Day 273: Abduction (2011)

PG-13, 1 hr. 46 min.  Directed by: John Singleton.  Release Date: September 23, 2011.

At some point in my blogging history, I suggested that Taylor Lautner might have sufficient talent to actually pull away from his doom spiral career.  Abduction has finalized my opinion:  he doesn't.  He only appears to have talent when compared against Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart... which I guess means just about anyone would look talented under those constraints.  Unfortunately, Lautner isn't the only problem.  The cast is peppered with some fine actors, all of whom are ingredients in the same suck salad.  Alfred Molina is generally brilliant, and rarely less than fully enjoyable, but he was terrible here.  What we witnessed was a classic phone-in.  We don't see it very often from actors who are actually good at their craft, it seems to afflict the talentless pretty boys and girls that swarm Hollywood like well-coiffed lemmings.  Maria Bello is someone I frequently enjoy, but she was cold and kind of lame here.  

If you look at some of the posters, you could be forgiven for assuming that this was something like The Bourne Identity and related sequels.  Sadly, the movie actually tries to mimic the antics of Jason Bourne, but poorly.  Lautner lacks the age and screen presence of Matt Damon.  The tale of Nathan-Steven-Price-Whatever isn't as interesting as Bourne's, and quite frankly, the first half of the film seems to be little more than homage to the stupidity of the teenage male.  I spent at least half an hour rolling my eyes and wishing that Lautner and his friends would be killed during one of their escapades, but no such luck.  

I said this was an attempt at clutching on to the popularity of the Bourne movies, but what I noticed most was it was another in a slew of films made in the last five years or so in which a child star proves, beyond any possible doubt, that he or she is all grown up.  We saw Anne Hathaway do it (the first time) in Havoc, Ben Barnes joined her campaign in Dorian Gray, and now everyone's favorite pent-up virginal werewolf is making time in a train carriage.  While I get the reason for these ridiculous performances, they're a little pathetic, especially since two of the three of these have proven just how unready for grown up roles the actor was.  And at least Anne Hathaway has had the grace to return occasionally to her family fantasy roles.

So, my basic recommendation to skip this.  It's a movie that we've seen countless times before.  It fails to bring life to a very tired genre in any way.  It also suffers from the worst possible sin:  boredom generation.  I'm going to admit that I should have seen Moneyball instead, but I wasn't feeling up for something even a little bit serious.  A frustrating afternoon on the phone with my cross-country movers left me chomping at the bit for something that wouldn't do more than entertain me.  Sadly, I failed to get what I was looking for.

Day 272: Matrix Revolutions (2003)

R, 2 hr. 8 min.  Directed by: Larry Wachowski, Andy Wachowski.  Release Date: October 27, 2003. DVD Release Date: April 6, 2004. 

The Matrix was ground-breakingly epic.  It redefined science fiction in much the same way Avatar would do again some 13 years later.  It didn't gain the non-geek notoriety of Avatar, a problem I suspect was in the casting more than anything else.  The original film of this trilogy showed an interesting, if not unique premise (hasta la vista, Neo) and TONS of promise.  That promise fell flat in later installments of the franchise. Matrix Reloaded felt heavy and awkward; focusing less on the survival of its interesting human characters and more on the machine culture that pervaded the Matrix.  It failed pretty miserably as a bridge between the first and third installments, and for this guy, nearly killed any interest I had in seeing the third when it came out six months later.

A friend talked me in to seeing this opening day, waaay back in my first year of duty in Augusta, Georgia.  Augusta wasn't the best place I've ever lived, and despite the flack from residents, it wasn't the worst place, either.  It had one thing going for it: a massive, modern Regal Cinemas located fairly close to the center of the town's sprawl.  I'm not sure if there were other theaters in Augusta, because I never saw the inside (or outside) of one.  We saw this movie in that awesome theater and Revolutions returned my faith in the Matrix trilogy.

Revolutions was all about humanity's grip on survival.  It was gritty and raw, showing humans at their very best.  The latter half of the movie is one big entry in to how great humanity could become, and highlights how far we have to go before we can tap in to that internal greatness.  Does the movie provide us with the basic things we would expect to see in a Matrix film?  You bet.  The special effects both inside and outside The Matrix were phenomenal and the humanity's final stand is both horrific and awesome.  For the first time in the trilogy, I was actively rooting for humanity, even though I suspected that since humanity was outnumbered and outgunned, there wasn't much hope in it.

I even, wait for it, liked Keanu Reeves.  Apparently the way to make him shine is blindfold him for half the film.  This marks the only time I've seen him play a major role where he doesn't channel his inner Bill & Ted.  Did I get tired of the supermanning going on between Neo and Agent Smith?  A little, but I thought the effects surrounding them, particularly the interaction between actors and droplets of water were pretty slick.

Day 271: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2001)

PG-13, 1 hr. 59 min.  Directed by: Ang Lee.  Release Date: January 12, 2001.  DVD Release Date: June 5, 2001.

I've always been surprised by how popular this movie was in the United States, because its lore and premise are so deeply rooted in Asian cultural structures that are very, very different from American cultural norms.  In fact, I struggle to get through the story of this movie because I don't always understand why the characters are doing the things they do.  Some things, I got, but at least half of the rationale behind this tale are lost to me.  What this does provide is a number of familiar actors, to include Michell Yeoh, who I think is always amazing, and Yun-Fat Chow, who is amazingly athletic in ways that most Western action stars are not.

The story can also be ignored, in large part due to the amazing combat sequences, in which characters are doing impossible things, like running up walls, leaping over rooftops, and engaging in swordplay among trees that bend at the lightest touch of the actors' feet.  I've heard that the actors actually did most of those scenes themselves.  Computers were used only to hide the safety wires.  I love when actors actually do their own stunts.  I don't know why, but it's a little more impressive than an actor who signs up for an action flick and then gets replaced out every time they have to blow something up or do anything more complicated than walk and talk.  

Each scene appears to be shot with a... grace that is not often found in a Western movie.  Camera work is quick and fluid, following the actors in their impossible contortions and leaps without resorting to strange angles or jerky panning that I might otherwise expect.  This was a movie that was as concerned about its aesthetics as it was about its story, and those efforts to balance the two forces show.

I have few complaints about this movie, although it does occasionally feel long.  Generally those moments are when there hasn't been an action sequence in awhile, or when I'm desperately trying to figure out why someone is doing something.  Once they start using droplets of water to leap from point to point in a rainstorm and other crazy stuff like that, I'm back on board.

If you haven't seen this movie, it's a great example of movie magic at work.  You're missing something great.

Day 270: Dogma (1999)

R, 2 hr. 8 min.  Directed by: Kevin Smith.  Release Date: November 12, 1999.  DVD Release Date: May 2, 2000. 

I'm not sure where Kevin Smith comes in on the subject of religion.  I'm guessing he's not "pro" any religion, based on this movie and Red State, which I haven't seen yet, but I've heard a lot about.  Myself, I'm kind of on the fence.  I don't necessarily want an organized religion telling me what to believe or do... and now most Christians will get uppity at this, but it's kind of what happens.  Check out my review on The Golden Compass if you don't believe me.  I've decided over the years that my relationship with a higher power is my own business and I don't have to ask permission or seek approval for believing in certain things.

Strangely, Dogma addresses some of my questions about the Bible, which I suspect they meant to poke holes in the idea that the Bible is the word of god, but for those who waffle back and forth about whether to believe or not, the ideas here make good sense.  I've never understood why there's a decades-long gap in the life story of Jesus as told in the Bible.  I've also never understood how Jesus could be unmarried at 30 in a Jewish community.  It's been 2000 years or so since those events took place, and I believe that's STILL not something that would be met with passive approval.  Ask your unmarried Jewish friends over the age of 25 if they're getting pressured to settle down.  I bet the answer is yes.  

Is some of this ridiculously hokey?  Oh, totally.  But hokey amusing, which is a nice change.  I love the idea of the 13th Apostle, I love the idea of the muses, demons and angels running around on Earth causing change, both good and bad, depending on their individual natures.  This really is a rich mythology that must have come from somewhere, although four years at a Catholic high school never taught me any of it.  I wish they had, I might have paid more attention. 

Kevin Smith does an adequate job portraying the modern Catholic (at least the ones who will admit to their inner turmoil), trying to balance their secular lives with their religious beliefs.  I've watched people struggle within the boundaries of the more restrictive religions for years, and Dogma for sure confirms my belief that I can give up organized religion for Lent and still be a good person.  The dialogue in the movie reminds me vaguely of the debates in my Junior and Senior year religion classes, where the discussions got less historical and more philosophical.  In a world where very few people in the same religion actually interpret the terms of their faith in the same way, sometimes philosophical discussion is all you have.  

There are folks who called this movie blasphemy.  Which, to me suggests that script and the actors may have hit a little too close to home on some issue or issues.  It also suggests that (as usual) there are a lot of people out there that need to lighten up.  

If you're more devout, you may want to pass on this one, but I actually think there's a good message for people open to it.  A message wherein god wants you to explore your relationship with him (or her), a god that wants you to be happy with the terms and limits you place on your faith, a god who is sympathetic to your crises, understands your inner heart, and understands even more that sometimes being human requires you to do what you have to do.

Day 269: Thunderball (1965)

PG, 2 hr. 5 min.  Directed by: Terence Young.  Release Date: December 20, 1965. DVD Release Date: October 19, 1999.

If you're a James Bond fan, you know what gives this movie any sense of notoriety from the other Bond films.  It's a quick, one-minute scene that takes place very, very early on in the film.  This is, and I say this without considering this information a "spoiler", the JET PACK Bond film.  At this point in the paragraph, every single person reading this who considers themselves a geek has either gone apoplectic with rage over the impossibility of the jet pack, or is in toe-curling ecstasy at the thought of one.  Personally, I'm fine with a car.

I realized that one of the problems for people who aren't Bond fans who approach these movies is the length.  I enjoyed this, but I swear it dragged on all day.  I should go back and do an average run time of this series, because I suspect that it's well over two hours.  I can't think of much that I can do without a break over that period of time, and I noticed that my attention wandered in and out of the middle of this.  Having seen this a few times, I suspect the screenplay adapter had the same problem, because the story kind of meanders back and forth without any obvious direction or goals.

In some respects, this is a fairly typical Bond movie.  Blah blah nuclear terrorists, blah blah holding the world hostage, blah blah ONE MILLION DOLLARS (I threw that one in to see if you're still reading).  Connery plays Bond a little smarmy this time around, which is an unfortunate and apparently short-lived change.  But, other than the jet pack, what sets this apart is the kind of massive, underwater battle that takes place towards the end of the movie.  Frogmen aren't exactly my idea of thrilling, and this would have been better if sharks had stopped by to feed on the dead... or help more potential dead get to that point faster, but it was pretty cool to see considering how new the underwater photography technology must have been at this point.  It's even referenced in a gadget from Q Branch, that's how newfangled it was back in the day.

I kind of hated the Bond girls in this movie, but not enough to distract me from my enjoyment of the movie in general.  Let's see, we'll name this girl Domino and have her wear white and black all the time.  Yawn.  I loved the gadgets, especially since most of what we see from Q Branch is readily available today.  The subject matter of the film is a little dated, which I think is a common problem with all the SPECTRE movies in the Bond series, but otherwise, I really enjoyed pulling this out of my collection today.

On a side note, read the movie poster that I attached to the blog post.  It's the first time I've ever seen a James Bond poster actually have something in it that could be misinterpreted as inappropriate.  I laughed a little and hope you will, too.

Day 268: The Queen (2006)

PG-13, 1 hr. 41 min.  Directed by: Stephen Frears.  Release Date: October 6, 2006.  DVD Release Date: April 24, 2007.

This movie centers around an event that barely raised a response in me when it happened in 1997.  Diana Spencer was well, not a prominent American, and had never done anything for me or for anyone I knew personally.  Was she a good person?  Sure.  Did I feel terrible for her two little boys?  Definitely.  But I didn't get what the global fuss was about.  I knew why the Brits loved her:  she interacted with the common Briton in ways a royal never had.  She seemed to actually care, a trait that seems to be a rarity anywhere.  I never got why the frenzy over her death jumped the Pond (I have the same question about the Prince William wedding fever that happened in... April or May this year).  I admit that I was outraged when coverage of Mother Teresa's death was almost obliterated in favor of Diana's.  Diana provided a face, celebrity, and money (of which she had plenty) to a number of charities.  Mother Teresa gave her life to make the world a better place and that was infinitely more valuable in my humble, 20-year-old opinion.  As much as I love these nobility/royalty historical movies, you'd think I'd like the royals or at least care about what goes on, but I don't.  I have the same problem with movies in general.  I love the movies, but think most of our celebrities are in need of a beating, followed by some personal discipline.  Actually, that kind of sums up my thoughts on most of the remaining royals in any country.

Anyway, I'm off topic again.  The Queen put Helen Mirren, who now appears on that list of five people I'd like to have dinner with (alive or dead) in a pretty remarkable role.  While this wasn't so much a story of the death of Lady Di, it was a story about how that single event changed the face of the monarchy forever, and how Queen Elizabeth herself had to change in order to suit her people.  It also told the tale of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair, which I understand was complicated.  This could have been slow, but I found the candid nature of Mirren's performance to drum up interest in a story where I already kind of knew the answers (because I'm old enough to have remembered the stories that came in the wake of Diana's death). 

There are those people (I suspect most of them depend solely on action flicks and raunchy comedies for entertainment) who consider this to be boring.  I couldn't disagree more.  While I don't own this movie, I actually have it on my list to purchase when I get back on feet and am in a position to start picking up movies again.  There are no end of brilliant performances, and we get an in-close look (one that I feel was occasionally too close) in to a very private family that is unfortunately always in the public eye.  I have heard that even members of the royal family found this to be an exemplary movie (in much the same way as they reacted to The King's Speech this year).  

If you haven't seen this movie, I think you should.  I'd also like some feedback on something.  Mirren, as Queen Elizabeth, ponders why she should have to publicize her grief for people who were grieving someone they'd never really known.  I happen to be in the same camp.  When someone loses a loved one, people who are tangential to the family shouldn't be making demands.  While the queen is the public face of her nation, I'm not sure that she needed to console the British people.  I'm thinking they should have offered their support and consolations to the royal family instead, and the movie doesn't give the idea that that's what happened.  Any thoughts?

Day 267: Escape to Witch Mountain (1975)

G, 1 hr. 45 min.  Directed by: John Hough.  Release Date: March 21, 1975. DVD Release Date: March 10, 2009.

I don't remember how old I was when I saw this movie for the first time, but I think I was around ten.  It made an appearance in my classroom on a rainy December morning when I was in maybe sixth grade, because I think it was the last year I was going to be at the school where we got treats like these movies for toeing the line.  As much as I love movies, I struggle to watch them with people that I know; there are just too many distractions:  the people, like my mother, who absolutely CANNOT shut up for longer than ten minutes in a stretch, asking inane questions in her stage whisper voice, the people who can't sit still... like my cousin, and when I got a little older, there were the girls who only went to the movies for smoochin'.  You know who you were.

When I watched this in that classroom with kids I knew well, I know it was like I was bespelled, because I remember jolting upright when our assistant teacher, the wonderful Mrs. Loesch, turned on the lights.  The movie had already been turned off and I hadn't noticed.  

What isn't there to like about this movie?  Not much, and most of what I find fault with is to be expected now that almost thirty years have passed since this was filmed.  The special effects are a bit lackluster and shaky, particularly the blue screen work with the RV towards the end of the film.  I'm not sure that, as an adult, I can support a movie that would have children so... ill used.  I've watched this movie with a few of the kids in my family, and I've seen the confusion on each of their faces as they realized exactly what kind of plans Mr. Deranian has in store for Tia and Tony.

But as a kid?  This was awesome.  These kids have superpowers and used them to prove to the adults in their lives that they wouldn't be controlled.  Actually, I could get behind that sort of thing now, so I guess it still works.  I always thought it was a little odd that Tia was more powerful than Tony, and as an adult I can explain that away by two things:  my own little boy sexism and the knowledge that girls mature a bit faster than boys.  

If you have kids up to around 12, they'd love this, but there are parts of this movie that will be rough for smaller children (or older children that lean heavily toward the wussy side of the house).  I tried to watch this with my cousin when she was eight, and the opening credits, which include an animated silhouettes of the children running from a pack of dogs, and she was so scared she was crying before the film even clicked on.

She has to be adopted.  But tougher (older) kids should be okay.  Use your best judgment. 

Day 266: Varsity Blues (1999)

R, 2 hr.  Directed by: Brian Robbins.  Release Date: January 15, 1999.  DVD Release Date: May 31, 1999.

When I watched this for the first time on video a million years ago, I was surprised at the depth I found within this story and its characters:  in many ways, it's less a teen comedy, although there are some of those traditional elements and it's more of an exploration of the issues facing teens at the turn of the century.  

There's a lot of probing into what is reality for many high school kids:  parents, teachers, and friends put more stock into how far you can throw a ball (if you're a boy) than whether or not you can read.  James Van Der Beek is the boy who questions the sanity of that environment, even as he's bound in chains of duty and expectation to that reality.  I don't usually enjoy Van Der Beek, on the big screen or my TV screen, but I thought he did an excellent job in his role as the deeply suffering young man.  

In addition to the sports versus academics debate, Varsity Blues runs the gamut of teen issues:  drinking, drugs, sex, relationships, friendships, and a variety of moral attitudes.  For high school students in small towns, there's also the discussion about going after a life that is... not necessarily better, but maybe bigger than the lives their parents have lived.  Not only do I think it does a fair job of covering these issues, I think the movie makes responsible suggestions for how to handle these problems, with the exception of teen alcohol use.  There it kind of falls of the wagon, if you'll forgive the pun.  The story doesn't condemn the underage drinking, where a more responsible movie might, but I don't think that it does a very good job of exploring the consequences of what we see during the course of the film.

There are a number of good performances in this movie.  Scott Caan comes to mind immediately, since about half of the Animal House-style antics begin and end with him, and his portrayal of the party boy football player is probably one of his better performances.  Jon Voigt, who, as the local football coach, comes in as the bad guy of the piece is remarkably good.  His role is so chilling and overbearing that I have to wonder what parent in their right mind would let a football coach talk to their son like that, regardless of his results.  I also liked Amy Smart, although as the only major female role, I'm surprised they supported a character that was willing to compromise herself sexually in order to get ahead.  

I suspect if you live more than 100 miles from either the east or west coasts of the country that you'll recognize something about your area in this movie.  I lived in West Texas, not far from where this was set, for about four months in 2002, and I thought they portrayed the football and high school culture very well, without being too over the top.  If you haven't seen it once, you probably should get to it.

Day 265: The Sword in the Stone (1963)

G, 1 hr. 19 min.  Directed by: Wolfgang Reitherman.  Release Date: December 25, 1963.  DVD Release Date: March 20, 2001.

When I was growing up, my dad had a bootlegged collection of Disney movies.  It’s the reason why I’m the only person I know who is younger than 50 who has actually seen Song of the South (and if you’re younger than I am you have absolutely NO idea what I’m talking about) and it’s why that I’d seen classic Disney films like this without the benefit of the Disney channel or waiting for the vault to unlock.  

My parents divorced when I was a baby, and part of the agreement was that I spent Sundays with my dad.  He never seemed to want to spend time with me, he just wanted me not to spend time with my mom.  As a result, I spent most of my Sundays cooped up in his house in Chino Hills watching Disney movies, feeling absolutely miserable.  It’s probably the reason why I use movies to escape from my life when things start getting rough to this day.  When this project ends, and I move on to my regular movie watching pattern, you’ll spot when I’m having a rough day:  anywhere between three and six movies will appear on this blog in the same day.  Usually comedies or cartoons, something to cheer me up, but the escape is the important thing.

The wizards’ duel between Merlin and Madame Miim is my favorite Disney movie moment.  There’s something so absolutely perfect about the scene, at least from a cartoon standpoint: bright colors, shape shifting magicians, and eventually the lesson that cheaters never prosper.  I recently gave this movie to my cousin’s 5 year old, who pronounced it “boring,” but I think he’s mostly upset that it wasn’t a video game. 

More than a number of movies made by Disney, this is aimed at a very young audience.  It leans toward the silly frequently, using humor that includes such slapstick classics as: flashing underwear, falling down a flight of stairs while carrying a load of pans, and running in to things.  Even now it’s hard for me to watch the whole thing, but man do I love that wizards’ duel.

This is worth seeing if you’re at all interested in Arthurian legend.  It’s worth seeing for the joy of watching an older Disney movie, made for an audience when times were so much simpler.

Day 264: Terminator 3, Rise of the Machines (2003)

R, 1 hr. 50 min.  Directed by: Jonathan Mostow.  Release Date: December 31, 2003.  DVD Release Date: November 11, 2003.

I've been a fan of the Terminator film series for a long time now.  While I'm old enough to remember the release of the original, I didn't get around to watching the first (or second) installments until I was in college in the mid-90s.  The series has transitioned with the rapid advancements in technology, particularly those technologies that relate to their special effects.  It seems that the filmmakers here both embrace and reject those changes in technology in different way.  I was surprised to see that the current Terminator model has actually gained some of the more useful abilities of its predecessors, while seemingly not gaining all that much except what might be a wi-fi network exploiter of some sort.  Sure, the "Terminatrix" is a little tougher, a little more vicious, and a little more shapely than her predecessors, but she's also lost some of the special effects magic that we've grown to expect from the series.

I didn't like Nick Stahl for John Connor.  Mr. Stahl is capable of some gritty work, as he has proved in more than one role, he didn't seem to bring us the borderline-insane feeling that he might just be contemplating moving to one of those walled compounds outside of Coeur D'Alene to prepare for the end of mankind as we know it.  I did like Claire Danes, because, well, I always like Claire Danes, regardless of what it is she's doing.  These days, whatever it is she's doing should be listed under the heading of "more please".   I didn't like bringing back The Governator for a third-run, only to find out that this was a different, more obsolete Terminator who seemed to occasionally channel his predecessor.  I did; however, like it when The Governator threatened to provide the same beating for Arianna Huffington as he did the Terminatrix while they were on national television in the gubernatorial debates for California back in... '05 or '06.  That was classic.

I have to admit, that while this isn't my favorite in the series, I like how this sets up the entire story line in that "time is cyclical" approach to sci-fi.  I actually think it's so slick that it kind of overrides all the problems I had with this as a Terminator fan.  So... if you haven't seen it yet, you should, but if you're a fan of the series, you'll have some issues with how they deal with the characters.

Day 263: Drive (2011)

R, 1 hr. 40 min.  Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn.  Release Date: September 16, 2011.

I walked in to Drive expecting something along the lines of an upscale The Transporter, as if someone had come in, applied brains to the existing premise, and re-imaged the film.  In terms of the films situations and details, there's a lot of room for comparison.  Even the "driver" characters, played by Ryan Gosling here and Jason Statham in that other, lesser movie, have some strong similarities.  But, at the end of the day, Drive is as far above The Transporter as Star Wars is above Spaceballs.  There is only a slight nod to the action film potential within this story line, a marginal acknowledgement of heist films in general, although this movie is only tangentially related to a heist film, and bows low to the dramatic crime movies of Hollywood's classic era.  In short, this is a thinking man's version of The Transporter.

I noticed Ryan Gosling about a decade ago, when I saw him in Murder By Numbers for the first time.  While I liked his co-star, Sandra Bullock in her role as a tough-as-nails and emotionally scarred police detective, I thought his role as a spoiled psychopath stole the show.  Since then, I've liked his work... pretty much entirely.  It's a rare thing, but then, his performances are getting better.  This one was pretty good, although I'm torn.  In some ways this is an easy performance, because there's not a lot of emotion, and his dialogue is mostly monosyllabic.  But, there are subtle nuances that make me think this is one of his better performances.

I do have a couple small complaints.  The story starts with the Driver on a job: the part of the movie that most reminds me of The Transporter is here, and there's a bit of tension.  I got excited about what was happening.  Then, we get slapped with about forty minutes of the human condition which helps put a face of sorts on to the Driver, and makes up a bit for his complete and utter lack of real personality.  It's a little slow here.  It's not a deal killer, but they could have made this more fun.  My other complaint is about the constant presence of a jacket on this guy.  We're talking about LA in what appears to be spring or summer.  NO ONE needs a jacket in LA at that point in time unless maybe, and only maybe, you're going to be on the coast or on the water at night.  And only one scene met either of those criteria.

My final complaint is probably the most significant:  the music.  I believe there's a line in Glee about Journey being like something you might find on a drag queen's shuffle.  Most of the music selected for this movie is not only LOUD, but terrible in that same way (not that I agree with them about Journey, mind, but you might find most of these tracks on a drag queen's shuffle).  Bubblegum pop music felt so at odds with what was going on during the course of the film, that I wonder if there wasn't some sort of nepotism at work.  To say the music is terrible is an insult to fans of Nickelback everywhere, because it's so far below even that low bar that I can't, in good faith, lump them together.

Otherwise, I thought this was a great movie.  There are a few scenes that are absolutely brilliant from my interpretation of the artistic direction of the film:  in particular, the scene with the elevator where the Driver and his love interest are It was not what I was expecting, but I wasn't disappointed that this didn't meet my expectations, because thanks to the obvious comparisons with The Transporter, they weren't that high. 

Day 262: The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

PG, 2 hr. 5 min.  Directed by: Lewis Gilbert.  Release Date: July 13, 1977. DVD Release Date: October 22, 2002.

There's a reason why so very much of this movie got spoofed in the Austin Powers line up (of which I'd like to see a few more).  There are some remarkable, impossible things that happen within the two hours of this movie's run time that are ripe parody, but strangely didn't seem to make the cut.  There's no mention of the Bond car this time around, a transformer that's occasionally a Ferrari (or maybe a Lamborghini) and sometimes a submarine.  I kept looking, but I didn't see any insignia that tole me whether or not it's an Autobot or Decepticon, but I suspect the former considering it lets two humans ride inside its cockpit... or whatever you call the driver's section of a carmarine.  There's no mention of Jaws.  Come on, he is without a doubt, the funniest Bond evil doer out there, with his razor sharp, metal teeth.  He actually bites a shark to death.  There's no mention of the Bond ski scene where the theme song is played in its "porn" version (we should all be ashamed of the 70s) while he's running around killing folk.

There are a few things you will recognize if you've seen the Austin Powers trilogy:  the UK flag parachute, the story line of agents from different countries working together, and I'm fairly sure the bad guy's research facility was the inspiration for the Legion of Doom headquarters on The Superfriends.  I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect that it is so.

In many ways, The Spy Who Loved Me has some of the best examples of the things I love about Bond.  The best single entendre is spoken by M, of all people, something about Bond "pulling out" of his current mission.  Wink, wink.  Nudge, nudge.  Snicker.  Jump to Bond love scene 1.  I always forget about her, but Major Anya "Triple X" (Go back to wink, wink line) Amasova is one of the best Bond girls ever.  Barbara Bach managed to go from cold to hiding a smile in a heartbeat, and it made the role.  Oh, in a "holy shit" moment, Triple X refers to Q by his REAL NAME.  I've been watching these movies since I was around ten and I didn't know Q had a name.  I didn't realize he was in the British Army, either, since X gives him the rank of Major.  Now, I've already forgotten what his name was, something with a B and vaguely French... but it was a REAL NAME.

I give the Moore-era Bond flicks a lot of grief.  I mean a LOT of grief, but this makes up for all the stinkers that appeared during his reign.  It's certainly the best movie of his time in the role, and one of the better movies in the franchise.

Day 261: The Private Eyes (1981)

PG, 1 hr. 31 min.  Directed by: Lang Elliott.  Release Date: April 10, 1981.  DVD Release Date: September 28, 2010.

I'm going to start this by saying that The Private Eyes isn't a good movie, nor am I going to swing around and say it's a GREAT movie, because if I did, I'd by lying.  This movie is all about nostalgia for me.  I have fond memories watching this on reruns on Sunday afternoons when Channel 13 (before cable television) would air family friendly movies between noon and 3pm.  This wasn't the only movie to make a reappearance, but it was one of my favorites.  Add to it that I was familiar with Don Knotts' work on Three's Company and that I'd met him once in LAX, and I was hooked.

I'm going to try and attempt this from the perspective of the little boy who loved this movie and the grown up that was thrilled when this finally came out on DVD, bought the movie, and then had a short few minutes of buyer's remorse.  The child in me thought this was spooky and fun, with unknown hooded persons lurking in secret passages and priest's holes.  Is there any child ever that didn't once think that a secret passage in their home would be awesome.  The child in me laughed at the corny jokes and thought there was no better funny guy that Don Knotts.  The grown up knows better, but is still able to smile at some of the antics.

Even the grown up in me smiles at the poetic jokes left by the killer at the site of his or her most recent attack.  I groan a little at the obvious (and over-used) "walk this way" jokes.  I groan even more at the comically stupid pair of American inspectors who were in the Yard.  Oh, FROM the Yard.  That one never, ever got played out.  Some of the humor is a bit off-color, and I found myself wondering if my nephews would like it.  I'll have to see if we can hang out and watch it at some point in the future.

My initial response to this is that everyone should see it once.  It's cutely stupid, filled with gags and one-liners that were decades out of date even when this was unleashed upon an unsuspecting populace.  It's a little spooky, but not so much so that I'd be worried about small kids in the group.  It still makes me smile, although it could be because this movie reminds me of easier, happier times decades ago and in a less humid state far, far away.

Day 260: Creature (2011)

R, 1 hr. 33 min.  Directed by: Fred Andrews, Fred M. Andrews.  Release Date: September 9, 2011.

At approximately 90 minutes, Creature represents a roller coaster ride of tedium, awkward acting, poor story writing, and badly drawn out horror cliches.  There, I've said it.   Today marks my first new day in Dallas, Texas, my new home, and I had wanted to celebrate with a good movie, especially in the wake of the absolute STEAL I got on my new apartment.  I went to the closest theater to my new apartment and looked for something that fit my schedule today, which includes a trip a few blocks further into Addison, Texas for Oktoberfest.  Creature fit the bill.

I'm not going to pull any punches here.  The movie sucked.  Terribad is the word I would normally use, but it's not quite harsh enough.  Creature had me alternately looking at my watch and edging towards the door after about ten minutes.  I've known for years that it's a bad sign in a horror movie when the first five minutes contains full frontal nudity.  When that nudity is EXTENDED, you know that what you are about to see absolutely blows, and the nudity is a sort of quiet apology.  So, when I say that the entire first scene showcases a young woman traipsing about a swamp without clothes on... apparently not knowing that various croc-a-gators and poisonous snakes live therein, you know that this was abominable.  I contemplated coming up with a new Futurama icon for something worse than "toads the wet sprocket," which I once believed to be the worst possible summary movie rating.

Since I can't think of anything they did right here, with the possible exception of Sid Haig, who was hillariously campy, and the break in horror "rules" regarding Mechad Brooks,  I'm going to itemize what they did wrong:

1.  The whole swamp-town/small-town hick monster thing has been done to DEATH.  These guys brought nothing new to the table, and, frankly, Louisiana should sue.

2.  The filmmakers should send the lot of these guys to acting school.  There are two moderately tragic scenes, and I was laughing my head off in both of them.

3.  The camera scene.  From start to finish, it's wrong.  It seemed to me the camera seemed to spend WAY more time on Mechad Brooks than his scene partner.  

4.  If your movie monster kind of sucks, the way this one did, you don't want to give it ten minutes or so of close ups. 

5.  If you have to rely on incest and boobs to keep the audience's attention, you may as well scrap your project.

The lesson learned here was that I should have waited and seen Drive.


The good news is that I stumbled across the completed podcast I did with other members of the Large Association of Movie Blogs about the films of David Cronenberg.  You can find it here.  I'm also fairly sure it's downloadable from iTunes and the LAMB's site.  My future podcast schedule is as follows:

Oct 1:  Recording for the LAMB's "Movies I Love That Everyone Hates" ('Cast #87)
Oct 15:  Guesting on the Demented Podcast that should be all about animation... I think.

Day 259: Taxi (2004)

PG-13, 1 hr. 37 min.  Directed by: Tim Story.  Release Date: October 6, 2004.   DVD Release Date: February 15, 2005.

Into every actor's life, a bad movie must eventually fall.  Taxi is living proof of that adage's applicability to Jimmy Fallon, Queen Latifah, and well, everyone who appeared in this for longer than three minutes.  What could these people have been thinking?  There's little to praise in this film, which appears to be to movies what the Swedish Bikini Team was to 1980s beer commercials. 

Queen Latifah, a much-loved favorite on TGMP, despite her penchant for bad movies, seems to be bent on self-destruction after a series of terrible, terrible films in the middle Aughties.  There's no shortage of affection here for the divine Ms. Latifah, and in the right part, she really shines, but this was not the right part.  Her pairing with Jimmy Fallon was likely inspired by The Odd Couple, but came out looking like something inspired by something more Twilight Zone-y.  Latifah needs a more solid, less frantic co-star in order to get a decent performance going, and Fallon is incapable, for all intents and purposes, of providing that support.  

There's been significant discussion here on TGMP about a film writer's ability to suspend disbelief.  Taxi's stunts and story actually creates disbelief.  In what world are we expected to believe in Queen Latifah, a bicycle messenger who recently transitions into a cab driver (after a three year process) with aspirations to be a NASCAR driver...  Arm her with a souped up, after-market modified Yellow Cab that does everything but transform into a robot warrior to assist her in taking down a band of very pale, very blonde, Portuguese-speaking supermodels, and you have a recipe for disbelief.

When was the last time you saw a car chase that wasn't on one of the endless Fasterest & Furiosterest movies?  When was the last time you saw a car chase that was obviously done with something other than real cars, real drivers, and maybe not real streets, but certainly tracks designed to look like streets?  The joy of movie magic is not being able to figure out exactly how the stunts and special effects were made, and Taxi sucks that joy from its audience until there's nothing left.

There's still a lot of love here for Queen Latifah, but there's also a lot of hope that in the future she picks movies that are more entertaining and less stupid wastes of rental money.

Day 258: LOTR, Return of the King (2003)

PG-13, 3 hr. 50 min.  Directed by: Peter Jackson.  Release Date: December 17, 2003.   DVD Release Date: May 25, 2004.

I've never been able to determine if this won Best Picture in its year for it's epic run time, which is the longest movie intended to be viewed in one sitting that I've ever sat through... well, I think made after like 1945, since I believe Gone With the Wind is also four hours, of if it won for Sean Astin's portrayal of the tireless, eternally loyal friend.  The more I watch these movies, the more I think his charm really stole the show, even though he amounted to nothing more than Elijah Wood's shadow during the movie.  I've heard bitterly spoken rumors that Return of the King took the Oscar because its two predecessors failed to do so.  People are mean... even by my standards.

I'm about to start complaining, but don't get me wrong.  I enjoy this movie on an infrequent basis (mostly because of the run time and my inability to find a 4 hour block where I can sit down and watch it).  The story has some weaknesses here, and I suspect they originate in the book.  Back in the day, I learned this thing called foreshadowing, giving your audience hints at what's to come.  It can be done really well, but it isn't here.  I think if you fail to guess who is responsible for solving all of Middle Earth's problems, you probably weren't paying enough attention.  I knew when I saw this in theaters, and I (still) haven't read the books.

My other major complaint is Gandalf.  For a wizard, and I'm guessing a high-ranking one, he doesn't seem to do much... magic.  Sure, he has the flashlight glued to his staff that scares away the dragon things, and once he manages to conjure up a lightning bolt, but that's about it.  Where are the fireballs?  Where are the spells of general orc-busting?  No where.  I'm guessing Tolkien never played Warcraft.

Despite my gripes, Return of the King manages to pull off the most epic battle scene ever.  And then does it again.   Mr. Jackson really did manage to conjure (for at least the second time, depending upon whether or not you considered wearing a cloak to any screening of any film in this trilogy) everything the fantasy geek could possibly want out of this movie with the exception of special effect-magic.  The one place where the special effects were used most effectively was Legolas.  His leaping into the fray was good in every film in the trilogy, but none were better than him leaping around that ginormous elephant.  The question that remains is where did all his arrows come from?  I guess if Bond can fire 90 times without reloading, we can ignore the fact that Legolas would have burned through the dozen or so arrows in his quiver in approximately 4 seconds of any fight scene that featured him.

Like The Two Towers, this bears watching, although you may want to schedule an intermission or take it with you on a long flight.  If only they'd start letting us charge electronics on a plane.  Don't put too much thought in to the four grown Hobbits frolicking in the bed.  That way lies madness.

Day 257: Jumanji (1995)

PG, 1 hr. 44 min.  Directed by: Joe Johnston.  Release Date: December 15, 1995.  DVD Release Date: January 25, 2000.

This was an interesting premise.  It's also one that I've seen a few times over the years.  There was a movie almost identical to this made a few years ago with a space theme rather than a jungle theme.  I've learned since I saw this movie that it was inspired by a 10-page children's book, which makes me a little more impressed, because for a kids' movie, this is a little long.

I was surprised at how good I thought the special effects were.  With the notable exception of the mosquitoes that appear early on during the game, I found the appearance of the animals to be fairly realistic, although it's obvious that the monkeys aren't so realistic.  These guys basically spend 90 minutes or so trashing what I think is some sort of Georgian mansion, and the conversion of the home's insides to deep jungle is very effective.  My one real complaint is that there are some animals involved in the tale that you wouldn't find in a jungle, a lion for sure, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find rhinos in a jungle, either, although I can't remember whether it's the black or the white rhinos that eat leaves off trees.

I liked the cast in this:  Robin Williams was funny, but had a more serious edge than I would have expected.  He has this deeply wounded character that has spent most of his life in a fight just to survive, and he pulls it off very well.  Kristen Dunst was pretty good, and this is really on in her career, which had a couple of rocky starts. 

If you have kids in your house (of any age) there's sure to be something of interest.  This might be a bit on the scary side for youngest kids, what with the 40 minute reference to The Greatest Game, but even the appearance of the lion wasn't all that happy.  

Day 256: The Emperor's New Groove (2000)

G, 1 hr. 19 min.   Directed by: Mark Dindal.  Release Date: December 15, 2000.  DVD Release Date: May 1, 2001. 

In early December of 2000, I had accrued something like 24 leave days, since I hadn’t been able to take a day off since entering boot camp in April.  I had been embroiled in learning a third language, the resulting salary drop caused by choosing to serve my country had led to a massive number of financial problems, the kind of problems I wouldn’t experience again until this year (after two years of unemployment and one year of being in the Department of Labor limbo zone), and I was totally stressed out.  I decided to visit my parents in Ohio, in their newly built home and spend Christmas and New Years’ with my family.  I hadn’t seen most of them in at least three years, so it was time.

When my mother suggested I go with her, my then four year old cousin, and my grandmother to see The Emperor’s New Groove, it sounded about as much fun as getting a root canal.  I pissed and moaned for about an hour and then yielded to my mother’s endless nagging.  I won’t ever admit this to her, but it was a good idea.  This movie is, to my mind, the funniest Disney movie EVER.  It’s been eleven years and I continue to make jokes about people having their own theme music from time to time when they’re doing something stupid.  I’ve never really thought David Spade was funny in person.  He always comes off as vaguely mean; someone who uses sarcasm to hide a number of personal insecurities, but he was genuinely funny here.  David Spade and John Goodman combined in an odd couple duet made for a wonderful combination.  

There isn’t much to comment on in terms of the animation.  Everything appears kind of bold, bright and heavy.  I’m not sure if that’s a nod to what’s supposed to be Peruvian style or not, but it’s very different from the movies we saw Disney produce in the 90s.  The dialogue is snappy, and I suspect aimed more at the adults in the audience than the kids… which isn’t terrible but it’s a bit off the mark for what is probably the most famous cartoon production studio on the planet.  Emperor didn’t seem to last long as a cultural artifact (something shared by a number of 90s Disney flicks), although Cuzco is, in my mind, one of the best heroes from the Disney stable.

For an original story, at least, for what I assume is a Disney original story, this is very good.  Some of Disney’s original or what appear to be mostly original works aren’t so hot, but this was a fun, quirky ride.  It appealed almost as much to my cousin as it did to the adults, which is no mean feat, but Disney seems to have a gift for pulling off that very feat.  The characters are vibrant, although there are a few that feel a bit like caricatures of themselves:  Yzma in particular, although Earth Kitt was an AWESOME choice for that role, and Kronk as the stupid henchman.  I would have liked for some depth  from both of these guys, but alas, they have to keep these short.

If you haven’t seen this yet, you should definitely get around to it.

Day 255: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

PG, 2 hr. 24 min.  Directed by: Peter R. Hunt.  Release Date: December 18, 1969. DVD Release Date: May 16, 2000.

This is probably the singularly most critic-blasted film in the Bond franchise, and I think there are a number of reasons for that, some of which aren't fair.  I know at this point, something went on behind the scenes that ended up with Sean Connery no longer playing James Bond.  Normally, I'd have done a little research and tried to learn what all happened to require the change, but I wasn't feeling inspired to do that today, so sorry.  Connery was a fan favorite, and plenty of people talk about the beating post-Connery Bond movies take from the critics simply because our favorite Scotsman wasn't around to play the lead role.  There are; however, a number of problems that contribute to the negative reaction this movie got, both from the press and from Bond fans alike.

1. George Lazenby.  James Bond is an action hero, right?  He's supposed to be the kind of thing that most men would either like to be or would have liked to have been at some point during their lives.  Knowing that, why would I approach this character with such a schoolmarmish outlook and demeanor?  Even the fight scenes have this kind of "I say!  Dreadfully sorry about that old boy." feeling to them that is less than entertaining.  I'm willing to blame direction, but Lazenby comes off as the Ben Stein of the Bond world.  It's no wonder Connery was back in the film to follow at record-setting salary
2. Double-oh romcom disaster.  Bond fans are used to the super spy following his tackle like a divining rod throughout a movie.  We're not so used to Bond getting serious with a woman, (and if he was going to it should have been Moneypenny, dammit) even more, we're less used to more than half the Bond flick set up in what are obviously supposed to be romantic venues and Ray Charles (I think) singing the same nauseatingly sweet song.  In a remake, I vote Sandra Bullock should play Tracy... sheesh.
3. Enter the Sandman.  From start to finish, this Bond film is filled, one might almost say REPLETE with tedium.  The action scenes are dull and lifeless, the story even more so.  Because of the way the film wanders back and forth across Bond's burgeoning romance (and eventual marriage -- I'm letting that cat out of the bag for folks who haven't seen the half-dozen or so movies that reference Bond's wife) and the caper of the moment, the action would start revving up in this polite, very British way, and then BAM, Bond pauses for time to take a stroll along a picturesque stream with his lady love.  Utter crap.

So, blaming Lazenby is unfair.  Blaming a lack of Connery is more unfair, but if this had been done by Connery, I'm guessing Bond would have been a bit more rough and tumble and a bit less... appropriate.  The allergy clinic scenes had tons of places to slip in a Bond pun and we got nothing.

All in all, this was a very disappointing (and long) experience.  You may want to skip this particular assignment and find other Bond films from the 60s to watch.  I held off on watching this one for about fifteen years before I finally caved and watched this out of curiosity and I don't feel like I suffered for the waiting.

Day 254: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)

R, 1 hr. 40 min.  Directed by: Troy Nixey,  Release Date: August 26, 2011.

I went to see this movie today because I needed something light in order to deal with the pall that's hung over my country on this day for the last ten years.  It seems odd that it's already been ten years since the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City, because it alternately feels like it's been an eternity, or that it just happened.  Those men did change us forever, but I'm not sure that the change has been an improvement.  I have to wonder if those men would have acted differently if they'd known the consequences.  So, I've had my moment of semi-silence, and I repeat the new American motto/mantra.  "Never again."  It's something I hope can be true for everyone, everywhere, although there are times when I think I keep that hope in vain.  I would hope that no more countries experience a terror attack like 9/11 or the Mumbai attacks, but I think the world will need to stand against those methods, and I don't see that happening yet.

As for the movie, it was lighthearted enough for me, but it had a host of problems, not the least of which was that it always appeared to be reflecting other (better) films from the genre, and even from the work of Guillermo Del Toro himself.  I'm a HUGE fan of both Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage.  I think those movies brought a lavish sophistication to supernatural horror that is totally unique, and that is CERTAINLY represented in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. But, there are parts of this movie which not only represent Del Toro's past work, they mimic it slightly.  There are elements and imagery that jump from one film to the next:  a massive tree, large old-style gardens with a sense of magic to them, incredible creature effects, a small girl who sees a world the adults around her do not, and a massive house with a dark past.  As if that wasn't all familiar enough, there are parts of this film that feel, at times, like The Haunting, The Others, and Vanishing on 7th Street. 

I feel the need to write a little bit about Bailee Madison, who spends a large amount time emulating that fear unique to children so well that I wonder what they were doing to scare her.  Her fear is so real it's almost contagious, and the close-ups on her face while she's breathing heavy, her brow is wrinkling with tension, and she's just on the edge of a scream are really the only place I felt fear during this tale.  I didn't love most of the rest of the cast, which is a shame because I generally think that Guy Pearce is better than this.

I've written before how I think it's smart to create a scary movie that's grounded in a fear that most of us have to some degree, and the dark is one of those.  Jaws is the great example, but that same philosophy should have worked here, and it didn't.  Humans aren't generally comfortable in the dark, because we're so very vulnerable within it.  It's no coincidence that so many supernatural baddies (werewolves, vampires, ghosts, some bad faeries) can't tolerate the light of day, and that we associate evil with the darkness.  This should have been a gimme, especially since their critters are pretty awesome.  

Definitely save this one for DVD, or at least for the dollar theater.  It's not terrible, but I died a little inside when I realized that I paid $7.50 to see this. 

Day 253: Blood Diamond (2006)

R, 2 hr. 23 min.  Directed by: Edward Zwick.  Release Date: December 8, 2006.  DVD Release Date: March 20, 2007.

I have this fascination with Africa.  I was fortunate enough to be able to spend the better part of a year living and going to school in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, which sparked not only continuing interest, but the hope that I might actually be able to return one day.  From my college days, I know a thing or two about the west African civil conflicts that seem to be so common as to be an ECOWAS entry requirement, and what I remember of the conflicts was portrayed here and very well portrayed at that.  Slavery, conscription at gunpoint, rape and murder seem to be the stock in trade for these armed militias that roam in packs looking to harm the folks most of them claim to be defending.  Even worse is that most of them claim to be an improvement over the government currently in power.  Granted, in college, my case study wasn't Sierra Leone, it was Liberia, but the two are very close geographically, and I'm sure that ideas don't stop at the border posts.

What develops from the unfolding story is rarer than the unicorn:  an action thriller with conscience.  The object of the film is simple:  to teach the average non-African about the nature of the conflict diamond, and what the purchase of non-certified diamonds might be leading to, since many of the violent civil wars seen in west Africa have been funded by trade in illegally mined stones.  

While I find this effort admirable, I'm not sure that stretching some of the facts used in the details of the story was such a good thing.  There were several details that bothered me throughout the film.  Danny Archer (DiCaprio) was supposed to have been active duty in "Rhodesia" (a country that hasn't itself been active since 1979) during the South African Border War of 1966 to 1989.  In 1989, I was eleven, and by all appearances Mr. Archer would be more or less my age.  So are we supposed to believe that he was eleven or younger while working for Colonel Coetzee?  Child soldiers are common in parts of Africa, but it's not usually the children of European settlers that we see in pictures in magazines or on rare television coverage of the events in west Africa.  I'm going to let use of the term "Rhodesia" slide, since it's become a national identity for many white farmers in modern day Zimbabwe and isn't necessarily a reference to the former state, although it's use in the film doesn't make that clear.  Playing to the American ignorance of Africa is an easy way to gain box office sales, but it seems to be a cheap shot considering the moral ground the film takes.

The cast is outstanding.  I'd never been a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio before this movie, and his performance made me change my mind.  I still don't love his early work, but I learned to have a newfound respect for his abilities as an actor.  The last 10 years have been kind to DiCaprio, who has almost grown out of his baby face.  With any luck, we'll get 10 more good years of films from him.  When supported by Jennifer Connelly and Djimon Honsou, both giving amazing performances, DiCaprio is able to bring this richly complex story to life.

If you haven't seen this, you should.  I actually feel that way about Tears of the Sun, as well, which has a similar theme, but is more solidly aimed at the action part of the equation than the conscience part.

Day 252: Without a Paddle (2004)

PG-13, 1 hr. 39 min.  Directed by: Steven Brill.  Release Date: August 20, 2004.  DVD Release Date: January 11, 2005. 

When I first saw the trailers for Without a Paddle and I was sure there was no way that anything could ruin it.  Yes, I knew Matthew Lillard would be involved.  I figured with a sure-fire, ridiculous premise, Seth Green, and Dax Shepard, there was no way this wouldn't be awesome.  And occasionally, the movie lived up to my internally-generated hype.  There are some scenes that had me rolling.  I'm going to admit that up front.  Seth Green gives his usual deadpan routine, but then, when your usual is as good as his, you can stick with it.  I mostly hate Matthew Lillard, a lot.  But I didn't totally hate him in this role.  It was Dax Shepard I hated out of the trio, and I hated him a lot.  I can't put my finger on why, but he seemed to suck a lot of life out of the scenes that he was in, which was almost all of them.

Despite my problems with Mr. Shepard, my first reaction to this movie was unexpected.  I was jealous of the relationship these guys have.  When I was a kid we moved around a lot, and so I tended to change friends pretty frequently.  While I didn't envy them the situation where their good friend has died, I would like to have been able to have friends who have known me since I was little.  Right now, my oldest friends only met me in my middle teens... and I'm one of the few people I know in that position.  I kind of feel left out.

What I really learned to dig was the story, the whole idea that these friends are going to get together and do something that they would have dreamed about doing as kids.  It was a great way to repair the drift in their friendships and of course, to get the hijinks started.  Are the hijinks, once they arrive, kind of lame?  Mostly.  I saw a lot of comparisons between this movie and City Slickers, a movie so old I only barely remember it.  I've seen it once or twice, and I'm not sure that it's a fair comparison... especially since most critics use City Slickers to trash this movie.

I thought this was fun.  Not perfect, but fun.  There are a few really stellar scenes, but a lot of this is the kind of stuff that will make you groan and roll your eyes.  This isn't a smart movie, but it's one that's worth watching once.

Day 251: The Debt (2011), Final "Cool Off With The Classics," and Juxtaposition Blog-A-Thon

R, 1 hr. 44 min.  Directed by: John Madden.  Release Date: August 31, 2011.

If you've been reading me for longer than a few weeks, you'll probably know that I have this fantasy where I find out Helen Mirren is my new, long-lost great aunt who takes a fancy to me and we go hang out somewhere.  I have similar fantasies about Paula Deen, but those usually end with my death from obstructed arteries and heart failure before I turn 45.  So, when I say I went to see this primarily because of Helen Mirren's presence.  I already know she can do a spycraft sort of film, thanks to her rather outstanding performance in RED, but from the trailers, I suspected this would be a slower sort of affair.  I wasn't exactly sure what "the debt" was, specifically, but I was thinking one of those British-style, "sleepy" espionage films that I sometimes struggle with (because they lean toward the dull compared with their American-made cousins).

I'm going to start with my complaints, because I only have three of them, and two are details.  The first is that Hebrew is written right to left, and in at least three different scenes where we either are certain or pretty sure the page is written in Hebrew, you can watch Helen Mirren reading left to right.  It's my language spaz thing coming to foreground again, I know, but it bothers me.  They could hire consultants to fix that.  I have a problem with the casting, as well, since I believe that Marton Csokas, who played Young Stefan, far more closely resembled Ciaran Hinds, who played David.  Sam Worthington (Young David) looked far more like Tom Wilkinson (Stefan).  I'm hoping you see my dilemma.  Somewhere, a casting decision was muddled.  I also had the problem that this was dull.  We've seen these movies about Mossad agents going after Nazis or terrorists or Santa or whomever before all this.  Having three fight scenes, one of which involves to folks in who are at least in their 70s in unacceptable.  Mossad is pretty, well, badass, and they are a credit on their teachers, but this movie tends to make them look like they're all mensches.  Ha!  I kid.  But no, really.

I thought that this was remarkably well acted.  The Sam Worthington-Jessica Chastain-Marton Csokas triangle was heady stuff, and well-handled by all, which gives me hope that Sam Worthington has some talent to bring to the table in the wake of his Avatar success.  I wish there had been more Helen Mirren, but you know, I'd feel like that if she'd been on screen for the entire run time.  I will say this won't go down as her best performance, but she's a bit like pizza that way.  I was a little worried that I'd find this a bit played out, and in some ways, there were scenes that reminded me of other espionage thrillers, and several others that reminded me of Berlin (I think that's the movie I'm thinking of where the Mossad agents spar in a crappy apartment).  

I think what happened here was this movie called to me intellectually, the arthouse snob in me, because the technical merits of the film were (mostly) on point and enjoyable.  I love that they took the time to quietly rubbed the multilingual tendencies of just about every other people on the planet in the faces of its American audience.  But, this wasn't as entertaining as it could have been.  It took itself too seriously, and failed to provide with as much action or violence as I might expect.  Only a handful of shots fired (they were HOARDING those blasted blanks) and a single knifing makes for a thriller that might be too cerebral for its own good.

I was left at the end of the movie with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction.  I'm not going to go in to details, to prevent spoilers, but I'd like some feedback from the rest of you if and when you see this.  Did this ending just flat out not work for anyone?

And, since my project has left me more or less without a way to do any administrative or record-keeping writing, I have a few "announcements" to follow:

Here's my short list for Go, See, Talk's "Cool Off With the Classics" Blog-A-Thon.

 

Notorious (1946)

Strangers on a Train (1951)

Sherlock Holmes: Prelude to a Murder / Dressed To Kill (1941)

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

Suspicion (1941)

I Wake Up Screaming/Hot Spot (1941)

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

And Then There Were None (1945)

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

The Big Sleep (1946)

There's now a new entry on my Blogosphere page.  The Juxtaposition Blog-A-Thon, hosted by Pussy Goes Grrr, starts on Monday, but I'm swapping it out now.  It's a little something different, so I thought I'd write a little something different.  Hope y'all enjoy!