Spaceballs

Mel Brooks is a comedic genius.  He knows exactly how to spoof a franchise and do so hilariously.  Star Wars is one of the greatest stories ever told but Brooks made Spaceballs into a comedic classic with memorable and quotable lines that fit any situation. 

The quality of the film is pretty good.  The chemistry of the star studded cast is great.  John Candy as Barf was classic John Candy.  His ability to have funny moments was never beyond him and it shined in his supporting role.

This is Rick Moranis' second greatest role - behind Ghostbusters - and he did not disappoint. He captured every scene that involved him and was funny.  The coffee statement and the line about the assholes should be in comedic history.

While the on-film chemistry was great, the thing I learned from watching documentaries on comedians is the importance of timing in the genre.  Jerry Lewis' Bellboy scene is legendary due to its impeccable timing. Moranis, Brooks, (Bill) Pullman, and Candy nail the timing when possible.  That is why Spaceballs is so funny to me.  It is a slapstick with amazing timing. The only one who rushed the timing sequence was George Wyner as Colonel Sandurz.  Maybe Sandurz was a pushy character and Wyner played it great but there were times when I felt Wyner was a step too quick with the line. His sequence with Moranis on the "You're looking at now" bit, however, was pretty great.

The story itself was pretty silly.  Ran out of fresh air?  That was just dumb but Brooks made it work because while it revolved around the actions of the characters, it was never at the forefront of the film. The comedy, which was spoofing Star Wars and the point of the film, was.

Another great thing about Brooks is his ability to include popular culture in his films.  Viewers see the late 1980s throughout Spaceballs.  A Winnebago? An actual lunchbox?  Spaceballs the cereal! The music and so many others are present in the film that I will not mention but the point is made.  Brooks' skill of inclusion is shown.

Now when it comes to comedies, not everyone enjoys the same kind.  As with Bobby's pick of In a World..., I had no idea it was a comedy until halfway into the film.  With Spaceballs, however, this is clearly a spoof and slapstick comedy.  Those are the kind I revel in. To me, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a top ten comedy of all time and with that in mind, Spaceballs gets high marks from me for its comedy.  Its story, however, is another thing.

Was Spaceballs a commercial success?  Well, it had an estimated budget of $22.7 million and grossed $38.1 million in the U.S. Making more than the budget is always a good thing but what do others think of it?  It holds a 7.1 rating on IMDb, which is pretty good, yet RT gives it a 54% but somehow 83% of its audience liked it. Interesting. 

All in all, the comedy was great.  Memorable and quotable lines with a cast that could do no wrong.  The story was disappointing but the comedy drowned it out.

Grade: B

In a World...

In a World... where Bobby picks female lead films which are also written, directed and produced by said female... I think Lake Bell delivers a winner.

To start, I was really attracted to the premise. We get a look at a oft ignored piece of show business centered around a phrase that has been incredibly prominent. Don La Fontaine was a voice that everybody recognized, but likely couldn't put a name to. I thought the resurrection of his famed 'In a World...' line was a brilliant approach to the film. The film presents the voice-over business in a way that appealing and interesting to both movie buffs and general audiences, which is a big part of what makes it such a success for me.

In a World... revolves around Carol Solomon and her relationship to the voice acting world. She's a genuinely likable character... quirky, witty, intelligentWhen we first see her she's simply a voice coach, knowing she has the ability to play a bigger role in the business if it wasn't such an exclusive boys club. I like that Carol getting her first big voiceover gig wasn't made into a slow built climatic event, but just a subtle 'this happened' moment over the phone. It didn't feel like it was forced upon the audience, but a natural show that women do have a voice here... which is clearly a major theme in the movie.

Carol's relationship with her father is essentially the personified version of her relationship to the industry. She's always kept at arms length, and hardly has any support. Of course, there's more to her family dealings that that, but it does come back around when we see Sam dedicate his award to his daughters. It doesn't feel sincere to me, he's just using them as a tool, just as the industry (represented by Geena Davis) used Carol's female voice for the quadrilogy.

The supporting characters are also well defined and each gives us distinct and fleshed out personalities. Their involvment makes the story feel like more than just a daughter's battle to get out of her father's shadow and limitations.

Bell was great in the lead role. She delivers the personality in detail and has fantastic timing. She provided plenty of comedic moments and, I thought, managed extremely well with her Fred Melamed stood out as Sam Sotto, delivering his lines with the perfect tone and temperment. And look a flip phone like Jon's! Ken Marino does well in a familiar type of role (Wet Hot American Summer, East Bound and Down), but adds something extra with his voice as well. Demitri Martin and Rob Corddry fit in well their normal awkward roles.  Nick Swanson's mustache fell of, but Nick Offerman is always solid. The cast did a suberb job overall, and showed a great deal of chemistry.

I think that chemistry added to an already good dialogue. Conversations felt natural and, more importantly, realistic. The inclusion of some quick wit ('If a beanie baby could talk..') and repeat jokes ('excited or farting') were subtle and well done. They reminded me of the kind of wit we experience in real life... it's there, but not over the top like in something such as Juno.

I'm guessing any major issues with this movie will come with the side stories. Sure, we can do without the romance between Carol and Louis, but it allows her personality to be on full display (away from work) and also Louis comes in as strong support for the female voice... even if in a sort of cliche way from his speech. We don't really care abotu Jamie, but this also fleshes out Sam world. And most of all, Moe and Dani. On its own it can seem completely out of place and a secondary plot altogether. But I think both characters, as well as their relationship, play a very important role in Carol's life and support system. They also round out the entire family plot with Carol, Dani and their father. It's still a slight distraction because it seems so distant from the main focus at times, but isn't a huge negative for me.

Technically, I think Bell did a great job directing. I didn't feel like any shots were off or misplaced. The cuts felt right, with no clunkiness. I mentioned the dialogue, but i really think that was a strong point of her script that deserves attention. I think it's an incredibly strong work, not just for a debut, but in a general light.

I found myself laughing, sometimes audibly others just a light chuckle... which scored major points for the film. We've discussed comedy enough to know how that works if a viewer isn't feeling it's humor. More on point though, I was feeling Bell's message. Extending the female voice in such a well done and intelligent way works well here. While she apparently felt the need to drive it home in the last seen while she's coaching the women, I don't think it was over the top or to strong.. but meshed well with Carol's journey throughout the movie.

I feel like could go on to more, but I need to wrap this up for now. I can see this getting a pretty wide array of grades, and feel I may be higher than most (if not all) here. I initially graded this as an A when I saw it a few months back, and feel comfortable sticking to that. I truly enjoyed this movie.... from the acting, to the humor, to the dialogue, to the plot and overall introduction to the voice over business. From the initial voice mail from Louis and Carol's play on it, to the final moment of female empowerment, I was in. It wasn't perfect or a masterpiece, but it's a damn fine film, and one of my favorites that I've watched this year. Grade: A

Secret of Kells

Did George RRRRRRR Martin copy the Book of Kells (the basis for Secret of Kells) and make it into Game of Thrones? Cold, winter attackers from the north and a huge wall - of course he did.

No, this was not a pick to watch with my daughter. I thought about it, but the previews made it look too dark.

Watching Secret of Kells is like walking through an art museum. It’s beautiful and and I’d probably go back, but I don’t “get it.” There’s more here than what I’m seeing and Chel was into debating its deeper meaning, but my brain didn’t naturally go there.

The art in this movie was phenomenal. I was excited at every turn to see what was next in terms of artistic appearance. The story on its surface was good enough to keep me entertained. The chicken chase was amusing and the scenes in the woods would be terrifying outside of animation.

The moral of the story is where my brain gets lost. How am I supposed to interpret keeping the book inside of the wall, thus preventing the spread of knowledge? Could that knowledge have prevented the attack? Help prepare for the attack? Is the deeper meaning not to build walls in our own lives or hearts? Maybe I’m just reaching here - but I’d watch this one again to think more about these things.

As a student of art I really got into the symmetry and color of this movie. Any Irish out there know if a circle has a more significant meaning to their culture? As an anti-philosophy student I struggled to connect on a deeper level. I’m starting at B+, but the more I write and think about this movie the more I lean toward A-. I’d like to pick up The Book of Kells, but I’m not sure I’d open it.

Mad Max

Mad Max

Somebody call Jay Beckham because “a few years from now” Australia is going to be no fine place to live.

The tone setting opening sequence provides everything we need to know about this dystopian near future.  Starting with a cop getting his voyeur on through the scope of his rifle, he’s no less excited to get a call about the Nightrider riding wild.  We get the classic, I’m driving cop conversation and the alpha male switch of drivers after the failed first attempt but best of all we get the introduction of our “hero” Max.  The tight shots on the aviator glasses, the dashboard, the exhaust, all of this is basically copied to a T a few years later by Sly Stallone in Cobra but it makes for a badass entrance. 

To me Mad Max is a morality play based on one man’s dive into the depths of hopelessness.  His friendship with the Goose and relationship with his wife and son maintain Max’s humanity and as they are stripped away his snaps into vigilante mode.  The framing of the shot as he passed the sign reading “Stop Restricted Area” is a little too on the nose for me as we don’t need any more to show us what Max has set out to do and become. 

I feel like the score was something that was a major plus for this movie in 1979 but felt very dated.  

Each time the panned to the gates to The Halls of Justice and played the same tune I was transported to watching the Super Friends on Saturday Morning Cartoons.  (Meanwhile at the Legion of Doom…) I get what they were doing, but I only needed to see the Halls of Justice sign falling apart and the Halls themselves in ruin once to understand this was no ordinary police force. 

I did wonder during the family vacation how responsible it was to leave his wife and kid alone so often given that he knew this biker gang was in the area especially after her first run in with them.  Oh well, Aussies are pretty not smart. 

I thought the script left something to be desired  with a number of areas.  First, I like dialogue this movie didn’t have much.  Maybe the dubbing from the busted Aussie dialect “strine” held that back who knows.  Second, we got handsome and crazy Mel Gibson when everyone knows the best Mel Gibson is, handsome charming and crazy.  Hard to be charming without more words.

Disjointed review over, I want to say C but it did make me want to watch The Road Warrior (which is even better reviewed) so I’ll bump it into the no man’s land of C+

Up in the Air

Up in the Air

Phil and I discussed this movie and he described it as the perfect definition of a B+ movie. I knew this movie was nominated for Best Picture, so I assumed it’d be a bit higher (not that the Academy always does a great job). I had no idea what the movie was about until after I nominated it and realized I just nominated a rom com. I just don’t normally like rom coms and for a rom com to get over a B+ it really needs to do something extra in addition to merely being a believable story with believable relationships and believable people doing reasonable things. Rom coms usually fail at these things, especially on people acting in reasonable ways.

So I was presently surprised that this movie succeeds in breaking through the B+ ceiling, though I’m not certain it is actually a rom com.

I don’t care to go through the performances too terribly much here as everyone did a fantastic job. I still don’t know if Anna Kendrick is attractive or not, but I can say that she is definitely not attractive with the pulled back hair. But I guess that’s a bit misogynistic. But it’s not misogynistic to not how handsome George Clooney always is. (Even made fun of his eyebrows!) Whatever, I refuse to check my privilege at the door.

The relationships are what make this movie go beyond a B+.

I thought the dialogue here was superb. These characters interacted in natural ways. I thought the development between Kendrick and Clooney was impressive. I like that they didn’t necessarily agree with each other, though they definitely began to respect each other. That’s how real life works. I feel like on television that either you agree completely or you’re enemies. There’s no in-between. But in real relationships, it’s just not like that. (I also loved her line about not wanting to be anti-feminist. It sounds exactly like something any current recent college graduate might bring up. Bravo.)

I enjoyed the relationship between Clooney and Vera Farmiga’s character as the main love interest. It was an interesting role reversal to have Clooney missing all of the signs that she just wasn’t interested in a legitimate relationship. She was pretty blunt about what she expected and we just went along for the ride with Clooney. I thought they might be together and was ignoring the voice in the back of my end saying it wasn’t happening. I think we’ve all had a relationship like that. In the end, I love that she doesn’t apologize either. Just a “what the hell is wrong with you” despite the fact that she’s the adulterer. Another nice and realistic touch.

The next relationship is Clooney and his job. This is what he happily filled his time and soul with. His job was his identity, as it has been for countless people throughout history. It’s a relationship that he’s comfortable in and perhaps takes it for granted. He assumes it’ll always be there for him. But he’s ignoring that all relationships grow and change. As he’s firing all of these people, they keep saying how much time they’ve put in to their work. The time sacrificed. They sound like scorned lovers, taken by surprise that their significant others are leaving them for the cabana boy. They didn’t see it coming and their anger comes from all the time they thought they were building something. But a relationship is simply what you have in the moment. You don’t get to keep score. Clooney’s character is as blind to the fact that his job could change as the people that he was firing. He’s put in all this time and is building toward that frequent flyer mile goal, but his job doesn’t care. It’s growing and changing with or without him.

The final relationship is with Clooney and his family. Here he is, a jet-setter flying all over the country and visiting interesting places. He’s a big man. He’s successful and interesting. He motivates people. So here he comes home, a conqueror of the world. He expects to be lauded as a hero by his family. I LOVE that they don’t give a fuck at all. They don’t know him. Here’s another relationship where Clooney just isn’t being honest with himself. Eventually he gets his chance at saving the day and delivers a speech so well that he buys it himself, which is what really gets him in trouble with Farmiga. And he’s right. A job can keep you warm at night by paying the bills, but not as warm as someone in your bed. For most people, a job provides some fulfillment, but it’s the relationships, romantic or otherwise, that are truly fulfilling. Having those relationships is much more satisfying than hitting an arbitrary frequent flyer mark. This is why the family man in the suburbs driving a Dodge Stratus can be just as happy as Will Ferrell. Money/a job can make you more secure and comfortable, but it can’t do anything about you being lonely. (This reminds me a lot about addiction as well.)

Another theme I thought was important was the battle between new and old. This is a movie all about firing people as they’re no longer needed because the business is moving on to new things. It’s about Clooney’s job being updated to the modern era and being present only on a computer. We have a hard time embracing the new, though the new is always going to win out. (Here, Clooney’s job is merely saved temporarily by someone’s suicide, the change is inevitable.) I like that the movie showed us the importance of human interaction, but at the end of the day, a person fired is a person fired. It’s upsetting. Honestly, Kendrick’s business plan is an excellent one.

Speaking of the people being fired, adding people who had just been fired to explain how they feel was risky because not everyone is natural behind a camera. I could tell who the actors were, but that's because the non-actors were giving us real emotion and were more persuasive. Well done.

The last thing in the positives I’ll talk about is the camera work. I loved how slick and tight the shots of the travel were. It is Clooney’s fine-tuned ritual. He knows how it’s done by heart. And he can provide fantastically witty remarks and anecdotes to go along with the shots we’re seeing. But then when he begins to touch into his family, the director (Jason Reitman) goes to a hand held camera that is shaky and softer. I thought it wasn’t an easy path, but the Reitman succeeds here and the contrast is enjoyable.

For negatives, I got a little bored during the second song/montage. Long musical montages are just not my cup of tea.

Also, I didn’t like how he walked off of stage. This is the type of silliness normally seen in rom-coms. Had he said, “I have to go fill my bag with love you guys,” it would have ruined the movie. Glad he only quietly walks away. Glad they didn’t have him change his speech into something rousing on the fly as well. That’s been done and is just as silly. He should have done what we all do every Tuesday: Mail it the fuck in at work because you’re crazy distracted.

So, is this a rom com? Is my A- unreasonable? Am I overthinking the themes here? Did you guys notice the camerawork? Does anyone else feel like those little liquor bottles are cooler than pouring booze out of a big bottle? Would this be a good pint night selection? 

Good movie. Rewatchable. Enjoyable. A-

John Dies at the End

Ha this movie was fairly fun. It suffers slightly from a lack of consistent tone. It seems to be trying to be comedy one moment, immediately followed by feeble attempts at deep philosophical questions. The script had some surprising intricacies, and plot turns (not quite twists). This was just enough to keep me interested. The fatal flaw of this movie was a slightly shitty flavor of teen movie ala the dumb fucking party scene complete with band... ugh.

D

Don Jon

Don Jon

Glad I changed my mind and had us all watch this instead of "One Day" (which I did end up watching anyways..that movie would not have resulted in any kind of good discussion).

I enjoyed Don Jon. I've liked Joseph Gordon Levitt ever since he was in 10 Things I Hate About You. He directed, wrote and starred in this movie and it was a pretty big departure from the sweet, nerdy, hipster characters he usually plays. And he does a great job at playing that Jersey Shore meathead stereotype that everyone loves to hate. Minor thing (and Shane pointed this out to me)- in the scene where he is lifting weights, he is only lifting 30 lbs. Minor. But kind of dumb for a guy who is super into working out. Scarlet Johanson is fine, as usual. She's always just kind of fine. The gum chewing and the accent got a bit tired and started to annoy me. But then again, pretty sure we were supposed to be annoyed by her character. Julianne Moore is always great. Tony Danza is perfect as Jon's dad. We get a glimpse at where Jon's superficiality may come from through his character.

This had a solid plot, good premise and a few surprise twists thrown in. All things that make for a good movie in my book. I loved the way that they repeated certain plot elements to keep a common thread through the movie. The confessionals, the gym scenes, even the sounds/sequences they used when he was watching porn (that's the first time Ive use the word porn in a review about movie featuring a porn obsessed guy. Crazy). And of course the sequences changed slightly throughout the movie to reflect the current state of Jon. Love that. As he becomes a better person he becomes less and less meathead looking and more like a normal human with better hair. And again the sounds really did it for me, specifically the repetition of certain sounds. This movie could have gone into cheesy or classless territory with the subject matter, but it didn't, at all- which I would credit to excellent writing.

The scene where they are arguing in the Wal Mart (or wherever they are in front of the curtains) about cleaning was bizarre. I get that the scene was used to give us our first inclination that Barbara isn't as perfect as she's initially made out to be, but it seemed awkward and forced. I'm sure there could have been a better way to indicate that she was a little nutso without a weird argument about Swiffers. I was sort of shocked to see that side of Barbara's character come out. I didn't see it coming that she would be crazy.

Julianne Moore's character is perfect. Initially, I thought she would just be a side character with no real major part in the film. She seemed too old to be a potential love interest for Jon and frankly, a little weird. As the movie progressed, I started to think she would become a confidant for him. And once I started to see where they were going with her character and I got over my thoughts on the age gap and I liked their story line (plot twist!). Liked that she knew everything about him and fell for him anyways. Loved that when Jon was with her, he found what he was looking for and started to fill the hole (no pun intended) that was empty. He finally got a glimpse of what meaningful sex with someone you care about can be like.

I read a few Rotten Tomatoes reviews on this (because, duh) just to see what critics were saying after I watched. A few of them pointed out that the climax (again, no pun intended) wasn't super dramatic. I agree- and on that point it was also pretty predictable. Of course he was going to get caught eventually (who doesn't know to clear their browser history every now and again?). However, I thought he would get caught, she would eventually forgive him, and then they would live happily ever after. So glad this didn't happen. A few critics called it a comedy, which sort of confused me. I can't really recall any points where I laughed out loud. Maybe a quirky drama? But not a comedy...

Overall I liked this movie. I'd give it a B. Only because I don't really want to watch it again for some reason? I really can't justify WHY I wouldn't want to watch it again, it's just one of those movies where once is enough. Good movie, good actors, good story.

Major League

I have no prior relationship to this movie.  I've known about it, but just never got around to watching it during its heyday.  I didn't watch an R-rated movie until I was a teenager, and we were into Nicolas Cage's action period by then, so a sports movie with a raunchy reputation didn't register.  I clearly missed the right period to watch Major League.  This did not work for me at all.  It's just a sports movie, marketed as some kind of breaking-all-the-rules story with F-words.  It follows the same 

patterns, same jokes, same big moments.  I have no idea why you all have rated it so highly.

Was this movie supposed to be funny?  I kept a running total of times I laughed.  It was once.  I laughed once.  Early in the movie, when there's a quick montage of Cleveland-ers talking about how bad the team is, the Japanese guys got a chuckle out of me.  That was it.  The announcer interplay was alright, but it was all in Uecker's delivery, not anything funny he was actually saying.  Compared to his blernsball announcing career, this was a footnote.  Wesley Snipes's dancing around was solid physical comedy, but that was more an admiring smirk than a laugh.  How could this be so devoid of humor?  I've got comedies in my all-time top 50.  I have a good sense of humor.  Where was any of that here?  The average episode of Breaking Bad has more laughs than this, and that's one of the most depressing shows ever made.  How is this regarded as a classic comedy?

If the comedy side is a near-failure for me, how about the sports side?  Better, but still not great.  The owner-as-villain is a fine idea, but the stakes are whether or not she's going to be able to move the team to Miami.  In the late 80's, that sounds like a great idea.  Forget Cleveland, go to Miami, by all means.  There's so many Latinos down there, they should have a baseball team.  Setting aside my disinterest in the stakes, building the team had some potential, but it's all start and finish with no middle.  Vaughn's got an arm but no control, Hayes has running speed but no bat, Cerrano has power but can only hit easy pitches.  Raw talent and no polish.  I'm with the movie here.  Talent will only get a person so far, but they have to layer the technique on top of it.  The movie walks away from this because there's too many players to service and everything just gets magically solved.  There was a real movie in bridging the gap between talent and technique, but just slap some glasses on Vaughn, Cerrano curses Jo-Bu, and everyone's an all-star.  This made it look incredibly easy to be a professional player.  The actual beats of the movie could not be more predictable.  Of course Dorn's going to encourage Vaughn on the mound.  Of course they're going to play the Yankees at the end, and each player will get their big moment.  It was so transparent that it became boring.

Back on the stakes, the goal line isn't win a pennant; it's sell greater than 800,000 tickets.  The ticket mark gets totally lost.  The journey of the movie shouldn't be about winning pennants; it should be about making the city love them.  The players have either seen better days or they're scruffy outsiders, overlooked by everyone else and hoping for another chance to play the game they love.  There's a solid metaphor in there about the decaying Rust Belt, but instead, it's just generic Let's-Win-It-All boilerplate.  Semi-Pro nails this kind of movie, though it has other problems.  That team isn't going to win anything, but what they can do is give Flint, MI a little bit of pride for one night.  That's a movie that is putting a twist on the sports genre, instead of riding every cliched thing about it into the ground.

So, I didn't like it as a sports movie either.  Any memorable characters or relationships in there?  I've praised Uecker's voice already, so there was that.  Vaughn is a non-entity, a supposed bad-boy who doesn't do anything in the movie to earn the reputation.  Hayes is probably my favorite, but apparently, all he needed to become a professional was a bunch of push-ups.  He's not developed any further, and he somehow is hitting .291 by the end.  Taylor is pretty much a hangdog douchebag.  We talked about stalking in the Fisher King.  At least Parry just tailed Honey Bunny.  Taylor walks into what he thinks is Rene Russo's twice.  No knock, no call, no buzz.  He just walks in.  That is creepy as hell, and I'm not rooting for him to finally get it together.  The manager is a standard, gruff authority figure.

This movie has a difficult relationship with what's viewed as acceptable today.  I can't decide if everything around Cerrano is racist or not.  The owner slapping his naked ass and the jungle music behind him are pushing things in one direction.  Holy shit, how did this manage to get made without Indian protests?  Uecker uses every euphemism and stereotype in existence to liven up his broadcasting, plus the imagery of fat white people dressing up in feathers, red face paint, and rain dances.  The depiction of the owner is pretty rough, especially the cut-out of her that they slowly remove pieces from.  Apparently, there's an alternate ending in which she's revealed as a die-hard fan who voluntarily placed herself as the villain to rally the team.  She personally scouted all these deep cut players, and has to make excuses for the shitty planes and buses because the team was actually bankrupted by her useless dead husband.  That is such a better movie, and it solves the problem of how these players are all so good so suddenly, but test screening revealed that audiences liked the character better as a vindictive bitch, so that's what they went with.  Wonder what's going on there.

It wasn't a total wasteland.  An epic shot of Vaughn getting off his motorcycle was fine, and I hate Charlie Sheen.  There's a prescient line about celebrity that very much applied to the Sheen of the late 2000's, full of cocaine, domestic abuse, and tiger blood.  Cerrano's big home run is stirring, but the movie doesn't get a lot of credit for that, because that moment can only be stirring.  I actually laughed twice.  In a big climactic moment, the director cuts to a yawning kid.  Probably an accident, and not really earned by the movie, but I enjoyed that fuck-up.  Vaughn's red ticket and Taylor's bunt were nice twists.  That's all the good I have to say about this.  Completely forgettable.  Not funny.  An utterly average sports movie, which is a genre I'm not a big fan of already.  Get out of the top 30, Major League.  You're a D+.

Dear Zachary

“Dear Zachary” is one of the few documentaries that could not have been a movie.  No movie this infuriating and depressing would ever be made.  Hell, the fact that it even exists in this form is some kind of twisted version of serendipity.  This is the most affecting movie I have ever watched, pulling out emotions from me that I didn’t know I could have for people I have never met.  It’s an incredible story that filmmaker Kurt Kuenne does a great job in almost every aspect of, and is especially effective with unexpected twists in the story.

Let’s start with just the raw emotions of this thing.  I hit numerous emotions I just don’t like to deal with on a regular basis.  I couldn’t help but feel pity for Andrew, the sad clown who was loved by all but himself.  I got serious chills hearing the calls from Shirley talking so non-chalantly to Zachary’s “babysitters” Dave and Kate.  I couldn’t help but feel exasperated when hearing about the legal proceedings and the lunacy that surround that whole saga.  Then, not sadness for the big reveal of Zachary’s murder, but, much like Dave, I felt sheer anger.  How could you not?  The system had failed them in spectacular fashion.  In the end, when Kuenne went to the roll of everyone talking about Dave and Kate… Oh it got QUITE DUSTY in the Crone household.  How many movies can pull out that many emotions so effectively?  I would say it’s in the single digits.  It probably helps that it’s a documentary, so everything we are seeing is very real.

It would be tough to experience these emotions if Kuenne didn’t do a good job of leading the audience through the story.  He set up each transition well, and built suspense for what would happen next like any good storyteller does.  He maybe went a little overboard with the murder reveal, but it worked well.  He needed to fill time there to give the audience adequate time to recover from the megaton he dropped at that point.  The section detailing Shirley’s clear mental instability was the most well-done portion of the movie, where he splices facts about her with repeating the one judge’s lines about Shirley’s crime being specific in nature and that she was not a threat to the general public.  I think I could feel my blood pressure skyrocketing during that particular portion.

Kuenne was able to lead the audience so effectively because this story was happening as he was making the movie.  I used the word already, but serendipity is the only word that comes to mind when thinking about how this movie was made.  Kuenne had a ton of footage of Andrew from their various movies.  He had all the stuff with Zachary.  He had interviews with Dave & Kate pre- and post-Zachary.  With that many twists happening as he’s making the movie, Kuenne had to do quite a bit of changing his focus on the fly.  We start with a purpose of one last movie with Andrew and then go into the letter to Zachary gimmick, sticking with it throughout, even after the tragedy.  I did like Kuenne openly questioning why he was continuing, and finally finding reason by dedicating the movie to Dave & Kate, who went through an unimaginable hell and came out the other end… intact if nothing else.  Good on Dave getting a minister to admit his plan to potentially murder Shirley was “logical.”

I was also glad that Kuenne chose an angle and stuck with it – namely, the incompetence of the court system in Canada to not get Shirley extradited.  I felt like he did a good job weaving together the legal battle with the personal battle between Shirley and Dave & Kate.  It helped that it was a straight chronological telling of the story, but the transitions could have been jarring if done ineffectively.
There are other issues that could certainly be explored here, namely our society’s treatment of people with clear mental health issues.  This is going to only continue to become a bigger story in our society.  We don’t learn much about Shirley, but we do know she left three kids behind, so a version from her POV highlighting mental health issues we have in this country is a story worth telling.  However, had Kuenne focused on that, we would need quite a bit of time learning more about Shirley.  Kuenne’s intention was not to humanize her, and for good reason – she did almost certainly kill his best friend.  Would you want to humanize someone like that?  This was a very personal story for all involved, and it showed and benefitted from it ultimately.

The fact that this is so personal is what keeps it from being perfect for me.  The first 30 minutes of the movie, before we know who “Zachary” even is, was Kurt making his movie with Andrew.  This was a little choppy and didn’t flow well.  My only other minor complaint was the goofy moving mouths on the judges.  Was this done for comedy relief?  If so, it felt a little out of place, especially in the last third of the movie.

Many of my favorite documentaries start down one path and wind up somewhere completely different.  Had “Dear Zachary” stayed as a letter to Andrew’s living son, it would have still been a very good documentary with some justice at the end.  However, through this heinous tragedy, we end up with something very unique that we will likely never see again.  It was one of those docs that, thanks to all the source material available to Kuenne, was going to be good and he just needed to make it great.  I think he pulled that off.

 + Very affecting

+ Kuenne leads us through the story well

+ Has a message and sticks to it

- Early third did not flow well

 Grade: A

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

This is going to be short and sweet. I liked the movie but it didn't really pack much of a punch. There were lots of iconic scenes which seem to have become tropes. I had seen bits and pieces of the movie through the years and now that I have seen it through it still feels a bit like I have scene bits and pieces. It has the chaotic non sequitur feel many movies from the 60's have. I find it jarring and don't care much for it. I feel it is a good movie but suffers too much from the time frame it was made. I found myself wondering in the middle of it about how hair styles have changed in westerns made in different decades. Robert Redford was rocking a serious quaff in this film. Some damn fine lines in the movie though. "there ain't no rules in a knife fight!" "hell the fall will probably kill you!"

Eh probably won't sit through it in toto again. B-

Way of the Dragon

“A movie with objective problems that gets the subjective benefit of the doubt, like Shane describes, can rise higher than a B+, but the subjective part has to be blinding in the face of objective weakness.”

Kissel said this on Tuesday when talking about our favorite movies compared to our best movies. I think this is a perfect starting point for judging Way of the Dragon. Can a kung fu movie ever be better than a B+?

Before we get to that, I want to throw this out there: A proper kung fu movie does not rely on computer or other special effects. Green screen background is one thing, but adjusting the way in which a person moves is boring. Computer imaging of Cameron Diaz doing flips is garbage. Give me Tony Jaa jumping off an elephant any day. Kung fu demands a certain physicality. So that’s where I am with categorizing a kung fu movie.

So, this is Bruce Lee’s debut as a director and writer and I’ll bring up some of his choices here before discussing his presence as a character.

The pacing of this movie is pretty solid in the beginning. Things are happening. This is something that Hart Man has made me more aware of. Even when we’re just getting to know the characters, is something interesting or amusing going on? Lee eating soup is interesting because it’s telling us something: Here is a stranger in a strange land. We see Lee get picked up but the hot Italian chick. We’re now told Lee is pretty desirable. I also love that scene because it crushed my normal bias going in. I just didn’t expect a woman to be hitting on an Asian dude. Now I know better. So just between two scenes that happen pretty quickly and could have been throwaways, we’ve learned something. Not to mention that Lee has enough timing to make this scenes kind of funny. Unfortunately, while the first 60 minutes balanced things happening and the growth of characters, the final 30 minutes happened too fast. This flick could have used an extra 10-15 minutes. I’m still not sure what to think of the uncle’s betrayal. The last third of the film was just too forced even though the fight scenes were damn near perfect.

The choreography for the fight scenes is done pretty well I think. Of course, that first set of thugs looks pretty goofy. But with the actors who know what they’re doing… Those are amazing.  But reading interviews about Lee, he really hit the shit out of people. They tried minimizing it, but the guy was a beast. There’s also a lot that he had to dumb down. He was too dang fast for it to be believable. I’ve watched some of these scenes in slow-mo and when I think he’s whiffing on people, he’s actually hit them twice. But then again, that first set of thugs. Ouch. That was not impressive by normal movie standards. Additionally, I love how many empty cardboard boxes are just laying around Rome.

Lee also got a bit aggressive on the camera angles. Some were great, but some were just trying to be creative for creativity’s sake. I feel like he watched a few Spaghetti Westerns and attempted to recreate those scenes. Specifically, a scene at the Coliseum brought me directly back to The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. Kudos for going big, but still the execution failed in a few scenes.

Lee does a pretty good job here. He’s got great timing with the comedy and obviously the guy is physically out of this world. It’s hard to say how good his acting is overall because of the dubbing, however. I love Lee’s arrogance because he has the charisma and the skill to back it up.

The rest of the cast is likewise hard to judge. Were they good acting on a technical level? I have no idea. This ultimately can only hurt a movie, not help it.

We do have to talk about Chuck Norris because he’s Chuck Norris. His acting here is nearly as limited as his political analytical abilities. But he does OK here. RIP his chest hair. But at least with his fight, we finally get some stakes. Norris starts of as his equal before Lee just turns on the afterburners and kills him.

But let’s talk about the bad guy’s right-hand man. The presence of the actor playing it was pretty good. Is he 70’s pimp? Is he slick Chinese business man? Is he gay? I could say yes to all these things. The guy convinces me from a physical standpoint. The voice dubbing over him is hilarious and is what people copy now when they’re being racist. I love giving bonus points to movies that have made subtle cultural (low brow or high brow) additions. That guy’s voice is the same voice we’ve used or heard used during a racist joke about Asians.

“I want to call… AMERICA.” I died on that line. I don’t know if it was a joke or serious.

Kung fu is the real star of the movie. That’s the movie’s strength and weakness. The moves, to me, are mesmerizing. Bruce Lee is incredibly fast. Chuck Norris added the element of power to the stealth. Watching those two fight was a pleasure. BUT, it’s limited. Kung fu isn’t a character. We can’t explore its depth. It has no motivation. It just is. Because it’s the focus, we end up with goofy plotlines with serious holes because we have to have the fighting. Forcing something is never healthy for a movie. The dialogue becomes bookends to prop up what the movie is about, which is badass martial artists doing their thing. The dialogue can never really –add- to the kung fu.

But visuals can be added. We see it in Way of the Dragon with some stylistic choices. The cat playing with a toy as Lee crushed Norris was a nice touch, though a bit corny by today’s standards. In Ong Bak, we see tons of colors and outfits that add to the fight. And seriously, Tony Jaa uses an elephant’s tusks the way a gymnasts uses the uneven bars. Entertaining, of course but it can never be emotional.

So, can a true kung fu movie ever be above a B+? I say probably not.

Way of the Dragon: B+

Stray observations:

-He really likes soup

-The scene of him awkwardly figuring out if the girl looking for someone was the girl he was looking for. Great observational comedy.

-He abused those toilets.

-I like that it was dubbed into English, but he couldn’t read English.

-He scared that kid into dropping his ice cream. For no reason. AWESOME.

The Fisher King

Well, I chose The Fisher King because I was browsing the Netflix Robin Williams collection and noticed I hadn't ever watched it. Considering its favorable ratings and awards/nominations, I was pretty surprised I missed it. Glad we remedied that!

Robin Williams was brilliant and it's no wonder why he was nominated for an Academy Award here. This is the kind of role I think he was best at. While there's some seriousness to the film, he really delivers the comedy. That's not to take away from Jeff Bridges, who did fine in the supporting role and was spot on with his deliver. There were a few moments where we had a glimpse what was coming from his as Lebowski. Mercedes Ruehl won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. I thought she played the character great and compliment Bridges really well in their relationship.  I thought Michael Jeter and Tom Waits were outstanding in their minor parts... I didn't even know Waits was in it (apparently, it was uncredited)

Clocking in over 130 minutes, I was prepared for a long and stretched out movie.  It was a pleasant surprise that the movie kept a decent pace and had my attention throughout. It had a good beginning with Jack in the studio, setting up his character as a shock jock radio personality that wasn't just playing the part on the air. We knew something was up with that last caller, and I think the scene was set up really well with Jack being as high on himself as anybody could be. I really liked the practicing of the sitcom line he was slated to deliver, 'forgive me!' just before everything came down with the news.

Our introduction to Parry was even better. Forget a gradual lead in to his situation... we're given a full on attack with his mental issues at the forefront... gallantly doing his duty as a knight, saving Jack from the assault and himself.  I really liked the way Parry's mind was presented to us. The Red Knight made his fear a priority... it highlighted his issues from the tragedy and made them, along with his quest, as real to us as they were to him. There was a nice lead up to his big confrontation with the incident, and it was a bit of a shock to see the shooting... but I think it really made an impact to see him go through it leading us into the sad moment when he was brutally attacked by the same two guys from earlier, and more so repressed memories.

While we were served up a very convenient and happy ending... I liked it. I liked how Jack went about getting the Holy Grail (and that it was a simple trophy). I thought it was great that they included the line, "thank god nobody looks up in this town" answering any question from the audience of how nobody notices him. We have talked about multiple movies needing lines like thrown in... they're not absolutely necessary, but the add a little bit to the film.

One of the elements I like the most about The Fisher King is the call-backs. The most notable is Pinocchio... especially when Parry calls Jack out on the little lie about his girlfriend. (This also gave us a great, and fitting, joke... Where would King Arthur be without Guinevere?... Happily married, probably) Also, the continual clumsiness of Lydia... from the books, to the dumplings, to the movies and back to the dumplings with Parry. Even little lines such as when Jack sees the red knight on the stained glass window and says, "I'm hearing horses now, Parry would be so pleased..."  I just thought it was really well done, and the timing with each was handled nicely. Even the ending an bringing them back to Central Park... It felt complete and right.

I thought there were three scenes that really stood out... two of them really outstanding. One was the office scene with Michael Jeter singing to Lydia. While it wasn't an overly important scene to the movie, it was funny and entertaining and showed Jack's personality changing (smiling in the elevator, noticing himself that he's on on a first name basis with the homeless people) and how much he was looking to get Lydia to notice Parry.  Mostly, just a fun scene with the singing.  Now, the two best scenes for me were the waltz in Grand Central Station and the first scene in Central Park. The really gave us the best view of  Parry, away from his demons. Both scenes were also played perfectly by Williams.

With all that, it wasn't a perfect movie and I have a couple minor gripes.  I liked the use of 'Hit the Road Jack' and 'I've Got the Power,' but there were times when the score just didn't do it for me. That's probably more a product of it being out dated, and it wasn't so horrific that it ruined any scene for me... but once or twice I caught myself thinking 'eh' about the music.  The other minor problem for me was with the editing/cut choices.  A couple scene breaks seemed a little too sharp, but the thing that stuck out to me the most was the dinner scene. I think this was a good scene, that could have been great... even up there with the Central Park and Grand Central station parts. The problem I had was the use of the transition effect. I understand that it was used to show the passage of time, but it felt disconnect from the rest of the film... and it wasn't really the type of montage that called for the distinction. For me, at least, it would have been better with each cut showing us a wide view of the restaurant, more empty each time until we end on the final shot of the scene with the place looking bare other than the seemingly annoyed employees.

Overall, I think it's pretty clear, I absolutely enjoyed The Fisher King. I'm sure there's more I could talk about (including the story of the Fisher King and the portrayal/message of homelessness, perhaps), but I want to wrap this up for now.  With my minor complaints, I still loved the movie and it ends up slotting into, I think, the 2nd slot for Robin Williams movies for me, behind Dead Poet's Society and just a head of What Dreams May Come... pulling in a solid A grade. It also provides us with a strong Mediocre Best Actor candidate.

Manhunter

Remember the Fox SNL knock-off MadTV?  Remember the recurring skit "Lowered Expectations?" Maybe I should have watched a bunch of those before watching Manhunter.  I only actually remembered the soft voiced intro and outro to the skits and not that they were about losers dating.  I watched a few a minute ago to link onto this post but they were terrible so I won't link them as a courtesy to you all.

I'm skipping the plot summary- if you're reading you watched it.

Let's just bullet some complaints that all admittedly arrive directly from my expectations of the film based on my experience with the characters.

Hannibal Lecter, or Lecktor as its spelled in Manhunter is about my all-time favorite character and Manhunter gave him what seemed like 7 minutes or less of screen time.

Brian Cox comes in a distant 3rd for me in Hannibal performances although I'm not sure it was his fault.  I thought his greased back hair looked like a slack-jawed southerner instead of a regal gentleman like Hopkins.

Dennis Ferina is great as a tough recovering alcoholic NYC cop, unfortunately he doesn't work as Agent in Charge of the Behavioral Science Division of the FBI.  He's an actor who is always on point reacting but totally unbelievable in a thinking mans role which this should be.

I just don't like William Peterson I don't think he's a very good actor (CSI sucks) and I hated the way he portrayed Will Graham.  Fun fact about Peterson- turned down the role of Henry Hill in Goodfellas- thank Christ!  When he's introduced to us here he's apparently retired after a mental breakdown following the capture of Lecter and living in a million dollar beach house.  His wife (hire Glenn Close- too expensive- hire Glenn Close like- done) must make huge money because I can't imagine former profiler pays that well.  He doesn't play the part like someone on the verge of a breakdown- he shows no vulnerability, no fear, no signs that he is torn about re-entering the field other than saying that he doesn't want to go through it again.  His interactions with Lecter are confrontational, he's using Hannibal who correctly points out that Will thinks he's smarter than him.  Again, my expectations hurt the roles here because the give and take between Will and Hannibal on the NBC series is what makes the show so strong.  Will is vulnerable, frail, mentally unstable but undeniably gifted and shares a mutal respect and admiration with Hannibal despite the fact they are adversaries.

Tom Noonan was fantastic.  Totally believable, scary and creepy, all the good things.  A+ performance as the Tooth Fairy.

I think of the Hannibal series as Psychological Thriller- Manhunter I'd classify as more Intense Thriller which was probably due to some super 80s cocaine.  I especially felt that when Will went charging headfirst through the picture window right into a beating from the Tooth Fairy.  Made me smile thinking of (NBC series spolier alert) the exact opposite thing occurring when the guy who tried to be an animal charged into a shotgun blast from a waiting Will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWSocJMChA

Based on my preconceived notions for everything I'd go C-, but I supposed it was an entertaining movie and had this been my introduction to the series it'd rate higher.  I'll settle on C+.

Boyz N the Hood

Where to begin?  So much to discuss with this film.  A good place to start is with the vetoes.

I really wanted everyone to watch the 30 for 30 on Bo Jackson because he is the greatest athlete of all time.  No one could play at that kind of elite level like Jackson and it probably would have been watched until Joe reared his head for the first time of the round to vindictively veto this good film because I vetoed his first choice.  Yeah, I still refuse to purchase Amazon Prime for a documentary about soccer - unless it's about Pele.  No ragrets!

I had a feeling Joe would do that so I had another 30 for 30 in mind over the 2003 Bartman game.  Since he couldn't veto again, I thought I was in the clear and then Bryan surprisingly appears to spend his veto.  His reasoning was that he's seen some good movies and wanted to keep that going.  Mind you, this comes from the guy who picked a movie worse than Drinking Buddies and said he would never veto.  I think it is because my second pick was over the Cubs.  That didn't bother me either but I thought it was great when he stated his displeasure of it (score!).  I almost picked Four Days in October so Phil could veto but I think everyone had enough of the veto power and I didn't want to read Bobby argue nonsense about Mark "I had one moment and a bunch of errors" Bellhorn. Frickin' Bellhorn.

Then I chose Boyz N the Hood.  I saw this awhile ago but needed a refresher and was thrilled Netflix had it.  I don't particularly pay attention to directors unless its Whedon, Spielberg, Bay, Bruckheimer, Burton, and Lucas.  Outside of them, it matters little to me.  "Can you make a good film?" is the only requirement directors have for me.  In John Singleton's case, he made a cult classic.

Three years ago NPR did a story on "Morning Edition" on Boyz N the Hood and John Ridley interviewed Singleton about the film.  Singleton stated that while he loved the films from the 80s, they did not look like him or his situation.  So what Singleton, who was taught directing by Francis Ford Coppola and was 22 years old, made was a film about a group of black friends growing up South Central Los Angeles. What came from it, well, not even Singleton could foretell.

The importance of Boyz N the Hood is opens up the eyes of suburbia, white America to life in of hoodlem, black America.  Gang violence, crack heads, single motherhood were all out of surburbia, white America's mainstream in 1991.  Watching the film nowadays, there is nothing shocking about it.  If a young teen watched Boyz N the Hood today, he/she would think he watched everyday life.  For me, on the other hand, growing up in Hicktown, Indiana, this was pretty surreal.  I remember watching it for the first time in 1996 and I couldn't believe what I saw.  High school students shooting each other because one felt disrespected?  For real?  For a 14 year old in Hicktown, Indiana, that question was on my mind.

Mostly, the movie had great acting.  This film put Cuba Gooding, Jr., on the map.  He was sensational.  He owned the scene when was confronted by the black cop and returned to Brandi's house.  His frustration with his inability to fight with the police glowed.  The viewer could sense his anger in that scene.  Another great part was when he felt compelled to lie to his father Furious about the girl he did not bang.  Viewer had no clue that it was a lie until the next scene when Ricky gets in the blue slugbug.

Next was Laurence Fishburne who absolutely nailed the part of Furious Styles.  He wanted to be the father apparently he never had and/or what Doughboy, Ricky, or Chris never had.  Was he a rough father?  Absolutely but it was necessary.  Furious knew what he had to do and he did it but did so in a positive way.  You know Tre wanted to please Furious and that was evident when Tre returns home after leaving the car.  He walks into the house, Furious sees him, Tre walks closer, Furious turns around into his room and slams the door.  No words in that scene, just emotion of disappointment.

Ice Cube playing Doughboy, or Darren, was pretty fantastic.  He nailed the hustler role probably because he came from Compton and rapped about it in the N.W.A. and his early recordings.  He understood that role and life but more importantly than all of that was his ability to capture it on screen.  This was Ice Cube's first acting role and there was no trace of it.  I was able to put myself in Doughboy's shoes when he shot those two other guys.  They took his brother away from him.  When that happens, you want to pull the trigger and in this case he did.  Good stuff from Ice Cube.

Angela Basset's role was minor.  She was Reva Styles, Tre's mother.  She wanted to play a role in his life but she ultimately chose her career over her son.  Yes, they had an agreement, which Tre violated, but she could have been there for him.  What we don't see is the role she played from 1984 - 1991.  We are led to believe, however, that she was absent from Tre's rearing.  Basset is a fantastic actress and her best role is when she played Tina Turner in What's Love Got to Do with It?, which oddly enough Laurence Fishburne plays Ike.  Definitely worth a view.

The aspect that bugged me was what I call the go betweens - when someone talks at one location and then the viewer sees another person saying something else in a different location but apparently they are saying it at the same time.  For instance when Doughboy was talking to the crew about something I forget and Tre was talking to Brandi about their relationship, that sequence of go betweens was choppy and bad.  It made me squirm and I couldn't deal with that.  In its defense, it was 1989/1990 and that sequence can be fine tuned today but regardless, it annoyed me.

I also didn't appreciate the misogynistic nature of Doughboy.  Cube did fine playing it but it played up to the stereotype that black men are stupid sexists.  Doughboy had a different upbringing than his half brother Ricky and maybe he felt slighted by his mother for that but that is no reason to consistently tell a woman those things.

All in all, it was a raw story that opened up the eyes of white America.  This film came out before the O.J. trial, before the Rodney King incident, and before gangster rap emerged into mainstream radio.  Boyz N the Hood was really good.

Grade: A-

Frances Ha

I picked Frances Ha for three reasons.  First, after bad-on-accident and bad-on-purpose action movies, I very much needed what Phil described as a palate cleanser.  Second, this was one of the best-reviewed movies from 2013 and I'd been meaning to watch it for months.  Third, in looking over Best Actress candidates from our picked movies so far, in advance of year-end awards that we are obviously going to do, there were only four or five possibilities and one of them was Miranda July.  Ooph.  Got to add some more competition to the race, and Greta Gerwig is a great addition to a short list.

From director Noah Baumbach, Frances Ha is distinct from his previous movies, which based on the spreadsheet, no one else has seen.  In the three I'm familiar with (The Squid and the Whale, Greenberg, and Margot at the Wedding), they share a commonality of being about fundamentally unpleasant people wrecking their personal and professional lives with rampant assholery.  Frances Ha takes the opposite tack by having a protagonist I can immediately root for.  Frances's and Sophie's opening montage in New York does an excellent job of establishing the stakes of the movie.  This is a friendship that appears mutually beneficial, honest, and long-lasting, and therefore something valuable. 

Baumbach immediately puts it in jeopardy with Sophie's changing of apartments, and exposes the financial thread in the movie that I was a big fan of.  Sophie has a reliable job and is in a relationship with a finance douche, so she's set.  The two guys Frances moves in with come from rich families and can spend their time either sculpting and fucking and hat-wearing, or writing a script for Gremlins 3 that is 100% theoretical.  Frances is shown to be a modestly-talented dancer and out of her depth compared to Mischa Barton, ill-equipped to make a living at her chosen profession, and missing opportunities with her friends because she can't afford it.  Their shared proximity makes the disappointment that much more acute.  The easy wealth at the mid-movie dinner party throws this into the sharpest relief, as all anyone can talk about is what their money can do for them while Frances is only left with her narcissistic exposition about her friend group.  To be surrounded by money but have no access to it must be incredibly isolating and Baumbach ably communicated that to me here.

For a movie as short as this one, it packs in so much character detail about Frances.  Her messiness and the way she primps in every mirror she comes across says plenty already, but the fact that Gerwig actually eats on camera makes Frances immediately more human.  She pulls off a solid comedy fall, this happening after she struggles with the decision to accept the $3 ATM fee.  Following up cavity work with a big sundae, trying to subtly squeeze extra time out of squatting in Barton's apartment, it's all indicative of an immature person who hasn't reckoned with what she really wants out of life.  That I was always on her side, or at least sympathized with her meltdown, goes to Gerwig's performance.  She's a great presence throughout, when sloppy drunk or giddily running through the streets.  Her scenes in Paris were pathetically sad and her scenes in Sacramento were alive with the warmth of being back in the cocoon of your parents' home during the holidays, or whatever I assume that's like.

There's a theme running through the movie about the worth of sincerity that I enjoyed, based purely on how a movie like this could have gone.  Frances could have put in the work at the studio and become a great dancer, breaking into the A company and receiving a standing ovation with all her friends in the audience.  Instead, the movie acknowledges that that was never going to happen, and her talents laid elsewhere, behind the curtain.  In the intro, Frances reads an article out loud that is about how calling something sincere is basically equal to 'points for effort.'  You tried, and there's some value in trying, but without insight or talent, that value is miniscule.  This gets revisited, in the scene where Frances pats herself on the back after asking her boss for more teaching opportunities, and in Bowie's song Modern Love, which is about continuing on without any signs of progress.  Admirably, Frances Ha doesn't indulge the 'you can do anything' bullshit and admits that without parental patronage, people don't get to do anything they want.  Your effort might get you the next thing if you're willing to compromise, but it's not enough for the first thing.

On top of the performances and the writing, I loved how this movie looked.  The black and white was an interesting choice that I thought worked, and the blocking and lighting made every shot look like it could be a striking photograph.  Baumbach has a great eye, and his work with his cinematographer kept things continuously interesting. 

Overall, I'm a big fan.  This was like Girls with more likable characters.  There's even a few scenes that bear very close resemblances to some key Girls moments.  I know that's an unpopular show in this circle, but there's a place for movies like this between the frivolity of triangle-hunting and the existential questions found in arm piles.  It doesn't quite have the size or the depth to earn the full A, but I give this an A-, and earns a spot in my 2013 top 20.  Sorry, Captain Phillips, you're getting bumped.

Sharknado

So this movie. I know you all are going to rip it apart (much like a shark ripping through the top of a pick up truck or a man cutting a shark in half with a chainsaw), but before you do...maybe i can give you a few things to consider.

Movies like this should most definitely be watched (preferably with a friend or someone you can laugh with) and taken for exactly what they are. Campy, hilarious, ridiculous, hot messes of movies. If you go into it with no expectations other than to laugh your ass off at the horrible CGI, the random, narcissistic portraits of Tara Reid on the wall and the insane plot line, I really believe it can be enjoyed.

Shane and I actually watched this one together while attempting to get Geoffrey to sleep. Much like his namesake, he seemed to thoroughly enjoy the movie (he told me himself- he's very advanced) and insisted on staying awake for almost all of it. Watching a movie like this with a friend really ups the entertainment value. Who wants to laugh at a man cutting his way out of a shark with a chainsaw alone? Not me, that's for sure.

I hate to admit (no I don't, who am I kidding?) that this is not the first SyFy movie I've experienced. Geoff had a certain affection for these sorts of movies, and his love of them grew on me. Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus comes to mind right off the bat. And last night, while flipping through the channels, I happened upon Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus (which I watched a few minutes of, purely for research purposes, of course). When compared to some of it's predecessors, Sharknado really isn't that ridiculous. Sure, it features not just one tornado, but two, full of sharks (which none of the main characters seem to be that shocked by...). But, in terms of campiness...it really doesn't reach the high level of some of the others I've seen. All in all, I'm not sure why this particular SyFy gem made the splash (zing!) it did on social media. It got 5,000 tweets per minute during it's premiere, including this relevant gem: "Twenty minutes in and we FINALLY have Tara Reid. They held her out like Brando in "Apocalypse Now". Is it the casting- who knew Tara Reid and an old 90210 star had such a big draw- or did they just do a better job of promoting this one? I personally saw the poster back in late 2011 and remember sending a screen shot to Matt (Geoff's best friend) and Christopher (his brother) proclaiming that this movie seemed to be right up Geoff's alley. We lamented about just how much he would have enjoyed it. Perhaps SyFy is just upping their game with promotional materials. Kind of wish they would have spent a few of those marketing dollars on some more advanced CGI, but hindsight is 20/20. Wonder if Sharknado 2 will have better graphics due to the crazy amount of money they made on the first one. Who doesn't want to see yet another movie with sharks bursting out of tornadoes? Don't answer that- I know you're all going to raise your hands. 

I can go ahead and pick apart the ridiculousness of the plot line but I really don't need to. A few key points...just because I feel like I have to for the sake of the review...that opening scene. While hilarious (why are these 2 men shooting at each other on a boat in the middle of a storm that will surely kill them both?)- it literally had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Not a single thing. Ian Ziering seems to have some magical super power as he is the ONLY person in the ocean not losing a limb while the sharks storm the beach. Also, who knew that all you had to do to stop a tornado was drop a bomb into the middle of it to equalize the meeting of hot and cold air? Bet meteorologists around the world could sure learn a lot from this movie. And what are the odds that Fin (how ironic is that name) would end up in the belly of the EXACT SAME SHARK as the chick that fell out of the helicopter?! There had to be hundreds of sharks in those tornadoes, so I just call that fate. Are the son and the "girlfriend" of Fin going to hook up now? That's an awkward and unnecessary twist.

Tara Reid is a hot hot mess. Like seriously terrible. And she had the nerve to call one of the other characters a stripper. Hilarious. I actually saw an interview with Ian Ziering and Tara Reid in which they both said that when they received the script for the movie, it was titled "Dark Skies." The producers knew that they would have to put it under a different title in order to get anyone to even ready the script. Ian Ziering agreed simply b/c he was having a second child and needed the money. Once he found out the real title of the movie, he called his agent immediately and asked for a WAY OUT. Bet he's glad that request was not granted. Not really relevant to this review, but an interesting little fact nonetheless.

All in all I hope you at least got a good laugh out of Sharknado. Kissel- I'm pretty sure you did not as I recall vividly watching a movie similar to this at Dave Knox's house one summer with you and Geoff and seeing the actual pain you were in experiencing something of this low caliber. Don't worry- I know you're coming to visit this weekend and I've filled my DVR with so many gems for you. Between that and Fender's incessant forearm biting, I'm sure you'll have a wonderful visit.

My grade? I did have this at C...but I'm going C+. I enjoyed it and feel it deserves to at least be a full letter grade higher than the train wreck that is Tomb Raider (gross).

Have at it like a shark eating that poor girl's grandfather when she was a kid (she really HATES sharks).

-Ashli

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Let’s get the positives out the way quickly - I LOVED the scenes above ground in Cambodia because I’ve walked those paths and I could pick apart the Angkor Wat CGI scene.

The opening scene was awful, and it was somehow made worse by the shower scene. Thinking things couldn't go more downhill, everything in slow motion was terrible. And how did she get to Cambodia so quickly? I thought they said the triangle pieces were taken to opposite ends of the earth. Chincha Alta, Peru is opposite Siem Reap, Cambodia.

I think this movie had potential if they had used it - fighting religious statues could offer so much more, but obviously the statues obviously weren't ready for machine guns. Plus, I love secret society movies, any mention of the Illuminati, and I am in!

Whoever directed this really screwed the pooch. At least it wasn’t long and we got to see Jorah Mormount and Daniel Craig before they were known.

If we’re looking for a discussion question, (outside of ripping this movie apart because it’s not even so cheesy it’s good territory) are there any movies where you have a personal connection and that somehow influences your opinion? This movie and Hoosiers jump to the forefront of my mind. What do non-basketball people from outside of Indiana think of Hoosiers?

Grade, I don't know, D+

Apocalypse Now

Well, we have a lot to unpack here.  Apocalypse Now is an overall analysis of the Vietnam war told through the eyes of one shell-shocked soldier who may or may not be as crazy as the war itself.  Coppola’s vision of the war a harrowing one and in the pantheon of all-time great war movies. 

The main reason I chose this movie is that I am a big fan of the unreliable narrator story-telling device, and I think we get hints of it here.  It isn’t quite as overt as many other movies – Big Fish is one of the few that we know throughout the narrator is unreliable at best, but it is more apparent than another movie we have watched, Taxi Driver.  We hear this story through Captain Willard’s eyes, and it would be hard to suspect his motivations and mental stability didn’t influence the overall narrative.  Was Kilgore really that brazen?  Did Phillips actually try to take Willard with him to the great beyond?  And how did we know Lance was on acid if he only told Chef and not Willard?   That last question really bothers me, as it’s really the only interaction we see that does not involve Willard directly.  Lance is the only survivor from the group, so maybe he told Willard after the fact.  (More on Lance, and the crew in general, later.)

I also chose this movie due to the source material, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad.  There are some very overt references to Heart of Darkness in Apocalypse Now, specifically the name Kurtz for the “villain” of the story.  Heart of Darkness is, in essence, a condemnation of 19^th century imperialism in Africa.  The story has been modernized in a couple instances to draw a parallel between imperialism and the American war machine.  We can agree/disagree on whether or not this is a fair viewpoint of Cold War era America, but I don’t think that’s the point of this discussion.  The main question to be answered here is whether or not you feel Coppola succeeds in defending this thesis while still displaying the horror of Vietnam.  That’s asking a lot of any movie, and I don’t feel like the imperialism parallel was quite there.  We would have needed more time with the Vietnamese people beyond the interaction with the boat people and Kurtz’s natives.  I’m not entirely sure Coppola even meant to attempt an imperialism parallel and just chose to use the source material as a convenient plot to wrap around his image of the war.

Heart of Darkness is a novella clocking in at a mere 72 pages.  Therefore, there’s only so much plot you could derive from there.  So, Coppola had to fill quite a few gaps.  I don’t know if I would classify Apocalypse Now as either plot-driven or a character piece.  It seems to live somewhere between these two worlds.  We do have an overarching story for sure, but it really feels like we’re watching a character piece, and the character in question is the Vietnam “conflict” itself.  Throughout the course of the movie, we get an abbreviated timeline of the war and a better understanding of the attitude toward it as it progressed.  We have the initial landfall, where Willard and company are told to “ignore the cameras.”  CAMERAS!  This wasn’t a war, it was a TV event!  We get some pretty amazing shots during this early section as well, including a nice long shot of everything which is occurring in this initial battle.  Then we move to the raid on the village, which brings in the full-on view of the American arrogance in war.  This, by the way, was well-earned in the eyes of the leadership.  We were less than a generation removed from crushing the Nazis and Hirohito.  Kilgore has no taste for subtlety – cue the Valkyries!  What seems like a crushing defeat turns out to be a deep wound that bends but does not break the Viet Cong in the village, as we then see the tenacity of the enemy in full force.  Kilgore claims it safe enough to surf (again, who knows if this is true or Willard’s embellishment) despite the battle raging on.  So that’s what Vietnam was early on.  A war we thought we would come in, crush our outgunned foes, and spend a nice little vacation in the jungle.

The battle at the Du Long Bridge shows a stark contrast to this picture of the war.  This far down the river, we see nothing but chaos.  Build the bridge, blow it up, build it again, blow it up again, wash, rinse, repeat.  Willard asks a couple soldiers who is in charge, and they think he is.  They have no idea who is in charge and why they are fighting.  They received some order, likely lost their commander at some point, and were now just fighting some stalemate until they were killed or told they could finally go home.  The Du Long Bridge is the quagmire Vietnam had become.  It was a war that could not be won.  Willard returning to the boat to declare “there’s no one in charge here” says all we need to know. 

Meanwhile, the river itself becomes an allegory for the timeline of the war itself and the psychological effects it has on a man – specifically Kurtz before and Willard now.  From the self-assured bravado to the Du Long Bridge, we see the slow descent into madness from an organizational perspective.  We go from discussions of surfing, TV cameras, and small religious ceremonies, to what can best be described as an utter shitstorm.  The midpoint between these two events is the USO show, where the troops essentially become animals just at the sight of a few playmates.  The breaking down of the barb-wired wall is the breaking down of that mental stability; the desire to return home still.  Beyond the USO show, there seems to be no turning back – only death and madness await.

As Willard progresses beyond the army’s reach, we see the true horror of the war and the effects of a drawn out conflict.  The potential that any passerby could be an enemy, as this was a war where the foe cared nothing for order or uniforms.  We get the naiveté of those at home, where Clean’s mother just assumes he’ll be back and already have plans for “when” he returns.  And, we eventually see what all of this paranoia and hopelessness does to a man, when we finally get to Kurtz’s lair at the end of the river.

 We hear tidbits about Kurtz throughout the movie.  We can see that this is a man that Willard both respects and fears.  Since we’re hearing this story as a retrospective, we can only guess whether or not these feelings were developed before or after meeting Kurtz.  Kurtz and his compound are the metaphorical result of the insanity we have witnessed for the past 105 minutes.  Here’s a man who, in his eyes, is getting results leading to a U.S. victory.  However, he is condemned for his actions, and is driven mad by a war that is equally mad.  The final death scene for Kurtz is drawn in overt parallels with the sacrificial bull, himself the sacrificial bull of a war gone all wrong.  It is really the only moment of lucidity we see from him, his world ending not in a bang, but in a whimper.

And, of all people, Lance makes it back.  Who would have bet on that with the rest of the crew involved?  Lance is the only one who truly descends into any sort of madness, and his descent ends up being his saving grace.  It goes to show us that anyone who survived an ordeal like that had to be forever changed, to a level almost as unsalvageable as Kurtz.  We don’t know what happens to Lance or Willard after their ordeal is done, but I can’t imagine it’s anything good.  We know Lance and Willard had some sort of lucid interaction after the ordeal, given that Lance never tells Willard he dropped acid before the battle of the Do Long bridge. 

Chef exists as a foil of sorts to Lance.  Unlike Lance, Chef never truly loses his mind at any point.  During the attack on the innocent boat, we see Chef as the only one who doesn’t suspect trouble.  It makes me wonder if that sense of trust is what caused him to eventually lose his head.  To survive at the end of the river, you had to embrace the madness, just like Lance.  Chef still held on to some strand of sanity, and a person like that could not survive in this place.

We end on Kurtz’s final words, “The horror… The horror.”  And that truly is the best way to describe this war and what everyone involved in this story went through.  There is no good way to summarize it.  Many of the actions taken by all involved were deplorable.  It was not the bloodiest war in American history – some civil war battles saw more American casualties then the entire 14 years we were in Vietnam – but the overall damage to the American psyche, the end of our feeling of invincibility, and the distrust in authority that resulted is still apparent today, and it is no surprise that this war has been one of the most analyzed events through the medium of film we have ever had.

That being said, Apocalypse Now would be the defining analysis of the Vietnam War we had if a little film called Platoon didn’t exist.  Other movies have tackled certain subjects of the war, like Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter or Hamburger Hill, but Platoon and Apocalypse Now feel like the two that really tackled the war itself more than any other movie.  Now, I feel like choosing between the two is a classic “Beatles/Rolling Stones” argument.  Both are amazing (to most), and there’s no reason you cannot like both.  I still feel the need to compare them though.  I felt like Platoon was the better movie, in that it had a stronger narrative.  Platoon had a real plot; Apocalypse Now wrapped a plot around several smaller events that spoke to the war as a whole.  (It’s been a while since I watched Platoon, so I could be way off on this.  I did want to watch Platoon again before writing this, but it isn’t available to stream for free anywhere.)  Truth be told, there are a couple scenes you can remove from Apocalypse Now and preserve the message – it may lose a little impact, but you could do it.  We didn’t need the USO scene for example.  We probably could have told the entire story without Clean and/or Chief Phillips.  However, the movie would have been less without them.

I’ve already worn out my welcome, so I’ll quickly hit the technical stuff that I have a feeling most of you will hit.  Coppola was at the top of his game directing.  Some awesome shots, especially considering this was made 35 years ago.  Also, it had to be a pain in the ass doing those Brando scenes with a body double.  We got a lot of good performances, especially from Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, and the aforementioned Marlon Brando.  Martin Sheen was fine but a tad dry.  I later read that was by design, him serving as an observer of sorts, so I won’t deduct points for his performance.

(Side note 1: I’ve heard the documentary based on the filming of this movie, Hearts of Darkness, is also amazing.  We may need to pick that one sometime soon.  Truth be told, we could do an entire round of just Vietnam movies and watch nothing but great stuff.)

(Side Note 2: Besides this movie, a video game I mentioned in Side Pieces called Spec Ops: The Line also bases several of its themes on Heart of Darkness.  I would actually argue the storyline of Spec Ops is much darker and more sinister then Apocalypse Now – I would love to “assign” you all that game, but I know we don’t have a lot of gamers in the group, so I’ll leave it at that.)

+ Hits many of the major points of the Vietnam War

+ Well-done analysis of Vietnam

+ Enjoyed the story-telling devices

- Maybe a few extemporaneous scenes… How is there a 45 min longer version?!

Grade: A

Machete Kills

Machete Kills

As I sat down to write this, I was listening the Adam Carolla Show and they're playing the Rotten Tomatoes Game. For those not familiar, a Rotten Tomatoes guy comes by, gives five movies and everyone has to guess the Tomato score. I like to play along. They brought up Tommy Boy, a movie I'd guess we all enjoy. Sure, it's not art, but it's hilarious, quotable and doesn't pretend to be something its not. Tommy Boy is a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes. 44%. That is ridiculous. People need to just appreciate certain movies for what they are, not what they aren't.

The first Machete is right up Tommy Boy's alley of not trying to be art, though obviously not on the same level. It's a comedy first, action movie second and is mocks action movies well enough that it's not just a Wayans Brothers parody. The first Machete's Rotten Tomatoes score is 72%. I think that's about right. And if Machete is a 72, then Tommy Boy should be about an 80.

So what is Machete Kills' score? A rotten 29%. Ouch. Is this movie a 80? No. But I think it's closer to an 80 than a 20.

So what's going on here? Well, everything that mainstream audiences love in action movies. Ridiculous action scenes, hilarious death scenes and a convoluted plot-line that doesn't even bother to tie itself together at the end. I'll be damned if I didn't laugh my ass off as those things became more and more ridiculous. There is serious physical humor here from Danny Trejo. Does it get a little old? Sure. But I still kept laughing because this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's making fun of itself and every other action movie, kind of like a poor man's Team America. (And let's not act like the plot and action scenes are any less probable or ridiculous as any of the Transformers movies.)

Things that were mindlessly awesome:
Carlos Esteban as the President. Is he scummy? Is he a patriot? Can he be trusted. I say Yes, yes, and yes!

Throwing the clones intestines into the helicopter. Just fantastic.

Damian Bichir as Mendez. His performance was fantastic for a character that could have been a complete throw-away.

Every El Camaleon character except Lady Gaga was pretty awesome and would belong in any summer blockbuster action flick. Lady Gaga remains boring.

The trailer for Machete Kills Again... In Space. God yes.

This is the exact role Michelle Rodriguez was born to play. Nothing challenging and you actually buy her as a chick who could fight and is a bit crazy. Drives me nuts when TV shows and movies expect you to buy that Sandra Bullock could fight somebody. Looking forward to eyeless Rodriguez in Space.

Someone is killed by a tiara. If God was just, then anyone involved in the creation or support of Toddlers and Tiaras should enjoy the same fate.

It's also amazing how many celebrities wanted to be in this flick.

Danny Trejo. How can you not love the guy? His physical presence goes a long, long way and he carries it throughout the movie.

One critic says this is entirely and inside joke. I think that's a positive because the joke is on Hollywood and pretentious critics. It's an inside joke making fun of some asshole like that. Just because you don't get a joke, doesn't mean it's not funny.

So what's bad here?
Well, there's not much new if you watched the first movie. As I said above, it got a bit old. "Machete Kills, yeah, but he overkills," said one critic. Sure. I can buy that.

Mel Gibson... I just wasn't buying him. He's just too likeable outside of his whole racism issues. You get Liam Neeson for that role and BAM. Home run.

The plot definitely gets away from them. I only had 3 beers while watching, but ended up a bit confused.

Sofia Vergara is a terrible actress. I don't even find her -that- attractive. (Compared to other Hollywood people. Of course if I saw her at the pool right now, I'd be attempting to hide my wiener in my wet shorts.)

So, time for a grade. I remember my first experience with Robert Rodriguez. It was From Dusk Til Dawn. The first half of that movie had me hooked. It was a good movie. Then, BAM!, goddamn vampires. I was disappointed. But then I watched that movie again and enjoyed it more when I could appreciate it for what it is. Someone taking Machete Kills seriously would give it a D or an F. But I think you'd be trying too hard.

C+/B-

MConvince me one way or the other.