Torn Curtain, dir, Alfred Hitchcock (1966)

NIKKI says:
Steve was in the mood for Hitchcock, I was well-rested and happy to choose something a bit meatier than those just-keep-me-awake horror screeners. So, we went with Torn Curtain. Neither of us had seen it, and it's been too long, for me, between Newman films.

I'm a bit torn with this one. I very much enjoyed the film, and especially its performances. But the final half of the film was very weighty, not nearly as fast-paced and exciting as the first half. Once we knew what Michael was up to, we just had to wait until the wrong people found out and chased him around a bit.

When the suspense began to involve so many people, the film really lost its tenseness. Early on, when Michael is followed first to Berlin, then to the farmhouse, everything was taut -- it was Newman in peril. But suddenly when Michael and his wife are fleeing the bad guys in a bus full of people, and then when they're in the post office with a weird woman, then we're in the ballet theatre with a big audience, suddenly the focus is removed from them, and I felt far too separated from them at a point when I should have been right with them. If that makes sense.

Still, bits here rank up there with my favourite Hitchcock moments, like the scene in the farmhouse when the young woman comes to Newman's aid. That was horrific. I also enjoyed the ballet sequence, just because it was so freakin' weird. Paul was great, as always, and even had a chance to the romantic lead in the early parts of this film, which is something he doesn't do a lot. I think I may request a Newman Week for our project. This was okay -- makes me want to watch more Hitchcocks I've missed.

3/5

STEVE says:
Torn Curtain kicks off a week, not only of movies neither of us hasn't seen before, but also a celebration of Alfred Hitchcock. We've decided that the horror screeners we've been watching were just too painful to continue, at least right away, and how can you go wrong with Hitch?

Unfortunately, the answer to that is "By starting your week with Torn Curtain".

For the first hour, as Nikki mentioned, it was classic Hitch. Intrigue, spy stuff, murder - the self-defense killing of Gromek will stay with me forever. But after we reached mid-point, the movie became plodding and tedious. The scene on the bus was awkward - everyone speaking in German was a brilliant move, as it kept most of us as in the dark as Newman and Andrews. But the belligerent woman on the bus served no purpose but to have someone repeat everything in English, even though the woman was German and would have understood the exchange in the first place.

Much of the 2nd half could have been lifted out and never missed. The Countess Kuchinska bit, for example. Sad as this woman was, she did nothing but stretch the running time of the movie. All she had to do was take Newman and Andrews to a post office. Why the layover at the coffee house? So she could get them to agree to sponsor her move to America - which never happens, anyway, because she's caught after the ultra-tedious post office scene.

Hitch's MacGuffin this time around was a defensive weapon against offensive nuclear attacks. That's all we need to know - usually. But this time out, Hitch had Newman and Professor Lindt battling equations from this weapon on a blackboard - none of which meant anything to anyone at home. The purpose of the scene was for Newman to get information from Lindt without really giving him any in return, and indeed it worked. But it went on and on, with each of them writing equations, the other arguing against, and yadda yadda yadda. By Hitch's own admission, the MacGuffin is an object around which the plot revolves, and as to what that object specifically is, "The audience don't care!" But when you present us with a scene like this, we have to care, or we become bored.

No, this one didn't do very much for me, although Newman's performance was top notch - even if Hitch himself was not.

2.5/5

The Bet, dir. Mark Lee (2006)

NIKKI says:
I was in he mood for something different -- no horror, no comedy, no serious documentaries. So, I chose The Bet, an Aussie film set in the world of high-flying bankers and stockbrokers. It stars Matthew Newton and is directed by Mark Lee -- two definite selling points. And it wasn't too bad.

It was awesome, though. A few things bothered me -- I felt like I didn't know the true reasons behind both the bet and Aden Young's character's Machiavellian shenanigans. I felt like I should have been let in a little bit more to just what Young's character wanted and why he went to these specific lengths to get it. At the end, when Young's deception is revealed, it felt like a let down because of the major event preceding it. A major event I didn't think needed to happen.

It was an interesting watch. I enjoyed Mark Lee's direction -- the solitude and steeliness of the broker offices contrasted with the colour and magnificence of the Sydney skyline. I thought Matt Newton was really good, and the twists and turns in the story kept me watching. I don't think it came together in the end, though.

2.5/5

Dan in Real Life, dir. Peter Hedges (2007)

NIKKI says:
Damn, I wanted so much more from this. I thought, from the trailer, that I was getting a clever, possibly subversive, romantic movie, perhaps something like Eternal Sunshine or even Once. I thought more focus would be placed on the main character and his tribulations. Instead, this came dangerously close to becoming a male version of The Family Stone.

While Steve Carell was genius as always, and rather heartbreaking in scenes, I was still forced to watch the big, happy, quirky family, who just never listened until it was vital to the story. In fact, many annoying things just suddenly happen when they absolutely must to keep us on Dan's side. For instance, Dan's in love with his brother's girl -- never a good thing, but worse when the movie does that thing where it has us love the brother in the beginning, then slightly loathe him in the end when it's time for the true lovers to come together.

That was this movie's failure -- too many irons in the fire. Dan was getting over the death of his wife, he was in love with Marie, his brother had Marie, All well and good. But there was that huge family that did very little to propel the story. Brothers and sisters popped in only to make Dan uncomfortable, or to show how little he was understood by those closest to him. I don't know if we needed 17 family members, seemingly without problems of their own, to do that.

The juice of the story, between Dan, his brother, Marie, and Dan's three kids, was good, for the most part. Dan and Marie felt like they should be together, although I wasn't convinced when suddenly she got all jealous when Dan met another woman for drinks. Marie had made really no attempt to let us or Dan know she liked him, so her outward jealousy didn't fit with the film's other subtleties. She climbs all over the brother one minute and then wants to be jealous when Dan has a date? Sorry, but that just did not make sense to me.

I don't know, stuff like that just bugged me in this. It was romantic and well-written only in parts. Otherwise, it was stock-standard and a bit dumb. When the parents were standing there at the end telling Dan to "go for it" with Marie, I'm thinking -- where did that come from? Weren't we all just horrified that Dan would betray his brother so harshly?

Anyway... Steve Carell made the movie. I enjoy him a lot. But I'm going to have to drop this a point for some terrible situations here. Including an horrendously misguided wedding sequence at the end (sugar attack and ... blurgh).

2.5/5

STEVE says:
Dan in Real Life was light, unoffensive, dysfunctional family fare - pretty much everything I hate in movies today.

Why do movie families have to be so fake? Who actually has a crossword puzzle competition on a family holiday? And a family talent show? It reeks of The Brady Bunch in the worst possibly way. I half-expected Steve Carell and Dane Cook to build a house of cards in the end to see who goes home with the girl.

And then there's the shower scene. Can someone explain to me how this was anything other that just plain fucking creepy? I know it was supposed to be cute and uncomfortable, but Jeez-Louise!

Steve Carell was good as the widowed Dan, but we've seen him play this sort of introverted nice-guy before in The 40 Year Old Virgin, so he wasn't exactly exploring new territory here. And neither, it seems, were the writers, Pierce Gardner and Peter Hedges. (Gardner and Hedges, heh-heh.) Dan in Real Life was as predictable as light, unoffensive, dysfunctional family fare can be - down to the happy, everybody wins ending.

2/5

Groundhog Day, dir. Harold Ramis (1993)

STEVE says:
So I run this film class in Echuca on Wednesday nights, where a group of us get together once every two weeks, watch a film and discuss it afterwards. I set this up largely because, apart from Nikki, I can't find anyone around here who actually likes to think about a movie as they're watching it. The first movie we watched was Blade Runner: The Final Cut (which I didn't blog about because Nikki and I had watched it only a few weeks previous), and that went over pretty well, so I thought I'd do a complete 180 and give them a comedy - albeit a deeper comedy than they were probably expecting.

This movie works on two levels: You can enjoy it just as a silly Bill Murray comedy, or you can look at it philosophically and see that it holds a deeper spiritual meaning than, for example, The Passion of the Christ. Either way, you know.

Groundhog Day uses the Kübler-Ross model as a template, taking Bill Murray's Phil Connors through the five stages of grief and tragedy - Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance - as he relives the same day over and over again for what director Harold Ramis tells us on the commentary is ten years (but what screenwriter Danny Rubin, a Zen-Buddhist, originally conceived as 10,000 years). During the discussion afterwards, we found that Phil was indeed in denial at first, questioning whether someone was playing a large-scale practical joke on him, or whether he was, in fact, insane; then he became angry, which manifest itself in more of a playful, devilish Phil than a truly angry Phil, where we figured he'd be lashing out at people; when depression set in, he began killing himself over and over and over again - and this is when he started to get really mean to people, displaying some of the anger we'd expected before; and finally into acceptance of his fate, which is what broke the spell - he started doing good things for others, solely because it was the right thing to do, rather than thinking about how it might benefit him.

The one stage we couldn't identify in the movie, thought, was Bargaining. Arguments were made that each time he attempted to change something from a previous "day", it could be construed as bargaining, but I felt that it was more of a gamble, as Phil wasn't giving anything up in order to make things right. But even so, what a fascinating model for a film that, on the surface, seems to be a light romantic comedy!

I was struck by the fact Phil is pretty much the same guy Murray played in Scrooged - the jerk who's reformed in the end by realizing that humanity on the whole is greater than himself. It's part of the "Cinderella" archetype (goodness triumphant after being initially despised). Makes me wonder if Murray isn't drawn to this sort of story.

3.5/5

Nikki did not view.

Catacombs, dir. Tomm Coker and David Elliot (2007)

NIKKI says:
What was I just saying about terrible films? I'm so over this shit. I hope.

So, Pink invites her sister to Paris to party, really. The sister is there for other, deeper reasons, but never really gets a chance to explore them, because Pin takes her to an underground party onto of a huge grave and she ends up getting the freak scared out of her, poor thing.

That was the one interesting element of this movie -- Shannyn Sossamon's character and her fear. But it really ended up meaning very little. I felt like I watched an 80 minute build up to a trick ending. Not good enough.

Was nice to see Pink acting. I could stand to watch that again. And I think Shannyn Sossamon is good, too. So, there was eye-candy.

Some scary moments (I was frightened most by what turned out to be a fuse box with a red light on it, oops), but basically ultra-standard and kind of annoying.

1.5/5

STEVE says:
This is a classic example of Predictable vs. Inevitable.

After setting up the urban legend of a goat-head-wearing fella who lives in the catacombs beneath Paris, Pink is killed by said goat-head guy at the 30 minute mark. Then it's another 80 minutes or so of run, run, run, chase, chase, chase, only to find out that Pink wasn't killed, and the goat-head guy was one of her friends in a mask.

We called this pretty early on, based solely on the goat-head guy. He was just too ridiculous to be real. A killer skulking around the catacombs, that's fine. Even a masked killer skulking around the catacombs, I'll buy. But is the skinned goat head really necessary? Not unless you're just looking to freak someone out.

If it was inevitable that it was a joke (and it could have been, as Pink's friends were set up as pranksters), we wouldn't have been able to call it. But the movie overplayed its hand and fell over the line into predictable. It still would have been boring, mind you, but at least we wouldn't have been sitting there waiting for the movie to catch up to us.

So it was pretty much April Fool's Day all over again. And we didn't enjoy that one the first time.

1.5/5

Numb, dir. Harris Goldberg (2007)

NIKKI says:
I was interested in this because the blurb had me thinking it was about a writer experiencing a blurred reality. Instead, it was about a man (who, quite incidentally, was a writer) experiencing "depersonalisation", a condition that sees the sufferer feeling separated from everything around him, as though he is viewing his life from outside it. This film chronicles the man's attempt to overcome the condition, and while much of it was interesting, a deal of it was not.

The problems started when the man, Hudson, falls in love with Quirky Girl. She's just so impossibly cute and strange and even though she's not quite as understanding of his quirks as he os of hers, he falls head over heels, and we're meant to, too. I didn't buy it. I wanted the film to focus on Hudson dealing with his problem, rather than trying to fit romance into his attempts to deal with his problem. If that makes sense.

The film began to fill up with subplots and sideviews and I lost interest in Hudson. I was especially disappointed in the Mary Steenburgen subplot that really went nowhere, and was kinda creepy.

Anyway... Matthew Perry is always great to watch. And I wondered throughout much of this just how many drugs I might be prescribed should I reveal my weirdnesses to a shrink. I think I checked off at least half Hudson's issues as my own. Oops.

2.5/5

Skinwalkers, dir. James Issac (2006)

NIKKI says:
If there are worse movies out there, I'd like to see 'em.

Wait ... you know what I mean.

I've discovered a pattern: Nikki is tired, so wants to pick a short movie so she doesn't fall asleep. Steve is almost always open for anything, so Nikki picks the shortest movies available, which are usually crappy horror films. Nikki goes to bed annoyed that she can't just take speed, stay awake, and not watch crap.

Ugh. So, there's this gang of werewolves who need this kid to keep them alive or something. And so they go looking for the kid, who has a pretty mum who, of course, wants him to live. And there's another gang of werewolves that want the boy, too. So, werewolves fight with people and other werewolves, and lots of blood is shed, and there is a creepy red moon, and everything is sort of pointless and lame.

There was no skin walking. The make-up was awful. But I liked Jason Behr's tattoos.

1/5

STEVE says:
I don't even know what to say about this one.

Okay, so you've got your good werewolves and your bad werewolves. The bad werewolves want to kill some kid so they can remain werewolves, or something. The good werewolves are protecting the kid. Fine. We learn that one of the bad werewolves is the kid's dad and we're meant to be as shocked as the rest of the bad werewolves. We're not. We've come to expect this kind of thing.

But in the end, when the blood moon passes, and the time for killing the kid has passed, the dad werewolf just hooks up with the kid's mom as if he hasn't been trying to kill them for the past three days! 'Cos that makes sense, right?

About the only thing interesting about this movie was the fact that the werewolves were a throwback to the Lon Chaney, Jr. kind of werewolf from The Wolf Man - bipedal, vaguely wolfy, still clothed. Bad make-up, indeed, but interesting choice. Still, if I wanted to see that sort of thing, I'd just watch The Wolf Man.

1/5

You Kill Me, dir. John Dahl (2007)

NIKKI says:
If this movie finally solidified something for me, it's that I really don't enjoy Ben Kingsley's acting. I remember when Sexy Beast was all the rage. I didn't really care, and I didn't go out of my way to see it, because something, somewhere along the line, has turned me off Ben Kingsley. I can't put my finger on what, exactly.

I can hazard a guess, however. Watching this movie, I felt an overwhelming arrogance from the main character that I don't believe I was supposed to feel. This is what happens when I watch this actor. I'm sure it's just me... I can't shake this feeling -- maybe I saw him in an interview or something and some sort of arrogant comment has stayed with me. I don't know, but this wasn't the best film anyway, so no big loss.

I enjoyed it's quirkiness, but I didn't find it all that memorable. I didn't really care about Frank's plight, I didn't care about the mob loyalties, and I didn't really care that he and the girl ended up perfect for each other. I only really liked Tom, Luke Wilson's character, and only because how can you not like Luke Wilson.

So ... meh.

2/5

STEVE says:
I'm not sure what I think of John Dahl. His films run from "just okay" (Red Rock West, The Last Seduction) to "not that good" (Rounders, Unforgettable), so when he brings out something that rises above the norm, it tends to stand out and make me think he's someone to watch.

You Kill Me is one of those movies. It had its quirks - the good kind, not the Juno kind - and kept my interest to the end. I came away thinking it was quite good... but nothing special. And maybe that's my problem with Dahl: he's a competent filmmaker and nothing more. I just have to remember that next time we pick up one of his movies.

2.5/5

Footloose, dir. Herbert Ross (1984)

Hot Rod, dir. Akiva Schaffer (2007)

NIKKI says:
In this age of 120-minutes of sketch comedy disguised as film and improbable occurrences concerning menstrual blood passing for comedy (see: Superbad and Knocked Up), how refreshing it was to see Hot Rod. It might be from many of the same people involved in those other abominations, but this time they tone down the tastelessness in order to pull together a genuinely funny story. There's a lot of random humour, but somehow it works here. I'm guessing we cared more about Rod and his stunt-making because his dopiness came out of real naivete rather than utter stupidity or grossness. He wasn't a Solomon brother, let's say. He was more a Derek Zoolander, a model idiot with his heart in the right place. At any rate, he was someone worth cheering for.

I was concerned, though, that I wouldn't like Andy Samberg. He's one of those comedians you hear about, but unless you've got SNL, never actually see. His rubber face and screaming line delivery made me think he was being groomed as the next Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler, and though there is much of that in his performance here, it's not so bad that it overwhelms his other talents, such as his earnestness, on display, for instance, when he explains to Denise about his lack of Hammer-style legitimacy. I liked him here, and would watch him again.

As much as I liked Samberg, I also liked all the other SNL alums here that I've hated in so many other films -- Bill Hader, Chris Parnell, etc. This movie proved that these people can use their particular style of humour for good and not evil. I even liked the ridiculous '80s movie riffing which has just become so boring and obvious lately.

My Top Five Moments in Hot Rod

5. Rod chooses a "safety word" to help him if he gets in trouble while performing a downhill slalom.
4. The grilled cheese / taco fight.
3. The "You're the Voice" moment that becomes a riot -- "what the hell!?"
2. "Don't let you dads eat pie!"
1. Punch-dance.

The punch-dance beefs it up a whole extra point for me.

3.5/5

STEVE says:
Oh, Hot Rod.

You were indeed better and funnier than I was expecting. But that's not saying a hell of a lot. I'm comparing you to Will Ferrell comedies, and most anything from the Judd Apatow camp. Not fair, perhaps, but I've become jaded after years of stupid sketch comedy masquerading as feature films.

And in the end, you were really nothing more than that. But you were not as bad as most. And for that, you have my respect.

3/5

In the Valley of Elah, dir. Paul Haggis (2007)

NIKKI says:
Thanks God for Paul Haggis. Without him, we might not know racism is bad, or that war severely fucks with people. In his latest opus, Haggis blinds the viewer with stellar photography, rich performances, and the odd prophetic statement so that you just might not see that what he says with In the Valley of Elah is not as elegant and grand as you might first think.

It's the day after our viewing, and I'm finding myself offended by this film more than simply disappointed in it. It makes me think of Courage Under Fire and Platoon and other films that try hard to genuinely let us see the destruction of the psyche caused by wartime experiences. Instead, Haggis gives us posturing. Tommy Lee Jones has experienced war, you see, and so he's an authority, and a super detective. Everyone else is just lame or corrupt. But it takes the horrible death of his horrible son to make Tommy Lee see that perhaps America is in a time of crisis and so he turns that flag upside down, but, man, if he's served his country enough to chastise others in a "what do you know, you've never been to war"-type fashion, then surely atrocity has stared him in the face before? Why only now is he worried for his country?

This same stuff ruined Crash. Sandra Bullock has a go about the Hispanic man changing her locks, she freaks out when she passes a couple of black guys in the street, like people of different races are aliens or something. And boy will they get their comeuppance and be forced to see the light. Would you save a black girl from a burning car? What?!

Haggis just overstates his points so much. War is bad, war is deadly, was is evil, mistakes happen in war, kids get corrupted by war, people die in war, people are mean when put in evil situations. Shut up already and tell me something I don't know.

I think this movie went down hill for me when Charlize was getting taunted mid-interview by her fellow officers. That just wouldn't happen, and you just knew it was there to set up the horrors that happen later on to the interviewee at the hands of a war vet. Ready? Write this down: War fucks with people. I already saw Lawrence blow himself away in Full Metal Jacket -- again, tell me something new.

What's next for Paul Haggis? One for the ladies? Let me guess? It'll be called Rape, or In the Garden with a Naked Eve, and it'll be about slutty chicks with high IQs, that get raped and tortured just to show us that women can be sexual creatures without being called sluts. One will work at McDonalds, the other at Price Waterhouse, and the McDonalds chick will be raped by a minister or something equally ham-fisted.

Anyway...

2/5

We Own the Night, dir. James Gray (2007)

NIKKI says:
What the hell happened? It was like I started out watching a movie about brothers and loyalties and drugs in 1980s New York and then suddenly I found myself in the middle of some strange testimonial to the goodness of cops.

I just don't know what to think of this. The first third of the film was interesting and reasonably engrossing, and then suddenly Joaquin becomes a cop, and it's all -- yes, you can help us with this case and just join the academy later. What? Is that really how it happens, that the son of a decorated officer can simply take and exam and join the force in the middle of a case he is peripherally related to? Far-fetched? Then again, it was the '80s.

In the end, I really felt very little for these characters. I understand what I was supposed to feel -- brothers trapped by family loyalty and their chosen directions in life. Still, I find it very hard to believe that the Russian mafia men hadn't researched Joaquin's character enough to find out who his family was -- he didn't appear to be outwardly hiding anything. Convoluted, maybe? That might be the pervading feeling here.

I did enjoy, however, the relationship between Joaquin and Eva Mendes -- I thought they were developed well, and were quite believable. Still, that wasn't enough to keep me interested. Cardboard characters, typical plot turns (the mafioso father figure turns on Joaquin just as his actual father takes a hit), a horribly flawed ending. It's been compared to The Departed, but it comes nowhere close.

2/5

There Will Be Blood, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson (2007)

NIKKI says:
I know there was a good movie in there somewhere, something stunning and grand, but -- similar to my first viewing of Magnoila -- I didn'y wholly see it.

What I did see, though, was an engrossing story of a man driven by his deepest personal flaws -- the need to be the best, the richest, to outdo everyone and everything. The challenges that wear down his bravado are interesting, compelling, and sometimes devastating to witness (the revelation that Henry is not who he says he is, for instance). The conflict between Plainview and the young preacher, Eli Sunday, is equally compelling. The scenes here that features just the two of them are great. There are so many great moments here, but I don't know that they piece together as well as I wanted them to.

I thought the time shifts were often too abrupt, and much, as far as character motivations and repercussions of certain events, were overlooked or sidestepped. Still, it was a fascinating watch, especially Daniel Day-Lewis, psychotically brilliant as always. It was interesting, too, to see the continued evolution of Paul Thomas Anderson. The direction and cinematography here were both good.

I might need to watch this a few more times, headphones on, face to the TV screen -- I might come to idolize it as with Magnolia.

3/5

Rambo, dir. Sylvester Stallone (2008)

NIKKI says:
"I didn't kill for my country. I killed for myself. And for that, I don't believe God can forgive me."

That Rocky Balboa worked so well, left me with few doubts Stallone would make something effective out of the John Rambo character 20 years on.

The new film is harsh and uncompromising. It's also filled with strong political views aimed at Christian missionaries, gung-ho mercenaries, devastated Myanmar, and, of course, the US government.

It works because it's so uncompromising, because it refuses to be an air-headed action movie. There's no room for popcorn here, and finally Rambo can be viewed as more than just a mulleted '80s action hero. It's clear how much respect Stallone has for the character and his predicament. He knows Rambo, or his version of Rambo, well, and it shows. Rambo is smart and dedicated and he tells it like it is, but Stallone lets him be damaged and bull-headed and not always right. The effects of his training have lasted in terms of his physical capabilities, but also his emotional stress.

Stallone lets all of this out in what is really a simple story. The missionaries wish to get food and medical help to the terrorized Burmese. Rambo warns them against entering such a hostile area, but they feel they know best. Rambo takes them where they wish to go, and the missionaries wind up killed or kidnapped. Now, Rambo must go in and find them. He guides the mercenaries in and becomes a part of their group, intent on saving the missionaries, not because he feels he has to but because Sarah, the wife of one of the missionaries, challenges him early on that he talks a big game, but what does he have to live for? And that while he might know the ravages of Burma enough to warn her away, she knows something about the good in the world, and that true good does exist -- you just can't see it hidden in the jungle beside a war-torn country.

So Rambo has something to prove, in the end. That he's not emotionally dead. And where he ends up at the end of the film is absolutely spot-on where he needed to go. It's a great ending.

If I had one gripe, it would be the lack of detail about the Burmese soldiers and the reasons behind their destruction.

After two new films, I'm wanting Stallone to keep writing. He clearly has something to say. He's a smart, competent writer, and a fearless filmmaker (stories on the set of Rambo with the elephants moving equipment and the bugs and the snakes are reminiscent of Werner Herzog or Coppola on Apocalypse Now). I want him to leave the old characters alone and come up with some new ones.

4/5

STEVE says:
Never been a huge Rambo fan. In fact, 80s Stallone turned me off completely - Over the Top, Cobra, Lock-Up - all that testosterone flying around, someone could get hurt. Not to mention what he did to Rocky, taking a street-tough-made-good and (quite literally) wrapping him in the American flag, turning him into a political icon instead of a symbol of the common man. The Rambo movies just seemed an extension of that philosophy. Where First Blood had a point to make, Rambo II and III were just more of the same flag-waving, might-is-right bullshit that came out of the Reagan era.

Last year's Rocky Balboa marked a comeback for Stallone, as an actor, writer, and director. It brought Rocky full-circle, making it a fitting end to the series. With Rambo, Stallone does the same for his haunted Viet Nam vet, bringing him back to the country that rejected him and - if not outright giving it to him - at least implying a sense of peace. It was really much better than I'd expected.

Although he could have left that red headband at home.

3.5/5

Underdog, dir. Frederick Du Chau (2007)

NIKKI says:
How could it not be cute? I went into this wit a vague recollection of the cartoon, so I wasn't concerned about it living up to anything. It turned out to be one of those movies you can just relax and enjoy because it's sole purpose is to entertain and be way cute.

I found out during the film that it represented the cartoon very well. Underdog's real name was Shoeshine in the movie, and he was a shoeshine boy in the cartoon, that kind of thing. Tossing real humans into the mix only made it better I reckon, as the dogs had people to play off and react to which added to their cuteness and helped shape their humanoid personalities.

The best thing, I reckon, was Jason Lee as the voice of Underdog. He's so funny anyway that throwing his voice into a super cute dog can only work. Underdog, then, had this cheeky charm and a bone-dry humour that really suited him.

I loved it. It's definitely a keeper.

3/5

STEVE says:
I'll admit it, I was not thrilled about watching this one. It seemed to me just another example of something I thoroughly enjoyed in my youth being pillaged for profit. And from Disney, no less. But Underdog surprised me. Sure, the anthropomorphic animals from the cartoon were nixed and replaced by talking dogs with human familiars. But what did it matter that Polly Purebred wasn't a reporter, when her master was? Okay, so it wasn't the original, but the filmmakers definitely took care to preserve the spirit of the original - unlike some other films I could mention.

Lee definitely didn't hurt. His amiable personality shone through and helped make the live action premise easier to swallow. But worth mentioning also - indeed, probably worth the price of the rental - are Peter Dinklage as Simon Barsinister and Patrick Warburton as his sidekick, Cad. Dinklage once again shows that he's one of the best actors around today, even in a silly mad scientist role, and Warburton... well, he's Puddy all over again. And how bad can that be?

3/5

Hitman, dir. Xavier Gens (2007)

NIKKI says:
I was prepared for schlock, and that's what I got. Which isn't to say the movie was entirely intolerable. I kind of liked the whole hitman-becomes-the-hunted thing, and I thought Tim and the girl had some interesting scenes. But it really just was not a good film. It wasn't in the league of an Alone in the Dark, though.

Hmm, it's hard. Knowing nothing of the source material, I went in expecting a big action film possibly in the style of a Bourne Identity or Casino Royale. And, in a way, it reminded me of those films, with its attempt at an espionage-y ploy and a suave leading man who can just beat up everyone and walk away unscathed. But it was hindered, too, possibly in its desire to replicate the game it's based on because while there's some good action, there's very little humour, almost no personality. Tim's character felt more like a robot than a real person, and I don't think that was the point. There were too many stupid moments (seems Tim's hitman is the only one who can shoot straight; he gets around with his barcode on display) to really make this enjoyable.

I read somewhere that sequels are planned. I really hope Tim cuts his losses and escapes now.

1/5

STEVE says:
There has never been a good video game-to-movie adaptation. Ever.

Hitman is no exception.

1/5

Atonement, dir. Joe Wright (2007)

NIKKI says:
I wasn't sure what to expect with this movie as I had such a terrible time with the book a few years ago. My problem, from memory, had much to do with Ian McEwan's style, which I found quite dry and emotionless. I was also disappointed by the sort-of twist ending, something I feel has been done to death -- this happened, no wait, it was really this! -- and, therefore, felt more like an easy way out than an authentic conclusion, no matter how unquestionably sad the "real" ending is.

The movie was better. I was less bored, by any rate. Still, something didn't quite pull together for me. The story is compelling, and critics are right when they talk about how well it unfolds. But, we know the truth from the ery beginning, so it's not suspenseful, it's not a mystery, it's simply a waiting game to see the extent of the pain inflicted on these characters by one's misunderstanding of young romance between opposing classes.

That Briony takes so many years to realise her error and confront it is slightly unrealistic to me. She might be fanciful, but she's still human, and I would think she'd take steps to right her wrongs long before she eventually does. I also think, as with the book, the ending could have been different. I think the conclusion could have taken place in "real" time, with Briony at 18, rather than 70-odd. It could have been done.

Still, a good film, with some issues.

3/5

STEVE says:
Ricky Gervais is doing one of those "lateral thinking" puzzles with his friend Karl Pilkington. He says (and I'm paraphrasing, here), "A man walks into a pool of sharks, hungry, man-eating sharks, and comes out the other side, untouched. How?" Karl wracks his brain: "He's wearing armour?" "No." "He's crossing a bridge?" "No, in the pool with the sharks, soaking wet, comes out the other side." When Karl finally gives up, and asks Ricky what the answer is, Ricky's reply is, "I lied, there were no sharks."

That's how I felt about the end of this movie. If you're going to show me your story, and then tell me you just made that last bit up, but all the rest of it was true, couldn't you just leave the last bit out, maybe?

I was with this movie for the first 48 minutes. Intriguing, suspenseful, well-written and directed. But then we move onto the war scene that goes on and on for something like 25 minutes, only to find that the first 20 or so didn't matter so much. Great cinematography aside, when I have time to notice a Steadicam shot that runs for close to five minutes, my mind is clearly not being held by whatever the scene is meant to convey.

I'm giving it a 3/5, but that's mostly for the first 48 minutes and the promise of what could have been.

Day of the Dead, dir. Steve Miner (2008)

NIKKI says: In George A. Romero's new Diary of the Dead, a student shows his zombie movie to a friend, who chides him: "How many times have I told you? Dead things don’t move that fast."

Good one. I wonder how pissed George was at Steve Miner for using super-fast zombies in a remake of George's own Day of the Dead. He might have been okay with it, actually. Because there's too much other stuff to hate to really worry about that little point.

Why did they do this? Why did Steve Miner do this? And is Mena Suvari really that hard up? This felt like a companion piece to Dead and Deader -- low budget, bad acting, half a script. I couldn't believe I was watching actual actors in some scenes. They felt out of place in such a shlocky piece of work. The make-up was awful, the jump-cuts and swooshy camera moves were derivative and un-scary. None of the major themes ever came to a satisfying conclusion (zombies with memories, the army's use of human guinea pigs).

The whole thing started out crappily but with a tiny bit of promise. Not all the characters were insufferable, and we felt like perhaps we might care about Mena and her family. She was also doing real well in the Kick-Ass-Horror-Chicks stakes, a la Sarah Polley in the Dawn of the Dead remake. But the story, the direction (sorry Steve), and a complete lack of purpose from the entire creative team here, let her down. Way down.

Another shitty remake that does more to kill the genre than keep it alive. And now that we have George himself making socially relevant zombie flicks, why do we need the imitators and copycats at all?

1/5

STEVE says: Okay, so Zombies can run now. Fine, I'm over it. But when the fuck did they gain the ability to crawl on the ceiling?

The original Day of the Dead worked as both an extension of Romero's original idea, and a stand-alone film. This new one works as neither. It's just embarrassing.

1/5

Conversations with Other Women, dir. Hans Canosa (2005)

NIKKI says:

This was a pleasant surprise. We had two movies ready and waiting for tonight, Hitman and the recent Day of the Dead remake. Both would have been good, crappy fun. But both scared us a bit, as good crappy fun the last few nights has turned into SHITTY HORRIBLE LAMENESS.

Instead, we decided to go with something potentially more romantic (being Valentine's Day and all), and the blurb for Conversations made it sound both romantic and a little bit supernatural.

Turns out, I'd misinterpreted the supernatural thing. It's not that the main characters have shared a past life or anything, they've simply shared time together, in their pasts. Makes much more sense now. As much as the film was romantic, too, it was also quite tragic. It revealed some great truths about people and the connections we make when we spend not just time together, but important developmental time together.

The couple here were together as young adults, were married, and spent a lot of time as the centre of each others' world, genuinely in love. Then it went bad, and they stopped seeing each other. Years later, and they are thrown together as part of a wedding ceremony. She's back in the country for one night, and he spends that night trying very hard to get her back. Even though he is seeing someone else, and she's married with kids to another man.

The film is basically one long conversation, and it works very well. It's tense at times, romantic at others. It's quite realistic, never overly sentimental. It was really great to watch a couple on screen that felt like a real couple, that said things you have said, felt things you have felt, without some kind of Hollywood sheen over the top of it all.

And, weirdly, Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart shared believable chemistry -- something I wouldn't have thought possible as she's usually so icy, and he's usually kinda cocky and manly. She really broke him down, and though she was aloof at times, she was never really bitchy. Their connection felt authentic.

I enjoyed this a lot.

3.5/5

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, dir. The Brothers Strause (2007)

STEVE says:
I don't know what depresses me more: a shitty low-budget Indie flick like Pumpkin Karver, or a shitty big-budget studio flick like AvP:R (oh, how trendy). And to think, I said to Nikki only last month, "Surely it can't be worse than the first one."

I don't know what the hell I was thinking. With the exception of Fincher's Alien 3, which I thought was way-cool, the Alien movies have been getting progressively worse with each installment, and Predator 2 was so bad that it strangled the whole franchise to death, sparing us Robert Rodriguez' Predator 3 (a western, if you can buy that). Why should the AvP series be any better?

No question, AvP:R was bad. But it wasn't even So-Bad-It's-Good bad; It was Uwe Bolle bad. There was no material there to have fun with on any level. It picks up where the last one left off, then it's just carnage, carnage, character we don't care much about, more carnage, more cookie-cutter characters, carnage, explosion, end. Fuck me, man - 83 minutes of this shit.

I will never again underestimate Hollywood's contempt for the movie-going public.

0.5/5

NIKKI says:
About three quarters of the way through this movie, Steve quizzed me: "I'll give you a dollar for every character you can name." I thought I'd win quite a bit -- remembering names is my thing. Turns out I could remember only one, and that was because I thought it was stupid. I can't remember any of the other characters at all. Not then, not now.

This was probably the most insipid film I've seen this year. Pumpkin Karver was bad, but you can tell someone tried. This movie just doesn't even care. It serves absolutely no purpose beyond the quick buck. But, it is possible to make that buck with an okay script. I don't get this at all.

Just beyond bad. The worst of the worst.

0.5/5

[Steve also watched Blade Runner again.]

Once, dir. John Carney (2006)

NIKKI says:
They kept telling me this was the movie to see. I'd heard from all over the place -- reviews, ads, friends, best-of lists -- that I would regret passing this by. I wasn't racing out to find it, only because the words "greatest musical film of this generation", or whatever the poster says, immediately made me think PRETENTIOUS, but when I got a preview tape, I couldn't wait to have a look.

And I wasn't disappointed. By no means the best movie ever made, it was still a beautiful thing. Just two people finding each other and bonding over music. Both are living stagnant lives, and through a series of events over a short period, they end up freeing each other. It's just gorgeous to watch how it all comes together -- quietly, poetically, and utterly without pretension.

It's greatest features are its music and its stars. Outspan from The Commitments is in it, and sings all the songs! Price of admission right there!

I loved this one. I got wrapped fully up in it.

4/5

Pumpkin Karver, dir. Robert Mann (2006)

STEVE says:
With a "k". That should have been our first clue that what started out as a promising low-budget slasher flick would soon turn into yet another shitty movie with annoying teens who you can't wait to see killed off.

We called this one early on - turns out it's just another take on the Fight Club gag of the the protagonist being the antagonist - so we spent pretty much 70% of the movie with a "get on with it" attitude, which didn't help.

And I'm sorry but this is a slasher flick, not The Bells of St. Mary's - is it too much to ask for a little nudity anymore? Especially in a movie with actresses named, no kidding, Minka, Mistie, Rachelle, Briana, Amber and Charity? I mean come on!

1/5

NIKKI says:
They become harder and harder to resist, these krazy slasher flicks that some folks make with no money and no talent. I think it's time we stop telling ourselves "never again" and start saying "bring them on!" It's our own form of self-torture, and it's time we embraced it!

Oh god, this was the height of LAME. As soon as the guy with horns started feeling up the pink-bra-ed sister, I knew we were in for something beyond crappy. Good movies just don't start like that. And then the guy sprays beer on the main kid and burps in his face. Well, you just know he'll die, and you have a sneaking suspicion the kid will do it.

We then head to a party a year later complete with sluts, slags, a creepy old man, stoners, and a shitty band. People get wasted, no-one noticing they're missing until too late, the killer never gets so much as a drop of blood on himself, no one sees him ever setting up his elaborate kills, or going mildly insane, talking and screaming to himself.

It's all so convenient, so thrown together in a day or two. And, as Steve lamented, not a single boob. Failure at every level. Here's hoping there's a sequel.

1/5

Running, dir. Steven Hilliard Stern (1979)

NIKKI says:
If nothing else, this movie will go down in history because it inspired Steve and I to finally collaborate on a full-length script. We're nearly 20 pages in, and so far, it's hilarious. I won't go into detail, it's just too good an idea to share!

Running was okay. One of those '70s family drama deals that I simply cannot resist. In this one, running is a metaphor for freedom and Michael Douglas is the runner, who can't seem to control his life -- he is unemployed, signing divorce papers, laughed at by his oldest kid -- but running keeps him contented. So, he decides to enter the Olympics. He figures winning the Olympic marathon will give bring back that lost control.

So, you see, there are more metaphors there than you can poke numerous sticks at. And, in the end, just like Rocky, Michael Douglas learns that perhaps winning isn't everything.

A decent afternoon flick.

3/5

Christine, dir. John Carpenter (1983)

STEVE says:
There's so much wrong with this movie, and it all starts in the opening scene.

Detroit, 1957. Plymouth Furies are rolling off the assembly line to "Bad to the Bone" - a song that wouldn't be recorded for another 22 years by George Thorogood, who - at this time during the movie - was three months shy of his fifth birthday. Surely there was a song from the 50s that could have been used here to imply Christine's inherent evil, no?

During this, one of the workers steps up to Christine, opens her hood and leans down to inspect the work. The hood slams down on his hand, showing us that Christine isn't just alive, but a mean-spirited bitch as well. Okay, she's established. We can move on. But, no! We're then treated to the sight of another worker climbing inside Christine, flicking the radio on and ashing his cigar on her front seat, where he is later found dead. I'm not sure what the point of this second bit was, apart from setting her up as mean and spiteful as well, but that seems silly in light of the hood-chomping bit. We could have used one or the other here, we didn't need both. So five minutes in and Carpenter has already wasted half that time.

Then there are the "teens". They're meant to be about 17 or 18, and most of them were born in '61 or '62, making them only 20 or 21 when the movie was filmed. Still probably got carded at that stage, so Keith Gordon, John Stockwell, Kelly Preston and Alexandra Paul don't stick out. But William Ostrander, who played Buddy Repperton, was closing in on 24 at the time, and not a young-looking 24, either. He could have passed for Stockwell's dad in this. But it's Stuart Charno who tips the scales - born in 1956, he was closing in on 30. There is no excuse - unless they've got the eternal youth of an Emmanuel Lewis or Ellen Page - for casting someone this old to play a high schooler.

It's also rather unclear as to when Arnie became aware that his car was spontaneously regenerating. He's seen fitting her with hubcaps that he'd scavanged from Darnell's junk yard, but Darnell himself points out that Arnie's work is backwards, as he'd fitted the car with new wiper blades, but had yet to repair the windshield. How much of this work was Arnie doing, and how much was due to Christine's regeneration? Halfway through, after she's trashed by Repperton and his pals - why she didn't repair herself before anyone showed up that morning, either, is never explained - she starts to regenerate right before Arnie's eyes. He says, "Show me," and she goes to town, implying that he's just learning of her abilities. But the paint - autumn red - that he apparently used on her hasn't been available for years, implying that she regenerated even that from the beginning. Now he had to know about that, yeah?

There were some good things about it. The performances by Gordon, Stockwell and co. fit perfectly to their stereotype (although Arnie was maybe just too much of a geek for me to believe he's taking shop courses), and Ostrander made a great bully - but might have been better suited to a prison movie or something at the time. The soundtrack that comprised Christine's "voice" was classic, as was Carpenter's score, specifically the "love theme" that sounded just a wee bit like the wedding march. And the lens flares that accompanied Christine's rampages were effective as well.

I want to see it remade. I want to see age-appropriate teens. I want to see the plot-holes filled in, sanded down and painted over.

And I want to see Keith Gordon direct it.

2/5

NIKKI says:
Oh Lord. I admit I was a bit shocked when Steve said he wanted to continue our mini-Stephen King marathon with Christine. First, I felt like I'd just seen it, though we last watched it five years ago. And, second, I was fairly sure we picked out its numerous faults back then, too. But, we went ahead anyway, and were (not surprisingly) disappointed.

This is one of those movies I know all too well. I first watched it as a kid, maybe about 10 or 11, and bits of it are seared into my memory...

Top 3 Things From Christine That Haunted 10-Year-Old Me

1. The excessive use of the word, "cunt": This was the first time I'd ever heard the 'c' word in a movie. I remember just being freaked out by it. I've never, ever heard (or read) the name 'Cunningham' without inserting the 't' in my mind.

2. Roberts Blossom: For the longest time, I thought he was wearing a torn-up straight-jacket. He's just so damn creepy in this, even though he's very much the seer, the voice of reason. Still, he sells Arnie the car, so he's actually too blame for pretty much everything here.

3. The lights turning on down the alley!: What's more scary than that? The car just chasing these punks. She stares and she waits. It's so fucking scary. It's such a pity much of the film isn't great, because some of Carpenter's scares are impressive, even all these years later.

...and those things remain scary and weird to me. But I was less discerning then, and had yet to really understand what an ego-maniac John Carpenter could be, and how bad a director he could be, and just how poorly King translates when key elements of his stories are withdrawn from screenplays. Steve's main pet-peeve here is Arnie's lack of real development from nerdy wiener to Jim Stark-like mini-bohunk who gets the girls and snaps at everyone around him. That's a major oversight here. His affair with Christine lacks punch. She needed him as much as he needed her, and apart from a few tiny moments, we never really get that sense. That deep sense that they belong together for their own reasons.

This is more an easy scare-'em-up picture than a true examination of the effects of nerddom on the weak. Or whatever. The movie is more pick-the-plotholes now, though. Why didn't Christine kill the vandals when they started wrecking her up? Exactly when and how did Arnie learn of her powers? And on.

I like this movie for its cheesy goodness, but hate it for so many other things, too. Still, a bad Keith Gordon movie is still a good night in.

2/5

American Psycho, dir. Mary Harron (2000)

STEVE says:
When I saw American Psycho upon its initial release, I hadn't read the book and knew nothing of the twist ending. I wasn't actually looking forward to seeing it, now that I think about it, because the trailer left me with the impression that Christian Bale was overacting to the point of absurdity, and I didn't know if I could sit through an hour and a half of that.

Of course he was overacting, that was the whole point of the Patrick Bateman character, and I realized it immediately in his interactions with his co-workers. And the twist ending was such a stunner to me that I don't think I fully accepted it until I was walking to my car, long after the credits had rolled.

So it came as a great shock that my friend Claudius (with whom I watched American Psycho tonight) said he picked it four minutes in, when Bateman is telling the barmaid, behind her back, that he's going to kill her.

I see it as inevitable - he's totally insane, never killed anyone, so the threats he makes to people, and the murders we see him perpetrate are all interior monologue and fantasy, something you can only pick up in retrospect. Claude saw it as predictable - that one scene in the very beginning gave it away, and all the murder scenes only served to back it up.

Either way, the movie still holds up to subsequent viewings. The indictment of 80s greed and mass consumption is handled better here than in Wall Street, for example, because it's a subtext and not the driving force. It would be a stretch to call the movie subtle, but I think "predictable" is just as wrong. I don't know if Claude will be watching it again any time in the near future, but I could stand to watch it again. If only for Bale's performance, which I now see not as his overacting, but Bateman's overcompensating.

4/5

Nikki did not view.