(July 3)

——Superman Returns (2006)——

I was all prepared to hate this movie going into it. I had read some comments by some uber-geeks about the plot of the film that made my inner nerd’s blood boil. OK, this is going to blow and when it does, BLAM! I’ll be ready for it. So I sat down in the theater, watched the opening credits fly across the screen (this is a movie that demands to be seen on the big screen. Home viewing just won’t compare) while listening to John Williams classic Superman theme play. And then something happened. The movie didn’t suck. It was actually quite good. Sure, it drags a little at the end. But it was still quite awesome despite that. First Batman Begins and now Superman Returns. If Joss Whedon can ever get that Wonder Woman movie off the ground it looks like DC might be the new king of comic book movies. Eat it Marvel.

Long before I read any reviews of the actual film I was still wary of Bryan Singer’s premise that the movie should take place after Superman II and use footage of Marlon Brando from the early films. Shouldn’t this series be updated for a new audience, like they did with Batman Begins? Well, it is and it isn’t. I actually liked that it took place a little later in the chronology. The film manages to work in Superman’s origin story without having to recap all of that boring crap we’ve already seen a million times. Sure, we know that Clark is in love with Lois. We don’t need to see that again. It’s much more interesting to see how their relationship has progressed now that Superman has disappeared for five years and Lois has gotten over him by hooking up with the X-Men’s Cyclops and writing an article called “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” Ouch.

But the world does need Superman, because the world still has a Lex Luthor. Lex wants to use Krypton crystals to grow a new world and erase the old one, thus making him the richest man in the world because he will own all of the land. It’s kind of a shit plan, because if he destroys all the rest of the world where is anyone going to come up with the wealth that Lex so desires? I don’t think he’s really thought this one through. He’s more obsessed with showing up Superman. Poor guy leaves for a little while to try and find his home world and everyone dumps on him.

But why is the movie good? For me, I love any superhero film that can give me that magical feeling I’ve always had reading comics as a kid. There is just something magical about seeing Superman save a plane full of people, or watching the bullets of a gattling gun just bounce of his chest as he saves the day. Singer does it all right. I only wish Superman had some big baddie to fight at the end of the movie. The movie gets the powers right, though. The original tagline for the first Superman movie was, “You’ll believe a man can fly…” The tagline for this movie should be, “You’ll believe again that Superman is cool.”

(MUST SEE)

——Thunderbolt (1995)——

I saw this on the shelf at Blockbuster. Never heard of it. But it had Jackie Chan on the cover and it wasn’t one of his latest crappy American movies. You gotta know I’m a sucker for Jackie Chan, so I picked it up. At first I thought it was a rip off of The Fast and the Furious, but the dates didn’t match up. This was made before The Fast and the Furious. Then a little later I figured it out. This is a rip off of Days of Thunder, the Tom Cruise NASCAR movie. Days of Thunder. Thunderbolt. Get it? (There is actually no reference at all to Thunderbolt in the whole movie.)

The plot? Jackie is a race car driver who now works on cars full-time in his father’s shop. A crazy American comes to Hong Kong for illegal street racing to fire himself up. The cops enlist some of the shop owners and the news media to help them stop the street racing. Jackie somehow gets into a high speed pursuit with the psycho, which lets him know that Jackie’s got the goods. So he kidnaps Jackie’s sisters in order to get Jackie to race against him. Jackie of course kicks a whole lot of ass, but still has to race.

The direction isn’t that great in this movie, but it gets by. There is a little too much slo-mo used in one fight though, a personal pet peeve of mine. There is nothing truly spectacular about this movie that you haven’t seen in a bunch of Jackie Chan movies before. Except for the race sequences. They are quite good. If you’re going to watch this film, it better be for the races. The final race in particular is pretty damn cool. Asian stock car racing is a lot more interesting than NASCAR. If you are into that sort of thing, then this is

(SEE)

——Thumbsucker (2005)——

I liked this movie a lot without actually loving it. It’s as if the movie gets off to a good start but just can’t pull it in for the dismount. Still, if you are looking for a good indie movie to rent, you could do a lot worse than this movie.

The title character of this film is a teenage boy who still sucks his thumb. He doesn’t know why he still does it. It just gives him comfort. Of course it also makes him a loser to his father and has caused a lot of costly orthodontist work to fix his teeth. His brother has lost respect in him and his mother is in love with a drug addicted TV star. Just your average messed up indie movie family. When he becomes distracted by a girl he likes but can’t get close to because he won’t tell her that he sucks his thumb, his guidance counselor suggests that he might have ADD and wants to put him on pills. This is a play off of America’s willingness to put anyone who shows even the slightest distraction in class on pills. He takes the pills and feels great. He reads Moby Dick straight through in one night. He rejoins the debate team and becomes its aggressive take-no-prisoners star. It isn’t until another kid points out that the pills he has been taking are essentially speed for those who don’t have ADD that he realizes why he has been so productive. He goes off the pills, becomes a stoner, and learns a thing or two about life from a washed up hippie and a drugged out TV star. You know, just like your time in high school.

The film was shot in Oregon and makes abundant use of the beautiful locals. The cast is great. The direction works. The screenplay doesn’t quite come through at the end though. It feels like the resolution is all just a little too neat and tidy, as if the writer wasn’t really sure of what the message of his movie should be. Still, good flick. I’d see it again.

(SEE)

——Undead (2003)——

The sad thing about Undead is that it really doesn’t understand what kind of movie it wants to be. When I originally saw the trailer I thought I was in for a really bitching Australian zombie movie. It really kind of sucks though, making it I think the first movie I have ever seen where I hated it all the way through only to then love the ending. How the heck does that happen? I mean, jeez, this movie should have been made about what happens at the end. Because what it actually is about is just stupid.

Undead doesn’t really know what movie it is. Is it a horror flick? No, because it’s really not that scary. A comedy? No, it is definitely not funny, trying way too hard for fairly obvious jokes. Is it a cool-ass action movie? It tries to be, with its numerous slo-mo homages to John Woo and flying pistols, but its lead character has absolutely zero charisma. And then it throws in the whole sci-fi thing. Don’t even get me started on the whole aliens subplot. The special effects are really well done. I guess that’s one positive thing I can say about it. But I will repeat again that the movie should really be about what happens at the end. Because the whole rest of the movie is complete shit. I hated this movie. I can’t often say that about a zombie movie. Zombie fans beware.

(AVOID)

(July 4)

——The Neighbor No. 13 (2004)——

Damn the Japanese are weird. That’s all I could think, watching this movie. Nowhere else in the world do I think you can consistently find movies and fucked up as you find in Japan. Maybe now Korea. But still. Neighbor No. 13 is a meek mannered Bruce Banner who has an inner Hulk trapped inside of him. He’s really a nice guy, but he was picked on mercilessly as a child, which has caused a split personality to develop alongside of his own personality. That split personality just happens to look completely different than him though, one of the many weird qualities of this film. Neighbor No. 13 has just moved in right below one of the punks that tormented him in school and now it is time for revenge, despite the fact that he actually kind of likes the guy’s wife and cute little kid. The split personality will not be denied his revenge. The movie is pretty well directed and creepy in just that way that Japanese movies tend to be. I don’t know how to describe it. If you’ve seen a creepy Japanese movie you know what I’m talking about, because it is unlike any other movie anywhere else in the world. It won’t win any awards, but if you like this type of movie you will probably dig The Neighbor No. 13.

(SEE)

——Baadasssss! (2003)——

This is a movie about the making of a movie, done both as a straight narrative film with bits of documentary thrown in just to keep you guessing. The movie? Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. There was nothing ever like it in Hollywood before. A movie made by a black man for a black audience. Mario Van Peebles has made a film about how his father single-handedly created a new genre that would become insanely popular and influential in the 70’s: Blacksploitation. Of course no one thought it was a good idea and no one wanted to make the film. A movie about a black man banging chicks and getting beat up by the corrupt white cops? Who will see this? It’ll start riots. Van Peebles had to make the whole damn thing himself, and the movie is an incredible story of how far he was willing to take that vision, even when it meant his health might be in danger. It’s a great story. Mario plays his father and does a damn fine job of it. The rest of the supporting cast is just as good. It’s a fun movie. If you’d like to learn a little bit more about cinema history and want a good story to boot, this movie is for you.

(SEE)

——The Grey Zone (2001)——

There is just something about the dialogue in this movie that drives me up the wall. Writer (and director) Tim Blake Nelson should be shot. Does anyone really talk like that? His rhythm of speech is the literary equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. Oh my God, make it stop! It sounds so frickin’ fake and artificial, as if it came from a play and not the camps of Auschwitz (oh wait, it was a play. Hmmm…). Which is a shame, because the movie does actually deal with a really interesting story, that of the Sonderkommandos in Auschwitz, the Jewish prisoners that were given special privileges and an extended lease on life in return for cleaning up after the extermination of their fellow Jews in the gas chambers. This is the story of the only revolt against the Nazis in the history of Auschwitz, where they managed to destroy half of the ovens in the camp, which were never repaired before the end of the war. It’s an interesting story, but you would never get that from this movie because everyone is SO FREAKIN’ ANNOYING.

And Harvey Keitel as a Nazi? Come on…

(AVOID)

——In the Company of Men (1997)——

It is extremely rare to find a movie that can manage to balance itself so carefully between cruelty and humor as In the Company of Men does. It’s one of those movies where you are not really sure if you are supposed to laugh or cry at the end. And that it can do that and not make you angry with it at the same time is a sure sign that you have just seen a great movie.

Two businessmen go to a small town for six weeks for the corporation that they work for in order to get that new local office up and running. Before getting into town they come up with a cruel game. Women have torn their hearts out in the past and it is time that there be a little payback. The game is that they will both find some sweet, unsuspecting small town girl and both start a relationship with her, leading her along until they both ditch on her at the same time and fuck her over like they’ve been fucked over. The alpha male of the two (Aaron Eckhart) comes up with the game because he wants to see someone suffer, and his timid friend, who has just been rejected by the girl he has proposed to, goes along with it. They find the perfect girl: a deaf, sweet typist in the office and they both go for it. It’s all a big joke until the timid friend actually starts to develop feelings for her. Unfortunately for him, she’s fallen in love with the other friend.

The movie is mostly talking, done for super low budget but with a first class script. It tears apart the psyche of the aggressive male businessman, both in how he views his job and in how taking home with him that dog eat dog world affects his love life. It’s a really fine piece of movie making, well worth you checking out.

(MUST SEE)

——Mean Creek (2004)——

What a movie! This is one of those movies that I heard about but never heard enough good buzz at the time to make me want and pick it up. I just kind of passed it by, which makes me so glad that I got that Blockbuster discount card so that I could find this on the shelf and rent it. It’s such a good movie. The plot is very simple but the execution is flawless, sucking you into the story and making you permanently involved. This is one of those movies that sticks with you.

Rory Culkin is a pretty cool kid who gets beat on by a fat loser in school. His older brother and his friends think that the bully should get a little of his own medicine, but Rory doesn’t want them to do anything that would hurt him. Finally they come up with a “flawless” plan. They invite the bully to Rory’s fake birthday party, knowing that he really just suffers from low self-esteem and no friends, and will jump at the chance to go to a birthday party. They take a row boat out on the creek and at some point during the journey will start playing a game of truth or dare that will end with the bully taking all of his clothes off, jumping into the creek and then having to run naked home when they leave him. Rory’s girlfriend comes along for the trip though, and doesn’t like what they are going to do to him. So they put a stop to the plan. Not everyone is happy about that decision though. The oldest boy really wants to do what they came out there looking to do. It doesn’t help the bully’s case when he starts shooting off his mouth, annoying everyone in the boat. He goes over the top finally and gets pushed off the boat, bumping his head, which leads to him drowning. An innocent prank leads to a boy’s death. The kids don’t know what to do. They’re traumatized.

It is a simple plot, like I said before, but the writing, acting and direction is extremely spot-on fantastic. It’s one of those movies that creates a real time and place on screen. This could be you or your friends in high school. How they act, how they react is extremely real and affecting. The cinematography of the Oregon wilderness is amazingly beautiful. The child actors at no point seem like actors. This could be a documentary. Fantastic. See this, alright?

(MUST SEE)

(July 5)

——Criminal (2004)——

I’ve expressed before to you guys my feelings on con-man movies. Sometimes they work. Very often they don’t. This is one of those movies that while pleasant enough, just doesn’t work. You can see the con coming from a mile away. It’s so OBVIOUS. Which makes it really annoying that the one getting hit by the con, a con-freakin’-man, doesn’t have any suspicions of what is going on. Give me a break. Are you really trying to tell me that at no point does this guy ever see a con coming? The set-up couldn’t be more classic. It’s got all of the staples of a classic long con. Beyond that, most of the people involved in the con have BIG reasons to want revenge against this guy. Wouldn’t that make you a tad bit suspicious? It all seems too good to be true. And it is. I think we are supposed to think that it was his greed that made him fall into this trap, but the writers never did their homework enough to make me buy it. Sorry. Which is a shame, because otherwise this movie is pretty entertaining. I’m going to have to give it though a big ol’

(MISS)

——Happy Endings (2005)——

This is an entertaining little movie about many lives intertwined, a sort of Magnolia-lite, only with a lot more comedy. It’s not great, but definitely very fun, in no small part because of little title cards that intrude upon the movie every once and a while to tell us things the action on the screen can’t reveal, like the things people are really thinking or where they are going to be in five years. Lisa Kudrow is in it and she is fantastic. She’s plays an abortion counselor who as a kid had a kid with her stepbrother (now gay). The stepbrother thinks that she got an abortion. A young filmmaker comes to her telling her that he has found her son and wants to film their reunion, but she doesn’t want to play ball. Instead to get the information she agrees to make a film about her boyfriend’s job as a massage therapist/gigolo/illegal immigrant, which is mostly fiction. But whatever. She actually finds herself quite enjoying the making of the movie. Meanwhile her gay stepbrother thinks that his lesbian friends used his boyfriend’s sperm to make their baby without telling them so that they wouldn’t be full fathers of the child. Maggie Gyllenhaal joins a band with a gay drummer, sleeps with him, then moves in on his rich father (Tom Arnold), trying to get his money. Once she finally discovers that she actually loves him though, she’s pregnant and the jig is up. She doesn’t know whose kid it is and doesn’t want to know, so she goes to the abortion clinic to see…Lisa Kudrow. That’s right!

The movie isn’t perfect, but it is fun and entertaining enough to make it worth a rental. It definitely has its moments. I like the stuff with Kudrow the best, but it’s all pretty good.

(SEE)

(July 6)

——Valley of the Dolls (1967)——

Yep, this movie is pretty camp-tastic. No, it’s not better than Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (although that might depend on what your definition of “better” is). It is a pretty fun and ridiculous look at how fame can chew up your soul. The movie is a tale of three glamorous women whose lives take different turns after they become friends. The main character remains the best off at the end, although she has plenty of troubles of her own. She’s a beauty (Barbara Perkins) who leaves her quaint small town rich Connecticut values to go off to the seedy NYC. There she meets a man and gets a modeling contract, but the man won’t commit to her, leaving her emotionally ravaged as the woman he will sleep with but not marry. She makes friends with a plucky young singer (Patty Duke) who is kicked out of a play by an aging starlet because her talent would eclipse the stars own. She goes on to become famous anyway, getting huge record contracts and movie deals, but her ego becomes too big for its own good and she starts boozing it up and popping pills to compensate. Some of the best scenes in the movie involve Duke in rehab after going off the deep end. She really amps of the campy goodness of this movie. The final girl is a no-talent actress (Sharon Tate) with a great body who marries a heartthrob who develops a disease that destroys his mind. To help pay for his care she has to make European art films, or in other words, the porn of the day. Things, uh, don’t end well for her. This is one of those cautionary tales of life in the big city and its corrupting powers. Don’t pop pills. That’s a big message right there. Otherwise, just enjoy the ride.

(SEE)

(July 7)

——Thinking XXX (2006)——

The title of this movie looks great in print, but how are you supposed to say it, exactly? Thinking Triple X? Thinking X-X-X? I’m just wondering. This DVD has some of the most surprising packaging of any DVD I’ve ever seen. On the front cover is Jenna Jameson and on the back is a male porn star whose name I don’t know, both fully clothed. Slide off the slipcover though to see the two of them in the exact same pose, only butt-naked. Whoa. I was not expecting that the first time I opened the DVD. It does fit in with the theme of the film though, which is basically a documentary shot while Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, a famous portrait photographer, was creating his lately book, XXX: 30 Porn-Star Portraits. He shot all of the actors and actresses for his book in duel poses, one clothed, one nude. This is basically a behind the scenes documentary with some interviews with the participants to help tell us a little bit more about what it is like to be a porn-star.

I always find stuff like this interesting, but I was a little disappointed that the same group that was interviewed wasn’t a little bit more diverse. Of course they are all porn-STARS, so we don’t get to hear any of the stories of the people who get used and spit out by the industry. All the people interviewed here seem happy to be porn-stars and gloss over most of the bad of the industry. So what’s left then? Well, I actually found most of the behind the scenes stuff with the photographer to be the most interesting. These aren’t Hustler pin-ups that this guy is shooting. They’re real art portraits, pulling a depth and humanity out of these performers known mostly for the inhumanity of the industry they work in. It’s worth a glimpse if you are at all the sort of person who is interested in such things.

(SEE)

(July 8)

——Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)——

This movie is so frickin’ cool. You may remember that I named it one of the best movies that I saw in January. If that isn’t recommendation enough, I don’t know what is. And since I already reviewed this hilarious neo-noir before, I’m not going to review it again with so many other reviews to write, no matter how much I may want to. Sorry. For another day.

(DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH)

(July 9)

——The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1947)——

This is a quality, well-made film, but it never quite lived up to its classic status when I was watching it. Perhaps it is just one of those movies that was so classic when it came out and so many people ripped it off in the time since then that it no longer packs the same punch that it once did. I don’t know. A few scenes in it still hold that magic. The one that immediately comes to mind is when Walter Huston’s old prospector goes to a Mexican village to save a child that drowned in the river and never woke up. It has a magical, mystical, maybe even spiritual aspect to it that will just make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. And of course the ending of the movie carries all sorts of Greek tragedy gravity to it. But the rest just felt overly familiar to me.

The story is about two down and out Americans scraping by in Mexico, who hear stories about finding gold from an old prospector and decide that they should take what little money they have left to try and strike it rich in the mountains. The old prospector warns them of the evil things bags of gold do to men, but the two younger men shrug that off saying that that could never be them. The old prospector goes along with it because he doesn’t really know how to do anything better. Things go pretty smoothly at first, that is until the gold finally starts to stack up, and then the paranoia starts up. Humphrey Bogart is the worst of all (and of course the one at the start of the film who said that he would be the least susceptible to greed) almost immediately falling prey to his thoughts of the dishonesty of the others. He goes mad by the end, taking all the gold from the others (ironically, because he thinks they are trying to take it from him), which doesn’t end well for him.

The movie is shot extremely well, with a tight script and some great performances, and yet I never fully got into it. I don’t know why. Like I said before, it is probably just the familiarity with the material. It’s definitely worth seeing though.

(SEE)