100 Classic Movies #70: In A Lonely Place (1950)

Unrated, 1 hr. 33 min.  Directed By:  Nicholas Ray.  Release Date:  May 17, 1950.  DVD Release Date:  Mar 18, 2003.

This won’t go down as my favorite Bogey movie or my favorite noir.  In A Lonely Place has some excellent qualities, but it also has what I consider to be kind of an unforgivable sin of story writing:  a huge build-up followed by a somewhat lackluster conclusion.  I was expecting something more… shocking, but nope, the end of the movie fizzles out like a balloon where all the air’s been allowed to escape.  Pffffffft!

In terms of the film’s technical merits, I think In A Lonely Place holds up rather well.   The cast is outstanding, and I really enjoyed the performances throughout the movie’s run time.  Some of the camera work is truly outstanding (good enough that I actually noticed it, and I only notice when it’s either really good or really bad), and I love some of the imagery in the movie. 

But I can’t get past the ending… and I’m not sure how much to say without ruining the ending for folks who haven’t seen it yet.  We watch as Bogart slips further and further into explosively violent behavior in the wake of a brutal murder that he’s suspected of committing.  He really goes Robert De Niro a couple of times, and the longer the movie runs, the easier it is to assume that he is guilty of the murder.

And then they ruin all that build-up.  The answer’s dropped on us like a dead weight.  All kinds of stuff has gone crazy wrong, but the answer appears, delivered in an off-hand manner and without consequence… at least, without significant consequence.  Some of the bridges we see were already burned, so they were tangential at least.  Unfortunately, the story doesn’t really deliver what I think of as an adequate response to the situation.  I’d at least have sworn once or twice.

So, those last ten or fifteen minutes of the film really killed it for me.  Took what probably would have been a great movie and made it an okay one.  I know this is widely respected as one of Nicholas Ray’s best films, but it was just a meh for me.

Blogging Flashback: Valkyrie (2008)

PG-13, 2 hrs. Directed by: Bryan Singer. Release Date: Dec 25, 2008. DVD Release Date: May 19, 2009. 

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

Gritty, suspenseful, and entertaining, this is a side of Nazi Germany that we rarely get to see.

I struggle with my perceptions of Tom Cruise on screen. Periodically he provides an amazing role, most recently in Collateral, and The Last Samurai but the rest of the time, I think he's aging his way out of the roles that he has traditionally played. His time as an action star is over, but performances like he gives in Valkyrie show us that maybe there's something after action for the guy that many believe has had a career based on a pretty face. His role here: a German army officer racked by guilt over what Hitler was doing to Germany and consumed by the need to make a positive change BEFORE his country met its end at the hand of the Allies, represented a leap up from what I've seen out of him in the past.

The story of the movie is strong, and I'm guessing fairly accurate. I enjoy history, but not this particular era, so my knowledge isn't exactly detailed, but I remember hearing about these events. If the story has a weakness it might be that there are too many details, too many facts and dates added to the story that weren't really necessary. It makes the movie feel a bit long and creates some short dull sections that wouldn't negatively impact story flow if they were removed. I have to admit that my favorite part about this is that it tells the viewer a story we've never been introduced to in the past: the story of the German who did not agree with what Hitler did. It puts a new spin on a concept that has held some sway at the box office for several generations.

The cast interacts well, and is filled with familiar faces and well-known character actors. A good many of them have played similar roles in the past, which takes away some of their impact, but it's hard to criticize something that went this well. What is startling is those who play roles that are complete opposites to what we've seen in the past, and yet still manage to play an admirable part.

The Reef! The Reef (2010) Is On Fire! I Guess We Do Need Some Water, Though

R, 1 hr. 28 min.  Directed By:  Andrew Traucki.  Release Date:  May 15, 2010.  DVD Release Date:  Jul 19, 2011.

I read a few things about The Reef that indicated that this was based off real events where a group of people capsized and had to swim to safety through shark-infested waters (um, does anyone else seem to think that ALL waters these days are shark infested?  I think the term is “cosmopolitan distribution.” This is basically my worst nightmare and one of the reasons you rarely find me going on boats.  Yes, yes.  I know I was in the Navy for six years, and the only time I was on a Navy vessel was a dependent’s cruise on the Enterprise when I was around 12.  

I wasn’t expecting a whole lot from a movie I expected to be Australia’s answer to Open Water, a movie I shunned for the same reasons I have refused to watch Hostel ever again.  It’s too disturbing and I want nothing to do with it.  I have few phobic fears in my life, and strangely, all of them are animals.  Some of them aren’t technically phobias since I’ve LEARNED to fear them.  Also strange is that all three of my animals in question are mostly water dwelling.  I say it’s strange because I love the water, although I did mention in my Shark Month Blog-A-Thon post that I won’t go in water other than a pool these days because of an encounter with something that I’ve always assumed to be a shark.  But clearly, humans are out of their element in the water. 

For about forty-five minutes, there’s nothing more insidious going on in this movie than Luke is clearly trying to put the make on his friend’s sister.  No crocs, no crazed men running around in khaki shorts, nothing more fear-inducing that what I think was a blacktip reef shark seen at a distance (and without contact lenses in).  The setting is nearly idyllic, which is fine, but that shit went on WAY too long.

The first real shark rears its silvery head around 50 minutes into the movie, then proceeds to train wreck the day for the folks in the water.  But, even knowing that bastard is lurking in the surprising clear water, there’s such a drawn out hunting period that I only really enjoyed the parts where people were getting eaten.  Sick, but true.  I didn’t want to have to watch people going into the water somewhere between Australia’s north coast and Indonesia, which is laden not only with sharks, but also salties (by which I mean saltwater crocodiles).  I’d have set up the GPS emergency beacon and prayed for the best.

Considering the obvious low-budget of the movie, the underwater sequences are amazing.  While not necessarily National Geographic, the scenes were almost beautiful enough to make me want to attempt to go back in to the water.

Real fast, though.  If you ever find yourself in this position, and you find an amount of coral to stand (or sit on) that's only just big enough for that purpose, it's false hope.  Sharks can and do jump out of the water to catch prey.  Great whites, in particular.

Blogging Flashback: Happy Endings (2005)

R, 2 hrs. 8 min. Directed by: Don Roos. Release Date: Jul 15, 2005. DVD Release Date: Nov 05, 2005.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND EDITS**** 

A darkly twisted comedy of errors with gripping characters.  I think it's successful for a dark comedy, well, fairly successful, and I think that's hard, or my definition of dark comedy isn't what Hollywood's definition of dark comedy is.  

This isn't about what you think. Okay, well kind of it's what you think it’s about. Happy Endings showcases the lives of three groups of people who are linked in that "six degrees" way. The story is told through a series of vignettes that skip back and forth periodically, which is a story telling method that I often like, although I usually have problems with how the vignettes are linked.  This was one of the happy majority, although I did have problems with the linkages.

Billed as a comedy, this movie truly defies description, at least by me. The comedic material is dark, and some of it comes through the events as they unfold, none of which are happy-go-lucky, but their presentation comes off as vaguely funny. Certainly the climax in the story involving Lisa Kudrow and Jesse Bradford is pretty funny to watch even though one or both of them could have been killed. 

In the end, I think there's an exaggerated realism to the events chronicled here that's attractive. While I couldn't see these events playing out WITH the six degrees of separation, I could see them playing out as four separate vignettes in the lives of people who didn't know each other. The film itself is all about choices and the extent to which people will go to make sure they get what they want. It's occasionally an unattractive look at the psyche of mankind, but it's hard to bitch about the truth.

The clincher for this film is that its ensemble cast is amazing in their roles. I even managed not to hate Maggie Gyllenhall or Tom Arnold, which is no mean feat.

WordPress Mirror Site Now Up

Due to ongoing (and recurring) issues with my Blogger Feed and well, the recent events surrounding my blog and its coverage under the Fair Use Doctrine, I've decided to play CYA.  Google may not have the testicular fortitude to stand up to frivolous pressure from attorneys trying to spend a retainer, but WordPress does.  As of today, The Great Movie Project will be mirrored on a WordPress counterpart, called, unsurprisingly, The Great Movie Project.  All 664 of my posts currently alive and well on Blogger are now on WordPress, as well.  I'm trying to figure out what I'm going to do with the Flashback posts that I have scheduled from tomorrow all the way to July 2014.  I suspect I'll end up duplicating all 645 of the scheduled posts onto a Word doc or something and keep track of which ones are posted.

All new posts will be duplicated manually until I learn how to automatically transfer posts from this blog to my WordPress blog.  If you're one of those folks who prefers WordPress, and truthfully, after two hours exploring, I'm on the fence, you can now follow me there. 

Hakuna Meskada (2010)

R, 1 hr. 28 min.  Directed By:  Josh Sternfeld.  Release Date:  Dec 3, 2010.  DVD Release Date:  Mar 22, 2011.

I spent the first half hour wondering why all the geographical names sounded familiar.  Caswell.  Hilliard.  Even Meskada County was vaguely familiar.  The situation is familiar, too.  Although to be fair, it’s probably familiar across the Midwest:  one town has jobs and money, while its neighbors do not.  There’s probably even some bit of tension between the two communities because of it.  Then, someone throws me a frickin’ bone and mentions “Ohio State cops” and everything clicked into place.  I lived five minutes from Hilliard, Ohio, once upon a time.  Hiliard isn't in Meskada County, nor is it next to Caswell (I’m not sure either of those places exist in Ohio, although the bell’s still ringing, so there must be places out there with similar names).

I think the movie describes very well what I saw in my six years living in Ohio.  Factory towns drying up as the Global Financial Crisis hammers in the final nail in the coffin built by NAFTA.  People increasingly desperate to find work and survive, with crime rates increasing as a result.  No, I’m not quoting the episode of South Park called “The Coon,” but Cartman’s opening riff would be an apt description for the problem.  

Add a murder, a murder that was the resulting accident of a little breaking and entering, some influence from various films noirs, and you have the basic plot to Meskada.  It’s clearly a low-budget indie picture, although it has several recognizable names and even one talented one.  It’s also possessed of a few flaws as a result.  See if you can spot the sound and editing problems that take place… one in the middle of an actor’s movement across the screen.

The flaws end up giving this movie a high school pageant quality, although I think the actors do what they can with what they’ve been given.  Nick Stahl, playing the lead role, is the only saving grace of this movie.  I still haven’t figured out why he always fails to land bigger roles.  I think the only mainstream movie I’ve seen him in was Murder By Numbers, with Sandra Bullock, Ryan Gosling, and someone who isn't Michelle Williams, but who I think looks so much like her that I never fail to think it is Michelle Williams.  Stahl’s always exceptional, no matter how badly conceived the movie is, and Meskada is no exception to that rule.  The rest of the cast weaves drunkenly between “sucktown, population you,” and “eleven years without an Emmy,” sometimes in the same scene, which I always find impressive.

This wasn’t the best movie I’ll see this year.  Nor, unfortunately, is it the worst movie I’ll see.  I’m pretty sure Meskada is what people meant when they discuss the B movie.   

Blogging Flashback: Brothers (2009)

R, 1 hr. 50 min. Directed by: Jim Sheridan. Release Date: Dec 04, 2009.  Mar 23, 2010.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

Powerful and moving, this is an excellent (and relatively nonjudgmental) exploration of the PTSD psyche.

Another film in 2009 (three years later, I have NO idea what that other movie might be, so we'll just go with it) gets props for picking relatives who actually vaguely resemble each other, as in the case of Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhall, who aren't spitting images of each other, but have some similarities in their facial features. Let's face it, not many of us are prepared to think Bo and Luke Duke came from the same Punnett Square anymore.

This is really a gripping story about an ongoing problem that soldiers have: what happens after they've done the horrible things that war requires them to do and they have to come back home. Granted, it's a story told from a worst-case scenario, but they manage to keep the mood light-hearted and hopeful enough throughout the majority of the film, so you don't feel bogged down in someone else's melodrama.

I didn't really feel any chemistry between the three points of this particular love triangle. It was the major thing that I found to be lacking in this movie, and is the sole reason I'm not gushing about the performances by Portman, Maguire, or Gyllenhall here.

Two things come immediately to mind when I think of the highlights of this movie: (1) When Jake Gyllenhall's walking down the cell block row, I had absolutely NO questions about how he survived in prison thanks to Brokeback Mountain, and (2) watching the 8-year-old daughter drop a strategic tac-nuke smack dab on the middle of her very dysfunctional family. Usually it takes an adult to screw up that badly.

Commentus Interruptus, or Hey, Goofus, What Happened to Your Comments Section?

 

It's been pointed out to me by a few people (thanks Sam and Toby!) that somehow my Comments section has gone AWOL. 

After a little bit of research, it looks like somehow my settings got hosed back in April, and so today I'll be spending at least the morning today going through and manually updating all my posts so that comments are again allowed.  I'm hoping all future posts will automatically get flipped back to having comments on them.  Let's keep our fingers crossed.

My apologies to my Google Plus readers if I accidentally spam you with stuff from three months ago.

As of 12:00pm CDT:  Except for a handful of posts that are so large that I can't edit/repost them,  all of the comments sections are back up and running.  Hooray for progress! 

Blogging Flashback: Disturbia (2007)

PG-13, 1 hr. 44 min. Directed by: D.J. Caruso. Release Date: Apr 13, 2007. DVD Release Date: Aug 07, 2007.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

Dramatic and suspenseful, this is an decent modernization of the Hitchcock classic, Rear Window.  I've said that repeatedly in this blog (and in various podcasts when the subject arises) in recent years.  It's also probably the only movie I've been able to watch more than once that stars Shia LeBeouf, other than the original Transformers.

I probably shouldn't give the filmmakers here so much credit, but I felt this was a good effort at adaptation of Rear Window, which has been a B&W favorite of mine for about twenty years now. I appreciate how thin the line is that borders both suspense and boredom and suspense and fear. I think it's relatively easy to produce a film that thrashes about on the wrong side of either of those lines. Suspense is all about giving the viewing JUST enough information to process that they're not bored by all the mystery, but not so much that you're letting them know that fear is the appropriate response.  Now, I won't lie and say that they didn't pander to the audience just a little, giving us the blood and gore that we've gotten used to from horror/slasher movies, but the it's the parts that were Hitchcock-esque that worked for me.

It's relatively easy to make a good boring film. Michael Moore has made many, many boring films that were well made with questionable, or at least debatable, research. It's also easy to make good horror, although it's just as easy to make bad horror. Suspense is a work of art. It's all about mood, subtlety, and patience. Strangely, I tend to lack subtlety (and patience) myself, but I always appreciate those qualities in others. I appreciate those qualities the most in a movie, and I've seen good use of lighting and sound effects in really bad movies, so when I see them used well in a good movie, I'm much, much happier.

While I think the art of suspense has largely been lost in American film, Disturbia managed to resurrect no small portion of the old style while at the same time giving us a more recognizable situation than its inspiration tale. The escalation of the story and the growing conflict was well-played, and the clues were presented just frequently enough to stave off the boredom that seems to be the nemesis of every suspense movie.

Blogging Flashback: Phantom of the Opera (2004)

PG-13, 2 hrs. 23 min. Directed by: Joel Schumacher. Release Date: Dec 22, 2004. DVD Release Date: May 03, 2005.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

An incredible adaptation of the hit Broadway musical and literary classic.

I expected that the singing in this would be great, considering a good chunk of the cast were classically trained singers, but it was the members of the cast who WEREN'T trained in opera that really impressed me. Gerard Butler (who's follow up big project was 300), Miranda Richardson, and Minnie freaking Driver were all excellent vocal talents.

The scenery was well adapted, and the Opera reminded me a bit of the scenery from Curran Theater's (San Francisco) version of the musical. The story changed little, although there were a few scenes I don't remember from the Broadway or literary version of this story, and the changes I saw, I thought helped the movie flow better.

Most of what little negative press that can be found on this film is from fans of Michael Crawford, who sang the role on Broadway for so many... well, decades. To this, I say whole-heartedly: "Get over it, I'm pretty sure the Phantom could not be moving around in his freaking Scoot-Scoot with such stealth." Before watching this, I would say I didn't like musicals, even though I was occasionally dragged to one. Now I make no qualms about liking them, so something right had to have occurred.

Random comment: I can't believe Emmy Rossum, who played Christine here, went on to take a part in Dragonball: Evolution. I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

The Great Recasting Blog-A-Thon - Avatar

It’s summer, and one of the things I can count on in the summer is that my fellow LAMBs get together for a Blog-A-Thon or two.  I consider it the way us movie geeks (most of whom don’t know each other outside of the LAMB) come together for a backyard BBQ or pool party.  The folks at Frankly My Dear and In the Mood have come together to host this one, which they’re calling The Great Recasting.  The point is to take a movie made AFTER 1965 and cast it with actors who were in their heyday before 1965.

Because I like to make my life difficult, I’ve chosen to work with Avatar.  The problems here are legion.  Sci-fi kind of wasn’t really there until the 60s, and it didn’t actually get feasible until the 70s.  There are folks out there who might disagree, but they can’t point out a single good science fiction movie made much before Star Wars in ’77, although I guess Logan's Run could count.  Also, Avatar had kind of a big cast, and I think I’m going to stick to some of the more principle players rather than go for a recast of everyone who had more than one spoken line.

So, here’s my original cast that I’ll be recasting:  Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldana (Neytiri), Sigourney Weaver (Grace), Stephen Lang (Col. Quaritch), Michelle Rodriguez (Trudy Chacon), Giovanni Ribisi (Parker Selfridge) and, because I liked his character, Joel David Moore (Norm Spellman).

I’m going to start with the character that was easiest for me, although I’m not sure why it was so easy.

Bette Davis as Grace.  I suspect this was so simple because Bette Davis played a lot of quirky roles in her day, and it wouldn’t get much quirkier than this role.  I’m thinking of Bette Davis circa All About Eve, where she’s still young looking, but clearly has some years behind her… not unlike Sigourney Weaver.

Jimmy Stewart as Jake Sully.  This was harder for me to come up with an answer.  I spent a lot of time mulling over Humphrey Bogart before deciding on Jimmy Stewart.  He was younger, which helped, but he also seemed to take on a lot of roles which required him to be active, so I'm guessing he was in the kind of shape this role would need.  Also, I think portrayed a good many characters with Jake's ridiculously positive vibe, those characters that had to stand on the high moral ground, and that's Jake Sully in a nutshell.

Sophia Loren as Neytiri.  I've only ever seen her on screen once, and that was in Nine back in... 2010 or whenever, but I was struck even then by her beauty.  The woman's close to a century old and she's still graceful and exotic, two words I would use to describe Neytiri (and Zoe Saldana).  I also think her Italian accent would help her in the voice overs.

 

Jack Lemmon as Norm Spellman.  I’m thinking Jack Lemmon around Some Like It Hot, and I’m not thinking of him in a science type role, but he is hell on wheels as comic relief, and I think sarcasm would be an easy reach for him, which is what Norm was all about.  I also think he could pull off the sidekick role with some ease, since he’s done it so often.

George C. Scott as Colonel Quaritch.  The man was a phenomenon, and while I’ve never seen him in a role where he was an active antagonist, I was recently skimming through Dr. Strangelove again, and I think that his look (and role there) would make him a shoe-in to play the tough as nails Marine Colonel who put ethics to the side in order to ensure his mission would be a success.

Grace Kelley as Trudy Chacon.  I struggled with this choice.  There were few Latina actresses in the days of the classics, and fewer still who were allowed to be tough like Trudy was.  I toyed with Katharine Hepburn (a lot) and Ava Gardner (less), because I do think they played some tough ladies on the screen, but I was drawn to Grace Kelley’s performances in Hitchcock movies, particularly Rear Window, where we see her perform acts of extreme bravery, and survive events that should have sent women of her day running for the hills.

Fred MacMurray as Parker Selfridge.  I didn’t struggle with this choice even a little bit, but I did worry that Fred MacMurray being like two feet taller than Giovanni Ribisi would a problem.  Ribisi plays Selfridge as a little weasel, which MacMurray probably couldn’t do, but if you’ve seen The Apartment or Double Indemnity, you know he can play an unethical businessman well, and that’s really the heart of the character.




So, here it is.  Thoughts?  How would you have recast these roles with actors from classic movies if you'd had a hand in it

Blogging Flashback: The Hurt Locker (2008)

R, 2 hr. 7 min. Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow. Release Date: Jun 26, 2009. DVD Release Date: Jan 12, 2010.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

Quite possibly my generation's Platoon, but more notable than the first blue critters on the screen since the Smurfs? Probably not.  It could just be that I'm all bitter about Avatar not winning Best Picture, because The Hurt Locker is a good movie.

I have to admit that I find the whole war-movie thing a bit tiresome. There are fifty million people out there making movies about life for soldiers in Iraq, and most of those indicate that not only were these people never in Iraq, but that they didn't bother to ask anyone who was.  Hurt Locker manages to bring a bit of realism in their Hollywood spin.  I actually appreciate the idea that this movie wasn't made as some thinly-veiled, uneducated criticism of American foreign policy.  My position has always been we did something terrible for all the right reasons, and now we need to take responsibility for those actions and help the Iraqis make the choices that are best for them. 

I had predicted this would be kind of dull in the same way a lot of the counterintelligence movies like Traitor have been. Gulf War movies, as my marketing prof would say, are a market that is WELL in to its maturity and there's little new that's under the sun, but Bigelow's team manages to space action sequences and portray some of the greatest fears faced those folks who have either been to Iraq or had loved ones go there.

There's only one thing that I thought that wasn't at least partially accurate based on my own military experience.  I wasn’t in the Army, but I worked with Army troops frequently while serving in the Navy. In fact, except for boot camp, I spent my entire career attached to Army bases.  They're very strict on rank protocol and behavior when they're in uniform, and I rarely, rarely saw someone hit the rank of Sergeant or better who didn't insist on people using that title. These guys are really, really chummy.  Almost to the point where there's no clear hierarchy within their team. I've never seen any conditions in which those rules of rank and hierarchy weren't followed.

Blogging Flashback: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010)

PG-13, 1 hr. 53 min. Directed by: Edgar Wright. Release Date: Aug 13, 2010.  DVD Release Date:  Nov 09, 2010.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

Celluloid proof that people are still willing to hire Brandon Routh after the Superman Returns debacle, but not without its charms.  For all my rage at the appearance of Routh, this was an awesome movie.  I'm sad that there were only three times that I could see this in theaters... although I haven't added Scott Pilgrim to my video collection, and I probably should.  Soon.

There's a lot that is generally fun about this movie, but I did have a hard time trying to quantify anything about it. There's Michael Cera playing, well, Michael Cera: this awkward, kinda chic-geeky guy who manages to be involved in some pretty high-profile social events because high school's changed a lot since 1995. Right?  Michael Cera's character in this (or any of his movies) would have been beaten up a lot in my day, and I went to a parochial high school.  There certainly wouldn't have been any cool parties or hot chicks for someone like that back in the day.

The seven evil exes were, without fail, glyphed with awesome. Even Brandon Routh didn't suck, although he was my least favorite of the exes. Chris Evans (as per the norm) had me in stitches with cartoonish portrayal of Lee Lucas.  I was a little concerned how close his character's name was to America's most prolific serial killer, but that could just be because I've been doing some research on the link between psychopathology and creativity for a project for my creative management class.

I pretty much enjoyed this whole thing, but especially the fight sequences. Coin loot, bonus points, and the Batman-inspired (think 1970s/80s TV show). Even BIFF!, my old Batman fave, managed to make an appearance.  Seriously, though, are we really supposed to believe that Michael Cera could win in a hand-to-hand combat match even in a video game?

I don't have much to complain about outside of the beginning; this is a bit slow to start, but once the exes start appearing, it's not bad.  There's a bit of ugliness involved; with the prize in the bunch probably winding up to be a toss-up between Brandon Routh's white jeans or the semi-platonic four-guy pile up that happens in Kieran Culkin's bed. I'm pretty sure American decided that wasn't cute back in Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

The Diasterpiece That Is Cowboys and Aliens (2011)

PG-13, 1 hr. 59 min.  Directed By:  Jon Favreau.  Release Date:  Jul 29, 2011.  DVD  Release Date:  Dec 6, 2011.

It’s funny how many movies hinge the survival of the human species on sheer dumb luck.  I’ve started writing the opening paragraph for Cowboys and Aliens, but I haven’t finished watching the movie quite yet.  The aliens should be walking all over the humans with cleats, and somehow, we persevered.  They had laser rifles, were stronger, faster, and could bite the crap out of us.  I don’t even have a way to compare the two sides of the battle field scene.  At best, we had some sorry ass dynamite.  And, at every turn, one of the humans does the stupid thing.  Whatever was most stupid in any circumstance.  

This improbability sets the tone for the entire movie.  It wants to portray the semi-anarchy of the stereotypical Wild West, but the aliens interfere.  It wants to be a science fiction movie, but the setting and the characters help prevent that from really taking root.  Cowboys and Aliens tries so damned hard to be something better than it was.   Maybe different is a better word.  They certainly didn’t spare any expense on the cast, and I have to say I didn’t see anything from them that I thought was terrible and undirected at the same time.  There’s quite a bit that was terrible and directed, and I have a hard time faulting the cast for that.

Basically, this movie suffers from the same faults as 90% of the science fiction out there.  Predictability is a major problem, as is some of the things they seem to do for realism:  it takes longer than three seconds for a corpse to attract flies, and we see that twice.  Aliens conveniently do things that lends humanity the upper hand (it appears they weren’t so bright either).   The humans had skills that probably didn’t make sense for the time period in which they were supposed to be.  The characters all left me with the vague feeling that they were… filling a hole in the voids of what a town in the Old West should be.  I’m sure there were some without the rich guy who broke the law and got away with it, without outlaws, or prostitutes, or weak-willed tavern owners.

However, if all you’re looking for is some gunfire, some alien effects, and a bunch of explosions, there are worse ways to spend your time.  Not many, mind you, but some.   I also have to give Daniel Craig props for his “American.”  Much better than some of his countrymen, but I’m assuming that weird voice thing he was doing helped a lot.  Oh, the fact that this was release almost one year ago today is purely circumstantial. 

100 Classic Movies #69: Street of Shame (1956)

Unrated, 1 hr. 28 min.  Directed By:  Kenji Mizoguchi.  Release Date:  Mar 18, 1956.  DVD Release Date:  Oct 21, 2008.

It’s interesting that this film discusses a social issue that’s still an ongoing debate in the United States, although I’m a little shocked to find it so frankly discussed in a movie made in the 50s, even in Japan.  I wonder how Street of Shame fared in the US, especially after a line blames the formation of Tokyo’s red light district on the American GI’s in Japan after World War II?

Prostitution is one of those polarizing issues in most societies.  Some people are against it for moral reasons.  Some people (like me) see it as another job so long as the people employed for these purposes are of legal age and are consenting, they say legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.  The movie discusses the issue from both sides.  From the moral issue, what happens to these women if their profession is made illegal?  They don’t seem to have many, or any other skills to fall back on.  Some of them are raising families, supporting children and other loved ones.  Is that moral position worth the families of these women starving?  Moral positions (especially those that are absolutes) tend to forget the consequences.  Amoral positions, like my own, tend to belittle (or ignore entirely) the possibility of exploitation, which the last scenes of this movie covers very well.  It’s going to be a long, long time before I forget the virgin, newly-kimonoed, first-time prostitute looking for clients with a fearful eye.  It probably won’t change my vote on the issue, since it’s a BILLION dollar industry that goes untaxed, but with the right government infrastructure, I think it’s possible to reduce, if not eliminate, that kind of exploitation.  Could I be naive?  Maybe.  But saying no to something on moral grounds is never without consequences, and I'm not sure it's right to ask other people to pay the price for my morality.  Also, there are a few countries with legalized and regulated prostitution that seem to have been successful at mitigating the negative aspects of the practice.  We passed Obamacare without such an example.

I thought it was shocking (I’m using the word a lot lately) that these women were presented much like used car salesmen.  Both Mickey and Yumeko are seen in attempts to drag men into their club; the former going so far as trying to drag her father into bed with her.  The sales pitch is hard, and high pressure.  I had a hard time thinking of any of these women as victims, although academically I realize most (but not all) of them were victims.  In the case of Yasumi, who operates on some whacked out Robin Hood complex (robs from the rich, gives to herself), she clearly was NOT the victim, regardless of situation.  She was a predator thrown into a sheep pen, and clearly having a grand ole time.  Watching her fleece her customers for money was impressive.

The movie is a hotbed of social criticism, but I don’t think it really strives to take a side in the issue.  That’s probably why I’ve spent so much time thinking about this. It also seems to be a fair approach to the argument, although I understand this movie was crucial to the passing of legislature banning prostitution in Japan.  I would have been interested in a follow up after that, to see what happened to these characters in the wake of that law, particular if it was done with the same fair-mindedness that Street of Shame was filmed with.

Blogging Flashback: It's Complicated (2009)

R, 1 hr. 58 min.  Directed by: Nancy Meyers.  Release Date: December 25, 2009.  DVD Release Date: April 27, 2010.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

This could be funny if you’re over 50.  If you’re not, I’m not sure this counts as comedy.  There are folks who might joke that I should be close enough to 50 to find this funny, but alas, I wasn't. 

There was a part of me who thought that this might be The Hangover for the 50 and over set.  It had elements of that ridiculousness that you might expect from a comedy that spotlighted actors a generation younger than Meryl Streep, Steve Martin, and Alec Baldwin, but when combined with the effects of gravity and excessive marijuana use… everything got a little gross.  I'm pretty sure I can't unsee Alec Baldwin hiding his junk behind that laptop computer.  I just can't. 

I’m not saying that someone in my age group couldn’t find anything to laugh at, because that would be an out-in-out lie, but there are lots of things I don’t really feel the need to watch.  I’m also not sure why parents in their 50s or 60s have to explain why getting involved with their childrens’ other parent is not such a hot idea.  I would think they’d be over the divorce after 15 years.  In my experience, which is admittedly third-hand, divorce doesn't generally leave you in an amicable frame of mind.

Lots of people love this movie.  I’m just not one of them. 

Blogging Flashback: Ink (2009)

Unrated. Directed by: Jamin Winans. Release Date: Jan 23, 2009. DVD Release Date: Nov 10, 2009.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW COMMENTS/EDITS****

Confusing and confounding, this movie nevertheless provided interest and entertainment, although don't ask me how.  I need to vent about the storytelling, because it's quite simply an epic disasterpiece.  I'm coining a new word to describe what I see here.  Disasterpiece says absolutely everything about Ink that I think really needs to be said.  I'm probably not done complaining about how weak the story is in this movie.  I will fess up to the reality that the execution of this movie was tight enough that it helped shore up the absolute crap that was the story, but not by anywhere near enough.  My next question:  who the hell would take a story like this and think it would work?  'Film students' appears to be the answer. 

For a student film, this was pretty amazing work, visually.  I found the movie to be interesting and engrossing in spite of the fact that I never really had a clue what was going on, and I suspect that the effects and the world described herein helped me get over how little I got what I was actually seeing, in the same way you can be infatuated by someone who is both dumb and hot until they start talking. The movie kind of starts at a run, and there was a lot of information that the audience is just expected to accept without information, so having that interest was a feat.

Special effects were decent, especially considering how this project came to be. This would never have been a blockbuster, but for a group of film school students and a very limited budget, I think they managed to conceive a working science fiction project.

The story flow asks you to take a lot in faith, and explains little about the workings of the world we're asked to watch. It's something I generally think of as bad storytelling, but in this case, it added a lot to the confusion I had regarding what was going on and what exactly the characters were doing. I never quite figured out who Ink was, why he looked the way he did, and why he was doing what he did.

The acting is pretty atrocious on all sides, and it struck me that was never really a concern for anyone involved in this.  I might be wrong, but I think the overall project is what film students are graded on, not so much those geeks in the drama club.  This might still be on Netflix streaming, and if it is, I'd take a pass.

100 Classic Movies #68: Mildred Pierce (1945)

Unrated, 1 hr. 53 min.  Directed By:  Michael Curtiz.  Release Date:  Oct 20, 1945.  DVD Release Date:   Feb 4, 2003.

When Mildred Pierce appeared on the list of titles for this project that I took from my readers, my whole face scrunched up.  What in the hell kind of name is Mildred Pierce?  It brings to mind some crusty old “maiden lady” who’s still wearing organza dresses in pastel florals with matching veiled (and decorated) hats.  She probably smells like gardenias or lilies of the valley.  I realize that once upon a time, the name was popular, but cheebus.  It’s terrible.

Other than that, I don’t really have a complaint to offer about this tale that warns off parents from spoiling their children.  You have to feel bad for Mildred, who wanted what I think all parents want:  to give their children opportunities that they themselves never had.  However, she went too far, and was never able to tell her eldest daughter (1) no, or (2) their actual position in the world.  Veda seemed to think she was in the upper 1% long before her family had two pennies to scrape together and it only gets worse as she ages.

I actually hate Veda a little.  There are too many people who grow up with her sensibilities.  Too many who think the world should be handed to them, and are completely unaware of how hard people have to work so that they can have the latest fashions, the coolest toys, the shiniest cars, and so they can go the finest schools and travel the world.  I admit that I clapped a little when Veda and Mildred have their falling out, although I wish Mildred had returned Veda’s spite with a fist.  As for Mildred, I have to respect a woman who is that hard working and that dedicated to her family.  She’s the kind of woman whose success you have to applaud.  Even when she made her money, she was never “too good” to work in the kitchens or help the waitresses. 

The story here is interesting, and manages to combine dramatic elements with some of the classic themes and images of noir.  I easily understand why this attracted so much attention back in 1945.  I’m surprised it isn’t talked about still.  This seems to be an unusual choice of role for Joan Crawford, who I’m used to seeing in the early horror films of the 1960s.  There are a few moments where she does either fear or rage, and you can see why her career takes the turn it did, but for the most part, this is an all-new Crawford, at least for me.

Dear God, Steve Zahn is Saving Silverman (2001)

PG-13, 1 hr. 35 min.  Directed By:  Dennis Dugan.  Release Date:  Feb 7, 2001.  DVD Release Date:  Jul 17, 2001.

I’ve seen Saving Silverman movie lots of times.  Back when I bought just about every VHS tape ever, it was a part of my collection.  When I shifted to DVD, I got (slightly) more picky about what I owned, and it didn’t make the cut.   Even when I was indiscriminate, I probably should have taken a pass and left this in the bargain bin from which it came.  I never actually enjoyed this movie, but I do know a few people that did.  Names will be left out to protect the guilty.

Jason Biggs has had an interesting career.  I don’t really know much about the guy, except that he appeared on my radar in 1999 when he did American Pie.  It seems like he’s spent the intervening years playing variants on the same role, and Silverman is no exception.  How many times are we going to watch him play some guy that’s just too damned quirky and awkward to really fit in?  How many times are we going to see him chase down some hot chick, despite that, and end up lucking out?  I did a quick count and came up with 11 times.  The good news is that with the exception of Amanda Peet, most of these hot chicks are connected to him in other movies, making me think that Jason Biggs has that “six degrees” connection to B-listers the way Kevin Bacon does to A-listers.

Biggs is just as passably enjoyable here as he in every other movie he’s ever done.  His character is just as borderline boring/annoying as he’s been since American Pie.  He manages to pull the same kind of laughs.  The arrival of Steve Zahn and Jack Black into this mix don’t really help all that much, and Amanda Peet is ridiculous as the villain of the piece.  In my world, if you have to work this hard to create conflict, you need to think up a better story.

There’s lots about this movie that doesn’t make sense.  Why, why did there need to be anything about Neil Diamond in Silverman, to include the cameo appearance?  I vaguely get that they wanted to make light of the petty jealousy that occurs between single friends and friends in a relationship… but doing it with people in their 20s is a little stupid.  Most of us outgrow that crap in our teens.  I’m also not sure why none of the three guys wasn’t a total loser.  It would have been just as okay to make them successful or moderately successful and give them a fun, rather than frat house edge.

Blogging Flashback: Gran Torino (2009)

R, 1 hr. 56 min. Directed by: Clint Eastwood. Release Date: Jan 09, 2009. DVD Release Date: Jun 09, 2009.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS AND COMMENTS****

An amazing discussion of how to defeat prejudice and bring hope to people who had none.

There's little about this movie that didn't work for me, and I'm NOT a Clint Eastwood fan. I loved the story, the progression, and Eastwood's ability to direct himself and others from the front-side of the camera. Really, I think one day this will be touted as a way to make our great Melting Pot work. This is a story about overcoming hate and prejudice, and finding common ground with people you never would have thought you could find that ground with. Okay, I ended this situation with a preposition, and I'm getting preachy, but the movie makes me gush it was that good.

A host of unknown actors bring characters we might not have noticed to life. These are people who would possibly fade into our background and never be the slightest blip on our personal radar, and under the exploration of the camera, they explode with life and personality.

There were a lot of movies in the last few years that were hyped and earned it, and this was no exception. Arguably the best movie I've seen this year.

I thought this was slow-starting, but they try to make up for that with bits of humor and insights into Eastwood's character.

Dolly Wasn’t Singing About This Jolene (2010)

R, 1 hr. 55 min.  Directed By:  Dan Ireland.  Release Date:  Oct 29, 2010.  DVD Release Date:  Apr 26, 2011.

If you’ve woken up some morning and thought to yourself, “hey, I’d REALLY like to see Jessica Chastain naked,” (and let’s face it, if you’re even a little interested in women, you’ve had that thought) then this is the movie for you.

At some point during this movie, I made the leap from the horrors I was watching to a country song.  You know that old joke about what do you get if you play a country song backwards?  Jolene is the discussion of what happens when you play it forwards.  We watch Jolene go from a 15-year-old bride to a 25-year-old woman, but I’m wondering if she ever becomes a functioning adult.  I like to think that something clicks in the mind of an adult, something that gives them experience to keep from making the same mistakes over and over again.  We never see that learning curve kick in for Jolene, and I can only hope that in the unmade (and as far as I know, unplanned) sequel, that Jolene learns the lessons that her own life should have taught her.  

After seeing Jolene, I knew why Jessica Chastain is getting such praise from the folks who do this professionally.  Jolene is, in some ways, a difficult character.  She’s a young woman who learns VERY early in life that she can use sex to get what she wants.  We see her ruin the lives of her first husband, Mickey, and his uncle Phil, with no remorse until she’s caught.  And for those of you thinking the scene where she’s crying on the porch is remorse, think again.  She talks about Mickey before then, but never with apology for her betrayal.  It’s when she’s caught that the waterworks come on.  Later, she seduces that ward supervisor, although I’m not sure whether that started intentionally or not.  One minute the poor minute is condemning Phil as a child molester, and the next she’s rationalizing her own sexual behavior with her ward.  Jolene knowingly goes in to that “relationship” to get things, even though her sexuality leaned in some different direction.  The sex was a means to an end, and the end was (eventually) escape.  She uses sex to cross the country, multiple times.  She uses sex to control every man in her life but the last one.  Jolene is selfish, wild, irresponsible, has a survival streak a mile long, and alternates between dumb and dumb like a fox at the drop of a random hat.  She doesn’t necessarily have guile or hate in her, but she has a capriciousness that serves the same purpose as (at least) guile.

She meets her match in her final husband.  Some folks might talk about karma to discuss that final relationship, and while I’m sure Jolene learned a few lessons there, no one deserves what Brad did to her.  I was half hoping she’d have blown a hole in his head, but alas, I don’t always get what I want.

This movie was thought provoking, at times infuriating, and a little seductive.  Jolene and Celia Foote (Chastain’s character from The Help) have some marked similarities, but this is a very different role for her. 

Blogging Flashback: The Unborn (2009)

PG-13, 1 hr. 28 min. Directed by: David S. Goyer. Release Date: Jan 09, 2009. DVD Release Date: Jul 07, 2009.

****REPOSTED FROM THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH NEW EDITS/COMMENTS****

The Unborn hits the trifecta of badness so common to the horror genre: bad story, bad scares, bad acting.

I guess the only good thing is that this movie is filled with pretty people. There wasn't much else here to rave about.  Okay, so they weren't that pretty, either.

Let's start with the acting. The lead here was Megan Foxish in appearance, I believe also named Megan, or something very similar, and brings significant attention to what's going on during the course of the film, but quite simply, her acting ability makes Megan Fox look like Meryl Streep on acting crack. At some point, casting directors need to give some thought to talent and not just make it about the wrapping. Sadly, the lead isn't alone. The badness on-screen is all pervasive, even from people who have had better performances elsewhere, like Cam Gigandet, although I'm starting to believe the only role he can play even marginally well is the out of control psychopath.

The bad story is a major malfunction, starting with the demonic possession angle.  I'm over it.  Then, we move on to the Hitler-supernatural-freak sections of the show:  let's see. Hitler orders experimentation on twins during WWII. Twins run in the maternal family line of the lead character. Her twin dies in utero. Enter the demonic. Make sense?  Not so much, since it's not like that isn't a relatively common occurrence.  I know more than one person who was originally a twin, but their sibling never made it out of the womb.  I have TONS of "I ate a baby!" jokes. So basically, it didn't make much sense to me either, and I watched this piece of crap. I watched it twice because I couldn't figure out what the heck was happening.

For a horror flick, this was remarkably horror light. The scares were telegraphed the way a bad fighter telegraphs his punches. You could nearly watch the "spooky" stuff happen.  Take a pass or start drinking when the opening credits start rolling.  Either way.

Why Does The Story End If The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

PG-13, 2 hr. 45 min.  Directed By:  Christopher Nolan.  Release Date:  Jul 20, 2012.

So yeah.  I think The Dark Knight Rises was consumed a little bit by its own hype.  It’s The Dark Knight plus eight years, and the outcome is more or less what we expected.  New villain(s), new madness, same old Gotham.  Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed this, but I’m going to come out and say no to this as a Best Picture nominee this year unless a member of the cast suffers an untimely death, then I’d be willing to consider it (and, if I was an actor, I’d SERIOUSLY be reconsidering any offers to work in the 2015 Batman reboot that’s already in the works).

I’m going to start with the problems I had with this, mostly because there won’t be that many, and also because I’m sure there are a few folks who are just going to gush about this movie.  Bane is the single biggest problem in this movie.  Not Tom Hardy, but the imagining of Bane:  the way he looked, the way he dressed, and ye gods, the way he talked.  Listening to Bane talk made me want to punch kittens.  It was like Sean Connery had the Ghostface voice changer and was getting to ask Marion Cotillard what her favorite scary movie was, but in the form of a double entendre.  I also had a problem with potions of Michael Caine’s Alfred.  Is it just me, or does he sound more Cockney with every passing installment of this trilogy?  If he had said a word about kippers getting scuffed, my ass was out the door.

In terms of story, I thought this was… ambitious.  Too ambitious.  It tried to take on a lot, and in many ways was an excellent end to this trilogy.  There were too many characters, too many moving pieces, and I found it a bit predictable.  Not just about Batman, but about two-thirds of what I saw in the last thirty minutes or so of the movie.  Despite that, I think Christopher Nolan did a hell of a job directing this movie.  He also seems to have continued his trend of using Hitchcockian themes in movies that aren’t intended to be like anything Hitchcock ever directed.  The impact to the suspense margin is marked.  Unfortunately, the clues to the ending are a bit ham-fisted and appear frequently.  About five minutes after I started piecing together the ending, the two Kevin Smith lookalikes behind me started talking about the ending.  For a change, I failed to ruin the tale for anyone.

No matter what, this should be a movie seen on the big screen.  I didn’t see a 3D option, but there wasn’t anything in this movie that would make 3D worthwhile.  IMAX might be cool, though, especially since the scenes of Gotham are pretty great.

I’m not going to talk about this in conjunction with the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, except to say that the two aren’t linked in the way that I’ve seen the media claim.  The mind behind this latest tragedy used the screening of this movie as a crowded venue.  The movie didn’t spawn this act of violence, he had clearly been thinking about this before The Dark Knight Rises, and the movie gave him a venue to do this terrible thing, not a motive. 

My sympathies go out to the people of Aurora who lost loved ones I feel terribly for the family of James Holmes.  When this kind of thing happens, it’s a tragedy for all of us.  Not to the same extent, but everyone should be taking stock this weekend.