Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker, 2001) http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/3box.gif

I have seen other Indian films, but they're mostly older ones. I enjoyed this film quite a lot, and my rating would be on the high side of those boxes, but I believe how much you enjoy the movie will depend on your tolerance of the sport cricket. I'm not an expert on cricket, but I watched some when I was in New Zealand a couple of years ago. This film is three hours and 45 minutes long, and the last hour and 20 minutes is all about a three-day-long cricket match. To me, it flew by.
http://s2.dmcdn.net/XODX5/x240-902.jpg
It's set at the end of the 19th century in Central India. There's basically a Snidely Whiplash-type English captain who hates the Natives and is going to charge them double the tax (lagaan) of grains, even though the country is in the second year of a drought. The only way they can get out of paying the tax is to beat the British Army in a cricket match. The film tells you right upfront that it's completely untrue and basically a fantasy alternative universe, but the characters' reactions are certainly believable enough; at least considering it's a David Vs. Goliath story.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4c/32...97b21aef13.jpg
As far as the musical numbers go: there are seven of them, spaced about a half hour apart. My faves were certainly the first two where there was lots of dancing under the day and night sky. The songs are actually quite catchy pop, but a slight annoyance was that they were recorded totally differently than the rest of the movie. In that way, they kinda sound like they were done in an echo chamber. That's a minor quibble though.

Atonement (Joe Wright, 2007)

https://assets.rbl.ms/11892909/980x.jpg
Ian McEwan's novel is brought to the screen by Joe Wright, using much of the same muscular style he displayed in the recent Pride & Prejudice. The camera is often moving furiously and following its characters wherever they go. Wright is equally adept at staging quiet, intimate exchanges and enormously-complex shots involving numerous characters. Atonement is a good film, and it tries to do something few films attempt; it wants to tell a story of a doomed romance through different perspectives, ultimately challenging the viewer to question whether what they are seeing is true or not. Of course, films aren't "true" and never will be, but this one attempts to intermingle literature, movies, and history, all at the service of telling a story about what one highly-creative character believes she sees, the horrible repercussions on her loved ones due to her acts and how she attempts to atone for them.

Although the film is beautifully shot, has a wonderful musical score and sound design, and is well-acted, I wasn't as emotionally-involved in what I was watching as I felt I should have been. The movie is clever, but part of that cleverness involves turning who you believe are the lead characters into supporting ones. Although I was never bored, it was only at the end when the last of the film's twists are revealed that I came close to being moved. I certainly recommend the movie, and I've come across many viewers who believe it to be one of the best they've ever seen. Although it doesn't exactly cover the same ground, I prefer Karel Reisz's and Harold Pinter's version of John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman as a story about perspectives and expectations, but you know me; I'm different... and old.

P.S. Some people obviously prefer No Country For Old Men for a rumination on similar themes.

Catch-22 (Mike Nichols, 1970)

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/...1999698318.jpg
Deeply flawed, but highly-absurdist WWII satire with a tremendous cast: Alan Arkin, Bob Balaban, Martin Balsam, Richard Benjamin, Susanne Benton, Peter Bonerz, Marcel Dalio, Liam Dunn, Norman Fell, Art Garfunkel, Jack Gilford, Charles Grodin, Buck Henry, John Korkes, Richard Libertini, Bob Newhart, Austin Pendleton, Anthony Perkins, Paula Prentiss, Martin Sheen, John Voight, Orson Welles, Elizabeth Wilson, etc. The movie begins with one of the greatest single shots in film history, involving the actual departure of many bombers from a Mediterranean landing strip, leadng up to the introduction of some of the key characters, and culminating in the knifing of the lead character. David Watkin's cinematography is mind-boggling, but this opening scene pretty much takes the cake, at least cinematically.
https://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/...22-620x349.jpg
The film is a rarity: a big-budget, American surrealistic, absurdist comedy. It contains some incredible scenes, including what happens to Snowden, some scenes which truly look like the cast are flying the bombers in the sky, and the finale, which attempts to cinematically top the opening shot, but falls just a bit short. This is the kind of movie where you spend equal amounts of time laughing out loud and yelling "WTF?" at the TV. It's full of entertainment, but I believe most people will have lots of problems with the last half. Even so, this is one film I believe everyone should watch. As far as I know, this is the only cinematic version of Catch-22 which we currently have, so love it for now.

Why Does Herr R. Run Amok? (Rainer Werner Fassbinder/Michael Fengler, 1970) Art House Rating

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-c...400/HerrR3.JPG
First off, I've only watched this once, and I will rewatch it at least one more time, but I might as well call them as I see them and go ahead and share. Fassbinder wrote and directed this film with Fengler, who produced several of his other films. I'm not sure how the directorial responsibilities were split, but it seems to fit into Fassbinder's early period where he was translating his love of antitheatre into antifilm. This movie follows an almost archetypal Fassbinder protagonist, Herr Raab (Kurt Raab), who works in a small Munich office as a draftsman. His wife (Lilith Ungerer) has dreams he will get a promotion and that she can move up from the middle class to the upper middle class. The couple has a young son who seems to suffer from ADHD, but the film was made before there was such an acronym.

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w500/gel3...UoWq1GO5Dv.jpg

This is basically a series of scenes which depict how Herr R. is mostly a withdrawn worker who gets headaches at the end of almost every work day. Everybody in the film seems to think that the epitome of existence is smoking, and most of the characters come across as human enough, but they are completely vapid and unaware of things outside of their own world. Occasionally, Herr R. seems to almost be mentally-deficient, but mostly he's just quiet. My main problem with the film and why I give it the lowest rating of any Fassbinder yet which I've seen is not because the film is incompetent or even induces Fassbinder's desired effect on the viewer. The problem is the film is just too realistically banal. The characters talk but never say anything. There is no communication going on. I admit that this actually adds to the power of the film when something actually significant happens in the final 10 minutes. The viewer feels like a fly on the wall, with Fassbinder's technique of (as always) filming scenes in long takes, but here the camerawork seems to be more home-movieish. I felt like a fly watching this alright, but long before the tragic ending arrives, I wished that I had been squashed by a flyswatter.

For the record, I was ready to give this movie a before the final 15 minutes. It may strike me as a work of genius next time, but no matter what I think, it's an oppressive film with less cinematic art than other Fassbinder films I've seen. It still contains truth, but it seems too strident and one-note to get anywhere near his best films which are both honest and highly-cinematic.

The Beloved Rogue (Alan Crosland, 1927)

http://www.silentsaregolden.com/feat...der4/br004.jpghttp://www.basilrathbone.net/films/i...ing/iiwk37.jpg

This is one of the best silent films I have ever seen. It's full of action, adventure, romance, comedy, violence and poetry. John Barrymore shines in the role of poet François Villon, who, in early 15th-century France, becomes the biggest enemy AND friend of King Louis XI (Conrad Veidt). Villon leads a group of ragamuffin criminal patriots, and he hates the dreaded usurper, the Duke of Burgundy, as much as Louis fears him. Although Villon is condemned to death by his actions, he eventually earns the right to try to save France and win the hand of Louis' beautiful ward Charlotte (Marceline Day), who has basically been offered to one of Burgundy's henchmen as a sacrifice.

One of my favorite Ronald Colman films is the talkie version of this, called If I Were King (1938), wittily adapted by Preston Sturges. Both Colman and Basil Rathbone as Louis are wickedly hilarious, and that film has much more humor sprinkled throughout. But this version has Barrymore doing an impressive "impression" of Douglas Fairbanks. Barrymore is sliding across rooftops and avoiding adversaries at almost every turn. Also, this film is much more violent than the 1938 film. Villon is captured by Burgundy, whipped, tortured and burned, and that isn't exactly detailed in the Colman version. I highly recommend both versions of this story. This silent one is on DVD, but for some idiotic reason, If I Were King isn't.

Note: Alan Crosland was a talented silent film director who died much too young in 1936 in an auto accident. Before The Beloved Rogue, he worked with Barrymore in the almost-equally impressive Don Juan, and after this film, he directed the immortal The Jazz Singer.

Val Lewton: The Man in the Shadows (Kent Jones, 2007)

http://www.cinemaldito.com/wp-conten...9707105196.jpg
This a very interesting, yet low-key TCM presentation of genius producer Val Lewton's contribution to the world of cinema from the 1930s-1950s. Martin Scorsese produces and narrates, and he maintains Lewton's subtle style. Although this documentary does present plenty of scenes from Lewton's seminal films (Cat People, I Walked With a Zombie, The Leopard Man, The Seventh Victim, Isle of the Dead, The Body Snatcher, Bedlam, etc.), some of the more interesting parts of the documentary are when they detail how Lewton was a protege of David O. Selznick, and he actually conceived the classic scene in Gone With the Wind of the Confederate casualties, a scene which may have cost more than the budgets of his best films. It's also interesting how Lewton tried to make his films as personal as possible, but I don't believe that the average viewer in the 1940s would have realized that a film was a Val Lewton film, at least just through advertising.

Lewton was a much-more private man that Selznick. He pretty much tried to make his films without letting viewers know that he had a thematic visualization to his work. Lewton never directed a film, but his use of shadows and his ability to create suspense through what wasn't shown is legendary. He came into RKO Studios just as Orson Welles was being kicked out, but he utilized some of Welles best technicians, especially the editors (future two-time Oscar winner Robert Wise and Mark Robson). These filmmakers fully bought into the Lewton persona and helped to create the films which he is known for today

The Savages (Tamara Dobson, 2007)

https://static.cinemagia.ro/img/resi...0l-imagine.jpg

This is one of those sneaky films, where even if you think it has nothing to do with you, it adds layers and layers, until it's your life story. Even if it's too soon, it should get to you eventually. It does show the unseen mama out to be a mother (because she couldn't stand her husband/father?), who took off and only knew their father as a ruffian with no social skills, so the children are forced to try to care for him as he's revealed as being a person with almost no social skills whatsoever.

The film gets really sneaky near the end when it allows everyone to share the wealth of being a human being and understanding that all people die the same way and are worthy of the same respect. This is where director/writer Dobson shows her chops and allows all the significant personnel to strut their stuff. The acting is really quite impressive, especially since all the performers have to hold so much in until near the actual ending. Thanks to everyone. The music, which seems to be totally inspired by Carter Burwell, is excellent. Phillip Bosco gets to be calm and bray at just the right moments too. I'm still trying to figure out why all the care givers around Buffalo, N.Y., seem to be Jamaican, but maybe they're from Jamaiica, New York. :cool:

I'm Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007) I kept the original review but did change the rating

http://notthebeastmaster.typepad.com...imnotthere.jpg

This certainly qualifies as one of last year's most audacious and entertaining films, but after my initial viewing, I'm actually a little bit disappointed with it. I'm planning on watching it again to see if I should go back up to which is what I was locked into after about the first two-thirds of the film. Also, even though I'm a Dylanaholic, I understand that others aren't, so if you are a Dylanaholic, you should probably already raise it up to . I just want to make it clear that no matter how deluded I am, I DO believe that it is possible to objectively "review" films. My first photo pretty much shows what the film's conceit is: Bob Dylan will be honored, dissected, criticized and discussed, but his name will never be mentioned. AND he (or his spirit) will be embodied by six different actors.

The conceit is actually more seemless than you would expect, especially during the early majority of the film. Whether he's portrayed by a left-handed black adolescent named "Woody Guthrie" (Marcus Carl Franklin) or a spot-on impression by Cate Blanchett of his Don't Look Back era, the multiple personalities/performances tend to enlighten the man and his contradictions. They also provide tons of inside jokes, entertaining music, and name the references, actors, meanings, etc. In fact, although near the end of the film, co-scripter/director Haynes seems to obfuscate his meaning of what Dylan TRULY represents, you can almost forgive him because the bald implication is that Dylan himself hides/transforms himself more than this film ever can.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-DAmAtVwAANyxP.jpg

Although it's occasionally uncertain what inspired a few scenes in the film, it's amazing how close the film actually depicts Dylan's life, at least in spirit. He was obviously never really a film star or a lead character in an American West recreation of his life and inspirations by way of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, but if you don't really know that much about the man, you may be surprised by how accurate some of the more seemingly-farfetched scenes are. Plus much of the symbolism works well, at least for those in on what's true and what's symbolic. That's one of the film's flaws. Although I believe most everyone will be entertained enough to WANT to watch the film, how much you actually enjoy it will depend on if you have all his albums, have memorized most all of his lyrics, followed his career and personal mood/creative swings, watched Don't Look Back, Renaldo and Clara and No Direction Home: Bob Dylan. This film is obviously a labor of love by director Haynes, and I really felt it. I am also glad that I find Haynes maturing as a filmmaker. I just hope when I watch it again, I don't find a noticeable downtick when the Richard Gere episodes take center stage. I really have no problems at all with Gere here, but I found his section to be the most muddled and least successful in the picture.

Overall, I find this a welcome addition to the discussion of the mystique of Bob Dylan, and hopefully I'll feel some of the latter portions just a little bit more next time. I admit that I sound like a Grinch because just thinking about the scene with the Beatles or the bits with "CoCo", "Alice Fabian", THE Gorgeous George, the Black Panthers (HA!), and Allen Ginsberg, as well as the Bruce Greenwood scenes and all the wonderful music, and even the ending, where the real Dylan makes his only appearance visually, it makes me feel like I should add that extra half. I will check back for those who might care.

Murder on a Sunday Morning (Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, 2001)

http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/cov...sundaymorn.jpg

Eye-opening, extremely personal documentary depiction of a Jacksonville, Florida murder, the "investigation", arrest, "confession", and trial of the 15-year-old accused murderer, Brenton Butler. The victim was 65-year-old white tourist Mary Ann Stephens who was shot in the head for her purse, and the only eyewitness, her husband, identifies Brenton as the shooter, even though the only thing which matches Brenton to Mr. Stephens' description of the killer is that Brenton is a black male. Also, Brenton is apparently the only person picked up by the police and that was just because he was seen in the area a few hours after the shooting. The police do no investigative work and have no forensic evidence or a weapon, but within the day, the boy has bruises on his cheek and chest and the police have his signed confession.

Brenton is lucky in one thing though; his public defenders believe him and can see (as all viewers will) that his case is a mockery of justice. The strength of this Oscar winner is the way the filmmakers are allowed so much access into all the key players' lives. We see scenes of the murder victim, some between Brenton and his family in jail, much of the trial, interviews with the defense attorneys, etc. It's almost as if you're eavesdropping, so it's a unique insight into the justice system, and I'm quite astonished how much we do see and how much foresight the filmmakers had in first getting involved and getting so many permissions to video everything

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple (Stanley Nelson, 2006)

http://www.brixpicks.com/uploads/med.../jonestown.jpg

Another documentary with some home movie and audio footage which adds to the eeriness of Jim Jones' life story and the stories of the 909 victims (and a few survivors) of the "mass suicide" at his compound in Guyana in 1978. The film details Jones' early life where one of his favorite things to do was have funerals for pets. His father was an unemployed alcoholic, so his mom supported the family. However, the young man found himself to have a way with words and he was a magnetic public speaker who preached a message of integration and socialism. With money he earned selling monkeys, he founded his church, People's Temple, in Indiana, but eventually moved his flock to the the northern California town of Ukiah. He bought a fleet of buses and began a crosscountry tour where he brought his message to the poor masses, and thus, his flock grew larger and larger.

Eventually Jones becomes famous and is even appointed as Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Commission. However, some ex-members of his church make some official complaints, including some of child abuse/molestation, so Jones and his congregation evacuate to Guyana where they make their own self-supporting commune/church. All of this is shown through footage from news programs or home movies, and it's intercut with interviews of the victims' survivors. The scenes of the final 24 hours of Jonestown are the freakiest because an intense love-in turns into a psycho shootout involving U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan and his entourage, who are there to document the reality of Jonestown, and then it escalates to the death by cyanide or gunshot wound of over 900 members. The film is well-done, yet obviously painful to watch.

Like Water For Chocolate (Alfonso Arau, 1992)

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/72/17/32/7...42e2fa0ba9.jpg

Laura Esquivel's sexy, yummy novel captures magical realism in a totally original way: through recipes which appeal to love and sex. It's a wonderful idea and translated quite well by Arau. TIMEOUT: This has nothing to do with Arau as a director of this film, but I love to relate the connection to The Wild Bunch. In The Wild Bunch, the main guy was the sadistic Mapache (Emilio Fernandez, left}, who directed dozens of films, my favorite being his adaptation of Steinbeck's The Pearl. Arau (right) played Mapache's lieutenant in The Wild Bunch, and his directorial claims to fame, at least in the U.S., are Like Water For Chocolate and A Walk in the Clouds.

I seem to recall that when this film was released in the U.S., it set a new record for most money grossed by a foreign-language film. Of course, its record was destroyed later by Life is Beautiful and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. At least, I think that's the truth. The novel pretty much covers a lot of history, culture, sex, family trees, recipes, and concepts of what the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico was during WWI, the Pancho Villa era. It also pretty much assures you that Mexicans believe in ghosts, and I'm not all that sure that they don't believe in them any more than any culture, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with their "official religion". My students still believe in ghosts en masse, so that tells me something right there. However, every single ghost which appears as a ghost here is a terrific plot device. Remember, one of my fave books/stories is A Christmas Carol.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/77/ca/49/7...al-america.jpg

The novel/movie is so concerned with cooking as a personal expression that it almost rivals Babette's Feast as the greatest film ever made about food and its effect on families and love. Of course, this film is less of a mystery than the wonderful Babette's Feast, even if I probably give them the same rating. One thing which is probably sure is that this movie has more fire, sweat and sexual desire than most. That's why I like it so much. The women in this movie seem to all take the initiative sexually, no matter how repressed their mama seems to be. I say, good for them.

http://www.libs.uga.edu/media/events...ages/tita2.jpg

24 7 TwentyFourSeven (Shane Meadows, 1997)

http://www.kopictureshow.com/TwentyFourSeven1997.jpg
True, I'm behind the power curve in watching Meadows' films, this being my first [June 2008]. I'm certainly interested in catching up though. This film began as if it was going to be a strictly kitchen sink drama a la Ken Loach, but then Meadows' personal style (which in this film I find to be impressionistic) took over which made the film more interesting and original to me. Bob Hoskins stars as a man who feels the need to try to improve the lives of the aimless, sometimes violent young men in Nottingham, so he starts a boxing club, much along the lines of one which he was involved in years earlier. He gets together two rival "gangs" and works with them to hone their bodies, minds and spirits into a purposeful group.
http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co....ew_meadows.jpg
There are other things going on in the film since the plot mentioned above is basically a flashback from the opening scene which I'm not going to mention now. The strongest part of the film for me is Bob Hoskins' performance, and the fact that perhaps he can play this role in his sleep should not take away how important he is in centering the film and giving it emotional weight. The other actors seem fine in presenting character types, but I'm not sure that I really came to know any of them as living and breathing characters. I would think that Meadows' style is somewhat responsible for this. The film has a good song score, and often it seems to head off into music video land when it could be spending more time building characterizations, but as I said earlier, I enjoyed the director's mixture of bleak realism with a more upbeat, musical tone. I'm just not sure what I think of the film's final 15 minutes, even if it is realistic. If anything, I'm leaning toward a higher rating rather than a lower one, so I'll rewatch this and put his others in the queue.

The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (Robert Ellis Miller, 1968)

http://www.ukquad.com/heart%20is%20a...0uk%20quad.jpg
This is a simple, yet heartfelt and powerful adaptation of Carson McCullers' autobiographical novel. The central character of the film is a deaf mute named John Singer, played perfectly by Alan Arkin. The setting is the Southern U.S., brought up to date in the 1960s. (Carson McCullers died before this film was released, and the actual time frame was probably the 1930s, but updating it makes it work just as fine.) Singer has a best friend (Chuck McCann), who's also a deaf mute, but he's constantly getting into trouble, so he's committed by his uncle and sent to an asylum. Singer moves to be closer to his friend and finds a room in the home of Mick (the wonderful Sondra Locke, ostensibly playing McCullers). One of the strengths of the film is that it shows all of its characters to be blind, deaf and dumb in various ways, so the fact that Singer isn't "blind" puts him one up on most of the characters.

There are several other significant characters, including Mick's mom, pop and younger brothers, as well as an African-American family, consisting of a doctor (Percy Rodrigues) who has feared and hated Whites all his life, his daughter (Cicely Tyson) who has a major chip on her shoulder concerning her dad, and her new husband (Johnny Popwell). Although I enjoy most all the characters, my favorite may well be the drunk Blount (Stacy Keach) who's able to recognize his defects and keeps trying to improve himself, but the world he sees is just too painful and antagonistic to give into wholeheartedly. (I see myself as the Stacy Keach character, even though my wife and daughter have saved me and are continuing to try.) The film is very life-affirming, yet equally tragic. It does remind me in many ways of director Miller's other "best" film, Reuben, Reuben. I highly recommend it, especially for those who think that Sondra Locke never had any talent.

Dead Man's Shoes (Shane Meadows, 2004)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...V62715090_.jpg
First off, it's probably unfair that I'm "reviewing" this now after only one viewing, especially since the previous two movies I've seen before and watched twice in the last 36 hours, but after watching 24 7 and now this, I think I should get my initial thoughts out there. Feel free to continue to ignore them if it's your thing. After only two movies, I believe I have come to understand that Shane Meadows has a technique and an agenda, but I don't really want to get into that yet because I want to share what I feel about how his films make me feel. Both of these films cause extreme contradictory feelings within me. I can watch them and wonder why would anyone want to see these characters? Then, a little bit later, I'm telling myself that these are people just like me. Next up, the stories; the story of TwentyFourSeven is obviously "meant" to be uplifting, but then Meadows goes and subverts himself and his story in the final quarter hour (at least that's a way for someone to look at it). In Dead Man's Shoes, the technique is far more important than the story. Meadows has probably perfected a storytelling style where he makes you think things are going a certain way, but then he pulls the rug out from under you near the end.
http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/deadmansshoes.gif
While I can be repulsed by the characters yet impressed by the performers, I'm starting to wonder if Meadows needs to be so flamboyant in his technique. The films I've seen use different lighting, color (well, 24 7 was in B&W), film stock, added-in F/X (for example, why did all the flashbacks to what happened to Anthony have to be shot in black and white, have artificially-created "old-age" lines added in and be in a lower volume?) Actually, after the reveal is made, I can probably understand why those "flashbacks" are filmed in a similar style to the home movies shown at the beginning of the film since that's the way that older brother Richard (co-scripter Paddy Considine) remembers and relates to his kid brother (Toby Kebbell). There is more to say about this film and director, and I'll try to add it at the appropriate thread when I'm up to snuff. Until then, forgive me.

Cyrano de Bergerac (Michael Gordon, 1950)

http://s1.dmcdn.net/idqIv.jpg
This low-budget Stanley Kramer production captures for posterity the brilliance of José Ferrer's Broadway performance and enabled the star to win a Best Actor Oscar to boot. The overall wit and strong plot of Edmond Rostand's play make the viewer basically ignore the threadbare sets, and it's especially easy since it starts at such a lightning pace with countless insults and swordplay crammed into the opening half hour. Cyrano is one of the great characters of literature, and Ferrer brings all his massive talent to the role of a man who feels contempt for almost all of humanity due to the fact that he feels his enormous nose has turned him into a grotesque who is unable to confess his deep love for his beautiful cousin Roxane (Mala Powers). Cyrano is a true Renaissance Man: a poet, soldier, wit, playwright, and swordsman, yet Roxane wants him to act as intermediary between her and the young recruit Christian (William Prince) she has fallen in love with at first sight. To keep close to her, Cyrano agrees.

Unfortunately, Christian is tongue-tied around women, so Cyrano has to write his love letters for him and try to help him to express his rapturous feelings to Roxane in person. The film follows the play faithfully, and at times, the low budget almost turns the movie into a film noir because there are so many shadows and dark corners on screen. It definitely has a different look and feel than Jean-Pierre Rappeneau's 1990 version with Gerard Depardieu's great performance as Cyrano, even though both films are full of wit and pathos. You can't really go wrong with any of the Cyranos thus far, including Steve Martin's Roxanne and the 1925 silent version where all the frames were hand-painted using a revolutionary stencil process which makes the movie look like a moving painting.

Sleuth (Kenneth Branagh, 2007)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-NXvTGV0AAR2tQ.jpg
Kenneth Branagh and Harold Pinter's reimagining of Sleuth for a younger generation is both a treat and something like a punch in the stomach. In my old fart mind, the original film is definitely superior; it also runs 50 minutes longer and is far more psychologically believable in the "third act". However, I must say that Michael Caine (playing Laurence Olivier's original role) as the successful writer who has lost his wife to the younger, more-attractive Jude Law (playing the original Michael Caine role) both give excellent performances, and there actually seems to be an in-joke in the film where the characters aren't actually sure WHO is playing WHO. Branagh's direction, at least for the first two acts, provides plenty of ambiguity, visual acumen and a wonderful way to try to draw in the computer generation with all the surveillance cameras and the use of computer monitors, laptops, microphone-headsets, etc. Sleuth was always an actor's tour de force, and it still plays that way, but I have a tough time dealing with Harold Pinter's changes to the third act.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/5d/d8/3f/5...on-raising.jpg
Pinter has said that he has never seen the play or the original film, but upon reading the play, he was immediately attracted to it. I consider his adaptation of the first hour quite impressive, even if it grafts on a few of the themes of his 1963 screenplay of The Servant, another power struggle film. However, the final act seems to subvert the entire point of Sleuth, at least insofar as it making the point of the movie clear. The original may be more concrete, but it doesn't completely tell you who the winner or loser is, although in one way, maybe it does. The third act of this film comes out of left field and then ends abruptly with no rhyme or reason. Not only that, the way Jude Law holds a supposedly loaded weapon, pointing it at his nose and chin (supposedly in some phallic allusions) only reminds me of the scenes in Plan 9 From Outer Space where the idiot detective kept pointing his gun at his own face while explaining the evidence to his even stupider underlings. I don't think that was intended, actually.

For me, the bottom line is that the strength of the original text, the direction, and the acting is good enough to give this film's first three-fourths about , but the last 20 minutes is barely worth . I did like Caine's house a lot, but I loved Olivier's house and maze in the original film, plus this film completely jettisons the subplot of the author's mistress, who is so important to the context of the film and the third act. For the record, I rate the 1972 film .

Westward the Women (William A. Wellman, 1951)

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/67/b8/09/6...golden-age.jpg
This is a powerful, entertaining depiction of a wagon train from Missouri to California which is transporting over a hundred women from Chicago to California in 1851. Roy Whitman (John McIntire) has established a community of male farmers in a California valley, but the men need wives to be happy and make the community grow. Whitman hires trail boss Buck Wyatt (Robert Taylor), and together they go to Chicago to recruit "good women" who are up to the difficult journey and want to get married. After selecting 138 women, they take a riverboat down the Mississippi and organize their wagon train to head west.

Although it's not without humor, the trek is fraught with tragedy as many people are killed along the way, and eventually all that are left are Buck, his Japanese sidekick (Henry Nakamura) and the women survivors. The great strength of the film is that all the characters seem realistic and that the trip does take the time to show all the pain and suffering involved in such an undertaking, but hard work and perseverance do win out in the end. There are so many female sctors and characters who stand out that I can't mention them all, but Hope Emerson shines as the heart and soul of the group, Julie Bishop does well as a young pregnant woman who gives birth on the trail, and Denise Darcel adds some sexual tension in her love/hate relationship with Robert Taylor. This is one film which gets to its ending and deserves all the smiles and tears it illicits in the viewer.

This is England (Shane Meadows, 2006)

http://electricityandlust.files.word...is-england.jpg

This is the third Shane Meadows film I've watched in a month, and this is the one I would say is the best of the three (the other two being 24 7 TwentyFourSeven and Dead Man's Shoes). This one seems to tell a more complex and focused story, with deeper characters. He still uses what I consider both impressionistic and expressionistic technique and loves to maximize the mileage out of his soundtrack, but this is the first film I've seen of his that I would wholeheartedly recommend to everybody.
http://electricityandlust.files.word...sisengland.jpg
It's set in 1983 during the Falklands War and the height of Thatcherism, and although it's certainly a political film, it's even more about coming-of-age and a strong tale of friendship and wanting to belong. It's mostly told through the eyes of twelve-year-old Shaun (astonishing newcomer Timothy Turgoose) who, on the last day of term, gets picked on at school for wearing bellbottom trousers and goes ballistic when an older kid mentions his dad, who died in the Falklands. On the way home, he meets a friendly group of older skinheads (the non-racist kind), led by Woody (Joe Gilgun), and although it doesn't completely prove satisfactory for Shaun initially, he does bond with them and becomes part of their gang. This does bother Shaun's mom (Jo Hartley), but she decides that it's better for her son to have some friends than be estranged from the world.

Soon enough, Woody's friend Combo (the impressive Stephen Graham) turns up, out of prison after three-and-one-half years, doing time for something which Woody also participated in, and the gang begins to splinter because of this. Combo seems to be a friendly guy, but he also has apparently picked up a few bad habits and ideologies in prison; plus, it turns out, that he has plenty of baggage about his own father, although it's never really spelled out in the film. Shaun ends up looking to Combo to be his father figure, and tragedy eventually ensues.
http://owlpellets.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/tie-3.jpg
This is England won the BAFTA for Best British Film of 2007, and I can agree that it probably deserved it. Besides showing England in 1983 and poking at Thatcher and the Falklands War, it also takes shots, albeit almost subliminally, about the current Iraq War. Whether everyone picks up on it, when Combo makes his speech about it being a bogus war and she lied to us, it was obvious (at least to me) that there was some commentary directed at the current situation in Iraq. Additionally, the first time through, I pretty much took for granted the well-conceived montage of events in 1983 England and the Falklands which is presented over the opening credits and immediately pulls the viewer into the time and place of the story. One other thing I halfway missed the first time was that the film, especially in the first half hour, is pretty funny. I do acknowledge it now, and most all the comedy derives from the characters, and since I find these to be Meadows strongest characters which I've seen, that's why I believe this is his strongest flick. Now I need to watch Romeo Brass and Once Upon a Time...

Be Kind Rewind (Michel Gondry, 2008)

http://www.kutfilm.be/sites/default/...wind_still.jpg
My daughter Sarah asked me when this film started what the rating for the highest rated Gondry was for me, so I told her, in MoFo terms, it was a , and that wasn't even Eternal Sunshine (which I've watched three times), so that should tell you something about my experiences with Gondry.When the movie ended, I told her I had a new high rating for the GondryMonster. The film seems to exist in an alternative universe, yet it's still so believeable that people who complain should be ignored as ones who are are far too literal (yes, I know your names, but I refuse to McCarthyize you here and now). To me, this is a modern-day Capra flick, and the people who love it, understand that. It makes the people in the true life neighborhood of Passaic, New Jersey, happy; it also makes all the movie characters happy, and I would hope, that it makes most viewers of the film happy.

The plot has been mentioned elsewhere. It basically involves some sci-fi activities which cause Jack Black's character to become magnetized, and since the movie is set in an alterantive universe, he just happens to erase all of the video store owner's {Danny Glover's) VHS tapes, so the guy left in charge (Mos Def) decides to try to reshoot ("Swede") all the damaged movie tapes, such as Ghostbusters, Rush Hour II, Driving Miss Daisy, Do the Right Thing, and many other "classics". Eventually, the neighborhood makes the remakes popular, but the Feds don't like it.
http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/8779809/...screenshot.jpg
I find the movie to be a wonderful flick, which, in a perfect world, would not only attract oldtimers but newcomers. I have less faith that the younger generaton will fully embrace old-time filmmaking, although I find the sentiment to be one of the most lovely of any recent film I've seen. This film often feels slipshod, insignificant, offhand, sloppy, and out-of-control, yet it makes perfect sense to me. The offhandedness is surely part of its charm and makes it much easier to accept the film as a significant statement on how people love and appreciate film, in all its forms.

Inland Empire fans - please forgive me.
Southland Tales (Richard Kelly, 2006)
https://riversofgrue.files.wordpress...pg?w=450&h=173
I'm not sure what it is about Richard Kelly which makes him still fight the system and still put out movies, but I'm actually glad he does. This film, one of the most ridiculous pieces of crap the other side of Inland Empire, is at least blatant in its few attempts to connect with its audience. No matter how idiotic I believe the film is, I can still accept that somebody would like it and try to defend it in some way. It's truly amazing when you start watching a film, and after five minutes, you already believe that you are two plus hours behind what's happening! Even if this film has some humor and is completely wacko, it doesn't mean that most people want to follow along. I followed along twice, yet it still didn't make REAL sense at all.
http://cinedelphia.com/wp-content/up...land-tales.jpg
I'm not really a big fan of this movie. Sure, plenty of things happen, but most of them make no sense (how about the Justin Timberlake character?), yet when the film winds down, I was laughing a little bit. It's true that I find writer/director Kelly to be a lost soul along the current lines of David Lynch, but that's not really even fair. Lynch's Inland Empire, a movie which is as hard to sell as any I've ever seen, was able to "earn" $849,000 in the U.S, and I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Even so, the perhaps-better, but still hard-to-accept Southland Tales earned $273,000 at the U.S. box office. Sorry, but this should be enough to explain why certain films will never be accepted, and hell, no, I don't accept Inland Empire because it sucked away almost an entire day of my life (each time I viewed it), and gave me almost nothing in return

Come Live With Me (Clarence Brown, 1941)

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/a...in/18/MPW-9156

This film was mostly predictable plotwise, but the details were interesting, and when I start to think about it, it does seem a bit ahead of its time. It definitely qualifies as a feel-good movie. Basically, what happens is that a beautiful Austrian refugee (Lamarr) desires to marry an American so she can stay in the country, but it will only be a marriage of convenience. She marries a broke writer {James Stewart) and agrees to support him on what he determines he needs to survive, $17.80 a week. He agrees, but only with the stipulation that he will pay her back when he earns the money. This is her way of being able to be supported by a married publisher (Ian Hunter) in a much-higher fashion. Well, the publisher's wife (Teasdale) gets ahold of the writer's manuscript, where he's writing about his situation and confessing that he really loves his almost-never-seen wife, and presents it to her husband who starts to figure out what's going on. As I said, it's pretty predictable, but it does have some interesting bits. One thing I really enjoyed was Stewart's reflection making fun of him in most of the mirrors. I also loved the last part of the film where Jimmy takes Hedy to his grandma's house and they have a very chaste, yet surprisingly intense romance in separate bedrooms with a shared ceiling. You've gotta love those fireflies, and Grandma (Adeline De Walt Reynolds) too! Incidentally, this was the last film ever made by Verree Teasdale, who is often mistaken for Hedda Hopper

Dragonwyck (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1946)

https://78.media.tumblr.com/422527ba...DTi1qlyg3l.png
This florid Gothic melodrama, set in New York and Connecticut in the 1840s, reteams Gene Tierney and Vincent Price for the fourth and final time. It also delves into some U.S. history about how the Dutch-American "patroons" wielded power in New York all the way up to the time this film is set. Gene Tierney's Miranda lives on a Connecticut farm with her father (Walter Huston) and mother (Anne Revere), but one day, her married "cousin" and patroon Nicholas (Vincent Price) invites her to his New York estate to help him with his family, and against her dad's better instincts, she goes. She loves the elegance of the place and is quite taken by her cousin's attentions. It seems that Nicholas' wife (Vivienne Osborne) is bedridden and that his daughter (Connie Marshall) is a bit strange. Then, Miranda hears stories from the housekeeper (Spring Byington) that the family is cursed and perhaps an implication that madness "runs in it".

Plenty of things happen from here on in. There is a mystery involving a character's death, a fullblown love affair between Miranda and Nicholas, ghostly things occur, new characters (prominently Miranda's crippled personal servant [Jessica Tandy]) appear, and that local doctor (Glenn Langan) who also loves Miranda is still about. Although it gets a little too obvious and histionic near the end, the film maintains an eerieness and interest all the way to the conclusion. It does remind me a bit of Nathaniel Hawthorne, and it is a welcome calling card from the former scripter/producer-turned- director, Joseph L. Mankiewicz (All About Eve).

Good Times (William Friedkin, 1967)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ovieposter.jpg
This film is actually much better than its reputation. Much of it is silly and empty, but other parts are quite meaningful, and in the case of the Mickey Spillane spoof near the ending, pretty funny. Sonny and Cher are approached to make a movie. Sonny likes the idea, but Cher knows it won't turn out the way they'd want it. Sonny visits eccentric billionaire producer George Sanders and agrees to a contract, but when he hears the story idea, he says it's impossible for the married singing duo to make that film. Sanders explains that shooting will commence in 10 days, so that's how long Sonny has to come up with an alternative script.

http://www.reelfilm.com/images/goodtime.jpg
I'll be the first to admit that the spoofs of westerns (High Noon specifically) and jungle flicks are a bit unfunny, yet they at least have some good ideas and Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist), in his feature debut, already shows adeptness at shooting and editing scenes. Most of the best parts in the film are all in the last half hour, so try to stick with it if you invest the time to start watching. There is a legit message in this film which may have been more counterculture in the '60s, but remember now, Sonny Bono was elected to the U.S. Congress as a Republican, not to mention that he eventually became a Scientologist (!!).

P.S. Keeping with my idea that the film's final third is easily the best, the two best songs are sung in the final 10 minutes.

WALL·E (Andrew Stanton, 2008)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/ima...e/wall-e_3.jpg
Since there have been so many WALL·E reviews around the site, I'm not sure that there are reasons for me to recount the plot, so I'll be brief. I'm pretty sure that most people realize that it takes place in the year 2815 and begins on Earth where the only things which seem to be "alive" are a small robot who tries to clean up the trash and an especially-resilient cockroach-type creature. All the humans left the planet 700 years earlier on a huge spaceship which was designed by the mega corporation/world government called Buy and Large, with the intention of only being away for about five years. There were apparently millions of WALL·Es left behind, but now there seems to be one, and shortly after the film begins, he finds green plant life growing in the soil.

Soon a spaceship appears and leaves a probe behind to search for signs of life. This probe is called EVE, and it is like nothing WALL·E has ever seen before. In fact, although WALL·E (ostensibly playing a male) is frightened by EVE's seemingly violent nature and firepower, he finds himself attracted to her as a companion along the lines of the ones he sees in the film version of Hello, Dolly! which he watches repeatedly. Eventually, both machines find themselves on the huge spaceship where the descendents of the humans who left 700 years earlier live blissfully unaware of their history or potential. OK, that wasn't as brief as I intended.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/s...rary/walle.jpg
I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It creates a barren, grimy Earth, a beautifully inviting Solar System and a unique vision of human life on a spaceship far in the future. It succeeds on all levels of storytelling for me. I especially loved the homages to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Thomas Newman's magical musical score is one of the two best I've heard this year, along with Carter Burwell's terrific In Bruges score. I'm also happy about who they used as the voice of the ship's computer. I can believe that some people may find it to be a kiddie movie, but I think it's far too romantic and thought-provoking to relegate it to that realm. I also didn't find myself being swamped by the film's message of conservation vs. consumerism as many others have. I thought the film's overriding message was one of humanity, and if it takes some non-human "creatures" to help us rediscover our lost humanity, that's OK with me. I don't find WALL·E to be a political film along the lines of Persepolis; that's for sure. :)

Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud, 2007)

http://electricityandlust.files.word...persepolis.jpg
This captivating French animation wonder, based on Satrapi's semi-autobiographical graphic novels, is a sharp combination of Iranian history, political awareness, a coming-of-age story, love of family, and some intriguing animation techniques. It tells the story, in flashbacks, of Marjane's life in Iran under both the Shah and the fundamentalist "Islamic Republic" and during the Iraq-Iran War, as well as her times spent in Europe where she always felt to be a fish out of water. Whether you're aware of Iran's history during the last 80 or so years or not, this is a fascinating perspective, but it's much more alive and humorous than any history lesson could be.

One thing which is totally unique, at least to me, about Persepolis is that it's a mostly 2-D animated piece of art which is heavily inspired by film noir. Most of the film is in black and white, with major use of shadows. Although it is full of funny moments concerning family and growing up, there is a threat of danger and violence during each step the film takes. The film also uses a surrealistic approach occasionally, especially during scenes involving drugs and the Kafkaesque nightmare in which women and non-fundamentalists find themselves in the Iran of the later 20th century.

http://pescanik.net/wp-content/uploa...Persepolis.jpg
Before I make the film sound too much of a downer, I need to add that I laughed out loud several times. Many of these involved Marjane's unlucky attempts to find a boyfriend. Her grandmother is also a foul-mouthed lady who teaches her about integrity, but she and Marjane both swear quite a bit, and it actually is very funny to hear them say things you couldn't really imagine. (Don't get too worried though; sure, it's an adult-themed film, but it's only rated PG-13.) There are also many touching moments involving Marjane's family, often because the family has always been Marxist and therefore, they've always had family members in jail or killed. Not that you need me to explain this, but in general, everyone, regardless of their politics or religion, is a human being. It's just that sometimes people act much more inhuman than they realize. This film shows things in a realistic light in my mind, and so it's nice to remember that people throughout the world share more similarities than they do differences. Oh yeah, did I mention that the animation techniques and the music are groovy? I especially liked Marjane's crazy interpretation of "Eye of the Tiger" by Survivor. :cool:

Kung Fu Panda (Mark Osborne & John Stevenson)

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/12/fe/b6/1...scar-wilde.jpg
In response to that blurb in the poster, damn straight. No question about it, this is Dreamworks' best animated film. It is hip, occasionally, in its use of language, but other than that, there are none of the pop culture references which kill things for certain people. This is a surprisingly realistic and reverential film, celebrating the concept of Martial Arts and what it means, especially since when we watch kung fu, we mostly think of the physical prowess involved, Yet, no one can truly practice kung fu to the best of their ability without a spiritual connection to themselves and all of their environment. Based on some posts I've been reading around here lately, it seems that kung fu should be relegated to the dustbin of superstitious BS. I don't really care because this "Disney Dork" says this movie rocks!

This film opens with some of the starkest, most original animated imagery in film history. A panda is literally kicking ass and announcing his awesomeness, but eventually we learn that it's just a dream, and Po (Jack Black) has to get up out of bed to go to work for his dad (James Hong) at his noodlery (it should be a word for a type of restaurant if it isn't). Po learns that the Dragon Warrior is going to be chosen from amongst the Furious Five (the greatest warriors available in the City), so he does everything he can to try to witness the selection. When all is said and done, Po is chosen to become the Dragon Warrior by the All-Knowing, All-Seeing Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), despite the protests of his protege and super trainer, Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). Eventually, Shifu's adopted son, Tai Lung (Ian MacShane, sounding like Mark Hamill doing the Joker in the animated series), breaks out of prison to wreak revenge on all those whom he believes have kept him from becoming the rightful Dragon Warrior.

http://nick-intl.mtvnimages.com/uri/...rue&crop=false

Kung Fu Panda succeeds on multiple levels. First off, it presents a totally realistic alternate universe, it's populated with strong convictions and characters, and both the situations and characters are humorous and intense. All of the characters grow, and even if the results may be considered predictable, they certainly earn enough good will to allow them their just desserts. I mentioned that the film is funny, but it's also action-packed, and often the humor and action go hand-in-hand. For example, the highlight for me is the incredible "Battle For the Final Dumpling" scene where the Hoffman character trains the Black character enough to become worthy of the true title of the Dragon Warrior. The fact that the action scenes only escalate from here all the way to the ending is something to be happy about as a viewer and something to be proud about as filmmakers. There are many other notable scenes and vocal performances, but I just want to say that I recommend you see this movie on the big screen before it disappears. It's not just a wonderful action comedy, it's also a powerful drama, and although many animated films push the idea that "you can be what you want to become, if only you put in the work and trust yourself and those who support you", I find that message much more life-affirming than the alternative.

Freaks (Tod Browning, 1932) (that's my legit rating; for those who are OUT THERE, think: ).

https://diccineario.files.wordpress....aks9.jpg?w=559
I don't know what to say about Freaks anymore, but down through the last 30 years, my opinion about it has kind of turned inside out. I've seen this film several times, on the big screen, on commercial TV, cable TV, and now on DVD. I've seen three different endings, but never apparently the original ending which was scrapped after the first preview screening in front of an audience. Freaks is a one-of-a-kind film. I realize that phrase gets tossed around a lot, and since this movie is 85 years old (!!), you probably won't believe me, unless, of course, you've seen it yourself.

When I first watched Freaks, I thought to myself, "Why, in God's name, would anyone make this film? Is this just pure exploitation or not? If it isn't, it's still very embarrassing for all involved because nobody can act and the whole thing comes off as amateurish." However, even so, probably because there was an incredible finale, I knew this film was much better than Browning's lauded, but sleep-inducing Dracula which made Bela Lugosi a star. A strange thing happened the more I watched this film. (Actually it's not that strange for all of you who watch a movie over and over; it seemed to shapeshift, transform and become more normal.) I started thinking that the "Freaks" were actually the more physically-"normal", hateful characters, while those with physical disabilities were more human and friendly.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/4...59e26914fd.jpg
(That character is super cool!)

Ultimately, Freaks is a melodrama showing how people try to take advantage of others. The fact that you never see the owner/manager of the traveling circus allows that non-character to wash his hands of everything. But the true villains of the piece are the "everyday" people who hate and take advantage of others. It's strange that these people who make a living in a sideshow can somehow believe themselves to be any less of a "freak" than those who have no say in the way they were born. Of course, Freaks makes it clear that if you are not "One of Us, One of Us!!", then you deserve whatever you get for being the inhuman monster you are.
https://morestarsthanintheheavens.fi...-the-march.jpg

Definitely, Maybe (Adam Brooks, 2008) +

http://www.yowazzup.com/blog/images/...aybe-movie.jpg
This is certainly one of the best romantic comedies of the 2000s. If you have watched it, did you notice how it's a sly parody of The Princess Bride? The story is told by the father in this instance, and he's telling it to his daughter, and of course, there are no giants, quicksand, six-fingered men, but you see, this listener cares about the romance and doesn't need all the BS action-adventure bits. :cool: My wife loves The Princess Bride as a novel, and it was one of the first movies we watched at the theatre, but she already loves this film after one viewing and a few Kleenexes. :cool:
http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/definitelymaybe.jpg
I have to admit that I'm apparently extremely ignorant because I don't even know who most of the actors are in this wonderful flick. All I know is that the lead actor, who I find to be very good, should be cast as Jason Lee's younger brother, or maybe be cast as the son of Chevy Chase, if Chevy is allowed to have sons this young anymore. This Ryan guy is actually a very accomplished actor. The cute part of the story is that he is about to be divorced by his wife, but due to her school's curriculum, his daughter (the adorable Abigail Breslin) wants to understand why "penises thrusting" have something to do with her parents' divorcing! Meanwhile, her father tells her a story about the three women in his life (each one who could be her mother), in New York City, while he was being a Bill Clinton worker/supporter in 1992 and later on, too. Some of the most romantic scenes are the ones where people actually confess that they love some one. However, the wife has filed for a divorce, so the daughter has very little time to solve her "romantic mystery".
http://www.timeout.com/img/39759/w513/image.jpg
This is a film which will reward all the tie-ins, here and now, but I enjoy watching the way things play out, especially with little payoff.

Honeydripper (John Sayles, 2007)

http://www.up.programosy.pl/foto/honeydripper_2007.jpeg
John Sayles returns with a love letter to the blues, set in early 1950s Alabama. It's supposed to take place at about the time that rock 'n' roll was born, but there are enough fantasy/blues legend elements included here that a little anachronism suits the film just fine. It tells the story of an old-time piano man, nicknamed Pine Top (Danny Glover), who runs the Honeydripper Lounge but is on the verge of losing it due to his being unable to pay off his debts, including the rent. Everyone in the area, including the cotton pickers and the soldiers, hangs out at the club next door, even though they never play any live music there. Pine Top likes his blues live, but his regular act, singer Bertha Mae (Mabel John), doesn't attract any audience, so he's forced to let her go. His idea is to get an up-and-coming singer/guitarist named Guitar Sam to get everyone into his club on the weekend and make enough money to save his club.

Pine Top's best friend and co-worker Maceo (Charles S. Dutton) and PT's daughter, China Doll (Yaya DaCosta), help him with the advertising and getting the club in order. Pine Top's wife (Lisa Gay Hamilton) is also there, but she's spending a lot of time at the revival tent and wonders if her husband is as good as he should be. Another important character is the young man who rides the rails into town looking for a job and carrying his homemade guitar and amplifier. He's Sonny (Gary Clark Jr.), and he, the town sheriff (Stacy Keach), and the blind blues master guitarist Possum (Keb' Mo') play important parts in the unfolding story.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/binar...neydripper.jpg
Honeydripper is a watchable musical drama, even though it's not terribly original or believable. It gets by on the skill of writer-director-editor Sayles to be able to tell a simple, yet not simplistic, story, as well as a nice mixture of old pros and some newcomers in the cast. Then there's the music. If you like blues, you'll like the movie even more than if you don't, but either way you should be able to toe tap or slow dance if you have a mind to do so.

The Orphanage (Juan Antonio Bayona, 2007)

http://www.chicagonow.com/parental-v...rphanage-5.jpg
This is a very thorough and complex film, even if the clues are laid out for you to be able to know what's going on before the characters in the film do. In fact, this is probably one of those movies (like The Innocents) where it's more fun to watch it at home so you can yell out loud what you think is going on, and then you can rewind it to show everybody else (or vice versa). The plot is extremely tight, and that's one of the reasons that it enables the viewer to "guess" about what will happen. Now, the fact that 90% of my guesses have less to do with the fact that I was right, and more to do with the fact that I was guessing about once a minute.

Of all the classic horror films I can compare this to, I'd probably choose The Haunting (1963) more than any other because the sound was often quite loud to try to disturb the characters and the viewers. Producer Guillermo del Toro's fingerprints are all over the film, but it's obvious that he was gleeful to give the following people their feature film debut: director J.A. Bayona, scripter Sergio G. Sánchez, cinematographer Óscar Faura, and a few others. The acting honors go to Belén Rueda, who plays the mother and totally inhabits a character in between her ill, adopted son, who sees many imaginary friends and her doctor husband who could never see them in a million years, at least unless he changed his way of living.
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03...ge_450x300.jpg
If you haven't already, watch this suspense film which is meticulously crafted. It's both scary and thoughtful. Don't forget to watch The Innocents when you get a chance, too.

Silver Streak (Arthur Hiller, 1976) +

http://www.boyculture.com/.a/6a00d83...ad96970d-600wi
Silver Streak was both Colin Higgins' return to movies after writing the awesome Harold and Maude script, and his reintroduction to Hollywood, with a Major Bang! Higgins had come up with an ingeniously-original take on Hitchcock films. In other words, most of the characters and plot devices could be seen to be lifted from Hitch's films, but the way he bathed them all in beautiful romance made the critics and the viewers not care in the slightest. Both this film, and its follow-up, Foul Play, which Higgins got to both WRITE AND DIRECT, were big moneymakers and enabled Higgins to direct both Nine to Five and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Unfortunately, Higgins died of AIDS without directing another film after Whorehouse, but he left behind plenty of entertainment for everyone.

Silver Streak lifts from North by Northwest, The Lady Vanishes, Shadow of a Doubt and Foreign Correspondent, among others. It also feeds into the romantic homages which Stanley Donen made. Since Silver Streak has a lush romantic score by Henry Mancini, it's often reminiscent of his scores for Donen's Charade and Two For the Road. The thing about Silver Streak is that about an hour into it, the incomparable Richard Pryor shows up and becomes Gene Wilder's accomplice. Now, Pryor is probably my fave stand-up comedian of all-time, but Hollywood tried to quash him. Even so, this film probably shows the most volatile and vibrant Pryor this side of all his concert films. Therefore, I recommend this flick, which has some of the best "special effects" ever at the end when the train destroys a shopping mall (in slow motion, yet!)

Richard Pryor Live in Concert (Jeff Margolis, 1979)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...V51482415_.jpg
First off, Richard Pryor released a few concert films; or at least, people trying to make money off his talent did. This review is only concerning the very first film, and it's called exactly this title. This will always be my "go-to" film when I need to just laugh and feel a bit better about life. I've talked to many people of many ages, and they all have their fave stand-up comics, but I find it hard to believe that a truthful person could watch this film and not tell me that Pryor is the funniest, most-honest person on the face of the Earth here. If you deny that, then tell me somebody who can remotely perform so many human and animal characters on stage. The man pours his entire soul out in this wonderful movie, and I feel privileged to relive it two or three times a year with my friends and family. R.I.P.

OK, I availed myself to the funniest, most truthful concert film I've ever seen again, and I sure hope that I don't cause a riot here, but Richard Pryor Live in Concert still has to rate to me as the funniest film I've ever seen. I will admit that loving this film, especally as a "white person", leaves me open to charges of racism, but let's not shy away from that, and follow Pryor's lead. Pryor uses the "N" word incessantly. It's true that a few years after this joyous, wonderful film that Pryor swore off ever using the "N" word again. He said that it was an insult to all those he loved and all those who loved him. Even so, this film completely and honestly captures Pryor before he had a change of heart. I completely respect his change of heart, but I also completely respect his earlier opinion to rub people's faces in the reality of being a "black person".
http://www.richardpryorliveinconcert.com/pryor4.jpghttp://www.somewhereville.com/blogim...chardpryor.jpg http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/56/5...inconcert2.jpg
Now, I don't think I need to explain myself here, but I was born and raised in Compton, California. I have spent my entire life equally surrounded by Blacks, Latinos and Whites. I have also allowed them to think their own thoughts about our situation, unless they come across as racist pigs. Thankfully, I recall no racist pigs, and I certainly don''t want that way-ahead-of-his-time GIANT, Richard Pryor, to be thought that way either.

I just checked Richard Pryor and I'm completely screwed. There is not one Genius scene from Live in Concert posted on youtube. Maybe, if anybody actually cares about love, comedy, and us, a scene will actually be posted from the funniest film I've ever seen, Richard Pryor Live in Concert. Then again, this isn't a frivolous post; at least, not yet! [This has been addressed - videos now available.]

Son of Godzilla (Jun Fukuda, 1967)

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/99/2b/5f/9...--godzilla.jpg
Back when I was younger and more cynical, I thought this movie was the bottom of the barrel. I believe I actually gave it a "1" originally! One other thing to remember is that I've only seen this film dubbed. Well, I started watching it, and all I could think of was Woody Allen's What's Up, Tiger Lily? You know, the Japanese spy flick Woody and crew dubbed into being about finding the secret egg salad recipe? Even back in the day, I thought the dubbing in Son of Godzilla was so godawful, I just turned off my brain and thought the whole thing was stupid beyond words.

Having rewatched it today, it's obvious the entire film is a comedy. Either that, or I've just so mellowed out and am somehow less cynical than I was as an "idealistic youth", even if that doesn't seem to make sense. :cool: The way the Baby Godzilla keeps getting hit by boulders on the head should make it clear that it's an Abbott & Costello movie in disguise! Besides, with such supporting monsters as the three Giant Mantises and the humongous spider Spiga, you basically have to laugh at most of it. The main flaw seems to be that Godziilla is only seen for a few seconds in the first half hour. However, extra credit for Baby Godzilla appearing to blow smoke rings when he tries to fry you with radioactive fire!

The Epic That Never Was (Writer/Producer Bill Duncalf, 1965)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/ima.../42/116642.jpg
Alexander Korda got the rights to Robert Graves' epic two-volume set, I, Claudius and Claudius the God and proceeded in the mid-1930s to hire Josef von Sternberg as director and cast the principal roles with Charles Laughton, Merle Oberon, Emlyn Williams and Flora Robson. He bought and created a new studio and enlisted his brother Vincent to build some enormous sets for the production which he envisioned to be THE great British epic film. However, along the way, he ran into a few snags, principal of which was that Laughton was having difficulty finding the character of Claudius and basically became too self-conscious to be able to work on a daily basis. After a few weeks, Merle Oberon was injured in a car accident, so Korda & Co. used that as an excuse to pull the plug on the production and recoup their losses through insurance covered by Lloyd's of London.

I actually watched this documentary about this lost episode of cinema history back on PBS in the mid '70s at just about the time "I, Claudius" was all the rage in America on PBS. Narrated by Dirk Bogarde in a sympathetic, yet somehow still dry and acerbic style, it is worth seeing to see some extended scenes of the film which worked out quite well, as well as some rushes with blown lines all over the place, especially by Laughton. It also contains interviews with people involved with the film who were still alive in 1965, including von Sternberg, Oberon, Robson and Williams. It's a grand history lesson, not only of 1930s British film but also the filmmaking process, at least how it was done back in the day.

Henry V (Kenneth Branagh, 1989) +

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P0S2827PL.jpg
I sorta want to give this the I've always given it. It has many powerful moments, and star/director Kenneth Branagh does accept the mantle of "greatest living Shakespearean actor" from co-star Paul Scofield rather gracefully. Yet, despite the fact that it gives Harry more than one terrific speech and presents a superb "battle of the sexes" comedy scene at the end, the play (and film) just doesn't rate as one of the Bard's greatest, at least to me. Now, I want to make it clear that I find this far more successful a film than Laurence Olivier's version. Sir Larry's version was made during WWII and was dedicated to be a rallying cry to England to defeat the Nazis since it seemed like a foregone conclusion at the time. Olivier did an interesting interpretation of displaying the play within the play by beginning the entire thing on the stage at the Globe Theatre. Branagh trumps him by having a modern-era Chorus [narrator] (Derek Jacobi) admit that what we're seeing is a 20th century film, and then we follow him throughout all the significant scenes of the play.

Henry V is still a very significant film, especially in the lives of Branagh and co-star Emma Thompson. They married at the end of filming and made a total of four other films together. It solidified both of them as serious actors and filmmakers. I know several people, including my wife and other females at this site, who have Henry's speech, pre-Agincourt, completely memorized. Even if I don't find it to be one of Shakespeare's best plays, there are several people's opinions who could "prove" me wrong. No matter what, this is a solid film which I recommend to all filmwatchers and Shakespeareans. I'm sorry if I make it sound less than that. I actually want to go into more detail here, but I don't want to spoil anything.

Mr. Jealousy (Noah Baumbach, 1997)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....12GYE38PYL.jpg
While watching part of this movie this morning, Brenda offered one of her amazing asides... "I don't normally find redheads attractive, but HE is!", referring to Eric Stoltz. I noticed that she was paying attention all of a sudden, so I remarked, "Oh, that was what that look was about!" I never thought about it before myself, but I would have considered Eric Stoltz rather attractive to most all of the opposite sex, and I doubt any guy could call him ugly either. Now, I didn't quiz Bre on what she thought about Annabella Sciorra, but she is a fan of "Law & Order", so I probably already know. Plus, I also know that Bre likes one of the most obnoxious-type guys who's ever been to Barcelona, Chris Eigeman, so we're all well and even here.

I'm actually surprised that I can't even find another significant image from this film on the internet. I find it to be well-worth watching and discussing (and actually far superior to Kicking and Screaming). I'll admit that it lifts quite a bit from Woody Allen, especially the therapy and the classic film watching, but when somebody can borrow from Woody and still make the entire thing their own, I'll cut them some slack. In fact, the actual plot, involving characters posing as other real characters to somehow have therapy (presided over by Dr. Peter Bogdanovich!) is really rather witty and something resembling tightrope walking. I haven't done this film proud by explaining all the good things in it, but maybe you can watch it and fill those in for me.

The More the Merrier (George Stevens, 1943)

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/2a...add4045b82.jpg
This is one of those cute, funny and romantic comedies that seemed to be released once or twice a month back in the '30s and '40s, but we're lucky today if Hollywood produces one or two a year which are this good. It's set in WWII Washington, D.C., where there just aren't enough rooms for all the people who need a place to stay. Through a series of crazy incidents, three people end up sharing one small apartment with two bedrooms: patriotic "working girl" Jean Arthur, a businessman (Oscar-winner Charles Coburn) and a mysterious young man (Joel McCrea) who's just "passing through". Since the businessman has a predilection for playing Cupid and loves to use the phrase "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!", he does his best to get the other two roommates romantically together. This film was a big hit during the war, and although it's not quite as sparkling as it may once have been, it still provides plenty of laughs and a surprising amount of warm romance. The scenes with McCrea and Arthur on the apartment steps and later in their own individual beds talking to each other through the wall are very touching. Of course, Coburn steals the picture, playing a character who strongly resembles the grandfather character he played the same year in Ernst Lubitsch's Heaven Can Wait. I'm still not sure how the Production Code allowed so many damns in the film. :cool: (By the way, this was remade in 1966 as Walk, Don't Run, Cary Grant's final film, and it was transplanted to the 1964 Tokyo Olympics where there was a similar housing shortage.)

Bloody Sunday (Paul Greengrass, 2002)

https://thirdcinema.files.wordpress....day-poster.jpg
Paul Greengrass turns his sniper's eye on a key moment in the history of The Troubles, trying to not only recreate the incidents of January 25, 1972, in Northern Ireland's Londonderry, but also trying to bring some sort of closure and potential healing to a tragic historical incident, much the same way he did with his later United 93. The film is set up from the beginning, showing MP Ivan Cooper (James Nesbitt) discussing his plan for a peaceful Civil Rights March through Derry in an attempt to counteract Britain's systematic use of internment in Northern Ireland. At the same time, the chief officers of the British Army are seen discussing how they need to have maximum presence at the march, especially since they basically announce that any such gathering, even if it's non-violent, is now against the law! What you would expect to result in a lit powder keg all too readily occurs.

Writer/Director Greengrass is probably best known for his two Bourne films, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum where he uses intense photography and editing to create crackerjack thrillers. Both Bloody Sunday and United 93 are intense thrillers, but they're also human tragedies. In these latter two films, Greengrass slowly builds to the tension of the heartbreaking reality. When all hell breaks loose, it's extremely realistic and scary, especially because there is no consensus of what happened and what caused the events of the day. The results are known: 13 Irish killed and 14 wounded; no British soldiers wounded and no weapons found on any of the Irish, except for perhaps some found under extremely questionable circumstances. As Ivan Cooper himself says at the end of the film, "I just want to say this to the British Government... You know what you've just done, don't you? You've destroyed the civil rights movement, and you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight, young men... boys will be joining the IRA, and you will reap a whirlwind." Bloody Sunday is an important film.

Jersey Girl (Kevin Smith, 2004)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Kevin Smith proves he can make a mainstream, PG-13 romantic/family comedy. The opening scenes between Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez are a bit queasy to watch as they show both husband and wife to be not very good people, let alone spouses, but I believe Affleck wins the "Bigger Jerk Award". After Jennifer dies giving childbirth (sorry, but this happens less than 20 minutes in and isn't much of a spoiler; just look at the box), Affleck's Ollie enlists his father (George Carlin) to help him care for his daughter while Ollie continues his workaholic job as an NYC celebrity publicist. However, one day at his job, he actually says what he thinks to all the media people waiting for a Will Smith interview and loses his job.
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/ima...n_smith_14.jpg
It's at this point that he's forced to move in with dad, go to work with him as a garbage man and still try to have a good relationship with his now seven-year-old daughter (Raquel Castro). Oh yeah, this hot video store employee (well, it's a Kevin Smith flick) played by Liv Tyler feels sorry for him because he hasn't been laid since his wife died... Throw in a trip to a Broadway performance of Sweeney Todd, the fact that the daughter wants to stage it at her school and that Will Smith eventually turns up so that he and Ollie can discuss what's really important in one's life, and you get a fair-to-middling, seen-it-before, but it's an almost charming little film. I seem to recall this film garnering lots of lousy reviews when it came out, but it gets better as it goes along, and even if it's mostly unoriginal, it's a watchable film. R.I.P. George Carlin.

Spider (David Cronenberg, 2002)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/...g?v=1216549232
Cronenberg's low-key, but haunting treatment of mental illness begins slowly but gradually draws you into the story of a man nicknamed Spider (Ralph Fiennes) who's released from a mental hospital and enters a halfway house run by Mrs. Wilkinson (Lynn Redgrave). The halfway house is populated by many disturbed men; in fact, the only discernable difference between the "house" and a "hospital" is that there is no treatment in the "house". Spider is able to function at a seemingly-higher level than the other ex-patients though, and soon, he's roaming the streets of his hometown from twenty years ago, just about the time his psychosis first appeared when he was a boy. In fact, Spider begins to "see" not only himself as a boy (played by Bradley Hall) 20 years earlier, but his hard-drinking father (Gabriel Byrne) and housewife mother (Miranda Richardson). And then, there's that blonde tramp (also Miranda Richardson) who may be trying to steal the husband or may not even be real at all...

Like many of Cronenberg's films, Spider is open to interpretation and undoubtedly rewards added viewings for those who are able to get past the slow pace and the depressing surroundings. Cronenberg doesn't really make easy films, and this one begins especially "difficultly", but things begin to clarify about 30-40 minutes in and it becomes more interesting. The best parts to me are trying to determine which parts are real, which parts are imagined and which parts could even be both. I also liked the fact that Spider kept a journal of everything which went on in his day-to-day life, but since it's written in some original language of his own making, no one can understand it except for himself. It's similar to the way that Spider often mumbles something which the viewer cannot understand because it's either too low in volume or doesn't even seem to be real words. Some people may not understand and care about Spider while others will "enjoy" it for probably the same reasons. I probably fall somewhere in the middle ground.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Philip Kaufman, 1978)

http://s017.radikal.ru/i416/1608/75/da87c863733d.jpg
Thirty years ago when I saw this on the humongous Big Newport screen, I just wasn't impressed. I'm not sure what my problem was. I was never that big a fan of the original, true, but I was having a hard time empathisizing any more with the lead characters than I did with the pod people. Three decades and several viewings later, I can safely say I was full of it back then. This film may actually qualify to me as the ultimate paranoid thriller. Everything is in place. The shiny photography, the dark shadows, the killer sound effects, the scary music (actually, I'd probably tone down some of the music because it's the quietest parts which are the scariest). I like the performances and the black humor, as well as just the weird touches, like Robert Duvall's "priest" swinging in a children's playground.
http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/...invasion04.jpg
To me, this is Kaufman's first full-blown success, and if he was ahead of me in the power curve, at least I could see it just a short while later. I thought he went even more into paranoia and dark comedy with his next film, The Wanderers, but that's for another post. This film is pretty-much textbook, as far as basically showing you what's happening, then slowly allowing only one character (Brooke Adams) to know about it. Nobody believes her, but eventually a group of three others (Donald Sutherland, Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Cartwright) are forced to believe her because they cannot deny their own eyes, no matter how much pop psychiatrist Leonard Nimoy tries to rationalize away everything "paranoid". That's enough for now, but be sure to watch for Sutherland's friend's dog near the end.

Next (Lee Tamahori, 2007)

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/image...ePoster325.jpg
I barely even remember this flick being released, but it came on cable a couple of hours ago when I felt a desire to put my feet up, so I watched the beginning, and it kept me moderately interested enough to keep watching for an hour and a half. Nicolas Cage is a clairvoyant, masquerading as a magician, who was born with the gift (or is it curse?) to see about two minutes into the future involving his personal life. However, there is a mystery woman (Jessica Biel) whom he's never met, who he's apparently able to see further into the future, although for what reason isn't clear. Well, Cage is thrown into the middle of a plot by unknown terrorists who seem to want to blow up a nuke in Southern California (shades of "24") and the FBI, led by field agent Julianne Moore, who are trying to stop them. For some reason, both groups seem to understand that some two-bit Las Vegas magician is the key for them to succeed.

Based on a Philip K. Dick story, Next is probably best at setting up the story, no matter how preposterous it may be, since it's fast-paced and doesn't take itself too seriously. There's even a stretch near the beginning which recalls the scene in Dick's Minorty Report where Samantha Morton's pre-cog is able to keep her and Tom Cruise one step ahead of the authorities. There is also some wonderful scenery shot in and around the Grand Canyon. Eventually, the film becomes a little less interesting, but not enough for me to turn it off. Of course, there's a big twist near the end which makes it almost seem like the movie could have gone in an infinite number of directions and still ended up in the same place. I don't especially like that sort of scripting, but in this case, it probably doesn't matter too much to anybody who's likely to watch it.

Dr. Syn aka The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (James Neilsen, 1964)

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/96/b6/81/9...ion-movies.jpg
When I was seven years old, I pretty much gave up on Fess Parker's Davy Crockett being my hero and decided it had to be Disney's "Scarecrow" (Patrick McGoohan). This thing was shown on three consecutive Sundays on the Disney "Wonderful World of Color", and I was glued to the set, even if it was B&W! I started playing Scarecrow with my friends just like we played Civil War and baseball, but Scarecow was just so much cooler. The Scarecrow was a smuggler who hung out near the White Cliffs of Dover and was able to exchange the merchandise he amassed into money for all the poor citizens who lived around Romney Marsh but couldn't afford King George III's outrageous taxes. The Scarecrow was something similar to a Robin Hood of the 1770s. The fact that the Scarecrow was actually a pious vicar called Dr. Syn, who has never really harmed anybody, made him an attractive hero and a supercool anti-hero at one and the same time. Plus he, and his best buds, had the coolest costumes and masks of all time!

This made-for-TV flick was released in Europe in 1964 and eventually released in the U.S. as an edited feature with about one-third cut out. Needless to say, that version is weaker than the original TV show which was just released on DVD last week. This full-blooded version offers up plenty of suspense and character development, along with a catchy theme song. Watch it and tell me what you think.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Guillermo del Toro, 2008)

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imag..._image__1_.jpg
Del Toro's follow-up to both Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth interestingly begins in the same way as the latter with a child reading/hearing a "fairy tale" which has far more to do with said child than he/she could ever know. Hellboy II is crammed with so much visual stimuli and creative CGI that it can almost seem a bit offputting at first, but if you stick with it, it definitely becomes much-more human and easier to relate to. I'll admit that it wore me down with the F/X overabundance but it did provide nice little touches; yes, even if it means laughing a bit more at Barry Manilow and accepting Tecate Light as much as Duff Beer. The film has plenty of other homages. For example, when Hellboy has to deal with that Forest God in the middle of Downtown, it reminded me both of Spielberg's War of the Worlds and a few Miyazaki films. Obviously, the prologue of a world of elves is reminiscent of Tolkien, but what would you expect since del Toro was picked to helm both Hobbit flicks. Ron Perlman is still the perfect Hellboy, even if I thought he had more to do and did it better in the original, but what about the insane new character, Johann Krauss? He was hilarious and totally far-out, man! He also may have my fave line of 2008. When talking to Hellboy in his cornball German accent, he says "You will learn to obey me, follow protocol and stay fock-used (focused, ha!) at all times!" Hellboy's response is equally priceless. Hellboy II ends up being a mass entertainment which I'm actually surprised doesn't have a huger audience.

This review was written long before Drumpf was on the active political scene, and when I put several similar-length reviews in one post. That explains certain things in here.

The Visitor (Thomas McCarthy, 2008)

http://fr.web.img4.acsta.net/r_1280_...4/18908066.jpg
First off, I realize that I'm giving the most serious, lowkey and low-budget film the lowest rating. That may indeed be one of my major flaws when rating films. However, I want to assure everyone that my rating is a positive recommendation, so if you haven't watched this, I'm telling you now to do it. I truly like this film. I like the way it paints a positive and HUMAN image on the illegal immigrant issue. I also realize that some people with certain views about illegal aliens will just think this film is liberal propaganda, and that there's no way we can have illegal Islamic immigrants and that we can be sure that they aren't some kind of ticking time bombs. If you believe that, OK, but the more I listen to all the people who have so many fears about what's happening in America now (Obama, "radical relationships", socialism, "destroying the future for our children", etc.), the more I realize that the fearmongers seem to isolate on one topic or one quote and beat it into the ground. They turn complex individuals into pariahs by repeating catchphrases over and over again, and then they get so mad when you call them on it, that they say silly things like "You're trying to silence our dissent!" I guess whoever "they" are, "they're" doing a crap job because everytime I turn on the car radio, your dissent comes across loud and clear!
http://www.exclaim.ca/images/up-The_Visitor_lg.jpg
I'm sorry because I'm supposed to be discussing this movie which is all about how the wonderful Richard Jenkins can feel that he's an "underachieving bum" of a crumbum college professor named Walter Vale until he meets the outgoing Syrian drummer Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and his Senegalese jewelry artist girlfriend (Danai Gurira) in NYC. Tarek and Walter both love the drum, so they immediately hit it off, but things go bad when Tarek is arrested (for no good reason) and when it becomes clear that he's illegal, he's incarcerated with an immediate threat of being deported. This brings Tarek's mom (Hiam Abbass) to Walter's door since she hasn't heard from her son for days. The film does play out a bit as a cut-and-dried "Why Can't We Be Friends?" treatise, but I find it has more truth than propaganda and may well be an important film to open certain people's eyes.

The Boys in the Band (William Friedkin, 1970)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...3L._SS500_.jpg
Mart Crowley adapted and produced his play for the screen with Friedkin doing an estimable job of staging it for the screen. This movie is actually about a birthday party where all the guests are gay, except for maybe one of them. Of course, even if this film wasn't exactly a revelation at the time, the fact that it was ALL basically about gays and pretty much showed them as being full of the same anxieties and concerns as any other human being did make it a watershed film, at least in American mainstream cinema. I mean, Friedkin's next two films (The French Connection and The Exorcist) both were enormous mainstream hits even though he used indie filmmaking techniques.

The thing which makes this film so powerful is that the script is both hilarious and pathetic; rather, the characters are both hilarious and pathetic. None of the characters are shortchanged and I don't actually find the relationships and the characters' concerns dated in the least. The Boys in the Band is obviously one of the sharpest plays of its era, and the movie has so many solid performances, it's worth seeing for that alone, even if it wasn't so honest. For example, Cliff Gorman, as the most flamboyant member of the fraternity is heartbreaking during his serious scenes. Truly exceptional acting by everyone, but that Michael character really gets to encompass everything from Earth Mother to self-loathing creature. Anyway, now that it's available on DVD, do yourself a favor and watch the film. This is another one I could go on about for awhile, but hell, it's getting late.

The Paradine Case (Alfred Hitchcock, 1947)

http://hitchcock.tv/mov/paradine_cas...paradinefr.jpg
Although this is a lesser Hitchcock, it's well worth watching if you don't expect too much upon the first viewing. Producer David O. Selznick reteamed with Hitch seven years after Rebecca and "introduced" both Valli (who hit it big soon enough in The Third Man) and Louis Jourdan. The thing which really sets this film apart is that Gregory Peck plays the defense attorney of Valli, who's accused of murdering her blind husband, but Peck plays the most unsympathetic character in the entire film. Not only was that unusual for Peck (who was at the height of his popularity), but it sorta threw off the the entire normal way of looking at the film.

Much of the film takes place in the Old Bailey, and much of the "plot" is revealed during the murder trial, but most all of the character development occurs outside the courtroom, whether it's Peck's courting of the accused in the face of his steadfast wife (Ann Todd) or Charles Laughton's Judge trying to hit on Peck's wife. Then, there's the relationship between Valli and her husband's valet (Louis Jourdan), which results in the film's most melodramatic twists. The Paradine Case is a little light in Hitchcock visual flourishes, but if you pay attention, you can still find them. It's not really a mediocre film, but I can think of at least 25 better Hitchcock films, so if it comes on, I'd recommend watching it. If you start to get bored, put one of the other ones on.

Birdman of Alcatraz (John Frankenheimer, 1962)

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/NewArts/TSavalasB.jpg
Burt Lancaster gives one of his subtlest performances as the double murderer convict Robert Stroud in this awesome film directed by Frankenheimer the same year he made The Manchurian Candidate and adapted by Guy Trosper the year after he did the epic One-Eyed Jacks. Stroud soon begins to find an affinity for birds after he's confined to "solitary", but Telly Savalas matches him in the first half of the film as a con who's equally lonely and begins to fall in love with birds. (Kudos to prison guard Neville Brand who plays one of filmdom's most-human turnkeys). Stroud, who spent most of his time in Leavenworth Prison, eventually, through his own hard work and perserverance, becomes the world's foremost expert on bird diseases, and he eventually publishes a scientific book on the subject although he never made it past 3rd grade while growing up.

Eventually, Stroud loses everything and gets transferred to the new prison at Alcatraz where his nemesis (Karl Malden) is the warden. Stroud gets to prove, over and over again, why he's a model prisoner and worthy of parole, even to become one of the world's foremost self-taught scientists who could learn cures to human diseases, but the reality is that Stroud will never, ever be paroled, no matter how much an author (Edmond O'Brien) tries to promote his significance to the health and healing of mankind. Frankenheimer directs in the usual thoughtful, poetic manner he always did in the early-to-mid-'60s, producing not only a mainstream entertainment but advocating social awareness and conscience. Since Lancaster, the actor he used more than any other, believed in many of the same liberal causes, he is appropriately quietly-powerful throughout, as is the stunning ending.

The Bells of St. Mary's (Leo McCarey, 1945)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_st_marys.jpg

This sequel to the previous year's Going My Way seems to defy most films made nowadays and especially those made BACK in the day. Going My Way swept the Oscars and most films didn't get sequels at all, let alone sequels which came out immediately [or so I thought at the time I wrote this], but this film was quickly greenlighted and they brought on board the most popular female actress available, Ingrid Bergman. Bing Crosby reprises his Oscar-winning role as Father O'Malley, probably the most heartwarming and thought-provoking father any kid ever had to look up to. Here, he's matched by Ingrid Bergman as the Sister Superior of the school for students through the eighth grade. They sometimes quarrel; O'Malley tries to see the Big Picture, while the Sister literally follows the rules and tries to hold everyone responsible for their own actions, no matter what the reasons may be. Needless to say, it makes for some drama and misunderstandings as the plot plays out.

Crosby is really super reprising his Oscar-winning role, but Ingrid Bergman actually gets more chances to shine here in her role of a more-literal lover of God and the rules which gradually breaks down under Crosby's influence. This film is actually REALLY good, but it's a bit on the slow-motion side. All the stories are interesting and interpreted well, but they all do seem to be dragged out a bit more than they should. However, that shouldn't keep the audience from crying honest tears at the end.

The City of the Dead (John Moxey, 1960)

http://ghostsandcritters.com/images/...edeadcover.jpg
When my brother and I used to watch this minor horror classic on TV, it was called Horror Hotel. It was always a cool flick for us to watch because it had some stark, spooky photography for many of the indoor scenes, but then it would get all graphic with bodies bursting into flames while trying to commit a ritualistic female sacrifice in a graveyard on the Witch's Sabbath. The Dead mentioned in the original title are witches who were true worshippers of Satan in Whitewood, Massachusetts in 1692. While being burned at the stake, self-confessed witch Elizabeth Selwyn (Patricia Jessel) curses the townspeople, and as a result, all the "dead" witches are given eternal life by Satan as long as they worship him and perform two sacrifices a year.
http://www.1000misspenthours.com/pos...orrorhotel.jpg
The modern day plot involves college professor Christopher Lee recommending that his student Nan (Venetia Stevenson) spend her holidays researching witches in Whitewood, and even though her brother and boyfriend don't like the idea, she drives to the remote, fog-shrouded town. Upon arrival, she finds everything spooky and almost inexplicable, but she does meet one seeemingly-normal woman, Patricia (Betta St, John), who lends her an in-depth book on witches. The plot doesn't really hold any surprises, but there are still plenty of frissons on display. The hotel where Nan stays is menacing in the way that people and strange sounds seem to come and go instantaneously. Plus there are rarely any lights on, but the fireplace always casts dreaded shadows across the rooms. Then there are the actual buildups to the sacrifices presented in the film, and they deliver the goods. The film is just a bit short and repeats a few motifs (especially the fog and the guy who gives everybody directions to the Inn) to qualify as a full-blown classic. Lovers of black-and-white Mario Bava will want to check this out though, and anybody who enjoys "old-time" horror should probably raise my rating by a half-to-a-full popcorn box.

Come to the Stable (Henry Koster, 1949)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ble-poster.png
For those interested, I saw this film while sitting in on a lecture in my daughter's history of film class at USC. We watched a beautiful 35mm print. It's a heartwarming tale about two nuns who come from France after WWII to build a children's hospital. The opening scene almost makes it appear that the nuns have arrived to witness baby Jesus in his manger. This is because the nuns have come to New England to the home of a religious painter (Elsa Lanchester) who lives in the small village of Bethlehem. One (Loretta Young) of the nuns is a transplanted American and the other (Celeste Holm) is a French native who was once a highly-successful tennis pro. The property they wish to buy belongs to a gangster (Thomas Gomez) and abuts the property of a popular songwriter (Hugh Marlowe). Everything seems to be against the nuns ever having a chance of making their dream come true, but as the local bishop says, "An irresistable force has been let loose in New England!", and one of the weird coincidences seems to involve how many people shared something with the nuns in France during WWII. There are some nice laughs here and a few tears to be shed while watching this simple pleasure which may upset a few Scrooges but will make even the hardest of other hearts melt at least a little bit. Dooley Wilson (Casablanca) is also on hand to lend credible and welcome support.

Last Holiday (Henry Cass, 1950)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1FzB4zWGeRc/movieposter.jpg
The year after Alec Guinness delivered a tour de force in Kind Hearts and Coronets, playing eight different characters in the same family who were all killed off by the "hero", he played someone resembling the meekest and friendliest of that family in a very simple, very excellent comedy-drama about a man named Bird who's told he has a rare disease and only months to live. Since he has no family or friends, Bird quits his job and takes all his money to go live at a posh resort where everyone finds him a man of mystery and wants him to invest in some big deals. Besides that, several women take an active interest in him, and soon Bird becomes the most-popular person at the resort, although no one knows anything about his circumstances. Last Holiday was remade a few years back as a Queen Latifah flick, but I've never bothered to watch it because this J. B. Priestley scripted-gem is one of my absolute fave films and the one which I always try to show people who are unfamiliar with Guinness's career in the '50s. As I said, it's amazingly simple and low-key, but at the same time, it becomes magical, and the violin theme is one of the most-hauntingly beautiful I've ever heard. Last Holiday is one of the few films I can think of which earns every single laugh and tear it gets, especially because the twist ending is played to perfection. It's the kind of film which makes it clear why it's both a blessing and a curse to actually be alive, and one of the few which can actually deliver a sting in its tail and still make you want to rewatch it over and over again.

Conrack (Martin Ritt, 1974) +

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...onrack1974.jpg
Pat Conroy wrote four novels of varying autobiographical details which were turned into films: Conrack, The Great Santini, The Lords of Discipline and The Prince of Tides. This is the first one he wrote and the first to be filmed. It's a solid entertainment about a long-term substitute teacher who goes to work on an impoverished and segregated South Carolina island during the Vietnam War where his class of 5th through 8th graders (basically 10-14 years old) are all poor, ignorant black children, many of whom cannot spell their name and do not know what country they live in. Conroy, or "ConracK" (which is easier for his kids to pronounce) uses unorthodox techniques to get through to the kids and try to show them that they are capable of learning no matter how much they seem to be part of an institution which goes out of its way to keep them unenlightened. The problem eventually becomes that Conrack succeeds all too well, so the residue of the Southern racist infrastructure tries to find ways to get rid of him for helping to make the "colored kids more equal". Ritt directed this after his critically-acclaimed Sounder, and Paul Winfield even shows up in a small role, but it's really Jon Voight's movie, and he, along with his students, are the ones which show that the buzz one can get from learning and education is hopefully at least as intoxicating as any other kind of buzz out there in this world.

Bugsy (Barry Levinson, 1991)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qEz74ZyRBZ...1991_Bugsy.jpg
Wonderfully-quirky character study, laced with brilliant dialogue by James Toback (which Tarantino would kill for), tells the true-life story of Bennie Siegel (Warren Beatty) and how he romanced Virginia Hill (Annette Bening) and actually succeeded in creating his dream oasis in the desert of Las Vegas where he and his fellow gangsters could dare to call themselves "legitimate". The film tells the straightforward story of "Bugsy" who was actually happily married with two daughters but he could never keep his pants zipped, and one day while visiting his actor friend George Raft (Joe Mantegna) on the set of Manpower (1941), he meets and falls in love with extra Virginia Hill who also has mob connections and seems to have balls as big as his own. Director Levinson feels very comfortable filming the Hollywood milieu and this increases the entertainment value of the flick by at least twofold. The supporting cast is incredible, especially Harvey Keitel as Mickey Cohen, Ben Kingsley as Meyer Lansky, Elliott Gould as Harry Greenberg and director Richard C. Sarafian (Vanishing Point, Man in the Wilderness) as Jack Dragna. This flick is full of tension, sex, some big laughs, several awkward scenes where the lead characters threaten to be offed by each other or their best friends, and one of Ennio Morricone's most low-key, yet incredibly-haunting musical scores. I dig it.

Brewster McCloud (Robert Altman, 1970)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jCtQBPsvAS...er_mccloud.jpg
On the other hand, we have Robert Altman's follow-up to MASH which can also be considered quirky, but unlike Bugsy, it's also immature, maddening, and almost one-note. It's a bizarre mixture of a film involving man's attempt to retro-evolve towards becoming a bird, an almost fetishistic spoof of Steve McQueen and Bullitt (for God knows what reason), a serial killer mystery, and a collection of characters who seem to have no relationship to each other even when they're sharing what appears to be "deep thoughts" (Bud Cort and Sally Kellerman). Even the characters who seem to be the ones you might want to cheer on to their dubious deaths by bird dung [horrible national anthem singer Margaret Hamilton (The Wicked Witch herself) and phony long-hair, wheelchair-bound preacher Stacy Keach] come across as ad-libbed throwaways. Shelley Duvall is borderline-endearing in her film debut as a tour guide for the Houston Astrodome, but even the wonderful Bud Cort is given so little to do that his character is identified by how many half-assed pull-ups he can do along with his weird eyeglasses. Even the usually-reliable Rene Auberjonois comes across as a fool while explaining why birds and humans share such things as mating rituals and an apparent need to sound deathly-ill when acting beyond their normal realm of behavior. Hey, look here. I'll be the first to say that the flick's a mess, but eventually, it's got just enough charm to make it just about worth watching if you can handle all the crap which is also in this flick, which even ruins a nice chance to make it have some form of honest, human meaning at the end. Still, there are enough prima donnas here to make it worth more than a smile to see them offed with fatal doses of bird poop.

The Bishop's Wife (Henry Koster, 1947)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ean_poster.jpg
This is another one of those absolutely classic Christmas tales that in my mind gets overlooked. It's A Wonderful Life is a movie that just about everyone has seen but have you ever seen this one? No? You should. One very good reason to see this is Cary Grant, David Niven and Loretta Young, just a sparkling cast to say the least. You may also recognize young George Bailey and little Zuzu if you're paying attention. Also Its every bit of an amazing story as It's A Wonderful Life, a simple story. One of love and faith in mankind and even faith in angels and God. What does a Bishop (David Niven) do when he's faced with an angel face to face? Talk about a test of faith! Angels are to be believed in not seen in the flesh.

This is a solid Christmas flick whether you believe in God or not. It's very well-made and Cary Grant is at his most-charming, plus Loretta Young actually won a Best Actress Oscar this same year, albeit for The Farmer's Daughter. The dramatic core of this film is how will Bishop David Niven get his cathedral built unless he kowtows to a rich matron (Gladys Cooper). The Bishop does pray to God for help, and almost immediately the angel Dudley (Grant) appears in his study, but the Bishop is unable to believe that he is who he says he is. Instead, Dudley begins to romance the Bishop's wife (Young) in an attempt to get the Bishop to act, but he begins to fall in love with her. This is a beautiful Christmas film, and Loretta and Cary have several very fun and lighthearted scenes together that I feel never cross the line that so many other films do today when it comes to infidelity and marriage. Later it was remade as The Preacher's Wife with Denzel Washington and Whitney Houston.

Taxi to the Dark Side (Alex Gibney, 2007)

http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/Taxit...tcm6-57718.jpg
This is a strikingly-powerful presentation of evidence concerning the treatment of "detainees" by the U.S. military at the behest of the Bush Administration during the last seven years. It begins by focusing on an Afghan taxi driver who died five days after entering Bagrab Air Base and branches off to cover both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. There are interviews with the "interrogators" at these facilities, one released detainee, military officers who were in charge of the techniques involved, representatives of the Bush Administration, lawyers for the government and for the untried detainees and many other sources. The question is whether the Bush Administration, by denying Constitutional guarantees and those of the Geneva Convention, and utilizing techniques where heretofore have only been used by totalitarian governments and their torturers, are truly allowed to do what they have done in keeping these prisoners from ever receiving any formal charges or trials. I realize that most people believe they already know about most of what's presented in the film and use their political compass to judge what's wrong or right in this case, but this film is extremely efficient in laying all the evidentiary groundwork from many angles and then proceeding to tighten the screws on all the seemingly-guilty parties involved. The people of the world can actually watch this film and decide for themselves what is true. It's a sad testimony that very few people will ever learn what our government has learned from these "enemy combatants" because it's not in the interests of National Security for the American public to find out. Watching the film, you can't help but feel that all these denials and techniques have been used before by countless other regimes, including during the Nuremberg Trials. Just watch the film and tell me I'm jumping to conclusions

Mamma Mia! (Phyllida Lloyd, 2008)

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...ia_468x349.jpg
This is a silly, yet intoxicating and gorgeous-looking musical, built around the songs of Swedish supergroup ABBA. Set in beautiful Greece, it tells the story of 20-year-old Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) who invites three older men to her wedding without telling her mother Donna (Meryl Streep). The reason is that any of the three, Sam (Pierce Brosnan), Harry (Colin Firth) or Bob (Stellan Skarsgård), could be her father and most definitely, one of them is. Needless to say, when Donna finds out, she's not happy, but that doesn't stop everybody from singing and dancing all over the entire movie.

It doesn't really matter if you're an ABBA fanatic or can't tell the difference between them and AC/DC. The film is bright, cute, and just a lot of fun. I'll admit that the time frame of the film seems to defy logic, but who needs logic when you have this much fun on hand? The actors do their best at singing although it's obvious that a few are dubbed, but Meryl Streep and her two best buddies (played by Christine Baranski and Julie Walters - I was getting a Shirley Valentine flashback from the latter) really let it all hang out during their musical numbers. And PLEASE, quit acting like there is something wrong with musicals and people who enjoy musicals. Well, to be honest, I'm not specifically discussing anybody here, but it always seems like when you mention musicals that it turns off all the "macho guys"; you know, the ones who want to go kill things in their videogames or want to watch their video-game-based movies. Those are what real guys enjoy! Sorry about that. Just watch this movie and enjoy it if you can. :cool: Otherwise, watch what you enjoy. It's fine, and you don't need me to tell you so. ;)

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)

https://jansorgedotcom.files.wordpre...786_.jpg?w=700
I don't see how I can say anything which will help anybody get into a movie more than they're predisposed to do. Citizen Kane doesn't make my Top 100 and it doesn't even make my Top 5 of 1941, but these ratings and lists really have little to do with the merit of an individual film, and if I were told that I could teach a class in film, using just one film to study various forms of film communication, I'd probably have to pick Citizen Kane because it did basically reinvent films in the most dramatic ways possible since the changeover from silents to talkies.

On a technical level, the film is phenomenal, from Gregg Toland's deep focus, often expressionistic photography to the weird ways the film tells its story, starting out as a newsreel biography of the leading character after his death and then having the interviewer question Kane's friends and enemies, thus having multiple "narrators" tell the story of the biggest man in the history of the U.S. during the early 20th century. The acting is all very realistic and Welles, although he didn't pioneer the technique, used overlapping dialogue in new, powerful ways which certainly made him the envy of later directors such as Robert Altman. Bernard Herrmann's musical score is also powerful and poignant, and Welles used strange editing techniques (for example, editing to the cackle of a parrot) and special effects effortlessly, not to show off but to try to keep the film moving cinematically. I find the story of the little boy who lost the only love of his life and tried to replace it with money and things a touchingly human tale, so when someone calls what I find one of the strongest endings of all-time lame, I'm left to scratch my head. Yes, the combo of the fire, the sled "melting", the musical score, the smoke billowing from the chimney all showing Charlie Kane's life and dreams going up in smoke, it really makes me think that I'm seeing something special. (I certainly never had any trouble getting into it, right from the "No Trespassing" beginning with the awesome snow globe scene and weird photographic shot of the nurse through the broken glass.) Then, after the ending, Welles closes with unique end credits, even giving DP Toland the last credit.

Maybe some people give the movie extra points because Welles had to fight William Randolph Hearst just to get the film released. Hearst wanted to destroy the film, and even though he was unable to do it, he did just about break Welles and kept him from making films the way he wanted to for most of the rest of his life. I've also been to San Simeon (Hearst Castle) many times, so I can see how close the life of Kane resembles that of Hearst, so maybe the story has more meaning to me than some. Then again, I loved Citizen Kane before I ever went to Hearst Castle or took a film class in college.

As I said, I can't change anybody's mind about anything, but if you truly want to see if you missed something, I'd rewatch the movie sooner rather than later. However it turns out, keep watching movies and telling us what you think. :cool:

Mutiny on the Bounty (Lewis Milestone, 1962)

http://i5.tinypic.com/4knt849.jpg

This version of the HMS Bounty mutiny has always had some major problems for me. First of all there was Marlon Brando'a almost prissy accent and interpretation of Fletcher Christian as some sort of fop. Then there was the fact that the film runs three hours long. Even though I still have those two reservations about this version, I'm warming up to it and have just given it my highest rating. There is an abundance of spectacle and gorgeous photography, as well as several good performances by the rest of the cast, especially Trevor Howard as the monstruous Captain Bligh. I suppose if you like Brando in this that you'll like it more than I do.

Some trivia about the different versions of this true-life, late-18th-century adventure follows. The first talkie version is a hard-to-find 1933 Australian documentary/dramatic In the Wake of the Bounty, which was also Tasmanian Errol Flynn's debut film in which he played Fletcher Christian. The 1935 film won Best Picture and had three actors (Charles Laughton, Clark Gable and Franchot Tone) nominated Best Actor! The strangest thing here is the actress Movita, who played Gable's Fletcher Christian's native love interest was actually married to Brando (remember, he played Christian) during the filming of the 1962 version. (You can't make this kinda stuff up.) The 1984 version, with Mel Gibson as Christian and Anthony Hopkins as Bligh, was released in 1984 with a PG rating and definitely has far more topless women than any film rated lower than R. Don't ask me why, but I thought that somebody around here might want to know that. :cool:

The Caine Mutiny (Edward Dmytryk, 1954)

http://chelsearialtostudios.com/maxs...mutiny_1sh.jpg
This one is in my Top 100, and I suppose some younger viewers might find parts of it dated, but I certainly don't. This is basically a fictional, Americanized version of a WWII Mutiny on the Bounty. One of the things which makes this 63-year-old film feel modern is that it was mostly all filmed on the sea on a real ship, and the cinematography beautifully takes advantage of the realism on display to draw you in. I'll admit one of the hokey aspects of the film is the romance of the callow recent graduate from the Naval Academy, Keith (Robert Francis) and singer May Winn, but even that results in probably filmdom's most spectacularly-beautiful depiction of Yosemite Valley. What truly makes this film shine are the great characters, dialogue and the awesome performances. Bogart as Captain Queeg is tremendous as the new captain of the ship and always makes this cry baby erupt, but he's matched by the spectacular José Ferrer, Van Johnson in his best acting job, Fred MacMurray, Tom Tully (a laugh riot as the original captain of the Caine), E.G. Marshall, Lee Marvin, Claude Akins, Jerry Paris, Whit Bissell, Herbert Anderson, etc. The first three-quarters of the film is a great ocean-going war adventure (with loads of black comedy), but the court-martial scene which concludes the film is pure brilliance.

"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers."

Desperately Seeking Susan (Susan Seidelman, 1985)

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...an-Posters.jpg

Roberta (Rosanna Arquette) is a bored housewife who vicariously finds romance following the newspaper personal ads of "Susan" and "Jim", so one day, Roberta decides to take a walk on the wild side and go into NYC, using the personal as her "map" to find out who this Susan is. Susan turns out to be Madonna, and after following her around the streets for a bit, Roberta sees her swap her jacket for some boots at a clothing store. Roberta immediately buys the jacket, and crazy things start to happen from here on in. Jim (Robert Joy) gets worried when Susan doesn't show for their assignation, so he enlists the help of his projectionist friend Dez (Aidan Quinn) to try to find out what happened to her. Dez finds Roberta, just after she's been mugged, and since she's wearing Susan's jacket and can't seem to remember who she is because of the attack, Dez assumes she's Susan. But, these rough guys are still after them and the only clue to why seems to be a key inside the pocket of Susan's jacket.

This is an indie film, and although today people seem to look down upon it as some sort of Madonna hype movie, she is very good in the film but certainly not the main character. It continues to be an offbeat romantic comedy thriller with a few allusions to character transferral, but it's honestly very unpretentious. I'm sorry, Used Future, but I knew you had a question concerning a movie shown early on in the film, but I waited until after watching it to see what the question was. I couldn't especially make out that film shown in the theatre, but I'm prepared for the next time it comes on.

Johnny Be Good (Bud Smith, 1988)

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/a...ain/7/A70-3919

Wow! It actually took me 20 years to watch this pathetic, critically-reviled and idiotic film, but I've finally got it under my belt. Yes, this film is amateurish, loud, obnoxious, mostly unfunny and ultra-clichéd, but what's up with that rating? This is the story of how high school quaterback Johnny Walker (Anthony Michael Hall) gets approached by every college's scumbag recruiter to go to their school, even though in the lone football scene at the beginning of the flick, he appears to not even know HOW to play football. His best friend/teammate Leo (Robert Downey, Jr.) wants to go along on his coattails, as does his punk coach Wayne Hisler (snakey Paul Gleason, reprising the persona of his punk principal in The Breakfast Club). Johnny's gorgeous girlfriend Georgia (Uma Thurman) is also concerned about where he'll end up in college. OK, I just went over that so you can see what we have going on here. Even though all the supporting characters are loud-mouthed jerks, the leading cast produces some fond memories of far-better films and actually allows a modest amount of entertainment to seep into this trashy flick. Hall and Downey have good chemistry, and 17-year-old Thurman, in her debut, is quite a knockout. Throw in plenty of swearing, males acting like little babies, healthy teenage female flesh, and the good guys kicking the bad guys' asses, and I was able to give it a non-camp rating of what's above. Well, maybe that rating includes some camp value, but for the people who would enjoy watching this crap classic, what difference does it make?

Lifeboat (Alfred Hitchcock, 1944)

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...pg?format=750w

Lifeboat begins in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, just after a freighter is sunk by and in turn sinks a German U-Boat. The only survivor in the lifeboat is spoiled foreign correspondent Connie (Tallulah Bankhead) who is typing a story about the incident, but slowly, more survivors come across and into the lifeboat, and all but one is from the sunken freighter. The last survivor is Willy (Walter Slezak), a German from the U-Boat. The survivors make up a cross section of ethnicities, so the film turns into an interesting character study centering around the ethics of class and war. Willy turns out to be the most-knowledgeable seaman aboard, and reluctantly the others allow him to take charge of setting a heading for Bermuda.

Hitchcock uses John Steinbeck's story as a showcase for him to make one of his patented claustrophobic, one-set films. (Others he would later make include Rope, Dial M For Murder and Rear Window.) Hitch builds suspense by showing the dangers of the sea (weather, sharks) and by the fact that there is just not enough food or water for everyone to be able to survive the long voyage to Bermuda. One by one, each character has a big scene, but Willy seems to just be stronger and brighter than the other characters. It's this last point which caused a backlash against the film. Even though Lifeboat was released to critical praise and big box office in its limited opening engagements, after a brief time, a few columnists decided that somehow the film celebrated the Nazi "Superman", and 20th Century Fox chief Darryl Zanuck decided to not fully release the film due to fear of it sullying his reputation. That's actually pretty shocking because you don't especially consider the WWII era as some kind of "politically-correct" age, and Lifeboat, after all, is a gung ho, pro-Allies film

Nothing But the Night (Peter Sasdy, 1973)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UuPFKD-bQm...othing+dvd.jpg

This is the umpteenth teaming of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, and it was actually made under the banner of Lee's own production company. It's an offbeat and relatively well-made mystery about a strange little girl who seems to have memories of an accident which doesn't correlate to the physical evidence concerning the event. She also lives at an orphan home on a remote island, and the trustees of that home have been dying under mysterious circumstances lately, leading a retired policeman (Lee) to enlist the aid of his doctor friend (Cushing) in helping him try to prove there is a murderous conspiracy afoot. Although there are many more details and characters, they're not especially worth mentioning right now. The first half of the film takes place in an urban hospital and the second half is set on that island orphanage. There is a big "plot twist" at the end which is OK, but the chief problem with the film is that it has an underdeveloped script. Director Sasdy uses lots of location work to try to disguise the fact that the film is repetitious and drawn out. As it is, it would have worked better as a "Twilight Zone" episode, albeit a rather weak one. It does have some unintentional humor near the end when the girl's mother (Diana Dors) seems to spend an eternity creeping and crawling around the island trying to get to her daughter, apparently just to pad out the running time. It's not really all that bad, but it's not exactly a horror film; at least not compared to something like Rosemary's Baby.

W. (Oliver Stone, 2008)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NGcFvkK2OT.../s400/w_06.jpg

Oliver Stone leaves behind his usual frenetic, free-wheeling style to tell the story of President George W. Bush's life from two perspectives, both surprisingly low-key and empathetic to the man. Of course, Josh Brolin's total immersion into the Bush persona makes it seem much smoother than it otherwise would have been. Bush is seen shortly after 9/11 with his cabinet and advisors planning on how to fight his war on terror. At the same time, the film begins a series of flashbacks which begin in 1966 when Bush was a pledge at a fraternity at Yale. The younger Bush is shown to be a pleasure-loving, hard-drinking young man who constantly disappoints his father (James Cromwell) while seeking to find his place in the world. The older W. is shown to be a sincere individual who isn't fully-equipped to deal with fighting a war on terror and who seems to have surrounded himself with some questionable aides and confidantes who don't actually support the same principles he does. As I mentioned before, Josh Brolin is terrific playing Bush at all ages as a truly-likable person, especially when meeting and courting his future wife Laura (Elizabeth Banks).

Stone seems content to show Bush in a non-cynical way. The entire first hour plays out as a loose character comedy which just happens to be about very serious situations involving dozens of real-life characters. Stone uses longer takes than normal and leaves it up to the audience to interpret what it all means. It's only in the final hour, where the Iraq War shows a badly-divided Bush Administration when someone could take any real objection to the politics shown. No matter who seems to be on the hawk or dove sides, W. almost always seems to be a man in the middle, trying to weigh both sides and keep things together while trying to uphold the Constitution. I will admit that you'll have to decide if Stone was being satirical in his use of the recurring background music of "Robin Hood", "Deep in the Heart of Texas" and "The Yellow Rose of Texas" throughout the film. It also ends with one of my fave Dylan songs, "With God on Our Side", playing over the end credits. I wouldn't be surprised if W. himself interprets that song differently than I do, but I also know that W. probably looks at baseball differently than I do, and baseball is used as a metaphor throughout the film.

Lust For Life (Vincente Minnelli, 1956)

https://www.artline.ro/files/gItems/image/5/lust.jpg

I'll admit that I may have a tough time justifying such a high rating for a very melodramatic and mostly-depressing biopic of Vincent Van Gogh, but since he's my favorite artist, and Kirk Douglas and Anthony Quinn (as Van Gogh's friend Paul Gauguin) are so good in their roles here, I'll surprise myself and continue to think this highly of it. Van Gogh was a deeply-disturbed individual who found it difficult to give all the love he felt for a suffering humanity. He was also apparently clinically-depressed from his extreme sense of loneliness and low self-worth, and he suffered seizures, especially in the final two years of his life. The film follows Van Gogh's life at a mining village and his subsequent reunion with his brother Theo (James Donald). Van Gogh had bad luck with women, and after being told he was a failure as a Man of God, he was also considered a failed artist. It's only when he's left to his own devices and moves into a house in Arles, that he begins to perfect his own intense post-impressionist style which makes him so beloved to this day.

The highlights of the film, besides the dozens of Van Gogh paintings on display, are that many of the characters and settings are obvious recreations of the people and places that Vincent painted. That and the scenes between Van Gogh and Gauguin where they argue about how and what to paint and what it means to them. Although the men were obviously friends, the relationship was a very stormy one and eventually led to Vincent cutting off part of his left ear. After this incident, Vincent agreed to commit himself to a mental hospital at Saint-Rémy. He would go for long stretches just relaxing without his paints and canvas, but when he was deemed well enough to work, he created many of his most-famous paintings while staying at the hospital. The overall intensity of Lust For Life is immeasurably aided by the musical score by Miklós Rózsa and the brightly-colored photography of F.A. Young and Russell Harlan. At the center of it all is the voice of the human soul crying out for companionship and understanding.

The Two of Us (Claude Berri, 1967)

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/79/39/19/7...film-movie.jpg

1967 was a seminal year in film, and more than a few MoFos have even mentioned it as somehow being significant (although I find that date completely arbitrary). However, who has seen this wonderfully-moving film from 1967, or even more directly, who has even heard of it? Claude Berri was almost nine-years-old when the things which this film delineates happened to him during WWII. Most people recognize Berri as the director of Jean de Florette/Manon of the Spring and the producer of Polanski's Tess, but this first feature film of his remains my favorite, and sometimes I have to wonder why I like it so much. Of course, Berri had to embroider his film a bit, and I realize now that it's the "embroidery" which I probably enjoy even more than the reality. Berri was a Jew living in Paris and going to school while his parents basically hid in a kind woman's attic. Well, Claude would constantly get into trouble and draw attention to himself by acting out, so his parents decided it would be better for all concerned to send him off to the country to keep him away from prying Nazi and Vichy eyes.

Claude goes to live with the kind woman's mom and dad ("Pepe") (the wonderfully-irascible Godfather of French actors, Michel Simon), and here he learns from the old man that many groups of individuals are bad for the country, including Jews. The boy also learns about unconditional love from the same source, so when the whip-smart Claude begins to question Pepe about his seemingly-racist views, he's able to win a few concessions from the old man, who has no idea the Kid is a Jew, even though Pepe assures everyone that he can "smell them out". This beautiful comedy-drama actually reminded me a bit of Gran Torino, at least thematically, but I'll concede that this film is surely more transcendent. The strength of this film lies in the details. You begin watching it, and you understand all the characters and their situations, but you aren't really sure what you think of them. Then, about halfway through the film, everything becomes almost magical, and the lovely score by George Delerue becomes more prominent, and you (I) basically spend the entire last 45 minutes laughing through something resembling tears of joy. I could be completely "off my rocker", but everyone has some films they love and almost feel a mystical affinity for, and The Two Of Us, literally translated as The Old Man and the Boy, is one of such films for me

What Just Happened (Barry Levinson, 2008) +

https://www.austinchronicle.com/bina...asterclass.jpg

Robert De Niro was one of the producers of this adaptation of the Art Linson book about the insides of the Hollywood studio system. That may help contribute to why this film contains his best screen performance which I've seen since Ronin. Coincidentally, he plays producer Ben who is having problems with his two latest films. One is a Sean Penn thriller called Fiercely, by a Guy Ritchieish director (the wonderful Michael Wincott), which has just bombed at a test screening because Penn's dog gets killed in bloody closeup at the end. This doesn't make studio chief Lou (Catherine Keener) happy at all. The other film is about to start shooting with Bruce Willis, but Bruce has grown a full-length beard and claims it's his artistic right to wear it even though the studio says they paid him $20 million for a leading man, so if he doesn't shave, they'll pull the plug on the film and sue both Willis and Ben. To make matters worse, Ben also seems to be having problems getting over the latest of his broken marriages.

I can't quite explain why I don't give this film a higher rating. I think it's worth watching, it has some big laughs sprinkled throughout, Willis is good playing his own insane self and John Turturro is very funny as his agent who sounds like he may die from a fear-induced gag reflex. The story line involving the film Fiercely plays out humorously at the Cannes Film Festival, and the cast is superb, including Robin Wright Penn as one of Ben's exes and Stanley Tucci as a suspicious argyle socks wearer. Still, something just seems a bit lacking; even so I could just as easily rate this as a -, so somebody else tell me what they think.

Carnal Knowledge (Mike Nichols, 1971)

http://www.moviecrazed.com/images/nicholscarnal.jpg
This acidic social satire of what men really think about women was penned by cartoonist Jules Feiffer, and Jack Nicholson gets to play one of the all-time scumbags who makes the guys in In the Company of Men seem like Mother Teresa. At college during the 1940s, Jonathan (Nicholson) and his best friend Sandy (Art Garfunkel) constantly converse about what they want from women although neither is particularly experienced, or so Jonathan says. They both date and become infatuated with Susan (Candice Bergen), although Sandy's in love with her and Jonathan just wants to screw her. Thus sets the stage for following the men's lives throughout many women on up through the middle-to-late 1960s. Sandy honestly feels the need to have a full relationship with a woman, heart and soul, but all Jonathan seems to care about is their "T & A" and waiting for each relationship to fail so he can move on to the next doomed one, the most significant of which involves what seems to be Jonathan's "perfect woman" (Ann-Margret).
http://videodetective.com/photos/011/00048018_.jpg
Carnal Knowledge unites director Mike Nichols with DP Giuseppe Rotunno, and as the film begins, it often plays out as a period inverse of The Graduate. Initially, the soundtrack is filled with the best dance music of the WWII era, and there is plenty of witty dialogue, camerawork and acting. As the film progresses, it gets far darker and reveals the full agenda of both showing how men put down women and how these filmmakers will try to castrate those who deserve it. Jonathan spends half of the movie talking about how every woman who loves him wants to bust his balls. It might not be a light evening of entertainment, but it's still powerful and, I dare say, entertaining.

The 10th Victim (Elio Petri, 1965)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....30,500_AL_.jpg
Elio Petri, the Communist satirist of Cold War/Vietnam War-era Italy, reached his peak in 1970 with Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion where he almost predicted Watergate. This earlier film is equally satiric in that it depicts a futuristic world (seemingly socialist) without war. Instead of all-out war between nations, individuals can take out their aggressions by signing up for the worldwide game of "kill-or-be-killed". Each time you kill or avoid being killed in the game, you win money and gain fame. The object is to kill your prey five times and avoid being killed by your hunter five times (this involves killing said hunter each time). If you succeed all 10 times , you become a "Decathlete". In this film, the key players are American Caroline Meredith (Ursula Andress) who needs one last kill to become a Decathlete, and Roman Marcello (Marcello Mastroianni) who's about to enter his seventh life-or-death mission. Marcello has a crapload of baggage involving ex-wives and jealous girlfriends, and he seems almost suicidal as the next game begins. However, as things play out, both killers find themselves strangely attracted to each other, so it becomes difficult to tell what will finally happen, no matter how many twists and turns the plot takes.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MdpphCZMDh...ront+Cover.jpg
The 10th Victim isn't the best film you'll ever see, but it's amazing how much it'll make you think about reality TV, the future, why certain movies SHOULD be remade (Not Total Recall, for godssake! My daughter wants to remake this ASAP), the Battle of the Sexes, and in this film's case specifically, how somebody could compose a musical score just as spaced out as one of Ennio Morricone's weirdest. If you're ever lucky enough to see Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion (it's currently unavailable on DVD), you'll quickly notice the completely-bizarre Morricone score. This film's score sounds exactly like Morricone, but no, it's by Piero Piccioni, who apparently never worked with Morricone. However, fans of The Big Lebowski can hear Piccioni's music ("Traffic Boom") for it right here.

Religulous (Larry Charles, 2008)

http://protestantedigital.com//uploa...-22-22-49.jpeg
I'll admit that I'm not really a fan of Maher. By that, I don't mean that I don't like him; I just have never really followed his career that much. However, I'll also say that he's able to make an equal-opportunity insultathon which rivals Larry Charles' previous film, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, for big laughs and a collection of deadpan disapproval by real people. I appreciate what Maher tries to do here; everyone should examine their beliefs and attempt to "prove all things", and it's obvious that many of the "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Crackpots" should get skewered for some of their backward thinking, or perhaps, just plain non-thinking. Yet, Maher doesn't quite come off as the rational flipside of the wackos he ridicules. Maher keeps saying that he doesn't know the answers, but when he "sounds" so much more "wise and knowledgable" that his interviewees, he comes across as a person who is disingenuous. He does wrap up his film with what I find a powerful statement against organized religion, especially in the way it's used in many countries today, but Maher never once even has the guts to say that "when you die, that's it, you're dead, permanently". I would have more respect for him as a serious seeker of the truth if he just said that, but he seems to try to hedge his bets. Even so, there's no denying that this movie is damn funny for several reasons. I just don't think it's a [Book of] "Revelation".

Australia (Baz Luhrmann, 2008)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0EghQwmRMs...liaposter1.bmp
OK, some people love and some people hate Luhrmann's style. I probably fall somewhere in the middle. In spite of his in-your-face staging, I tend to find his films entertaining, especially since there's usually the bottom line of a romance to smooth things over for those who can't get past all his visual and editorial flamboyance. This film begins with several editing flaws (I mean to say that the editing style is just annoying) and the film seems to exist in some alternate movie universe which would never had passed muster at Warner Bros. with Errol Flynn starring. Yet, even so, this "historical" film about what happened in Australia, both concerning the "Lost Generation" of aborigine children and WWII, still delivers enough "old-fashioned entertainment", especially in the romance department (my wife says it's "VERY romantic"), that it's certainly watchable for those who don't believe they're above an overblown, melodramatic, overstuffed, special effects extravaganza. To tell you the truth, the film which Australia most reminds me of is Pearl Harbor, but I like that film more than most do, even if I've only watched it once. It's just that Australia has Jack Thompson, Bryan Brown and Davil Gulpilil (a national treasure), so I'll certainly cut it some slack against those who want to tighten the rope enough to hang Luhrmann & Co.

W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings (John G. Avildsen, 1975)

http://www.grindhousedatabase.com/im...cekingpost.jpg
In 1957, sweet-talking robber/con man W.W. (Burt Reynolds) drives throughout the South in his 1955 Oldsmobile 88, holding up S.O.S. gasoline stations but always giving some of the money back to the person he robs. One night, while trying to avoid the police, this Robin Hood stumbles across a band called the Dancekings and becomes attracted to their upright singer Dixie (Conny Van Dyke). W.W. promises that he can get them a gig in Nashville the very next night, and he delivers, even if it turns out only to be playing at an amateur contest. Eventually, W.W. says that he can get the group on the Grand Ole Opry, but little does he know that the S.O.S. Corp. has sent their top "hit man", the Deacon (Art Carney), to capture W.W. and stop his reign of holdups.

This flick captures Burt Reynolds at the height of his charm, the script by Thomas Rickman (Coalminer's Daughter) is one of his most enjoyable, and Avildsen directs in the crowd-pleasing style he used the following year to gain a Best Director Oscar for Rocky. The beginning and ending of this fairy tale are even better than my rating above, but the middle of the film gets a bit extended and loses some of the comic head of steam that built up at the start. For those interested, the Dancekings include such famous faces as Jerry Reed, James Hampton, and Rick Hurst, and there's a funny cameo by Ned Beatty playing a country-singing star who agrees to listen to the Dancekings. This flick isn't available on DVD, but I have no reasonable explanation for that.

Lights in the Dusk (Aki Kaurismäki, 2006)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA240_.jpg
Director Kaurismäki uses his typical deadpan style to tell the story of a lonely Helsinki security guard (Janne Hyytiäinen) who leads one of the most boring lives in existence. His only brushes with honest human interaction come from his daily stops at the tiny local grill where he exchanges a word or two with the female worker (Maria Heiskanen). Then one day out of the blue, a blonde woman (Maria Järvenhelmi) approaches him and rather coldly asks him to take her out, and he accepts. The problem is that the blonde is working for a crooked businessman (Ilkka Koivula) who's trying to take advantage of the loser guard's position to steal some jewels.
http://www.coffeecoffeeandmorecoffee...20dusk%202.jpg
Although the film can be seen as some form of neo-noir, it fits more "comfortably" into the director's minimalistic, existential style of making dark comedies from things which seem to be far more tragic than humorous. We never learn about what makes the security guard's life the way it is, but we can understand and relate to him as a lovable outsider who doesn't seem to have many social skills. I'm sure there are many viewers unfamiliar with Kaurismäki who will swear that there are no laughs at all in the film, and there are probably those who understand his agenda and do not like it. Even so, he has built up a fervent cult, and this film goes into many of his themes and motifs, including love of animals, cigarette smoking, heavy drinking, rock 'n' roll, crime, loneliness, etc. I didn't find it quite as compelling as The Man Without a Past, but it's still worth a look-see if you're in the mood or a fan. The ending is a keeper.

Rebecca (Alfred Hitchcock, 1940)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ilm_poster.jpg

This is Hitch's only film to win a Best Picture Oscar, but no, he didn't win best director (he never did). This is a David O. Selznick production, and it seems more like a Selznick film than a Hitchcock one. It's got terrific storytelling, wonderful acting and a sumptuous production. Hitchcock does imbue the film with mystery and suspense, but it seems to be more of a professional job and less of a personal undertaking to get at the audience, which, after all, is basically why Hitchcock films are so appealing. Even if Hitch seems a little bit hamstrung by being a team player here, the plot is so ingenious and the characters so interesting that it's definitely a must-see and probably the best film Hitch made during the 1940s (and yes, I realize many feel that film should be Notorious, but feel free to keep that opinion if it's yours :)). I don't know if I want to spoil it too much, but basically wealthy widower Laurence Olivier meets and eventually marries a simple young woman (Joan Fontaine), and later he takes her to his enormous estate Manderley where the overwhelming presence of his dead wife Rebecca threatens to shatter their marriage. To make things even more frightful, Rebecca's devoted housekeeper (Judith Anderson) goes out of her way to tell the new wife that she can never compare in any way to Rebecca. The strength of the film is that things are never actually quite what they appear to be, almost right to the very end.