Movie #235 Just Go With It *2011*

This review will be brief.  I watched this on a plane without the sound.  I think that was better for me.  I was able to not only keep up with the story, but predict what was going to happen to nearly everyone involved.

Basically this cinematic insult to the human race is the story of a playboy/nerd who lies to women to get them to feel sorry for him and he get sympathy sex out of the deal.  Until he meet a mega hot chick who thinks that he is or was married (this is because he is using the ole "wedding ring to nail broads" trick).  He the cons his plain jane assistant Jenifer Aniston (we know she is plain looking because she is wearing glasses and a ponytail).  In turn Aniston has Sandler spend tons of money on her in grave digger fashion. 

Of course she is a single mother and her kids get in the mix.  Her daughter gives a finger nails down the chalk board type performance.  Keep in mind that I don't have sound during this movie.  Well the whole gang ends up going to a tropical vacation.  Somehow his sleazy bet friend weasels his way into the mix as well.  This character is basically Sleep N Eat for white people.

Of course Sandler grows tired of his hottie girlfriend and finds the beauty in his assistant.  This isn't entirely true.  It isn't until they strip Aniston down to a bikini that he realizes she has something special.  If there was any justice in this world every woman's group, men's group, animal rights activities and Congress should put a ban on this film and all other projects like it.

I give Give Go With It ★.

Movie #234 Naked Lunch *1991*

"I can think of two things wrong with that title" ~ Bart Simpson

Naked Lunch is directed by David Cronenberg based on the novel by William S. Burroughs.  After watching the film I did a little research on the book.  I am under-read when it comes to the works of Burroughs and his contemporaries such as Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg.  I knew that the writings of these men were drug fuel and often times incoherent.  There is a rich history of film making following the same stragities that these writers did.  Bunel is a great example and to a lesser extent Terry Gilliam.

David Cronenberg seems like the heir apparent to this type of narrative structure and film making process.  His earliest big hit was The Fly.  Far from a typical horror or sci fi movie, yet still main stream enough to appeal to a mass audience.

I have to say though that Naked Lunch did not connect with me.  I watched this movie over two viewings.  Not because I was revolted or insulted in any matter.  It was because without a coherent structure to follow everything in the film seemed like parlor tricks.  I couldn't get invested in the story.

A few noteworthy things are the anaimatronics.  They were weird as hell, but fitting with the vibe of the movie.  Peter Weller is good in the lead role.  He plays detached, confused and stoned very well.  It is well shot.  I got the feeling watching it that the director was getting exactly what he was looking for, and therefore it is a success.  At least to him.

I know this film has a cult following.  I suspect it is the same crowd that enjoy the source material.  This is not the first film in this vein that I have watched, and I seem to have the same reaction to them.  I appreciate the craft at hand, but ultimately I find them unsatisfying.  I have to give Naked Lunch ★★.

Movie #233 Highlander *1986*

"There can be only one."

Actually there can be four. That is if we are counting film in the Highlander series.  And I am only counting the ones with Christopher Lambert.  And that is not to mention a very successful television series.  But I digress.

Sometimes I look back at a film on my Netflix Queue and wonder why I added it.  Both my Instant and Mail queue have over 150 titles in them.  At the rate I am going now if I add a movie to the bottom of my queue and I don't shuffle it around I probably won't watch it for at least 18 months.  Maybe more.  But that is not the case with Highlander.  I put it in my queue because I remember my father loving everything Highlander.  And I remember enjoying them in my youth.  As with many things there is a nostalgia factor that has a tendency to make thing from our past seem almost sacred.  I wanted to see if Highlander was one of these "great then" movies.

And it really is.  I went into this movie wanting to reconnect with it and I just couldn't do it.  That is not to say there aren't any good moments.  Because there are.  There are actually quite a few very well shot and creative scenes.  Unfortunately for every inspired scene, there are 2 or 3 that are really bad.  By bad I mean they look cheap, they make no sense for the story, they are terribly dated, and they are unintentionally funny.   I will give examples of each.

First off the thing I remember most (other than the tag line which I have heard my dad say thousands of times) is Sean Connery.  What I didn't remember is what he is doing in the movie.  Now I know why I didn't remember that.  First reason is that I think my brain blocked out that he is dressed like a gay caballero.  Second reason I don't remember him is that the only reason that he is in the film is to inform Macleod (and teh viewers) what the movie is all about.  Up until this point, which is about 30 minutes in, there is no logic as to why we have been bouncing back and forth between the present (1980's) and several hundreds of years ago.  Connery only job is to provide exposition while training Macleod on how to sword fight. 

Then there is the unavoidable training montage.  This montage and the entire movie is enhanced by a Queen soundtrack that is like a pair of assless chaps to the face.  It is power cords and stadium rock turned up to 11.  The sword work and training mostly takes place on mountain tops using a camera equip helicopter to circle around and film two stunt men very slowly (as to not fall off the mountain) hitting their swords against one another.  The more I type this the more homoerotic I realize this film to be.   I guess I should mention that Macleod is a single antiques dealer in the modern world too.

In a scene where the baddie fights Connery there is a horribly filmed sequence with Styrofoam blocks representing huge limestone bricks.  The scene looks like something right out of the He Man live action movie, and that is not a compliment.  There is an scene at the end of the movie where animation is used (presumably because they couldn't afford CGI {keep in mind that Terminator was made 2 years earlier}) and it looks terrible.  Not to mention that you can clearly see the wires that are holding Macleod up.  And why the crap do they have a Scottish born Sean Connery playing a Spaniard in a movie about Scottish folklore?  And why is he carrying a samurai sword!?!

Now for some positive things.  The previous scene mentioned at the end of the film has a great shot of a blue back lit wall of windows shattering.  That was a good effect. There were other well made and cleverly shot scenes.  In the opening sequence we are at a professional wrestling match (not helping to dispel my homosexual undertones theory) and there is a crane shot that I was wildly impressed with.

The problem with this movie is that it takes a shot like that in a very cool intro and then moves onto an old man doing backflips in a parking garage for no reason at all.  He is in a battle with Macleod, but three different times they have him doing series of backflips with no sign of any present danger.  I am always complaining about movies that try to rely on their CGI instead of telling a story.  Highlander has a decent story, but they added a bunch of stupid crap that totally took me out of the movie.  Example:

Connery just shows up on Macleod's doorstep.  The whole thing about being a Highlander is that you have to kill all the other highlanders.  Hence "There can be only one".  But Connery just decided that Macleod is a cool Dude so he is going to mentor him.  They give no reason for that at all.  Then in Connery's big epic battle Macleod is no where to be found.  Then Macleod's wife get buried in rubble, then we are told the baddie rapped her.  But we have no evidence to reason to believe that it happened.  Weak and lazy writing. 

My final scene is that when the baddie meets Macleod in the church Macleod is ready to fight him right then but he doesn't want to.  Then in the next scene he is trying to find Macleod to fight.  There are a lot of things in this movie that you have to just go with the flow.  Too many for my liking.  But anyway, as the baddie is leaving the church he proclaims "It's better to burn out than to fade away".  Then he claps his hands together, spins around in a circle Michael Jackson style, and throws up his thumbs and index fingers in "the guns" pose.  I can't think of a cheesier moment in cinema history.

To be honest I did enjoy watching this movie.  But more for is flaws than its skill.  This film has all the making of a cult classic. I can see me getting a group of guys together and watching this movie and making fun of it.  Wow, that last line is sorta gay.  I give Highlander ★★.

Movie #232 The Battle of Algiers *1966*

This is one of the "must see" films for any cinephile.  Set in the mid 50's in the country of Algeria, the movie is about the organization and development of a guerrilla campaign against the French occupants / colonizers.  Presented largely in a documentary like fashion, the movie uses both the visual aesthetic and editing techniques employed by cinema verite film makers to bring to life the reality of the situation.

One of the things that I liked about this movie is that although it is about a political and military act, it doesn't really take sides.  Until the end of the movie it is very A-political.  The movie shows both the positive and negitive characteristics of both the French and Algerian people involved in this conflict.

The movie definitely brought to mind several other films for me.  The one that I thought of the most was Bloody Sunday.  The movie about the Irish march that turned into a massacre.  Battle of Algiers was shot in 1966.  Only 10 years or so after the situation it is portraying.  By looking at the film today, I would have guessed that it was shot much earlier than that.  It is very gritty and the transfer I saw at least (Netflix Streaming) with dark and not uncommonly out of focus. I am not sure if this was a look the film makers were going for, or a limitation put upon them by finical or time restraints. 

Not being a historian I am not going to go on about the politics of this struggle, but I can say that after watching this movie I checked out Wikipieda to read up a little bit more on the issues at hand.  I like a movie that can get me interested in subjects like this.  I will also say that if you watch much French cinema Algeria comes up an awful lot.  A little research can yield big result and a better understanding of other references.  I give The Battle of Algiers ★★★1/2.

Movie #231 Sabotage *1936*

Well it was bound to happen eventually.  I was let down by a Hitchcock movie.  I guess in all honesty this isn't really the first time.  The first and only time I watched North by Northwest I was a little let down.  I found the film to be overwrought and self important.  I thought the performances were good, and the story was too long but it was a thriller.  Of course Hitch handled the story well, but by that time in his career I think he was realizing that he had a reputation to live up to.  A realization to fame can be the beginning of the dismantlization of the things that made a person famous in the first place.  It is why baseball players don't talk to a pitcher when he is throwing a perfect game. 

With Sabotage I fell like this is a movie built around to thrilling and dramatic scenes.  One where a boy is sent on an errand to deliver some film reels.  The other being a woman's revenge.  Both of the eye catching and pulse throbbing scenes are at the end of the film.  It is a short movie with a run time of about 75 minutes.  But unfortunately there was not enough mystery in the first 2/3 of the movie to keep me interested.

The two scenes mentioned are great and if you can find them on YouTube I would recommend it.  But there is not much reason to sit through the first hour in order to get to them.  I give Sabotage ★★1/2.

Movie #230 I Saw the Devil *2010*

The revenge genre is HUGE in Korea.  I Saw the Devil could be looked at as the culmination of all the Korean revenge films from the past few years.  Directed by Jee-woon Kim it is the story of a man who's fiance is murdered by a serial killing psychopath.  The man then vows vengeance for his wife's death.  That is a pretty common and basic synopsis of most revenge thriller flicks. 

The thing that differentiates Korean revenge movies is their focus on the negative aspects of seeking revenge.  They look at the aftermath of revenge and the lingering effects that vigilante justice has on those who dish it out.  Another thing that separates Korean films is their willingness to take the violence and gore to extreme lengths.  Typical Korean thrillers are very graphic when dealing with sex / sexual abuse, torture and other methods of sadomasochism.  I think back to the American movies of the 1970's.  There was a surge of revenge movies at this time.  It was a product of the cheap grindhouse and exploitation films as well as a political statement.  These films represented a social conscience.  America was still bitter from the Vietnam War, there was the civil liberties movement, there were riots, and America was sick of crime and smut on it's streets.  These attitudes manifested themselves in our films.  Charles Bronson and his Death Wish films are a perfect example.  I don't know much about Korean politics, but I am curious if the same type of social happenings are taking place there.

What separates I Saw the Devil from these other movies is the length it is allowed to take the basic revenge plot.  In I Saw the Devil the protagonist gets vengeance very early in the movie.  But he doesn't stop there.  he plants a tracking device on the killer and follows him around.  Every time the killer attempts to hurt another person the man shows up and rains brutal punishment down upon him again.  The killer eventually becomes aware of the mans plot and then the film turns into a contest of gory killings and torture of the family members of everyone involved.  Needless to say I Saw the Devil is not for the faint at heart.

Another thing that separates I Saw the Devil is the craftsmanship at hand.  Despite the subject matter and superfluous amounts of blood and guts in the movie this is a beautiful film to look at.  It is exquisitely shot and directed.  The settings and landscapes are both artistic organic.  Sometimes the film has almost a dream like quality.  Other times it is a ghoulish nightmare.  It's pacing and tone is solid throughout.  The performances are very good.  Leading the way is Min-sik Choi as the killer.  You may have seen him in Oldboy.  If so you know that he can be off the chains crazy.  I think that he is the heir apparent for either Klaus Kinski or Mifune.  The other actor that really impressed me is Byung-hun Lee.  He plays the fiance and is very good.  he is a handsome man who reminded me quite a bit of Tony Leung.

The film is long, and of course it is all sub tilted for non-Korean speaking people but I think this is yet another great example of world cinema reaching out and broadening it's audiences.  I would place this movie along side of other great Korean films like The Host, Oldboy and last years Mother.  Any of these films would serve as a great introduction to this corner of the worlds cinema.  I give I Saw the Devil ★★★1/2.

Movie #229 The Dark Knight *2008*

I can not believe that I have not reviewed The Dark Knight on here.  I have a lot of opinions about this film.  Far too many to capture with 4 other blogs on my plate tonight.  So here goes my cheat.  3 Reasons to see The Dark Knight

Reason #1.  The Joker.  This is not going to be a short reason.  I am passionate about this character and performance.  In order to make a comic book movie work one of the main things you need is a good villain.  I believe that the better the villain the better the movie.  I want to believe that there is a chance that the bad guy could actually win.  If not than there is an inevitable feeling that the good guy will win.  So why become invested in the story when you know the ending for it even starts.  This does go beyond comic book movies.  Westerns, samurai films, crime movies, ect.  If you know going in that Spiderman or John Wayne is going to win, then I bet your entertainment value will be reduced.  In The Dark Knight, The Joker is untouchable and has the upper hand for the majority of the film.  There were plenty of times that I though that he may actually end up beating Batman.  Then there is Heath Ledgers performance.  Mind blowingly great.  He inhabited this character and truly made him a part of him.  Everything about The Joker is terrifying.  The makeup, the changing back-stories, all the way down to his wardrobe.  This is one of the best realized characters I can think of.  I love it that he is really not a bad guy.  He is an agent of chaos.  You can't reason with chaos.  You can't bribe chaos.  Alfred says it best when he says "Some people just want to watch the world burn".

Reason #2.  The IMAX presentation.  If this is ever re-released in IMAX theaters I will be there on opening night.  Many scenes were shot in the IMAX 70mm format and it made the scope of the scenes and in effect the entire film its self seem larger and more grandiose. 

Reason #3.  Practical effects.  Of course many of the effects are CGI, but Nolan is a big fan of practical and physical effects.  This movie was shot largely in Chicago.  There is a scene where a semi truck and trailer were flipped rear over head.  That is not CGI.  They actually flipped a truck upside down in lower Chicago.  The action and effects, even the CGI, look great here.

This movie does have its flaws.  But for my money is the is best example of what a comic book  / summer blockbuster can be in the past 20 years.  I give The Dark Knight ★★★★.

Movie #228 The Hit *1984*

Terrence Stamp - Willie Parker
Tim Roth - Myron
John Hurt - Braddock
Stephen Frears (Director)

You got to love an existential hitman movie.  I love almost all hitman movies.  It is a sub genre of the gangster movie which is a sub genre of the larger crime genre.  In this movie Stamp plays a former informant of the mob.  He has been living a peaceful life in southern Europe until two thugs show up to take him hostage and transport him back home to meet the mob boss.

These thugs are played by Tim Roth and John Hurt.  Roth plays a man on his rookie assignment out to prove himself worthy of the job.  Hurt is the seasoned and jaded veteran.  He is supposed to be cool as ice.  Once they capture Stamp they are expecting something totally different than what they got.  They expected him to be panicking and pleading for his life.  What they get is a meditative and serene man. They don't know how to take this.  Roth thinks it is a trap.  He thinks that Stamp is up to something and doesn't trust him.  Hurt never really expresses what his take on the matter is, he just wants to get the job done.

Along the way they have to make a few stops in an attempt to elude the cops, which almost don't play a role in the film at all and really makes the kidnappers seem paranoid and unprofessional.  Which in turn makes them vulnerable, which could be something Stamp might be using to his benefit.  One thing that I like about this movie is that it is very difficult to really figure out what everyone's motives are. 

At one of these stops they feel like they have to take another hostage.  This time it is a beautiful woman.  Roth begins to have sympathy for this woman and the predicament they are putting her in.  This creates yet another layer of ambiguity and character development for everyone involved. 

All the while Stamp is going along with things.  He seem un-phased by the events taking place.  he does spout some eastern wisdom about life being a journey and death not being the final step in that journey.  As he does this he seems to be goating the rookie, Roth into second guessing Hurt.  Is this some sort of plan?  Is that why he seems to be not affected by his kidnapping? 

The answers (or as close as you will get to them) come in the final few minutes of the film where some major character traits make a 180.  This movie has an explosive ending for such a slow burn of a film.  I loved it.  This movie is well shot, well acted, well written, and well constructed.  I give The Hit ★★★★.

Move #227 X-Men *2000*

I watched X-Men in preparation for my viewing of First Class.  If you read my review of First Class you will probably see much of my opinions of this movie as well.  Not to mention me getting off track for a bit to knock Thor.

So this will be a short review, and I will probably be unfairly comparing this to First Class. 

Not being a comic book guy, I don't have any real reason to get excited when a comic book movie comes out.  I have no interest in Professor X, The Green Lantern, Batman, Aquaman, ect.  Neither to I care if the film is set in Asgard, Gotham, Middle Earth or Jersey.  All I care about is the story and how it is portrayed visually and audibly.  Take The Social Network (I know it is not a comic book movie).  I don't care to see a movie about Facebook.  But I love well made movies about greed, betrayal and social dysfunction.  I don't even have to like or sympathise with the characters.  All I need to do is be sucked in by how the story is playing out.

This is where X-Men come in.  It is not a movie about mutants.  It is not a movie about stealth jets or telekinesis.  It is a movie about people that don't fit in.  That is why this comic (and many other comics) have become so popular.  They feature what society would condemn as "freaks" and "monsters".  Haven't we all felt out of place?  Does high school ring a bell?  X-Men the movie isn't trying to only appease the hardcore comic fan-boy.  It is reaching out to everyone that has ever felt isolated or different for only being who they are.  In doing so the movie raises a lot of interesting discussions that will follow the franchise.  Some in organic ways, like in X-Men 2, some not like in X-Men 3. 

So to be specific about this movie I thought the action scenes were very well done and the CGI still holds up now 11 years later and that is saying something.  I thought that the use of flashbacks and different visual schemes when showing Logan's history were well utilized and not gimmicky at all.  I thought for the most part the film makers were able to hold off on needless exposition and montage, even though eventually they had to employ a little.  I thought that it was a wise decision to not give Hally Berry too many lines of dialogue and to let her do her thing and just look good doing it.  I think that other than Magneto and Mystic the villains (toad and Sabertooth) were poorly imagined.  Toad in particular.  I think he is the worst character in the entire series.  I enjoy the very small glimpses of the young mutants and what their powers are.  It is a great way to introduce future characters and stimulate the hardcore fan at the same time.  Without centering too much screen time to people that have nothing to do with the story at hand.  I felt that the wire work was clumsy and obvious.  I thought this movie opened and closed on great bookends.  This set up a second film, all the while presenting a complete story in its own rights.

I enjoyed X-Men a good deal.  I give it ★★★1/2.

Movie #226 X-Men: First Class *2011*

I said I wasn't going to do it this year.  I told myself that you are consistently and increasingly disappointed with the summer movies.  I tried to convince myself that these comic book films are solely generated for fan boys and pre-teens with disposable income to burn.  I knew that I would receive nor substance or spiritual nutrition from these tent pole flicks.  Then I saw the X-Men: First Class trailer.  I was hooked.

The X-Men franchise has been one of the more up and down series of films in the genre (if you can call a marketing campaign a genre).  The first film received critical acclaim and did a good job of establishing the world that these mutants inhabit with out excessive use of boring exposition or laborious montages (I will be reviewing this film later this weekend).  The second film is largely considered the best in the catalogue.  Here a story is told without the burden of the origin set up's to slow things down. Both of these films were directed by Bryan Singer who also had a writing credit on both films as well.  The 3rd film saw Singer leave and I think that because of that movie suffered greatly.  At about this time the comic book surge was in full swing and there was a demand for more X-Men movies.  So the studios took advantage of the most popular character "Wolverine" and made a terrible origin movie featuring him.

Now Singer is attached as a producer and writer again and there is another re-boot of the franchise. This reboot is called "First Class".  Here we are treated to the entire set up of the X-Men organization.  It is an origin story much like The Wolverine film, but in this case the "story" is more important than the "origin".  We see the budding relationships of Professor X, Magneto, The Beast, Mystic and many other characters from the first four film.

The story is set in the 60's about the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event that will play a major role in the film.  Here Charles and Erik are 20 somethings.  Both have realized that they posses special powers and both have different opinions of how that power should be used.  The difference of opinion is respected by both parties and they put aside their petty differences for the better good.  That would be defeating Kevin Bacon as Shaw.  A man set on world domination.  And a man that has played a significant role in the shaping of Erik's psyche. 

One thing I love about this movie is that it is not just nerd fotter.  There are plenty of references to the past movies and I'm sure there are even more to the comic books that I didn't catch.  Where this film differs from many other comic book movies is that you don't have to know all these little bonus's in order to enjoy the film.  This film could stand totally on its own, and I applaud it for that.  Also this film is not merely a commercial for another film or franchise.  Take a look at this years Thor.  Clearly the entire second act was setting up next years Avengers movie.  I don't mind a reference or occasional suggestion, but dedicating an entire 40 minutes to setting up another movie makes me feel like I got ripped off.  I put down my $11 to watch a Thor movie.  Not an extended trailer for a different movie.  To go along with that there is the introduction of a character in Thor with a bow and arrow that is apparently a character for the Avenger movie.  Fine.  I can deal with that.  But make him part of this story then.  Don't just parade him out to say "look what we have up our sleeve".  It was distracting and didn't serve any purpose other than hype.

Sorry, I digress. Another thing that I loved about First Class is the cinematography.  Although it was sort of uneven.  I felt at time like it was very creative and different than any other thing I had seen in a comic book movie.  Then at other times it was very formulaic.  Speaking of camera work, one of my complaints is that I am not sure director Matthew Vaughn has the knack for action on such a large scale.  The fighting scenes were a little rough around the edges.  They sort of had an unfinished look.  Like there were still some special effects waiting to be added.

To contrast that I loved the non-action scenes.  The dialogue and smaller action set pieces felt very well thought out and captured.  That is until the final 20 minutes of the movie.  I had a feeling that someone looked at the script and said, "Ok.  We are here now.  We need to be over here in 20 minutes.  Someone make me a check list of all the things we need to have happen in the last half hour of this movie".

Overall I would say that this film is in a tie for 2nd/3rd place with the first movie in the franchise.  Both behind the second movie.  Still, I enjoyed the movie warts and all.  I give First Class ★★★1/2.

There's a nice ratio of cargo shorts/sandals and vintage comic tees/sweatpants.

Wondering what trailers will play before the movie.

I'm so glad I didn't wear my yellow spandex Wolverine suit. The guy sitting in the front row would be pissed that we matched.

With 15 minutes to go there's about 25 people here. Ahhh, to be young and unemployed.

This is the best attended midnight movie I've ever been too.

Sitting in my local theater 20 minutes before the midnight screening of X-Men: First Class.

Movie #225 Short Cuts *1993*

If Manhattan is Woody Allen's love letter to New York, then Short Cuts is Robert Altman's drunken 2:00 am text message to Los Angeles.

Altman has a style all his own.  His camera sort of wonders through the lives of people as they carry out their seemingly mundane existences.  His is less of a fictional film maker than a documentarian of fictional events.  In Short Cuts he focuses in on the intertwining lives of about 20 different people living in Los Angeles.  Almost all of these characters are played by well known actors or celebrities of some sorts.  I will attach a link to the IMDB page instead of listing all of the talent involved in the movie.

I can't even begin to imagine the amount of work that must have gone into filming this movie.  Whatever it was, the editing process must have taken 10 times longer.  This movie is brilliantly edited.  Altman has a reputation for being a free spirit and encouraging ad libbing.  I think sometimes that style of film making is confused with or mistaken for lazy and unprepared film making.  I can assure you that this is not the case with Short Cuts.  I can make that assurance not by watching what happens during the scene, but how each scene begins and ends.  Altman might end a scene on an exterior of a door slamming shut on one story line then quick cut to an interior of a door slamming shut on a different story.  He might end a scene with a dog barking at the back door, then open a scene with a dog barking on a TV screen in a totally different plot line.  What happens between "ACTION" and "CUT" may be free form, but the frame work and structure is all there.

I have long held the belief that PT Anderson's Boogie Nights and Scorsese's Goodfellas are films that if placed on top of one another would almost be indistinguishable.  Having seen Short Cuts now I believe that it and Boogie Night actually share some of the same DNA.  There is no way that PT Anderson (an admitted admirer of Altman) didn't use Short Cuts as the groundwork anatomy skeleton inspiration for his own California epic.  Both films are an embodiment of their times and places.  Both films share the same scheme in where people struggling with their identifies almost mystically float through their lives in search of a brass ring to grab a hold of and give them a center or purpose.

This sounds like weightier material than what is presented.  Short Cuts is an ensemble film with terrific performances, a slick jazz soundtrack, insanely well shot and edited camera work and meandering story lines that at times are sometimes asinine and frivolous and other times rooted in true drama with stakes through the roof.  But isn't that life?  I give Short Cuts ****1/2.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108122/