C'est Non Un Blog

(July 10)

——Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006)——

The first half-hour of this movie is completely unnecessary. I mean, my God, when you have a movie that’s already over two and a half hours long, do you really need a boring first half-hour that has little action, features lots of exposition that could have just as easily been incorporated with the rest of the movie, and lots of pointless scenes that go nowhere? I think not. Someone really needed to take the editing pencil to the beginning of this screenplay. Condense people, condense! I was sure this movie was going to suck as much as a lot of the critics wanted me to believe. But once we got through that painful first section and the movie was allowed to move off with some forward momentum it became quite the thrill ride. The special effects are just jaw droppingly amazing. You know how everything has looked just a little fake since the CGI revolution took place, where you can very obviously tell that some things in a scene were made on a computer and were nowhere near the set when these things were shot? You almost never have that problem in this movie. Davy Jones in particular is just breathtakingly realistic. Holy crap! How’d they do that, you’ll say? And the Craken. Holy crow, is that thing cool. The movie, once you get past the boring first part, has all the same thrills and fun that you’d expect after seeing the first movie. And the ending? Well, let’s just say that this is the Pirate version of Empire Strikes Back.

(SEE)

——The Frighteners (Director’s Cut) (1996)——

This is a fun little horror/comedy–emphasis on the comedy–from director Peter Jackson before he did that little movie no one has ever heard of called The Lord of the Rings. Michael J. Fox is a fake ghostbuster who, after a freak accident, can see ghosts, befriends them, and then uses them to hit other people up for money by staging a fake haunting that he “cleans” up. His life kind of sucks, as he hasn’t been the same since his wife died and being a charlatan isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But when a real serial killer comes back as a ghost to rack up some more victims, Fox is forced to try the ghostbuster thing on for real before everyone he now cares about dies.

Even though the movie is supposed to take place in the US, Jackson’s locals are obviously right in the middle of Kiwi-town, which is OK, because it lends the movie some of their quirky charm. Fox is great in the movie. This isn’t a great movie that you will be talking about for weeks, but its fun enough that you’ll probably watch it over and over on rainy afternoons much more than you would those so called “great” movies.

(SEE)

——The Gambler (1974)——

What a cool movie. I’d never heard of this before Entertainment Weekly’s online DVD Insomniac reviewed it. It’s one of those Paramount cheapies you find for less than $10 bucks in the bargain bin with all that other crap. This does not belong. James Caan, in perhaps one of his greatest roles, plays a NYU English professor with a compulsive gambling problem. This guy lives for gambling, not because he likes winning money but because he loves the thrill that he could LOSE. It’s a bizarre sentiment, but you come to understand it a little better after he gives a few lectures in his classroom that relate to what is happening to him in the film. Caan’s character loves the thrill that comes from when you could lose because it means that when you do win, the win is that much more potent, like a drug. In the movie he is a perpetual loser, too. At the start of the film he has racked up a huge debt that he needs to pay off. Instead of just finding the money and paying them off though, he has to gamble to get the money back. His mother gives him the money he needs and he takes it to Vegas. There he actually wins, but loves gambling so much that he places some bets on basketball games that he then loses. The mob then finds out that he has a student in his class that plays for the basketball team that they could get to to throw a game for them…

The movie is just really well made, really classy, just the kind of brilliant cinema you’ve come to expect out of the 70’s. The ending is just fantastic.

(SPOILER ALERT)

The final scene sees Caan get into a fight with a pimp where he gets cut up really bad. He’s almost killed. But he wins the fight. The look on his face as the movie ends is priceless. He stares at the cut and all of the blood and just smiles. Another gamble, another thrill.

(MUST SEE)

(July 11)

——Sin City: Recut. Extended. Unrated. (2005)——

I was really disappointed when I finally dug into this Special Edition DVD. Don’t get me wrong, the extras on the disk are fantastic, but what I really came for was the Recut. Extended. Unrated. version of the film. I’m a fan of the theatrical version, and an even bigger fan of the comics. Huge fan of the comics, actually. Like my favorite comics ever. So I was pumped to see more pages from the comics put to film. Unfortunately this extended edition of the film disappointed in almost every way. First off, you can’t watch the extended version as one film, like the theatrical version, with the different stories all cut together. Instead you have four mini-movies, one for each of the Sin City yarns. There is no option to see them all cut together. So that sucks. The unrated thing is a joke, since the most graphic material actually made it into the theatrical version. Are you going to try to tell me that seeing a man quickly cut in half is more graphic than seeing Bruce Willis rip That Yellow Bastards nuts off? I don’t think so. But what about the extended scenes? Well, there almost aren’t any! Marv has a good one where he sees his mom and gets his gun, Gladys (the one scene I was extremely pissed to see wasn’t in the theatrical version). It’s awesome. Marv practically dances with Gladys in his hands. There is some exposition added to Hardigan’s tale, which is nice, but completely unnecessary for watching the film. And there are some nice scene extensions for Dwight’s tale, which shouldn’t have been cut to begin with. But other than that there is almost nothing new. I was really disappointed they couldn’t find anything more to add. And the fact that you can’t watch everything edited together is just retarded. I’d still recommend getting this DVD, because it does contain the original theatrical cut and a buttload of extras, but if you get this just for the new version of the film, prepare to be disappointed.

(MISS)

(July 12)

——The Baxter (2005)——

I think that the critics unfairly crapped on this film when it first came out. All of the reviews that I read talked about missed potential. That the movie could have really been about something grander and that the filmmakers wussed out, or something. It’s a shame they think that, because what this movie really is is an excellent romantic comedy in the disguise of another movie about the plight of the slighted lover. Looking at it from a different perspective shows a cleaver slight of hand feeding you the same movie you’ve seen a million times before from a very different point of view.

But what is a Baxter? Probably the best way to describe one is to give you an example and fortunately for us, the summer movie season has already given us a doozy of a Baxter. Superman Returns. There is Superman. Lois Lane. And then there is the Baxter. James Marsden (a typecast Baxter if there ever was one in the modern movie climate) plays Richard, Lois’ fiancee and supposed father of her son. He’s a great guy. Smart, nice, funny. You really like him. The only thing wrong with him is that he’s not Superman. Jeez, tough luck there, huh? That’s a Baxter. A Baxter is the nice guy who everyone likes and is with the girl before the perfect guy for the girl comes and sweeps her off of her feet. Michael Showater gives us a movie about one such Baxter, a compromise to “true love” and the epitome of “settling”.

The movie starts at the end and works its way forward. They are at the altar. “If anyone has any reason why these two should not be joined together…” and the perfect guy comes in. Elliot Sherman is a nice enough guy, he just doesn’t take those precautions that make a woman fall in love with you. We see how one goes about being a Baxter.

Or do we? The movie is actually two movies going in opposite directions. This may seem like an anti-romantic comedy but it is actually very much a romantic comedy. Anyone with half a brain can see it coming from a mile away. So the fun of the movie comes from seeing the two opposing plots moving against each other. It is really funny because if you’ve seen enough films in this genre you will definitely notice the cliches making their way through the background while missing the exact same cliches announcing themselves in the foreground. It’s like one big fun puzzle box.

Now, the movie is by no way perfect, but it does offer up more fun and wit than 90% of the “popular” crap romantic comedies out there that people for some reason eat up despite their obvious sucktitude. Go ahead, give this Baxter a shot. It might surprise you. (And, beyond anything else, it has the heavenly Michelle Williams in it, my new Hollywood crush.)

(SEE)

——-Gunner Palace (2004)——

Gunner Palace is one of Uday’s pleasure palaces that have been converted into a forward operating base for the troops in Iraq. This documentary is about some of the guys who live there, about their life in the base and out on patrol in the dangerous Iraqi streets. These are really likable guys, and the soundtrack is for the most part made by them, consisting of freestyle rhymes, spontaneous guitar riffs or tracks they’ve cut themselves. It’s really interesting to see where these guys are coming from, what they are like (not monsters in the least) and what it is like for them living in a world where a 19 year old kid could be killed any day on his way into work. It doesn’t break any real boundaries or call out any higher truths, but it is still very interesting to see where these guys are coming from. I’d recommend giving it a rental.

(SEE)

(July 13)

——Green Street Hooligans (2004)——

It feels like I’ve seen a lot of movies with Elijah Wood in them lately. Weird. Even weirder is that this film was recommended to me by the girl at Blockbuster. There is this board near the door that has everyone who works at the store’s name on it, and their latest DVD rental picks. Hers had 16 Blocks (good) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (awesome) and Green Street Hooligans (huh?). After seeing Green Street Hooligans I have to say, not a bad list.

Elijah Wood gets kicked out of Harvard because his rich kid roommate had some coke in the room and said it was Wood’s. Wood gets on a plane to England to visit his sister, who has married a Brit. There he meets the Brit’s brother (that English kid from Undeclared), a soccer (uh, er hem, football, I’m sorry) hooligan, and the Brit suggests that the hooligan take his brother-in-law out with him. He, of course, wants nothing to do with a Yank, but his brother insists and they end up being stuck with each other. After the football match, Wood goes off on his own and gets jumped by a rival firm (ie, football gang) who saw him at the game. His fellow hooligans come in to help him out, starting a giant rumble. Wood doesn’t do that bad in the fight and thus becomes part of the firm.

Not everyone is for this though. The previous best friend has a huge resentment against Wood, who has quickly become one of the core members of the firm. Also, no one knows that he was a journalism major, because hooligans HATE journalists. The fights get bigger, the tension grows higher, until Wood realizes that fighting can be good for the soul, but you’ve got to know when to not throw a punch. All and all, a pretty solid, entertaining flick.

(SEE)

(July 14)

——Elizabethtown (2005)——

I was surprised. I thought this was supposed to suck. That’s what every major critic would have you believe when the movie first came out last year. I rented it on a whim, just because I liked Cameron Crowe movies, and what do you know, the movie (aside for a few minor parts) doesn’t suck! It’s actually kind of good. I do agree that Orlando Bloom can’t carry a movie by himself, though. I haven’t seen him in anything yet that makes me think he could. But still, this movie is really good, really heartfelt, and really fun.

Bloom is a rich and successful shoe designer that makes a shoe that is supposed to change the world, but then the shoe is recalled and his career is over (the movie never says what the shoe does or what’s wrong with it, unfortunately). He’s about to kill himself in one of the most bizarre suicides ever when his sister calls, telling him that his dad is dead and he has to go to Elizabethtown, Kentucky to pick up the body. On the way there he meets a creepy, needy and yet somehow charming flight attendant (Kirsten Dunst) who for some reason really likes him and lets him have her phone number. That night, alone in the hotel, when no one else will pick up the phone he calls her, and they talk all night long. You just hear segments of their conversations, not whole thoughts but you know what they are talking about anyway. Elizabethtown is actually a really touching, beautiful love story set on the backdrop of going to a funeral and seeing family you almost never see. It’s quirky, often very funny. It’s one of those romantic comedies a guy might actually sit through because it’s not all mushy (and crap). I had one real problem with the movie, though. At the end, Dunst gives Bloom an awesome roadtrip book filled with pictures, maps, and CDs designed for specific songs to play at specific times during the trip. It’s totally sweet. Except she, according to the movie’s logic, made this giant book in like four hours time. What? How the fuck did she do that?

Anyway, this is a seriously underrated movie. Leagues above Vanilla Sky. Check this out if you get the chance.

(SEE)

——Masters of Horror: Homecoming (2005)——

To be honest, this Masters of Horror episode doesn’t really have that many typical horror moments at all. I mean, this is a zombie movie where the zombies want to vote, not eat people. You don’t see that every day. Joe Dante took this opportunity not to craft a stylish horror film but to create an incredible political commentary on our current day and age. While that means that this film has a much deeper meaning for allegory than any of the other episodes, it also unfortunately means the actual horror elements leave a lot to be desired.

I think it says a lot when the scariest part of the film happens early on at a Fox News-type political talk show, where an Anne Coulter type character, a tele-evangelist and a White House spokesman find creative ways to defend the war in Iraq and attack hurt mothers who want to know why their sons had to die. No zombies yet. Just disgusting political discourse that could have actually been pre-recorded right off of Fox News. See, the White House spokesman wishes that the dead soldiers could come back to tell us what they fought for and his wish comes true. Except the zombies are pissed off. They don’t know why they died. They find their voice in the current election, where they place their vote to oust the current president. In another unfortunate real life twist, the government loses the election but rigs the election anyway, causing the zombies to run loose on Capital Hill.

This episode is really well done and surprisingly poignant. It just lacks a little on the horror side. Which when I started buying these disks, I wanted fun horror. Not angry moral attacks against our current administration. That’s not really a bad thing though.

(SEE)

(July 15)

——Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)——

If you are like me and knew about the whole Enron thing but at the same time didn’t actually know anything about what it was really all about, then this is an essential movie for you. I learned A LOT. Wow. This is a crazy documentary. You’ll be yelling at the screen, asking the world and God why and how this could happen. It’s just crazy. If you don’t know anything about Enron, let me fill in a little for you. Essentially this company got away with making up their own numbers so that their stock prices always went up. Apparently there is this crazy form of economics where you can basically tell people what you think are going to be the next quarters and they buy or sell based on that information you give them. Enron took full advantage of this system. Even if you were hemorrhaging money right now, you could tell the investors on Wall Street that you expected another quarter of profits and they would just believe you based on your word. That’s pretty much how the company crumbled, when someone actually called them on what their numbers actually were instead of what they projected them to be.

The description of these head honchos at Enron is just horrifying. Watch this back to back with a documentary of the rise of the Nazi party and notice how little difference there is between both institutions’ Darwin-esq attitude of survival of the fittest. These were pretty much smart guys who thought that as long as they could use their brains to stay one step ahead of everyone else they could continue to rake in the money. And this theory works for a long while. California is what screwed it all up. What I didn’t realize was that Enron was directly responsible for Governor Gray Davis getting kicked out of California in favor of the frickin’ Terminator. I’m serious. Remember those rolling blackouts? Enron was playing the power grids like the stock market, artificially boosting the need for power and in turn raising the prices of power. They made a fortune, Californians paid for it. Madness.

This, I think, should be essential viewing for anyone who cares about the world they live in.

(MUST SEE)

——Mysterious Skin (2004)——

Every once and a while you see a film that just floors you. Blam! Holy crap, what did I just see? Mysterious Skin wasn’t anything like I thought it was going to be, and that’s a good thing. This was one of the rare times that I actually sat through the entire end credits, just blown away by the film that I had just seen (it didn’t hurt that the final song was a beautiful Sigur Ros track). The story is about two teens in Kansas who couldn’t be more different and yet share a similar life changing experience. One as a boy experienced blackouts and periods of missing time where he would come to with a bloody nose. He becomes obsessed with UFOs, thinking he was abducted after seeing a special on TV with similar experiences to his own. The other (played by that kid from 3^rd Rock from the Sun) had a relationship with his Little League coach as a small boy, but he actually liked it. Grown up and gay, he’s constantly looking for this ideal relationship, which leads him to a life of prostitution, which he enjoys. The two of them share a common experience that you might be able to guess but will still surprise and shock you when you actually see and hear it for yourself. This movie is so raw, so different, so emotionally stacked. The acting, script, cinematography, direction and soundtrack are all unforgettable. For some it might be hard to watch, because it has some very disturbing parts, but the payoff is so worth it. This movie will hit you like a truck full of bricks. Oh man, I loved this movie. You don’t find many that work on you so well as this one does.

(DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH)

——Palindromes (2004)——

After Todd Solondz’s disappointing Storytelling this was a welcome surprise. It still isn’t as good as some of his earlier films, but I found myself getting into it anyway. It has a weird sort of gimmick, one I’m still not entirely sure I’m on board for. The story is about a girl who gets pregnant and is taken to an abortion clinic by her mother to get rid of it. After the abortion she runs off on her own little Odyssey, trying to get pregnant again. Along the way she happens to stay with Momma Sunshine, a Christian mother of children with disabilities that were abandoned by their parents. She also happens to be very anti-abortion. The gimmick is that the main girl who goes through all of this is played by, I think, nine different actresses. It’s an interesting way to tell a story. I’m not sure I get the whole point of it, but it is still interesting. The movie, likewise brings up a lot of issues without answering any major questions, leaving it to you to decide what really is right or wrong about the movie, or if there is anything right or wrong with it at all. Todd Solondz always wants to get you talking, and this movie is no exception.

(SEE)

(July 16)

——House of Games (1987)——

Until this, I hadn’t really seen a David Mamet film that I liked. Sure, I could admire the craft and all that crap, but I didn’t really like the movies. Glengarry Glen Ross was just too wordy for me. Fine, I admit it! Even though I quote parts of it all the time I just didn’t like the movie. I liked this movie a lot though. And it’s a con man movie at that! You guys know how I feel about con man movies. The reason why this movie works, I think, is because after the obvious con sequence ends, the movie doesn’t. The movie keeps going, developing the characters and finishing their character arcs, just like The Grifters does. It’s very surprising.

House of Games is about a psychiatrist who is a little bored with her job. When one of her patients almost commits suicide because of a debt he has with a local card shark, she goes down to the House of Games to sort it all out for him. There she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna) who agrees to cancel out the debt if she helps him out in a card game by catching another players tell for him. She sees the tell, let’s Mike know about it, and he increases his bet, even though he can’t cover it, because he knows he is going to win. He doesn’t though. The tell was not a tell. The psychiatrist goes to cover the amount owed until she realizes that she is being conned. But instead of being furious she wants to know how they did it. She wants to know how the con game is played. Using the excuse that she is researching a new book, she finds the excitement in her life that she thought she was missing. But things don’t go all roses for her…

It’s a slick, nice and understated thriller that plays on character and mood quite effectively. The acting is top notch. It’s another one of those movies you’ll pass right on by in the video store, but should pick up anyway.

(SEE)

——May (2002)——

Fans of horror, or just fans of quirky character studies, should absolutely see this film. I’d never heard of May, but after watching Lucky McKee’s fantastic Master of Horror episode, Sick Girl, I knew that I had to see this. And it didn’t disappoint. Angela Bettis is in both movies, and has quickly become my new favorite actress. She’s just fantastic, new and unique to watch.

May is the story of a girl who grew up cross-eyed and had to wear an eye-patch, which freaked a lot of people out. Thus, she didn’t really have any friends growing up. Her mother gave her a doll that she made to be her friend instead, except that May wasn’t actually allowed to take the doll out of its box. This is how she grew up. Finally May gets corrective contacts that make her look normal and she goes out looking for friends. Specifically a boyfriend. Years of having just a doll you can’t even touch as a friend has a tendency to make one a little weird, though. She falls in love with this guy, played brilliantly by Jeremy Sisto, and they actually start to go out. He kind of likes how weird she is. That is until she watches a cannibal love story student film he made and thinks that that is how he likes to make love, thus biting him on the lip and drawing blood. He dumps her. She has a girl at work who falls in love with her, Anna Faris, so May thinks that she should really be with girls. Faris is a big ol’ lesbian whore though, which puts May off. May’s mother always said that if you can’t find any friends, make one, so May, in a homicidal rage goes out to do just that…

I’d still recommend this movie to people who don’t really watch horror movies, because the gruesome stuff doesn’t really happen until the very, very end, and up until that point the movie is just a great little indie about trying to find friends in the big city. It’s great drama, great stuff. You should totally see this.

(MUST SEE)

(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)