07-06-30 The Yards (2000)

Seen: June 29th, 2007
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - NDNet Movies)
Rating: 4

This is one of those films that you hope will be good. There's a cast that contains some greats and potential greats. The premise doesn't seem like a complete retread. So you give a shot. And you get pretty much what you expected.

The fundamental problem with The Yards is that the underlying scenario isn't really that interesting. Corruption is rampant in the entire fabric of New York City, any movie goer knows that. So why should we really be that surprised when train car companies are in bed with local officials to get contracts for their wares? But more important, why should we care? While I'm sure that a story like this would send investigative reporters into Pavlovian fits over the potential impact to their careers, the rest of us just aren't that interested.

On this framework we hang some characters who aren't particularly well rounded or interesting either. What are their hopes and dreams? What are their strengths and weaknesses? We really don't know much more about these people at the end of the film than we do five minutes after they're first introduced. They're just pieces of the puzzle which get shuffled around.

To play them, we get a fairly decent cast. Theron, Wahlberg and Phoenix were the new regime at this point and have done well since. They all do a decent job with what they're given, though there's nothing remarkable in their performances, outside the fight between the men. The old guard is well represented also. Burstyn, Dunaway and Caan, are no slouches, but again, there's precious little work with.

It'd be easy to just bash this some more and move on. The plot is largely predictable. I spent most of my time guessing what would happen next, and generally being right. But there are a couple of surprises. There are some good choices which take the story down an unexpected avenue. These moments renewed my interest at each point, making me actually pay attention again.

The payoff was decent as well. Not surprising, but handled in a calm, officious manner that really belayed all the seething undertones of the participants. Everyone seems to forget that a man lost his life in their urgency to put things back in order. The ending itself was trite and felt tacked on. 

This isn't a terrible film, but it's nothing outstanding either. See it if you're a fan of NYC's train system or one of the actors. 

The Good: Not completely predictable

The Bad: Mostly predictable

The Ugly: Are there no honest people in NYC?

07-06-29 The Thin Blue Line (1988)

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

The Thin Blue Line is an interesting piece of work from a historical perspective. While it may seem a bit dated, its format is one with which we're inundated, at least from an American television perspective.

This film may be the genesis of the modern crime docudrama. It follows and investigates the arrest, conviction and sentencing of Randall Adams. Adams declares his innocence throughout. The film documents the crime and subsequent proceeding via interviews, photographs, recordings and sketches.

It also goes one further by dramatizing the actual events, using actors to stand in for the those actually involved in the incident. This reenactment, which is a staple of every "real crime" show currently in production, seems to be what disallowed the film entry into the documentary category of the Academy Awards.

These re-enactments are highly dramatized and stylized to draw and focus attention on certain aspects of the crime. This is critical, because the film's second driver is to call into question the proceedings themselves. Much time is spent focusing our attention on the details of the investigation which shed the most doubt on the outcome of the case.

The case itself is actually moderately interesting. There are some amazing characters here. That they're actual people is gravy. The fact that some of these folks were actually considered credible witnesses is a disappointing at best. The crime itself is simple, but the lack of hard evidence daunting.

All this adds up to rampant speculation and assumptions. This is fertile ground, and the film exploits it well.

It should be noted that this film ultimately impacted those involved in the crime.

The Good: Shining light in dark places

The Bad: Being in the wrong place at the wrong time

The Ugly: Lack of conscience

07-06-28 The Italian (Italianetz) (2005)

Seen: June 26th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

It's not about an Italian and doesn't take place in Italy. It's about a Russian orphan and his quest to avoid being adopted. It's not complex. It's not overly dramatic. It's a great film.

It's that simple.

There's an honesty to this film that is simply stunning. It may be my ignorance of contemporary Russia that makes me think that it's real, but I sincerely hope not. I was completely taken in by the characters, their situations and their surroundings. I never felt like this was a film, but more like some very personal documentary that was unfolding before me.

The story isn't a new one. There's got to be multiple parallels to Oliver Twist, though it's been too long for me to draw them off the cuff. But it's very compelling.

Vanya is a sympathetic character, but not a pitiful one. He's strong, smart and resourceful. Despite these things, he's still only six years old and at the mercy of the world. We may sympathize with him, but we don't want him to be given what he wants. We want him to strive, struggle and succeed. We want him to fight, because triumph after a struggle is much more rewarding than simply getting what you want.

It all boils down to that. What Vanya wants is something that makes no sense to anyone else in the film. He's gotten rewarded for nothing. It's what he really wants, the thing that almost no one else thinks is possible, much less accomplishable, that he sets his sights on.

The locations are amazing. The acting workmanlike, simple, direct and very effective. The characters and their dynamics are subtle at times, but solidly drawn. The camera work is direct and serves the story. There is nothing here to take our attention away from the story on the screen, and here, at least, that's all that matters.

See this film. It's not revolutionary, it's not the best I've seen, but it's one of the most honest that I've seen in quite some time. And in my opinion, a classic in the making.

The Good: Simple story solidly told

The Bad: Orphanages

The Ugly: Peddling Flesh

07-06-27 Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

Seen: June 26th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

I'm not gonna spend too long on this one. Either you like this series or you don't. Either you buy into the scenario by this time, or you don't. And if you've liked the series so far, you'll probably like this one too.

Or not.

I actually liked this one better than the second. Though the premise has grown a bit tired, this outing manages to remain fresh by changing things up, but keeping things the same.

There's a new bad guy, and he's really bad. There's an old bad guy, or two, and they're as bad as they ever were. There's a new complicated heist, that gets more complicated. There's personal dynamics that get in the way. Everything that made the previous two installment good is here, as well as what made them bad.

The patter here is a bit snappier, which is nice. The scope of the scheme is larger, much larger in some ways. This makes it more interesting, but a little less "real", though if you're expecting "real" what are you here for? There's less tension at the top, which is nice, because it's spread out over a much larger playing field. Things move quickly, and it's easy to stay involved, it's required in fact, if you plan to follow the action.

Many of the characters play a smaller part. This is a bit of a shame, as there's a lot of interesting characters here. Some of the camaraderie is lost as each character becomes subsumed by the larger plot. Some factor very little, having their roles become almost inconsequential. This is the only real downside to the film.

Bottom line; if you like complex heist films or ensemble films with snappy dialogue, you'll like this installment. If not, you'd best look elsewhere, because that's about all there is.

The Good: More of the same

The Bad:

The Ugly: The extent of ego

07-06-26 Lemming (2005)

Seen: June 24th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

Here's some weirdness for you.

That's the best way to describe Lemming, it's simply weird. There is an actual lemming, what it has to actually do with the film is your guess. I'm supposing it's a metaphor, but of what I'm not sure.

There is a suicide in this film, but we're explicitly told,by an expert, that lemmings do not kill themselves, but merely drown from exhaustion while trying to reach new ranges. With that, we're left on our own.

The actual mystery of the lemming is solved, but it's an afterthought. The real meat here is in the two couples' relationships and the dynamics both within them and between them. Things get a little crazy and eventually veer off into the borderline bizarre.

It's all good fun.

I love Charlotte Rampling. She's made a career out of taking chances, from Zardoz to The Night Porter and more recently Swimming Pool. She's excellent here. The other Charlotte, Gainsbourg, is very good as well. I most recently saw her in The Science of Sleep, and hope to see more of her work. The leading men I'm not as familiar with, André Dussollier in particular handles Alain's transformation exceptionally well.

As usual, I'll forgo the details to save them for you, but it's safe to say that this will probably go where you won't expect it. There's moments that left me with my mouth open; Laughing was all I could do,as I couldn't find any other response that was remotely appropriate.

This is not an amazing film, but it's strange and fresh enough to hold your interest. It's not complex or particularly clever, but it's nothing if not unexpected.

The Good: Inspired Strangeness

The Bad: Misplaced metaphor

The Ugly: Complex relationships

07-06-25 1408 (2007)

Seen: June 23rd, 2007
Format: Theatre
Rating: 6

1408 was little tough to rate. I went into the picture with ideas preconceived from the trailer, as most film goers do. I thought I knew what the premise was. I thought I had a handle on what was going to happen, but was interested to see how it all played out.

Now I'm not so sure.

One reason I was interested in this film was seeing John Cusack in a horror/thriller picture. I like Cusack's work. While I can't say that I'm a big fan of his, he does have the habit of picking interesting films to work in. His films tend to be a bit off the beaten path and he seems to prefer characters that are generally conflicted and far from boring. Let's say I'm a fan of his films.

This one's a little different. I've not seen him take on the supernatural before. He does a solid job in a difficult role and serves both the film and the character well.

Sam Jackson does a simple turn in his role. He's effective, but not over the top. He fits Olin well and delivers him with the appropriate restraint. Even when the weirdness starts, he plays it true.

I enjoyed the pretext in the first act, all the moments leading up to the Dolphin. There's a lot of development in a short period of time. We learn a lot about Mike, but there's plenty left to discover. This drives the film well.

The real star here is the script. This is a strange story, composed of elements from several standards. It's a hodge podge of haunted house, relatives from the other side, spiritual reconciliation, deal with the devil and a few more. The primary theme is Mike's journey, but all of the elements come into play. In general, it works. At least until near the end.

At some point, I lost a grip on things. I thought I was following along well enough, even through a few twists and turns that weren't expected, but were a bit trite. But then it all went off the rails a bit, and I was left wondering what was reality and what wasn't. Maybe that's the point. Maybe I'm supposed to be sharing Mike's confusion and disorientation. Regardless, it left me feeling unsatisfied. It felt a little too loose, a little too patched up to be a solid resolution.

The sets here are amazing, considering the small space used and the effects that happen therein. The production design is understated when appropriate, but goes way over the top when necessary. Combined with the effects, the film definitely becomes other worldly. I'm reminded of Gilliam's work at certain points by the subtle surrealism.

You might like this one better than I did. It's certainly a good film, and there's tons of material here for late night debates over symbolism and motivations and what "really" happened. It's well crafted and produced. It just left me missing something.

The Good: Solid surrealistic horror

The Bad: Fizzling ending

The Ugly: Restarting the countdown

07-06-24 White Lightning (1973)

Seen: June 24th, 2007
Format: DVD (Pan and Scan)
Rating: 5

This is leftover from the driving movies I started watching after seeing Grindhouse. It's been sitting around for a while and I finally got around to watching it.

Glad I wasn't excited about it.

There's nothing really wrong with this film, but by the same token, there's very little right about it either. The story is run of the mill at best. It's not really a driving picture, nor a moonshiner picture either. It's really just a simple revenge picture set in the south with those trappings. Even this wouldn't be a problem if it really went somewhere. But it doesn't stray form the mold.

That's a shame, because there's something to work with here. Reynolds does a decent turn and this picture did help his career. Bo Hopkins is good, but underused. Ned Beatty was just coming into his game at this point. Unfortunately, due to the limitations of the script, none of these actors really get a chance to break out of the limitations placed on their characters.

Southern stereotypes abound here. There's little that we don't know about any character that isn't shown within the first five minutes we see them. The possible exception here may be Lou, who actually may be a bit deeper than we give her credit for.

All the same, this isn't a terrible film. There are few decent chases, some fights, and some pictures of life in the South that are accurate, if not appealing. It's not a bad picture, just one that could have been a good bit deeper and more rounded.

The Good: Burt Reynolds

The Bad: Having the boat shot out from under you

The Ugly: Riding on Stereotypes

07-06-23 Birth (2004)

Seen: June 22nd, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

I'll admit that I avoided this film for a while. I thought the subject matter too creepy. I couldn't imagine it being handled in a fashion that wasn't borderline pedophilic and that I have no interest in. At all.

Mea Culpa, which seems to translate to My Bad.

Perhaps you've lost someone very close to you in a sudden, unexpected fashion. I have, and it took me years to process. Their passing left me with a huge hole in my life. I knew that it could never be filled by another single person. Having them suddenly arriving back in my life, and I've dreamed it off and on for years, would have an impact almost as large.

This is what this film is really about. Sean is that central to Anna's life, even ten years later. His arrival throws chaos into her life and those close to her. While the situation is definitely made stranger by Sean's age, would the character's reactions had been that much different if we were in his late teens, mid twenties or his "correct" age? If anything, his age lends some credence to the possibility of him being legitimate.

The reactions here are what's really the story. All the characters go through changes as they try to process Sean's existence. Each of them takes a journey which requires them to re-live their relationship with Sean to process his "return". This is, perhaps, the gift that Sean brings into all of their lives, Anna's in particular.

The performances here are excellent. This is a difficult film and they stand out because of that. Kidman's range and subtlety are impressive. There is a scene at the symphony which is particularly striking. In a single, long closeup, with no dialog, everything she processes marches across her face.

Cameron Bright is an impressive talent. He's a bit of a chameleon, and that suits him here. He avoids the trap of playing Sean with and self-righteousness or indignance. He realizes the character's conundrum and plays it firm, controlled and with passion, but without the petulance his age might infuse. Very well done.

The rest of the cast is excellent as well. I like Arliss Howard. Bacall is impeccable. Stormare is uncharacteristically reserved and surprisingly well cast here. Heche plays incipient psycho like nobody's business.

The only down side for me here is Danny Huston. His portrayal seems flat, uninflected. His emotions are too broad, and swing too quickly. Frankly, I just don't like the guy, and there's nothing here to cause me to revise my opinion.

This is a well-shot and subtly beautiful film. There are great, quiet moments where the composition and lighting lend the film substance and tone. There seems to be a "light in the darkness" theme running through it. This seems to be an antithesis to the opening scene.

I like this film and it's one of the few I may watch again. There's great characterization here and a scenario that's at best difficult for everyone involved. This is a strong premise, and it's well explored here.

The Good: Handling of the material

The Bad: Danny Huston

The Ugly: Coveting your neighbor's wife

07-06-22 The Messengers (2007)

Seen: Jun 21st, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

I like Thrillers and even Horror films just fine, thank you very much. I appreciate having my baser sensibilities jerked around a bit. It's fun, kinda like roller coasters are fun. But if there's no ultimate payoff, then all the going through the wringer is just exercise.

The Messengers isn't even a solid workout.

It all starts with a lot of promise. This film is full of "made you jump" moments and the start right at the beginning. I appreciate that. I like to be startled. But most of these moments are designed solely for the purpose of making you jump. You jump, you jump again, you jump some more, but you really don't learn anything new about what's going on. A lot of these moments are blatantly telegraphed, but they still get you. And you jump some more.

After a while it becomes very similar to a four year old telling you the same joke over and over and over. It stays fresh and funny to them, but after the twelfth or so telling, you get a bit tired of the whole affair.

The same is true of the creepy bits. They're not as prevalent, but they're even less informative. They're not bad, but not particularly effective either. After a while, they to becomes something you just have to sit through.

Ultimately there is a payoff for all your work. But it not a particularly original one. You may be able to see it coming. I didn't, but by that point I really didn't care all that much. It didn't surprise me, so I guess I could have figured it all out if I was still engaged.

I'm not gonna talk performances here, because the actors weren't given that much to work with, in my opinion.

Basically this would be a great second date flick. It's not smart enough to generate any serious conversation, but startling enough to have you grabbing at each other every few minutes.

The Good: Jump factor

The Bad: Thin story

The Ugly: Coming home

07-06-21 Out of the Past (1947)

Seen: June 20th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

I like film noir. I like bad people being bad and making no apology. Sometimes they even get away with it. I like it when no one is quite what they appear to be, and the story's all about finding out what's really going on in the dark, where we can't quite see it.

Out of the Past is noir to the core.

There's no pulling punches here. Things are pretty and no one pretends they are. Jeff makes mistakes, admits them and pays for them. He may regret some of his choices, but doesn't shirk his responsibility or whine about the consequences. He's a man and takes it like one.

Whit and Kathie are the same. How many guys do you know that not only take back their girlfriend robs them, but send someone after her to bring her back. And not entirely for the money. You do know one? Did she shoot him as she was leaving too? Didn't think so.

And that's all just the premise, just a place for the film to start. It all jumps off from there. This is a tale of betrayal and deceit rarely seen since biblical times. Very few of the characters are really clean, and those are so obvious they make your teeth hurt.

The acting here is spot on. Mitchum is perfect. He play Jeff more smart than tough, though he can hold his own. He gives him cynical edge, along with a deeper romantic sensibility that he fights to reconcile with the real world. He's a victim here, but an all too willing one.

Kirk Douglas does an excellent job. We want to really hate Sterling. He's slimy and bad, but it's hard to really despise a man that charming and seemingly honest. He's in so much control, rarely even raising his voice as things go bad. He's a bit the anti-villain, which is intriguing.

Jane Greer's performance tops them all. The things she does and says with a straight face or a winning smile are simply stunning. Her performance is so straight, so plain, so standard, that it belies everything that her character really is at her core. Kathie is thoroughly convincing to the end. To say more would spoil it.

The lighting is awesome. This is a dark movie and it plays that way. The scenes are constructed and shot to emphasize the dark but don't fall victim to it. There are a day scenes, as you watch this, think of their relevance compared to the ones played at night.

See this one if you like noir. It twists and turns a bit, but isn't so convoluted it that it trips over its feel. The characters are great and the story classic.

Aside: Paul Valentine reminds me of Ben Affleck. Weird.

The Good: Noir to the core

The Bad: Almost everybody

The Ugly: Losing count of the crossings

07-06-20 Rio Bravo (1959)

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

Almost two months ago I wrote a review of El Dorado. Well, I've finaly gotten around to watching the original version of that film. I was surprised at how similar and yet how different it was.

I think I like this one better.

Rio Bravo contains most of the elements in its remake, but It's got a different tone. There's more humor here. It's not just comic relief, there's an air of just plain love of life despite the twists it hands you. It's not nearly as existentially dark as El Dorado, which has a sardonic flavor.

My favorite actor in this film is Pedro Gonzalez Gonzalez. It's nice, expecially at the time this movie was made, to see a role this prominant for a Hispanic actor. Carlos isn't wall paper in this film, he's a business owner with a wife he has a little trouble handling. While he's a bit subservient to Wayne's sheriff, it's in the natural way a townsperson is to the law. The underwear scene established quickly that these two are friends and repsect each other. Chance places his trust in Carlos when he insists he's responsible for getting Feathers on the stage. Pedro i is largely a straight man for comic relief, but Gonzalez plays him with great heart.

The Duke is in solid form. This is no stretch for him, but he's become the reference point for characters of this type. He plays it pretty much straight down the line. Which is just fine.

I'm surprised by the quality of the acting by Dean Martin and Rick Nelson as well. Both do well here. Martin is a bit overdramatic in his acting at times, but balances that with some understated work as well. Nelson's Colorado is respectful, naive and yet clever and a bit jaded as well. His sense of irony is a very nice touch. Colorado and El Dorado's Mississippi are the closest in character between the two films, but are still very different.

The singing bits are a bit overdone, but expected and accepted for a film with these stars in this time.

Dickinson shines as well. Her swings in character are a bit broad, but this is probably a conscious choice, whether made by Hawks or herself, I can't tell. The rest of the ensemble is fine. I get a bit tired of Walter Brennens' routine, but that's me.

There's a lot of tension here. It's a longish film, drawing things out over several days. The premise is set very quickly and the left to create a pressure which looms throughout the rest of the picture. When it finally comes to a head, I was a bit surpirsed at how simply it did so. I expected something more convoluted, more crafty, but it serves well.

We're not really surpised by the ways things are resolved, but this is a western after all. If things went too far astray it would undermine the whole picture.

Basically, this is solid western fair. Good Guys and Bad Guys, girls we're not quite sure about, all wrapped up in a drawn out standoff that can only end one way. It's classic. It's a cornerstone of American cinema and timeless.

The Good: Straight up western, no chaser

The Bad: Musical numbers

The Ugly: Working your way back from the edge

07-06-19 Heartbreak Ridge (1986)

Seen: June 17th, 2007
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 5

I like Clint. What's more I respect him. He seems to have a decent feel for film and has done some great work as a director. I was surprised to learn he's won two Oscars for Best Director and was nominate twice more. He's made some great films behind the camera and in front of it and often both.

This isn't one of them.

This is a genre film. It's the classic "Tough old battle hand turns a bunch of reject/geek/criminal/naive recruits into a well bonded unit after which they are tested and united in combat". There's a ton of these. Stripes is an excellent parody of the genre.

So there's nothing really new here. Eastwood is the crusty hero who can't function in the real world. He's a Medal of Honor winner, takes no crap, loves his country and is tough as nails. A perfect part for him. He could play it in his sleep, but actually works at it and is very good.

The rest is kind of a mess. The writing rarely rises above cliche. The unit he "trains" is played by mostly bit-player talent. There are a few recognizable faces, but most of the actors are not particularly talented and generally forgettable. The rest of the casting is passable.

Of special mention is Mario Van Peebles. I don't think I hated his character the first time I saw this, but man, I can't stand him this time. Stitch Jones is a caricature beyond compare. His style and mannerism lock him firmly into the early 80s, form which he'll never escape. His mere presence dates the film so rigidly that its difficult to watch now.

I wonder how much of the character was written versus created by Van Peebles (and allowed by Eastwood). Regardless, I think it's Stitch that really undermines the credibility of the film.

There are some decent moments here, generally between Highway and the people from his past. Eastwood knows how to play the compassionate side of his tough guys and he does a very nice job here. There's a few scenes that play for sarcastic humor that find their mark well. Some of the training sequences are decent, though the majority are unintentionally and comically cliche.

I think Eastwood did a decent job with what he had to work with, but it wasn't enough to stand the test of time. See this is you're an Eastwood completist or on the last night channel after partying with your buddies 'til 0h dark thirty.

The Good: Eastwood is another tough guy

The Bad: Nothing really new to the genre

The Ugly: Stitch Jones.

07-06-18 Transamerica (2005)

Seen: June 18th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

This is a film with a very strong premise. It's almost an angle instead of being a true premise. A strong premise is good thing. It gives a story a place to launch from, a place of power to begin its journey. The problem with a strong premise it that it takes a strong story as well to succeed as a film. Merely having a strong premise is not enough.

Transamerica delivers in spectacular fashion.

In fact, the film spends the preponderance of its time trying to ignore or avoid the premise. Like Bree, the film is interested most in just being itself. It doesn't dwell on the obvious. It doesn't belabor its own premise, but chooses to largely ignore it in preference to exploring the real story, which is that of a parent trying to connect with a child.

Like many road movies, this is about personal journeys as well as physical ones. It's almost cliche in that fashion. It's a tried and true conceit to place two people of wildly differing character in a car, make them spend several days together and watch how they and their attitudes change. Inevitably, some sort of transformation takes place.

Bree's transformation during this journey is the heart of the film, not what waits for her in LA.

There's lots of interesting parallels and juxtapositions here. We can draw connections between Toby and Bree and their journeys on many different levels. This is a rich film, one that can be appreciated on several different levels. Thinking about it now makes we want to watch it again, which is rare for me.

Above all this story is honest. It handles all of its subject matter with care and reverence. It works hard to be true without becoming maudlin, saccharine or sensational. It simply doesn't compromise, and that's a credit to the writer/director and cast.

Performances here are critical and well done. Huffman's transformation is remarkable. The sheer work she's put into this part is impressive and the results stunning. Zegers does a decent job with a tough role. To be honest, I though something was missing there, but I couldn't tell you what. The rest of the characters are very well cast. Fionnula Flanagan is remarkable and I always enjoy Graham Greene's work.

See this one. It's not about being transgendered, it's about being and continually becoming human, regardless of what else you may or may not be. And we need more of these stories.

The Good: An honest story and great performances

The Bad: Fear in all its forms

The Ugly: Being something you're not

07-06-17 Running with Scissors (2006)

Seen: June 15th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 5

This is a very personal film. It's an autobiography of sorts. It tells the tale of a young man growing up in a very unorthodox fashion.

This doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

The problem here is that it's all a little too personal. There's an old saw about dirty laundry that seems to apply here. While Augusten's life is certainly colorful and full of fantastical people, there's something that rings hollow when it's converyed in this fashion.

We see his whole life here. There's pain, there's love, both appropriate and inappropriate, there's betrayal and confusion. There's surprises both pleasant and distressing. All of this is presented over the course of two hours.

I took Augusten years to experience all this, and many more to process it and ultimately convey it. How are we supposed to feel after having it all thrown at us over the course of two hours. Even if we mull it over, how long should we take to process it? A day? A week? A month? I'm not really interested in spending more than a few hours, probably while doing mundane tasks, mulling it over.

On top of this, since there's so much happening, we're continually pulled in different directions. We're laughing at something kooky one moment and appalled at some other behavior the next. It seems as if there's a race to fully engage all of our emotional responses at least once by the end of the film.

It's all a bit much, really. Processing it is quite a challenge, which doesn't really leave much time to enjoy it.

That said, there are some amazing performances here. Benning is simply stellar. I've never been a big fan, but her range is on full display here and it's much better and wider than I've previously given her credit for. Jill Clayburgh does an excellent, understated job.

Brian Cox is in full force. While his character isn't very complex, he does nail the performance. The rest turn in good, solid work. Wood's characterization is perhaps the most confusing to me. She's a little over-dramatic, and I'm feel that it's her performance and perhaps not the character that's being so flamboyant.

In all, I was a bit underwhelmed here. While there are some stunning moments here and some great performances, it all seemed a little tedious. Perhaps the book is the more appropriate medium.

The Good: Performances

The Bad: Everything else

The Ugly: Becoming a surrogate spouse

07-06-16 Poseidon (2006)

Seen: June 12tn, 2007
Format: HD-DVD
Rating: 4

Though I never actually saw it, I remember The Poseidon Adventure coming out when I was a kid. It had Shelly Winters and Ernest Borgnine in it and I had a hard time believing it could be any good if they were headlining an action picture.

A critic even in my youth.

This version probably isn't much better. While the ship had been updated, there's nothing else really new here. I should watch the original and compare them, but after seeing this one, that may be a chore I'm just not interested in.

The characters are some of the most cardboard I've seen in recent memory. This isn't the fault of the actors, they're just given almost nothing to work with. It's be easy to completely describe each character in twenty five words or less. Example: "Ex submariner turned professional gambler leading a detached, loner existence. A natural leader fearing failure and therefore commitment." Eighteen words. Done. There's nothing more to say. That's it. And he's the most well rounded character in the picture.

Performances are meh. With not much to go on, it'd take some really great actors to cover the lack of writing with their performances. These aren't them. And Jacinda Barret is here again. Someone explain her appeal to me, I just don't get it.

The effects here are great. There's some really cool shots of the boat flipping over. The exterior CG of the ship is very impressive. The interior shots of the flip are chaotic and severe. There's lots of innocents dying terrible deaths here. It's "real" that way, and a bit surprising. The film doesn't pull many punches in this portion, which sets up the rest in an interesting way.

The sets are pretty cool too. I was constantly aware and impressed by the upside down sets. They can't have been easy to design or build. They're very consistent and detailed. They really conveyed the unnerving aspect of the world turning literally upside down.

Remember those characters that were so shallow? Here's the good news. At this point the film turns into a horror-style thriller where the characters begin to get knocked off one by one. This is great because it means that is some cases we don't even need to sit through the full range of the character's possible cliche ridden existence. Some get stopped half way through or less. It's a serious relief.

It'd be easy to rate this a lot lower, but the effects and action stuff is actually pretty cool as are the sets. Everything else is just what you'd expect.

The Good: Simple and easy to follow.

The Bad: Cardboard characterization

The Ugly: Lots of terrible ways to die

07-06-15 Knocked Up (2006)

Seen: Jun 11th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 5

Man, I wanted to love this film. I did love parts of it. I like Seth Rogen, I think he's got some amazing timing. I think Katherine Heigl is gorgeous and I was very suprised at how game she was here. Her role was hardly conventional or one dimensional.

There were some great gags. The conceit is very solid. The dialogue is generally good, and the supporting characters and their actors solid.

So where does it all go wrong?

It's just too much. There's too much going on all at once. It tries to be too many things to too many people and eventually collapses under its own weight.

It's a stoner flick. It's a gross-out comedy. It's a girl becoming a woman via becoming a mother film. It's a relationship film. Scratch that, a two relationship film. And a fear of relationship film, times two .. or three... or four. It's a wild night out film, and a guy outgrowing his friends and becoming responsible film.

I'm sure you can keep going on your own.

The problem is that does a fair job of all of this things, but really doesn't excel at any of them.

It's rife with gags, most of which are good. Some are running, and they pop up unexpectedly and are resonably effective. But they're really just window dressing on the underlying, core plot, which is so much more serious. It's hard to understand why the film makers kept undermining it. Comic relief is one thing, but these are full bore comic tangents, often with a improvised feel.

I could go on and on, but basically this is about three different fairly good films, all rolled up to make one mediocre one. It's a shame that it couldn't decide which one it wanted to be.

The Good: Comic dialogue and timing

The Bad: Serious dialogue and timing

The Ugly: Pink Eye

07-06-14 Infernal Affairs (Mou gaan dou) (2002)

Seen: June 10th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

Somewhere festering in me is a rant that I keep meaning to write. Basically, it's about how I'm sick and tired of Hollywood taking good foreign films and remaking them for the American Mass Audience. Maybe I'm just a film snob.

But this isn't that rant. Yet.

Martin Scorsese finally won his Oscar for The Departed, which I really enjoyed. It's a remake of this film. When I found out, I had to see it. Unfortunately, this review will be heavily colored by that.

I was more than a little surprised. Unlike some other remakes, there was some serious modifications from this film to the American version. In retrospect, this is a good thing. Though the films share the same plot and the fundamental differences, they're very different in many aspects.

If you don't like Hong Kong action films, simply move along. This is very much part of that tradition. And within that tradition it's a good film, even a very good film. Perhaps I was jaded by my continual comparisons, but it's not one of the best I've seen.

This film tradition is deeply rooting in the Peking Opera. Characters are simple and fairly broad. They tend to represent types and not individual people. Their battles are the battles have been found a million times and are fundamental to the culture.

There is tragedy here. There is heroism. There is evil. There is even some redemption. There is some comedy and some ironic coincidence. All of this is played out a fairly simple stage.

While the plot is a bit convoluted, it's all laid bare for us in the first few minutes of the film. The exposition is clear and swift. The characters are introduced, explained and codified, drawing clear the lines which divide them.

Once the stage has been set, the story plays out. While it has it's own flavor and character, it's one that we're seen many times before. It's a good story, a solid one, but nothing particularly new in the grand scheme.

One thing that does set it a bit apart is the volume of violence. It's not as prevalent in some films. This seems to be an attempt to create tension. By moving slowly toward the conflicts and resolving some of them without bloodshed, it seems that film makers are trying to amp us up for the conflict that we know must eventually come.

Unfortunately here is where tradition fails a bit. By exposing all (OK, most) of the characters and their motivations so early in the film, there's little to really reveal as the film progresses. We really don't learn much as things progress. Things happen, but the story itself doesn't seem to progress.

Perhaps this too is part of the tradition and one I have yet to learn to appreciate.

Overall I like this film. See it if you're a fan of this genre or if you liked Scorsese's film.

The Good: Dedication

The Bad: Learning where you really stand.

The Ugly: Living someone else's life

07-06-13 The Dead Girl (2006)

Seen: June 8th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

This film follows a popular trend in film lately; multiple, disjoint stories which all are all related via a single thread. It also tells these stories in reverse chronological order, spiraling back to gradually reveal what's happened. Composing the story this way isn't new or particularly interesting.

Doing it well is.

I'm very impressed by the way that Moncrieff has structured this piece. Without care, the device could have easily resulted in a makeshift, hackneyed whole. Instead, we have five carefully crafted stories, with few overlapping characters. Each is a short subject which deals with the titular Dead Girl in some fashion.

But what's amazing here is the completeness and depth of the individual pieces. They are each a microcosm in which characters are revealed, explained, change and to some degree, move on. Each story is strong in it's own right. While I hesitate to say that they could stand on their own, it isn't that far fetched.

As a whole the piece is strong. Each story leads us down part of the path of the underlying tale. Each one exposes a little more of what's happened to the central character, as well as revealing the various peripheral characters' issues. It's like some twisted advent calendar of game show, each scene opening a small door and revealing part of the larger story.

We make many assumptions along the way, subconsciously filling in the blanks ourselves ahead of time. Sometimes we're right, other times were dead wrong. Out misconceptions teach us something about ourselves and our reaction to the genre. The last story ultimately fills in the final blanks for us. You may get what you expect, you may not.

There is some outstanding acting here, by some outstanding actors. This is surprising given the compactness of most of the roles. Some of the performances are very surprising in their depth, given the actual screen time each character receives. The only real dissapointment here is Brittany Murphy, not because her performance is poor, but because she seems type cast. I'd have preferred to see her stretch in one of the more subtle roles here.

I won't tell you that this is a must see. It's not perfect by any means. But it's definitely interesting and compelling enough for me to seek out more of Moncrieff's work.

Aside: There is a "Baby Whisperer" credit, which I find very amusing for some reason.

The Good: Performances, all the way 'round..

The Bad: Learning who you are

The Ugly: A trip to Norwalk

07-06-12 Invincible (2006)

Seen: June 7th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 7

There's something about sports films that feels very American to me. Maybe it's the fact that I grew up with ABC Sports where "The thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat" weren't just words, but reflected the way I felt about my teams and favorite athletes. I'm no jock, but I competed in various sports through college and know what those words can mean.

This is a pretty much an excuse for the fact that I really like well-done sports films.

Invincible is nothing if not well put together. There's some sharp producers at Disney, and this sort of underdog story is their bread and butter, so they've become quite adept at putting out a solid product.

The underdog story is the classic sports story. No one wants to hear how some great team or athlete who was expected to win destroyed their competition. It might be appropriate to honor a great team or athlete with some sort of retrospective, but there's little drama when the heavy favorite to win, does. Heck, I rooted for Ottawa in the finals, just because I thought Anaheim was the better team.

We're actually much more intrigued by great athletes failing and falling than we are in them suceeding. There are hundreds of examples. This is especially true when the athlete has an overabundance of confidence, ego or attitude. We want the high and mighty to fall, to be gain some humility, to regain their humanity. That's where the drama in those stories lie.

The underdog on the other hand, is a story generally worth telling. It shows us the best part of us a humans. It gives us vicarious hope. It shows us what is good about us. The commitment, the work, maybe some humility again, and underlying it all, the desire to succeed. Even if the hero doesn't win, and sometimes they don't, it's their journey that we care about.

All this buildup is pretty much to tell you that's this is a pretty decent underdog tale.

It's not that new, or different. It doesn't really break any new ground. It's not about a Miracle, just about a decent guy who overcames some odds and lived his dream for a while.

But the thing about these stories is that they don't have to be new. It helps, but they tend to stand on their own because if they're based on real people, the story will be different. Not unique perhaps, but different enough that we know it's new.

Enough wandering around.

Wahlberg is very good here. Sometimes he hits the mark, and this is one of them. I think Elizabeth Banks is awesome. She's a real chameleon. After seeing Slither less than a week ago, this was a complete shift.

Everything else is good. The production is very slick. The football scenes are well done, and the digital recreation of Veterans stadium, though not perfect according to some, is impressive.

This may not be Vince Papale's real story. It may have been inflated a little, dramatized a little, perhaps some things swept under the rug. Who knows? But the basics of the story are his, and Invincible does a good job telling it.

The Good: Solid, no-frills sports film

The Bad: Hard times in Philly

The Ugly: Getting blindsided

07-06-11 Paper Moon (1973)

Seen: June 6th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

This is one of those films I've meant to see for years. One that everyone loves but that's fallen through the cracks for me.

It's about time.

First off, I love the fact that this was filmed in black and white. It lends a tone to the film that places it firmly in the period and gives it an air of authenticity and consistency that's remarkable. The film is shot with very large depth of field. Everything is in focus. We see everything clearly, which draws us into the picture.

The long shots also draw us in. They make us a feel a part of the action. The drawn out dialogue feels like we're there.

This is a very intimate film. We're shown these characters in their entirety. Good points and bad, there's few rocks left unturned. We learn to appreciate these people for who they are, not what we suppose them to be.

The story itself is also a great one. It's unconventional and at odds not only with what we might perceive to be a normal father/daughter relationship, but also with the period is which it's set. This is hardly The Grapes of Wrath. Addie's constant evocation of Frank's philosophies is excellent. They underscore the difference between Moze and Addie and the ideal of the time. Addie's transformation, the slow erosion of her idealistic viewpoint of the world is a key point of the film.

The acting here is simply great. The interplay between Ryan and Tatum O'Neil is priceless. Their timing is so smooth and natural that again, we're drawn firmly into their world.

Tatum O'Neil won an Oscar for her performance. This doesn't surprise me. The way that she inhabits Addie is almost frightening. Perhaps she had something in common with Addie at the time, or infused her own personality into the character, but regardless, the portrayal is stunning. She plays Addie so straight, so tough and so serious that it's heartbreaking. Addie rarely smiles in the film, and the fact that she was able to maintain that level of sobriety during the filming, much less infuse the character with it is a remarkable achievement.

I really love this film. I consider it a classic.

The Good: Winning an Oscar at 10

The Bad: Growing up fast

The Ugly: Nepotism and the law

07-06-10 Five Easy Pieces (1970)

Seen: Jun 5th, 2007
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 4

I must've been in the wrong mood to watch this film. I've heard it referenced as a classic, award winning, ground breaking, trend setting, ad infinitum.

I just don't see it.

I really don't get the point of the film at all. Is it trying to say the rich and privileged don't understand what life is about? Is it saying that there's no really difference between the rich and poor, that they're essentially the same problems but on different scales? I can really tell.

The reason that I can't tell is that all I really see here is a man who isn't satisfied and doesn't know why. He acts badly. He wants and gets, and then wants something else. He can't really appreciate anyone but himself, and doesn't really appreciate that.

Maybe it's about what Catherine says about him not loving himself. Maybe this is supposed to be a journey of self reconciliation and discovery. If so, it really doesn't work on that level either.

I'm not saying that Bobby isn't interesting or that Nicholson doesn't do a good job playing him. I see some of myself in him. I understand a lot of what he may be going through. But that doesn't make me like him. It doesn't make me respect him.

Maybe this one is just too close to home, but the entire film was pretty much lost on me, and that's not common. I'll not go off on acting, directing, editing and the rest, because with a few exceptions, they're not that important. When they are important, they're done well. But in light of what I consider basically a fundamentally poor story and script, it's not worth the effort.

Make your own decision.

The Good: I have no idea

The Bad: Idiot backseat philosophizers

The Ugly: Walking away

07-06-09 Mr. Brooks (2007)

Seen: June 5th, 2007
Format: Theatre
Rating: 7

I really had not idea what I was in for with this film. I had the afternoon off, I was near the theater and decided to catch a flick. This was ready to start when I walked up.

Lucky me.

This is one of the more unorthodox films I've seen in a while. That's a very good thing. I appreciate film makers willing to take a chance, regardless of how the film actually turns out.

This film doesn't fit any genre. Brooks plays a killer, but the police chasing him really isn't the focus or point of the film. Costner is a family man, and his relationship with his family is a crucial element, but it's not about that either. Someone gets the upper hand and he deals with that, but the film's not about that either.

What is it really about then? The best I can guess, it's about dealing with your demons. Brooks' demons a pretty serious. They drive him in ways that are far outside the norm and far from acceptable. But no excuses are made. Brooks never claims to be innocent. He never infers that his sickness alleviates him from responsibility.

This objective view of the character and his assumption of responsibility are what make this so interesting. We sympathize with him because he has failings that he admits, failings he tries hard to overcome, and they cause difficulties he must deal with as well. He shouldn't be a sympathetic character. But we recognize ourselves and our own struggles in him, and we pull for him, as we hope that we too can overcome our shortcomings and problems.

Costner does a remarkable job here. He plays Brooks very straight. At the very start of the film, I was lulled rather completely by his characterization. As things begin to unfold, his sheer nonchalance at the things which unfold is striking.

Hurt too, is remarkable. His role is fascinating, and his interaction with Costner riveting. Marshall is perhaps the most interesting character in the film. He, like Brooks, seems to be pragmatist. While perhaps less sympathetic, we're lulled by him a bit as well. He has his own ethical standard, his own mores. While not the same as Brooks', he lives by his as well.

Marg Helgenberger was underused, in my opinion. She does very well in this role, but it's a small and undistinguished character.

Writing and directing are great here. The way the story evolves is interesting. While there are certain things that we expect, that are clearly telegraphed, there are other moments when our expectations are reversed. The moments keep the film fresh and keep us guessing. There are also simpler, unexpected moments as well. While the film isn't really "twisty", it does play on it's associated genres well and offer a reasonably fresh perspective.

This is one of those films I actually want to watch again. It's not outstanding in any fashion, but it's insidiously interesting. It makes you think, and a second watch may help solidify it.

Postscript: I understand that this may be the first film a trilogy. I'd be interesting to see any followups. This film is complete, and really doesn't leave much hanging, but there's definitely material aplenty to kick off a follow up.

The Good: A new twist

The Bad: Genetics

The Ugly: Fighting your nature

07-06-08 Slither (2006)

Seen: June 3rd, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

At one point during the film, I thought "this feels a little like a Troma film, but for the masses". Then I see an explicit Troma reference. Then I find out Lloyd Kaufman had a scene that never made the movie.

I'm not going to explain Troma here, so if you're not familiar, look it up for yourself. If you decide it's not your cup of tea, then "move along, there's nothing to see here" as they say in pictures. The rest of you go rent Cannibal: The Musical or Tromeo and Juliet and go from there.

From the trailers, this film looked pretty good. I like Elizabeth Banks, and this seemed like another brave, non-typical outing for her. Nathan Fillion is OK in my book. It looked a bit campy and a look creepy. This is all good as far as I'm concerned.

But the delivery was a little bit off.

The best bits were in the trailer. The tone was right, and there was some decent gags, some great campy moments and some over the top grostesquerie that was, in fact, way creepy. There's some decent caricatures, some decent acting, and the zombies, and you know I love zombies, were good with a slight twist.

But there's still something not quite right. And it seems to boil down to this. This film is caught squarely between mass media horror film production and the cheap, down and dirty Troma style. It tries to bring Troma to the masses. It tries to deliver the gore and creep with a side of self deprecating attitude, true high camp and by pushing the bounds of taste.

And unfortunately, this is why it doesn't quite deliver.

Troma films work because they flaunt taste completely. They don't even pretend to know what is tasteful and what isn't. They are tasteless be design, because their subject matter lies outside acceptable, much less good, taste. They work because of this. I'm not saying they're masterpieces, or even that they're good, but they generally do work for that reason.

Slither doesn't quite work because it has boundaries. While it goes places some mainstream horror films won't, it never really strays far from home. It may put a toe over the line, but it never jumps over with both feet and takes off running.

This is what causes it to ultimately come up a bit short.

Kudos though to James Gunn for giving it a shot and to the producers and studios as well. It's an experiment and not a completely failed one. There's a lot to learn from this film and I hope we see more of them trying to bridge the gap between standard horror fare and the truly grotesque. I'll be keeping an eye on Gunn to see what he does next.

It's not a bad film. If you enjoy horror, camp horror or zombie films, by all means see it. It's got great elements and moments. It's got a decent cast and a good script. It's just not quite all baked.

The Good: Troma for the masses

The Bad: So much promise, disappointing delivery

The Ugly: Everywhere you look

07-06-07 Miami Vice (2006)

Seen: Jine 3rd, 2007
Format: HD-DVD
Rating: 5

Miami Vice was not a show that I watched in its heyday. Hence I have no real frame of reference or nostalgia for this rendition. I've got to judge this one solely on its stand alone value.

Things look good, but looks aren't everything.

This film has style. There's expensive stuff here and lots of it. Clothes, boats, cars, planes. It's all awash in luxury. Even the guns are high-end. When we're shown something not of this world, it stands out. We've got beautiful places filled with beautiful women. There's beautiful homes with beautiful views of beautiful land and seascapes.

But looks aren't everything.

When it comes right down to it, this is a low rent cop thriller. When you strip off the veneer, there really isn't much underneath.

The plot is basic, and then becomes confusing. The setup is decently done. But the payoff for that setup, when it finally comes, is brief, under explained and abandoned. It's as if the writer discovered the real story three quarters of the way through and abandoned the original. Or perhaps the producers did. In any event, the film doesn't quite no where it's going most of the time, and invents convoluted explanations to explain where it's been. A caught, drunk unfaithful husband metaphor is in there somewhere.

There's loose ends aplenty here, just waiting to be yanked. But it's probably not worth the effort.

The action sequences here are very good. There's some decent camera work. So are the romantic ones. The acting is decent, if a bit contrived due to the limitations of the written characters.

The sound is a nightmare. Maybe it's just the mix on this HD-DVD, but dialog was often soft and muddled. In some cases this was done for effect, to make the POV seem more "realistic", but at others it was just poor. The musical score was also too loud in comparison, and in places actually stomped all over the dialog. I was continually jockeying the volume to understand what was being said and to avoid be blasted by music.

I have no idea how well this film stacks up against the original show. Perhaps it's an homage of great dedication. Perhaps it's a very plausible recreation. Whatever the case, I found it glitzy and glamorous, but with very little substance.

The Good: Fast boats, fast cars

The Bad: Sound mix

The Ugly: Style over substance

07-06-06 Reign of Fire (2002)

Seen: June 2nd, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 6

I like Science Fiction a lot. For years, some folks have tried to make SF stand for Speculation Fiction instead to try to give the genre a bit more credibility. Basically, you create a premise that may or may not be credible or possible, and then craft a story based on that premise. The line between this and Fantasy is generally wide and very grey.

What can be really amusing is the lengths that people will go to try to "rationalize" the premise and by association, the story. The object is to have the story remains true as possible to the premise, to make it consistent. It has to play fairly within the rules set by the premise, even if discoveries are made within the story that expands that premise.

What isn't allowed is questioning the premise itself. It's fiction, it's speculative, it's made up. That's not to say the premise shouldn't have internal consistency and some decent exposition to make it more tenable. But if we're continually trying to undermine, the premise itself, then there's no way we're gonna have any fun.

So what's this got to do with Reign of Fire? Basically, this film has a premise that takes quite a bit of willpower to swallow. The presence of hibernating dragons which are capable of reducing the world to a smouldering ruin is more than far-fetched. But if we're willing to go there, this film has something to offer.

There's an interesting juxtaposition between Quinn and Van Zan. There's different objectives, different priorities. Neither is correct, and it's only by their compromise and a synthesis of their agendas that things are set right. There's messages about community and parenting that are poignant. The existence of Van Zan's band at all is powerful statement about humanity's ability to not just survive, but to adapt and compete.

There's action, danger and heroism in the face of danger that are engaging. We've got some cool ideas here. The Arc Angels, as a concept are very intriguing. The ingenuity of the keeps layout and procedures. is well thought out.

As this is a post apocalyptic film, the characters and acting are a bit broad. But if we're expecting more, then we've come to see the wrong film.

It's a pretty movie, in an ugly way. There's great design all the way round. Van Zan's character design is a bit over the top, but that's par for the genre. The Dragon's themselves are well done, though the tattered wings seem forced

Basically if you can curb you tendency to over analyze things, this can be a fun film. There's a decent, if too familiar, story. There's some good special effects and passable acting all wrapped up in premise that's interesting if nothing else.

The Good: Unapologetic Science Fiction

The Bad: Thin on background

The Ugly: Americans

07-06-05 The Last of the Mohicans (1920)

Seen: June 2nd, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

I was rummaging around to fulfill a request and found this. I thought it would be an interesting film to juxtapose the modern one against and decided to give it a go.

I wasn't all that impressed.

This is a silent film. I'm not as well versed in Silent Film as I should be. They tend to have a flavor of their own.

Film acting at this point was hardly a refined craft. My assumption is that most performers came from the stage at this point. Their gestures and emoting tends to be large and overplayed. This may be due to both the overcompensating for the lack of sound needed to convey the intent, and from the tendency to "play to the back row".

For whatever reason, the acting here is overblown at times. There is an inconsistency between the acting styles of various actors that's very disjoint. It tends to vary both between actors and from the same actor from scene to scene. It may be that at this time the actors and director were struggling with changing the way characters were portrayed.

In addition, the intertitles here are sparse. It seems were expected to pick up the vast majority of the dialog through the acting and lip reading. I could have done with a little more explicit exposition. Perhaps the film makers expected a little more familiarity with the classic tale.

There's one scene in the film, as a Indian approaches a woman with a child, that actually creates tension via it's editing. The shot cuts back and forth between the woman and her stalker, creating a sense of tension that we new take for granted.

There is also two scenes toward the end of the film where we shift point of view while Cora is in danger and as Magua tries to escape. These are interesting as well.

There are some interesting action moments here as well. There is some violence depicted, especially involving children, that surprised me. There are some choreographed fight sequences and dramatic falls that are again surprising to me.

The rest of the scenes are generally one shot "stages", with little dynamic tension. The action sequences involving crowds tend to be chaotic and difficult to follow.

The settings seem out of place to the story. Near the end we see a confrontation in a huge, steep valley reminiscent of Yosemite. The fort seems situated in rolling plain. These seem incongruous with the Eastern setting of the film.

The other problem here is the presentation. This film has been selected to the National Film Registry. The version I saw has been "restored" and copyrighted by Lumivision and the International Museum of Photography.

A new score has been written and recorded that varies from excellent to obnoxious. It is very distracting at times. The importance of the score in silents can't be overemphasized, and this one is often a problem.

In addition, the scenes have all been tinted, ostensibly to help reflect the environment where the scened occur. Scenes that should be in low light are purplish, those outdoors in daylight are sepia. I assume the intent here is to give visual cues about the environment to a modern audience. I found it very distracting.

So what, then? If nothing else, this film makes me think about how film making has changed in many different aspects. I wouldn't bother with it unless you're very interested in film from a production or artistic perspective.

The Good: Editing

The Bad: Score and Colorization

The Ugly: Characterization of Indians

07-06-04 Waitress (2007)

Seen: May 31st, 2007
Format: Theatre
Rating: 8

I went into the theater thinking I'd see a slightly quirky romantic comedy. The trailers looked good, and I hoped that they weren't the whole film, that there was something more to latch onto. I didn't get just a romantic comedy ... really. I got something different, something more. Something deeper and wider. I did get the romantic comedy too, but that was just the sweet crunchy crust. The insides were different.

Call it a slice of life.

There's something about singer-songwriters. It's difficult to be a good one, but the work they produce tends to be complete. To be whole. They're compelling that way. They sound different, the songs feel different.

The same is true with writer-directors and the rarer writer-director-actor. Their films tend to be complete, to be whole. They can have a consistency of tone and action that gives them almost a feel of their very own.

Waitress has this in spades. The film has so many facets, so many personalities, but there's a consistency of delivery, of tone, of spirit, that makes the melange not only work, but work well. The movie uses the pie metaphor continuously and rather blatantly, but it works because it really fits. The blending of flavors is what powers this film, and if this film is a reflection of Adrienne Shelly, what she thinks powers life.

This film allows its characters to be who they are. There's no apology here. There's weird people, grumpy people, neurotic people, even good people with simple and forgivable failings. Most of them are cliches, but that doesn't make them unreal. All these people do what they do, be who they are. This creates tensions and problems, but they aren't high drama, they're the low flying dramas of everyday existence. Sure they get to the point where they demand change to resolve them, but this is normal too.

I hate to fall back to this, but these people are real to me. Maybe it's because I've seen them in a thousand other films. Maybe it's because they each idealize and represent an issue or problem with which we're all familiar. Maybe it's because even though they're a little bit larger than life, they're not so large that we can't imagine knowing them.

The one thing that felt just slightly out of place here was an undercurrent of woman-power. There seems to be some subtext that women don't really need men, and that men are generally emotional baggage. This is alleviated somewhat by the fact that Shelly's character is the only one with a relationship, but it made me think and re-evaluate a bit.

Despite the over-analysis above, it can be enjoyed on many levels. The dialogue and writing in general is great. It's clever and quirky, occasionally bitter and sweet.

The acting is serviceable, and by that I mean it serves the film. There's no grandstanding here, just solid characterization and delivery in most aspects. Andy Griffith's performance was a very pleasant surprise. Sisto was very well cast also, though Earl seems to play to his strengths.

Technically it's solid, but this film really isn't about those things. The circular pans are a nice touch though, really exaggerating the magic of those moments.

See this one, with someone you care about if you can. It'll give you something to talk about, which is never a bad thing.

Postscript: After seeing this film, I learned that Adrienne Shelley had been killed before its release. This really upsets me. I think this film demonstrated a blooming of her talent. I still want to see her previous work, but I'm sad that I won't see anymore. That seems a bit selfish, but there it is. Rest In Peace, Adrienne.

The Good: Pie in all its varieties

The Bad: Can't think of a thing

The Ugly: Taking care of Earl

07-06-03 Ride the High Country

Seen: May 28th, 2007
Format: Broadcast (HDMV-HDNet Movies)
Rating: 7

I have no idea why I picked this one out. I hadn't seen a lot of Peckinpah, the story looked OK, the rating was high... whatever the reason, I'm glad I did.

This is an unconventional western. The lines between good guys and bad guys aren't as clearly drawn as they usually are. There's shades of grey here, and in large measure. Are the bankers good guys? The miners? What about Judd, really?

The whole film seems to be about finding out these people really are, under their various facades. As they come on screen, it's easy to sort them into their typical western roles. It's simple to thing that we know them and what role they'll play.

The reason the film works is that all those roles turn around and show us their other side during the course of the film. The film may not end much differently than we might expect, but the trip is one we may probably didn't expect.

The main characters being aging gunfighters is a great take. It reminds me a bit of The Shootist and Rooster Cogburn. An old gunfighter seems an oxymoron, and exploring what happens to these men as they leave their prime is fertile territory. The ones on the side of good probably still have to work, and work hard to get by. This de-glamorization of the trade strikes an interesting note, especially when juxtaposed against a young up and comer.

The acting is generally very good here.McCrea in particular is very convincing. Scott does an excellent job as well, though his transition from carny to hired gun seems a bit abrupt and disjointed. Mariette Hartley in an early role is quite good.

All the rest of it is passable western fare. There are none of Huston's vistas here, but the film really doesn't call for it, as the story is a small one, confined to a small area and small group of people.

Overall it's a good western with an underlying twist. There's something a bit deeper, a little more ambiguous. And it doesn't all quite work out.

The Good: A re-visioning of the classic Western and its stereotypes

The Bad: Betraying your friends

The Ugly: Romantic Idealism

07-06-02 The Roaring Twenties (1939)

Seen: May 27th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

I watched The Public Enemy not solong ago and really enjoyed it. I figured that another Cagney film was due, and this is it.

And it delivers.

The Roaring Twenties was Cagney's last gangster film before a ten years hiatus ending with White Heat. He'd grown weary of being type cast into the tough guy role. He'd done it so many times and well, that he just didn't see the point anymore.

But Eddie Bartlett was a character worth playing. Bartlett is different from some of his other characters in that his change over the course of the film is gradual. His transition from good guy to tough guy and eventually back is subtle and a bit insidious. Cagney play it exceptionally well. The range that Cagney shows is great and works at every moment of the film.

What's interesting is that none of the other characters really change during the course of the film. They remain fairly constant. Though their fortunes may change, their fundamental characters don't. George and Jeff are basically the same people at the end of the film as they were when we first met them. The same goes for Danny and Jean. Even Panama hasn't really changed that much.

Eddie's the one who's put through the mill a bit. As the world around him changes, his behavior changes as well to adapt and take advantage of those changes. He acts differently, carries himself differently, think in much larger terms. But we've got to wonder if his nature really varies. Even after the tide has turned, he stays true to his nature and the people he cares about.

The Roaring Twenties is tragic in some ways. It reflects a time that spawned innumerable tragedies, Eddie's is one of perhaps millions. His story is not ultimately one of good or evil, of triumph or tragedy, but one of redemption.

See this one for it's characters and to learn a little about Prohibition and what that meant at a less dramatic scale than you may have seen before. The Untouchables may have distorted our view of how widespread and common this problem was. And how many lives it ultimately touched.

The Good: Being true to your friends

The Bad: Partners without honor

The Ugly: A good man goes bad

07-06-01 Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006)

Seen: May 27th,2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 8

As the title suggests, this is a completely fictitious rendering of part of Diane Arbus' life, particularly the part where she breaks from her normal existence and spreads her artistic wings. I'm not familiar with Arbus. I continually wanted to know what parts of the film were real, or at least founded in reality, and which weren't.

I haven't a clue, which means I'll need to do my own research. Which is good.

But who really cares? The film doesn't portray itself as authoritative or accurate. At least, unlike some other recent films concerning real characters, it doesn't present itself otherwise. I you don't have any background about Arbus, it's easy to just consider it a film, enjoy it for what it is, and worry about the rest later. I did.

And what a story. The nice thing about denying any links to reality is that it frees the film to go where it may. And go it does. There's nothing fantastic here. It all could have happened , to someone. But the scenario is bizarre and because of that, magical. The fact that Arbus enters into her friendship with Lionel and the way that friendship develops and expands, explores her character more than I've seen in film in a while. There's true depth here. True exposure, revelation and change.

And she's not the only one. Her family is pulled through the wringer as well. And Lionel changes also.

There's a powerful message here, one that I've taken to heart. Face the thing that frightens you. Understand it and why it frightens you. Confront it and learn from it. Often it's the thing that either defines you, or by which you define yourself.

Kidman is incredible here. I keep forgetting what a great actress she can be. Robert Downey Jr. shows us again how adept he is. Few other actors could have taken Lionel and played him this well.

Production Design should be noted as it's fantastic. Steven Shainberg brings it all together. This is a strong followup to Secretary, he's a director to watch.

This film isn't for everyone, but everyone should see it anyway. The point of the film is what may make you avoid it in the first place. Watch it and try to look past the weirdness and find the things that are a part of all of us.

The Good: Great acting in the face of weirdness

The Bad: Where are the boundaries?

The Ugly: Culture clash