I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, dir. Danny Cannon (1998)

STEVE says:

This one sucked from the title on down. I'm wondering if "Last Summer" here refers to the events of the original summer, or the summer that followed. If it's to be taken literally, then "Last Summer" refers to the events that made up the bulk of the original film, and therefore "Still" doesn't really apply because it's a different incident altogether.

However, if it's referring to the events of the original summer, then this movie should be called I Still Know What You Did Two Summers Ago, which is really a mouthful. Still, "Still" doesn't work there, either because, what, you may have forgotten about being run over by four teens and left for dead? I'm thinking probably not.

Here, again, the killer does away with a bunch of people who had nothing to do with his plan for revenge, but does manage to set up an elaborate trap to kill Freddie Prinze which involves a mannequin, another rain slicker and a crashed BMW, yet decides - for reasons passing understanding - not to kill Prinze but his friend instead, and leaves Prinze on the side of the road, unconscious, to be revived and come back in the third act to save the day.

Amazing. Jaw-droppingly idiotic.

1/5

Nikki did not view.

I Know What You Did Last Summer, dir. Jim Gillespie (1997)

STEVE says:

Couple days ago we watched an episode of VH1's Super Secret Movie Rules featuring Slashers. While it tried to go through the "rules" of a slasher film - Sluts Must Die, Loners are Goners, etc. (most of which were covered in Scream, anyway) - it didn't work for me because it went movie by movie instead of rule by rule. You bring up one rule, you can talk about eight, ten movies and how each handled it. Instead, they focused on one movie and how it handled a specific rule. Kind of backwards, but no one asked me.

However, since the movies were presented in chronological order, we got to see an overview of the evolution of the Slasher flick, from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in 1974 to "the beginning of the end for the horror film" (as Joe Bob Briggs put it) with Scream in 1997 to the complete travesty that is the Scary Movie series in the present. It was kinda fascinating.

One of the movies covered in the chronology was, of course, I Know What You Did Last Summer. I saw it in the theatre, and I remembered not hating it. But once again, memory has used me hard and left me bleeding.

There's s plenty to hate about this movie. Kevin Williamson's script, for starters. It's not uber-smart like Dawson's Creek, and it's not clever like Scream. In fact, it's the opposite of both - ultra-dumb and derivative. How many times can the Killer predict where each of our Teen Stars is going to be in order to jump out at them? A lot, it seems. He can also pack a dead body and about a thousand crabs in the back of J. Love's car, and when she runs off for help, remove the body and the crabs in a matter of minutes - in broad daylight. Niiiice! There's also the matter of the Killer wearing this rain slicker all the way through the film, right up to the end where he pops out in Average Joe Wear because we're supposed to not know it's him. It should be noted, too, that Ryan Phillippe is just plain awful as the asshole boyfriend who's first instinct in a crisis is to yell incomprehensibly and grab people by the throat. Not that that's Williamson's fault, I guess, I'm just saying.

I'm left wondering what the moral of the story is, here. These four kids are involved in a hit-and-run, are stalked and killed (along with at least two people who had nothing to do with the hit-and-run whatsoever, but whatever), and don't cop to it in the end, anyway. Where's the acceptance of responsibility? I'm pretty sure that goes against one of the rules, yeah?

1.5/5

NIKKI says:

Wow, does it take me back. To the days of Dawson's Creek and Party of Five and afternoon-long talks on the phone with Deb about Dawson's Creek and Party of Five. Those were the days, too, when Love Hewitt's tight shirt was the height of contemporary sexy. Compared to 10 years later, she may as well be Amish in this.

So, that's about all this movie is needed for today. A flashback to times gone by. To new horror and Love on the music charts. The movie is not at all frightening -- it never really was. And it does very little to advance what appeared at the time to be an advancing genre. At least in a direction away from the norm pre-Scream. But as Kevin Williamson's follow-up to Scream, this needed to be far better than it was. 

I thought Williamson was up on horror, as demonstrated by Scream. But when you look at this, he appears to know very little. People die who needn't, there's very little suspense, and the killer, unlike Jason or Michael, alters his MO when it suits the mood. Faceless black slickered ghoul one minute, nice old man with no black slicker the next, for instance. It just didn't come together well enough to be any kind of memorable piece.

Still nostalgia value gives it a place in our collection. That and Love is hard to throw away. 

2/5

Agency, dir. George Kaczender (1980)

NIKKI says:

At work yesterday, we got this delivery of about 200 of the worst and weirdest DVDs ever. Things like Adam and Evil and Concrete Cowboy. Most of them star people you've never heard of, the DVD cover art is so dodgy, and we're selling them for about four bucks.

Obviously, though, even in a pile of trash like that, Steve and I will find something worth watching. In fact, I bought five. One was Agency, a thriller starring Robert Mitchum and Lee Majors about an ad agency's secret plan to place subliminal imagery in soda and snack commercials in order to influence public political opinion. It's a dastardly idea and it's up to ad-man Majors to figure the plot out and get to the bottom of it.

The movie was full-on '70s cheese, but it was earnest and witty, and I actually thought it was quite good. I would have liked to have seen more on the imagery and less of Majors and Valerie Perrine getting chased around, but that's a small issue. It's one of those movies about technology from a time when the world was only just figuring out how to harness and make use of machines in the best and worst ways, and like Alvin Toffler books, I can always get into that.

2.5/5

Unfinished Sky, dir. Peter Duncan (2007)

NIKKI says:

There's nothing I love more than a good Australian movie. There have been quite a few this year, and Unfinished Sky is definitely among them, if the not the best of the lot. It's been a long time since I've seen a film so wracked with aggression that was also as erotic and emotional as this one. I was worn out by the end, as emotionally ragged as the main characters. The film is so clever and so well-written that as inevitable as much of the story is, it still grips as each revelation is made.

So, it's a remake of a Dutch film called The Polish Bride, which also starred Monic Hendrickx from this version. A sheep farmer, John, in Queensland is going about his solemn day when a woman in a yellow raincoat stumbles towards his house and falls down in the field meters from the front verandah. She's been beaten pretty severely and so he takes her in and cleans her up, resisting an impulse to call an ambulance or the police. He discovers that the woman, Tahmeena, is an illegal Afghani worker hired as cleaner in a local hotel. Her employers are looking for her, and not all seems right. So John keeps her, fixes her up, and attempts to learn about her.

Slowly, but surely, the pair develop feelings for each other. John makes it his mission to seek out Tahmeena's family and get her back to where she needs to be without intervention from anyone else. He must hide her, which arouses suspicion, but he's so far out in the middle of nowhere, he keeps his secret well. And then Tahmeena makes a discovery of her own, and suddenly the mystery surrounding John begins to unravel. We suddenly find out why he reacted so badly when Tahmeena tried to help him finish his massive blue-sky puzzle. (The thematic underpinnings of that puzzle -- oh, makes me want to cry thinking about it.)

These two are so damaged and alone that their coming together, so well-paced and drawn out, is shattering. The writing is exemplary; it's all about looks and touches, and just feels so authentic. There's a scene in which John finds a hair clip and ties Tahmeena's hair back before dinner. He's not doing it on purpose, but the way he sweeps up her hair and clips the little silver thing on is just so sensual. This film is noteworthy especially for the smallest things, the tiniest moments and expressions saying so much.

It was just a great movie. I hope it sweeps the AFIs this year. It deserves to.

4/5

Zombie Strippers, dir. Jay Lee (2008)

NIKKI says: That title alone means there was no way we weren't going to watch it. Zombies and strippers? Someone's been reading our dream journals again!

But how shit was it? Amazingly so. I'll admit to enjoying Jenna Jameson sashaying about covered in blood, but I can't really find anything else to praise about this. A few good bodies, maybe, but most of them were very worked-on. Hmm... but then, what can you do with zombie strippers to make it any good at all?

Here's what this one did: a zombie-bitten soldier stumbles into a strip club and bites Jenna during the second of her dances (she does about five in all). Jenna then dances while zombified and steals a dude to take out the back for a lap dance of a very special kind. The patrons love the zombie strippers and start ignoring the non-zombie strippers. The boss of the club sees his opportunity and kind of revels in all his ladies turning into the undead. Of course, the soldier's party comes to claim him and end up having to sweep the club of it's moral filth!

So, a loose plot wrapped around a lot of soft-core dancing, and even some fun with ping-pong balls (and a billiard ball -- how does Jenna do it, why does she do it?). If the chicks were less plastic, I might have been able to ignore the bad plotting. It had some crazy moments, some funny bits, and a really good effect of a stripper snapping a guys head in half by opening his mouth to wide. Otherwise, it was lame.

1.5/5

STEVE says: Hang on - Zombies and strippers? That's two great tastes that taste great together! How did it go so wrong?

Too much stripping, that's how. Never thought that could be a problem, but yes. The first half of the movie is heavy on the Strippers, light on the Zombies.

What's wrong with that?, I hear you ask. Well, I don't want to watch a video of someone stripping. Stripping is meant to be live and, pardon the imagery, in-your-face. Video is fine for full-on porn. It's what video was invented for. But watching these women strip on TV is about as enticing as disrobing a Barbie doll. Sure, there's nudity - but what are you going to do with it?

There's a lot of philosophy thrown about at random, some war metaphors, fake boobs and bad CGI effects. (Although the practical effects were pretty cool.) Nothing I haven't seen done before, and done better.

On the up-side, I never knew Robert Englund could be so funny. As a card-carrying member of the NRA, Englund pulls out a cache of guns when the Zombie onslaught finally gets under way, and admits he has no idea how to fire any of them. "Well, um... Something about the safety being off. Saw that in a movie." When he's later disarmed by an awkward swipe from a Zombie Stripper, he giggles like a nervous little girl and says, "Do I suck, or what?" Ironically, he's the only thing about Zombie Strippers that doesn't.

1.5/5

Chaos Theory, dir. Marcos Siega (2007)

NIKKI says:

I loved the concept of this one, about living life by chance, ignoring structure and safety and just letting chaos take over. And it's really well done here. The script is good, if a little unfinished, and the light-hearted nature of the film lets us enjoy experiencing what Ryan Reynolds is experiencing even though it's tearing him apart and might do to us too if we considered the effects of structured living in our lives. Ugh -- scary thought.

So, Ryan plays an efficiency expert who lives for list-making. Every moment of his day is set out, every minor and major choice in life planned in advance. One day, his wife decides to put a stop to it all and sets his clock forward. Only she sets it backwards by mistake so instead of giving him more time, she's taken time away, and this throws Ryan's life into chaos. He misses his boat, doesn't get to work on time, meets a woman and flirts with her, walks away from the woman and ends up crashing his car into another woman about to give birth. Circumstances turn so that his wife finds out all of this, and she boots him out. But the entire night of weirdness sets him on a path to discovery about his own life and how things in it are not as he thought. 

It's a bit tragic what he goes through, but it's all for a good reason. The movie asks all those standard questions -- who are we, what is love, what is trust -- and it does it so matter-of-factly that you've got to respect it for not wallowing where it could wallow. Life, according to the movie, really does just happen, and we have no control whatsoever.

Ryan Reynolds is so my favourite actor right now, too. Can we get him in everything?

3.5/5

STEVE says:

Reynolds is becoming the new Hugh Grant, the go-to guy for romantic comedies. This one was good. I liked the premise, but it was pretty clear that Stuart Townsend was doing to have a bigger part than it seems at first. Timothy Hutton Syndrome strikes again.

The deal is, after a series of mishaps (outlined above), Reynolds helps a pregnant woman get to the hospital. His wife, Emily Mortimer, finds out about this and immediately jumps to conclusions, so Reynolds has to get a blood test to prove the baby isn't his. Turns out, he has an extra X chromosome, which means he's been sterile since birth. Yet there's this seven-year-old daughter at home...

Exactly. The accuser becomes the accused.  Turns out, though, Mortimer and Townsend were together the week before she began her whirlwind romance with Reynolds, so there was no cheating involved. So what's all this talk of "forgiving her", then? She didn't lie about the child's paternity - she didn't know. But that's about the only thing that bugged me. That and the bookends which seemed only to add another ten minutes to the running time and absolutely nothing to the story in general. Overall, quite good.

3/5

Inland Empire, dir. David Lynch (2006)

STEVE says:

Never one for straightforward storytelling, David Lynch seems to have abandoned the concept altogether and just filmed a stream of consciousness nightmare of random, increasingly bizarre images that culminate in a final act of violence that resolves nothing.

And what the hell was up with the bunnies?

I've always liked Lynch. Even if I didn't particularly enjoy one of his movies (Wild at Heart and Lost Highway, for example), I could appreciate Lynch as a storyteller. But with Inland Empire, he seems to want to keep the audience at arm's length, to the point of alienating them altogether. It took an hour for anything in Inland Empire to grab my interest, and as soon as it did, Lynch shifted gears and moved away. Well, fuck you, too.

Lynch has stated previously that he hates it when a mystery is solved. My advice to him would be to Stop Making Mysteries.

.5/5

Moonstruck, dir. Norman Jewison (1987)

NIKKI says:

Another experience reminiscent of Heartburn -- a movie I remember really enjoying but on revisit didn't really understand. I realise it's about families and love and the choices we make, but I didn't really feel connected to anyone. I knew why Cher didn't want to marry Danny Aiello, but I didn't really know what led her into bed with Nicolas Cage? Maybe I missed something? I know it's just supposed to be a cute little movie about people driven by need and contemplating their time left and how best to spend it and all that, but I just didn't get it. I especially hated the end when all was just okay after everyone had cheated on everyone else.

I read some reviews after watching this and people talk about how light and fluffy the movie is and now Italian it is and how it represents a lost New York. Well, I don't know if such harsh themes can be treated so lightly, maybe? Or am I just a huge cynic?

2/5

Destination Anywhere, dir. Mark Pellington (1997)

NIKKI says:

This was a great revisit for the night. It's still got the same kick it had when it came out. I was a bit infatuated with it when it was released. I'd never seen anything like it before -- a short film based on an album, starring the artist, and all that. It's a gorgeous piece of work, artistically stunning and really kinda powerful in its way.

It looks so good because of Mark Pellington who shoots dirty backstreets like they're the entrance to a child's birthday party. The grit and grime of Chelsea nights is in full view, but it's colourful and vibrant. Pellington did the same thing in Bruce's "Lonesome Day" video, making the ripped up, black heart of Asbury Park a rainbow again. I don't know how he does it, but especially here it adds a strange contrast to the work; these awful things going on with this backdrop of colour.

The gist is this: Jon and Janey are falling apart following the hit and run death of their little daughter. He runs off on benders leaving her alone to work long hours and drink herself insane. The movie begins with Jon returning home after one of those benders. We come to know straight away why he runs away -- Janey is draining, killing her pain and taking it all out on everyone else. Jon runs again. He gets advice from his friends, and winds up on yet another night away involving drink and strippers. He's killing the pain in his way, and we know it's not working. So, the movie is about how these two reconnect. 

Meanwhile, a baby is dumped in the trash. Janey works at the hospital where the baby is being kept. And she makes a decision to finally be free of her pain that is tragic and horrifying, but strangely perfect for this couple.

It's a heavy film, full of lost-soul imagery and death, and it offers redemption to its characters in difficult ways. I think it's really brave. Jon and Demi are just so great, too.

4/5

Shaun of the Dead, dir. Edgar Wright (2004)

Reservation Road, dir. Terry George (2007)

NIKKI says: 

I knew it was going to be painful, and it was exactly that -- dreary, depressing, like watching someone drink themselves to death. In a way, though, that was a good thing. I'm glad that no sort of superficial hope came from the son's death. It didn't impact anyone in a positive way, which happens so much in movies. Here, a kid died, and someone had to pay, and they did.

I didn't enjoy it it as much as the book, obviously because things were skipped over or handled differently. I'm glad they cut out the severe injuries to Mark Ruffalo's character's son, that never sat well with me. I thought Joaquin Phoenix was amazing. I have difficulty watching him at the best of times because I still see him as Gary Buchman and always think of his brother when watch him. Still, he proves himself over and over. He's so good to watch. And it was nice to hear Rain Phoenix singing at the end, too.

I liked this movie as much as you can like something so tragic. But man do you need a pick me up after it. 

3/5

Heartburn, dir. Mike Nichols (1986)

STEVE says:

There's something to be said for not revisiting movies you reckon are really good.

I saw this years ago, like when it first came out on vhs, and I remembered it as being this heart-wrenching portrait of a storybook-romance-gone-bad. Turns out, it's nothing more than Nora Ephron slinging shit at Carl Bernstein for an hour and a half.

Streep and Nicholson - as Rachel and Mark - meet at a wedding, which is just too poetic not to be clever. She's told flat out by several friends that he's single. Famously single. He's made a career of it. Mark is to single as Bill Gates is to Microsoft. So we're clear: Mark Enjoys Sleeping Around.

Fifteen minutes later, they're married. Another 10 minutes, they have a two-year-old and another baby on the way, Mark's making late-night runs for "socks", and it's all downhill from there. The bulk of the film is about the relationship falling apart, but we never actually got to see it build, so why should we care?

Mark is given the short end, here, played as the no-good philandering husband who cheats because, you know, That's What Men Do. I'm not excusing his infidelity, but surely there was a reason for it beyond this one-dimensional stereotype, yeah? I'm just saying.

2.5/5

NIKKI says:

I'm with Steve here in that I remember this one being so much better. I enjoyed the book years ago, and remember seeing the movie before that. My only real memory of it was Nora Ephron's "character" being a bit of a cow. I just felt that she didn't know how to get out of her own way and enjoy life. She seemed to blame much on "men", in general, rather than just her man. That wasn't explored too fully here, but Jack did cheat on her and we never really got a sense of why he made that choice. That was the main issue with this movie -- it was all her point of view, and fair enough if the movie is about her, but we're going to be better informed about the decisions she makes if we know a bit about his.

Very disappointed.

2/5

Coffee and Cigarettes, dir. Jim Jarmusch (2003)

NIKKI says:

I kinda made a joke after watching this that I felt like one of two things... and, you know, coffee's not a forbidden luxury over this way. Man, did I need a cigarette. 

The film is about moments shared over coffee and smokes. Smokes are discussed in good ways and bad, as romantic (Paris in the '20s) and unhealthy (nicotine's use as an insecticide). The movie takes a sharp look at addiction and human impulse. I liked the style, I liked the writing (particularly the Bill Murray segment). And I spent much of the movie thinking about smoking: why I did it, why I'd keep doing it, why it makes a person so happy. It's not about pheromones and brain mutations, I decided, or whatever is supposed to make a smoker addicted. It's about comfort. It's about the singular space you're in when you smoke. The intimacy of it. The power. It's sorta sexual, too: you're mouth's involved, you're sucking, you're blowing, there's fire, you're feeling amazing, you know you shouldn't but you really want to... 

Some of the greatest moments in my life are usually capped by a smoke. When I think about America with Ashley, we always mention the smoking, and she didn't light up once. I think about scouting 7/11 stores for menthols at 2am finding success at the Braddock Rd gas station; and when Ashley and I walked about 25 blocks just for Denny's waffles and she pondered the necessity of the smoking section at the restaurant by saying: "Well, no one comes here to not smoke."

I think about clubs with Deb and Brendan, when in one of our first outings together Brendan taught us how to smoke with the cigarette lit-end in our mouths and how while practising we accidentally smoked about 30 cigs between us. I remember how I gave up smoking in Year 12 for a guy only to start again a year later in order to properly bond with Deb at uni. I remember the first time I ever smoked, at Rowena's farmhouse with Trish when I was 15: Winnie Blues. We were so cool, though I later thought that if I changed to PJ Ones, it would be more healthy.

They're not all good memories, though. I tried to kick the addiction for good pretty much throughout my entire 20s. I had some highs and lows, and, if I think about it, again the significant moments in my life -- this time not too good moments -- were because of cigarettes. I think about my clandestine relationship with the smoke. Running and hiding to have one, relishing moments alone to smoke, carrying Impulse around in my bag to spray in my hair, mints to clear my breath, and knowing it never worked. I would smoke in the shower -- that's how hopeless I was at one point. I'd smoke two or three in quick succession just because I knew I might not get another chance. I smoked more trying not to smoke than I ever did as an actual smoker! And I used my cigarettes as my saviour when I wasted a year's worth of evenings as a delivery girl on a pittance wage. I barely made it out of that job alive, and I credit cigarettes for keeping me somewhat sane. 

But I managed to quit. Or, at least to stop. I'm a bit like Tom Waits in this movie -- I've quit, so it's okay to have one. That's not going to make sense to many people, but I almost cried when he said it, because it's absolutely true. There's a difference between addiction and just feeling like having one. We do so many things every day that are dangerous or unhealthy, but we do them anyway out of convenience, impatience, laziness. We eat terribly, we drive too fast, drink too much. How much consideration do we give to that extra bag of chips, that extra five kms, the extra bourbon? Are we suffering addictions to those things, too? Now, after 14 years, I don't feel the pull of the cigarette. I don't have that drive to smoke. I don't feel like I'll die without them. I don't immediately correlate anger or fear with smoking to calm down. I've reprogrammed, and I feel better, mentally and physically healthier, and less stressed.  

But there are those days, man, when the only thing that will satisfy is that suck and blow, and I've quit, so what would it hurt?

3/5

STEVE says:

Watching a Jim Jarmusch film, to me, is like watching the freshly painted Mona Lisa dry: It's beautiful, but it's still just paint, innit?

Most of the stories here were not stories at all, just people sitting around talking about - say it with me - coffee and cigarettes, and the pros and cons thereof. Some were good; Cousins with Cate Blanchett in a double role was interesting, an investigation of family ties and the perception of class distinction. Coincidentally, Cousins? with Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan was also very good, Molina trying to convince an unimpressed Coogan that they're cousins, only to have Coogan change his tune when he learns that Molina might be able to get him in good with director Spike Jonze. Otherwise, we're just looking at people sit and drink and smoke for five to ten minutes, and how interesting can that really be?

2.5/5

Superman: Doomsday, dir. Lauren Montgomery, Bruce Timm and Brandon Vietti (2007)

STEVE says:

Kevin Smith's whoredom knows no bounds. He shows up in this animated flick to deliver a single line, and hence finally have his name connected with a Superman title (credited as "Grumpy Man"), no matter how pointless.

Remember when Superman Returns came out, and Smith was all, "We don't need anymore Superman movies, Superman II was great, it should have ended there," and so on? Forgetting, apparently, or hoping that we'd forgotten, that'd he'd written a script called Superman Lives, which was rejected. If you listen to Smith, he'll tell you it was Jon Peters who fucked it up by insisting on some cuddly R2-D2 style character that could be marketed toward the kids, but I think it had more to do with trying to import characters from Clerks into the Superman universe: Governor Caitlin Bree, General Rick Derris... What a cock.

Anyway, his appearance notwithstanding (distracting though it was), Superman: Doomsday was pretty good. I'd never read the comic, so I can't make a comparison, which is probably just as well, but I did find it kind of violent for a Superman title. Maybe he's trying to compete with Batman these days.

3/5

Nikki did not view.

Five Corners, dir. Tony Bill (1987)

NIKKI says:

Somehow -- I know it's weird considering the era, the stars, and the subject matter -- I had never heard of this film until last night. Apparently, I selected it from BigPond Flicks, but I don't remember doing that either. Still, there's a first time for everything, right? 

I didn't love it. It's like, as Steve suggested, a Bronx version of American Graffiti in which we meet small groups of desperate teenagers and watch them turn their lives upside down over a period of only a night or two. It's supposed to reflect a generation, and perhaps it does that (I'm as far removed from Bronx life in the '64 as I was from Modesto teen-hood in '62 so how would I really know?), but it doesn't offer that much in the way of whys and what-fors. Some strange characters interact, shit hits the fan gruesomely and dramatically, but not all the characters figure in to the main thread of the story which leaves me wondering why they were there in the first place.

John Turturro plays Heinz, a young man released from prison who returns to his old neighbourhood. He's clearly a little odd, and we get the impression that something is boiling in him. Enter Linda and Harry, the girl Heinz tries to rape and the guy who she uses as protection from him now that he's out and about. There's also Jamie in the mix, though, who suffered a permanent limp trying to help Linda during her attack, and loves her very much. The four will end up in a horrible place by the film's end, due mainly to Heinz's sociopathy.

But, while all this is going on, there's a another group of kids we're meeting and getting to know. Two girls, high on glue, are travelling around with the boyfriend of one who gets so sick of their high giggling that he sells them to two random vandals on the street (one of which is played by beautiful and tragic Rodney Harvey). The girls wake up naked and confused the next morning in a strange apartment. The two guys, though, are twisted but really nice, and they take the girls out bowling and playing in elevator shafts. Interesting though they may be, they have very little to do with the Heinz story, so their eventual fading out of the picture really makes no sense. Why were they there?

Still, it was interesting to watch this moody take on life in '64 for these particular people. The whole thing gets uber-gritty at the end and reminded me of Boulevard Nights and Bad Boys. Those two movies were among my favourites growing up. There was nothing, at one time in my life, I didn't eat up more than tragic stories of tragic teens in blue and black-tinged run down backstreets of America. Now, however, I might be expecting more from my teen-sploitation pieces.

2.5/5

STEVE says:

This has to be one of the worst DVD treatments ever. It was like they'd taken a 20 year old vhs tape and transferred it directly to DVD. The movie was so dark, you couldn't see what was going on most of the time - which was a bitch because most of the story took place at night - and the daylight scenes were so faded and muddy, it was like trying to watch it through chocolate milk.

This careless transfer definitely had an effect on my viewing experience, but I argue that it still wouldn't have been a very good movie, anyway, for the same reasons Nikki mentioned. But at least I wouldn't have been so annoyed by it in the end if I could at least have seen what was happening.

2/5

Made of Honour, dir. Paul Weiland (2008)

NIKKI says:

Wow, lame doesn't even begin to describe this one. Lame might not be the word, though... let's try soulless and derivative and everything that's wrong with contemporary American cinema made for the female demographic. That's more than one word, but you get the idea. 

You know, I can do harmless rom-com. I was more than happy to watch James Marsden sweep Katherine Heigl off her feet in 27 Dresses, and I didn't mind at all when Hugh Grant was sweeping varied actresses of their feet all throughout the '90s. If we look at those movies, each succeeded, possibly, because they took the cliches and smartened them up -- added some drama, at least tried to say something about the beauty and, sometimes, banality of love. Four Weddings jumps to mind, and Notting Hill. I'm even thinking of My Best Friend's Wedding, which I kind of hate but have to give props to for the scene in the women's toilets when Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz square off, and later when Julia sits alone comforted only by a cigarette. Amid a standard, cliched romance were these moment of real truth.

This movie, though, takes all available rom-com cliches and wears them like bling. There's the womanising guy with a womanising father who finally decides his best girl friend is the woman he wants to be with and somehow he can just drop his evil ways when he decides to pursue her, but uh-oh she's suddenly engaged. Now, he has to wreck her marriage, prove his love to her, and live happily ever after. So, as expected, her new beau starts out wonderfully -- he's smart, athletic, and super-rich. But when we want Patrick to win her over, he becomes dull, with a lame family who eats haggis and it's apparently okay for us to start not liking him. But never did I not like him. He was far better for the girl than Patrick, who spent a decade sleazing around with every chick he sees.

That guy is supposed to redeem himself, and the girl is supposed to fall for it all so quickly. How does that happen? How is that realistic? Oh wait, it's not. It's a cardboard reality where everything is just so straightforward. Add to the mix a lot of sexist gags, fat jokes, overused and out of place slapstick and you just have a perfect mess.

You know, I realised I was hating it when Patrick and Michelle Monaghan had about their eighth cutesy conversation in the beginning about muffins. Oh my god, the writing was so fake and unrealistic. "They're laughing about cakes, they are so going to fall in love!" Vomit.

1.5/5

STEVE says:

Reading over Nikki's thoughts here, I'm reminded just how similar this movie is to the equally-abysmal My Best Friend's Wedding.

In both films, the lead characters, Dempsey and Roberts, realize too late that they're in love with their best friend, and each try to ruin said best friend's wedding under the guise of Maid of Honour. The only difference being that Roberts gives up (or grows up) and accepts that Dermot Mulroney will indeed marry Cameron Diaz, whereas Patrick Dempsey keeps up the fight until Michelle Monaghan relents and leaves Kevin McKidd at the altar.

Made of Honour switched the genders and changed the ending. It's Some Kind of Wonderful to My Best Friend's Wedding's Pretty in Pink. Add that to its list of Crimes Against Originality.

1.5/5

Donnie Darko, dir. Richard Kelly (2001)

Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy, dir. Kelly Makin (1996)

The Room, dir. Erik Lieshout and Rutger Hauer (2001)

NIKKI says:

A really interesting meditation on life and death starring Rutger Hauer and Rutger Hauer's twin who's 30 years younger than him. Did they clone Rutger Hauer for this? Couldn't they have cloned another one for the Hitcher remake?

It's about a man, Harry, who talks to us about this room he used to see when he was young. He could only see inside it a little way, he could see books and hear the music playing inside. When he gets older and looks for a place to settle, he ends up in the room, but now it's empty. He talks about his life, his loves, his experiences, always tying them back to the room, and its enticements. How he comes to view the room in the end is poetic and highly moving.

Rutger Hauer and his clone, Mattijn Hartemink:

To see Rutger Hauer, this juggernaut of a man, sit and reservedly discuss the end of his life is just fascinating. The film is beautifully shot, the tale told fully and intensely in less than 10 minutes.

4/5

China Lake, dir. Robert Harmon (1983)

NIKKI says: Oh my holy fucking GOD. Where the hell did this little movie come from? It may just have become my favourite short film. We watched it at about three in the morning, and it was just the perfect atmosphere for the kind of random horror Charles Napier spreads over the countryside.

This opens with Napier's cop character revealed as on holiday. Then we see him in uniform, pulling over a woman and asking her to take a sobriety test. She is clearly sober. And then things just turn weird. There's no real violence, just stuff that happens that will make your skin crawl right off your body.

It's just a tight little movie about a deranged cop going a bit mad while taking some time off. Could be a metaphor for how we all feel crunched up in reality, and needing a bit of free-wheeling now and again. Not that we all go to these extremes, of course.

The other great thing about this movie is the photography. Apparently, it was made to showcase Robert Harmon's abilities as a cinematographer, and man does it do his all kinds of justice. The film is beautiful, and if he made it about something so awful to contradict the calming landscape, then he's even more of a genius than I thought. Weird he didn't go on to do more in this field. Stil, perfect little movie. And Charles Napier should be damn proud of himself for playing one of the most evil men in film history. You rock, Charles Napier!

4.5/5

[Steve also watched The Dark Knight again.]

Vanishing Point, dir. Richard C. Sarafian (2001)

NIKKI says:

So, this is what Death Proof wanted to be? Maybe, something like that? All I remember is the girls in that movie talked about car in this movie like it was some kind of gift from the Gods. Oooh, the white car from that movie no one's heard of! We're so cool that we know that! Unless of course this movie is way more well known than I'm figuring it is. Quite possibly. Anyway, had Quentin modelled his pic a bit more on this pic, it might not sit at the very top of my Most Disappointing Movies of All Time list.

This was a bit like Easy Rider, in that I felt it was very much a comment on the times. Man on a mission through 1970s intolerance, hippie-dom, the techno-boom, the post-Kennedy police state, racism, fascism, sexism, all the good stuff. It's quite a good film, a slow and steady rumble through the jungle and I really found myself enthralled. I wanted the guy to get to San Francisco so damn badly because it meant I could get where I wanted to go too regardless of the roadblocks. But this is not that movie. Still, I'm very pleased to have discovered it.

Well played, Death Proof.

3.5/5

Horton Hears a Who!, dir. Jimmy Hayward & Steve Martino (2008)

NIKKI says:

It was a last minute decision arrived upon after our selected movie (The Alibi) had some sound issues that meant Rebecca Romijn wasn't really speaking her lines but mumbling as though in the middle of a large mouthful. 

I had high hopes for Horton. I read the book as a kid, and have always loved the Seuss-ian Whos. They're pretty much the cutest things ever. It's a sweet story, and deserves to have it's adorable (and ever-timely) message out into the world, and this movie is the perfect vehicle for that. I loved it. Shoot it right to the top of the best-of-2008 list. Finally, there's something there that's not a horror flick.

There's not that much else to say here. Everyone knows the story, everyone knows the big-name actors involved. Everyone is reliable, the story is extremely faithful to its source, and the animation is some of the most realistic I've ever seen. The field of pink clover and the water in Horton bathing pond were especially remarkable. How do they do that? The details in this were amazing, especially in Whoville where every inch of the screen was filled with something interesting. The care taken here shows. I've not been so impressed by an animated film for ages.

(Losing half a point because I still think Kangaroo gets off too easy!) 

4.5/5

The Dark Knight, dir. Christopher Nolan (2008)

STEVE says:

I thought Tim Burton's Batman was dark. I mean, compared to Adam West's camp comedy and Joel Schumacher's neon-loaded glam-fests, of course it was. But Christopher Nolan's new movie makes Burton's look like a little girl.

Even compared to Nolan's own Batman Begins, The Dark Knight has upped the darkness quotient. It's got a whole different feel to it. More realistic. Like it's, for once, not a comic book movie, but a movie set in the real world, of which Batman happens to be a part. Like Heat with a superhero.

But nobody's talking about the production design, or how good Chicago looked doubling for Gotham. It's all the Joker. So let's get this out of the way.

Heath Ledger was good. Very good. Different from the Joker of days past - no César Romero, this guy, and definitely (let's be very clear about this) better than Nicholson's portrayal where he showed up and, basically, gave us Jack Nicholson in white-face. Ledger took the Joker to a whole new level of dark, playing him as an anarchist instead of insane. Deeply psychotic, still, but the anarchist thing was new. So, having said that, let me say this:

Wasn't he really just doing Christian Slater?

Everybody's talking about how he channelled Jack Nicholson, but I just don't see it. First of all, you put those two performances side-by-side, and Nicholson comes off as a try-hard, playing a thug with a grudge - which is all the script really allowed for him, to be fair. But I don't see any Nicholson in Ledger's performance. If anything, it's Slater he's channelling, from Heathers.In that movie, Slater's Jason Dean was a deeply psychotic anarchist who wanted to destroy the school and everyone in it just for the sake of doing it. Ledger's Joker really isn't that far removed. Sure, there were Slater/Nicholson comparisons when Heathers hit the screens, and they weren't inappropriate. But can we please, for the love of God, stop rolling out "Nicholson" every time someone does something brilliant in a movie, huh?

4/5

I Know Who Killed Me, dir. Craig Sivertson (2007)

NIKKI says:

Doesn't that poster look like the cover of a Virginia Andrews novel? That is so Flowers in the Attic over there, and, you know, I probably would have cut this movie some slack had it in fact been based on a Virginia Andrews book. Such heavy-handed imagery, the discovery of -- gasp -- a twin, and some parental mischievery are staples of her books, and thus somewhat enjoyable (okay, maybe when I was 10). And V.C. would never have had Lindsay strip, so we would have been spared that had she been behind this.

Alas, somebody else penned the flick, and his less competent friend directed it. So, instead of being purposefully melodramatic, this is actually just bad. But Lindsay ends up with missing limbs and the reasons behind that have to be seen to be believed. I've been recommending this one at the shop at just that -- it's so bad, you have to watch it. It makes very little sense, it discards characters left and right, it resists explaining anything at all -- like why the piano teacher has limbs hanging from his ceiling -- and it not so much hits you over the head with its red means this and blue means that colour imagery than rapes you with it and then whacks your ravaged body with a blunt shiv.

Oh Lindsay.

1/5

The Deliberate Stranger, dir. Marvin J. Chomsky (1986)

NIKKI says:

You know, I really didn't think Mark Harmon could pull it off. But, even without really showing him being abusive and violent until the end, he was, in this movie, downright freaky. He didn't play it freakily, he didn't channel Ted Bundy in any noticeable way. He just had that look about him, that perfect balance of normal guy and sociopath. He did exactly what he needed to do here -- play it straight, with that edge of terror. Mad props, as the kids say, to Mark Harmon.

Incidentally, my co-worker Steph told me the day we watched this that she planned to go to America and marry Mark Harmon so she could become famous. Yeah, I don't get it either. And, incidentally again, Mark Harmon is married to Pam Dawber and is about to turn 57. What?!

For a three-hour telemovie, this moved surprisingly fast. It steadily crafted the story of this up and coming young politician with a secret life as a mad killer. It resisted exploitation, and genuinely tried to tell the story smartly and interestingly. Granted, there were too many times characters longing wished for Ted's "kind of future" that made us cringe a bit, but for the most part, this was very good. And it was filled with a million and one faces from the '80s that we could sit and point out. That was fun.

Oh, Ted Bundy. Has there ever been a stranger incident of sociopathy? There've been more depraved and weird killers, but did any lead the sort of life Ted did? He's a case unto himself, I reckon. And while Dahmer and Gacy did some horrific things, Ted's the guy who gives me nightmares. I've gone home with cute, smart strangers myself. I've helped them out of jams. Who hasn't? It's because of Ted, too, I think, that I'm convinced everyone has a secret life of crime.

Anyway... good movie. Great work from Mark Harmon, but no awards. I may need to go start a Facebook petition to get Mark a retrospective Emmy nomination for this. Now, there's a crime.

3.5/5