07-04-30 Idiocracy (2006)

Seen: January (30th?), 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

This is a Mike Judge film. That right there may tell you whether or not you want to see it.

This one's hard for me to rate. I can't rate it too high, because its got too many juvenile, one-off gags that tend to drag it down to be considered truly great. But it's also got a fantastic premise, and shows us the results of the premise in a way that's funny only because it's accurate and painful.

It's in trying to serve both these ends that Idiocracy doesn't quit hit the mark.

Idiocracy functions similarly to Office Space, another Judge product, in that it juxtaposes comedy and social commentary. But in the case of Idiocracy the ends of the spectrum are much more extreme. The line between humor and social commentary still exists here, but the film takes a much wider stance over the line. The commentary is more pointed, and occasionally borders on the bitter. The humor is broader, lower, becoming slapstick at times. I guess that means that there's something for everyone, but it also means that you have to put up with the other guy's half.

The issue at the heart of the film, the dumbing down of America, is brilliantly satirized. The conceit is consistent and carried through almost every element of the film. The problems generated via hyperbolizing the issue are funny, but disconcerting and unsettling. In the case of slapstick humor, the film is even self-critical, admitting to being part of the problem. Judge is great at this. He has a keen eye for stupidity, and in particular American cultural stupidity, and he's finally moved from referencing it to dedicating an entire film to it.

If really couldn't care less about the message, that's all right, there's entertainment inside the film for you too.

The Good: Poignant social commentary.

The Bad: The Trashvalanche.

The Ugly: Entertainment isn't all that different.

07-04-29 Thunder Road (1958)

Seen: April 25th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Another in the series of driving movies. Thunder Road is about running moonshine. Free enterprise, avoiding taxation, fast cars, pretty women, the little man standing up for himself.

Can you be any more all-American?

I mean that in a good way. While it contains a preamble statement which condemns moonshining, stating that Americans are being cheated because moonshiners don't pay their taxes, it doesn't really persecute them. If anything, it celebrates their tradition and rebel spirit. It paints a picture of danger for the transporters, but ends up glorifying them more than a little bit.

Even the feds aren't painted in a bad light. While their job is to put the moonshiners out of business, they're fairly polite about it in general. They're not so much after the little fish as the big ones.

If Thunder Road paints anyone in a bad light, it's organized crime. Perhaps deservedly so.

There's nothing outstanding about the writing or story really. The story's attributed to Robert Mitchum, and though passable, but he definitely needed to keep his day job. Casting is generally good, though Keely Smith bugged me more than a little, she's a singer, not an actress and it shows. Mitchum is a very good actor and delivers a solid part. The rest do their bit and it all hangs together well.

The film is visually overly dark at times. Night scenes especially. Editing seems a bit choppy and disconnected at times. There's a few scenes that screamed reshoot to me, with mis-matched backgrounds. None of this is terribly distracting, though.

While the movie focuses a lot on cars, the driving here is nothing really spectacular. The few real chase scenes aren't that interesting or complex. The last crash has a nice touch, though.

Overall, Thunder Road is solid, though not exceptional. See it if you're a Mitchum fan, or want to see real bootlegger cars from the 50s hauling white lightning.

P.S. Not to worry, White Lightning is on my list too :P

The Good: Moonshiners is people too

The Bad: Revenooers and organized crime

The Ugly: Leaving your car unattended

07-04-28 Infamous (2006)

Seen: April 22nd, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

It's a real shame that Infamous and Capote came out so near each other. It really hard to comment on one without at least a mention of the other. If you see them both, you've got to see one first (unless you multitask far better than me), and you can't watch the other objectively.

I saw Capote first.

Both film rely heavily on their performances. Both are filled with excellent ones. But in this light, I prefer Infamous to Capote. It's hard to explain, but Toby Jones plays Capote in a more understated fashion. I never felt that he was playing Capote, I just believed the character. This is no small challenge as Capote himself was so flamboyant. Jones manages to place the focus not on the flamboyance itself, but on Capote the person. Why is he flamboyant? Why does he say and do the things he does?

Through this, we can connect with Capote. We may not like or respect him, but we generate at least some compassion. This becomes especially crucial at the end of the film. By letting us connect with Capote earlier, the changes he goes through are that much more more powerful. We actually believe that he's impacted by the final events, because we seen him brush off other things, not just in action but in manner.

Jones's performance finally made me understand how anyone could like Capote, if not revere him in some small way.

The other performances are generally excellent as well. Bullock did an admirable job. No small praise as I'm a Keener fan and loved her in that role as well. Bullock's accent wavers, but the characterization is rock solid and appropriate. I also found Craig's performance well done, though I felt that the role itself got shorted a little bit by the writing. Bogdonavich also stood out here, though I couldn't tell you why.

The overall look of the film is understated. It it positively stark and bleak at times. Even when the environs are supposed to be opulent, it remains a bit muted, drawing focus to the characters. This serves the film very well. While the era is depicted exceptionally, there's nothing to distract us from the story at hand.

Understatement is my key takeaway here. Infamous gets it right by not being over-the-top. There's no need to dramatize these events are they are so very compelling themselves.

P.S. It occurs to me that In Cold Blood actually was revolutionary in that it was one of the first dramatizations of real events. Capote's reporting wasn't objective, though he did try to present the scenario honestly. This of course has spawned hundreds of "based on a true story" movies and is probably the ultimate genesis of reality TV. For what it's worth.

The Good: Understatement sells

The Bad: Dawn of the exploitation era

The Ugly: It's not over 'til it's over

07-04-27 El Dorado (1966)

Seen: April 24th, 2007
Format: HD-Net (HDNMV)
Rating: 7

This is a western. If you don't like westerns, this one won't change your mind. But if you do, you may see something new.

I like westerns.

John Wayne is such an icon that any time I watch one of his performances, I need to overcome my own stereotype of him. The ease with which this is done depends a great deal on the individual film. In this one, he gets shot in the back by a girl. This character, I'm interested in.

Most of the characters in this film are anti-stereotypes. Each represents a character you've seen before, but adds a flaw to keep them interesting and the film honest. We have a sheriff who's prone to bad relationships. The young, avenging angel who can't shoot to save his life. The father who believes that his child's death was an accident,despite the circumstances. The scarred bad-guy gun hand who has nothing but polite words and respect for his enemy.

All these things help turn a story you've seen before into something interesting. These characters are fallible. Their danger becomes more real because given their flaws, we're not quite sure that everything will turn out OK in the end. We're not quite sure what will happen next in most cases. Things don't go quite the way we expect, but our heroes show resolve and tenacity. And in the end, getting the job done is actually what matters.

I'm not going to tell you that El Dorado is a masterpiece, but I was expecting a simple shoot 'em up with the characters aligned to one side or the other. Instead, I got a thoughtful piece of writing and acting that I really enjoyed.

P.S. Now that I've seen El Dorado, it's time to go watch Rio Bravo again. Both done by Howard Hawks, El Dorado is the re-make.

The Good: Nobody's perfect

The Bad: Some characters are a bit thin and could stand some more exposition

The Ugly: Shotgun safety

Now Taking Requests...

I've actually had someone ask me (in person) to review a particular film. If you've got a request, post a comment here, and I'll see what I can do (though I make no promises).

07-04-26 The Science of Sleep (La Science des rêves) (2006)

Seen: April 22nd, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Surrealism is a powerful thing. It encourages us to look at old things in new ways. It can jog our minds into perceiving new realities, and open up new avenues of creativity or self-realization. At worst, it can simply be confusing or distracting. It's a tricky line to tread.

The Science of Sleep is a beautiful and personal piece. It has a very child-like quality, and in fact that seems to be its point. Our protagonist Stéphane, is trapped in his childish fantasies. He can't really cope with the world as an adult.

Child-like characters are revered in many cultures. We see are the most objective about the world in our childhoods. We've all experienced the wisdom that escapes the mouths of the young. It's generally driven by their evolving perceptions of the world around them, a perception that we can be shown, but not see on our own, as our own adult mental pathways are much less pliable.

Those who can maintain the ability to shift perception as the grow older as often geniuses. They can balance their experience while observing things with an objectivity that belies their years.

The problem with all that in this context is that The Science of Sleep blurs the boundaries between a different objectivity and reality. Some might say that this is where it becomes art. For myself, it becomes muddled.

Stéphane comes across as not merely child-like, but delusional as well. Much of the magic we are shown of his dreams and his reality are tarnished by the very fact that he can't seem to recognize which is which. What starts out as charming ultimately becomes creepy and eventually dysfunctional.

My problem is that I don't know how to reconcile this. This isn't the fantasy inspired world of Brazil. This isn't someone escaping, but instead actively trying to bring their fantasy into reality, and displace reality with something more idealized and palatable. Ultimately, this is an avoidance of the human condition, where the pursuit is what we truly value.

This is all really abstruse. You might enjoy this just for its child and dream-like qualities. You may enjoy to performances, which are very good. Perhaps you can identify with one or more of the characters. But, I for one want to connect with the protagonist in some way. I can do that in a few ways, but in others, he's the last person I'd want to talk to.

The Good: Honest and unflinching surrealism

The Bad: Fantasy

The Ugly: Disconnection is a double edge sword

07-04-25 Shooter(2007)

Seen: April 21st, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 6

The military loans out a soldier and the mercenary bastards don't treat him right. He abandons the world. He's called back on a mission to really serve his country. You've seen Shooter before. But that's not a bad thing. The song may be the same, but the singers are different, and the cover is worth a shot.

Plus I like looking at both Rhona Mitra and Kate Mara.

What else to say really? You'll learn something about snipers. I'd be surprised if they didn't hire a consultant for that aspect of the film as it felt real enough.

The rest of it is mostly fantasy. Our hero is brave and resourceful, clever and compassionate. He share shis beer with his dog, how can we not relate? The explosions are big, the conspiracy deep, the cat and mouse tense and dramatic. But the motivations are simple and I guess that deep down we really wish that someone was there for us to right the wrongs, to take care of business and help Justice with her scales.

The performances are all passable. This is a bit fantastic, so some are over the top, as we'd expect. There's no real depth of character here, with the possible exception of Memphis, played by Michael Peña. Everyone one is a bit of a caricature, but really it's what happens that's interesting, not who it happens to.

There are oblique political digs, they're hard to take too seriously, given the context in which it's delivered. I wonder how Bob Lee feels about gun control?

All in all, standard fare. Nothing to alert the Academy about, but a pleasant enough diversion, if you like military thrillers.

The Good: Basic revenge with a patriotic flavor

The Bad: Capitalism

The Ugly: The death penalty

07-04-24 Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry (1974)

Seen: April 20th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

After seeing Grindhouse I read an interview with Tarantino about his segment, Death Proof. He was inspired by many driving films, several of which he mentioned. That seemed a good enough excuse for me to expand my horizons.

The DVD of Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry contains trailers for a number of car based films. Most of them seemed very dated to me. Many of them looked corny, many pointless and some downright bad. By the time I got to the film I was prepared to hate it.

Then I find out Peter Fonda's the lead. I have no love for Peter Fonda. To say I hate him is inaccurate, but there's a definite negative bias. Perhaps its because I feel that his opportunities have outweighed his talent. I've seen him do a great job, but I've never felt that he was the only actor for any particular role. I feel the same way about Danny Huston.

But a funny thing happened on the way to disappointment. I actually really enjoyed this film.

It's got an interesting, but not complicated plot. It's a quirky premise, that somehow works. I've not seen the unexpected third wheel thing done this way before. Usually it's stowaways and the someone unexpectedly asleep somewhere they shouldn't be. Mary's no stereotype. She's pretty and clever, perhaps even crafty. This juxtaposition with Larry as the brains of the outfit is a nice juxtaposition.

It's filled with stereotypes, but they stay firmly planted in their brief and generally trivial roles. Other than that, there's no grand scheme, no larger issues, no message to be endured. It's a chase picture. Good guys chase not so good guys. It starts out as a getaway and gradually evolves into a personal duel. It becomes a game of cat and mouse, though we're not always sure who's playing which role.

The driving has to be mentioned. The stunts in this film simply don't stand up to the ones we see in films today. And I mean that in a good way. In the continuing quest for over-the-top, somewhere along the way the realism went out the window. It's all become a cartoon, a video game. When We watch a stunt in a current film, we think, "wow, what a great stunt" instead of "I wonder if that guy is dead". The stunts and crashes here feel real. I grimaced when one vehicle got T-boned. I wondered if the farmer was killed when the pickup crashed.

I liked this flick. It's a little rude, a little crude, but ultimately there's more here than meets the eye.

The Good: Muscle car madness

The Bad: Lime Green Charger; to the bone

The Ugly: Crime doesn't pay

07-04-23 Rififi (Du rififi chez les hommes) (1955)

Seen: April 19th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

I like to plan. In fact, if I were to spend less time planning and more time doing, I'd probably get a lot more actually accomplished. And no matter how I plan, something always runs contrary to plan and needs to be changed or improvised.

The plan's failure, usually in some trivial or seemingly inconsequential fashion, is the linchpin of the heist film. Something tugging on this small, loose thread is what begins the unraveling, and in this unraveling lies the heart of the story.

Rififi is considered by many to be the reference heist film.

Watching Rififi now it seems conventional in many ways. Many of these conventions started here. Rififi is also noir and contains many of the conventions of that genre as well. The combination of these genres works particularly well. Where the standard heist film pits the gang against the forces of good and justice, here they must also battle with those even less scrupulous than themselves, those who have no code. This persecution does a great deal to engender sympathy for the various members of the gang. Their histories and idiosyncrasies fill them out and allow us to identify with them.

The technical aspects of the film are first rate. It is grey and dim. It lives in the shadows. The visual style fits the film perfectly. Characterizations are rich, though simple. Even minor characters are handled carefully.

The heist scene itself is an achievement and has been the subject of many the homage. There is no dialog for its over 30 minute length. Sound is limited to ambient sounds and some Foley effects. The lack of music underscores the tense and delicate nature of the heist itself. The dance the gang goes through is intricate but very clearly rendered. It's attention to detail sells us completely on the capabilities of the gang, the skill involved in this particular job, and the eventual consequences. This is also where the first thread is exposed, which begins the unraveling.

Despite it's intimate portrayal, Rififi is ultimately objective. It doesn't glorify the gang or their situation. It doesn't excuse their behavior. While the story is an allegorical one, it's presented simply It doesn't condemn any of their actions, as ultimately their actions will accomplish this themselves.

PS: Rififi is evidently being remade in Hollywood. This is fairly ironic as Jules Dassin, the director of the original, was working in France at the time for his survival, due to his having been blacklisted in the US.

The Good: Classic Crime allegory wrapped up in an excellent heist film

The Bad: Just say no

The Ugly: No honor among thieves

07-04-22 A Guide to Recognizing your Saints (2006)

Seen: April 18th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Sharing ourselves is one of the most difficult things that we can do. In doing so, we expose ourselves to judgement, rejection and perhaps worst, indifference. We may have to look hard at ourselves, may need to deal with things that are at best unpleasant. But it is through this process that we may most deeply connect with others. Shared experience is one of, if not the strongest human connection. In A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints Dito Montiel shares his very life in an open honest, and intimate fashion.

And this is perhaps the greatest strength and largest downfall of the film.

The film is honest in amazing fashion. There is nothing here that is melodramatic. Nothing beyond reality, nothing over emphasized for dramatic effect. If anything, it is the subtle normality that makes this film so believable. There is no suspension of disbelief necessary here. The characters are so real, perhaps because they are real, that the illusion is complete.

While this is a great credit to Montiel, it's also and indication of the caliber of the performances. The cast is all-star in the best way. The entire cast disappears into the characters which Montiel has transported from Queens to the written page. The breathe life into his phantoms and make his illusion complete.

The very intimacy of this story, the very life that these characters take on, however, are one of the reasons that the film is not so appealing to me.

I'm not from New York. I did not grow up in a urban environment. While the things that these characters may have underlying universal themes, the context in which they lives is not one which I find interesting or appealing. The things they do, the way they live their lives are something I've not experienced, and thus these people are ultimately foreign to me.

Why is driving a car a big deal? Why is taking the train to Coney Island strange? Why is wanting to go somewhere far away so inconceivable? Why are vandalism and violence expected?

I'm not judging these characters, these people. I imagine that I'm as strange to them as they are to me. But ultimately I feel no connection to these people. I watch them as I'd watch a historical drama about life in Queens in the early '80s. If there is any fault in this, it is that the story is so real that it is only fully appreciable to those who have lived it in some way. It is so personal and specific that it may alienate those who don't share something with its characters.

See this film, especially if you grew up in this era and locale. It's an amazing piece of writing, directing and acting. My failure to appreciate it is mine alone.

The Good: Powerhouse writing and acting

The Bad: Perhaps too personal

The Ugly: Vicious cycles

07-04-21 Smokin' Aces (2007)

Seen: April 17th, 2007
Format: HD-DVD
Rating: 6

I settled in and prepared to turn my mind off for a few hours and enjoy some good old fashioned crazy stone killin'. The previews looked loose and fast, and I can handle that. It may not be art, but hey, that's OK.

And that's what I got. For a while. Sorta.

I really wanted Smokin Aces' to be more like Shaun of the Dead. I wanted a bunch of weird and violent people to converge in one spot at the same time and then to sit back and enjoy the ensuing furball. And that does happen, but there's a lot of other stuff as well.

Somewhere in the writing process, Carnahan felt that the stage needed to be explicitly set. So the first chunk of the film is all about introducing characters and situations, the Exposition. There's a bunch of narrative that serves solely to set the stage for the Convergence. There's some actual characterization here, but really we're mainly given vignettes and voice-over which tells us who the characters are. There's a bunch of them, and this all moves pretty quickly. I guess it's difficult to justify a lot of time creating something you're just going to throw away in the next 20 minutes of so. There's a little back story as well, which will ultimately become the base of the Justification.

The Convergence begins shortly after this. There are a few surprises and a little general weirdness to keep you entertained. Then it all slows down. And stays slow. NOW we start to develop some characterization, start to work with a few of these people. I guess this is OK, but this is the point where I'm getting ramped up for confrontation. Maybe this is designed to create tension, but it just made me impatient. Things move, but slowly for awhile.

The begins the Confusion. Here we get some detail and movement around the why. This was started in the Exposition. This is actually boring and generally tedious. There's details and minor deviation that really just don't matter to the direction or tone of the film. Again, this is used to provide expand characterization and that really isn't needed, and that I really didn't buy anyway.

Finally the Furball. It does all eventually hit the fan. It's slow and deliberate in some cases, fast and chaotic in others. It all converges pretty well. It's going kind of like we expected, though there's a few off bits. Then, when we're ready for the final aria and mop-up, it all slows down and gets tricky. This is the Justification.

This phase really didn't work for me. A whole new underlying plot is exposed. We're shown how clever it is via the classic "obvious hints you should have picked up on earlier in the film" montage. My best guess is that Carnahan felt there needed to be a more important reason for all the chaos, for all the participation. There had to be something complex and intriguing to make it all interesting. It all falls apart for me here.

It's a shame really. There are great characters here. Some are weird little throw aways, some are idiosyncratic hitmen, dense flunkies, twisted drunks, and the list goes on. There's a great, straightforward driving force. This is all that was really needed. The extra stuff just derails the film. Attempts at compassion, repentance, justice, they're all just distractions. They get in the way try to add something high-brow to what's basically a lower-brow film. And you don't need that to have a fun film.

Look at Gumball Rally.

The Good: Old fashioned shoot 'em up...

The Bad: ...with a conscience.

The Ugly: Dealing death from up close, close up and far, far away.....

No, I didn't forget!

It may appear that my review/post for The Aura wasn't posted yesterday, but it was!

I'm generally a few days ahead on the reviews. I write them as drafts and then review and briefly edit them on their date before publishing them. Unfortunately, I forgot to edit the publish date of the review before I published, so it was listed as published about the 17th or so. It's all been fixed.

And I'm still on track!!

07-04-20 The Aura (El Aura) (2005)

Seen: April 15th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

It's hard to be original. It's a challenge to do something new, yet remain accessible. The farther out you go, the more different you become, but the harder it becomes to maintain the connection. Balancing this polarity is where the art lies.

The Aura is no art film, but the artistry is palpable.

I was enthralled by Nine Queens (Nueve reinas) one of Bielinsky's earlier efforts. It was a classic take on the con film which was very well executed and written. There were a few twists, but more impressive in its tightness and execution than its originality.

The Aura comes from way out of left field. It is one of the more fantastic, yet completely plausible films I've seen. There's nothing here that couldn't happen. Some of the coincidences are a bit convenient, but nowhere near impossible. It all falls together in a prophetically tragic fashion, becoming one of the more unqiue noirs I've seen.

It's all here. Hero with a flaw. Innocents. Bad people. Crime. Mistakes. Bad Luck. And it all ends up in a furball at the end. But the resulting chaos is merely the destination; it's the journey that's ultimately so fascinating.

Our protagonist the taxidermist, yes taxidermist, is one of the most well realized and distinct characters I've seen. He's unique in many way, yet so ordinary in others. It's this combination of qualities that makes him believable. His fantasies are common, and the potential realization of those fantasies drives him, though slowly. He's no hero, no superman, not even one of those who "rises above" to save the day. In fact, most of the time, he's just barely getting by. The fact that we're always afraid the next botched move he makes will be his last is what keeps us watching.

The rest of the characters are interesting as well, even the guy we never see alive. Each have their blind spot, each their purpose and ambition. Each has their own, appropriate, even justifiable conclusion. While they may be stereotypical, and I say may because I don't live in Argentina, they never become mere caricatures.

It's hard to continue this without giving something away. If you enjoy noir, enjoy tragic comedy, check this one out.

The Good: A new noir from way down south

The Bad: Hunting taxidermists

The Ugly: The inevitable Hollywood remake

07-04-19 Marie Antoinette (2006)

Seen: April 15th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

Man, I just can't get a grip on Sophia Coppola. Maybe her genius is beyond me. Maybe she's a spoiled second generation filmmaker who's even more abstruse than her father. Maybe we just have different taste.

Marie Antoinette left a stale one.

Let's focus on the positives to start. This film won an Oscar for costume design. There's a lot of amazing costumes in this film. Manolo Blahnik made "hundreds" of custom shoes for this film. If you know who that is and what that means, and are impressed, see this film now. In all sincerity, the overall production design for this film is remarkable. There are parts of it that I don't agree with, but the effect was stunning.

The part that I about the production design that I didn't particularly enjoy speaks to the heart of my problem with this film. Coppola has chosen to compare Marie Antoinette with a modern young woman. The choice of modern colors in the period clothing, the intentional anachronism in the closet, the choice of modern pop overlaying modern montages, the anachronistic dancing, all this attempts to transport her across the centuries to our time.

I not sure of Coppola's intent here. The seems to be to paint Marie Antoinette as a softer character that popular history does, to expose some other truth behind the ancient propaganda. She's portrayed as a naive, unsophisticated teenager flung into a strange world of stifling structure. Her joie de vivre is systematically quashed and when she ultimately gains her freedom, in the form of the death of her father-in-law, she rebels in the fashion that seals her fate.

Why we're supposed to forgive these sybaritic indulgences is beyond me. Applying our own values and mores to a historical figure 200+ years dead is as pointless as pretending that we really understand and can judge someone from a culture we've never experienced, much less been formed by. If Coppola expects us to believe that she was just a mis-understood teenager stifled by the system, why go to trouble to re-create the period so carefully? Are we suppose to believe that the because most of the details seem accurate, that this version of history is the real one?

This is the primary problem for me. The detail and opulence that goes into re-creating the period is at odds with and ultimately undermined by the way Marie Antoinette is characterized. The modern inferences heighten this tension and in the end devices sever the otherwise very well constructed period setting.

Perhaps I'm the dunce here. Perhaps this juxtaposition is genius, it's certainly creative. In the end, it just leaves me a bit perplexed and a little bit bored.

The Good: A new view of an old monarch

The Bad: Not historical, not drama, what is this exactly?

The Ugly: Indie cred plays dress-up

07-04-18 Sleeping Dogs Lie (aka Stay) (2006)

Seen: April 14th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

First impressions are important. That's too bad some times, but it seems inescapable. It's true with films as well as people, and Sleeping Dogs Lie does nothing if not deliver a memorable first impression.

It starts out with a bang. The entire premise is laid bare via narrative in the first few minutes. It's a doozy, and my first response was "where can this go from here"? The answer is "lots of places".

Basically the film revolves around a personal secret. It's an unusual one. Disgusting to some. Shameful to others. But ultimately, it's a secret without real consequence. No one was harmed by it, no one killed, maimed, scarred for life.

But the secret itself takes on a much larger life than the act itself. The fact that it's a secret is ultimately the problem. People want to know secrets. They don't like being left out, especially when it involves the ones they love. It seems that there are secrets we are better off just not knowing and it takes good judgement to decide which to share, which to keep, which to seek and which to let lie as they may.

This is a sweet film. The characters are mostly likeable if not lovable. It's quirky too, both in its premise and delivery. The dialogue is sparse, simple and real. The scenarios are accesible. It's a true film about real people, simple in its delivery and execution. It's rather amazing the impact that a secret has on everyone involved.

The production value aren't high, but that's not a problem as its the story that drives this piece. It was written and directed by Bobcat Goldthwait, which may make up your mind for you. It was evidently shot guerilla style on a very low budget.

If you've got an open mind, give this one a shot.

The Good: Love, in all its forms

The Bad: The unrelenting quest for Truth

The Ugly: The Truth

07-04-17 Stray Dog (Nora inu) (1949)

Seen: April 14th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

I'm a pretty big Kurosawa fan. I like to believe that I have a basic understanding of him as a director. But somehow, Stray Dog misses the mark for me. And like Murakami, I feel at fault.

Perhaps my lack of interest stems from the fact that this period in Japanese history is unfamiliar to me. At this time, Japan was in a terrible state. Inflation was rampant, and many people turned to crime in order to survive. This desperation is something that the film takes for granted to some degree. Not knowing this, not really having this as part of my makeup, distances me from the context of the film.

The screenplay has been described as a noir, but I tend to see it as a straight crime drama/mystery. While there are shady characters aplenty, and a few twists, Stray Dog lacks the double-crossing and unapologetic, underlying menace that are the hallmarks of the noir. In fact, Kurosawa goes to lengths to humanize his characters, the criminal as well as the cop. This reconciliation is really the hope of the film.

This film also marks Mifune's second film with Kurosawa as director. Mifune is an amazing actor, but here I see him as immature. He is over dramatic in this role. His histrionics, which serve him well in later roles, seem misplaced here. The shame, despair and guilt that his character professes seem to surface more as anger. He is alternately dyspeptic and furious, and I have a hard time reconciling this with his character.

Shimura's Sato is a stark contrast. Not only is Sato different in character, Shimura plays him with a confident, understated ease which is brilliant. Shimura is as recognizable in Kurosawa's films a Mifune, as deserves as much attention. Like Sato to Murakami, one hopes Mifune learned from Shimura during this film.

I may be interesting to contrast Stray Dog with High and Low, another Kurosawa crime film seen from a completely different perspective, and with Dodesukaden, his film dealing with the same trials of the period as experienced by a small community of non-criminal citizens. I find these films a bit more compelling than Stray Dog.

In the end, this one needs to go back in the pile to be watched again when I've got more time and less to think about. If you're a Kurosawa fan see it now, if not, work your way here by way of some of his other work, you'll be glad you did.

The Good: Kurosawa begins his reign

The Bad: Mifune goes over the top

The Ugly: Crime as a way of life

07-04-16 The Public Enemy (1931)

Seen: April 13th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

I like old movies. I find them interesting mostly because I tend to compare them to modern films, finding similarities between the old and the new. I've got to admit that I'm usually focused on the way film has progressed, evolved and grown up over the last century or so. I'm a bit of bigot, an ageist if you will, because I think that via evolution, today's films are, without a doubt, better than those of the past. And being a bigot, the truth is always a big, shocking surprise.

The Public Enemy is an amazing piece of work.

I was stunned by Cagney's screen presence. I've seen him parodied since I was a child. He is the staple gangster stereotype etched across the entertainment landscape. Bugs Bunny imitated him, and he was constantly referenced in Looney Tunes, which were my primary food group as a child. But to actually see him make Tom Powers come alive finally drove home why those stereotypes function at all. Cagney's characterization is simply riveting.

Tom Powers is bad. The early moments of the film establish that firmly. Cagney plays him this way. Tom is not without compassion, but he has a very small reservoir and it frequently runs dry. His actions are shocking because Cagney plays him so simply and honestly. There is no high drama here, no drawn out, clever or eloquent speeches. Tom is a man of actions, and his actions define him.

Cagney infuses Tom with life by his actions. Simple gestures and postures. Reactions to his situation and the people in it. He does things that shock us. The grapefruit scene is one of the most memorable in film. He plays Tom as a borderline psychotic, and treads that line beautifully.

The direction as well is spectacular. I was stunned by some of the camera work, which included moves and angles I considered modern. The shot compositions are also remarkable. The starkness of Tom entering the other gang's hideout alone speaks volumes. Wellman's choice to leave the violence off screen is particularly effective, as it lets our own imaginations take over. In my case, this is probably worse than actually showing it on screen.

If you appreciate the work of Scorsese, Tarantino, or perhaps Sidney Lumet, then The Public Enemy is definitely worth your time.

P.S. -I'll also state that during my viewing I was repeatedly reminded of A Clockwork Orange both visually and by the tone of the film. I wonder if Kubrick was a fan of The Public Enemy, as Alex could almost be a modern, hyperbolic version of Tom.

The Good: Cagney lights up the screen

The Bad: Bad to the bone

The Ugly: A homecoming to remember

07-04-15 Haven (2004)

Seen: April 11th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

There are lots of ways to tell a story.You can tell it from multiple points of view that connect at one or more points in the film, or perhaps run parallel for larger portions of it. Then we've got the temporal displacement idea, whether obvious in the case of flashbacks or story within a story, or the ones where you're not quite sure what's happening when. Pulp Fiction did this to great effect, and an extreme case is Memento. Eventually these unique twists on story-telling become fashionable. And like all fashions, some attempts become disasters.

Haven is one of those disasters.

Haven attempts to harness both the multiple story angle, as well as the temporal displacement thing. To tell multiple stories well, they must either converge, with consequence, and/or carry a strong common theme. Crash and Traffic are two great examples. The stories must enhance and supplement one another. The whole becomes greater than the parts.

Haven attempts this and fails quite badly. There are two main stories here, with some sub-plots. The problem is that though some characters are common to both, they're not important to both, and the stories have entirely different themes. The first act concentrates on one story, and just when is starts to come together, the second act starts, focusing on the second story with no overlap. This confused me. At one point I actually thought the DVD was defective and when to the scenes menu to be sure that what I was seeing was correct.

I could have stood all this if some remarkable connection was made between the two stories that served them both. Act three was a simple parallel narrative, wherein both stories came to their individual conclusions, neither of which was particularly compelling.

The writer and director, Frank E. Flowers has been lauded for accurately portraying Caribbean island life, and in particular life in the Cayman Islands, with great truth and sincerity. This seems true to me and I applaud his effort. But he's given us two separate and distinct stories, badly mashed up using a fashionable technique into a single film. This serves neither story well. I'd rather have seen them presented as two shorts, each standing on its own merits.

Taken in pieces, Haven is not a complete disaster. There's some good writing here. Some good characterization and acting. There are beautiful observations and moments. There are some solid, though simple, themes. It's unfortunate that they're not well served by solid story telling.

Some defend this film, saying that those who don't appreciate it aren't intelligent enough to understand. For me, understanding it wasn't an issue, reconciling it was.

The Good: There's talent here

The Bad: The premises

The Ugly: The script

07-04-14 Volver (2006)

Seen: April 11th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 8

Perhaps you know someone who tells jokes well. If so, you may have recognized that in most cases the joke itself is not nearly as important as the way it's told. The is sometimes generalized as "timing". Regardless, to do it well is artful.

Almodovar's art is telling a story.

This story is not complicated. It's not exceptionally unique or particularly clever. It has its quirks, it has its own charm, but it's not slickest one in the pile. But it is deep and subtle, and in Almodovar's hands it comes alive.

This is a simple tale of family, of love in general, of standing together, of remembering, of forgiving and ultimately returning, always returning. There are cycles aplenty here. Cycles of hurt, cycles of care, cycles of birth and death, all spun together. The story is linear. It's fairly obvious and when all is revealed near the end, there's little we haven't figured out for ourselves. But its revealed in a kind way, like a good joke teller, who wants us to get the joke, to appreciate it, not with disdain, challenging our intellect.

This is a film is an ensemble piece for women. Almodovar favors strong female characters, and these are some of his best. The strength of these women, their character, their flaws, they're all on display here. But unlike some other films, there's subtle beauty, humor and light to go along with the drama. There's hope as well as despair, and they're ultimately not so far apart. Watch Volver and then see Sayles's Casa de los babys, the difference should be striking.

In all, Volver is a simple, powerful film, for and dedicated to simple, yet powerful women.

The Good: Looking out for your neighbor

The Bad: Sleeping with your neighbor

The Ugly: Sleeping with the pork chops

07-04-13 Grindhouse (2007)

Seen: April 10th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 9

Where do you start?

Like many, I anticipated Grindhouse for a while. I thought I understood the premise and expected it to be a bit contrived in some ways. In some ways, it was. But what I didn't expect was the attention to detail and the sheer love that went into the production.

Act I - The Setting

The whole idea of creating the Grindhouse feel to film generally works.

The Trailers are a gas. The film ideas vary from bad to atrocious. The trailers carry authentic feels. If I didn't know and recognize some actors and anachronisms, I might actually believe they were really trailers from this era. Little details form this realism. The fonts used, the copyright lines, the editing style and the music all add up. I'll admit that I did sneak out during the "Thanksgiving" trailer to hit the head, which is all a part of the Grindhouse experience, I'm sure.

Distressing the film works as well. It was novel at first, and drew attention to itself. Eventually though, it faded into the experience, with a few notable exceptions. The distressing seemed less prevalent in Death Proof, though I'll admit I was pretty far into that segment and may just have been tuning it out.

The lead ins for coming attractions and the main feature are ones I remember from my childhood. Their impact is startling. The missing reels did nothing for me. It's an interesting device, and helps keep the overall presentation to manageable length. I didn't have trouble following the films through each of their missing reels, but did feel that I'd rather have seen the complete segment. Maybe this is, again, an intended part of the experience.

Act II - Planet Terror

Roriguez's segment is exceptionally true to form. Planet Terror is pure 70's schlock horror. Some anachronisms aside, this film could have been made in the 70's.

The thing that's truly amazing is way Rodriguez has captured the feel in this film. The camera angels and moves, editing, scene pace, they combine to capture the actual style of the era. It's strange to watch, as it all seems so familiar but we know, and are reminded by anachronisms, that it's new. It's not just an homage, it's an actual 70's film made in 2006.

The actual meat of the film is authentic too. The plot is thin and disconnected. The dialogue is stilted and the performances naively dramatic and earnest. There are moments which surprise you, but all still runs true to form. It's a mixed bag of zombie horror, conspiracy, rekindled romance, apocalyptic deliverance and Alamo-style self sacrifice, all wrapped up in layer of sleaze.

The makeup effects are downright disgusting and made me cringe more than once. At times they're played for over-the-top comic effect. It all runs linearly, start to finish. It's never complicated, never cryptic. What you see is what you get, and there's a lot to see.

Ultimately, this segment was the less interesting for me. Once the novelty had worn thin, I grew a bit dis-interested.

But it stays true to the not-so-bitter end.

Act III - Death Proof

Unlike Planet Terror, Death Proof seems more an homage than a faithful recreation.

This is not to say that it doesn't have a similar, though distinct flavor. Costumes, acting, set decorations and camera angles all suggest the 70s. But the dialogue is much better and feels more contemporary. The acting is generally intentionally better. The actors don't "play" their characters as much here. The distressing of the film is still present, but is generally less obtrusive and even seems to fade out in the final act of the segment, letting it stand on its own.

Death Proof is a solid segment that could easily stand on its own, whereas Planet Terror would seem much more out of place outside this milieu. Tarantino has crafted a simple, straight-forward, but compelling story here. Things flow well and there are very unexpected turns as the film picks up pace and begins to become belligerent. There's nothing really over-the-top about the film, which contributes to its menace. It all feels a bit like Stephen King.

There could be some more exposition, more background about Mike. Again, the missing reel segment suggests this possibility. But that would be frosting, as the lines are clearly drawn, and there's no doubt who's on which side.

The whole segment, while an homage, has a distinct Tarantino feel, and that's a good thing.

Rating Grindhouse is difficult and I really can't recommend it for most. It'll be recognized for it's artistic merits for a long time. The content is not so much the point as the way it's presented, which will alienate the majority. Some parts are inspired genius, some are artful deception, but its all completely original.

In a recycled kind of way.

The Good: Fanboy mayhem

The Bad: Too much of a good thing

The Ugly: Pus flingin' zombies

07-04-12 The Good Shepherd (2006)

Seen: April 6th, 2007
Format: HD-DVD
Rating: 8

We've all got secrets. Some big, and probably a bunch of small ones. But they generally don't have global impacts and tear our lives apart. No so for Edward Wilson.

The Good Shepherd has a rather amazing feel to it. It's a deceptively long film, but maintains a simple stately pace from one moment to the next. We don't get tired because there's really not much tension in the film. Actual confrontations are short and fairly understated. There's no high violence. Things are taken care of neatly and quickly. This is very true to character.

What the film does have in spades is a lurking sense of constant menace. Like the sea, it is full of sharks, quietly cruising, going about their business. Occasionally they surface, quickly do their damage and submerge again, patient, watching, waiting.

Unlike fanciful visions of intrigue and action (the Bond series comes immediately to mind) The Good Shepherd is about how secrets are kept and discovered. This film is rife with secrets. Everyone has them, and everyone is generally interested in everyone else's. Some of the secrets are large, some small. Some personal, some of global importance. Some are ancient, some brand new. All of them cause conflict, sometimes pitting a character against himself.

We judge these characters as the spy world judges them, by how well they keep these secrets. Those weakest are readily exposed and used as pawns in the game. Those strongest are in danger as well, because which secrets they know is a secret in itself. All of this secrecy breeds fear and eventually contempt.

Performances and writing is excellent here. DeNiro constructs a milieu which is tight and focused. It all feels accurate and very real. Where it would be easy to descend into cliche and melodrama, we instead are given plain graven stoicism, something new to this genre, and very appealing.

In the end there is sacrifice, as the characters are consumed by the very secrets they harbor. They all come apart slowly in one way or another. But it never really boils over, because that is just not part of the game.

The Good: Understated performances

The Bad: Secrets

The Ugly: A life lived for others reasons

07-04-11 The Departed (2006)

Seen: November, 2006
Format: Theater
Rating: 8

I'm happy for Marty Scorsese. While I'm no sycophant, I do respect his work. I like some, I dis-like some, but I respect it all.

The Departed is a classic film. The themes are long-standing in American Cinema, going back to the first days of organized crime. Embedded here is a classic war between declared good and evil, with the soldiers lined up clearly, or not-so-clearly, on each side. If you played Stratego as a kid, you'll get this film.

The plot is convoluted, but not unnecessarily so. We have a clear view, perhaps the only clear view, of them. There are a few surprises, but for the most part, we're on the outside looking in at the gyrations they cycle through, each with their two agendas, the one they display and the one they hold dear.

The Departed is, after all, about deception. The way we deceive our enemies, the way we deceive our friends and lovers, and ultimately the way we deceive ourselves. The characters tell themselves lies in order to act the ways they do. They each in turn do things they know they shouldn't, act in ways they find true, even unavoidable, but in their own minds, inappropriate.

No one remains untouched here. Everyone is pulled into the maelstrom. If there's any allegory here at all, it's that deception hurts everyone. It's completely indiscriminate.

The acting is, of course, superb. If anything, there may be so much talent here that some of it is simply under-utilized. I'm particularly happy to see Vera Farmiga here. She's a rising star in my opinion, and fits in very nicely.

Ultimately I must admit that I was a bit chagrined to discover that this film is a re-make of a Hong Kong film called Infernal Affairs. It seems that Hollywood is making a habit of taking good foreign films and Americanizing them. It's a shame that good foreign films can't stand on their own in the American market. And I know that American films have been "adapted" for years in foreign markets. I can't deny that The Departed delivers, but I wish that the film industry would stretch itself a bit, take some risks and be a bit more original.

I was surprised to hear that Scorsese was considering making two other films to construct a trilogy. Then I learned that Infernal Affairs was a trilogy and it made some sense. Perhaps there's more of this tale to come.

The Good: Powerhouse acting

The Bad: Hong Kong remake

The Ugly: Hoist by your own petard

07-04-10 Game 6 (2005)

Seen: April 5th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

Do you ever feels that there's a lot going on, but nothing really happening? Game 6 is just the opposite.

Not much really happens in this film. There's a few confrontations, a meal or two, a bunch of cab rides, a haircut and some shots fired ineptly. But there's a whole lot of things happening.

It's easy to write Game 6 off as a tired and blatant sports metaphor for life. It's easy to say the dialogue is trite and contrived. It's easy to say the some characters are one dimensional, simple devices and disposable. It's easy to say that it often takes the easy way out, or abandons trying altogether. All of this may be true. But none of it really matters.

Game 6 is ultimately about connecting. Specifically, it's about connecting by shared experience. All over this film, people are connected by the experiences they have shared. The experiences vary wildly. Past professions, passions, hopes, dreams. There are shared hard times, some shared good times. There are shared expectations, shared illusions. Even shared places for relieving ones self.

These connections are ultimately all that's important. It's the things that we share that ultimately make us a society, that ultimately make us human.

It's interesting that some characters share very little of actual substance, and these are the relationships that are the weakest, the least real, the least human. Many of these experiences are shared by characters who never meet, but the they align them in our minds. We can draw parallels between them, learn about who they are, and the story becomes richer.

The performances here are very good. There's a lot of strange stuff that happens, and the casting solves many believability issues by just putting the right actor in the right role.

The film moves slowly, things sharpen their focus over long periods. There's a lot of waiting, a lot of simple time passing. Conversations are sometimes random, sometimes cryptic, sometimes pointed. The story is plain and takes its time. Bruckheimer would have fits.

Perhaps I need to make more connections of my own, considering how the simple ones here impacted me. These connections made me feel hope, even in the moment of despair. Maybe that vicarious feeling will spill over, maybe not, but for the moment, I felt content and satisfied.

Ultimately, Game 6 is a big fat art film. High on ideas, metaphor and exposition and low on detail and consistency. It left a big fat smile on my face ... but I could have done without the cheesy voice over.

The Good: Everything's important

The Bad: Elliot's descent

The Ugly: Finding new ways to lose

07-04-09 Osama (2003)

Seen: April 4th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 5

This is a very tough film for me to rate.

Essentially, there are two ways to consider this film.

One is as a cultural, personal and even political triumph. The film maker is Afghani, raised during the Soviet occupation. His passion for film lead him to study in Moscow. This is a tough choice for him as he abhorred the occupation, but couldn't deny his passion. He mae the film after the fall of the Taliban. It depicts life under the Taliban and the implications of their rule. Though fictional, it acts as a cultural documentary of this time in Afghanistan. As such, it is a remarkable achievement.

The second way to consider this film is solely as a film, judging based on writing, characterization, acting, composition, pace and all those other things which a director must balance and ultimately bring together to realize his vision.

This blog is about film, so I consider it using the second criteria.

Overall, this film is not outstanding. The story is simplistic and presented very linearly. It simply plods from one scene to the next. Where it could have been spare, it instead chooses to be literal. It strange in that is does show instead of tell, but shows in the most obvious and fundamental of fashions.

The characters are, with a few exceptions, one-dimensional. They appear and especially disappear without warning or explanation. They serve their purpose and are discarded. This does maintain focus in the story, but in the end feels disperse and incomplete. Perhaps this is intentional.

Symbolism and metaphor is heavy handed. There is little subtlety here. Things are rough and direct. Even deception is clumsy, yet overly effective.

There are technical merits to the film. The use of POV and re-use of scenes is interesting. The composition and framing, making use of the locales is often very striking and effective. The one quibble I have in this department is the editing, which I found very rough and intrusive. It had a tendency to chop off a scene and abruptly enter a new one. Again, perhaps this is intentional, but it irritated me during my viewing. In some case, the scene lingers far too long on a static ending shot. There is a lack of cohesion in the visual style of the film. Perhaps this is due to the filming locations and the way the film was made, but it feels more like a collection of vignettes than a complete vision.

You should ignore my rating and see this film if for no other reason than it offers an experienced view of life under the Taliban. I won't go so far as to say it's an objective view, but it is more so than anyone from "first" or "second" world country could produce. Its appropriate that the film doesn't meet my expectations, that it has "flaws", because it should be as foreign to me as Afghanistan itself.

The Good: Compassion in a child

The Bad: Justice based on the vagaries of interpretation

The Ugly: Lechery benefits from religious law

07-04-08 The Lookout (2007)

Seen: April 4th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

Tension is an interesting thing. Creating anticipation of an unpleasnt thing is a very effective way to create it. Let's say you have a bandaid to remove that you know is going to be painful. You, or a close friend and sadistic friend, rips it off quickly to get it over. But let's say instead, the "friend" blindfolds you and tells you they'll rip it off sometime in the next minute. Decidely less fun. How 'bout the next 5 minutes? 10?

The Lookout is full of this kind of tension. We can see the train wrecks coming a mile away, but the busted track is always just around the next corner. We cringe in our seats, knowing what's going to happen, but not quite sure exactly when or how. So we guess, and we're wrong, and the tension ratchets up another notch.

None of this is meant to imply that The Lookout is cliche or predictable. It's actually fairly original. The thing that's familiar, the things that let us see that tragedy ahead, are the situations and people that we recognize from our own lives. Most of us know at least a few of the characters in the film. We recognize their patterns of behavior. And when they're placed in certain situations in the film, the outcomes are inevitable.

The film feels longer than it is because it moves slowly, but it never drags. There's a lot packed into it. Scenes feel longer because of the way they're written. Small details fill them out. This is not a story with grand impacts. It does not make larger statements. It about the problems of a small group of people in a fairly small area. Perhaps this is what it feels less compelling than I expected.

All the technical bits are great. The cast is super, some of my favorite character actors are here. Isla Fisher was very good. I loved her in Wedding Crashers and it was interesting to see her in a dramatic role. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was solid. His performance was understated and subtle, though there were a few rough moments.

All-in-all, this is a good movie. It's engaging, but perhaps not compelling. It has sterling moments, but as a whole it's perhaps less than the sum of its parts.

It does keep you cringing, though.

The Good: High tension

The Bad: Poor choices

The Ugly: Forgetting to put your combine away

07-04-07 12 and Holding (2005)

Seen: April 1st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

Sometimes you want it easy. Easy to understand, easy on the eyes, easy to digest, easy to go to sleep. 12 and Holding is not that film.

There's something sacrosanct about youth. In our adulthood, we have the advantage of perspective and gradually come to realize how much of our true selves are formed in this ten or so years. We hold the joys and pains of these years high in our personal canon, they are often the most important of our lives. We also take care to protect those around us in this period of their lives. We want them to have the best experience possible because we know how important it come to be. We can even be a bit insistent.

Our protective tendency makes 12 and Holding effective. This film is about children on the very cusp of their adolescence having to deal with adult problems. They are not so much placed in harm's way, as the realities of the world come to visit early. For each, their very character is challenged and formed as we watch.

This is not about good and evil, right and wrong. It's about how they react, how they face their challenges, learn from their experience and integrate it into their being.

If the characters were adults, the situations might be cliche or trite. Hundreds of adult characters have faced these issues. But the fact that this are very young adults captures our attention. We are engaged and even enthralled because of the scale of the impact for them. We may be shocked at how adult their reactions are, and the resolve with which they act.

The most similar film that comes to mind is Stand by Me. King recognized the impact of placing kids in situations more commonly facing adults. Other thriller and horror writers have done the same, including Dan Simmons and the Brothers Grimm.

It's not a new idea, but it may be the most fundamentally compelling one.

The Good: Change, it's not just for adults any more

The Bad: Justice for all

The Ugly: Looking for love in all the wrong places

07-04-06 The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

Seen: April 1st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

You've seen this film before.

That's not a bad thing. This is a good film. This is a tru-ish story of determination and will overcoming adversity. It is a film about the importance of family. It is a film which exemplifies the American Dream.

I'm impressed by Chris Gardner's journey. His perseverance it admirable. This version of his story is interesting, but not compelling. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Gardner, but we've seen many stories like his, and there are many more in the wings. It might be interesting to read his book to see what compromises were made for the film. It wouldn't surprise me if the "real" story were more compelling.

The thing which ultimately savesThe Pursuit of Happyness is the performances.

Will Smith proves yet again that he can really act. It can be hard for me to ignore an actor I know and focus on his character. I did not have that problem with Smith here. He inhabits his character totally. Chris does things happily that I couldn't imagine Smith doing or accepting.

Jaden Smith is compelling as well. This is one of the best performances I've seen from child actor in the last few years. Jaden as well, inhabits his character. It'll be interesting to see where he goes from here. I should mention Thandie Newton as well, whom I think is generally underestimated. Her role her is unsympathetic (though, in my opinion, not unjustified), and she plays it straight and true.

In the end, The Pursuit of Happyness is a solid, if unremarkable film. I don't see it standing the test of time and feel that it may have suffered a bit at Hollywood's hands.

The Good: The next generation of Smith talent

The Bad: Downplaying the the cannibalistic nature of finance

The Ugly: The cost of chasing the American Dream

07-04-05 Millions (2004)

Seen: April 1st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

The line between enlightenment and insanity is very grey and fuzzy.

This is a film about a child who's lost his mother and takes comfort in the Saints and their miracles. It's a heart warming tale about innocence, altruism and mores. All from the guy who brought you 28 Days Later, a very solid zombie flick, and Trainspotting, a neat little exploration of the lives of junkies. You've got to love Danny Boyle.

The story is not new. Ordinary folk come into a large sum of money, and must keep it secret. There is a deadline to add tension, and a shadowy antagonist to keep the whole thing on edge. But what really makes Millions work is that the voice of right, the voice of reason and eventually the voice of sanity is that of a child. And one that seems to have visions at that.

The objectivity given these visions is a remarkable choice, and is ultimately what endears the film to me. You can make your own decision about them. You can believe that Damian is daft. You can believe he's divine. What you believe doesn't matter, because the outcome is the same. It's what Damian believes that's important.

A child's belief in the fantastic, or exposure to fantastic situations is not an uncommon theme. We revel in the innocence that we've lost, in our lost ability to surrender ourselves to our imagination and fantasies. We secretly admire and envy those few adults who manage to retain their childhood and yet still function or even excel in the adult world. Robin Williams comes to mind.

What makes Damian's situation unique is that his fantasy is a religious one. The stories he revels in are no less fantastic that those of say, J.M Barrie, but are the canon on which millions base their salvation. That Damian not only believe them in their entirety, but makes them a fundamental and real part of his life sets him apart, makes him fascinating and ultimately a role model.

It should be noted that this is not a religious film. It does not evangelize. It does not proselytize. It does espouse some mores, but these are mostly universal, and not specific doctrine. Damian is alone in his degree of faith. That he maintains it so fervently is fundamental to his character.

This is a great little film. It is sweet, but not saccharine. And it has a little edge; a small, twisted smile.

The Good: Faith through the eyes of a child

The Bad: All the money changes

The Ugly: Money changes everything

07-04-04 The Covenant (2006)

Seen: March 31, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 6

First, turn off your brain. Doesn't that feel nice? Now start the flick and practice your stupid grin.

The Covenant is simple, and that's not a bad thing. We have good guys, bad guys and guys not so sure. We have most of the seven deadly sins and their appropriate polar opposites. We have some stylized fantastical settings, thinly based on some vaguely documented historic events. It all seems a little hinky, but remember, you've turned your brain off, and simple things are best.

This is a comic-book film, directed by Renny Harlin. You remember him, Die Hard 2, Cutthroat Island, that guy. It's all about the tension, the action, the broad emotional strokes. And to be fair, it doesn't preted to have ambitions beyond that. The only thing that could be considered allegorical is the effect and ramifications of addiction, and even this is more a plot element than a theme. We're here for a thrill ride and that's what we get.

The reason that it all works, and it does work, is that it's consistent. The rules are simple and clearly defined. The characters play by the rules. The world runs by the rules. No matter how fantastic, as long as the rules govern, we can let our own reality go and live in this one for a while.

Characters are also simple, but not un-interesting. Chase, the bad guy, is probably the least well defined, maybe because his badness is all that's really important. There are some sterotypes here, but who really cares?

It's nicely sylized, an interesting mixture of old and new. It's generally dark, and the night scenes interestingly lit. Its generally pretty and slick, which works. The action is appropriate, not too over-the-top considering the subject matter. The effects are a bit bold, but generally fit the story without overwhelming it. There are a few simply great effects moments.

It's a simple good vs. evil, order vs. chaos flick. Characters redeem themselves, or not. Battles build and rage. The hot chick and the stud make out, but in PG-13 fashion.

Don't forget to turn your brain back on before you go to bed, or drive.

The Good: Witches with a conscience

The Bad: Addiction allegory get lost in the action

The Ugly: Spiders

Over a month in...

So I've been at this a little over a month. I've stuck with it, and overall I'm pretty happy. Here's some observations about the process so far....

I'm actually several days ahead at this point. I've got a buffer of about five review going. I'm hoping I can get this up to about 14 so I can take a few weeks off. Hockey season is coming to a close, which will make this a bit easier.

I'm pretty much planning my viewings at this point. I don't have a set schedule what I see and when, but I've got a general idea what days I'll watch something and whether I'm going to the theater or staying in.

I'm watching films differently. I'm actually thinking about what I'm going to write as I'm watching them. In some ways this is bad this, as I tend to over-analyze as I'm watching,but I am paying more attention. I sometimes make a conscious decision to just watch and enjoy (or hate) what I'm watching, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Reviews that I write right after viewing are generally better, especially if I've seen more than one film before writing reviews. A little distance tends to focus me more towards the themes of the film. This perspective sometimes pays off.

Talking about films is a bit strange now. Since I've generally written about it before I talk about it, my ideas are pretty well formed. I end up giving my opinion and then listening more than talking. Even though I listen, my ideas about the film are pretty ingrained and I don't change my mind too much.

Sometimes its a struggle to watch a film. I've got a schedule to keep up, and it becomes work. This is one reason I'm trying to create a buffer, so I can take a week off to renew my interest.

It's becoming harder to watch films I don't like all the way through. I haven't abandoned one yet, but fast-forward has looked mighty tempting on a few occasions.

07-04-03 The Last Mimzy (2007)

Seen: March 31st, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

I really like Science Fiction. I started reading it as youngster and grew up with favorite authors, waiting impatiently for their new books to arrive. I assume it's a challenge to write good juvenile SF, to keep thing interesting without too many huge concepts, without too many political implications and with enough mild peril to engage, but not frighten.

The Last Mimzy took me back. It reminded me of the book A Wrinkle in Time. I was transported to a wonderful time in my life when my imagination dwarfed reality, when it was easy to consider things far beyond reality in a serious fashion.

This is a juvenile film. Many adult concepts are intentionally trivialized here. The way the government intervenes, for instance, is dramatically tuned down. Adult interactions are more direct and simple. Events with large implications have specific and targeted impacts, with few repercussions.

All this said, the story is very good. It is compact and drives well. There is very little extraneous information, and excellent exposition with subsequent impact. The screen writers know their craft. The special effects are well woven into the story, they are effective without dominating the story. There is little real "action", as none is really required by the story. With the exception of a few product placements, there's not much here that doesn't advance the story in some way.

My only criticism was the the inclusion of some "mystical" elements. While I thought it appropriate, the ramifications were a bit fuzzy and the connections not entirely resolved. While I don't need everything spelled out to enjoy a film, a juvenile film demands a bit more clarity.

Performances in general were very good. Some adult pieces had the touch of caricature, but that's how I saw certain adults as a child.

Camera work and lighting were invisible, which is appropriate. The visual style of the film was well executed. Different locations have each their own tone and feel appropriate to the story.

I have a soft spot for this film. Take your kids, encourage them to think and talk about this film.

Open your own mind and take a look through their eyes.

The Good: Juvenile mind-rattling

The Bad: Ill defined spooks

The Ugly: Poignant product placement

07-04-02 The Ground Truth (2006)

Seen: March 29th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

This documentary has to do with the war in Iraq. That right there causes you to have some opinion, or at least expectation, about it. I'm here to talk about film, not the war.

The Ground Truth is a documentary concerning veterans who've returned from the war in Iraq. Specifically, it is about Iraq Veterans who have become anti-war activists since their return.

Documentaries are seldom completely objective. The filmmakers own beliefs and convictions are often reflected by their work. By Patricia Foulkrod's choice to document combat veterans who actively oppose the conflict, I'm making the assumption that she herself is against the war.

Foulkrod does an admirable job of presenting her subject. The film is engaging and informative. Her subjects are generally intelligent and well spoken. Their interviews are well done. They are occasionally emotional, but for the most part are simple and, I feel, accurate representations of these people. Who they are, what they've been through and how they've changed.

The cross section of subjects is good. There are a range different personalities. Their differences underscore and emphasize the thing that they do have in common. Their reactions to the war and the things they experienced differ as well. This also goes a long way to show the wide range in the way that they individually deal with their various traumas.

The film is shocking at times. It contains graphic depictions of the conflict. Some will find them gruesome, but they are not sensationalized for the sake of the film. They are generally presented without commentary, but some with narration. They enhance the film, underscoring its points without dominating it or derailing it.

The film has good flow. We're not sure where it's headed when it starts. It leads us down the subjects' paths, showing us their individual experiences and reactions to their own journeys. As these journeys progress, their similarities increase and ultimately converge. The convergence is powerful, coherent and for these subjects, inevitable.

The Good: Vets speak their piece

The Bad: Abandoned Vets

The Ugly: Bringing the War home

07-04-01 Happy Feet (2006)

Seen: March 28th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Here's an absolutely wonderful animated piece.

There's anthropomorphized penguins with stylized and recognizable personalities. Their society is well realized and the story compelling. It may rely on a tried and true foundation, but the theme of embracing your idiosyncrasies and being true to yourself is timeless. Finding friends who appreciate you, finding your way back to your parents' hearts, succeeding in your own way, its all there and well executed.

The voice talent is top-notch. Robin Williams is so good it hurts a little, taking on multiple roles. Elijah Wood is an interesting choice. I'd have preferred someone a little more animated (pun intended), but he definitely nails the humble side of Mumbles. Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman and Brittney Murphy are also spot on. The supporting cast delivers as well.

The music is to die for. The range is wide, the performances stellar. The integration of the music with the story and animation is seamless. It's all a bit far-fetched, but then so are talking, singing penguins, and it works well in the provided framework. I liked the interpretations of the songs. They were fresh takes on old favorites and well arranged and produced.

And then there's the animation. Character development was very good. Again, Mumble was a bit awkward and flat, but that, again, befits his character. The movements of the various creatures generally carried an air of authenticity. This really delineated the individual species, again enhancing and sharpening the individual characters. Special note should be made of Savion Glover, who did the choreography for Mumble, and I must assume danced for the motion capture.

*** And now a word from our sponsor ***

Right in the middle of all this singing, dancing, action-packed coming of age experience, a stinker gets dropped. When we've finally bought in to the whole scenario, identified with the characters and their issues, we have a message thrust in our face.

Depending on how you feel about this message, you might call this film educational, enlightening, agenda driven or even propaganda. Regardless of your opinion, this injection of a stance on a issue peripherally associated to the story comes as a shock and derails the film.

Perhaps this is the intent, to shake us out of our little entertainment induced stupor. But I, for one, was enjoying my stupor.

The extent of this meddling eventually extends to a jump-cut live action sequence of politicians debating the issue. It's was so out of place that I immediately dis-engaged. I can't believe that children would get this (confirmed by my friend's 4 year old) and might even frighten some as the arguments are heated.

I smell some fiscal infiltration here. An exchange of financing for message inclusion, perhaps. While it is integral to the latter part of the story, it distinctly feels grafted on.

In the end, it impacts my rating quite a bit. I'm of the show me don't tell me school, and having proselytizing so crudely and artlessly shoved into the middle of my entertainment is definitely a downer.

The Good: Animation, Story, Music and Voice Talent.

The Bad: Art imitates Frankenstein

The Ugly: -2 Rating for being annoying