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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

The Cowboy and the Frenchman, dir. David Lynch (1988)

NIKKI says:
I almost felt like like this was cheating, watching a short film instead of a feature for our project. And then I thought, but short films are still films. They're still conceived as whole stories. And, really, to deny the short film in favour of a feature was to do the art a disservice. That's how I'm justifying my pick of the 34 minute Cowboy and the Frenchman tonight.

Truth is, I was so tired after work, I couldn't handle anything longer. This is when I treasure our collection -- need a short film on the double? Got one!

I chose this because the story sounded intriguing. Apparently it's part of a larger project to do with how US filmmakers and storytellers "view the French". This is David Lynch's perverse rendering of an entire culture, and as much as it's suitably and predictably bizarre, it's also rather entertaining. Some dyed in the wool cowpokes spot a mysterious creature falling down a hill and go find it. It's a Frenchman. The group converse, then they sing and dance, then that's about it. Harry Dean Stanton plays the near-death Slim who says words like "goll dang" and "bull-doggin". At first, Slim is a bit scared of the Frenchman, pondering whether or not he's a "goll dang alien spy". A quick search through the man's bag to pull out snails, an Eiffel Tower statue and a breadstick lead Slim to realise this is not an alien, but a French person. Upon discovering this, Slim befriends the man and they share a night of beer and music. During this time, the two (and Slim's ranch hands) share cultures. The Frenchman, for instance, teaches Slim to say "ooh la la" and Slim returns the favour, teaching the Frenchman to say "yippie kai ai aye".

Lynch's absurd view of these intermingling cultures is fascinating and creepy. I hear Werner Herzog also contributed to this series of shorts, and now I'm all about checking that one out.

This I give 2.5 out of 5. The highlight for me in this one was Tracy Walter paying back a loan.

STEVE says:
David Lynch is an oddball, this we know. But The Cowboy and the Frenchman is as weird as I think we've ever seen him - and that's saying a lot. It's his first foray into outright comedy, pre-dating On the Air by three or four years, and it's funny enough - at first: Harry Dean Stanton plays a mostly-deaf rancher with Jack Nance and Tracy Walter as his ranch hands. They see someone sneaking down the hill and immediately rope and apprehend him. "Might as well see what's in his case before we shoot him," Stanton says, at which point they pull wine, baguettes, little replicas of the Eiffel Tower, and a plate of snails from his suitcase. "He had a bunch in his pockets when I found him," Walter offers, with the explanation, "Maybe he fell asleep next to a stream." It's a plate of French fries that convince the trio that he's a Frenchman.

There's no real story up to this point, and there's even less in what follows: a strange montage of French women, a horse and an Elvis impersonator.

Worth it for hardcore Lynch fans, but I'd recommend others stay far, far away.

3/5

The Long Goodbye, dir. Robert Altman (1973)

STEVE says:
I know I'm alone on this, but I think Elliot Gould is my favorite Marlowe. He may not be the best incarnation of the literary Marlowe (in my opinion, it's Dick Powell in Murder, My Sweet), but that doesn't bother me so much, as The Long Goodbye is an update of the story, set in 1973 instead of the novel's 50s.

Marlowe, too, is an update of the smart-aleck PI made legendary by Bogart in The Big Sleep. Mumbling, bemused, talking to himself a great deal of the time, he's still as out-of-place as he's ever been, no matter who plays him.

And it's a Robert Altman film, so you've got to expect something different. It's not a straight adaptation of the book - half the characters have been dropped, a gangster added, a murder changed to a suicide and the ending completely changed - but it works.

The Long Goodbye is not a classic film noir, it's a take-off on films of that type, a satire of Hollywood and its stereotypes. I happen to love that sort of thing. For everybody else, I guess there's always vanilla.

4/5

Nikki did not view.

Chariots of the Gods?, dir. Harald Reinl (1970)

NIKKI says:
Okay, you got me.

How can you not walk away from this little movie and not believe in aliens? I think I've been hornswaggled. Why did Steve so desperately want me to see this film? Because he knew there was no turning back, no fighting the "facts" raised here.

There's a spaceman in an ancient painting! An actual space man! With a space ship! Has anyone explained that yet? They reckon they explained the Easter Island mystery, but what about Spaceman in Painting!

Yeah, this movie got me fired up. I've been living with my head in the sand! I never considered, "god" might be a spaceman. Although it makes a strange kind of sense. In the beginning of this film, we're reminded of just how commonplace is the idea of replicating idols. An isolated tribe, in the movie, see a plane flying overhead for the first time, and recreate its image with bamboo, waiting for it to come back. Is this what happened on Easter Island? Does it explain the ancient Japanese Dogu? It's a compelling theory, because it makes so much sense.

What doesn't make sense is how the pyramids were built. Steve tells me he's seen a show that presents a convincing, Earth-based theory. In this movie, there are walls and building all over the world, built long before machinery and cranes, that defy all reason. How do 500 ton boulders stack on top of each other? How were towers made, carved from one piece of rock, standing 50 feet in the air? How did that happen? How did they carve and build with few tools and equipment? And, to top it off, why do so many ancient drawing look like alien beings? It's impossible to ignore -- not necessarily that Van Daniken (whose theories the film outlines) is wholly correct, but that there is a possibility that all is not as we might like to suspect.

This, frankly, is the closest I've come to believing aliens have interacted with us at some stage. Why don't they do it anymore? What's different? Why are they so secretive, only coming into women's rooms at night? When will they come back?

This movie opened my mind. It's slightly cheesy, and jumps to wild conclusions at times, (lines on a field -- it's most certainly an intergalatic landing strip!), but it's wonderfully thought-provoking. Especially for someone like me, who loves the idea of alien men coming to Earth and helping out the locals with their big walls before, as Ezekiel so clearly outlines in the Old Testament, jumping in their ships, hitting the gas, and zooming away.

3/5

STEVE says:

This is another one that I remember being better than it actually was. Cheesy and dated, much of it looked like a travelogue, with long stretches of scenery and local colour before the narrator jumped in and told us where we were and what we were looking at. A fascinating look at some of the mysteries of our world - Easter Island, the Pyramids, etc - but it's very heavily opinionated and comes off sounding kind of silly.

The question this doco poses is "Was God an Astronaut?" It's already convinced that God was, indeed, and astronaut (not an alien, mind you), and goes on to show us proof of this posit, rather than looking at what evidence there is, scientifically, and coming to a conclusion based on that.

There was an updated version of Chariots made for ABC TV in 1997, hosted by Home Improvement's Al, but it's not available on DVD. Even if it's all bullshit, it has to be better than the original.

1.5/5

Intruders, dir. Dan Curtis (1992)

NIKKI says:
Today was Alien Day, or, I'm convinced of it, "Steve's attempt to finally make Nikki believe in aliens." It didn't work with Intruders, although the film raised some interesting questions, if what happened to Mary and Leslie is true, of course, as the film suggests.

This one sets itself apart from others with similar subject matter -- Communion, Fire in the Sky -- with female abductees as the focus. Apparently, aliens have visited the both of them throughout their lives, poking them and prodding them, to form a greater understanding of the human species. It's suggested at the film's end that there's a reason for all the abducting that is really quite scary, mostly because of how its shot than the fact it might be true.

Man, these women go through some terror. They get cut and beaten, things shoved in their nose, Leslie gets impregnated. I like to look at the film as a parable of the feminist movement -- Mary and Leslie, one from Hicksville and one from Los Angeles, struggle and fight their male oppressors who only want to examine them, comfort them, or cure them of any wild thoughts. Consider: Mary doesn't want to tell her old boy husband about the abductions (she used to drink, you know) because she fears looking a fool. Leslie winds up in an institution because no one will take her seriously (think Girl, Interrupted). And then when the doctors finally accepts Leslie's story, get this, she backs down and says no, no, she made it all up -- women denying their personal truths to appease men!! See? It all works. Did women invent alien abduction to cope with gender-related stress issues? Now, we're hitting on something.

Then why do so many men get abducted? I'll have to look into it.

You don't hear about alien abductions too much anymore. I wonder if these women still experience random nightly visits?

So, Intruders was an enjoyable three-hour movie, with lots of spooky parts, a few cheesy parts, and left me with something to think about. As I said, I don't think it convinced me about aliens, but it did make me want a visit from them myself. Just cause it might shake things up a bit.

3/5

STEVE says:
The idea of alien abduction has always been a favorite fantasy of mine, ever since I saw Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a kid. As horrifying as it was to see little Barry taken by the aliens (though not for Barry himself), it was all so exciting and fascinating. And it kick-started something in my seven-year-old brain. As I grew up, I read the books, I saw the movies, I even looked into the US Government's Majic project - which does exist, aliens or not - and have drawn my own conclusions on the subject of abduction.

Intruders was part of that development - this movie and Budd Hopkins' book - but it's better in memory than it was in reality, I'm afraid to say. I don't know if it was production value, the script, or what, but it didn't gel for me the way it used to - if it ever did - and indeed looked rather silly.

But maybe that's exactly how they wanted it to look...

Something to think about.

2/5

Amazing Grace, dir. Michael Apted (2006)

NIKKI says:
An historical drama about changing the world -- it's made for me, quite frankly. I don't know if I was tired, or had just eaten way too much over dinner with my parents, but I thought the film lacked the emotional resonance of others it brings to mind. I'm thinking of Iron-Jawed Angels, Glory, The Mission, movies about big events in history that present us with real heroes and remind us what others went through to make life better for us.

William Wilburforce is absolutely one of those people, and his struggle was honorable and compelling, but I wonder if this film's structure didn't let it down some? We jumped back and forth in time quite often, and I found some of the conversations about the issue at hand slightly repetitive. It's not hard to convince us that Wilburforce's mission is a good one, and yet much time was spent doing just that. Or perhaps he was convincing himself?

There was a lot of talking, a lot of reiteration of the key points -- costs of the slave trade, Parliament's reticence to end the trade, experiences of the slaves. There was little imagination here to make this film less lecture-like.

This was an interesting history lesson, but it lacked vigor. I didn't jump on my seat, fists pumping in the air, when it was all said and done. And I should have.

3/5

STEVE says:
It says much about the American education system that I hadn't heard the name William Wilburforce until watching Amazing Grace. We're taught that Abraham Lincoln was the great emancipator, but Wilburforce did his work during the American Revolution - nearly 100 years before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.

What I found interesting about the movie, apart from the history lesson, were the parallels drawn between the way Wilburforce and his crew were looked upon for trying to abolish the slave trade, and the way anyone who speaks out against the war in Iraq is looked upon today. Lines like “One can’t be seen opposing the king when the streets of Paris are running with blood,” and “When war comes, opposition will soon be called sedition" inarguably reflect Bush's America.

It was a good movie, but not a great one. You're with Wilburforce all the way, and want to see him come out on top, but how can you not? The moral deck is stacked in his favor.

3/5

Blade Runner: The Final Cut, dir. Ridley Scott (1982/2007)

NIKKI says:
The first time I watched Blade Runner was at the Allen Theatre in Annville, PA, with Steve and his brother, Mike. I fell asleep. I can't remember why, exactly. But I missed much of the movie, and, therefore, really didn't know all that much about it, apart from stuff Steve has mentioned over the years. Basically, it was a film I considered an indisputable classic, not because of my own opinion, but how revered it is, and, now, of course, because it merits a massive DVD release featuring five version of the thing. Does any film need five versions? What other movies out there would fans want to watch five times in five different ways? Maybe Star Wars... and Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, after viewing the movie again, I realised just why it's so revered. It really is a great picture, from storytelling to visuals. Hard to believe, sometimes, it was made back at the beginning of the '80s when "special effects" were just cheesy neon shooty lights and wires and stuff. This didn't have any cheesiness to it at all, really, which surprised me. I was also taken by the seriousness of the whole thing -- illegal robots inhabiting Los Angeles in 2019 and a rogue-ish cop is sent to destroy them! The potential for unintentional comedy is written all over that, but this was gripping. It was emotionally scarring. That's really what I'm taking away from it was just how sad I felt at the end that the replicants had to die. I was cursing the society that built them more than anything, which is likely the point. And, in turn, Harrison Ford's character wasn't really a hero. He was sad, too, in that he went about his robot slaying really without question. A job, sure, but more than that, especially after learning of Rachel's identity and listening to Roy Batty's speech at the end. I don't remember Ford questioning himself.

I can't compare the version I just saw with any other version, but I know Ford's character was debated as far as his replicant status in early versions, whereas this final version make it fairly clear he, too, is a replicant and that he and Rachel only have a short time together. I love this element of the story and I think it's beautiful. The end was great, with Ford finding the unicorn, and the other cop (Edward James Olmos) saying that it's a shame Rachel won't live. Just perfect, so tragic.

Great movie. In a way I'm annoyed I haven't enjoyed it more frequently over years. But then I'm happy this was the version I was able to see as my "first" experience of the story, because it was really effective.

Now, can someone get me the five-disc edition of The Breakfast Club? I'd watch that.

4/5

STEVE says:
Watching Ridley Scott's Final Cut of Blade Runner, I've finally come to realize what a wank George Lucas is.

Lucas' rape and pillage of the original Star Wars trilogy soured me on the idea of director's cuts and special editions. The original movies never met with his approval because special effects at the time couldn't bring his true vision to fruition. By 1997, though, technology had caught up with him and he released the Star Wars Special Editions. But by adding state-of-the-art effects to these classic films, he did nothing more than remove the credibility of the existing effects, making them look even dodgier by comparison than they did to begin with. As an artist, I can appreciate his wanting to see his vision realized. What I'm against is his refusal to let us enjoy the original movies.

I can't think of another special edition or director's cut where this is the case, especially since the DVD revolution. The Abyss, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, even Stargate, all come with the original as well as the special edition. Lucas, in a childish fit of "they're mine, not yours, I'll do what I want with them" has refused to release the original trilogy (even the new 2-disc editions of the original films only offer a pan and scan version, instead of the original widescreen presentation).

Ridley Scott, however, knows how to do a special edition. This new Blade Runner set has five versions of the movie: the original theatrical release, the international release (which doubled as the original vhs release in the States), the 1992 Director's Cut (which wasn't), the new Final Cut (which is), and just for fun, an early work-print. Good grief, Ridley.

Apart from the narration and the happy ending, the differences are mostly cosmetic: tighter editing, re-touched special effects, that sort of thing. When I heard that Scott got Joanna Cassidy back to re-film her character Zorah's death scene, I cringed, thinking immediately of Lucas and his retro-fitting. But it works here. I don't know why. Maybe it's just a psychological thing; I'm not offended by Scott's touch-ups because I know, should I want to, I can go back and watch the original version where it's not Cassidy but an obviously be-wigged stunt woman crashing through panes of glass and dying on the sidewalk. Not that I'm going to, but the option is there.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut gets a perfect score - 5/5

[Viewed again by Steve on Feb 13.]