Saving the best for last...

As I sit here on New Year’s Eve awaiting the Marx Brothers marathon, I can’t help but reflect on the films that I’ve seen this year. Most of them were mediocre, a few were horrible, and a few were spectacular. I have hoarded one of the best for the last post of the year – Darren Anorofsky’s masterpiece “Black Swan”.

I found it rather odd that in a year of such mediocrity, my two favorite films of the year (this one and Chris Nolan’s brilliant “Inception”) both require multiple viewings. I’m not one for multiple viewings, especially in theaters. It’s expensive enough to go once, much less twice. But these two are so far above everything else I’ve seen that I’d gladly pay.

It’s hard to talk about “Black Swan” without giving things away. Suffice it to say that the film is about a young ballerina’s dream of starring in “Swan Lake”, the lengths she goes to achieving her dream, and the consequences of her desires. It is the film that should award Natalie Portman an Oscar hands down, and the one that may break the Oscar rule by giving Anorofsky one for Best Director. (Other acting awards are also likely, but I’m not sure which actor I would nominate.)

It’s a film that isn’t just viewed – it’s a film that is experienced. This is especially true of the last third of the film, which is really just the ballet itself. Ballet has never been something I’ve been interested in; I’ve always thought of it like opera – FAR too rich for my blood. But you get drawn into the world of the company and the ballet in spite of yourself.

There’s also the quintessential Oscar moment – a shot of Portman so perfect, so beautiful, that you almost hold your breath. As my other half informed me, when Fox Searchlight does ads for DVDs twenty years into the future, that shot will be included in all montages. And deservedly so.

And as with any great film, it works on a literal level, but also a metaphorical one (again, similar to “Inception”). Viewers could debate for days what is seen in flashes; what is real as opposed to imagined. But it’s also extremely subjective – another hallmark of a great film. I’ve said repeatedly through the years that it’s a gifted director that leaves his story in the hands of the viewer, not the writer.

Unfortunately, though, I still have to say that the best film of 2010 for me is “Inception”. But I can’t really articulate why. I’ve called it this generation’s “Citizen Kane” – the film that should change how films are created and shot. If that is true, than runner up “Black Swan” should represent how a classic story should be re-imagined. In light of the plethora of sequels, prequels, and reboots, it would be lovely if all of Hollywood took notice of how to do it right. And both films qualify as that.

The Fighter Lacks a Knockout Punch

About a week ago, I decided on a whim I felt well enough to go to the movies. These days I need to go while the cinematic iron is hot, so off I went. I chose a local cinema I infrequently attend. This particular theater is usually empty, which I find helpful. Sometimes you accidently talk to the screen, and it’s much better if there’s no one else to hear.

The film I chose was “The Fighter”, a Best Picture favorite. I expected a well-written, well-acted character study. I wasn’t far off the mark; it is all of those things. But the thing I didn’t know was that it’s also well-tread. This is cinematic ground I’ve walked on before, and although it’s a solid film, it’s not Best Picture caliber.

“The Fighter” is based upon a true story (translate as part fact and part dramatic license) about the relationship between Dickie (Christian Bale) and Micky (Mark Wahlberg) Ward, two Boston brothers dreaming of boxing glory. Dickie had his shot and has since fallen into drug addiction. Micky is on his way up the ranks but needs a fresh start and a clean break. The girlfriend/catalyst is Charlene (Amy Adams), who forces Micky to examine his family and his life.

However, the film lacks a certain focus. The protagonist switches between the two brothers, and that makes it a bit convoluted. For me, the highlights of the film are the scenes with Wahlberg and Adams. Adams is an outstanding supporting actress, and I’m sure she’ll be nominated for her performance. But I can’t say either Wahlberg or Bale is really the lead. As far as Bale goes, he’s serviceable, but I’ve seen Bale already undergo a massive weight loss in order to play a role. He looks and sounds like an addict, but at times he’s just annoying.

And speaking of annoying, let me add a small rant about Melissa Leo. I saw Leo in “Frozen River” and thought she was nothing special. Here I just want to smack her through the entire film. I know she’s supposed to be Boston in the 80s, but to me she seems like cliched Jersey – too much hair and not enough substance. I felt nothing for her. I just wanted her (and the rest of the “family”) to go away – their presence detracts from the main story so greatly that the film would have been served by leaving most of those scenes on the cutting room floor. The sisters are even worse.

But as Micky has his final fight, I couldn’t help but cheer. It helps I didn’t know the story going in, so I honestly didn’t know if he won or not. Now I understand why people cheer for “Rocky” so much – a film I’ve always thought was overrated.

In spite of its faults, “The Fighter” is a good movie, just not a great one. And I still feel that Boston was better served by Ben Affleck’s “The Town”.

Making My Best Picture Oscar List...

It’s the most wonderful time of the year! (No, not Christmas) I mean the time when Hollywood takes off the gloves, opens the pocketbooks, and starts the official campaigns for the tall, bald, gold guy named Oscar.

I’m doing ok in OscarQuest 2010. Although my current health situation limits what I can and cannot get to see, I am still trying to stay enthused.

But I can’t get excited about the current state of all things cinematic, and the reasons why are below. Listed below are the major players for Best Picture, per awardsdaily.com in no particular order.

1. “The Social Network” – Ah, Oscar Hate just flows. Maybe I didn’t get it, but I know I hated it. Whiny college kids become whiny millionaires. The whole idea reinforces that people are self-centered and think everyone cares about their every moment. What news!

2. “The King’s Speech” – Usually I’d drive 45 minutes to Bethesda immediately, but I’m not really psyched. I love Colin Firth and would LOVE to see him win, but I just don’t think so. But it does follow the Oscar Rules with a protagonist on the English throne.

3. “The Fighter” – more on this later, but I did wonder what it would have been like with Ben behind the camera.

4. “The Kids are All Right” – And only all right. For the record, JULIANNE WAS BETTER!

5. “Black Swan” – My only must see. Due to my recent stomach bug, I have to wait on this for a week. I expect it to be fantastic, and I think it’s the only film that could knock “Inception” off as my top film of the year.

6. “Inception” – the modern day Citizen Kane. This should change the way movies are created and written. Brilliant. And in a rare feat, gets better every time. A Leo movie I love in spite of him. I think the director race comes down to Chris v Darren.

7. “True Grit” – I usually avoid westerns, but for the Coens, I’ll make an exception. But I am a bit tired of seeing Jeff Bridges.

8. “Toy Story 3” – Saw it. Checked it off. ‘Nuff said.

9. “127 Hours” – Even though I love Danny Boyle, and respect the heck out of Franco, I think I’m using my Oscar Pass here. In any other year, I’d be seeing it. But this year, I really don’t want to see a film about The Power of The Survival Instinct. I think I already understand that concept pretty fully.

10. “The Town” – Ben is no longer Affleckted. He brought together a great cast and made a masterful film. Loved every bleeping second of it. Renner is wonderful and I’ll be happy when he gets his nod.

I’m sure I’ll have much more to say as the race continues, especially as there are some entries I haven’t seen yet. For now, Happy Holidays! Let’s hope 2011 is better than 2010 – cinematic and otherwise.

Bright Lights and a Big Voice

I started treatment this Thursday. So on Wednesday I went with a friend to see a movie. Choice of film was important – couldn’t have anything too heavy or o depressing (which left out anything Oscar-worthy). We couldn’t have made a better choice than “Burlesque”.

“Burlesque” is an extremely fun film. By the time I left, I had a smile on my face, a bounce in my step, and the soundtrack in my hand twenty minutes later.
As this year’s annual holiday musical offering, “Burlesque” is much better than last year’s “Nine”. This film is light and airy, and borrows rather liberally from other films. I found obvious references to “Moulin Rouge”, “Chicago” and “All that Jazz”, all of which are excellent in their own right. There’s also a corollary to one of my guilty pleasure films – “Coyote Ugly”.

The showcase here isn’t the plot – it’s the music and the choreography and the dancing. Christina Aguilera couldn’t have picked a better launching vessel. She’s listed as the “music supervisor” and her stamp is clearly all over the musical numbers. I am a self-proclaimed Aguilera fan, and I really liked the fact that she hit her “Dirrty” side as well as an Etta James tribute that she just nails. As far as her acting goes, she’s not half bad. This film could easily have become “Glitter” or “Crossroads” or even “Showgirls”, but it stays to the right of its path every time. Aguilera has learning to do, but I think she has a solid groundwork.

One of the other good things is that this film didn’t really try to hard – except in one or two spots. During the Cher ballad (it’s so bad I can’t remember the name or bother to look it up), I leaned over to my friend to say this was where they were trying to get the Best Original Song nod with yet ANTHER Diane Warren malady. The other serious misstep is the casting of Eric Dane. He seems so out of place, trying to be the smarmy developer out to take the club. All he needs was a mustache to twirl.

But where this film really paid attention was that it didn’t make people step too far outside their comfort zones. It doesn’t make actors sing and it doesn’t make singers act (too much or too badly). I think this is where “Nine” and “Mama Mia” fell WAY short. They even state that the girls are lip synching. Supporting players Kristen Bell (who gets props for her dance) and Stanley Tucci (who gets comedic props) know their roles well.

“Burlesque” is a fun romp and a nice little holiday diversion. When I buy the DVD (and I’m sure I will), I’ll create my own director’s cut – skipping through Cher and Dane to make a much more interesting film. The soundtrack, however, will be on repeat for awhile.

Snuggling in for a List!

These days I’m all about comfort. My company has casual dress until January. As soon as I get home, I change into my yoga pants and t-shirt or a pair of pajamas. I’m even watching comfort TV, - cooking shows, reality programs, wrestling, and old dramas I missed twenty years ago.

It then logically follows that I also want my comfort movies. What’s a comfort movie? It’s like comfort food – something that just makes you happy inside. It’s like a bowl of chili topped with cheese and sour cream on a cold day, or a cup of Twinings English Breakfast Tea while you have your morning bagel.

My comfort film list is pretty diverse. It shouldn’t come as a shock to ANY of you (and if it does, you have no business reading my weekly diatribes) that my ultimate comfort film is “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. It’s like Audrey says – nothing bad can happen to me while I’m there. But some of these other films might sound a bit off. This list has a disclaimer that my sanity could, indeed, be called into question at any point.

“Bringing Up Baby” – the best comedy ever made. Period. It’s got my other favorite Hepburn, along with the most suave actor ever to grace the screen, Cary Grant. It’s got geeks and it’s got animals. More importantly, it’s got lots and lots of laughs.
I’ll also throw “Duck Soup” in here. I came to the Marx Brothers late in life, and can’t imagine why it took me so long. Modern comedians wish they could be this funny. For a bad day at work, try “Office Space”, but most people already knew that.

Not all comfort films are comedies, though. If I need a good cry, I might go over to Paul Thomas Anderson’s magnificent “Magnolia”, which makes me cry every time I see it. For a strong drama, I’m liable to put in “The Godfather Part II”. I guess it’s the Italian thing, but it never gets old. To feel pretty, I’ve been known to put on “Coyote Ugly” or “The Fabulous Baker Boys” (and someday I WILL look like that in that dress, even if it takes me another life).

To feel like a kid, try “The Princess Diaries”. To feel grown up, I try “Desk Set”. To sing, try “Grease” or “Xanadu” or “Moulin Rouge” (Spectacular, Spectacular!). For a good scare, there’s nothing like Kubrick’s “The Shining” with the scariest ending shot EVER in modern cinema. I even have a Christmas comfort film – “Love Actually”.

But the oddest comfort film is the most recent, and certainly the most ironic. (No, it is not “Gladiator”, nor does it involve Nic Cage.) The other night I simply couldn’t fall asleep for anything, so I turned on a random channel. They just HAPPENED to be running “The Empire Strikes Back”. I kept it on, and was asleep in about ten minutes. I’ve always said that Lucas-affiliated dialogue could put me straight to sleep!

To Clutter, with Love

I am a natural born clutterer. I have a coffee table in my living room that is my catch-all. I make it a point on Saturday mornings to go through everything that has amassed on my table and then act on it. Sometimes this is paying a bill or throwing out an advertisement or putting coupons in my purse. This past week, buried at the bottom of the pile, was a red envelope from Netflix.

Just like all the rest of you, I’m becoming one of those people that watches almost everything through streaming. I watch Netflix streaming constantly and I even watch most of my television shows through Hulu or casttv.com.

After looking at the label on the DVD and examining the short run time of just over 90 minutes, I put the DVD in my BluRay player and watched the numerous outdated trailers before the main feature. The film was “From Paris with Love”, and I’m very glad that I popped it in. It’s packed full of action, sharp dialogue, nice performances and more than a few laughs – all of which I enjoyed whole heartedly.

The film pairs Jonathan Rhys Meyers and John Travolta teaming up for an espionage-filled buddy flick. Travolta basically channels his “Pulp Fiction” comeback performance, complete with the language and the over-the-top-violence, and an obvious reference. Meyers more than holds his own – taking what could have been essentially the straight man role and adding more depth and dimension to it. It’s nice to see him as something other than King Henry and it’s nice to see him clothed.

The filmmakers know their craft. The story comes from Luc Besson, who wrote “The Professional”. That means he knows how to draft a story. And as bad as his “Transporter” movies are, you can’t deny that they’re full of preposterous action that you simply can’t help but watch (if you actually are forced to watch them). The director, Pierre Morel, also did “Taken” which means that he knows how to consolidate a story and tell it convincingly (although I thought this film was a step up from that one).

Even the plot is a little better than expected. There are some significant twists and turns, and this isn’t the typical spy movie where you can tell what’s coming 20 minutes before seeing it onscreen. Even the run time helps – anything longer would have been too much. There’s just enough time to tell the story, show the scenery, shoot MANY people, and blow a bunch of stuff up.

It might not be highbrow entertainment, but sometimes you just want to get out of
your head for a bit. It’s refreshing to see that an action film can actually have some thought into it. Now I’ll send it back, and goodness knows what’ll come in that next red envelope. Because in addition to being a clutterer, I’m REALLY bad at organizing my Netflix queue.

The Kids are All Right - and So Am I

I’m finding these days that films aren’t really holding my interest. I’m not sure if my mind is going in too many directions, or I’m simply not up to following plots.
But some films are worth exceptions. One of these was “The Kids Are All Right”, which I’d been waiting for months to see and has finally come out on DVD. I simply refused to miss it.

It’s actually ironic that I picked this film for this time. I originally chose it because it’s an Oscar contender, which makes it an obvious choice. But once I saw it, I realized that it suited me better for a whole other reason. On some level, it was a disappointment. On another, I think it was just what I needed.

This is an indie film in the best sense. It talks about Relationships and How They Come About and Evolve. (Proper nouns used for a reason.) There are Oscar-worthy performance both from Annette Benning and my girl Julianne Moore. Love the rest of the cast as well. But the drawback with the film is the sub-par writing. There were several times when I actually thought to myself “Who talks like that?”
Certainly no one I know. I have a reputation for using an odd vocabulary myself, and it’s still not things I would say. Combine that with the thematic elements present, and the obvious subplots, and the film becomes I slight disappointment (emphasis on slight).

But there’s a reason why I stuck with the film, and actually finished it in one setting. Bear with me here, because I’m about to segue into something important. The film is familiar. It reminds me of the films that I would trek miles to see just because they WERE independent films – out to Towson Commons or to the Charles and now to Bow Tie in Annapolis. Of course, being a Focus Film helps.

As I write this piece, it is Thanksgiving. My other half is miles away, because he works retail and has to work tomorrow’s Black Friday Crunch. I miss him greatly, but will see him this weekend. I’ll be spending a few hours with my family. That’s why people watch films about families – it’s therapeutic to compare. Plus, it always makes you feel better to realize that you aren’t as screwed up as you think.

I’ve realized in the last two weeks that my family and my life are certainly dysfunctional. But guess what? So is everyone else’s. Everyone has trials and tribulations. Mine might be a bit much, but it’ll all turn out right in the end – eventually. I’ve also realized my inner circle isn’t quite as small as I originally thought, which I’m EXTREMELY thankful for. I have a boatload of people who love and support me , making me pretty blessed.

So basically, I’ve spent about 500 words to say that not only are the Kids all right, I am too. Or I will be. Eventually.

Don't Read The Book - See The Movie!

In addition to being a film connoisseur, I am also a voracious reader. This means that often I am faced with the dilemma of seeing a film when I’ve already read the book. Nine times out of ten, the book is better. This is simply because what I see in my head while I’m reading is better than anything a director could show on a screen.

But I have found one notable exception – the “Millenium” trilogy. This is the set of films starting with “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” which has now moved on to “The Girl who Played with Fire”.

I saw the first film courtesy of Netflix streaming (actually, that’s how I’ve seen both). I thought the film looked dated, but I liked it a lot. I purchased the book for the second film, figuring that I’d burn through that and then get the third. I’m glad I didn’t buy both at one time, for this has to be one of the most difficult reads I’ve ever undertaken.

I’m not familiar with Sweden, so none of the place names mean anything to me. The books’ aren’t really written that well actually, unless some things got lost in translation. I understood the characters well enough and learned some plot points, but not well enough to care to finish it.

The film, however, is a whole different story. This isn’t the typical “middle
film”, usually the worst of a trilogy. This film is extremely easy to follow and also extremely interesting. They cut some sub-plots from the book, but upon further review that’s because they weren’t necessary to the telling of the story.
If the first film looked like a 70s film, this one feels like an 80s film. It’s much more character-driven, with the need to explain the past of the characters. It also links with things from the first film, and gives even more clarity.

But more than anything, this film actually demonstrates what a talented actress Naomi Rapace is. Lisbeth seems to have matured between the two books, and it seems that Rapace grew into the role. She allows Lisbeth’s vulnerabilities to come through in a way that is totally believable, and allows the viewer to root for her.

Even as you’re watching, you can’t help asking yourself what the Americans will do with this. Some scenes would never make it off the cutting room floor, especially considering the amount of nudity and sex featured (some of which is needed). And I have this sneaking suspicion that we will see Blomkvist and Salander live happily ever after. I hope with everything in me that’s not the case, because the relationship between the two of them seems more complicated and more genuine that could really be accepted in America.

There aren’t many times that, after finishing the second film in a trilogy, one can’t wait for the third. But that’s how I feel about this one. Just not enough to read the book.

The 53rd post

The entry I posted to my blog earlier today was my 52nd film-related post. Those of you who read this column weekly (my Readership of Six, as I call you all) know that I have tried numerous times to consistently write and have always failed. Last year, I set a personal goal that I would write four posts per month, an average of one per week, for a year.

I didn’t know if I had the discipline in me to pull it off. Life has a tendency to get in the way with me, and other things seem to become temporarily more important. I’m so glad that with one exception (what the Brit in me wants to say was “going on holiday” but was in actuality a family emergency), I’ve done it.

I think the reason that I was able to write consistently was because I finally realized that MY blog was whatever I wanted it to be. These aren’t straight film reviews. You can get those anywhere. That’s why the dashboard says that it’s a cinematic journey. These are my reactions to the films that I’ve seen, for good or for bad. Although the films that I’ve chosen are sometimes the latest and greatest available, they usually tie into my life somehow. And naturally, they are all a reflection of my personal tastes and/or biases.

You all know that I have very strong opinions when it comes to film (ok, when it comes to almost everything). There have been times that I’ve changed my mind, or times I’ve been pleasantly surprised. You all also know that I’ll defend my positions to the last character. Just for the record, trailers are usually on target, but they have to be, given the lemming mentality the box office is built upon. I’ve done the Oscar candidates, the possible Oscar candidates, the box office winners, and the films that you may not have ever heard of. I’ve also learned that the more I see, the more I need to see. Given my obsessive personality, that’s perfect.

The only other thing I wanted to say in this totally personal and mostly non-cinematic (but rather theatrical) post is that I thank you all for reading. I appreciate it greatly when one of you remarks on something I’ve written, or even when you take the time out just to tell me that you read something.
So before I start approaching my standard 500-word limit to say nothing, let me just say thanks. And I’m far from being done. So I’ll keep writing, and please keep reading. Take care all.

A Modern Film Noir

Film noir is one of my favorite cinematic genres. They were popular in the 40s, where the mols had long hair and the heroes were smart aleck, worldly types. When I heard that there was a contemporary film noir released on DVD, it was a must see. The film is called “Winter’s Bone”, and although most of the film’s accolades regard the breakout performance of the young lead, Jennifer Lawrence, I find that it is the film’s plot that kept my attention from start to finish.

Basically, this film is about a 17-year old girl who lives somewhere on a huge plot of land (love the fact that they never say where) with a dilapidated house, a mentally ill mother, and her much younger sister and brother. Her father is a meth dealer (updating the genre, I think), and is On the Run from the Law. He’s got a court date, and if he doesn’t show up they lose the house and the land, which were put up to the bondsman for collateral. To save the house, she has to find her father.

While I’m not exactly sure that I could call this a “breakout” performance (I hate that term, actually) I will say that Ms. Lawrence seems to be extremely talented. This isn’t an easy part to play by any means. She looks very munch like a young Renee Zellweger. As a matter of fact, she kept reminding me of Renee in “Cold Mountain”, and we all know how that one turned out. She has a plain, matter-of-fact delivery that is indicative of her character’s surroundings and her life.

Most of the films that I’ve seen lately have required more than one sitting to finish. I simply don’t have the attention or the time right now to watch a movie straight through. This one proved to be the exception. Each time I thought I would turn the film off and walk away, I gave myself the “five more minutes” routine. I actually found myself caring what happened to this family and especially to this young girl. What happened to her dad and how does she find her way out, if she does at all?

The film even has a certain feel – a grittiness to it, if you will. It’s similar to how I feel watching a Coen Brothers film. You may not be able to grasp everything that’s going on, but you have faith enough in the story that everything will be resolved in the end. And it is, in true noir fashion.

When I first saw the trailer for this film, I thought that I would heavily dislike it, or I might not even bother with it. It looked dark, depressing, and boring. I had heard it compared on some levels to last year’s disappointing “Frozen River”. I’m very glad I gave it a chance. If you can get your hands on it, you should as well.

The Secret in their Eyes shouldn't be hidden from viewers!

This past year, I helped a friend win his annual Oscar party. The winning film, he told me, was in the Foreign Film category. I found this ironic because I myself waivered on that category. It wasn’t that I had seen the films in question – I hadn’t. But I figured that the winner would be “The White Ribbon” – a film about the Holocaust. (Oscar rules dictate that Holocaust films usually win, unless going against films containing a British Queen.) At the last minute, I changed my pick to the eventual winner – Argentina’s “The Secret in their Eyes”, which was recommended by my cinematic bible, “Entertainment Weekly”.

As the next year’s Oscar race starts to heat up, I still haven’t seen “Ribbon”, but this week I sat down and watched “Eyes”. It won because it’s simply fantastic.
It’s not an easy film to describe. If pressed to describe the plot, I’d have to say that it’s about a detective who is obsessed with the murder case of a young married woman, so much so that even after he retires he tries to write a book about it. But try as he might, he just can’t get the words right. (A feeling I’m very familiar with myself.) The killer isn’t the only one that got away, though. There’s also the possible love of his life, who just happens to have been his supervisor at that time.

The story juxtaposes between what happened 25 years ago as the case develops and what happens currently. They make it easy to follow as the lead actor’s hair suddenly becomes salt-and-peppery for the current events. The filmmakers also flip between the resolution of a murder case and the resolution of a possible romance.
The supporting cast may not be filled with familiar faces, but it is filled with familiar ideas. How does one continue when the love of your life is gone? What constitutes obsession? What’s the cost of doing the “right thing”? And then there’s the one that they keep repeating throughout the film - How do you life a life full of nothing?

One of the things that I hate most about American romances is that it’s clear from the first frame how the film will end. That applies to both comedy and drama unfortunately. And for me, it’s always better if the couple in question DON’T end up together (hence why I love “Casablanca”). But as this film went on, I found myself actually caring whether these people (all of them, not just the leads) made it or not – and I don’t mean romantically.

It’s rare for me to find a film with romantic overtones that I can actually stomach. This one I recommend wholeheartedly. I’m glad that they broke the Oscar rules for this one – it’s certainly well-deserved.

Waiting for Superman

Movies, when they work, are supposed to elicit an emotional response from the viewer. Personally, I’m not an unemotional viewer or reviewer. Ask anyone who’s seen a film with me and they’ll tell you that all you have to do is look at me to tell whether or not I liked a film.

After seeing “Waiting for Superman” this past weekend, I didn’t know what to think. Or feel. As a former educator, I find myself unable to really articulate my feelings. I was ashamed. Ashamed for living in a country where things are obviously this bad, and ashamed that I left a profession that so obviously needs help – all the help it can get. I left the theater in tears.

It’s common knowledge the American educational system sucks. No Child Left Behind is the dumbest idea since people thought the world was flat. The statistics didn’t surprise me in the least – American kids are behind in everything.

But it’s easy to rationalize that. I usually blame it on lack of parental involvement. Then again, those same parents may be working two or three jobs just to get by in today’s economy, if they’re lucky enough to be working at all. If not parental involvement, blame it on lack of parental maturity. Babies are having babies. The trend started and isn’t stopping anytime soon. Parents don’t motivate their children to do well, or put any type of importance on education.

However, these parents did. All of them. And their kids are still getting the short end of the stick.

I’ve always been taught that education is just like anything else – you get out of it what you put into it. I still have this thirst for knowledge (although you could make the case that what some people call “drive”, others call an obsessive personality).

Personally, I can’t comprehend a lot of the obstacles facing these kids. I was lucky enough to be in a decent school district surrounded by kids that were just as smart as I was (in some cases, smarter). I didn’t have to worry about going tens of miles in order to go someplace decent, forget about above average. But that was over 25 years ago.

In my current office, they say that you can’t really air a problem until you devise and identify a solution. This film does that too. There are people making a difference. There are teachers that care and schools that work and kids that truly want to learn. It’s just heartbreaking to me that they are the exception rather than the norm.

I only hope that this trend eventually reverses itself. But it’s not something that’s going to happen soon. Not in this administration, not in the next. Maybe not even in my lifetime. But you just have to hope that it will. Because if not, this entire country isn’t waiting for Superman, more like waiting for Godot. They’re waiting for a rescue that simply will not come.

The Social Network - let the Oscar Hate Begin!

In case you haven’t noticed, I march to the beat of my own cinematic drum. I like what I like, hate what I hate, and make very few apologies.

During the annual Oscar hunt, there is usually one film (now two, with the doubling of BP slots) that I cannot stand, no matter how much everyone else loves it. Last year was “The Blind Side” and “Precious”. (“Avatar” doesn’t count – I hated it, but so did lots of others.)

This year I already have one slot filled – “The Social Network”.

I don’t really feel like I need to explain how I feel about Facebook. If you’re reading this, you obviously know me and you already know. Basically I think Facebook is quite silly and reaffirms my belief that most human beings are at their core self-centered. Sorry, but if I know you casually from my office, does it look like I care when you do your laundry?

Moving past that though, I love Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher. I’ve seen every episode of “The West Wing” and I think writing dialogue is a talent I wish I had. Fincher, although at times overrated, knows how to set a mood and tell a compelling story.

Unfortunately, I don’t feel like I got either in “The Social Network”. Although the interspersing of the multiple lawsuit plot lines was interesting, what I saw (which I suspect may have been switched with some other print of this film) showed me a bunch of narcissistic college nerds who take their own self-serving aims and then turn on each other. The Masters of a small Universe become Masters of a much bigger one, and don’t know how to handle it. Sorry, but it’s not exactly a revolutionary thought. In fact, nothing about this is revolutionary. Even the acting was mediocre, which could be because these characters show no growth. Why? Because they are in their twenties and probably can’t.

To me, this is really an updated version of an 80s film. Geek loses girl, says a bunch of mean things (in our era, that’s posting on the net), and redirects his energy to get back at those who spited him. He gets self-motivated bad influence leading him down a morally questionable path and asking him to forsake his initial supporters. Does he give in? The last five minutes (the only part for me which actually works) show him trying to get girl back. Does he? I don’t know and couldn’t possibly care less.

But maybe there’s something that I missed. Maybe there’s something that I just didn’t see. Maybe what I saw was really an idea that was stolen from somewhere else and presented as something new and original and I’m just too old to understand what the charm was. PLEASE tell me if I am – I’m starting to think I’m cinematically crazy.

Or not. But either way, I need to go do my laundry now. I’ll catch you next week.

Boston is a dramatic little "Town"

Movies are hyped in many ways - some by the internet, others by ubiquitous television or print ads, and still others by the rumor of the “O” word. Most people find out about films through their trailers. When I saw the trailer for Ben Affleck’s “The Town”, I knew I would see it, but I also thought that the trailer gave away the whole film.

I’m glad that it didn’t. The trailer only shows PART of the story – and not even all the best parts.

Much has been said about Affleck (or as I affectionately call him “Affleckted”). Affleck isn’t that great of an actor. I read last week that he’s this generation’s Clint Eastwood, an actor who can do both. This is his showcase, and as much as I hate to admit it, he succeeds beautifully.

Most of this material isn’t particularly new, and in all honestly, the first few minutes drag. I was actually thinking for a few minutes that this film had fallen victim to being overhyped, and that audiences were just so starved for a film with some substance that they would eat any scraps they were tossed.

But as the story develops, and the characters evolve, the film becomes its own entity, with Affleck’s own stamp. It is indeed an ode to Boston, with all its good and bad. It is about brotherhood, and redemption, and consequences. It’s a sometimes heavy-handed drama, but also a dynamic action movie. It’s an ensemble film that still has one clear lead.

It’s not at all surprising this film has succeeded. The cast is fantastic. Jeremy Renner (who needs to be nominated) continues doing stellar work as Affleck’s best friend and counterpart, the catalyst of the entire film. Jon Hamm trades in his Don Draper attitude for FBI blue (and unfortunately, plaid) and shows that he can act (and curse) with the best of them. Rebecca Hall plays the bank teller who gets her heart and vault money stolen. The only question mark is Blake Lively – her character exists only for one scene, nowhere near enough to see if she has depth.

The weakest performance is really Affleck’s, and who could blame him? I’m sure that people will tout him for an acting nod, but I don’t really see how it is deserved. His direction and framing of the film surely overshadow the acting performance. He’s ok, but he has melodramatic moments. But given the strength of the chases and the look and feel of the entire film, I’ll forgive him.

Is “The Town” the best film I’ve seen this year? Surely not. That would still be Christopher Nolan’s “Inception”. When the bar has been set that high, it should be difficult for anything to surpass it. But I do readily concede this film could be a solid contender – there are ten slots, after all. But as a start of the fall (read that as “Grown Up”) cinematic season, it certainly is a solid start.

Easy A earns its grade

The combination of John Hughes’ untimely passing and my advancing age made me believe the days of leaving a theater energized by a “Don’t You Forget About Me”-esque anthem were long gone. Then I saw “Easy A”, a film that updates classic literature and classic cinema.

Initially, I expected fluff. I’m on vacation this week, and the last thing I wanted to see on my first day off was a heavy drama (next week is a whole other ballgame). Ironically enough, the theater I attended I frequented in high school – so often the ushers knew me by sight. They could still know me by sight – because I was one of maybe five people there.

Even opening credits were impressive, both visually and contextually. The lead actress, Emma Stone, isn’t listed until last (sign of a solid ensemble). The supporting cast is actually award worthy – Patricia Clarkson, Thomas Hayden Church, Stanley Tucci and Lisa Kudrow, all of whom have the gift of comedic timing. But casting and writing are two different things.

Writing a screenplay for this kind of film means that a very fine line has to be tread, between what is “funny” and what is “marketable”, two vastly different things. Recent “hysterical” comedies were just "tolerable". “The Hangover”? I laughed maybe twice. “Super Bad”? Self-explanatory. Making it even more difficult is updating "The Scarlet Letter", a difficult story that I actually did read in high school. But the writer here got it right on all counts, taking the high school cliché of the “made up partner” and to a whole new level, with quite amusing results.

I’ll attribute that also to the performances. Amanda Bynes is hysterical as the Evangelical Bible-Thumping Maryann. Bynes, the current Brett Favre of the Hollywood set, nails every single scene that she’s in with an over the top, but still completely deadpan delivery. Take out the religious reference, and she’s like so many girls I knew in high school (which some people never grew out of).

But this film lives and dies with the performance of Emma Stone. She’s been around for only three years (per imdb), but this girl has serious potential. She gives Olive a vulnerability, but also a directness and frankness absent in 80s comedies. In those comedies, the girls were cute but not really smart, which was considered part of their charm. As the former geeky girl in the back of the room, it’s nice to see a female protagonist finally get her due. Because of Stone, I will now be seeing “The Help”, an initial pass.

The only down side is one all these comedies have – are we really expected to believe these actors are in high school? They all look like they are in their mid twenties! But I guess you can’t have everything.

“Easy A” is the breath of fresh air needed to cleanse the cinematic palate after a dead summer season. This now leads me directly into the fall adult movie slate – and “The Town”!

He's A (not quite that real) "Solitary Man"

Get any two cinephiles together and eventually the topic of “what makes a good movie” comes up. Depending upon the person, the answer could be a plethora of things – the right actor (or actress), a certain director, a framing technique. Sometimes the answer is as simple as genre.

For me, it’s all about the writing and the character development. If I don’t care about the characters, I won’t care about the film. It’s that simple. I might care about the story or its resolution, but if I don’t care about the people involved, I’m not wasting my time. I need to feel strongly about the characters.

That feeling doesn’t have to necessarily be positive though. There are just as many memorable characters that I hated with a passion – like “Forrest Gump”. What everyone thought as a loveable, kindhearted buffoon I just found a tedious one-dimensional bore.

I have noticed, though, that there seems to be a growing media movement – characters usually hated have been “softened” somehow, thus creating the anti-hero. It’s all over the programs you see (or at least the ones I watch most often). Some people say it got popular with Tony Soprano and then went to the Walter Whites and Don Drapers of the world. How does that transition into film?

All of this brings me to “Solitary Man”, the newest effort from Michael Douglas. Here he plays a complete cad of a man, the cliché at the end of the bar who still thinks the 20 year olds are checking him out as they laugh at him behind his back. Almost every relationship he has is toxic – from his daughter to his new love to his grandson. But it hasn’t always been like that (and anything more would be a spoiler).

This supporting cast looked awesome on paper. There’s Danny DeVito, Susan Sarandon and Jenna Fischer. All of these actors are certainly competent, but ultimately it’s Douglas’ film and his performance that is the core. His performance is solid, but the writing is the downfall of the film.

Did I want to hit him? Yes. But did I eventually feel sorry for him? Yes, and that didn’t work for me. In a television show, I have 13, 22 or 24 episodes or more with a character. It’s like getting to know someone in real life – sometimes they’re fantastic, sometimes annoying and sometimes boring. But to flip flop your opinion in just 2 hours? It’s just not believable.

The best part of the film is the last line and the cut to black. It’s an example of almost perfect writing. It’s a shame that the rest of the film didn’t pack that kind of punch. It will be interesting to contrast this film with “Greenberg”, which I will try to watch soon.

Babies Are Funny - No Matter Where They Are

The more I watch, the more I have to watch. I say that often. Given that video stores are dead, Netflix is forced to be a month behind, and time is in short supply, I readily admit I’m getting further behind. Keeping an accurate queue now seems like more pressure, so I’ve stopped. What I needed was to watch something light by not stupid or insulting, so I came across one of the plethora of films I’ve missed lately – “Babies”.

This documentary made me laugh so hard I cried – and I don’t even have kids.

The film follows four babies from their first breath to their first steps. They are located all over the world, in Nambia, Mongolia, Tokyo and San Francisco. The film is the brainchild of two Frenchmen – can it get any more international? The lack of dialogue (and subtitles) underscores the main point of the film, which is that there are certain universal truths.

Sibling rivalry always exists. Kids like to eat dirt. Discovering your feet (and the power of your lungs) is cool. Music is fun to move to. Toys can be confusing. It’s not easy to figure out how to be walk. Pets are good playmates, especially if you get to pet them really hard. Dogs have interesting mouths. And so on.

But even though there are universal truths, the cultural differences are also greatly apparent. And this is my biggest flaw with the film, although I readily stipulate it’s my American Pride getting in the way of my objectivity. Out of all the couples in the US, do you really have to use some self-indulgent, late-in-life parents with every conceivable yuppie thing imaginable for their child? Right down to a shot of Daddy playing with his daughter in bed while Mommy sits next to him reading “Be the Parent You Want to Be”? Seriously? We’re better than that – aren’t we?

It seemed to me that the cutest child (with the best parents) was in Tokyo. Both Mom and Dad were invested in their child; she went everywhere they did. Education was stressed, even at the age of one. (I’m saving my “American Educational System” rant for the release of “Waiting for Superman”.) The child was stimulated, well-taken-care-of, and disciplined when needed. She’s also adorable.

After the film, there was a bonus section with the filmmakers showing the film to the families, then updating the stories of the kids by showing footage of the now four year olds. I know that this film isn’t really an original idea – the Brits did it years ago with the “7 Up” series, chronicling the lives of several children through adulthood and beyond. It would also be interesting if they did something like this throughout America, showing different cultures and customs within our own country, but then again that’s my American Pride showing through.

But “Babies” is still the funniest film all year. I’d highly recommend that you not miss it, like I almost did.

What's better than Theraflu? The Expendables!

I’m sick this week, which, as many people in my office can attest, makes me whiny. All I really want to do is curl up in a corner with my pink blankie, watch bad tv, and complain. I have the attention span and thought retention of a dishrag. But my mom raised me with the idea that if you go to school (or work) all week, you can go out on the weekends.

So off to the movies I went. What’s better than a whole bottle of Theraflu and a brand new box of Puffs Plus with Lotion? “The Expendables”!

The road to this showing was paved with good intentions but mixed with roadblocks. After buying tickets for an early show, I headed off to the bookstore, where I became absorbed by various reading materials, only to notice that it was 1:05 and my show started at 1:10. But I was sure that the crowd wouldn’t be that bad, and it wouldn’t be a problem - until I discovered that the theater (as small as it was) was already full.

Off to guest services…to exchange my tickets for a showing 30 minutes later. REFUSING to miss anything this time, I settle in at the benches by the theater. After ten minutes, I go in early and see a sign telling me LINE STARTS HERE. I’m the third person in line, only to find people bypassing the line and just entering the theater. (People like that piss me off!)

Wondering if the Cinematic Gods are hating me, I go in to a much bigger, mostly empty auditorium. But my bad mood seems to evaporate as the film starts (after what seems like dozens of trailers).

“The Expendables” was one of the summer movies that I most anticipated. Who wouldn’t love the cast? It’s a who’s who of action movies – current and past. I expected it to be one of those films where you buy your nachos and soda, sit down, suspend belief, and just go with the lack of a story.

Surprisingly enough, though, it’s much more.

I expected action, which I got in spades. The only thing missing was a body count ticker in the lower right (which REALLY should be on the DVD). There’s lots of blood, but refreshingly enough there isn’t any nudity or profanity. The film doesn’t take itself too seriously, which is always a plus. The one-liners fly almost as fast as the bullets. I had forgotten that Stallone has been Oscar-nominated for a screenplay. I laughed often. Even the cameos are used to the fullest extent. I had an absolute blast.

The only down side is that the choreography isn’t quite as good as it could be. Although the fights are dispersed between the stars, it’s sometimes hard to identify the participants. But I can forgive that.

Maybe next time I’m sick, instead of going to the closest corner, I’ll go to the nearest cineplex – right after I go to the pharmacy.

Date Night - Don't Save this Date!

Tina Fey is the funniest woman on the planet, bar none. She’s also one of the smartest women in the business – a rare gem that isn’t afraid to show her intelligence, but isn’t afraid to dumb it down either, when needed.

But she’s funnier when she writes the words that she speaks. Unfortunately, that’s not the case in her latest effort - “Date Night”.

“Date Night” is about two people who have been married forever. You know the type. You don’t really talk anymore, unless it is to catalog a never ending to-do list. You live your life in sequential order – get awakened by the kids, send them to school, go to work, come home, have dinner, homework, kids bed, you bed. Rinse, lather, and repeat. To combat the unavoidable ennui in their lives, they do the same thing a lot of suburban couples do – they instituted “Date Night”. This means they go to the local cineplex and then their favorite steakhouse. They pick out patrons and construct their stories (the most charm of the movie). But unfortunately even that is repetitive.

Repetition is really the core of this movie. It turns into boredom. There’s a reason the run time is under 90 minutes. Were there a few chuckles? Sure. But these came usually when the two actors (Fey and Steve Carrell, hit or miss in general and missing most of the time here) are standing still, just talking. My favorite scene was at an expensive trendy restaurant as they try to get a phone number. They decide to change their appearance. Fey suddenly morphs into Parker Posey and Carrell just looks stupid.

The supporting cast is filled with famous actors doing bit parts – I’m sure you’ve already read about this. The most notable are James Franco playing a degenerate and Mark Wahlberg, playing a shirtless fantasy object. But to me that’s not really entertaining – that’s just actors having a laugh, amusing themselves more than me.

Personally, I like the rinse, lather and repeat. I like knowing what’s coming down the pike (or most of it anyway). But there’s something to also be said for the happy medium. My recent excursion to Atlantic City taught me that I do like to get out and have fun. Things don’t always have to be scheduled. Short notice isn’t necessarily bad. Staying at home all the time, although more affordable and in this heat, more comfortable, is fun sometimes – but not all the time. So, although I like my MANY routines, there’s nothing wrong with changing it up from time to time.

It just would have been nice if the screenwriters would have thought the same. When you have two of the funniest people in comedy tag teaming a film, it should have been better than this. Maybe Tina Fey should have hired the writers herself – or they should have hired her to write it.

Doing Research Out of School

One of my biggest pet peeves is people who “don’t do their research”. Usually that term applies to people seeing a film without knowing what it’s about or choosing a film solely based on its start time. Or parents who take their children to anything animated. Or people who pay no attention to the rating system, taking their children to see everything, and then are aghast when their kids can’t quite take the gore/violence/etc. Or people who don’t read the book before seeing the film.

But within the last few weeks, this idea has now made its way into TV. Let me give you an example:

There’s a new TV show on USA called “Covert Affairs”. I’m sure you’ve seen the ads – they’ve been scattered all over TV for months. It looked like a bargain basement version of “Alias”, right down to the clothing on the female lead. But within the pilot, there is actually a reference to “Alias” (which I won’t spoil) and as soon as they said it, I was hooked.

So maybe it’s all about flattering your audience. I don’t want a film director to spoon feed me an ending or a plot, and I don’t want my TV show producer to just think I’ll follow along blindly.

All of which now brings me to the season premiere of “Mad Men”, which happened this past weekend, and my officemates and I are still discussing. Aside from the fantastic writing, new catchphrases and catching up with all the characters, there were references sprinkled through the show that I just didn’t get. And in my little red/brown/blonde head, that’s simply unacceptable. So what did I do? Googled them, of course (and from the search results, I wasn’t the only one)!

But is this something that I’m doing because I’m a self-admitted dork, or is this something that maybe more people should do? Is it ok if you don’t get what the writer is trying to tip their hat to or wink at? I know that “Psych” has all kinds of 80s references – most of which I get, but some I don’t, but I don’t research them. Ditto for “Gilmore Girls”.

But in “Mad Men” I simply have to know. It could be because most people in my office watch the show, and I can’t stand to be out of the loop. Maybe it’s because I love the era and want to know as much as I can, especially about the little things.

In my mind, if it’s good you’ll want to dig deeper into the word that's created - whether by Matt Weiner or David Lynch in “Twin Peaks” or Chris Carter in “X-Files”. TV, when done right, is more of an investment than film, and as such, requires a bit more work. They put in the work, and I can too. In Matt Weiner’s case, it’s the least I can do – he is giving me a 650 minute movie, after all.

"Inception" the exception

Once in a while, a movie comes out changing the way that you look at film as a whole. In 1993, it was “Jurassic Park”; in 1999, “The Matrix”. Last year it was “Avatar”. Usually I hate these films, thinking they are showy and hollow instead of multi-dimensional, or rehashes of old stories with pretty effects thrown in for attention.

I’m extremely overjoyed to report that “Inception” is the EXception. And it comes as no surprise at all that it’s delivered courtesy of the greatest director working today (sorry, Marty) – Christopher Nolan.

If you are only familiar with Nolan as the director of “The Dark Knight”, you may walk out of “Inception” feeling like you’ve been hit by a truck. I admit it’s not the always the easiest film to follow. The general gist (and that’s all I’ll reveal) is the main character, Cobb, (Leonardo DiCaprio, minus the additional ‘r’) plays a manipulator of the mind (the worst kind) who steals and exploits your secrets as you sleep. Revealing more would ruin the experience (which, depending on your pov, may or may not be “fun”).

This is the Nolan of the ultimate mind-fuck. But whereas “The Following” and “Memento” messed with your mind, this film also messes with your heart. (I will admit I did cry.) Cobb is a troubled soul with demons as always, but one of his ghosts is personified as his wife, Mal (the wonderful Marion Cotillard).

The reason why it’s difficult to really describe “Inception” is because I don’t really think I’ve ever seen anything like it. The premise is original and stays with you long after you leave the theater, two and a half hours after you sat down. The cast is amazing, from Leo to Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Ellen Page and on and on. The effects are awesome, as the viewer and the characters are literally tossed every which way.

Here’s a note about the ending: whatever you think it is, that’s what it is. And that’s both the whole point and the greatest gift. It has no big bow, and if you expect one, don’t bother. This film requires your attention from start to finish, and if you don’t give it, then you won’t get it.

The only downside of the film (a really small one at that), is that DiCaprio’s portrayal of Cobb is quite a bit similar to one he gave earlier this year, in that pile of dreck called “Shutter Island”. When “Inception” ended, my first thought was that this was what SI SHOULD have been. But, upon further reflection, it’s what ALL films should be – and directors (and writers, as Nolan also penned it).

Given that the Oscars now have expanded to 10 films for Best Picture (which many call “The Dark Knight Rule”), I feel safe in saying that Nolan is a LOCK for a nomination, as is the film. I can’t wait to see if any film can “top” it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - B.H. (Before Hollywood)

Hollywood is all abuzz about “The Millenium Trilogy”. Based upon a series of novels by the late Steig Larsson, they revolve around the exploits of hacker extraordinaire Lisabeth Salander and her cohort Mikhail Blomkvist. I have not yet read these books, which is a bit unusual.

Why? Because the films have already been made – in Sweden. The first in the set, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, was released theatrically at the close of last year.

That’s right – LAST YEAR. How ridiculous is that? I know that Hollywood counts on the memories of the cinematic public to be short, but THAT SHORT? How insulting.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a gritty, grainy looking film, like something from the 70s or 80s. It’s supposed to be that way. For the first ten minutes of its rather long 2.5 hour run time, it’s a neat trick. About halfway through you can’t help but wonder what they’re going to do when they have a decent sized budget.
The story is extremely interesting, although I can’t really see it translating to the States well. Blomkvist is a respected journalist who is accused of and jailed for libel against a very powerful organization. He needs to clear his name. In the meantime, he is also hired by a dying tycoon to find out who killed his lost relative.

What makes the story work isn’t really the premise - which can get outlandish and dated at times - it’s the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. Both of these people are damaged and alone, and you don’t need subtitles to see it. I attribute this to the performances of both the leads. There are lots of chase scenes created by someone who actually knows how to choreograph such things. And even though there are times that you need a bit of a leap of faith to get past the obvious clichés, it’s still a great idea. By the end, you do want to know what happens to the characters going forward. I think it also helps that both are unknown to me. If you put established actors in these roles (*cough * Mulligan and Craig), I don’t see it working as well.

I’m sure there will things needing “updating” or “revision”. The original title of the film is “Millenium #1: Men Who Hate Women”. Parts of it are EXTREMELY misogynistic and violent. There are a few scenes that will have to be scaled down – only one of which isn’t necessary to advance the story. American audiences can’t handle it.

The other two films have already been completed and released in Sweden. The second is about to hit US audiences soon. The third has no US release date yet (possibly because the book was just released here a few months ago). I think I’ll stay with the foreign version for now, before I look to the “updated” or “revamped” version. The only Glamorizing I’m interested in right now belongs on “True Blood”.

The sun (and moon) have set on "Eclipse"

Let the record show – “I’m SO over ‘The Twilight’”, as in “The Twilight Phenomenon”. I’ve read all the books, and I did enjoy them (except for the last one, which I think was only written for money and is basically softcore porn repackaged). I wasn’t Team Jacob, nor was I Team Edward; I’ve always been firmly Team Bella.

But after seeing “Eclipse”, I’m just done with the whole thing. These aren’t films anymore or even stories. They are just Mighty Marketing Juggernauts. It’s Fad Gone Wild, and I don’t want anything more to do with it.

Maybe the reason I’m over it is because I’ve grown up. When I read the books, I was in a totally different place in my life than I am now. Plus, everyone agrees that books are usually better than movies. I can forgive the poorly written dialogue in the books, because after all they are really young adult novels. They shouldn’t BE that great, and they aren’t. And I’ve always been an advocate of a female empowerment message, especially for young girls.

Translating it to film, however, is a whole other story. A friend of mine told me that the audience for “Eclipse” is 60% teenage girls, 20% cougar females, and 20% gay boys. I fit into none of these categories, and actually laughed out loud during Taylor Lautner’s entrance, where I felt the only thing missing was porn music. (Although, during my “New Moon” showing, there was a collective gasp when he took off his shirt for the first time, which I also found laughable.)

Is it a bad film? No – I’ve certainly seen worse. Is it a good film? Not really – I’ve certainly seen better. That’s why this column is a bit difficult to write – it’s always hard to do the “blah” films. The story is passable, but the dialogue is HORRENDOUS, and it’s delivered even worse. Kristen Stewart has gone from brooding to simpering, Pattinson is officially annoying and Lautner seems too young to really consider. They still haven’t improved the glistening effect of the vampires in the sun; and the meadow now has WAY too much yellow. And when did vampires become porcelain?

But before you think I’m completely negative about it, there are some good things. Each film in the series has brought a bigger budget, which is obvious. The effects are getting better. The wolves look awesome. The fight choreography seems better. The scenery is spectacular as always. I like the fact that this volume gives a back story on some of the supporting characters, and is a showcase for someone other than the Big Three to shine.

I know that they need one more film to tie up the plotline with the Volturri. Please note I said ONE, not two. That’s another example of milking it. I don’t care if Scorsese himself directs it – two films just aren’t needed.

But apparently more money is. I just don’t think the next one will get mine.

Lowering Prices Doesn't Have to Mean Lowering Standards

Ever notice that the cheaper a film becomes to watch, the more likely you are to watch it? To me, very few films are worth spending the IMAX-ish money at my local theater. However, for those films on the bubble, there are daily matinees and my local Cineplex does have a 6.00 Wednesday special. But lately it’s not a money issue, but a time one.

But tonight I caught a break. Leaving work at 6:30 gave me enough time to watch and review a film in the same night. That’s not usual practice, but I do have a self-imposed 4 monthly post deadline to hit. I wanted a film requiring little thought, but still seemed interesting. After reviewing the new movies menu from my soon-to-be-ex cable company, I selected “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief”.

I knew this was the possible start of a franchise, with the studio thinking it will replace the OTHER franchise about the young wizards. This film has two major selling points for me. The first was that I HAVEN’T read the source material. I have this bad habit of being a voracious reader. By the time the movie has come out, I have already read the book which usually ruins the film. (Case in point: I’m currently reading “The Passage”, which has already been optioned by Ridley Scott.) The second is that I am familiar with the background of the story.

I found it entertaining to see how they incorporated the myths I read as a child in a modern setting. I loved the parade of cameos; even the credits were a kick to watch. The adults in the film are truly an ensemble; and are more recognizable that the ones in the OTHER franchise. But the film belongs to the three leads (Why does it always have to be three, btw?) who were complete unknowns to me. I thought the acting was solid, the writing was above average, and the ideas themselves were extremely entertaining.

The other thing worth mentioning is the use of special effects. Most of the time effects bore me. I find them fake and distancing to the audience. But here they actually worked. I’m not sure if that’s because of the state I’m in, or if it’s because of the world the filmmakers put me in, but either way it was successful.
This is what I’d consider a true family film. It doesn’t pander down to children, and it’s intelligent enough to hold the attention of adults. I guess that’s why it was one of the first well-reviewed films of 2010. In a summer saturated with stories I’ve already heard or couldn’t care less about, it was very nice to finally see a film that was original, in its own way.

If they do decide to make this into a franchise (and I have no doubt that they will), I’m all for it. And I PROMISE not to read the books!

My job is driving me (and my film choices) CRAZY!

I really must apologize to my Readership of Six for my absence of late. Unfortunately, my job had been driving me crazy. I’ve been working many more hours than normal, and by the time I finally do come home I’ve been far too tired and too brain dead to actually watch anything, or even form a complete thought.

I can’t guarantee either of that right now, but I’ll give it the old college try. It seems that unconsciously, this idea of going crazy has manifested itself in my viewing choices this week, in very odd ways.

In addition to being sick of working, I’m also sick of the lack of good film choices, as I’ve whined about repeatedly. When all else fails, I find myself turning to my TV, and thus On Demand. While perusing my On Demand selections, I found Turner Classic Movies On Demand (YAY!). While reviewing the list, I came across a gem starring Olivia de Havilland from the late 1940s entitled “The Snake Pit”. Ironically enough, this film tells the story of Virginia Cunningham, a woman who is in an asylum with no idea why she’s there or even who she is.

Honestly, prior to this, I’d seen de Havilland in a total of two films – “The Heiress” and “GWTW”. The latter is possibly the most OVERRATED film ever, but that’s another story for another time. I liked “The Heiress”, but unfortunately her character is a bit on the mousy side for me. This film, however, showed what it’s like when a true star takes over the screen. The film did something that most recent films haven’t done; it held my interest the entire time. Even though I had to break it into two sessions due to my schedule, as soon as I woke up my first thought was finishing it. I’m glad I did.

I guess that taught me a lesson – when all else fails, go back to the 40s.

For my second film this week, I had one of the most memorable recent home viewing experiences of late. I watched “The Crazies”, which is a remake of George Romero’s early film of the same name (which should explain why this is familiar). I watched this film on my laptop in the dark after a VERY long day. As I was watching the film, the skies began to darken. As the characters are on the run and happen to be stuck in a car wash, the storm started and my apartment (located on the third floor corner of my building) began to be getting pelted with rain, thunder and lightning hit and it was GREAT! The movie was actually decent and it made me very happy.

So although I don’t feel cinematically satisfied yet, I’m definitely on my way. I feel much better. But most importantly, work MAY be looking up. And even if it’s not, at least a few days vacation are coming soon. (FIOS, here I come!)

Some much needed down time

I took this weekend to do something I don’t normally do – rest. I’ve had a horrible week at work, and there are at least two more to go. During my down time I started reading a new novel on my Nook. About fifteen pages into it, I thought to myself “So THAT’S why I read as much as I can - because every now and then, I’ll come across something THAT good.”

I wish I felt the same way about film right now, but unfortunately there isn’t anything THAT good. In fact, there isn’t really anything good at all. (If you know anything that is good, email me PLEASE!)

I also decided that for this week’s films I didn’t want anything with too much of a plot or requireding much thought. I turned to Redbox for assistance, and came out with Mel Gibson in “Edge of Darkness”. During the film, one of the characters says “She deserved so much better”, and I couldn’t have said it better myself. Going in, I knew the general plot. Gibson (sporting an intermittent Boston accent) plays a dad who watches his daughter murdered and tries to hunt down her killer. Unfortunately, instead of a murder mystery or a “who done it” (which I thought I was getting), it’s actually a government conspiracy story. SERIOUSLY? I know there’s such a thing as suspending belief, but there’s only so much a girl can let go. Gibson does look bereaved, but maybe that’s because he actually was affiliated with this goop. For the last third, I really only paid half attention and the last scenes seem so stupidly symbolic that I thought I was watching a cancelled CBS TV show instead of a film.

The next day I read some more, cleared my head and decided to give it another go. The film was from one of my favorites, Dario Argento. It’s called “Giallo”, starring Adrien Brody. (I know, I was surprised too.) It’s a typical Argento story – there’s a rash of murders in the city and pretty women are dropping like flies. Enter our hero, a troubled detective, who eventually catches the killer, who was actually revealed in the beginning of the film. There are also multiple cool death scenes. After the recent misfires by Argento, I really enjoyed this film. It may have been my mood today, but I found it entertaining. The run time of about 90 minutes also helps. There was something comforting about this film, an almost 80s look with an almost film noir feel. There also isn’t all that much gratuitous nudity, which was a welcome surprise. It’s a great film to watch while you’re on autopilot.

I’d love to stay and gripe some more, but I do hear my novel calling me, as well as tonight’s finale of “Breaking Bad”. I’m not giving up cinematic hope though. Summer’s slate might suck, but fall’s not THAT far away – it just feels that way.

Hoarding Oscar's Leftovers

During my annual Oscar Quest, there are usually two or three films that I miss, due to time or money. I hoard these films until DVD release, where I hope to savor them like the fresh strawberry apple tart I just ate for dessert. Usually they are the “acting” films, with some career-defining performance that I missed while running through the Ten Best Pic Wanna-Bes.

This week I watched two of these films – “The Messenger” and “The Young Victoria”.

“The Messenger” was Woody Harrelson’s latest Oscar bid, where he plays a jaded American soldier given the most unwanted of jobs. He and his partner (played by Ben Foster) have to notify the next of kin about the death of their loved one. It’s not an easy task, and it could have made a fascinating character study, and for awhile it is. There are several bit parts and cameos, including Steve Buscemi as a father who becomes combative after finding out about his loss.

Unfortunately, though, the film suffers because it isn’t really sure which direction to follow. Then again, neither do the characters. It gets the most weighted down when addressing the love story between Foster and Samantha Morton, who plays a wife left behind to raise a child. I found this part of the film completely implausible and unnecessary. I wanted to see more of Foster’s interactions with Harrelson, who is extremely good in the film, but I can’t say I expected anything less. Harrelson’s proven that he has a huge range. He’s always exciting to watch. I do think eventually he’ll get one, but he might have to have a long career in order to do it.

Next up was “The Young Victoria”. I admit that I have a bias towards all things British, and it is usually an Oscar rule that playing a British Queen will get at least Oscar buzz. In this case, the buzz was all about Emily Blunt, playing the title role. This is supposed to be her “role of a lifetime”, but I think that at her age, there is still many roles for her to play. This film isn’t your typical period piece, running several hours with multiple boring crises. It’s more a coming of age story for a young woman who just happens to be the Queen of England. The best part of this film is the pacing; the run time is not even two hours, which is just enough time to get a fine mist of a story as opposed to the usual British downpour. Blunt is fantastic; but I do have trouble buying her as an eighteen year old. The rest of the cast is solid. I found it to be a very pleasant film, but not a great film.

Here’s hoping that next week brings brighter films, but then again the next film on the list is “Schindler’s List”, so I can’t exactly promise anything. I just hope that great films don’t continue to be so hard to find.

My Memorial Day Trip

It’s Memorial Day Weekend, the old start of the summer movie season. But, that is now the first weekend in May and I’ve already seen the film I wanted to see. I’ve also purchased a “big-ticket” item (aka a 2009 Kia), so I’m too money-challenged and lazy to go away for the weekend.

So I took a trip via my DVD player. I’ve been to New Zealand, to Japan and then to the Bayou of Bon Temps and I must say that, even with the cinematic turbulence, I’m still glad I took the trip.

My first pick was “Once Were Warriors”, a film recommended to me by a friend. The film was made in 1994, but feels more like an 80s film – big hair, big credits, and lots of primary colors. The plot centers on a family in tatters. Beth and her husband have a mess of kids that are delinquents, but given the example of domestic violence, they never really had a prayer. It looks like it was shot low-budget, but eventually the story and the acting sneak up on you. By the time I got to the end, I felt drained but cleansed. I was advised it’s not a very easy film to watch, and that’s true. But it’s worth watching all the same.

Then I watched “Raise the Red Lantern”, one of the films from the Yahoo list. It’s one of the few that I hadn’t seen, and it showed me that dialogue isn’t all that necessary to create a character. It tells the story of a young girl who decides that she’d be best taken care of by becoming a concubine to a rich man. She becomes the “Fourth Mistress”, with her own maid and her own house. Her master then decides which wife to “favor” that evening by having the lanterns lit for all to see. The film then describes the interrelationships of the wives, leading to her tragic fate. The story is captivating and the film is fantastic to watch. I’m also glad I got the reminder that Asian films aren’t strictly horror. It’s an outstanding film.

Lastly, I did my typical long-weekend activity: watched as many episodes of a TV show as possible. In this case, it was HBO’s “True Blood”. Even though Showtime has better shows, this is HBO’s best offering right now, but unfortunately the second season pales in comparison to the first. This one is far more over-the-top and once you distance yourself from the show you realize that the plotlines are allegorical, but stupid. But for some reason you watch it all the same. I do enjoy watching shows a season at a time, as there are no cliffhangers and no time delays. And for the record, yes I will be watching the third season as well (eventually).

Now it’s off to make breakfast and tea and then go to my next international stop – the French Open.

Iron Man 2

Second films are usually either a bridge film between films one and three (“The Two Towers”) or, in rare cases, better than the original (“The Godfather II”). The biggest question this month is how does the biggest “middle film” of the summer – “Iron Man II” - fit between those two extremes?

The short answer is: in the middle.

The plot continues where the last one ended. Tony Stark informed the world he’s Iron Man, but he seems to be overstretched. His mental and physical health are failing, and he’s coping in true Stark fashion – not well. Iron Man is one of my favorite superheroes is that he is admittedly flawed and chased by demons. Not to get too bogged down, but one of the reasons that the film works is because it’s multi-leveled. It’s a battle of good vs evil, externally and internally.

The cast is great. The chemistry carries over for the first one and the new additions fold into the mix well. The replacing of Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle works to a certain extent, but doesn’t completely gel. I think had they not made Rhodey a much more stoic character it wouldn’t have worked at all. Mickey Rourke is a creepy catalyst, used as a combination of a walking talking special effect and a plot device. Scarlett is there primarily as eye candy, and of course succeeds.

One of the best highlights for me is the chemistry and dialogue between Downey and Paltrow. The dialogue is structured so that they often talk over each other and talk at the same time – just like the supercouples of the 40s (my favorite). Both actors have a great sense of comedic timing and the screenwriter (who also penned “Tropic Thunder”) knows how to bring it out.

There are a few minute things that were annoying, but those were only idiosyncrasies. For example, the door to Tony’s workshop is passcode accessible only, but apparently EVERY CHARACTER has the passcode. But even more frustrating was what I’ll call “Marvel product placement”, such as the lead ins to the other upcoming films in the Marvel Universe. I know that not only is this film part of a trilogy, but it’s also one in a bigger set of films, but some of this is just stupid. (If you’ve seen it, you know what I mean.) The filmmakers are also adding a teaser after the credits isn’t necessary. Everyone knows what the next films are – either come up with something better, or don’t bother to try.

All in all though, it was great to lose myself in something for over two hours. I
saw it NOT in IMAX, and not in my usual theater. I saw this film in a theater that I haven’t been in for about 15 years, and the film was still fantastic. That is the best testament to the film – I forgot the theatrical experience and just watched and enjoyed the film. Can’t wait for the next one.

Casting...When it Works...And When it Doesn't

For this week’s cinematic adventure, I went somewhere new and then visited an old friend.

First stop was Rob Marshall’s “Nine”. Two obvious reasons I didn’t see this in a theater – Daniel Day Lewis and Katie Hudson. One is enough to make me hide; two is beyond a bad sign. (Nic Cage completes my Cinematic Apocalyptic Trifecta) Other than the aforementioned abominations, the rest of the cast looked stellar: Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and even Stacy Ferguson (aka Fergie).

“Nine” is loosely based on Fellini’s “8 ½”, which I admit I have not seen. I watched ten minutes and found it boring and pretentious. I felt similarly about “Nine”. I just didn’t see any direction. DDL plays a director about to shoot a movie, with no script and a severe case of writer’s block. He turns to his muses (some real, some not) for inspiration, only to acquire more anxiety and pressure. Each muse gets her own musical number.

I won’t go so far as to say that it was “Mama Mia”-esque bad, because all the actors actually can semi-sing. I felt that Cruz’s number was the best, as she worked the hardest. The best tune was Hudson’s, a dead ringer for her mom in her white go-go boots. Acting-wise, the award goes to Marion Cotillard – the long-suffering, tolerant wife. The weakest link was probably Nicole Kidman as the ex-wive. If you blink or don’t pause when you go to the rest room, you’ll miss her.

Marshall also did one of my favorite films – “Chicago”. I thought it was brilliant, and it’s the only film I’ve seen repeatedly in a theater. (I think I saw it seven times. I can still repeat dialogue and sing every lyric.) “Chicago” still had relevance, as it deals with the idea of celebrity and notoriety. I just didn’t feel that “Nine” had the same kind of hook – or perhaps I just don’t understand “Cinema Italiano”.

The other film this week was a classic – Frank Darabont’s “The Shawshank Redemption”. (#79 on the all-time classic list and # 21 on the modern classic list) This is a case where just about everything about a film works. Unlike the other Darabont-driven Stephen King adaptation “The Green Mile”, this film doesn’t need an all-star cast (or Tom Hanks, thank God). It showcases two of today’s most brilliant actors - Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman.

I’m sure you’ve seen this film, as most people have. It’s clear that the filmmakers tried to get every detail just right – and succeeded on all levels. Most importantly, it’s a faithful Stephen King adaptation. And trust me, I know my King. It’s my favorite adaptation of all his works, and it still can move me to tears. Plus, on the week of my birthday, it’s kinda nice to see that I’m not the only one who’s gotten older.

Film 142: Eve's Bayou

One of the things that people complain about is that there aren’t enough films that have an almost exclusively African-American cast. Really, the only dramas like that today are those made by Tyler Perry, and they are now far too repetitive for their own good. A film made almost fifteen years ago that met this criteria was “Eve’s Bayou”.

When I originally saw this film in 1997, I thought it was impressive. Boasting an all-star cast, this film promised to be a drama/mystery and I enjoyed it. I watched it again thirteen years later and I’ve decided that it’s as hot a mess as the Louisiana bayou for which it is named.

I can’t even tell the direction the filmmakers were taking. At times this film could have been shot in the 1950s (it’s actually set in the 60s), a true Douglas Sirk original, complete with swelling music. Other times it’s got a “Cotton Club” feel to it, an almost seductive quality. But unfortunately, there’s also another part that I can’t really identify that just doesn’t mesh with anything else.

I’m not even sure of the main plot. Is it about a family and its ultimate ruination? Is it about a steamy affair gone wrong? Is it the story of one little girl and the tragic consequences that she believes she caused? Or is it a total mishmash of everything? I’m afraid that it’s the latter.

But there are upsides to the film. The scenery is awesome, just seedy enough to make the main points. The cast is still impressive; it’s a venerable who’s who of Hollywood at that time. Even if the writing isn’t that strong, the cast can overcome those shortcomings. There really isn’t a role that Sam Jackson can’t play, and the philandering scoundrel of a doctor suits him well. Lynn Whitfield nails the part of the indulgent wife and mother.

Debbi Morgan is an odd mix of sister and witchdoctor; it is perhaps her performance that is the weakest of the adults. But the worst casting has to be that of the lead Jurnee Smollett as Eve. She has since grown into a wealth of TV roles, which is good because film just wasn’t her strong suit.

The director, Kasi Lemmons, has since gone on to make another movie with Jackson, “The Caveman’s Valentine”, which I haven’t seen. But I’m really jazzed to see it, either.

As far as one of the “100 Modern Films to See Before You Die” goes – trust me, you can skip this one.

London May Be Dreary, but the Film Surely Isn't!

I decided to skip this week’s previously scheduled film “Eve’s Bayou” for two very important reasons: First, I needed to get out of my head for a bit. Secondly, I needed an RDJ (that’s Robert Downey Junior for anyone not familiar with my ubiquitous acronyms) fix before “Iron Man 2”, this year’s birthday film. (You didn’t really think I was going to spend my Special Day cinematically with Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe’s “Robin Hood” aka the English Gladiator, did you?)

I sat down yesterday and ordered “Sherlock Holmes” from Comcast on Demand. For two hours, I had intelligent dialogue, my lovely dreary London, lots of action, one of two laughs, and of course RDJ. I also wanted to use British colloquialisms for the rest of the day, but that’s not really new.

I admit to being skeptical before the film’s release. Not about teaming Downey with Jude Law as Dr. Watson – that’s a stroke of genius. Giving Holmes a love interest (Rachel McAdams) didn’t quite seem right. But I hadn’t read the books so perhaps I was uninformed.

My biggest question was around the director – Guy Ritchie. It was obvious from the trailer that this film would make a mint, and the release right around Christmas would certainly add to the box office. But I’d only seen one of Ritchie’s films – “Rock N Rolla”, and to be honest, I bloody hated it.

I’m very glad that I gave this film a try. It’s an opening franchise film without being an origin film. Holmes is already established as a depraved, brilliant detective who almost runs Scotland Yard exuding confidence in his mind but has the emotional maturity of a gnat. Downey nails it all, in a Golden Globe nominated performance. Law is capital as the straight guy who often bears the brunt of Holmes’ shenanigans, and simply cannot leave him for the respectability of a wife and home of his own.

The main criticisms I offer of the film are that many of the externals shots are quite dark, although I also submit that my tele is not the cleanest in the world. My second criticism involves the fact that the inevitable sequel isn’t set up in the last ten minutes, but the last thirty. Personally, that’s a bit too long of a tease for my liking. But I’m more than willing to wait as Mr. Downey continues to juggle not one but two franchises (or perhaps three, if you consider “The Avengers” another, directed by Joss Whedon).

Here’s a side note to all the detractors skeptical about the “Iron Man 2” hype. I don’t often say this, but if you read the comics or at least research them, you know where this is all going. And for God’s sake, just sit back and watch the film without critiquing it along the way. Trust me you’ll enjoy it all the more. I sure did. And I will again. Must go now – “Eastenders” is calling. :)

Film 138: Sling Blade

Miramax Studios (the studio Tarentino built) used to be an Oscar powerhouse. They were usually good for at least one Best Picture nominee or win – from “Pulp Fiction”to “Shakesepeare in Love” to “The Cider House Rules” to 1996’s entry “Sling Blade”.

“Sling Blade” tells the story of Karl Childers, played by Billy Bob Thornton. Karl has recently been released from a mental hospital after several years’ incarceration for the death of his mother and her young lover.

Thorton wrote, directed and starred in the film. He’s never been as good since, and I don’t think he ever could. The film earned an Oscar for its screenplay, but unfortunately Thornton lost the Best Actor race to Geoffrey Rush for “Shine”.

“Sling Blade” is, in its own way, a comfort film for me. It’s a solid drama (my favorite) and a reminder of how good films can be. It layers itself slowly, event by event, giving the viewer hope and a sense that all will be well. When tragedy asserts itself again, it’s acceptable and even understandable.

The other great thing about “Sling Blade” is the supporting cast, some of whom are no longer with us. John Ritter does a great turn as Vaughan, the gay store manager who lives in the closet with a door that’s wide open. The other supporting role is JT Walsh as a fellow inmate in the hospital, who is the only person speaking for the first 10 minutes. Jim Jarmusch also does a cameo, which I didn’t realize until I saw the credits. And the young boy playing Frank, Lucas Black, is a force to behold. Since “Sling Blade” he has continued his career on the big and small screens.

I know that people have made fun of Thornton – people who don’t understand. Certainly Thornton himself is an odd person, and he’s had his tabloid appearances. But for someone to make this brilliant of a film, chiefly of his own design is nothing short of remarkable.

The other thing that stays with me about this film is its solidity. This story could have been made into a Lifetime movie, where society beats down the killer to force him to go back to the only mode of conduct that he knows. But the idea is respected and the material never panders down to that level.

It’s yet another example of the prevalent trend of making characters we should abhor understandable and likable. This continues through Tony Soprano, Dexter Morgan and now Walter White. We don’t love their actions, but we know they only want to do the right thing – even if that’s illegal or immoral. And we love them for it the whole way.

Has my opinion of “Sling Blade” changed? Nope. I reckon it was a great film the first time, and almost 15 years later, it still is. It’s just unfortunate that Miramax isn’t around anymore to showcase great films such as these.

Bad Lieutenant and How to Date a Film

Twenty plus years ago, David Lynch came up with a TV show called “Twin Peaks”. Ahead of its time, its run was short. It was one of the first big “mythology” shows that I watched faithfully. Unfortunately, I tried to re-watch the show about a year ago and found it to be dated and nonsensical. As a college student, I was proud of myself for figuring out the mystery and was extremely sad when it was cancelled. But as an adult, what was genius is now just moronic.

I thought the same thing while watching “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans”. Despite my Nicolas Cage hatred, I had an open mind. The film has an 80s grittiness to it, although it’s set in the recent past (I think). Cage is a police lieutenant who tried to do the right thing by saving a subject from drowning in the floods, and ends up being rewarded with permanent back pain. He naturally turns to drugs to deaden the pain – first starting with prescriptions and building it all up from there. He eventually spends more of his time high than straight. In the midst of this there is a murder investigation that he’s leading. But the murder is insignificant.

This is essentially a character study. And although the director shows you the underbelly of the society and tries to give you a stark contrast, he instead inserts random, nonsensical images in order to throw the viewer off, and to show the distortion of Cage’s perception. Eventually you aren’t really sure what’s happening when. Again, what could be genius to one person was just idiocy to me. I’ve already seen one film where Cage goes down a long and winding road into oblivion. I spent that one waiting for him to die so the movie would end. I guess you could say I was apathetic – primarily because this was a pathetic excuse for a crime drama. (*)

But the idea of something being dated stayed with me this week. What if the movies I’ve spent years ranting about really aren’t that bad? What if my perceptions have changed as I’ve gotten older? What if the ones that I think are great really aren’t? I know I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for “The Fabulous Baker Boys” and “Xanadu”, but what about “The Matrix” and “Jurassic Park” and even “Forrest Gump”?

Yesterday as I pondered all this I clicked onto Yahoo and found two lists – one of classics from since 1999 and another full of classics of all time. These aren’t just award winning films – these are the “100 Films to See Before You Die”. So I’ve decided to give it a whirl. I make no commitments on how many to get through or when, but I’m going to work toward re-evaluating some films. If you’d like to come along, check in once in a while. I’ll be posting everything here.

Wish me luck!

PS - If you're interested in the lists themselves, you can find them here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/100-movies-to-see-before-you-die-modern-classics.html

What to Watch when there's Nothing to Watch

April’s slate is pretty dead – both theatrically and on video. There’s simply not much there. I may see “Date Night”, but not at full theatrical prices and I can always rent an omitted Oscar nominee, but for right now I’m in a stalled pattern.
That makes me restless and hard to satisfy.

On Saturday, I went to see “Chloe” at my local Cineplex. After bemoaning increased ticket prices last week, I found out first showings have an “early bird” rate of 6.00. This won’t work at 10:00 AM, but isn’t bad at 1:30 PM. Upon arrival, I noticed their concession renovations are semi-completed. It’s now done cafeteria-style. Why anyone would pay 4.00 for a 20 oz coke eludes me, unless it’s to avoid the line amassing at the single fountain soda line. People mill about randomly, and I finally pay for my 3.50 soda, dodge the “Dragon” crowd and find my showing, hiding in the back.

How was the movie? Not great, but I should have known better. I went for the cast – Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and the increasing interesting Amanda Seyfried. I knew the basic premise – infidelity or imagination? For the first third, I was entertained. I should have remembered the director, Atom Egoyan, specializes in films that “push the sexual envelope”. About one-third of the film is something from Cinemax, not Cineplex. Afterwards I felt like I had seen far too much of Julianne, and wanted a shower. The film was tired, and so was I.

A few days later, I tried to clean out my Netflix, which were gathering dust due to my increased work schedule. I watched “North by Northwest” – an undisputed masterpiece. Unfortunately, I felt disillusioned. Although it held my interest, and Cary Grant and Hitch can do no wrong, the dialogue is erratic and I already knew all the big surprises. The dialogue in the train is fantastic (I wish they would have had that blatant sublety in “Chloe”), but the political diatribe is just too dated. The framing is spectacular, the effects are dazzling for their time, but it just didn’t gel completely for me. Sorry.

So what do you watch if there’s nothing to see? I turn my attention to the one forum consistently delivering –television. My favorite show right now is “Breaking Bad”. If you are not currently watching this show, (you probably aren’t), you OWE it to yourself to get the first two seasons and then hurriedly catch up. Bryan Cranston’s back-to-back Emmy wins aren’t a fluke. The writing never ever disappoints, the cast is spectacular and for 40+ minutes, I am riveted.

There’s also “Damages” and the upcoming “Top Chef Masters” to watch. And there’s always my Nook. I’ve been reading “The Help” for far too long, savoring it until Spielberg kills the story by making the film. I can even treat myself to reading on my porch.

So even if there isn’t anything to see, there’s still EVERYTHING to do, if you know where to look - or Nook.

Ponderings from the Cinematic Princess...

I made it my goal this year to write one of these entries (I call them columns) per week, or four per month. Unfortunately, I haven’t really been watching many movies lately. The only thing I’ve seen lately was “Ninja Assassin”, a 2 and a half at best. Think a Tarentino bloodbath with a tired and underdeveloped story. Not bad, but not great.

But what I wanted to write about this week are cinematic shifts, both theatrical and DVD, which indiciate the way things are a changin’ – not for the better.

Firstly, four of my local video stores are all closing. While that’s good news if I have extra money and want to score a decent copy of a classic film on the cheap, but not for the fact that Redbox is now the main way for me to rent a DVD.

What I hate the most about this change is that I won't have the opportunity ever again to enter an actual video store. You can laugh at me if you want to because that's a really dorkish thing to say (it is and I am), but I’ve met some great people in a video store. I met the love of my life in a video store (my actual other half, not just the concept of film in general). We still talk about film all the time, and I wouldn’t have even met him if I hadn’t gone there, the idea of which frankly scares the hell out of me. The video store was the one place where I knew that I could always find someone who “knew their shit” (except at Blockbuster), and I’d find some film that I hadn’t heard of that I had to see, which led to another film, and so on.

Gone. And I understand the market had evaporated, and I understand that it’s easier to hit the stream button on Netflix, but I’ll still always miss the mortar-and-stone building. I used to say that Norm had his Cheers, and I had my video store. Now, I guess I have a box. Lucky me.

Secondly, I saw an article over the weekend announcing that theatrical ticket sales are again going to spike – just in time for the summer film season in a few months. Although again I realize that it’s a business decision, this one doesn’t make as much sense. Year over year, the box office is growing, crowds are growing, but the quality of the films on the whole is staying stagnant. There’s yet another remake, or sequel, or unnecessary 3-D epic. Most of these aren’t worth paying 4.99 for, much less the 15.00-17.00 to which they could possibly escalate.

So it looks like I’m going to have to change my habits again. I’ll do my research on the websites I follow to get the upcoming slates, and I’ll watch what I want when I can. My Wii now accommodates streaming Netflix options. But as for the rest of it, there’s nothing to take its place. And I don’t want anything to even try.