07-07-05 Fantastic Voyage (1966)

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

I am ashamed to admit that I'd never seen this film until now. I was a big fan of Science fiction as a kid and remain so today. I heard more people talk about this, in awe when I was a kid, and with nostalgia and ridicule as I got older. I kept meaning to see it, but kept missing it or watching something else.

I'm not disappointed.

Unfortunately the plot had been spoiled long ago for me, so tension was lacking in a few key spots. But overall, I really enjoyed this. There are many ideas expressed here that have aged remarkably well. While the take on technology is forty years old, it's representation still holds up.

Part of the reason for this is the attention to detail taken by the writers and designers. The handling of the miniature Proteus, while a bit tedious, demonstrates this well. This process should be tedious due to its delicate nature, degree of precision and danger to the crew.

The acting here is good. While there are no stunning performances, they do tend to serve the story well. With the exception of Grant, the characters aren't particularly well rounded, but they each have their function and tend to be complete within the realm they occupy. Grant is the wild-card and Stephen Boyd plays him a touch understated. This is good choice; he leads by example instead of with his ego.

The real star of this picture is the effects, though. Again, there is a lot of effort put into making this as accurate as possible. While the sets and effects may seem primitive today, they still convey the experience well. They were very difficult to accomplish at the time, requiring a great deal of imagination on the part of the effects team. Fantastic Voyage may mark the genesis of the modern effects movie.

This is a hallmark film for the Science Fiction genre. While the actual science themes become subservient to the drama, effects and action (something that plagues almost all films in this genre) the film works well as a whole. It was a revolutionary work in its time and isn't too anachronistic to be enjoyed today.

The Good: Good Science Fiction with awesome effects in the pre-CGI world

The Bad: Too easy to spot the bad guy.

The Ugly: Antibodies get a bad rap

07-07-04 Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944)

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

It'd be easy to dismiss this film as just another propaganda film, designed to keep Americans supporting America during WWII. While it does serve that purpose, it does so by doing several others things as well.

First and foremost it demonstrates what war is really like from the perspective of the fliers in the film. The title alludes to the fact that the actual mission takes very little time when compared to everything else which goes into it.

There are weeks of planning, then more weeks of training and waiting. This film draws this out. This wait induces an anxiety in the audience, as they wait for the action, that mirror that of the fliers waiting on the mission.

Next there is a sea voyage. Again, waiting and anticipation. There is also a concerted effort here to show the friction between the services. Army and Navy traditionally don't mix. Watch what develops over the course of the journey. It's a powerful message, not only for the folks back home, but for the troops themselves.

A similar message is delivered after the mission. Our heroes find themselves stranded and must rely very heavily on the locals to help them find their way back to safety and eventual return home. Again, look for the attitude toward the locals and watch how it changes over the course of the airmen's journey. Again, a powerful message for both servicemen and the folks back home.

I have no idea how accurately the film portrays historical events. Since it was made only a few years after the Doolittle raid, my hunch is that it's fairly accurate. Much of the footage is actual military footage, which goes a long way toward making it feel authentic.

The romantic angle of the film doesn't do much for me. Ellen Lawson as a character here is very stereotypical. Her constant wide smile is a bit grating and she's portrayed far to simplistically. Again, her general demeanor and her reaction at the return of her husband a important messages to Americans at home facing similar circumstances.

So, in the final analysis, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo is a propaganda film. Unlike other of the period though, it relies on subtler emotions and motivations to drive home its points. The acts of heroism here are less obvious and more realistic. While being wounded delivering bombs to Tokyo may not be as romantic and charging a machine gun nest, taking it out single-handedly and dying a heroic death in the process, it strives to show that there were many types of heroes in the war effort. Each had their role, all contributed and its the team effort that mattered in the end.

See this one if you're a fan of WWII films, or just films of this period.

The Good: Volunteering for dangerous duty

The Bad: Losing a part of yourself

The Ugly: Finding your way back home

07-07-03 Déjà Vu (2006)

Seen: Jun 30th, 2007
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 7

I was prepared to hate this film. It didn't get great reviews or stick around long. From trailers it seemed a bit contrived, a bit disjoint and chaotic. While I liked Man on Fire I feared a re-tread in this role by Washington.

My fears were unjustified.

I'm a big fan of science fiction and will generally give films in this genre a little leeway because they are few and far between and when done well, generally not successful at the box office. Good science fiction generally doesn't sell, so producers tend to Hollywoodize them into unrecognizability. This is how we end up with abominations like Starship Troopers, which is an absolute perversion of an outstanding novel.

In this particular case, the candy coating applied by the producers is crime drama, romance and a healthy dose of domestic terrorism. This all make the Science Fiction element go down much easier for the average movie goer.

Coming off the soapbox now.......

The film works and works well. While a similar idea was the basis for The Minority Report, it's different and fresh enough that it doesn't feel re-tread.

The premise is vague enough to withstand moderate scrutiny, but not so vague that we feel cheated. It's nice to see doubt and wonder among the scientists who are "in control". There's a sense of fallibility here that opens up lots of possibilities and introduces tension into the story.

Any film of this nature will contain paradoxes, and these can lead to confusion, disinterest and even resentment in viewers. Déjà Vu does a decent job with these issues. While it doesn't avoid them, it doesn't labor over them either. They're well presented, but not explained, and ultimately not focal, which is a wise choice.

The voyeuristic aspects of the film are interesting, a bit creepy, and not avoided. The incipient romantic attachment which Doug develops seems pure and true. Combined with his concern for Minuti, this drives him forward. It's interesting to watch his dynamic with the rest of his team, and how the actually open the role up for them.

At this point, it should be obvious that I really like this film and could go on analyzing for pages. Basically we've got a strong, streamlined story which is interesting from several perspectives. We've got a very good cast, whom all stick to their roles and don't overplay. We've got good action and effect which serve the film instead of dominating it. Basically we've got Tony Scott at the helm, and he's done this before and well.

See this one if you like action, science fiction or past Tony Scott films. There's a little something here for most.

The Good: Applied Science Fiction. Surprisingly tolerable outing by Adam Goldberg.

The Bad: Voyeurism

The Ugly: Patriotism

07-07-02 Once (2006)

Seen: June 30th, 2007
Format: Theater
Rating: 5

I'll start out by saying that you're probably no going to agree with me about this film. I saw it with three other people and was the only one who didn't find it sweet and touching.

Maybe I need to find a girlfriend.

This is a "musician" film. This is a fairly rare breed. These films tend to end up being period pieces in some respect because most music tends to become tied to the period that it was written or became popular. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it presents an implicit challenge to any film in this genre. Watch The Commitments and see how you feel about it now.

My problem with this films is its very strength. The lead, Glen Hansard, is a great talent. His leading lady,Markéta Irglová, is no slouch either. Together and apart, they make some very beautiful music in this film. The problem lies in the fact that this is all the film really has to offer.

The majority of the screen time is spent watching these two make music. From busking scenes to rehearsing scenes to recording scenes to touching scenes of shared inspiration. While these scenes are all great and moving, the film essentially becomes a series of intimate music videos, tenuously strung together with a very thin plot.

There's great potential in this plot. There are potentially interesting scenarios and characters, none of which really come to fruition because we're busy watching the next musical bit.

John Carney's inexperience as a film maker surfaces in other areas too. The feel of the film is that of a very personal documentary. This further distances the story, as we seem to be focused, again, on the music. Shots are fairly static and the compositions rudimentary. The coverage is almost non-existent. When we do get a cut in a scene to show it from a different angle, it's often obvious that it's from a different take. This feels jumpy and disconnected.

The leads aren't actors and it shows. Not that they don't try hard and do a decent job, but they don't become their characters. Most of Hansard's playing scenes are excellent, because he's just being himself and letting that come through on screen. But the non-musical scenes are rough and feel forced. Irglová does a slightly better job, but her character comes across as highly enigmatic. She seems plain, slightly strange and a bit reserved. Any passion that may drive her is hardly visible, even in the most emotional scenes.

I'm a Romantic at heart, and would love to give this full marks. It's been a fan favorite at festivals. It's very strong from a musical perspective, but as a film, it has a long way to go.

The Good: Beautiful Music

The Bad: Thin story

The Ugly: Musicians trying to act

07-07-01 Everyone's Hero (2006)

Seen: June 30th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 3

Man, I feel like Scrooge. This film is the last project, the final hurrah, from a dying man. To top it off, it's also the final effort from his wife, who followed him into the beyond a few years later, and never saw its release. It would be a fairy tale feel good moment if I could tell you that it was a fitting memoriam to two wonderful people.

But I can't.

This film has very few redeeming qualities. I'll try to concentrate on those for a moment.

It has a strong sense of family. It is adulant in its reverence for baseball. It has good voice talent. The animation is good and fits the picture.

Beyond this I cannot go. The rest of this film is simply a mess.

It can't decide what age it want to play to. The gags and physical humor seem designed for the 4-6 crowd. There are adult pop culture references, which hardly jive with the period-ness of the piece. The family-centric message seems aimed at older children. It seems like a piece where someone decided to put everything that they like about movies, that's not offensive to someone, and put it all in one big film. It doesn't work.

The film is saccharine beyond compare. Even when it make fun of itself for that fact, it still can't shake the sticky-sweet story. This isn't just a case or poor writing, the entire story is just too darn ... I want to say "Disney", but it goes beyond even that. There's nothing wrong with hard, unambiguous lines in films, especially kids films, but this goes past that into the land of cliche and caricature.

I had a very hard time figuring out what baseball represented in this film. While the Yankees and Tigers are goodness and light, the Cubs' management and pitcher is evil incarnate. Are we to infer that baseball isn't entirely wholesome, or perhaps that Chicago is full of corruption?

There are a host of other problems. The songs are simply banal. They're just filler over parts with no dialogue. They may true to convey or carry the story at times, but are so vacant that they fail entirely. Other portions of the film are mysteriously silent.

Character design is plain and uninteresting. Characters have little individuality. Where they are distinguishable, their defining features are broad and singular, again mostly caricature. Babe Ruth is rendered well, but even so, come across awfully plain for a man of such well documented character.

There's a strange race card being played here too. The inclusion of players and teams from the Negro league is appreciated. Their contribution to the sport has been long downplayed and overlooked. Why then are they relegated to some sort of traveling minstrel show on the bus trip, complete with Harlem Globetrotter style antics? This is a thoroughly undignified representation of these athletes in my opinion.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I couldn't ever get behind a character who is so rampantly a Yankees fan, regardless of how endearing their tale might be. But this film has much larger issues to overcome.

The Good: Family feel-good fare

The Bad: Saccharine and cliche ridden

The Ugly: Baseball minstrels

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