Last year, between the two of us, we watched an average of 317 movies.
This year our goal is to top that by watching at least one a day.
And as an extra special torture, we've decided to write about all of them.

31 January 2008

The Funhouse, dir. Tobe Hooper (1981)

STEVE says:
Surprisingly, this is the first time I'd seen The Funhouse. It was released when I was 10, and I may have seen bits of it on HBO because I remembered the shower scene in the beginning, but I know I never got to see the whole movie until tonight.

Sadly, it leaves me questioning Tobe Hooper's contribution to the horror genre.

The Funhouse was slow-moving, nearly bloodless, had nothing in the way of scares, and only two scenes with anything approaching tension. This from the Texas Chain Saw guy? Shameful.

Chain Saw is a milestone, there's no argument there. But how much shite like Eaten Alive, The Funhouse, Invaders from Mars and The Mangler do we have to endure before we realize TCM was a fluke that fell into the right-place/right-time category? He's surely not getting any better with age, as his more recent contributions, Mortuary and Toolbox Murders, attest. And, in keeping true to form, he's apparently directing From a Buick 8, which was a shitty Stephen King novel that will no doubt translate into a shitty movie no matter who the director is. It's sad, really.

The only thing The Funhouse had going for it was its lead, Elizabeth Berridge (Stanzi from Amadeus) who was just cute as a button and not nearly nude enough for a teen-horror flick from this period.

1.5/5

NIKKI says:
Oh my god, this was shit. And I was so looking forward to it.

I don't know why I was so excited about this movie. Probably because I'd read the book as a teen, and remembered really liking it. That and I've had a thing about carnivals and circuses for a long time. A horror movie set at a carnival? Shouldn't they ALL be? But, man, this was terrible. I can't believe Tobe Hooper sees fit to rave about it, as he does in an interview on the DVD. How could you be proud of this? It was terrible. I found it exploitative, senseless, and, worst of all, boring. I don't remember a single jolt, a tiny thrill. Nothing. Just me sitting there waiting 'til the end.

And I don't even know why we waited -- we turned off Eaten Alive, another Tobe Hooper "masterpiece". I say masterpiece because this is the body of work that is supposed to put Hooper in the same league as Romero and Argento. But is he? With one good movie under his very questionable director's belt?

Steve said the other day that he wanted to watch some good movies that weren't depressing like Away From Her and The Bridge and Brokeback Mountain. Where are they? I'm starting to hate our project and movies in general.

1/5

30 January 2008

Pelts, dir. Dario Argento (2006)

STEVE says:
Dario, you're better than this.

Pelts didn't suck. It was no Chocolate, not by a long shot, and it was better than your first entry, Jenifer. But it wasn't great. It wasn't Homecoming great, or Black Cat great. With those, Dante and Gordon (respectively) managed to make an hour of TV feel like a cinematic experience. The Black Cat is the reason we've taken to including the Masters of Horror segments in this project. But Pelts just felt like TV.

And you're no stranger to TV. We've seen Do You Like Hitchcock? and quite liked it - actually liked it a lot more than your cinematic offerings of late. So what went wrong? There were bits that looked like Argento - the kid with the trap, for example, and the woman sewing her face up - but they felt like they were done by someone else entirely. Like you didn't have your game face on.

What's the story, Dario? Do you need the money? Was this just a paycheck to you?

Don't get me wrong, I'll still be there for La Terza Madre - finishing off your Three Mothers trilogy after nearly 30 years, how could I not be? - but a little part of me wonders if it'll be worth it...

2/5

NIKKI says:
All together now... "meh".

I think we both said it when this ended. Not a horrible entry in the series, but nothing to rave about. The film was graphic and gross as far as the effects, but just not as gripping and hair-tearing-out tense as Dario often is. Still, even at his shittiest, Dario is a cut above most horror directors, which is probably why this didn't wholly suck.

And, imagine, a Masters of Horror episode by an actual Master of Horror. It had to happen eventually.

Meat Loaf is a guy who collects and sells "pelts" -- I'd never heard that word before, and prior to finding out thought this was a film about heavy rain. Meat then sells the pelts for good money. The better the pelt, the more cash he gets. So, when crazy John Saxon interrupts Meat mid-lapdance to offer him the best pelts ever, Meat is intrigued. He goes to get them and finds Saxon and his protege dead. Not just dead, really dead -- Saxon with his head beaten crudgy via baseball bat, and the kid with his head chopped in half longways in a bear trap (watch this movie for that scene -- it's foul).

So, we learn the pelts are from a mysterious raccoon tribe and their spirits are making those who come in contact with the soft fur do horrible things to themselves.

What Meat ends up doing has to be seen to be believed. Now, that's horror.

Didn't hate it, didn't love it. Didn't ever need to see Meat getting rubbed up by strippers.

2/5

29 January 2008

The Brothers Solomon, dir. Bob Odenkirk (2007)

STEVE says:
This hurt. This hurt bad.

In The Brothers Solomon, two socially inept brothers try to fulfill their father's wish for a grandchild in the hopes of bringing him out of a coma. No, it's not high art. But with Will Arnett starring, Bob Odenkirk directing, and Lee Majors as the comatose dad, it had a shot at being funny. At least until the opening credits, where Odenkirk proves within seconds that he knows how to take a joke too far. And he keeps proving it for the duration of the movie.

Not that I didn't laugh. There was a lot of funny stuff in here - funny, wrong stuff (popcorn and dead bird, I'll say no more) - but it was too idiotic to be any good.

It was only after watching the movie that I noticed the blurb on the DVD packet - "Dumb & Dumber meets Knocked Up..." Whatever recumbent asshole came up with that comparison is absolutely spot on. This movie has all the "charm" of a Farrelly Brothers movie (you know, where they take a fat girl, a schizophrenic or conjoined twins and, through an hour and a half of "hilarious" humiliation, prove that she's/he's/they're just as human as we are), and the "structure" of a Judd Apatow movie (thinly strung-together sketches that pass for scenes, one after another, until we reach the end). All that was missing to round out the Not-As-Funny-As-They-Think-They-Are triumvirate was Kevin Smith. Or maybe Ben Stiller...

Having said that, I will allow that The Brothers Solomon, while shaky, at least hit all the standard plot points - which makes it Citizen Fucking Kane compared to Anchorman, Superbad or Talladega Nights.

1/5

NIKKI says:
I said to Steve when this was over -- how did we get from considering watching this movie to actually watching it? It is so far from anything resembling our interest or taste. I think it had to do with me seeing the box art at work and thinking it might be okay. You cannot resist Will Arnett's dumb face on the cover, I swear. Or maybe, as we movie snobs sometimes do, we just decided to go slumming... We did a similar thing with I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. And we ended up laughing our butts off. That didn't really happen here, not as much anyway. We laughed, but we both knew the movie was just lame.

It's the same set-up as Dumb and Dumber and movies like it. Two guys who are untrained in the ways of the modern world go on a quest. Women get involved. They win out in the end because, gosh, stupid people are just so charming and cute. Ugh. Everything that could happen does -- the guys fail in their attempts to woo women, they prove themselves inept dads, they say racist things to a black man. But they're just so cute and we shake our heads and tsk-tsk at the race gags because these guys just don't know any better.

Nor do the writers, who really need some new story lines.

I'm imagining the round-table: "Now, what can we do with stupid people that hasn't already been done...?" Is there anything left, thanks to the Farrellys?

It was stupid humour and dumb story, but it wasn't crude humour, which is good. I laughed at the leads more than I should have. And, seriously, we don't watch enough comedies.

Next up: Pucked! Because if we can get through this, dammit, we can do anything!

1.5/5 (for Will Arnett's face)

28 January 2008

Away From Her, dir. Sarah Polley (2006)

NIKKI says:
I've been looking forward to this movie, mainly because it's by Sarah Polley. She's about my age, intensely political, and proves in every movie she does that girls with crooked teeth are hot. I was a bit surprised at her subject matter here, knowing how political she is, and considering her age. But, that's her thing -- she's always different, always surprising.

This is a story about a man coming to terms with his wife's Alzheimer's. It's based on a short story by Canadian author, Alice Munro. I've not read the short story, and perhaps it's set up similarly, but the thing that struck Steve and I the most about the film is its structure. It's steadily told, slowly building its characters, before entirely altering our perceptions of them to enormous effect. In this way, Polley gives what is really a quiet, slow-moving film incredible suspense and rising tension.

I've made no secret of how pissed off I am that Ben Affleck didn't get an Adapted Screenplay nomination for his film -- but Sarah Polley did and that kinda makes up for it. Because she should get it.

Her direction was good, too. She did that thing we love so much where the setting became a real part of the film's story. Lots of lingering shots on the snowy Canadian landscape. Great use of flashbacks, obvious adoration of her actors who are given so much room to just be brilliant.

We were also taken by the performances in the movie. Julie Christie is receiving all the buzz, and she was great, but Gordon Pinsent, who plays her husband, is even better. He never loses this stoic facade, and it's mesmerising.

My memorable moment in the film, and I'll have to find out if it's in the short story, comes when the husband is finally forced to relent and send his wife to "the second floor", where patients entering dementia live out their days. He stands at the elevator. A patient, a former sports broadcaster, who narrates everything he sees as though it's a hockey game, walks by. His summation of the husband's moment is wrenching.

I can't fault this film. It was superb.

5/5.

27 January 2008

Unknown White Male, dir. Rupert Murray (2005)

NIKKI says:
So, after this finished, I thought we'd watched an interesting movie about a guy, Doug Bruce, suffering a rare form of memory loss that eradicates his entire history in an instant. It was rather compelling. He had to entirely relearn everything about his life, meet his old friends, his family, and reacquaint himself with basic, everyday things like old rock bands and eating chocolate mousse. His filmmaker friend documents Doug's first year or so in his new mind and body.

The film, at first glance, is quite good. It's interesting and thought-provoking, and really does make you wonder what you would do in Doug's situation. There are pros and cons to losing one's memory, and we learn, through Doug, that perhaps the clean slate is not such a bad thing. He gets to start over. And from the images of Doug's life before losing his memory, he was nice, but a bit of a prat. Now, he's super nice, and relaxed. Doug himself says he likes the idea he can strip his friend group back to those he really wants to spend time with, and says he's not too concerned if he never gets his memory back. He's afraid of what he might remember.

So, all well and good. Who are we anyway? A product of our memories? And what if we didn't have those memories? Look at the doors that open... And then I start to read all these comments from viewers on IMDb. Normally, I hate each and every person who has every expressed an opinion over there, but some compelling arguments were arising that Doug's story was false.

A few examples: Doug says he walked into the Coney Island street in the rain, he later says another time was the first time he'd seen the rain. Why did Doug not know what cricket was, but apparently had no trouble recognising a police station to turn himself in when he first became lost? Why could he speak and write and know how to use a telephone, yet he didn't know, again what cricket was, or how to take photos? The doctors tell us procedural and episodic memory are different. So, isn't it strange to think a guy can remember certain things falling under the category of procedural memory and not others? How did he know how to use a video camera? If he knew a cricket could be an insect why didn't he know it could be a sport? HOw did he know what a dog was? How was he not afraid of cars in the street? Why can he know one thing and not another?

There are quite a few articles out there disputing the truth of this film. The cynic in me finds them rather startling. Apparently, Michel Gondry thinks it's all fake, inspired by his film, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. And Doug once had a friend experience severe amnesia and leave his old life for a fresh start in Bali.

Here are some statements from a Washington Post article on the film:
"I remember meeting him at a bar with some mutual friends and he started telling this bartender the whole thing," recalls Kishu Chand, a wardrobe stylist who works with photographers and film directors. "It was like he was searching for any excuse to go into it, which just seemed weird to me. I remember asking a friend of mine afterward, 'Are you buying this?' " Her doubts grew later that night, when Bruce handed over his e-mail address, which he told friends he'd registered just days after the incident: unknownwhitemale@yahoo.com."
Hmm. And this:
But eventually, there were doubters. "At first, Doug was very believable and fascinating to be around, but at the same time, there were apparent inconsistencies," says Brown, who quit videotaping Bruce. "On one hand, he had to ask who George Bush was, but on the other, he could hold nuanced conversations about Middle Eastern politics. He would always preface such conversations with the disclaimer, 'I don't know but I've been told,' yet he had an incredible command of the facts and an extremely perceptive insight, and after a few weeks I started to have doubts about the veracity of his story."
Of course, this is all secondhand, but it certainly adds a mystery to the film. Did he lose his memory, or did he want to forget, start new? Who could blame him for wanting a chance to have another go? If he is faking, he's very convincing. I don't really know what I think, but the movie was good, and raised some interesting questions about the human mind and what makes us who we are, or supposedly are.

3/5

The Bridge, dir. Eric Steel (2006)

NIKKI says:
This is a film that will haunt me for a long, long time. The images within of people jumping to their deaths from San Fransisco's Golden Gate bridge were, at times, almost too difficult to bear. Early in the film, we saw the bridge from a far and tiny splashes hitting the water. Then we saw people, in close-up, leaping to their deaths. It was horrible, compelling, amazing. At the end of the film, I wondered what right these filmmakers had to film these people in their final moments, without their knowledge or permission. But deep down I know such a picture, painting as starkly and beautifully as this is not exploitation or invasion, it's about documenting something so incredible in our world. Like pictures from war, maybe.

The film shows us a side of life we might not often consider. We might be well aware of suicide and its many forms, but you realise you know very little until you see Gene Sprague leap onto the railing at the end of this film and just fly, with confidence, grace, and urgency. It's perhaps the most brilliant image I think I've seen on film. There's tragedy in the moment, but there's nobility as well. And that's what this film does -- challenges us and out thoughts on suicide and death in general. Are these people tragic, desperate souls? Or are they brave people desiring spectacular entry into the next realm?

I can't remember the last time I saw a film that challenged me in this way. I was torn between so many viewpoints here. The filmmakers sat at different points around the bridge and filmed 24 hours a day and seven days a week for an entire year. They could many jumpers on tape and entered into the lives of some of those people for some background. Are all jumpers alike? Do they all share the same reasons? Who are the people behind the images? When they saw a potential jumper, they could call the coast guard and send rescuers onto the bridge, essentially interfering with people's lives. I wondered if they should do that? Of course, it's phenomenal to save a life, bu -- ugh -- I don't know... There's a scene in the film where a photographer pulls a potential jumper back over the bridge railing. I thought it was amazing, but I couldn't help but wonder if it was the right thing to do. I mean, of course it was the right thing to do, but is it prolonging the inevitable? Is it interference? I know the photographer was right, and I think he's a fucking hero. But there's this piece of me that wonders, on some other level, about the fallout from his choice. I would have loved to have heard from that rescued girl.

My being torn about all these things, though, made the film even more of an experience. Like I said, I can't remember ever going through so many emotions in film.

4.5/5.

26 January 2008

The Screwfly Solution, dir. Joe Dante (2006)

NIKKI says:
The Masters of Horror series has been hit and miss in terms of its quality. Some of the films have been good (The Black Cat), some great (Homecoming), and others have been utter crud (Chocolate). In any case, we anticipate them all in the same way: will we love this film or hate ourselves... it's fun to see which way the dice will fall.

Screwfly wasn't too bad. It was one of those that falls into the "good" category. And this could be because so many of them are so bad, that even if they're remotely decent, they look better than they really are. This one was a Dante entry, and his have been good in the past, so it's no surprise this works. It's about a virus the drives the male population to kill the women (a strange confusion of arousal and aggression), forcing a mother and daughter to seek refuge. Jason Priestley and Elliott Gould play the scientists struggling to find the answers and save the day.

It was enjoyable enough. Though in the past three days, I've seen Priestley getting ridden by a naked babe in bed, and I've seen Luke Perry full-frontal, exiting the shower in Oz. Didn't I dream this at some point back in 1992?

2.5/5

STEVE says:
First, a disclaimer: Although Masters of Horror is a TV show, we've decided to consider the episodes as movies in their own right. With Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe and The Cowboy and the Frenchman (also part of a TV series, "How I See the French", incidentally), we've already allowed short films into this project, and with feature film directors at the helm of each Masters of Horror episode, we reckon they at least fall into the short film category.


Second, The Screwfly Solution was okay, but not great. I loved the idea of religious mania destroying the world, but this didn't quite have a Joe Dante feel to it. And even if it hadn't been Dante, if someone else had directed it and my expectations had been different, I'm not sure it would rate any higher. The story was good, but the ending felt rushed and a bit derivative - of Maximum Overdrive, of all things.

Now that that's out of the way - where do some of these people get off calling themselves Masters?

Okay, you got Carpenter. No argument there. Argento, fine. Stuart Gordon, yes. Hooper... you're getting into shaky territory here (Eaten Alive, The Funhouse and The Toolbox Murders being some of the worst "horror" I've had to endure), but still, he did give us The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, so for that alone I hold my tongue. Larry Cohen - again, fine - cheesy, but fine. But Don Coscarelli? Yes, he gave us the Phantasm series, but that's about it, as far as horror goes. I mean, just because you've made some horror movies, doesn't make you a master, you dig? John McNaughton made Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer back in 1986 - this makes him a Master of Horror?

The list also includes Joe Dante and John Landis - both of whom I'm a fan, but "masters" of horror? I'll give Dante points for The Howling and Landis for American Werewolf, but apart from that... What, Gremlins? It's a dark comedy, nothing especially horrific about it.

And who the fuck is Lucky McKee to be among the names Carpenter, Hooper and Argento? Director of May and The Woods? Sorry, pal - not impressed. Same goes for you, Mr. William Malone. Your remake of The House on Haunted Hill was beyond the pale. And Feardotcom? Now you're just fucking with me.

The only thing Mick Garris appears to be a Master of is middle-of-the-road TV adaptations of Stephen King stories. His contribution to the first series, Chocolate, is perhaps the worst because it suffers not only from his direction, but from his screenwriting and being based on his own short story. This guy knows nothing about storytelling - how he continues (indeed, how he even started) getting jobs is beyond me.

There were 13 episodes in the first season. Of the 10 that I saw, there were three good ones: Dante's Homecoming, Landis' Deer Woman, and Gordon's Dreams in the Witch House. The other seven were either incomprehensible or just went straight for the gross-out. Horror never entered into it.

Why I expected anything more from the second season - with "masters" such as Ernest R. Dickerson (Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight), Peter Medak (Species II), and Rob Schmidt (Wrong Turn) - I don't know.

2.5/5

Gone Baby Gone, dir. Ben Affleck (2007)

NIKKI says:
Unprecedented anticipation for this one. I'm a major fan of Ben Affleck, his writing, his direction, his intelligence, his sense of humour, his tattoos... so I really, really wanted this to be good. And it was more than good, it was absolutely superb. It's taken a good book, and made a great film. I'm so happy for Ben.

The story goes... Kenzie and Gennaro are hired to find a missing girl by the girl's grandmother. The girl's mother is a druggie loser who doesn't seem to want to involve herself in the search for her daughter. Everyone grieves in their own way, her equally messed up best friend tells the investigators, but it doesn't make the women appear any less uninterested. So, the search begins. Where it takes our investigators is just wrenching to watch. The lengths they go to and the decisions they are forced to make ends up having a far greater effect on them than they imagined.

Ben's done several great things here -- he's entirely removed Gennaro's snottiness and made her a sympathetic, interesting character. Michelle Monaghan's performance is delicate and intense, and she's just given the character new life. I hated Gennaro in the book -- just a typical brashy broad, and now, I can see her as a real person. Ben has carved a screenplay out of only the best bits of the book, and I felt, especially during the quarry scene, as though I was watching the very scenes I envisioned when reading the book. He also gives us a great view of Boston, with those amazing shots of really Bostonians going about their business. I am also grateful to the writers for resisting idiot references and letting us come to the necessary conclusions in our own good time.

Casey Affleck was just so good as Kenzie, holding in his emotions, squeezing them tight into himself, making those moments when he does flare up just that much more tense. Everyone was great -- so much so that Steve and I are lamenting no Oscar noms for Ed Harris, Amy Madigan, or the leads. Not to take anything away from Amy Ryan, who was nominated for her role as the mum, but she wasn't the stand-out here. Not for us, anyway. Everyone else, weirdly, was.

Loved it, loved it, loved it. Lived up to every expectation. I'm dropping it .5 for one tiny thing: Some of Kenzie's monologues felt a little bit overdone. I thought Casey did a great job with them, but something felt a bit stage-y at those points. It reminded me of Will's baby seals soliloquy in Good Will Hunting, where it worked. Still, it's a tiny point.

4.5/5.

25 January 2008

The Kingdom, dir. Peter Berg (2007)

STEVE says:
Here's why I liked The Kingdom: It didn't pretend to be a serious post 9/11 "issues" movie. I mean, maybe it wanted to be, but if that's the case, it failed miserably. Instead, it was a pretty good thriller with likable characters that kept me interested up to the end credits. No mean feat, let me tell you, 'cos I fuckin' hate Jamie Foxx.

Not hate. I just... I don't know; I don't get the appeal, maybe. He's Denzel-lite. And I don't much care for Denzel, either. But that's another post.

Meanwhile, let me tell you how great Jason Bateman is.

I was all set to not watch The Kingdom. The Jamie Foxx thing, the whole Middle East thing. Let me work it out for you mathematically.
Jamie Foxx + Lots of Shooting = Yawn
And don't even get me started on Jennifer Garner.

But then Nikki told me Bateman was in it... and that he had to improvise all his lines. Now you've got my attention.

Bateman's always been cool in my book, and this was a bit of a departure for him. I mean, when's the last time you saw him in an action movie, right? So that's a plus, but the improv thing... this I had to see. At the same time, I found it to be a huge distraction. Every time he opened his mouth, I was analyzing what he'd said, usually a quip of some kind, instead of listening to how it fit in with the rest of the dialog and the scene in general, and it really drew me out of the movie.

And then I find out it wasn't true.

Not that Bateman didn't improvise his lines: He did. But so did pretty much everyone else. In an interview with About.com, Jennifer Garner talks about improvising; Jamie Foxx sure as hell did some improvising. It's done all the time, playing fast and loose with the script, but here I was under the impression that it was only Bateman, and I was on the lookout for it.

It didn't ruin the movie for me, but it definitely made it a different experience.

3/5

NIKKI says:
I don't really know what to say about this one. I found myself not bored, which I guess is a good thing. I was happy enough with it once it was over, but down the track a bit, I don't think it was really that memorable. I think about a film like Babel, and much as I really didn't like that film, it tended to stay with me more than something like this. Only because, in hindsight, it was a bit like Die Hard Goes to War. Jamie Foxx was very much our hero, and it really was just a matter of time before he saved the day. Of course, no-one wins in war, so his success is questionable, but I do think we were meant to leave this film with something like relief, but it's hard to be satisfied when the war continues.

Like Steve, I really wanted to watch the film for Jason Bateman. But he wasn't all that memorable either. That could have something do with Peter Berg's whippy, CNN-style direction, that was so shaky and stuttery that the camera rarely stayed on an actor longer than half a second for them to really be enjoyable or memorable.

Let me take this opportunity, though, to say just how much Jennifer Garner is growing on me. I thought she was awful in Alias, and carried that into every one of her films I watched, notably Daredevil. But after really liking Catch and Release, enjoying her in Juno, and secretly bawling my head off during 14 Going on 30, (they played "Vienna" -- what was I supposed to do?), I have to admit my first impressions might have been off-track. One more good movie, one more good performance and she'll hit my Love List for sure.

2.5/5.

24 January 2008

Sex and Death 101, dir. Daniel Waters (2007)

STEVE says:
Hit and Miss comedy - mostly Miss, though - from Daniel Waters, the guy who brought us Heathers, Batman Returns and Demolition Man. All the enjoyment I got from those movies was counterbalanced by the headache I got from this one.

Sex and Death 101 was about a guy who gets a mysterious email, a list of all the women he's ever slept with... and will ever sleep with. This last stuns him because he's about to get married and wonders why there are 79 women on the list after his fiancee. So, as the laws of film would have it, he breaks off his marriage and starts fucking his way through this list. Meanwhile, there's a serial... er, coma-inducer, I guess you'd say, going about town... inducing comas. These two stories dovetail and they both live happily ever after. Crap.

Nikki said, when the end credits rolled, "I'm sure there was a good movie in there somewhere," and that about summed it up. The movie was too long by about 20 minutes, there were scenes that could have been lifted out whole and never missed because they did nothing to move the story forward, and it was pretty poorly written in general. The midpoint was great - he falls in love with someone on the list. But it's convoluted because she wants to be just friends and won't have sex with him. Then she dies. Midpoint is meant to be a reversal of the action, but by reversing the reversal, you negate everything that came after it, thereby wasting 20 MINUTES OF MY TIME!.

I wanted to like this movie. I wish I could have. But it did have The Facts of Life's Mindy Cohn in a supporting role, so that counts for half a star. Go Natalie!

2/5

NIKKI says:

The devastation of the previous night had us yearning for a comedy. This one started out just the way we like them -- indie, low budget, few big names, interesting story. And then it just burned out. Simon Baker (...Denny! BAKER! Denny! BAKER!) plays a guy who receives an email listing every woman he has ever slept with and will ever sleep with and about 70 of those names appear after his fiance. Such a great premise. Instead of really digging deep, exploring adult relationships and varied meanings of sex for men and women and anything particularly smart and potentially surprising, writer/director Dan Waters chose to give us a smarmy, sleazy sex-comedy with very little hearts and fewer smarts.

I'm at a loss to explain Winona's involvement. Her character went nowhere and had so little do with the goings on that her final scenes meant nothing. Why did we care about her? Who was she? Does one conversation at the end of a two-hour film anywhere near adequate development? Not really. I would have believed Simon getting with Mindy Cohn (playing a lesbian) before Winona's faux serial killer.

So, a disappointment. Nothing at all to rave about. Though Simon Baker is good at funny.

2/5

23 January 2008

The Thing Called Love, dir. Peter Bogdanovich (1993)

STEVE says:
Part 2 in our Struck Down In Their Prime double-header.

I gotta say, I never thought much of River Phoenix. I didn't dislike him so much as he just kinda bugged me. Every time I saw him, it was like he was the same character over and over again. Or worse, no character, just River. Little Corey Carrier did a better job of channeling Harrison Ford in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles than River did in Last Crusade. He wasn't convincing as a young Indy - he was just River playing Indy.

But I watch The Thing Called Love and I can see what everyone was talking about. Not in retrospect: I'm not watching Stand by Me or Jimmy Reardon now and going, "Oh, yeah, I get it, he was brilliant!" No, he still annoys me in pretty much everything else.

But this movie, I don't know. I wish he could have done more.

Not that the movie itself is even brilliant - there are plot holes, dropped story lines, and that inconclusive ending to consider - but for some reason, because it's Peter Bogdanovich, maybe, you just kind of let all that go and focus on the rest.

And the rest is well worth it.

3.5/5

NIKKI says:
It's hard to revisit films like this one. This is a film -- like Dogfight, like Stand By Me -- that has been so significant in my life, for so long, that going back to it is sort of like jumping in a time machine to head back to 1993, when you were 14, and every little thing seemed just so big. So bizarre, too, that I should re-watch this the day before I receive an email from my old best friend, Shelley, who adored River Phoenix right along with me. Back then, we actually named each other after River, using his nickname and middle name as our names. His death left a mark on our lives, and it's something I still struggle with. I'm not even going to try to explain what the whole thing meant to us and for us. I don't know if I've ever really even sat down to organise those thoughts. I just stopped watching River's movies. I've seen Stand By Me once or twice since, and have yet to watch Dogfight. This was my second viewing of The Thing Called Love since 1993.

I love it as much as I ever did. It's just beautiful. It speaks to the little lost girl in me then as much as it does now. The impact it had on me growing up remains, in terms of my interests and the sort of person I want to be. Admittedly, I've spent more time in as Linda-Lou, when I know I should be strong like Miranda. Still, between the two hasn't served me too badly in my life. I enjoy the film's wandering spirit. I love its focus on loyalty. I love its poetry. It remains one of my favourite films.

Watching River was difficult. I was happy to hear Steve found his performance so good. I'm not sure his performance here is my favourite. I get a weird sense he's just not into it. I prefer to watch him in other films, though I love hearing him sing here. It is still a sad fucking tragedy that he died.

4/5

Brokeback Mountain, dir. Ang Lee (2005)

STEVE says:
Brokeback Mountain was nothing less than heartbreaking.

But I'll get to that in a minute. Have you heard about this?

A Kansas-based Baptist church - the Westboro Baptist Church, or WBC - says that Heath Ledger is "now in hell" because he played a "gay cowboy".
“WBC will picket this pervert’s funeral in religious protest,” the group said in a statement on its website.

Huh.

“God hates the sordid, tacky bucket of slime seasoned with vomit known as Brokeback Mountain – and He hates all persons having anything to whatsoever to do with it."

"Seasoned with vomit." Seasoned! The laddie fancies himself a poet. What a little fucking Ezra Pound you are.

And "God hates". I thought "God is Love". You're sending out mixed messages, fellas. But this is exactly the same confused bullshit arguments I've come to expect from all y'all. Consistency is a very important factor in life; Thank you, religion, for always being a jerk.

“He got on that big screen with a big, fat message: God is a liar and it’s OK to be gay.”

Well, you got it half-right, but the first part should read "God is a lie".

Fucking Baptists, man. My mom got me tangled up with these kooks back when I was fifteen - well into my atheism, by the way - because she signed my baby brother up to go to their church and I had to accompany him. (How much faith did she have in these guys if she had to send a chaperone, you know?) Dig this: the preacher and one of his pals, trying to get their hooks in me, would come to my house every Saturday to make sure I was coming to church on Sunday. That's like stalking, innit? They used to bring Xeroxed lyrics from songs by Alice Cooper, Heart, and John Denver (!), laden with propaganda about how they were all minions of Satan. During one of these visits the preacher spied my Stephen King calendar on the wall (April 1986, "Children of the Corn") and I had to explain the artwork and the story to him. He goes, no shit, "Stephen King... is that a rock group?"

One track fucking mind, these guys.

How far need one's head be jammed up one's ass for Stephen King to fly under one's radar - pardon the mixed metaphor - in 19 fucking 86?

Know your enemies, guys, jeez.

But that's, whatever, you know. It'll pass. It's a shame they have to picket a guy's memorial service instead of, you know, the theatre playing the movie, but there's more shock value in picketing a dead guy, so points to the WBC for that.

Anyway, the movie: Anyone who's actually seen it knows that the term "gay cowboy movie" truly does it a disservice. Gay or straight, if you've ever loved and lost and felt the pain of your heart cradled gently in loving hands and then squeezed violently between them, you know what I'm talking about.

4/5

NIKKI says:
Gotta say it -- not as great as I was expecting. But then we are watching this two years after its intial release, so years of hype has built up. It's probably not like it was ever going to live up. It tried damn hard, though.

My problem was with certain saccharine moments that took me right out of the picture. I hated the "I don't know how to quit you" bit, and I also hated the discussion Ennis had with Jack's wife about "going up to Brokeback Moutain". Something really cheesy in all that. But I'm not one for overdone romance. Still, the story was good, the performances were excellent, and the heartbreak endured by the characters certainly penetrated. I was especially enthralled with Michelle Williams. What an amazing bit of work that was. And, as we watched this in memory of Heath Ledger, I took notice of his work, and it was excellent, too. Another tragic loss. Weirdly, this is the second movie I've watched in the past few months with Jake Gyllenhaal, and man is he growing on me. He was great.

I will say, though, that Steve and I both took issue with how quickly Ennis succumbed to Jack. it appeared that Jack had a thing for Ennis early on, but for Ennis's early reciprocation seemed underdeveloped to us. I had no sense he really thought about Jack's physical proposal until he was in the tent. From that point, though, the relationship became more real, better developed, and the eventual separation was shattering.

So, it didn't live up to the hype, but it was a great movie nonetheless.

3.5/5


22 January 2008

Fido, dir. Andrew Currie (2006)

NIKKI says: I wasn't as excited about this one as everyone else. I thought the trailer made it look really cheap, and kinda lame. I thought the make-up was horrible, and the whole thing just looked ultra-cheesy and try-hard-y.

Thankfully, I was wrong. This was genuinely enjoyable. Well-written, funny, cute, it knew it's audience and it knew its setting. My thing about zombie movies is that there's just so damn many of them, and more coming all the time, that rarely are they original anymore. And I mean truly original. Dead and Deader might have had the zombie as the zombie-hunter, but it was still about zombie hunting. Who really cares anymore? Find 'em, shoot 'em in the head, move on. Same ol'! Shaun of the Dead had been the most original I've seen in ages, and that was really because the zombies weren't the focus. As we all know, in the old school zombie flicks, the zombies were a sociological metaphor, not a beast to be destroyed simply because of its very existence. So many recent zombie movie make killing the zombies what it's all about. Boring.

Fido went back to the Shaun thing. I felt the movie was about tolerance and acceptance of others, and was very much relevant to today's political circumstances. Even though the film was set in the 1950s, many of the themes were pertinent to today -- America living in fear, for example. The zombies just happened to be the thing that made everyone realise their mistakes.

The little kid was great -- he made the film more enjoyable just 'cause he was so darn good. I liked the added twist of having Billy Connolly as the main zombie yet never having him utter more than a grunt. I loved the relationship between Fido and the mum, even though I think her feeling for him came on kind of suddenly. Still, that's a tiny flaw. I enjoyed this immensely. Good black comedy, interesting social exploration.


3.5/5

STEVE says:
Modern Zombie movies tend to leave me a bit cold, usually lacking the kind of social commentary that George Romero instilled in them when he created (perhaps re-created) the genre in 1968, and horror comedies are so rarely done well, anyway, that my expectations for Fido were quite low. So it came as a surprise that I liked Fido as much as I did.

The movie is set in the 50s, 30 or so years after a viral outbreak left the world ravaged by Zombies. But no worries, it's all be cleaned up by Zombcorp, the Zombies banished to something like the Forbidden Zone, and America returned to it's apple-pie normalcy. Oh, except that now some Zombies are fitted with neck braces that inhibit their need to feed on human flesh and are used as domestic servants, as America just can't help but take advantage of the weak and underprivileged.

So, social commentary: tick. What about the comedy? I'll just say this - Billy Connolly has the lead, yet never utters a single word. I don't know if it's because you know it's Billy Connolly or what, but you could almost hear his accent in all the grunting and moaning. That's just hilarious to me.

3.5/5

21 January 2008

Scrooged, dir. Richard Donner (1988)

NIKKI says:
We were in the mood for a good old comedy. This was my choice night, and damn did I go through hell. I wanted an old favourite, but I couldn't decide if I wanted old Nikki favourite, or old Steve and Nikki favourite. After choosing and rejecting about 10 movies, I finally settled on The Lost Boys, put it in the player and then promptly picked Scrooged instead.

How funny is Scrooged? I think Bill Murray is my all-time favourite comedy actor. He's just funny, even when he's not speaking. I love his eyes, his expressions, his crazy movements. I especially love caustic Bill Murray, which, I suppose back in the day, was all he really did. Someone was on to something. This character is basically the same as Phil Connors from Groundhog Day -- just an insufferable jerk, only out for himself. Then something happens and he's forced to see the good in other people, and himself. Aww. But Bill does this so convincingly, and with very little schmaltz.

God, movies were so much better in '80s! They could be darker, more sarcastic, they didn't have to star the hottest people and look the sharpest. It's just good, silly fun.

My Top Five Favourite Bill Murray Lines from Scrooged
5. "I never liked a girl well enough to give her 12 sharp knives."
4. "Did you try staples?"
3. "I CARE!"
2. "Well, I'm sure Charles Dickens would have wanted to see her nipples."
1. "Blam! Blam! Blam! Blaaaa-hhh-yaaahm!"
4/5 -- Comedy as it should be.

STEVE says:
Right up there with A Muppet Christmas Carol, Scrooged is one of the better adaptations of Dickens' "immortal classic". Rumour has it, though, that Bill Murray isn't such a fan.

Apparently, he and Donner didn't get along so well on-set. Murray thought the film was getting too dark at times, feels it's uneven in terms of the comedy and the drama. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but I think this contrast is the reason the movie works so well. Takes you from high to low in seconds.

My only issue is that bits of it are severely dated. The Richard Pryor gag. The Solid Gold Dancers, ferchrissakes. Still, Murray's impression of Richard Burton just beats it all.

4/5

20 January 2008

Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., dir. Errol Morris (1999)

NIKKI says:
I found this in line with the better Morris films we've seen. It was focused and engrossing and really told the story it wanted to tell (or I wanted it to tell) rather than deviating all over the place to include crazy little human tidbits as in Gates of Heaven.

I was not expecting the story I ended up with, however. I knew nothing about Leuchter's trip to Auschwitz and the eventual trials that followed. This aspect of the film was its most compelling; how Leuchter attempted to explain and excuse his actions was fascinating as well. It prompted much discussion afterwards as Steve and I tried to piece together the psyche of such a man.

He is an interesting person to pull apart, and his story is strange and sad.

3/5

STEVE says:
What an odd little man. Fred Leuchter was hired to redesign an electric chair for the state of Tennessee (more, it seems, because his father had worked at the prison than for any expertise in such matters), and because he did such an amazing job, was then hired to design a lethal injection machine for the state of Delaware. He marvels at this: Why would he know anything about lethal injection? But it went on like that, later being hired to design a gas chamber.

Now this is where it gets tricky.

He admits to knowing nothing about these things, although his designs were accepted and carried out. But then he's called in as an "expert witness" for the defense in a case against a man who claims that the Holocaust never happened. Leuchter goes to Auschwitz and inspects the camp to see whether it actually was a concentration camp, used to gas hundreds of thousands to death, or whether it was just a slave labor camp, and he states that there's no one more qualified than himself. From an engineering point of view. Although he's not licensed. Nevermind.

Leuchter turns out to be a rather sad little man, claiming through his findings that the Holocaust never happened, and going around the world to speak out on the subject because he couldn't possibly be wrong about it, could he? That would be unthinkable. Even though all the evidence points to the contrary.

One of the better Morris docos we've watched, right up there with The Thin Blue Line. Another one of those stranger-than-fiction, "If You Saw It In A Movie, You Wouldn't Believe It" scenarios.

3.5/5

19 January 2008

Dead and Deader, dir. Patrick Dinhut (2006)

NIKKI says: Advertised as a Shaun of the Dead-like zombie comedy spoof, we thought this one might be just our cup of tea. And it starred Dean Cain to boot. How wrong we were. Minutes in and we realised we'd been gypped by smooth marketing yet again. (Although we both should have known better -- Dean Cain?)

This movie was clearly made by fans of zombie films, and try as they might to replicate the cleverness of a Shaun or even a Severance, they failed mightily. Their hearts were firmly on their sleeves here and they drilled home their fandom in terribly unsubtle ways, revealing themselves as fanboys more than fans. Conversations about George Romero, references to classic '70s cop films, swipes at Michael Bay -- it was just so darn cringe-y.

The idea was cute, though -- a zombie is the only one who can save the town from ... zombies! Dean Cain played the dead hero, which, when you examine it, doesn't make all that much sense. This was exactly as we should have expected -- cheap, silly, and not nearly as clever as it wanted to be. Lightning strikes but once, and it hit Shaun.

1.5/5

STEVE says: This one was my fault. Not its existence, but the fact that we watched it. See, we were all set to watch something called Gruesome, but after checking out the trailer, decided to give it amiss. Looked like it was taking itself too seriously for such a low-budget movie. (Note to up and coming low-budget horror movie makers: Watch the first Evil Dead movie and take copious notes.) So we watched the trailer for Dead and Deader and I thought it looked okay. Not good, mind you, but maybe kind of fun. Definitely not serious by any stretch. Well, we dodged one bullet, it seems, only to jump into the path of another.

Sure, it started off with a clever premise, but it went downhill before we even got to the second act. And I'm sorry, a clever premise doesn't make a good movie - nor does a clever script, necessarily, but it helps. And this script relied too heavily on pop culture references to even hope be clever. (Note to up and coming Zombie movie makers: Stop referencing Dawn of the Dead. Original or remake.)

If there's an upside to this movie - if - it's Guy Torry's character Judson. He was supposed to be the comic relief guy, I guess, but in a movie that was already trying too hard to be a comedy anyway, he was just a welcome relief from the bad film school banter Dean Cain and Susan Ward were throwing back and forth.

(Note to self: STOP watching shit like this. You deserve better.)

1.5/5

Bon Jovi - Lost Highway: The Concert, dir. Joe Thomas (2007)

NIKKI says:
After last night's look back at the early 1990s and reminiscing about the silly times had by all, I wasn't at all expecting the emotional reaction I wound up having to this 2007 concert. Same thing happened, really, I spent much of the show feeling so very old. And when you're 28, this is weird sensation to have. Everybody told me 25 was the year of the quarter-life crisis, but I think it's hitting three years later. Watching this show drained me, physically and mentally. and that's why I've not been able to write about the experience until now, which is actually five days later. This one is going to stay with me for a while.

It came about that I bought the DVD and watched the show when I did because I missed out on getting tickets to the actual show in Melbourne taking place at the very time I put on the disc. It devastated me, missing out on tickets, and I thought watching the show would cure that. At least, right, I was getting the experience, and it being my first time viewing the show, it would be like I was seeing it all for the first time, as I would at the actual show. Turns out, after just the first song, I was more gutted I wasn't there than before.

The Bon Jovi concerts I've attended, it turns out, have been like signposts through my life, each coming at a significant time. Each time, the songs have altered in meaning, become more meaningful, different. And there are always new songs to reflect new transitions in my life. My first concert was back before I really knew what the band would end up meaning to me. And only now, 20 years after my first concert, I can see everything so clearly. All those signposts are clearly marked.

The first time I was really cognizant of Bon Jovi as a force in my life was at the 1993 Keep the Faith concerts. BJ was my favourite band and no-one understood them like me and blah blah blah. I was also 14 and in the middle of puberty. Well, at the end almost, firmly understanding now that I was going to be the one to develop ahead of everyone else. I was unhappy with who I was, and I was about to enter one of the strangest phases of my life, what mum calls the "black period", where I rarely left my room and spent my days reading and watching movies. The concert, I went to two of them, were brilliant. I got some great photos, paid a security guy to get close to the stage, just had a general good time. Just me and a friend, at 14, in the big city. No parents, no rules, just us and "In These Arms".

In 1995, I attended the These Days show with my friend, Shelley. I was slated to go with another friend, Trish, but I royally fucked up that friendship over selfishness and stupidity and thus bribed Shelley into coming with me because Keanu Reeves's band was going to be there. I've always viewed that show with regret. We had the best time, as always, but it signalled the end of my friendship with Trish -- I bought her a ticket then sold it without telling her and the nail was firmly in the coffin of our relationship. It lasted more than 10 years, and I have always regretted it. That year, I had Shelley, stolen beer, an obstructed view of the stage, Keanu Revees, and "Bitter Wine".

Then, in 1997, everything was different. I was at uni in Shepparton, my best friend was Asha and I was killing myself trying to hold onto a dead relationship -- this time with a guy. I was 18, I was an adult, I thought I knew everything. Jon toured solo for his record Destination Anywhere and it was a one-show only deal, and it was excellent. Asha and I bonded a bit over the song "Ugly", while songs like "Staring at Your Window" and "Learning How to Fall" were basically describing my situation at that time. I thought it all meant so much. I look back, of course, and I was a kid who pretty much knew nothing, and the real truth of those songs, 10 years on, have revealed themselves. But that's another story.

The following year was a huge turning point. Richie toured his new record, and I attended the show alone. The one person who would have loved to have gone with me, I hadn't spoken to since These Days. I went at doors open and waited, alone, over three hours for Richie to arrive. I got so tired standing in the same spot, I almost passed out. I didn't know a nightclub show could be so different to a standard show. Everyone around me was out for a night on the town, I was there to see Richie. It was horrifying. But a good show, though I don't think I've ever felt so alone, so singled out ever again. I had no money, no friends, and no seat. I did have "Hard Times Come Easy" and prime positioning at the Mercury Lounge, which made up for it.

The next show was in 2001, when I'd just arrived home from America. This one was a weird one -- I'd bought Crush overseas and absolutely loved it. I was so excited for the concert, and I went with my sister who had been waiting to go see a BJ show since she exchanged her BJ tickets for Madonna seats back in '93. So it was a bit of a landmark. It was also the beginning of the end of my concert-going enjoyment. The worst part was, I had to go to my ex-boyfriend's new grilfriend's house to collect my favourite BJ shirt from the front doorstep, literally left there for me in a garbage bag, because who wanted me going in? And then, when I went, the shirt, which I had worn at my first BJ show, wasn't even in the bag, and it has since disappeared forever.

The show? Drunk people everywhere, girls on guys shoulders pushing and shoving me, I couldn't see a thing because of idiots jumping around. I remember spending much of the show watching the monitor and wishing I was home. Not to say the guys weren't great, it just wasn't the right time for me. This was about six weeks after my return home and my world was different. I could take idiots before perhaps. I didn't want to anymore. And so I skipped BJ's next show at the Rumba festival. Sit through Pink and Natalie Imbruglia to see ten minutes of BJ? After the previous experience, I couldn't do it. And I didn't care -- it wasn't a BJ concert, it was kids music event and Jon said as much in an interview. Something tells me I didn't miss much.

So, I was letting things go at that point, becoming less obsessive. Growing up, maybe? And, at 23 or whatever I was then, that was easy. Twenty-three wasn't "almost 30". It's silly, I know, but this concert was going to be another signpost -- I can't help but wonder if I would have come home allowing myself that -- to be "almost 30", and to finally resist hiding from it? I watched the Lost Highway DVD and for the first time in 2o-plus years, I saw the lines on Jon's face. I saw the that he had started to look his age, which, when you think about it, is "almost 50". Wow, that's hard to deal with.

I watched the DVD and I thought about all those things, about all those mistakes. And it's come at time when I've reacquainted with Trish, and I'd only very recently made peace with that bad relationship from 1997 that ruled my life for so long. This was landmark, but I experienced it from my couch. I sat there and I just felt so alone. I didn't feel good, I didn't feel like I had experienced what I needed -- to eradicate the feelings I had at the 2001, to re-energise myself, to move forward, like I'd done after every other show. So, I'm left a bit stagnant. Hanging. I don't know what'll push me forward now. I still feel like I'm only halfway there.

Steve did not view.

18 January 2008

Terminator 2: Judgment Day, dir. James Cameron (1991)

STEVE says:
I was assistant manager at a movie theater back in my college days, and we played T2. I must have watched it at least 20 times on the big screen, and maybe as many since on Laserdisc. I look at it now and I wonder what the hell I was thinking.

Not that it sucks, not at all, but it's just more of the same, innit? Run, run, run, chase, chase, chase, explosion, end. The twist is that Schwarzenegger's T-101 is now the protector (since he'd slipped into the mainstream and no longer wanted to play bad guys), which probably sounded like a good idea in the pitch, but on the screen it comes off as Kindergarten Cop all over again.

It opens pretty much the same as the first one: T-101 shows up in a big blue ball of electricity, beats up some thugs (bikers this time, instead of the punks) and steals some clothes, but the scene ends on a light-hearted note - T-101 taking one of the biker's sunglasses as an afterthought. It lets us know that he's the good guy before we should really have this information.

Come to think of it, the first movie did this too: It wanted us to think that Reese was the one stalking Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor, but we'd already seen Schwarzenegger kill a woman with the same name. He was definitely the bad guy, making Reese the hero by default. When Robert Patrick's T-1000 kills a cop, we know not to be too concerned with Schwarzenegger.

Something else that bugs me: Since T-1000 can take the form of any living being, why's he just steal the cop's clothes? He comes through as Robert Patrick, kills the cop who investigates the "electrical disturbance", and walks off with the cop's uniform, whereas everyone else he comes into contact with, he's got their clothes and their appearance. But since he's morphing left, right and center, it seems he didn't really steal the cop's clothes, but assimilated them into his form without taking the cop's likeness. Sloppy, Jim. Sloppy.

This movie is full of Cameron using effects for effects sake not the sake of the story, but it's still fun and stands as a good follow-up to the original. The scene where Sarah Connor sees T-101 step out of the elevator is still as effective as ever, and for that alone I'm rating it a 3 out of 5.

[NOTE: We watched the pilot for Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles after T2, and it wasn't bad. Completely re-invents the future history set up in T3, but we knew that was going to happen from the press release. It's another one of these Les Miserables type shows - The Fugitive, The Incredible Hulk, Starman, Werewolf, etc. - adhering to the Hunter/Prey archetype. The thing I liked best about it, though, is the Hunter's last name is Ellison. That's so cool that it almost counter-balances the retardedness of the Terminator/Protector calling herself Cameron...]

NIKKI says:
T2... it was actually way more boring than I remember. Not that it was bad, just that it was a bit repetitive. By about the 15th chase scene, I was over it. This could have something to do with the version we watched being a super-long, extended, director's cut, which, it seems, means "more chases!".

I also didn't realise how mental Sarah Connor is here. She's just kind of insane. I realise she has much on her plate, enough to drive anyone slightly nutty, but she's so ... weird in this movie. I found myself not liking her, not seeing her as this fierce warrior, but a broken woman losing her marbles because the whole situation is just so enormous. And it had made her hard emotionally as well as physically. Too hard, too free of warmth. We watched her new TV show after this, and I'm pleased she's back to normal -- at least, her version of normal. The show, too, is good. I'm looking forward to seeing more.

We had a lot of fun with this movie. Not only was it entertaining, but it was so full of early-'90s mega-cheese that both Steve and I could relate to having lived through this film's onslaught on modern culture. I think we were both laughing at ourselves and the time as much as we were laughing at Danny Cooksey's mullet and Eddie Furlong's pre-Emo, long and sweepy do. I just kept flashing back to 1992 -- even though robots are fighting to kill this boy who becomes a leader of the people, wasn't life just so much simpler back then?

And so with the TV show, the saga continues. Which is good -- as long as they don't make it all chase scenes and explosions, I think there's more to explore with this story.

3/5

17 January 2008

The Terminator, dir. James Cameron (1984)

STEVE says:
In anticipation of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, we thought we'd go back to the beginning. I haven't seen The Terminator in years, and I'm surprised by how well it holds up - although I did make a comment about some of the cheesy puppetry. Nikki told me, "It's the 80s, there were no bad effects - just effects." So with that in mind, I guess the stop-motion Terminator bit at the end maybe isn't so bad. But I still think James Cameron's an asshole.

Here's the story: Turns out that certain aspects of The Terminator are strikingly similar to two episodes of The Outer Limits - "Soldier" and "Demon with a Glass Hand", both written by Harlan Ellison. Harlan sued Cameron over this and won, settling for a couple hundred thousand dollars. A credit was tacked on to the end of The Terminator that reads, simply "Acknowledgment to the works of Harlan Ellison."

Acknowledgment? "Inspired by" if not "based on" would have suited, but "acknowledgment to the works of" sounds like he's doing it begrudgingly. What a tool.

Still, you judge the art, not the plagiarist, and The Terminator still rates a 3.5 out of 5.

NIKKI says:
I hadn't seen this movie for a really long time. I haven't watched the sequel since I was hanging out with these two girls, Christy and Mellissa, so that's at least 15 years ago for that one. So, in perhaps, let's say, 18 years... I really hadn't thought too much about the original Terminator. My feelings on it overtaken, really, by the sequel. That movie had such an impact on my life, because I think it was the first time I was conscious of a film as a phenomenon. Catchphrases, shirts, references in other films -- it was major. And those girls and I just loved Edward Furlong, although Christy "won" him as her beau-officiale because we couldn't all three have the same guy lest we end up actually hanging out with him -- how could he choose between us? T2 was major. I can't really remember another film coming close to achieving what it did as a cultural landmark. Anyway... revisiting the original was made even more interesting with all of the T2 stuff in my head. The first movie is still good, still effective, and certainly lives up to its status as the precursor for that big-time follow-up.

It was weird seeing the Terminator as such a brutal force when he's so lovable in the sequel. And it was nice to remember Sarah Connor before the news of the future war completely eradicated her sense of herself as anything but a warrior. We watched the film in preparation for viewing the new Sarah Connor Chronicles TV show, and I'm glad we did because we see the genesis of this iconic future-woman, so powerful and yet not, governed by a future she can't change. It's great her story is carrying on.

I really like this story -- the woman who finds out her son saves the world after a major world war, terminator machines sent back in time to destroy her. It's the perfect speculative tale. And all too real now that we have actual wars occurring, machines thinking for us all the time. So, it holds up as a concept. And it really lacks the cheese of, say, a Future Cop or something similar. It retains a great drama, perhaps because its characters are well crafted, its story well written.

3.5/5

Juno, dir. Jason Reitman (2007)

NIKKI says:
I wanted to love it so much more than I did. Prior to watching, Steve and I both said we expected much pretentiousness and we were right. But what I didn't expect was the film's emotional turn towards the end. It really let go of all its culturally-aware bullshit ("Honest to blog!" and that fucking hamburger phone -- can nothing be normal in these pictures?), and became something quite heartfelt. There was a message amid the cleverness, and, turns out, the message bit really worked for me.

I've had many people tell me the reason I hated Knocked Up must be because I don't have children, which I think is bupkiss, because I've never been pregnant but She's Having a Baby is one of my most beloved films. And, besides, Knocked Up isn't a film about having kids, it's a film about idiots. My point is, if they want to believe that, then in return, I give them this. There was much here for me, a person not too sure where I stand on the motherhood issue. Do I want, do I not want? Am I selfish, am I a perpetual child? Or am I afraid? Do I, like Mark in this film, just want to be a rock star? Or not even that, specifically, but to have the choice.

This, for me, is a movie about finding out who we are. For all it's so-called "quirk", the film has a strong core, a desire to say something about people, caught up in their lives, lives they hoped for, or lives they didn't, and must change. This aspect of the film hit me hard. I also thought there was a lot of good comedy here, mostly thanks to the work of JK Simmons. And I was thrilled to see Jason Bateman doing drama again. He was amazing in this.

The downside here is only that the film is so clearly desperate in its desire to be clever. And it doesn't need to be. It's good, without all the unrealistic crap.

3.5 out of 5.

16 January 2008

American Gangster, dir. Ridley Scott (2007)

NIKKI says:
Didn't really care to see this movie, but we got free tickets at work and thought a jaunt to the pictures might be good for staff morale. Not really, but something like that. My only regret is that Steve didn't join us, but I think Steve was expecting a big, dumb, acion blow-out complete with Russell and Denzel "King Kong ain't got nuthin' on me" hero lines spouted throughout. Because, that's exactly what we were expecting. Basically, we were going to movies as a bit of a fun gag. I won't be doing that again, and rightly, shouldn't have considered doing it to begin with.

The unexpected ...

I loved this film. It rivals No Country for my favourite film of the year (two weeks in, though we are). Everything about this was, for me, what movies should be. Superb storytelling, compelling characters, excellent pacing, suspense, drama. It was all there. I was utterly enthralled. And Denzel and Russell held back their overacting giving the subtle, intrictae performances demanded of their characters. I haven't enjoyed Denzel so much since Mo' Better Blues.

This film is based on the story of heroin smuggler and dealer, Frank Lucas, who, it would seem, ruled trade between 1968 and 1973. It's about Frank's rise and the investigation that eventually took him (and 30-odd narcotics officers) down. The stories paralleled really well, with the eventual showdown between Russell and Denzel proving ultra-effective. Denzel was just riveting in that interrogation scene. A great history lessons, an excellent character-driven work. I loved it. I can't wait for Steve to see it.

4.5/5

Steve did not view.

Ed Wood, dir. Tim Burton (1994)

NIKKI says:
We watched this to honour Vampira, who passed away today. I'm glad we did, too, because I haven't seen the film in a long time, and though I remember key scenes, I had really forgotten just how wonderful the whole thing really is. It's just a beautifully told story, and it hits home when it needs to about passion in art, believing in oneself, and never forgetting what dreams are and what they mean. Ed Wood might not have been the greatest filmmaker of all time, but he was certainly among the most passionate -- or, at least, that's how he is portrayed here. I wondered during the film if he does't exploit Bela Lugosi to get his foot in the door at the studios, and Steve informed me that his use of Bela is more of a celebration, and whether or not there was an element of exploitation there, it worked out to serve Bela, to give him celebratory final years. I see that, and it only adds to the joy of the film for me.

Everything here works, from the BW photography, to the cast, to the tight structure.

4/5

STEVE says:
Bela, Tor, Criswell, Eddie, and now Vampira. It would have made sense to watch Plan 9 from Outer Space as a tribute to her passing, but I didn't think I could do that again. I disagree that it's the worst movie ever made - I've seen The Pelican Brief, remember - but that doesn't make it any easier to watch.

Ed Wood, by all accounts, is heavily fictionalized, but that, I argue, doesn't detract from the story. Less about Ed Wood himself, it focuses mainly on the friendship between Eddie and Bela Lugosi in the last years of Lugosi's life, ending soon after with the premiere of Plan 9. Instead of being a simple bio-pic, it tells the story of Eddie and Bela against the background of Eddie's struggles to be taken seriously as a filmmaker.

It's an inspiring film, and I'm shocked and awed that it didn't make the AFI's Top 100 Inspirational Movies list. But then, Eddie shot for the moon and kept hitting the roof, so maybe it's not as inspirational as, say, It's a Wonderful Life, but it's got to beat Rudy, right?

5/5

Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe, dir. Les Blank (1980)

NIKKI says:
And he really eats his shoe.

I'm sad to only be discovering Herzog recently. He's very much my kind of philosopher. Although, it would take many changes in my life to live to his standards -- freeing myself of American television and chain stores is in the grand plan, but so very hard to stick to.

He's a man of conviction, and his conviction inspires, even if it is weird to the point of near-insanity. He promised Errol Morris he would eat his shoe if Morris completed a film. Morris did, and so the shoe-cooking occurred. He used this short film to tell his audience that there is no excuse for not achieving one's goals. If you want to do it, do it. As Steve said, the man is like Jesus. He dies for us, or he ate his shoe for us. We owe him.

Rating: n/a

STEVE says:

She stole my thing.

I was going to say about how I said that Herzog is like Jesus, he ate the shoe for us and now we have the obligation to make movies.

I'm giving it a low rating, though, because it's just not that good. I don't enjoy the cuts to Charlie Chaplin eating his shoe, I don't enjoy the annoying song that plays endlessly throughout. I do enjoy hearing Herzog postulate about how we have no defining imagery, running over McDonald's and cigarette ads, but it's undercut by - ironically - the filmmaking.

The short was included on the disc Burden of Dreams, a doco about the making of Herzog's Fitzcarraldo. I sense a Herzog double feature in our future...

2.5/5

15 January 2008

Romulus, My Father, dir. Richard Roxburgh (2007)

NIKKI says:
Sometimes, I would love to know what goes on at the meetings and during the discussions that lead to books becoming films. It stuns me, at times, the way screenwriters and filmmakers interpret books, change and mould them, to become new stories. I can't remember, honestly, the last time I was overwhelmed by a good adaptation. But I can reel off a large list of adaptations that screwed up, one way or another, key emotional scenes.

No Country was one -- a scene leading to a character's death in that story, that clearly outlined his motivation, was chopped from the film, and in my opinion dragged it way down. Mystic River was another one -- a character's death that was so powerful in the book it had me sweating while reading it was edited to death in the film, with other scenes intercutting what should have been a focused, singular moment. Romulus, My Father, based on the memoirs of Raimond Gaita, suffered similar treatment. Not only is a character's death left unexplored and underexplained, the very essence of Romulus from the book is completely removed from the film.

I understand storytelling on screen is different, but I can't think of any reason why various parts of Gaita's story were removed, or otherwise altered. I just wanted to yell during the movie, "it didn't happen that way" or "that's not how he said it!". Romulus in the book is giving, caring, always desiring to see his fellow man free of hardship, sometimes to his own detriment. He takes in stray animals, nurses them to health, makes them a part of his growing menagerie. He builds and works with his hands. He reads, and implores his son to read, too. He stands for honesty, morality, truthfulness under any circumstances. But he knows how to have fun, and he gives his son a wonderful life.

Romulus in the film is damaged, seemingly from the outset. Eric Bana as Romulus, always appears sad and broken. We don't see him taking in his animals, or striving to make sure his son is educated. He's certainly a caring father, but it's just... different. I didn't get a sense of the same man in the film that I did in the book. I just saw a desperate man, in love with a woman who did not want him. Then again, Romulus is hardly in the film, with much of it concentrating on Raimond's time with his depressed mother.

One example of the basic problem with the film, for me: in the book, we learn that Romulus treats every living creature with the same respect. He feeds his pets from the table, giving them treats and cakes, simply because they are living creatures deserving of the same pleasures as humans. In the movie, it's Raimond that feeds the dogs from the table. How does that set up Romulus? In the movie, Hora reads to Raimond, and there's no sense that Romulus wants his son to read and learn. In the movie, Raimond's dancing to rock music is used as a way for the kid to expel aggression, in the book, Raimond writes a treatise on Elvis Presley that Romulus finds and it's about a father's fear his son is susceptible to immoral influences.

These alterations, for me, changed the characters, and ultimately, their stories and how I related to them. Again, I'd love to know why the writer and director chose to tell the story this way. Good thing there are commentaries on the DVD -- though I don't think I can come up with reasonable explanations for their choices.

I was ultimately disappointed in the adaptation.

2/5

STEVE says:
This is another case like No Country for Old Men where Nikki's read the book, I have not, and I can still tell there's been a shiteload of stuff that got lost in the translation.

The movie felt like random scenes from a childhood as opposed to the story of a child's memory of his father. Roxburgh is impressive his first time out as a director, and Bana (Hulk aside) is always interesting, but Romulus just didn't gel for me.

Not a bad movie, but not really anything special.

2/5