.  And I mean who doesn't want to see Indy fighting Nazis?


Reason 4. (cheating my cheat) River Phoenix blew up after this movie!

I give Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade ★★★★.

Movie #212 Bridesmaids *2011*

When I think back at the moments in my life that I found to be the funniest, rarely are they the ones that started with a joke or a prank.  They are the moments that began with mundane, real life instances that for whatever reason became silly or embarrassing.  I'm talking about the "you had to be there" moments that are not funny at all when retold after the fact.

That is one of the reasons comedy is so difficult to write for the screen.  If you are trying to write funny jokes or set up's, there is a feeling of "trying to hard" that can totally kill any comedic momentum that you are building.  The lazy man's way around this is to insert gross out humor or shock humor.  This type of comedy is not really intended to make you laugh so much as it is to get any type of visceral reaction out of you.  The genius of the Jackass movies is that it is all shock humor.  It is like comedy porn.  Just funny money shot after funny money shot.

Bridesmaids could have fallen into the same trappings as so many other recent entries into the comedy genre.  But instead the writer and start Kristen Wiig developed a film that bounces back and forth from high brow to low brow comedy with the greatest of ease.  That is not to say that there aren't a few shocking moments in the movie.  After a suspicious meal at a low end Indian restaurant Wiig and her ensemble incurred  some gastrointestinal issues.   I have to admit to laughing at this scene more that I would have thought.

I did laugh more hardily and in a way that I will remember much more based on the small and seemingly insignificant elements of the film.  Wiig has a knack for hitting the back end of a joke or bit better than anyone working that I know of.  A traditional joke consists of two elements: The Set Up and The Punchline.  There are many variations of the formula of course, but Wiig makes a joke last forever by quitely tailing off the jokes with an ever decreasing distance.

So far I have mostly spoke of Wiig but this really is a ensemble piece.  I won't list all the actresses and actors, but I will point out a few high and low points.  Melissa McCarthy is getting a lot of praise for her performance.  She was funny, but in all fairness she had one of the schitickiest roles.  Her physical humor was flawless.  I didn't believe her character arc.  She appears near the end of the movie to life the spirits of another of the ladies and I didn't know where that came from.  Imagine a person you meet a a common friends party and then see a few more time in social situations coming over to your house to help you morn the loos of a grandparent.  That is kind of what that scene felt like to me.

Speaking of character arcs, both Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey were not so much characters as they were stereotypes.  The advertising even sold the movie this way.  The shy one and the repressed mother of 3.  I laughed at them, but not always in the way I was supposed to.  I enjoyed Maya Rudolph.  I thought her and Wiig had great chemistry and seemed like life long friends.  Rose Byrne was neither here nor there for me.

The one actor that really stood out and I felt benefited the most from this movie was Chris O'Dowd.  He plays a state trooper who falls for Wiig until she breaks his heart.  Very honest and again, quietly funny performance.

I give Bridesmaids ★★★1/2.

Movie #211 Thor *2011*

On my way home from the theater I was trying to decide how to review Thor.  I was questioning if I wanted to do a funny review where I pointed out all the ridiculous moments in the movie and made fun of them.  Then I realized that I probably didn't have time to type all that before the end of the weekend.  Then I thought about writing a surprised review in where I explained that I had zero expectations going into the film and came out pleasantly surprised with the product.  But then I realized that if I went in that direction my review would be very thin and uninteresting.  I thought about doing a boring plot synopsis, but I am not sure I totally understood the plot.  I thought about doing an expose on comic book films where Thor fits in with them.  I finally decided to do a bit of each and hope for the best so here it goes.

When I watch a movie at home I take notes.  I know, I am a dork.  But I have a lot of thoughts that I want to make sure I remember for my blogs.  My notes comment on movie connections, music cues, specific shots or camera angles, lines of dialogue and so on.  I really wished that I had my note book while I watched this movie.  There was a lot to comment on.  A quick synopsis would be: An arrogant prince from a far away planet is banished to earth until he can learn modesty.  All the while his ill father is being deceived by his adopted brother.  Then throw in a bunch of crap to further set up the Avengers movie and there you have it.

I would like to write more about the motives of Loki, Thor's brother, but I truly don't understand his actions.  Either he is a far more complicated and Shakespearean character than we have ever seen from any of these Marvel movies (an most Shakespearean plays even) or he is poorly written.  Sometimes he seems to be doing good by his home, others times he is thinking only of himself.  Sometimes he seems hungry for the throne and will do anything to be crowned King, other times he is only wants the title to gain the praise of his father.  Sometimes he is a warring monster against a neighboring planet, other times he seems to be working along side them in an attempt to destroy his home.  This kind of dichotomy can be very effective if handled properly but in this script he is jumping from personality to personality in the same scene.  I never knew what he was going to do or say.  And I meant that in a bad way.

When did WWF superstar Chris Jericho become a movie star?  The character of Thor is played by Chris Hemsworth.  A beefcake of an actor mostly known for his TV work, which is my way of saying I have never heard of him before.  I suppose he fit the part.  I don't really have anything negative to say about his performance.  I wonder how many others roles he will fit the bill for.  He is a muscular, chiseled good looks type.  It seems like in today's industry Hollywood isn't really making many movies with bulked up dudes in them the way they were in the 80's, but I wish him well.  Natalie Portman is his love interest.  She is very cute in the role and she isn't asked to do much more than that.  Kat Dennings (who I find to be a manic pixie dream girl) is only in the movie to spew comic relief.  I am talking 100% of her dialogue is supposed to be funny.  She doesn't have a single line that couldn't be followed by a rim shot.  Anthony Hopkins is the king.  It seems he was allowed free range to get as theatrical as he wanted.  But it worked.  I was glad he never winked about his performance.  Playing it straight saved what could have been a way over the top production.

The rest of the cast consists of characters actors who are simply set dressing.  I have a question though.  Why does the Asian guy on Thor's home planet speak with an accent?  Is the character from the Chinese area of that planet?

Thor is filled to the brim with CGI.  Some effective, some not.  The effective things were the little flourishes and touches that were sprinkled around to better flush out the environment.  The large lavish backdrops and monsters felt and looked fake.  It made me long for the days of Superman where his fortress of solitude was an actual set and not just a green screen backdrop.  There was depth and a sense of placement in those real world settings.  Like human, or alien hands had actually spent time there.

Speaking of sense of placement, I thought the battle sequences were poorly staged.  It just looked like flashing colors and grunts.  Then camera moved to quickly and the editing was too cut up to provide any sense of location.  Think of The Bourne movies.  When Jason Bourne is in a hand-to-hand fight you might actually duck when a punch is being thrown.  That is because you know exactly where you are in relationship to the action on screen.  Not even 3-D (which I did not see this in) can make up for bad and over enthusiastic camera work. 

Speaking of camera work the Dutch angles in this film are over the top.  A Dutch angle is where the horizon is not parallel with the bottom or top of the screen.  The view is askew.  This technique is to subtly inform the viewer that something is not right in the story, or that something strange is going on here.  Kenneth Branagh, the director of Thor used this technique at nauseoum.  I bet there are near 100 Dutch Angle shots.  When used correctly it is a great tool to infer some bizarre happenings.  Here is draws attention to it's self and took me out of the picture.  There is another rule of camera work, and that is never to rotate the camera more than 180 degrees in a single take.  This type of movement can make the viewer disoriented and loose perspective.  I like when directors smash these cinematic conventions, but in Thor Branagh does it at least twice and both time I felt like I was totally lost and removed.  I was disoriented.  This is a convention because it is true.

All in all I would say that the movie was a little thin, and I could have lived without the SHEILD stuff entirely.  But I will have to say that I was somewhat entertained by Thor.  My only other note would have mentioned something about wanting to see Yoshi and Mario on dirt bikes riding along the rainbow road.  I give Thor ★★★.

Movie #210 Mega Shark vs Crocosarus *2010*

Jaleel White - Dr Terry McCormick
Asylum Films

I didn't list the directors name above because it really doesn't matter.  For the first time though I did list the production and distribution company Asylum films.  They are the machine behind such films knockoff as Transmorphers, The Day the Earth Stopped and Snakes on a Train.

MS vs CS really has not plot.  It is a bunch on segments of military men and wild animal hunters traveling the globe tracking two over sized animals and trying to kill them.  Maybe.  Nothing in this movie really matters.  FOr Christ's sake TV's Urkel "stars" in this movie.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Cinemax late night shows Busty Cops?  MS vs CS is like Busty Cops without the boobs.  It is soft-core porn minus nudity. I kept getting the feeling that any minute the top heavy female lead was going to find an excuse to disrobe but it never happened.

I am not usually one to complain about continuity problem, but MS vs CS was so poorly thrown together at one moment CS stomps on a guy and smashes him.  The footprint left behind was roughly the size of a sedan.  Later in the movie he stomps on the Gator Bowl football stadium and both feet take up the entire building.  There are about 1,000 other examples of this in the film if you care to watch it.  I was reminded of The Aviator and the scene about the clouds.  They needed clouds in the background so that the viewer would have a reference point to see how fast the planes were going.  The problem here is that we were given to much to compare size with.  Of course the real problem here is that this film and its creators didn't care.

There was  moment were I thought we were going to get a bad retelling of the King Kong story, then a bunch of random, stupid stuff happens and I lost all interest.  Also because the CGI was SO bad the monsters just popped up on screen.  The film makers truly have no sense of how to create tension or conflict.  Even a cheap, low budget film can do that.

Asylum Films cranks these cheap knockoffs out in an attempt to fool the consumer who do not pay that much attention.  They have built an empire on mistakes.  I guess I have to give them credit for that.  I give MS vs CS ★1/2.  It is not even "so bad it's good" good.

Movie #209 Brute Force *1947*

Burt Lancaster - Joe Collins
Hume Cronyn - Captain Munsey
Jules Dasin (Director)

Can Burt Lancaster do any wrong?  Sure he doesn't have the greatest range in the world, but the characters he plays he fully inhabits and makes his own.   In Brute Force he plays an inmate in an over-crowded prison.  The prison is ran by the warden, but really it is Captain Munsey that calls the shots.  He rules with a deceptive sneakiness.  Lancaster tries to break out of the prison with the help of his cell mates and they run into some opposition. Munsey was played almost like a psychopath.  He is at least bi-polar.  Cronyn was great in the mostly understated performance.

I was expecting another movie and another performance similar to that of Lancasters in The Birdman of Alcatraz.  I was presently surprised to find that was not the case.  They are two very different films.  One would not have to look very hard to find more than a few similarities between Brute Force and another prison film, The Shawshank Redemption.   Escape plans through drain pipes, bully guards, prison clicks and gangs, and the calm old man.  In Shawshank it was Brooks the librarian.  In Brute Force it is Dr. Walters the drunk.

The opening score of this film took no time to introduce this film as a serious dissection of prison life.  Then the movie introduces a charming yet annoying character call Calypso who sings everything he says.  It is a great Dassin moment.  This frivolity in the middle of all this anguish.  Dassin then proceeds to slowly introduce all the characters and their back story.  This was an element of the film that I could have lived without.

Using flashbacks (and the woman on the inmates calendar to channel them) we are introduced to the women that were part of these men's lives before they were incarcerated.  Many of these women were either directly blamed for the imprisonment of the men, or they played a role in so.  I felt like this took away some of the tension and claustrophobia that was building by keeping the camera in an over-stuffed jail cell.

The ending is a strange thing.  First, I should remind you that this film was made in the hey day of the Hayes Code.  No film would have been allowed to show how to escape from a prison per the code.  Not only that anyone that commits an immoral act must receive punishment equal to that of the offense.  All these restrictions made for a clever final act and some very impressive "what's going on behind the scenes" moments.  The very final shot is that of the Dr breaking the 4th wall and pleading with viewers never to try to escape from prison because no one ever makes it.  While it felt very tacked on and I'm sure some executive had it placed there as a sort of insurance plan, it's charm shines though.

While this film contained many Dassin signature elements I found Brute Force to be the least cinematic expressive of all of his films that I have seen so far.  Still I found it to be very enjoyable and I am sure I will be revisiting it later.  I give Brute Force ★★★1/2.

Movie #208 Carrie *1976*

Sissy Spacek - Carrie
Piper Laurie - Mrs. White
Nancy Allen - Chris Hargensen
Brian DePalma (Director)
Carrie is one of those classic horror movies everybody must see.  There is Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, The Shining and so on.  I am not much of a horror buff so I am slowly making my way through these classic films.  The questions I ask myself after having seen one of these movies is "What separates this movie from the others" and "Why is this considered a classic".

With Carrie both of those questions are easily answered. Carrie has wonderful performances from several cast members.  Spacek is un-nerving in the title role.  At first (the shower scene) I was asking if she was mentally challenged.  That was not the case.  She has problems blending in with other students at her high school because of her upbringing.  Her mother, Piper Laurie, was just as chilling in her role as the overbearing and abusive religious fanatic.  Nancy Allen was a little over the top as Chris, the most popular girl in school / biggest bitch.  All these are archetype characters in teen horror flicks.  While this cast was good, it was not the factor that set the movie apart.

The plot revolves around Carrie.  A shy, awkward girl that is abused both at home and at school.  The twist is that she begins to develop the power to movie objects with her mind.  She is asked to the Senior Prom by a school hunk as a favor from his girl friend who feels bad for taunting Carrie.  When the high school tart pulls a cruel prank on Carrie all hell breaks loose.  This plot is specific to this film of course, and the Steven King book that it was based on, but the basic story could be pulled from many different films in the horror genre.

The camerawork is fantastic as you would except from a Brian DePalma film.  The most flashy of the set-ups takes place during a dance Carrie and her date share.  It does a great job of setting up the mood and foreshadowing the events to come.  The signature DePalma split screen is present, but I had to ask why.  There didn't really seem to be a need to go split screen, at least early on in the movie.  I think it was used a little more organically later in the movie.  Even though much of the camerawork is easily recognizable as DePalma's, creative and exotic camerawork is almost a staple of horror movies.  Usually they have lower budgets and that forces directors and DP's to come up with inventive and fun ways to movie a camera to create a atmosphere.  Evil Dead is a great example of this.

So what sets Carrie apart?  The pacing.  DePalma is not interested in making a traditional horror movie.  He is having a blast making an almost exploitative teen sex romp.  He goes as far as to have Karen Allen go down on John Travolta and right in the middle of it she belts out "I hate Carrie White"!  I laughed so hard at that moment.  The opening of the movie consists largely of a tracking shot through a high school women's shower, where all sorts of fully naked, fully exposed teens are shown.  I thought that was a little over the top.  The girls PE scene looked like it was filmed for some USA Up All Night movie from the 80's.  But all the while there is this building tension between Carrie and her mother.  And tension with Carrie and her prom date.  And Chris and her mean spirited prank.  DePalma milks every bit of anxiety out of the first 2 acts.  Then the final 20 minutes is bat shit crazy and one of the most horrific 20 minutes of horror history.  Most of this comes from the long build up, then the sudden release of all that tension.  Carrie is like a cinematic spring that just busted.

Another thing Carrie has going for it is there is more going on that what is written in the script.  I don't think I am stretching it too much when I say that Carrie is a movie about the fears of womanhood as much as it is a horror movie.  The scariest thing about most horror films isn't what is seen on screen, it is what we know is off screen but we don't know where.  Carrie uses the mysteries of becoming a woman and to invoke the fear of the unknown.  It is very effective.

Why is Carrie considered a classic?  That is the easier question to answer.  It is a classic because of all of the things listed above all in one movie.  Other horror films might have great characters or unique camerawork, but not many others have all these things.  Carrie is a film that you can tell was realized exactly how the director pictured it in his head.  I give Carrie ★★★1/2.

I am amazed at how much Disney is using sex to sell it's next Pirates movie. The mouse is a pimp.

I am amazed at how much Disney is using sex to sell it's next Pirates movie. The mouse is a pimp.

Movie #207 The Green Hornet *2011*

I'm not sure what happened here.  The Green Hornet was a classic TV show with a small following.  Hollywood got the idea to capitalize on the resurgence of superhero movies (no matter how insignificant) by releasing a feature film of the crime fighting duo.  They went in a bold direction with whom they decided to helm the project.

Michael Gondry was announced as the films director.  You might know Mr Gondry from his masterpiece Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  If not there are a few other films that he has directed with varrying levels of success.  The Science of Sleep, Be Kind Rewind and Block Party to name a few.  If you were watching MTV when they still occasionally showed music videos you might have seen some of his video work.  Most notably to me is the video for The White Stripes "Fell in Love with a Girl".  No matter your opinion on Mr Gondry, it is undeniable he has a keen eye and visual style all to his own.

Then the new got even stranger with the casting of Seth Rogan as the character The Green Hornet.  Funnyman extraordinaire of the Apatow cannon, at first glance he doesn't posses the typical superhero features.  He is a dumpy, stoner in most of his films.  I was still optimistic in the project at this point.  I remembered what PT Anderson did with Punch Drunk Love and Adam Sandler.  Then the casting of a mostly unknown Chinese guy for the role of Kato, the sidekick and secret weapon, was even more bizarre.

Once I saw the trailer for the film all my confidence subsided.  First off, this film was being made during the period where every movie on the slab was getting a 3-D post conversion.  Secondly, I think Gondry had one thing in mind for the film and the studio, having sunk a butt load of money into the project, wanted to make a movie that everyone could agree upon.  They didn't want some visual savant making an artsy mind fu*k of a film out of their popcorn fodder.   Which made me wonder what they were thinking by hiring Gondry in the first place.

Well I had a free REDBOX rental the other day and I caught up with this one.  Mostly forgettable.  There are a few moments of pure inspiration, but overall this movie wore me down.

The plot involves a publishing mogul dying and his freeloading son has to take over his fathers empire while living in his shadow.  This man with the help of his industrious mechanic become the duo of the Green Lantern.  The villian is played by Christopher Waltz.  He is a self absorbed and insecure baddie.  A recurring joke that fell with a thud every time they marched it out.

Rogan did what he could to salvage this thing.  He natural timing and improved style makes for some "happy accidents", but beyond that the acting is pretty sour.  Jay Chou as Kato still hasn't quite mastered the English language and that made it difficult / impossible to be able to riff with Rogan.

Like I said there are a few things worth noting in the movie.  Most of them have something to do with Gondry.  You can see the "Gondry touches" whenever they come up.  But because of that it looks like the film is directed by two different people.  Even Gondry takes his physical comedy and stunts too far by driving the front half of a car in a stunt that was supposed to be funny, but by this time the plot had completely fallen apart and it was clear that the only reason the good guys were doing this was so that Gondry could get his half-car idea in the movie.

I give The Green Hornet ★★1/2.

Movie #206 Blow Out *1981*

Movie #180 was the first time I watched Brian De Palma's Blow Out.  That review is lacking a little, but I was short on time then just like I am now.  So one of these day I will better be able to accentuate what it is I love about this film.  Until then here are my 3 Reason to watch Blow Out.

Reason 1.  The 360 degree shot in the film storage room.

Reason 2.  Hitchcock would be proud.

Reason 3.  John Travolta playing it straight.  Easily his best performance (and that is saying something)

Here are 3 more:

Reason 4.  The chase sequence and fireworks scene.

Reason 5.  The opening B movie and both it's steadycam shots.

Reason 6. The editing during the editing in the film. 

Blow Out really is a master at the height of his craft.  This is his Mona Lisa.

I give Blow Out ★★★★1/2.

Movie #205 Easy A *2010*

I did it again.  I fell for Miss Emma Stone.  It's not hard to do.  She is as witty as she is lovely.  I already did a review of this film. Which I just read and it's not half bad.  So here are my 3 Reasons to watch Easy A.

Reason 1.  The a fore mentioned Emma Stone.

Reason 2.  The best on screen parents I can remember.  Every kid wishes their parent were this cool.

Reason 3.  Satire that is both intellectual and funny.  A trick most satirical films fail miserably at any more.

I give Easy A ★★★★.

Movie #204 Homeboy *1988*

One of my favorite parts about this film blog is getting to find these little, under seen or wrongly forgotten films and sing their praises.  I love finding a gem hidden in the rubble.  Homeboy however is not one of these films.  Homeboy is a sloppy movie from credits to credits.  This is what I get for literally judging a book (or in this case a DVD box) by it's cover.  I saw Mickey Rourke as a boxer and Christopher Walken as a hustler and my heart went pitter pat.  I loved Rourke in The Wrestler and I was excited to see another version of that character.  Walken brings an enthusiasm to every role he plays that is sometimes a little over the top, but never boring.

I wasn't two minutes into this film, not even out of the opening credits and I could tell that I had started something that I wasn't going to want to finish.  It had a very "movie of the week" or "Lifetime presents" look to the film.  Unfortunately it didn't get any better after.

I'm not sure what Rourke was going for, but he was using a high pitched and inconsistent southern voice.  He wasn't given a lot of lines to deliver (in a script that he wrote), and I was glad about that because everything he said was a mumbling line reading.  I felt like this was method acting gone out of control.  This was an actor searching for something that wasn't in the script and didn't have a talented enough director to fully bring it out of him.

Walken was the only saving grace of this movie.  That is to say that I found his ridiculousness amusing.  He at least kept my attention.  I am a sucker for Walken's tone and the way he paces words.  Listening to him say lines like "Silk shirts in every color of the rainbow" and "all the dinosaurs turned into birds.  That's a fact" made me laugh out loud.  There are a scattering of other side characters through out the movie.  Some get more examination than others, but none of them are ever fully flushed out.  Most of them serve little more purpose than to muttle the already meandering plot.  I was an hour into this movie and I still had no idea what it was about.

Not being into this film I took a lot of notes about the things that I noticed.  Here are a most of them:
The boxing scenes were maybe the worst I have even seen.  I am a big fan of boxing movies (one of the reasons I was excited to see this film) but there was no sense of tension or pacing in the setups.  They were images of two men hitting each other.  There was no momentum build up.  In Rourke's last fight there were some inspired slow-mo shots that cut to action outside of the ring that I really liked.  But other than that I thought the fight scenes were shot very poorly.

I had no idea how I was supposed to feel about Rourke's character.  He can be a shy, gentle introvert and other times he is a dickish antagonizing prick.  I typically love a character that is not a one note type, but you have to give me some reason and understanding why there area such polar opposites to his character.   And having him stare off into the distance doesn't make for character development.  It was never clear what his motives were.  If I had known them maybe I could have better understood his pains and misgivings.  Actually, as a whole, I felt the same way about the entire movie.  One of my notes states "What is this movies aspirations"?  I don't like to be manipulated, but I need to feel something.

Speaking of being manipulated, the score for this film is obscene  The music in Inception is more discreet.  Every time there is a change in the mood of the film (which is way too often) there is a music change.  I had a love/hate relationship with the slap bass in this movie.  It reminded me of Seinfeld and even more so of Night Court.  It was stupid and didn't fit with anything going on in the film, if there was anything going on.  I loved it for it's stupidity.  Again another unintentional laugh.  The same goes for the rain sequence at the end of the film.  I have seen some pretty crappy fake rain, but never this bad.  They might as well shown us the fans just off camera blowing the rain around. 

My last complaint with be about a plot point.  Normally I am not one to make a big fuss about certain plot points that don't always make the most sense.  Like in horror movies when the kids think they hear something in the woods so they go looking for it instead of running away.  But here Rourke's character has been on a loosing streak and he is not taking are of his body.  It looks like he will continue to be a 3rd rate fighter.  That is until his even more down on his luck (I can tell because his hair is messed up every time we see him) got him a fight against the #1 contender for the heavyweight belt.  Now why would a promoter or manager agree to give a schlub like Rourke a shot against the man who could be the next heavyweight champion?  It just doesn't make any sense.  Maybe if the film was a little better all around I could have over looked this a little easier.

The best I can figure is that Mickey Rourke is a boxing movie fan like myself.  I say this because there are elements of many other great boxing films in Homeboy.  For example:Walken could have easily been replaced with Voight and Hoffman.  The problem here is that a good movie isn't just a mash up of other great films.  You can borrow from them, but you need a story to weave them through.  This is the brilliance of Quentin Tarantino.

While I was watching this I was tweeting about how long people watch bad movies before they turn them off.  A person responded that if she is going to consider them "watched" she must make it all the way through.  I agreed, but this film really tested that theory.  However, I was glad that I stuck around until the end because I saw something that if it is on YouTube I suggest watching this scene and skipping the rest of the movie.  There is a sub-plot involving Walken and Rourke attacking and robbing 3 Hasidic Jews.  Rourke backs out at the last minute and Walken is forced to do it alone.  His plan involves him dressing up like a Hasid and punching one in the face and swiping the briefcase of jewels from another then running away.  A Swiss Watch of a plan if I understand it correctly.  Just seeing Walken dressed up with a ZZ Top like beard and Hasid hat was nearly worth the price of admission, but not quite enough.  I give Homeboy ★.