08-06-25 The Sting II (1983)

Seen: June 24, 2008
Format: Broadcast (HNDMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 3

This film makes me wonder when the habit of creating derivitive, substandard work in the effort to cash in on the popularity of another work began. I'm sure there's examples as far back as the written word, but this film may be the defnintive case.

Everything great about the first film is missing here. Bad plot. Bad Music. Bad Acting. Bad Costuming. The whole thing is just bad.

Except Oliver Reed. Him, I liked. Not the character so much as what he did with it.

The other actors tried. But there really wasn't a whole lot there to work with.

Mac Davis is out of his league. I love Teri Garr, but come on, this character is so thin, and really not her style, there's no where she could go. Karl Malden is game, but poorly cast. His Macalinski is so over the top it's almost a caricature.

Gleason I save for last because his performance may be the most true of all. Newman played Gondorff with panache and style. A bit of tough, a little slick, but intelligent and not a fundamentally evil man. Gleason was a carney, and it shows in his portrayal. His charm here is paper thin, he in wily and crafty, but not so intelligent. He plays his friends, his family, everyone. Gleason's depiction may be much more true to the spirit of the grifter, but it doesn't make this a better film, especially when flying in the face of an established character.

The con here is too loose, too improvised. The interactions are too slick and clever. There's no tension created by possibility of failure, and we really don't believe the consequences are dire.

Bascially, this one falls short along all dimensions. I'd avoid it unless you need it to complete some collection you're compiling.

The Good: Oliver Reed
The Bad: Greed
The Ugly: Absense of style

08-06-23 The Fall (2006)

Seen: June 19th, 2008
Format: Theater
Rating: 7

Tarsem Singh made a little film called The Cell. There were a lot of problems with that film, but it's visual sensibility was simply stunning. It far outstripped the actual screenplay, and basically left the rest of the film struggling to catch up. That dichotomy was ultimately its downfall.
The Fall, I'm happy to report, suffers no such problem.

There's the same sweeping visual sensibility here. It's a grand film, full of stunning vistas and large swaths of texture and color. Some scenes are paintings and one wonders if they really should be in motion. But move they do and gracefully. The visual metaphors strike deep and hard, driving us even deeper into the film. It does lack most of the twisted tones of its predecessor, and is not as consistently striking, but the trade-off is very worth its slight de-emphasis.

What's been traded for is plot and character.

There are no great characters here, but there are fairly real ones. Their motivations are simple, even base, but they are honest. Love, fear, ego, hunger,envy, lust; they're all here. People aren't complicated in this world. They are driven by simple desires that we can readily grasp because they speak to us in simple ways. We know and understand these people and we know and understand their bonds.

It is in their breaking of those bonds, to show us their multiplicities as seen by others where they are exposed and become hyperbolically themselves. Deep in fantasy, their most real natures are revealed.

Its almost a cheat, this fantasy. It allows Tarsem to do incredible things and remain firmly in the bounds of his created reality. Instead of feeling cheated, I feel a bit relieved and even envious that he can step so far out of the real, and share with us his visions, and yet cradle it all together and neatly stitch it back onto the framework of reality when required.

That was a mindful. I'd suggest you make your own determination.

The Good: Locations, Locations, Locations
The Bad: Our own Odious nature
The Ugly: Making someone your Accessory

08-06-21 Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007)

Seen: June 20th, 2008 (ish)
Format: Blu-Ray
Rating: 7

So this is a Judd Apatow screenplay. That means that I'm going to have some reaction to it.

I don't love Judd and I don't hate him. I think some of his stuff is hilarious and the rest of it generally isn't. I guess you have to give him credit for going for it, consistently, all the time. He doesn't pull any punches and anything worth doing is worth doing all the way.

In the case of Walk Hard, that's a very good thing.

Satire seems to have gone through several iterations over the last two decades. Chris Guest and crew invented the mockumentary genre and proceeded to run it into the ground over the next twenty five year, albeit with some great success. The over the top spoof, generally starring Leslie Nielsen in some capacity continues its long tradition, with a range of quality from exquisite to appalling.

Walk Hard lies somewhere outside these. Its definitely a spoof, but it shows a sensitivity and reverence that keeps it well out of Scary Movie territory. While it lampoons the nature and cliches of the music industry, it still cares. It also manages to be blunt and make statements that verge on if not dive into the sacrilegious for serious fans of certain artists.

John C. Reilly's performance is simply amazing. The way the man can just become a character is stunning. Dewey Cox isn't a single character, but dozens, somehow firmly and obliquely linked through the convoluted plot line. Reilly manages to fully realize all the manifestations of Dewey, yet still convinces us that he's always the same guy. His ability to say the most absurd things with not just a straight face, but a sincere one, is incredible.

I will always remember and love his take on Dylan. The film's worth seeing for that 30 seconds alone.

Jenna Fischer is excellent as well. Her characterization is spot on. Her sincerity, as twisted as it is, matches Reilly's line for line. The character isn't written as well, but she makes the most of it.

The gags here generally work. A few are trite and some others just get old, even if they do pay off. But for the most part, this is one clever, funny film. There's more than one gem here, and it never quite falls victim to its own cleverness. There's fine comedic sensibility here, at all levels.

If you're a music aficionado, see this one. You may be a bit, or even more than a bit offended at times, but you'll probably find it worthwhile.

The Good: Straight faces all around
The Bad: Trippy Machete
The Ugly: Fighting in India

08-06-19 Man of La Mancha (1972)

Seen: June 15th, 2008 (ish)
Format: Broadcast (HDNMV - HDNet Movies)
Rating: 7

As a kid I saw Man of La Mancha in summer stock. Gabe Kaplan played the lead, and despite the seeming mis-casting, did an admirable job.

O'Toole does a better one.

I was impressed as a child by Quixote's quest and moved by his sheer dogged determination. I was impressed by how fully he embraced his quest and how completely he committed himself to it. O'Toole does that and more here. His complete and utter sincerity in the role is compelling. He becomes Cervantes, Cervantes as Quixote, and beyond to Quixote himself, as appropriate and does so with immersive abandon.

It's a bit of a shame he couldn't sing his own parts, but you have to admire him as an artists for trying, failing, admitting his failure and helping to find a suitable voice double.

The other players do admirably as well. Loren is excellently cast and does a remarkable job given the fact she's not a singer either. James Coco as well, does admirably, though he seems less fully engaged than most of the rest of the cast to me. The bit players are also well-cast and come through, Harry Andrews being a stand out.

My only true reservation about this film is it's seeming indecision about itself.

The "play" parts of the film feel very much like a play, both from their staging, the way they are shot and production design employed. This bothered me a bit. I'd like to have seen a more filmic representation here. Instead, we get more what the live performance offered. This is a shame, because these are the parts of the story, the "fantastic" parts that could have been greatly enhanced by creative use of camera, staging and lighting that would have been limited in a live performance.

In effect, the film is an effective recreation of the play, with an excellent performance by O'Toole. I'd have preferred something that took more of a chance with the medium, but hey, I'm a film fan.

The Good: O'Toole's incredible sincerity
The Bad: Limited use of the media
The Ugly: The righteous preference of delirium

08-06-18 The Sting (1973)

Seen: June 14th (ish) 2008 and back when I was a we Lad
Format: Broadcast - HDNMV - HDNet Movies, and VHS and Network Television
Rating: 8

The soundtrack from this film was a fixture in my household as a kid. I'll always think of this film when I hear Joplin, whose music I adore.

And that's not a bad thing.

As a kid, this film was more than a touch convoluted. As an adult, that still holds true. I have a large soft spot in my heart for good con films, and this on is quintessential. As far as the genre goes, its well done, accessible and yet still holds your interest. There aren't a huge number of surprises, and those aren't that unforseeable, but it still, through shear charisma, sets its hook and plays you 'til the end. As a good con film should.

The cast is all-star, and has a great time here. Redford and Newman are classic together, with Newman more than holding his own here. Shaw is powerful and commanding. Eileen Brennan, Ray Walston, Harold Gould and a half a dozen slide deftly in to their roles, not unlike their actual characters.

Hill melds them all together into a simple and graceful melange. While the dialog isn't particularly outstanding, the flow of the scenes is graceful and fluid. The whole film has a a graceful movement that is again,subtle and deceptive. Hill's work is exemplary, particularly the way he simple gets out of the way and gives his cast and material the space to work and breathe.

The look of the film is the one thing that grates a bit for me. The whole thing feels very "back lot" to me. There's an artificiallity that hard to dismiss and ignore. Perhaps this is intentional, given the subject matter. If so, its a shame, as it serves more to draw attention rather than deflect it. Costuming is interesting and generally excellent. Edith Head's had is deft and sure here.

The soundtrack is simply amazing. The music is pure Americana, and the arrangements do it great justice.

Watching this film again after several decades was a bit of a revelation. To be honest, it wasn't nearlyas magical as it was to me as a kid. But it was also so much richer and thorough than I had the capability to appreciate at that age. There's great care and attention to detail here, and it makes the film work despite some of the design choices.

While the rating may not seem to indicate it, this film is an American classic, and definitely worth your time.

The Good: Nostalgia and One Beautiful Con
The Bad: An artificial feel
The Ugly: Sleeping with the enemy

PostScript: Check out this image.

Some Updates

Some reviews that I've finally finished are up. They're timestamped over the last week-ish so you may need to go Back to the Future.

More on the way.

08-06-10 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Seen: June 10, 2008
Format: Theater
Rating: 5

This is hard. It's been nineteen, that's 1-9, years since our hero graced the big screen. Not to disparage the whole "Young Indiana Jones" thing, as I'm not really familiar with them, but I'm talking about our venerated hero, in is full glory. A long time. A long, patient wait.

The film's beginning sets the tone for everything to follow. Basically, we get nostalgia and cheap CGI. If that's what you came for, you'll be content, if not sated.

The opening scene seems a nod to Lucas' great American Graffiti, which had a star studded cast containing our Mr. Ford. But whereas that film had a gritty, palpable realism, this one has a smooth plastic sheen that's unavoidable. I wondered out loud if that effect was intentional; if the point was to enhance the feeling that it was all a sham, all made of foam, spackle and greasepaint. Perhaps so, given the nature of the skull's origin, and the plethora of theories, of varying degrees of sanity, concerning exactly what our government may be hiding from us.

The plot as well, while temporally consistent, is pretty thin. What the villains are after and their motivations are not any more rational than in previous films, but somehow seem thinner, less well defined. The "legends" around the skull are also thin and tenuous, and even less defined. Your ability to suspend your disbelief will be tested here, because the veneer that is plot can't hold it's own weight.

During the action sequences are where we find oursleves on firmer ground. Here's where we reminded that we're actually in an Indy film. There's spills and thrills aplenty. The action is fast-paced, but not dizzying. There's appropriate comedic relief and the occasional squeem inducing moment so critical to the series. The characters are in full bloom here, doing what they do best, even the new kid.

Acting? It's there. This is a cast of accomplished veterans and talented newcomers. They do nicely with what they have to work with. LeBeouf, Ford, Hurt, Winstone and Allen tackle their roles with gusto. Blanchett and Broadbent are appropriately more reserved, but no less involved.

I can't say I hated this film. Even thought I hated aspects of it, there's enough nostalgia and fun familiar ground here for me to sit through the utterly absurd parts of the film

All the while, waiting, patiently.

The Good: Reconciliation and generational hand-off.
The Bad: Whose skull? You've got to be kidding.
The Ugly: An unexpected journey to ant land.

08-06-09 Shall We Dance? (Shall we dansu?) (1996)

Seen: June 7th, 2008 (ish)
Format: DVD
Rating: 9

If you're just here for recommendations, see this one soon.

For the rest of you, this isn't going to be very interesting because there's not much else to say than I loved it. I wavered between 8 and 9, but have to give it the fuller marks because it's so darn engaging.

This film requires a little commitment on your part. You'll need to be willing to be swept up in each moment as it unfolds. You'll need to listen and find its rhythm. You'll have to open you mind a little to the idiosyncracies of a different culture, and after doing so test the limits of your empathy a bit.

This is all required because of the film's simple and unflinching honesty. It exposes its characters to us; not merely introducing them but showing us their fears and staunchly protected secret desires. They may be exposed immediately or gradually, but with one exception, we become intimately aware of who they are and what drives them.

The exception is Tamako. And she may be the exception purely because she is as she appears. She is not without guile, not without secrecy, but her intentions are so plain, so honest and so obvious, even to the characters around her, that she needs no dark secret to make her interesting. Her grace, beauty, patience, kindness and wisdom are more than enought to win our hearts.

I won't go into any technical aspects other than to say they are generally excellent and often brilliant. Lighting, composition, movement are all used to excellent effect; the visual component of the storytelling doing justice to the writing, acting and direction.

Rant, rant, rave, rave; go see it already.

The Good: Looking for one thing, discovering another
The Bad: Stigmata, where ever you find them
The Ugly: Losing your hair

08-06-07 A League of Their Own (1992)

Seen: June 7th, 2008 (ish)
Format: Broadcast - HDNMV - HDNet Movies
Rating: 7

I'd always heard that this was a good film. But it has Madonna in it. I just couldn't believe the two could co-exist.

And I'm kinda right.

The Material Girl may be the lowlight of the entire film. Sure, she "acts" like a hussy and dances up a storm, but are we really to believe that she's a competent, much less exceptional ball player? Color me skeptical.

With that out of the way, I've got to admit that I enjoyed all the rest of it. I enjoyed the whole gender-bias thing. I enjoyed the crusty baseball veterans forced to adapt to a womens' game. I enjoyed the battle of women wanting to be recognized for their prowess, but needing to play up, in some measure, their sexuality. It's all good fun.

And there's some other interesting angles. Sibling rivalry. Attempted normalcy in wartime. Addiction as an escape from the effects of time and fame. The effects from actively contributing and what happens "after"

There's a lot going on here, but somehow it all fits. Everything has it's place and time and though things are definitely carefully planned and place, nothing seems too contrived. The avoidance of the predictable ending seems to bear this out. There's some bits which are mildly unexpected, but not overly surprising.

Davis is solid, if a bit stolid. Hanks' role was a delightful surprise. He play well against type here. His attitude and reactions are unexpected and priceless. The mean streak he managees to generate is surprising. Lori Petty is actually very good, disappearing into her role. The rest of the cast is very good, the exceptions being Madonna and Jon Lovitz, who, God Bless Him, doesn't fit at all, but who's perfect for the role.

All in all, it's an engaging and watchable film. It's complete and whole, with ends tied up. It tells a sweet story that manages to vear away from the saccharine at appropriate moments. While it's no great masterwork, it's a good diversion from the day to day.

The Good: Performances and some playing against type
The Bad: Getting a Telegram
The Ugly: Rosie O'Donnell, what HAPPENED to you?

Out of Practice

I'm going to try to pick this up again. It's been too long, and I'm itching to view and write.

And Hockey season's over.

Don't expect the daily thing, but hopefully you'll see a few reviews a week, and hopefully they'll vary as much as they have in the past.

And maybe a guest writer will drop in.

08-06-05 Vertical Limit

Seen: June 3rd, 2008
Format: Broadcast, HDNet
Rating: 2
In a previous life I was a climber. A technical rock and ice climber, not the be-suited brown-nosing kind. I wasn't awesome, and I wasn't really an alpine climber, but I was good enough to buy the gear for a local outdoor shop, to put up a few routes, and to meet and climb with some really talented people. Climbing was my identity for a while, and I took it seriously.

Which is why, when Vertical Limit came out, I averted my eyes as quickly as possible and allowed whatever psychologists call that defensive response to erase it from my memory.

Now I live in the flatlands. And it came by on HDNet, and I decided; "Hey, it can't be THAT bad. And I used to think Robin Tunney was kinda hot. And there's Paxton. And it can't be THAT bad."
It's amazing what out minds will trick us into.
I'll hereafter refer to films of this ilk as a "Pooh movies". Not because of their resemblance to offal, but because they are made for bears of very little brain.
This film is a thrill ride. The plot, and we'll be generous by using that term, is not designed to tell a story, but rather to provide a thin foundation loaded with pitfalls into which we can fling our characters to watch them wriggle out. It's all about cramming as many terminal catastrophes as non-sensibly possible into two hours, while tidying up every dangling thread neatly and predictably.
There is no character development here. Caricatures are simply popped from their sealed blister packs right into the scene, where they proceed to rant or whisper in appropriate fashion so that we don't mistake them for substantial representations of humanity. Occasionally they may actually do or say something unexpected; generally to get a laugh or create a calamity.
The technical details of the film are simply appalling. It's uncanny how much resemblance nitroglycerin has to antifreeze. And the way it only becomes unstable when the pace of the film dictates. The climbing is generally ludicrous, and though tempted to go into detail, I'll just say that the basic technical and philosophic details are present, but so hyperbolized as to become unrecognizable.. There are problems with the military, medicine, electromagnetism, physics, and the list goes on. I'm not adverse to suspending my disbelief, but having it torn from me, rent to shreds, set on fire and the ashes handed back is asking a bit much.
All that ranting aside. This film is a thrill ride. If you can bring yourself to not care about anything but the action, there's plenty of that. There's avalanches, and explosions, and long falls, and hanging from precipices, and the list goes on. Someone is constantly in danger. Though unbelievable, their plights are no less than thrilling. The body count is high. The right people live, and the wrong people die. It's a master work of predictability, all tied up in a very pretty package.
And pretty it is. The camera work is very good, especially on location, whose vistas lend themselves well. There's a cleanliness and simplicity to the outdoor footage that's inspiring. The shot choices are generally excellent and edited to great effect. The studio shots are much less inspiring, though serviceable. There's some really pointless and very bad CGI as well. But there's some really decent visual sensibility here, and it's a shame it gets so caught up in the avalanche.
And the last word? Wow. If you actually read this far, you'll want to pass; but I'm sure you know someone to whom you can recommend it.
The Good: Sometimes visually interesting and stimulating
The Bad: Hurts my brain
The Ugly: Everything but the pretty pictures

What (the heck) happened, and maybe some progress...

If you're reading this, you just might care, so here's what's been going on, and why the blog's been pretty much dead over the last 5+ months.

Basically, I fell in love. Again.

Shortly before the hiatus, I made a long trip to a far away city to visit family. The city is the one that I happened to have gone to college in. While I was there, I looked up an old friend, one whom I had loved very deeply and with which I had a beautiful and tragic romance. Fast forward a number of years, actually a great number of years, and here we were again.

There was dinner; and late night drinks and later night coffee. There was staring intently into each others eyes at a Farmer's Market. There was long distance romance, huge phone bills and frequent weekend flights.

Then, just before Christmas, on Dec. 21st, there was a 26' Penske diesel full of my crap driving a thousand plus miles to move in. Some months followed as did another Penske (highly recommended) with the rest of the junk.

And basically I've been busy being in love, adjusting to a new/old city and a new job, and trying to change in a few dozen other ways at the same time.

It occupies my time. I just haven't had the 3 hours a day required to watch and write.

I HAVE seen some film. My new SO, who we'll call Mo, actually convinced our alma mater to construct a BFA film program for her and was it's first graduate. She's all about the film too, and has actually studied it extensively, and so keeps me on my toes.

Hopefully some reviews will follow, though I'm not going to guarantee any particular frequency.

Thanks for your support.

Hiatus, excuses and more

At this point I'm truly well behind in reviews and their quality has been much less than I prefer. I've been on a road trip for a few weeks and have been rushing things trying to keep up. I also have company showing up in several hours for the weekend. It's not looking productive.

So I've decided to call a short break.

I'll pick back up starting September 18th. But I made a commitment to have a review for every day of the year, so I'll be doubling up for a while to keep current as well as backfill the missing reviews. Keep an eye out for the past ones as well as the new ones.

And I also promise to update the Alphabetic list as well.

Until then, thanks for you support.

07-09-10 Pathfinder (2007)

Seen: September 7th, 2007
Format: Broadcast (Direct TV rental)
Rating: 6

I have no idea where to begin with this. It's probably due to guilt.

Basically, I feel guilty for enjoying this film. I watched it while staying with my brother, and we had a good hoot and holler time with it. It was fun guy-bonding time, and we both had a good time.

That said, it's probably the best way to watch this, with a good friend and a beer.

Not that there's fundamentally anything wrong with this film. It's a pretty standard tale of discovering who you really are and what's most important to you. It's about growth and battling the demons of your past, only here they're not a metaphor. It's about love and respect and learning they're worth fighting for. It's about the ultimate fatality of ego.

And it's about big scary Vikings bashing the crap out of everything.

It all goes down in interesting, but relatively predictable fashion. The characters border on caricature through most of the film, but never really fall too far into cliche. The acting is passable, but not of a very wide scope. The plot is predictable, but at the same time, fairly well written and rendered.

The one thing that really stands out here is the look of the film. It's highly stylized. It's much larger than life in many ways and adds a distinct feel of the fantastic to the film. I'm reminded in some ways of Boorman's Excalibur. Much of the film is very dark, shot with high contrasts and rich blacks and blues. It's more ominous than beautiful, but striking none the less.

See this one with a crew, probably best to avoid on a spousal date night unless your spouse is an archaeologist who enjoys criticizing the authenticity of depictions of historical cultures.

The Good: Dark, in so many ways
The Bad: Predictable
The Ugly: Relatives dropping in unannounced

07-09-08 The Mountain Men (1980)

Seen: September 6th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 6

Maybe you're a glass-half-full type of person. If so, you might enjoy this film.

You might like Brian Keith's performance, which is over the top and one of the most genuine and amusing I've seen in a long time. He's not only the comic relief for this film, but in many ways its very heart. Frapp's affection for the serious Tyler helps us accept and even grow to like him.

You might appreciate the locations, which are stunning. They embody the ultimate romantic premise of the film, men who are men, out in the wild, wresting their livelihood from it while constantly fighting for survival. It's a powerful and fundamental American archetype and fully exploited here.

You might also enjoy the amazing lack of political correctness. Whites and Indians fight each other incessantly and steal from each other as a matter of course. The often respect each other and sometimes there's love, or slavery; the lines are often wide and gray. The film treats this all baldly, not shrinking for it's reality, but not pandering it either.

If, on the other hand, you see your glass half empty, there's plenty to dislike.

The number of horse falls is a bit stunning, I find it hard to believe none were injured. Animals in general seem to take it hard in this film, though the credits assure us otherwise. Women aren't treated particularly well either.

Heston's acting can be a touch grating. He's never been a favorite, been his over-emoting here is particularly tiresome at times. I can't imagine him playing happy-go-lucky, he'd probably seem afflicted with rictus.

The plot isn't particularly think either. It's all about the wilderness and fighting with your neighbor. It's about trapping beaver, getting drunk and laid. It's hardly art-house fare.

Full or empty, it's your choice of course. But all in all it's not a bad way to pass a few hours with a friend.

The Good: Brian Keith
The Bad: Monomania
The Ugly: Parley

07-09-07 Bullitt (1968)

Seen: September 4th, 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 7

Watching films from the 60s and 70s can be a lot of fun. If nothing else, the argot and fashions of the time are worth a good snicker. The writing and acting are often cliche and cheesy, as if melodrama could actually pass for drama.

Bullitt has none of these problems.

I don't know how I missed this when I started watching 70s driving movies. It's got a great chase scene, one one the earliest I'm aware of shot on the streets of San Francisco. The jumps alone have been echoed through dozens of films and TV shows.

The plot itself is pretty interesting as well. The political nature of the conflicts inside the justice system are interesting and fresh. This isn't simply a case of corruption. It's a commentary on ego and ambition and how it ultimately affects due process,and by association, public safety.

The characters here are generally strong. McQueen is understated and outstanding. It amazes me how much he does with his character. There's a quiet strength and attention to detail that's very impressive. And he conveys all this with a minimum of dialogue, showing us who Bullitt is instead of tryingto have him tell us.

Robert Vaughn is excellent as well, and evidently had to be convinced to take the part. His a solid foil for Bullitt, not because he's bad, but simply because his mores are so stilted by comparison. The rest of the cast is generally solid as well, though the supporting characters tend to be used primarily to construct the framework for the plot, and are generally much less fleshed out. The exception to this may be the assassins, whom I found rather frightening.

The plot is engaging. It's not the simple gangland confessional it appears on the surface. I found myself drawn in as the film progressed for that reason. Unexpected things happen here. It's almost a bait and switch maneuver, one that's actually appreciated. It's not too convoluted to follow casually, but it does make you wonder where it's going.

There's some interesting camera work in the film. There are shots both long and short that divert your attention to focus that action somewhere else. The action and chase scenes are well shot also, with interesting cuts and angles the highlight the action itself. It's become a common technique, but seems original in a film of this vintage.

The score should be noted as well. Schifrin does a stellar job here. The music drives and accentuate the film without ever becoming too obvious or melodramatic. The absence of music is often as telling as it's presence, with many scenes left unadorned.

While a bit date, Bullitt is an excellent specimen of the genre and deserves a look.

The Good: Chic crime caper
The Bad: A bit dated
The Ugly: Garrotes

07-09-06 A Breed Apart (1984)

Seen: September 2, 2007
Format: Broadcast (Encore)
Rating: 2

I watched this one out a of a bit of desperation. I've been on a trip and don't have access to my normal flow of decent cinema. This was on late and looked atrocious.

It was.

The director has both a directing and writing credit for a film called Pterodactyl Woman from Beverly Hills. I recognize nothing the screen writer's ever done. Despite the fact that there's some actual talent in the cast, these are the real signposts to what you're in for.

Basically this film is a mass of tired cliches. We've got a damaged Vietnam vet, cut off from society. We've got a working class single mom, looking for a role model for her young son. There's the evil corporate bastard with the strange collection, who's willing to pay to complete it, regardless of the environmental and moral implications. And the headstrong outdoor adventurist, whoring for cash for his next expedition. And to round it off, the drunken rednecks who kill wildlife which crosses their path, all of it.

Mix this in with an undiscovered and virtually extinct species of eagle, and a reporter who's willing to trade her person for a story and you've got, well pretty much nothing. Basically it about throwing this characters together with a thin, concocted premise and seeing what happens.

The good news is that we've got Rutger Hauer, Kathleen Turner, Powers Boothe, Brion James and Donald Pleasence doing the acting. The bad news is you can't make shortcake out of manure. While they all do their best to bring these characters to life, and even do a passable job in some cases, what's happening here just isn't that interesting, not to mention plausible.

Hauer's Jim is the strangest and perhaps most interesting of the bunch, and he comes off almost post-apocalyptic. He acts as if humanity is foreign to him and slips off into strange reveries, complete with background chopper sound effects. Yeah, we get it.

Technically, there's nothing remotely interesting going on. It's not terrible, but there's nothing really redeeming.

There is some gratuitous nudity, which is actually a bit comical. But overall it's a bit pointless and even preachy, and has somehow ended up where it belongs, playing on a second-rate cable movie channel in a spot even the infomercials aren't interested in.

The Good: Some decent actors.

The Bad: The premise and script

The Ugly: Pretty much the whole thing...

07-09-05 Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Seen: August 31st, 2007 (and previous)
Format: DVD (and theater)
Rating: 7

It should be noted that Shaun of the Dead really has no plot. There's no real point to what happens. There's no real arc. Nobody really changes much or learns anything. It's basically a very large, running joke composed of references and reentrant gags.

But it's a very good joke.

I saw this film in the theater, and more recently on DVD. I saw Hot Fuzz in the meantime, which made it much more evident that Shaun of the Dead is not so much a parody as it is an homage. It's a bit rougher, a bit less honed and polished, but it exhibits a similar reverence for the zombie genre that HF does for the cop/buddy cop conceit.

This film's humor is a bit broader. The jokes and commentary are a bit more blatant. Offsetting this are the many subtle references to films including the multiple shot and musical ones which I only learned about from reading the trivia on IMDB*.

There's some excellent social commentary here. The direct comparisons between the lives of everyday people in their natural and zombified states are priceless.The exploitation of zombies, while a bit hyperbolic are no less cutting and poignant. The reactions of survivors to the zombified are telling too. How often do they stop to really think about someone that the encountered in everyday life?

Writing and acting here are top notch, showing the familiarity of the writers and actors via their time together on other projects. The film moves along nicely and the timing of the scenes both internally and sequentially is rather remarkable.

The one thing really lacking is a sense of purpose and direction to the film. There's not much, if any, arc here. This could be considered just another part of the commentary/homage to the genre, as most zombie films are concerned primarily with survival and little else. The act of keeping the body count as low as possible until the credits roll is the primary function of whichever group of protagonists the film happens to follow. The same is true here. But somehow I want a bit more. I suppose that I expected some sort of answer, some sort of final comment or revelation about the genre to come through the characters after their journey.

And we do get one of sorts. Perhaps it's the nature of that message that seems unfulfilling. Perhaps it's that commentary, which seems to say that it doesn't really matter whether we we're one of the infected or not, which is the most disturbing aspect of the film.

See this one if you've ever seen a zombie film and liked it ... or not.

*I love the good zombie film (and recently got to defend the position that zombie is actually a genre), but I can't claim a comprehensive background.

The Good: Zombies all around us

The Bad: A little light on plot

The Ugly: Child locks

07-09-04 The Cave (2005)

Seen: September 31st, 2007 (and previous)
Format: Broadcast (Encore)
Rating: 5

I'm on a road trip and trying to get my quota in and stumbled across this late at night. I'd seen it before and didn't remember hating it, and gave it another look. It was pretty much the same as the first time around.

Basically this is a things that go bump in the night, er dark, flick. It cam e out around the same time as The Descent, and contains similar elements, but has a very different tone. This one's thriller instead of horror, and tries a bit harder to actually rationalize things.

There's some beautiful visuals in this film, and not just the classic underwater cave shots (the location is famous and escapes me at the moment). In particular, the shots of Charlie climbing in the dark are quite stunning.

The Dark can almost be considered a character in this film, and the way it's treated visually is critical. The film makers do an excellent job here, using it well, lighting in many ways to created different effects and atmospheres as the journey progresses.

Casting and performances are decent. This is the film that made me actually start to pay attention to Piper Perabo. Her role is different than you've seen before. Lena Headey is solid, but unremarkable, as is Cole Hauser. The rest are caricatures to some degree.

The rest of the film doesn't fare quite so well.

The backstory is a bit thin. While you have to give credit for trying to supply a scientific explanation for what's going on in the cave, it all seems a bit thin and superficial. While the concepts are interesting, in the long run, it really didn't matter that much to me.

There's also an attempt at creating tension within the party. This works to a small degree, but serves more to partition the party into those you think will survive, vs. those you think won't. It all comes off as more posturing than anything else, and tends to undermine the authority and respect Jack has been shown earlier in the film.

But it's still all good fun. It keeps the details from us long enough to keep us interested. The monsters are scary, but not invincible. There's some surprises along the way. Settle in with someone to grab onto and pay attention.

The Good: Visually compelling noise in the dark fest

The Bad: Sketchy backstory

The Ugly: Changing for the better

07-09-03 For Your Consideration (2006)

Seen: February (24?), 2007
Format: DVD
Rating: 4

There's a lot of talented people here. There an abundance of experience, imagination and creativity.

And I'm done with Guest's satiric films.

I kept watching Guest's films because the casts were great, the characters largely improvised. There were generally good running gags, all delivered in dead-pan fashion that made you wince.

This is Spinal Tap is brilliant. With each successive incarnation, the cast got larger. More talent was added. New perspectives surfaced. And it got more and more tired.

Finally, they've taken on Hollywood. You'd think that this, of all the films, would be the easiest, because the writers and cast actually live in this world. Perhaps it's this very proximity, a forest-for-the-trees perspective issue which makes this film fail. Perhaps the ensemble knows and sees things that I can't, and rely on a context which I just don't comprehend to create a subtle satire that I just can't appreciate. And if that is truly the case, is that my problem, or theirs?

This is not to say that there aren't good gags. They're there. So are some outlandish and amusing performances. There are new compatriots who shine, perhaps because they're new. There moments both funny and filled with the obligatory schadenfreude. But in the end, its still the same schtick in new clothes.

My final opinion is that they've finally become so comfortable with this process, so glib and polished at their delivery, that they've begun to phone it all in.

Perhaps the answers to all my misgiving lie in the commentary on the DVD. Perhaps Chris could explain it all to me and in a blinding epiphany I'd appreciate all its brilliance.

But there's no way I'm sitting through it again.

The Good: More of the same sly satire.

The Bad: More of the same old schtick.

The Ugly: Marilyn Hack's makeover