3 perfect actors

I’ve been thinking of actors who I love to watch on screen and whittled a list down to three perfect actors. What I mean by perfect is that they take roles and are dead on 100% of their roles (even if the movie is mediocre, they are still good). Or, they make so few movies that every time they are in one, it’s an event. I have to see these people’s films and I’m eagerly waiting the moment they step into the camera frame. There were a lot of people who came close, and I thought about men and women (Jennifer Jason Leigh and Maggie Gyllenhaal were the closest women but JJL has been too erratic recently and MG hasn’t made enough movies) who might fit into the category, but came up with three people: Daniel Day-Lewis, Don Cheadle and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

First of all, these three actors are blessed with unbelievable screen chemistry. Some people have that but most do not. What makes these three great is they are not only electric on screen but can act their arses off in anything they do, regardless of what they choose, although it’s mostly drama. Cheadle and Hoffman have done fine comedic work, unlike Day-Lewis.

I revere Daniel Day-Lewis. He’s the finest film actor since Robert De Niro had his glorious run in the 1970s and early 1980s. His commitment to a role is legendary, and I must admit his zealous approach to each character is something I admire and respect. Some of DDL’s more notorious preparation includes living in the woods for months and eating animals shot with a musket (The Last of the Mohicans); building a house and working with period tools from the 17^th century (The Crucible) and hiring hoodlums to scream abuse and douse him water for 48 hours to help recreate prison torture scenes (In the Name of the Father). The fact that he’s made only 8 movies in 18 years makes his films important events to my movie watching plans. In 2008, he’s in the lead role in Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest There Will Be Blood, and I’m frothing at the mouth waiting to see it. Who knows what he did to prepare for it and when he’ll make another movie?

Don Cheadle is someone who takes on more roles in 2 years than Day-Lewis will attempt in a decade. I can’t think of a single one of his performances that aren’t worth watching. Cheadle radiates a lot of qualities to the audience—warmth, charm, menace, complexity and humor. He can truly morph into any sort of individual he wants to. I tend to gravitate to character actors and I admire the fact that Cheadle does not have to be the lead actor to sculpt a memorable character. In film after film he’s played important character roles and usually it’s his character you wish you’d see more of. Of course, he can also play the lead, as he’s done in Hotel Rwanda and hopefully more films in the future. Every time I see the trailer for Talk to Me with Cheadle as an ex-con DJ in the 1970s I can hardly wait to see it. I’d like to see him do more comedy and a romantic lead would be interesting to see but I’m going to complain since I’ve put him into the top 3 of favorite actors.

Philip Seymour Hoffman can do anything he wants. Drama, comedy, theatre, film. Whatever it is, he excels in the role. What always strikes me about PSH is that he has unreal timing and is always aware of the physicality of a particular character. Watch how he moves or uses his body in space while on screen and it is almost as impressive as the other things he does for a character. I also think he’s a gifted physical comedian when he’s gotten the chance to show that side. Like Day-Lewis and Cheadle, I’ll watch Hoffman mop a floor for 2 hours and be enthralled with the way he works. The next year is going to be a big, big year for Hoffman as he’s in four high profile films directed by or starring Sidney Lumet, Mike Nichols, Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep and Charlie Kaufman. It’s going to be a good year for us PSH fans.

Funny Ha Ha

I was skeptical that I’d like Funny Ha Ha (2002) when it started. Right out of the gate it’s got Slacker knock off written all over it as we see 20 somethings meandering around, getting into half drunken, inarticulate conversations about boys and other late night meaningless conversations, all filmed with a super low budget aesthetic. But, surprisingly, I was quickly drawn into this film and by the end found it very charming.

Writer/director/actor Andrew Bujalski’s debut film really doesn’t have a story. It just follows the 23-year-old Marny (Kate Dollenmayer) as she drifts from temp job to temp job, has a variety of confusing encounters with boys and tries to improve her life. That’s it. Funny Ha Ha is Marny sitting around talking with friends at parties, her apartment or the temp jobs so don’t expect more action than that.

That was enough story for me. Bujalski’s characters are exasperating, awkward, confused about their future and put out by life—sort of how you are supposed to be at 23. At least that’s how I was at 23. I had no clue just what in the world was going to happen to me in the future and that is both exciting and frustrating as you are living it. Funny Ha Ha drowns itself in that early 20s malaise that effects some of us.

Another reason I was charmed by Funny Ha Ha, is the great, natural performance of Dollenmayer as Marny. I’m not sure if Dollenmayer was acting or just sort of playing herself but she’s great in this. If she wasn’t so believable (and cute) as the confused Marny, the film wouldn’t have been as enjoyable to me.

I have a feeling Funny Ha Ha is either one you really like or can’t stand. It’s just not a sit on the fence kind of movie. I liked it. I liked it a lot. I even enjoyed the painful, awkward moments, because that’s what I felt like when I was in my early 20s.

More posts planned

I am hoping to post more on CineRobot. I've finally won a long running battle to finish my Master's degree and that has created a pocket of time I need to fill. I want to think and write about movies more so the outlet will be here. Come back often!

The Train

The phrase “old school” is used a lot nowadays. Too much if you ask me. It can be used about anything and everything including John Frankenheimer’s 1964 action thriller The Train. You see, it is old school and when you say old school action thriller what you are truly implying is the film has a level of reality in its action scenes.

I hate CGI. I think it—along with other kinds of digital technology—is doing great damage to the art of moviemaking. CGI particularly is used, abused and overused. I admit, CGI does sometimes allow a filmmaker to go to fantastical places but in the long run I think it is harmful to the “art of filmmaking” simply because of the over saturation of CGI in films is minimizing all the tricks and the special knowledge that was used to make audiences believe what they were seeing on the screen was real. Now, when I see some crazy stunt or outlandish scene I just think to myself—CGI. It’s almost distracting to me when I see it on screen. That’s not the case when I see something from a bygone era like The Train.

The problem is CGI is so easy! Anyone with some software programs, an ability to write code and a little bit of cash for the hiring of said people can come up with appropriate and usable CGI. I don’t care if you are shooting a vampire movie, a sci-fi epic, a horror film or even a romantic comedy—they all use CGI. It’s ridiculous. Every genre buries itself in waves of CGI when all the old methods and strategies are so much more fulfilling to the movie watching experience.

What does The Train have to do with this little rant of mine? Easy. The Train has REAL stuntmen, it has real trains crashing into each other, it has real explosions and it has real WW2 era plains flying overhead firing bullets and dropping bombs. When The Train is remade (and it probably will be remade as that’s all Hollywood does now—this is a separate rant that’s been made before on here and will be made again, ha!) all of this will be replaced with computers, green screens and other levels of fakeness. That’s the problem with movies now—they just feel phony to me.

The Train has Burt Lancaster—who does the vast majority of his own stunts and is terrific—as he leads a small band of French resistance fighters trying to stop a train filled with stolen art from being taken to Germany by no good Nazis at the tail end of WW2. Simple premise that Frankenheimer crafts to wring out every bit of tension using REAL filmmaking—not cheapened CGI trickery.

The Train is wonderful. It’s filmed in stark black and white. It’s lean, mean and filled with suspense from start to finish. And yes, I love it for the fact that I’m watching stuntmen, explosions and a film that is using strategies honed and perfected by craftsmen through decades of training and practice—not just the utilization of pro tools special effects software some techie is doing a thousand miles away from the set. Call me an old fashioned luddite, I don’t care, The Train is a refreshing throwback and highly entertaining.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

I have to confess: seeing a film such as Ken Loach’s unbelievably gripping The Wind That Shakes the Barley is like a dream come true for me. In my late teens I became interested in the Irish nationalist movement in the early 20th century and throughout the following decades. I even subscribed to a Sinn Fein weekly paper for about ten years. The Wind That Shakes the Barley transported me to this time in such vividness that the extremely high hopes I had going into the movie was actually met. Trust me, that doesn’t happen a lot for me when I finally get to see a film I’ve waited a long time to see.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is set in the 1920s as villagers band together to fight the English occupying their country. The English, occupiers of Irish soil for centuries, attempting to rid the country of Gaelic language, culture and identity, do not come off good in this movie. To the Irish people we meet in this, the English were simply people who abused them. Loach makes no attempt to give them depth and that’s okay—this isn’t a story about them, it’s a story about the beginnings of the Irish Republican Army and the men who fought in this early struggle against a much bigger foe, their bravery and loss for fighting in such an undertaking.

The story follows a small group of men and women as they fight guerilla tactics against the English. Two brothers are at the core of the story. Damion is a hopeful doctor (Cillian Murphy--a great, young Irish actor) who turns his gentleness into an untapped rage and loyalty to the cause. Teddy is the older brother and is one of the military leaders of the small unit of men. The men have only each other and the land, homes and bonds they cling to. In any conflict such as this, fought on such an intimate level, you will see loyalty, betrayal, murder, beatings, torture, lots of politics and even a little romance and all of those are on display in The Wind That Shakes the Barley.

Loach has perfectly cast this film and he buries us so completely in the nuances and atmosphere of the time I was stunned at how good The Wind That Shakes the Barley was as it unfolded. Realism jumped from the screen as I felt I was sitting in stuffy rooms listening to people debate their cause or crawl around in the lush Irish grass training and learning tactics. That is the highest compliment for a film like this—to feel real, to feel honest, to feel it directly go to my heart as these people stand up to the oppressor that was the King’s Crown of England.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley won the Palm d’Or at Cannes in 2006 and I see why. It reminds me a lot of John Sayles’ 1987 film Matewan in many ways. Matewan was an unapologetic look at early socialism and unions based around the coal mine wars in West Virginia in the 1920s. The Wind That Shakes the Barley has that same kind of blunt, raw, one-sided passion (and also similar elements of the 1920s socialism) that endears me to it the same way I love Matewan.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is the clear frontrunner for the best film I will see in 2006. I don’t see how I will see anything that I like more than this wonderful little movie. It’s a rousing, intelligent, beautifully crafted movie that is highly, highly recommended.

April movies

My three favorite new releases are Grindhouse, Hot Fuzz and The Namesake. All different, all worth seeing.

Old movie to watch--Enter the Dragon. Bruce Lee is so quick you can barely see him punch a bad guy in the face.

The Lookout--2007--USA--3--Neo noir w/ a bearded Jeff Daniels.

Zardoz--1974--UK--2.5--Nonsensical post '60s freak out w/ a hairy chested Sean Connery.

Blades of Glory--2007--USA--3--Another silly Will Ferrell comedy, this time about ice skating.

Grindhouse--2007--USA--4--Great fun with a schlocky double feature w/ fake trailers.

Major League--1989--USA--4--Number 5 on my all-time favorite baseball films.

Green Street Hooligans--2005--UK--2.5--Elijah Wood as a soccer hooligan? Yeah right.

Loud Quiet Loud--2006--USA--3.5--Documentary about the great band Pixies.

Nobody Knows--2005--Japan--3.5--Bleak and powerful film about abandoned kids.

Music & Lyrics--2007--USA--2.5--No chemistry, by the numbers, liked the '80s music.

Winter Kills--1979--USA--2--Bad JFKesque political thriller that's more absurd than thrilling.

Days of Glory--2006--France--3.5--Africans fight for WW2 France as they wont fight.

The Namesake--2006--India--4--Powerful family drama from great director Mira Nair.

Hot Fuzz--2007--UK--4--Wonderful cop comedy that is funny and actionpacked.

Viva Algeria--2004--Algeria--2.5--Depressing film about 3 Algerian women.

Enter the Dragon--1973--USA--4--Bruce Lee in slow motion at 1 a.m. is MAGICAL!

Nights of Cabiria--1957--Italy--4--Fellini in his prime and with a great ending.

Wedding--2004--Poland--1.5--Unlikeable, terrible and in running for worst of the year.

Wasabi--2001--France--3--I'll watch Jean Reno in anything and everything.

Zardoz

Zardoz (1974) is a bizarre, senseless, tripped out quasi-philosophical science fiction film from director John Boorman that is one of the stranger films I’ve seen in awhile. Boorman, inspired by the turbulent late 1960s, takes a lot of ideas that don’t seem to go together, throws them up in the air and then swirls them around whether they make sense or not. What is left is one wild movie called Zardoz.

How to briefly describe the plot of this? Sean Connery plays a man named Zed who is an “exterminator” in a future earth in the year 2239. Zed and fellow exterminators worship the god of Zardoz. Zardoz is this huge, floating stone head that shows up every now and then to boom orders to the exterminators and spew guns out of its gaping, rock mouth. Most of the orders revolve around killing/raping people as a form of population control.

Zardoz is controlled by a madcap magician and lives in a utopian community known as the “vortex”. In this vortex, people never age, never die and have perfected various mind controls and communication with powerful crystals. The vortex favors sexless, androgyny that means in ’74 lots of topless women while riding horseback or doing the gardening.

I mentioned this was influenced by the 1960s and this is true not only of the look, attitude, subjects but the look of the film as well. Boorman stacks the film of tons of out there, psychedelic moments of dozens of images in mirrors, long winded infuriating speeches that mean nothing, subjects such as science, cloning, religion, sex, violence, aging etc. and all kinds of warped ideas that date the film to a particular time in American culture.

Connery spends the entire film basically running around in a red hot pants/leather boots (see photo at top of post) to his knees and ponytail get up that shows off his hairy chest and legs. A few times his hot pants ride up a little too much on his hairy arse! He also gets to grunt out and act with some of the hokiest faux philosophy, semi-sexual dialogue you are likely to hear. It’s definitely not his best performance as he seems awash with confusion and you can almost read his thoughts in some of these scenes as he ponders, “What the hell is going on here?”

Zardoz is a mess and gonzo of a film on practically every level and I can see why it’s gained sort of a cult following. It’s not great but it’s in the vein of so bad, it’s kind of good and guilty pleasure mode. Zardoz is just so all over the map and pure early ‘70s that I have to give it credit for that.

Favorite baseball movies

It’s April and to me that means the start of baseball season. I am a passionate fan of baseball history and have loved the sport since I was a kid. One great thing about baseball is the wonderful amount of stellar literature, history and films that have been set around it. Here are my five favorites.

5/ Major League (1989). This is a ribald comedy of a bunch of losers and castoffs that play for the woeful Cleveland Indians. There are has beens, guys off prison teams, a player who has turned to witchery and voodoo, old guys, etc, all of which band together to attempt to get back at the team owner who wants them to lose. James Gammon plays the crusty manager and he’s one of my favorite actors of all time. Gammon cursing while wearing a baseball uniform is a great sight to see. Thankfully this was R rated as a PG-13 version would have stripped it of some of its funnier moments. Woeful sequels followed but this first Major League is a great fun place to start if you want to see some baseball movies.

4/ The Natural (1984). Robert Redford’s version (directed by Barry Levinson) of Bernard Malamud’s novel is a meditation of heroes via the baseball diamond. Redford is Roy Hobbs, who arrives out of nowhere in the 1930s and turns the New York Knights around despite being in his 40s. The film has a magical quality to it—which is hammered home with slow motions, exploding lights, and beautiful, golden tinted photography. Redford’s version is very different than Malamud’s if you’ve ever read the book.

3/ Field of Dreams (1989). Another loving tribute to baseball as a subject that is bigger than just the game of baseball. This is baseball as savior; baseball as healer; baseball as something so important and pure it might have magical powers. A man hears voices in a cornfield and his life is turned upside down. Based on W.P. Kinsella’s terrific novel (called Shoeless Joe), Field of Dreams is so lost in the possibilities of fantasy and of dreams that it just hits me in the heart every time I see it. I actually drove to Dyersville, Iowa in the mid ‘90s just to see those lovely cornfields.

2/ Bull Durham (1988). Another Kevin Costner film. Hey, he’s been in two great baseball films. Bull Durham is a comedy/drama that follows minor-league team as a veteran mentors a phenom. Both of them want to get with Susan Sarandon’s lusty supporter of the team. Bull Durham probably has the best dialogue, the most accurate depiction of the sport and is the smartest script of any baseball related film. It just nails pretty much everything about the allure of the game in funny ways. Plus, it has a damn good romantic triangle between Costner/Sarandon and Tim Robbins. This will never age.

1/ The Bad News Bears (1976). This to me is not only the best baseball films it is one of the best films of all time regardless the genre. It’s perfectly cast, as Walter Matthau is a pool-cleaning drunk who takes over the Bears for drinking money and every single kid in this is believable. The team, self-described by Tanner as a “bunch of booger-eatin’ morons,” is the laughing stock of the little league. But with a couple of ringers, some beer in the dugout and a lot of attitude the Bears might shock the league. The Bad News Bears was made during the ‘70s and revels in its non-PC world (thank you!). The Bears have grit, spunk and fight and the story was completely ruined in 2005 when Hollywood decided to give it a soulless, dull, watered down remake. The original version has a chip on its shoulder from start to finish and is my favorite baseball movie of all time.

March movies

Movie title—year of release—country of origin—my rating from 1-5

I Love You Again—1940—USA—4
Idiocracy—2006—USA—3
Zodiac—2007—USA—4
Everything Is Illuminated—2005—USA—3
Kagemusha—1980—Japan—4
Sherrybaby—2006—USA—2.5
The Invisible Boy—1957—USA—1.5
Black Snake Moan—2006—USA—3
Prime—2005—USA—3
The Astronaut Farmer—2007—USA—2.5
Blood Diamond—2006—USA—4
My Best Fiend—1999—Germany—3.5
Bad Company—1972—USA—4
Just Friends—2005—USA—2
The Host—2006—South Korea—3.5
American Splendor—2003—USA—3.5
Reign Over Me—2007—USA—4

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles--film of the year?!

I took a friend’s kids to see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (or TMNT as the kids and marketers like to say these days) over the weekend and am stunned to say it will likely be in my top 5 at the end of the year. No animated movies usually make my top ten so that’s saying something about TMNT that it reaches such a high level. TMNT is thrilling and riveting on many, many levels. Seriously.

The first thing that jumps out at you when TMNT starts is the amazing, groundbreaking animation. The creators of this film have taken new computer technology and run amok with it—the turtles and their subterranean environment seem “more” than real. It’s so good it doesn’t really resemble animation as it looks like real ninja turtles running around. I honestly think this film can be thought of as highly as Walt Disney’s Fantasia in 40 years.

The story was completely shocking to me as well. I thought it was just going to be about some goofy turtles that get into misadventures and try to save the city and each other. Wrong! Sure, there is some of that but the film also has some off the wall turns that I was stunned to see develop. First was when Leonardo develops a cancer scare and the film branches off with him going to the doctor and the rest of the turtles rallying around him. I mean, who would have thought a cancer storyline would be in this kind of movie? I didn’t. Another element of the story is about manic depression—which I thought was a little too much for kids but its handled in a tasteful way. You do have suicide but you don’t actually SEE the act of suicide so that was okay for kids. It’s good for them to be aware of these kinds of topics anyway. I won’t even go into the plot twist at the end but all I can say is don’t trust any of these turtles as one of them is not as they appear to be!

TMNT has it all: comedy, action, laughter, the best animation in 50 years, plot twists, death, turtle romance and many other elements that will leave you as slack-jawed as I was when it ended. TMNT is possibly the best film of the year for me. Oh, and by the way, you should probably look at the date of this post and realize if you believed any of this you were had, as it is April fools day! Got you.

The Host

The Host is the latest film from South Korean director Joon-ho Bong and this is by far the best film of his of the three I’ve seen. The Host is kind of a hybrid film—part horror, part comedy, part social commentary and part family drama. What makes it work in the end is that you forget that it has all these “parts” and just enjoy the story as it unfolds.

The Host begins by letting loose some social commentary about an American military doctor who forces his Korean underling to pour lots of nasty chemicals down a drain that flows directly into the river. The Korean lightly objects yet does what he is told. Bad, no good Americans!

Then we meet the Park family, who run a food stand next to the river. There’s a lazy son, his daughter, grandpa and a sister who is on TV competing as an archer. The Host wastes no time by letting loose the “monster” as 10 minutes into the film this aquatic, lizard looking beast is sprinting all over the riverbanks knocking people down, stomping them and eating them whole in its giant mouth.

Mass panic ensues. Bong films the panic with a nod to Godzilla films the way people scream and run. There’s something comical to me to watch a throng of Asians screaming and running as a mutant fish monster creature kills them in various ways. Put the same scene in Miami Beach and I don’t find it nearly as comical. Although a beast taking out the beautifully tanned and the geriatric might have some humor in it now that I think about it.

The government swoops into the area in an attempt to quarantine those who were near the monster. The Parks and others are tossed into a government hospital/jail for observation and tests. Unfortunately, the littlest Part was taken by the monster and they believe she is still alive—so they all band together and go on a quest to get her back.

I loved the first hour of The Host but unfortunately it begins to drag some toward the end. I wish I would not have seen so much of the monster so early in the film but I’m not sure how they could have filmed that rampaging scene without showing the thing in all its glory. Seeing so much of it lessons the impact of seeing it later in the film. I’m a believer in the less is more theory when it comes to monsters in movies like this. The less you see it early the more it will frighten you later.

The Host finds a nice mix of elements that sort of catapult it out of the “Asian” film world and into a more mainstream one. It’s the monster. Any film with a mutant monster eating people whole is bound to crossover some but I think this one is playing in lots of places a film from South Korea doesn’t usually play—which is good!

Bong is a director to watch as he knows how to set up scenes and has a unique take on ordinary daily interactions between people. My favorite elements of the film were how these people related to one another as they fought the government and this monster in an attempt to save their family. They are dysfunctional but they are still a family. They are a family trying to kill a fish monster while hoping to find a member of their family.

The Host can be enjoyed in a variety of ways. Horror, comedy, social commentary, family drama. It’s all of those things. It’s also good. Who cares what is in the mix as long as the mix is good?

Idiocracy

A couple of days ago, I went on a mini-rant about hollow stars and studios remaking a great film like I Love You Again. It must be the week of the rant because I feel another bubbling up after watching Idiocracy and the brunt of my confusion and anger lies with Fox, their absolute bumbling of this film, their complete disrespect for writer/director Mike Judge and us, the film going public.

Here’s the brief back story on Idiocracy: Judge’s first live action film since 1999 (Office Space) was long held back from release by Fox for reasons they never went into. They claimed the film wasn’t funny enough to draw enough people to make money. Considering the cult appeal in Judge’s past (he’s also behind King of the Hill and Beavis and Butthead), this is a ludicrous stance, as Judge has his fans that would have turned out to watch the movie. I just watched it and while it’s not the funniest thing ever—it is still a funny, twisted, over the top farce that should have been in more theatres. Fox put it in about 150 theatres before burying it on the DVD release chart. Why?

My guess is that they were put off by the film’s brutal, unrelenting satire that takes an unflinching anti-corporate stance the entire movie. Basically, Fox agreed to finance a film by a man known for unconventional, original, off the wall humor—but also who has a stellar record of successful comedy—and then when they saw the scathing message of the completed film, Fox, being a bunch of self-promoting, corporate whores, took the gutless, cowardly way out and attempted to make the film disappear by not releasing it for a couple of years.

But the film has just come out on DVD and knowing how Fox attempted to bury the film makes it even darker as you watch it. Idiocracy is about an average “Joe” who is frozen in a capsule for 500 years. He awakes to discover a society so dumb, so devolved that we speak a language of hillbilly/valley speak/slang, we follow the command of various corporate entities (Carl’s Jr. rules, no one drinks water in favor of “Gatorade” like substances and there’s only one store to buy things—Costco’s that go on for miles and miles, the most popular show is called “Ow, My Balls!”) and garbage is piled so high we suffer from garbage avalanches.

I can just see the suits at Fox as they first saw a version of Idiocracy and the horror that swept across their brows as they realized that Judge has made a film that attacks every single thing they stand for as a company. There’s even a bit with Fox News as a shirtless male reciting the news, all pumped up and stupid, delivering the kind of gossip and mindless “news” that is not that far off from what is covered in great detail now. Did you happen to turn on CNN or Fox the past week when the death and funeral proceedings of Anna Nicole Smith were being covered 24/7 by any chance?

Is Idiocracy as farfetched in its future world as it seems? No! I don’t want to go too far off on a conspiratorial tangent but we are a culture that is increasingly under the thumb of corporations, political machines are everywhere, we are manipulated by various media, we’ll have barcodes/implants on us that identify us to an increasingly less free nation and we completely dumb ourselves down while unquestionably accepting the entire notion of lowest common denominator as being good enough. It’s not.

When I see a film like Idiocracy I can laugh at the “outlandishness” of the satire but I also get kind of angry, as there’s a lot of truth in its lunacy. I am pissed at Fox for thinking they can just bury the film because they didn’t like the message. I am mad at our culture in how we celebrate people with no talent (Paris Hilton anybody?) and other wastes of space. I am frightened there will come a point in which we will have nothing but a few corporation conglomerates that control the media, the items we buy, the food we eat and everything else in our lives. That stuff is already happening and it’s happening today!

Idiocracy, as a comedy, works sometimes and falls on its face as well. I laughed when I was supposed to and didn’t laugh when I was supposed to, but, Idiocracy, as a satirical statement, is a flamethrower to the corporate establishment and I’ve got even more respect for Mike Judge after seeing it. A lot of guts are required to make a movie that attempts to make us laugh by exposing the ways we are turning into a culture of force fed drones.

I Love You Again

Oh, how I enjoy an old fashioned romantic comedy made in the studio system era (early 1930s to about 1950). Some friends of mine are always surprised when I say how much I love romantic comedies as a genre. I think it’s because most of the ones made today are wretched formula. Where has the wit, the romance, the onscreen chemistry, the style and the class gone? I think it's gone away, like most of the talented, original filmmakers.

I Love You Again from 1940 is a whole different ballgame for romantic comedies. It’s got two stars—William Powell and Myrna Loy—who have chemistry to burn, it’s got a fun plot (Powell’s an amnesiac con man awaking from a 9 year slumber) and a nice twist (Loy’s the wife who wants a divorce).

I Love You Again is a pleasure on a lot of little levels. As a romantic comedy it has the quips, the teases, the hook of will she love him again after he’s revealed as his real self—not the penny pinching, teetotaler he’d been during their marriage but the devilish rogue—and all the effortless charms that make films from this era so timeless.

Watching Powell and Loy act in one of their romantic comedies is fun for me every single time I see one of their pictures. I have a hard time deciding which one I like to watch more, as they are both charismatic and appealing. They make a dynamite on screen duo, and luckily for us they enjoyed making movies together, as they paired up 14 times in their career, including the popular Thin Man series.

I Love You Again is in line to be remade and ruined (like many films have been recently). The thought of this makes me cringe. I’m sure some Hollywood producer drools at the thought of the pairing of a talented (in abdomen six-pack only) Matthew McConaughey and some equally untalented female costar. People now are just such complete suckers for below average mediocrity and it’s both a shame and a sham.

I’ll pass on the 2008 I Love You Again and all the other retreads that are coming down the pike. I’ll stick with the originals, the films that have held up to 67 years of aging as I Love You Again has, with stars of talent such as Powell and Loy. You can have the media overload of hype that makes for films and stars now. I’m losing interest in the barrage of the talentless that parade by in film after film. Call me an old fashioned romantic, but sometimes, the older stuff is just way, way superior.

February movies

Film of the month: Withnail and I (1987, UK)
For some reason I'd never seen this dark comedy (I pride myself in seeing all the cult films after all) about two impoverished, out of work actors who go on a massive drunk in the countryside. I've never been a fan of Richard E. Grant but I admit he is absolutely dead on as the ranting, bitter and falling apart Withnail. After I saw this I found out Daniel Day-Lewis turned down the role of Withnail and I'm such a fan of his I'd loved to see his take. But, Grant is so good he couldn't have been much better. This is really English in its humor and quite funny & is February's film of the month.

The entire list of movies I saw in February, in order and with my rating (1-5).

Hell In the Pacific (1968, USA)--3
The Painted Veil (2006, USA)--4
Letters From Iwo Jima (2006, USA)--3.5
American Hardcore (2006, USA)--3.5
Noises Off (1992, USA)--3
The Wild Blue Yonder (2005, Germany)--3
Who the Fuck Is Jackson Pollock (2006, USA)--3
Withnail & I (1987, UK)--4
Rushmore (1999, USA)--4
Three Times (2005, Taiwan)--4

More favorites

Here’s some other films I saw in 2006 for the first time and loved although they are older releases. Of the nine, only one is American and it was made in 1963. As I said in yesterday’s post regarding the great Mexican trifecta in 2006—American directors need to make better films!

Laputa: Castle In the Sky (Japan, 1986)—I watched this brilliant Hayao Miyazaki anime film two times in 2006. One word review: magical. This has all the Miyazaki staples—flying contraptions, good v. evil, kids on adventures and just so many other elements. This might be my favorite Miyazaki film and that’s saying something considering his past.

Charade (USA, 1963)—Completely beguiling film with star studded cast: Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant and Walter Matthau. Paris looks romantic and beautiful as this delivers twists and turns and is a joy from the first frame to the last. Perfect.

City of God (Brazil, 2002)—This is an intense coming of age film set in Rio De Janeiro where childhood friends take alternate paths as they grow up. Violent, vibrant and energetic as all get out, City of God puts an interesting spin on the crime film with its setting and characters.

The Bird People In China (2003, Japan)—This was a surprise from gonzo Japanese director Takeshi Miike. BPIC is a bit of a madcap comedy early on in a remote village in China that then slows into a meditative, lush look at rural life. Tender, beautiful, funny and a welcome departure for Miike.

Tony Takitani (Japan, 2004)—Enjoyable, brief, dreamlike film based on a short story by Haruki Murakami (read his stuff!) about a man who spends most of his life alone until he meets a special woman w/ an odd addiction. Quirky and hypnotic look at longing and loneliness.

Hands Off the Loot (France, 1954)—I was absolutely blown away by this ’54 French gangster film from director Jacques Becker. I’m stunned I never saw it, as it’s one of the best gangster films I’ve ever seen! What I love about is it is subtle and understated as it follows the weary struggle of an aging gangster trying to save his partner and loot in the Paris underworld. Amazing!

Schultze Gets the Blues (Germany, 2003)—Sweet as heck film about a laid off German worker who loves the polka and playing his accordion. One night Schultze hears zydeco music on the radio and his world is turned upside down. Schultze is a man of few words but he’s so honest and innocent, just like this film.

Best of Youth (2004, Italy)—I’ll save the best for last. This is a nearly six hour epic family drama that traces the lives of two brothers as they go from youth to middle age. This covers every facet of life—love, marriage, fatherhood, heartbreak, political history etc. The last hour+ is flat out magical and even after 6 hours I didn’t want it to end.

Tops in '06

Okay, February is over and I haven’t written my top ten for 2006! That’s not good. So, here goes. These are in alphabetical order—although if I had to pick a top film, it would be either Babel or Pan’s Labrynth.

Babel—Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s 3rd film is another non-linear downer but I was mesmerized from the get go. No one is making more emotionally ambitious films than this talented Mexican filmmaker. This has multiple stories bouncing back and forth, most of them heartbreaking.

Borat—Anything that makes me laugh this much has to be among my favorites. I have been a fan for years and years and this didn’t disappoint. Cohen is absolutely fearless and carries the torch for Andy Kaufman style hi-jinks.

Children of Men—Dystopian future world where women can’t have babies and England is a police state? Count me in! Another Mexican filmmaker here—American directors better step up to the plate.

Pan’s Labrynth—3rd Mexican film. I saw this months ago and I’m still haunted by it. It’s got this dual story line set in fascist Spain and in a young girl’s fantasy world and both are as vivid creations as you’ll see all year. I wish Guillermo Del Toro would stick to this kind of stuff rather than the comic book adaptations like Hellboy.

Stranger Than Fiction—I really enjoyed this comedy/drama that has a guy who starts to hear a voice and it changes his life. It’s funny, quirky, romantic and smart. What more do you want from a film like this?

The Departed—Although this is a bit convoluted (not nearly as much as the Hong Kong original), this is the Martin Scorsese that I love: criminals, murder, gritty violence, cops, f-words, etc. Great cast, great ending, great filmmaker who still loves movies and it shows every time out.

The Descent—This film with a group of athletic women going down in a remote cave, getting lost and then encountering some nasties my favorite horror film of the year. It turns into a friggin’ bloodbath and I loved it for that.

The Fountain—Highly pretentious, ambitious, nonsensical, visually dazzling, wildly romantic film that I loved (and wanted to hate) but sometimes damn it, I just want to see an American director who has the guts to make such an out there picture. This had no chance to be a hit but it’s got some thrilling filmmaking in it so I forgive the ponderous elements.

The Proposition—An Australian western that goes all Peckinpah and Biblical on us thanks to Nick Cave and cohorts. This has more flies per character than you are likely to see in a film. Violent, gritty and takes no prisoners. We need more westerns!

United 93—White knuckle gripping and very well made as the story juggles every conceivable element from the doomed 9/11 flight.

Yi Yi

Yi Yi (2000) is Taiwanese director Edward Yang's seventh film, but his first to be released in the U.S., so unless you are able to attend a decent film festival, watching this on DVD will be your first chance to see one of his movies. And what a great movie Yi Yi (A One and A Two) is. The film is a subtle, profound, simple work of beauty that I loved!

Almost three hours long, Yi Yi attempts to capture every conceivable moment of living in a Taipei family: weddings, funerals, births, loves, loss, romance, murder and suicide. Every joy and pain of being a human being is woven into the narrative and casts a magical spell in its slow, steady pace by Yang.

Yi Yi tells the story of a single middle class family in Taipei by using multigenerational stories to show all facets of life. There is a curious and precocious 8 year-old boy named Yang Yang, a quiet high school daughter named Ting Ting and the father, NJ, is suffering from a mid life crisis. The story weaves mainly around these three and Yi Yi captures the complications of being in a family in a complete arc.

This is filmmaking at its most heartfelt and honest and I can't stress strongly enough how good Yi Yi is. In this day and age of wham bam visuals and rapid fire editing, Yi Yi has a patience that is refreshing and should be done in more movies. There should be a revolt against the cut-cut-cut short attention span idea of filmmaking!!! Why is it that so many Asian directors understand this and so many directors from other countries do not? Yang uses many effective long takes that make it possible to really get into the characters hearts and minds.

I said Yi Yi has a slowness to it but it is not slow. The three hours go by in a blaze because it is so engrossing and well done. Yi Yi isn’t in a hurry, it just goes onward, as life does. Yang won best director at Cannes for Yi Yi and it was well deserved. Yi Yi will make you love, cry, feel, laugh, and think as you watch it and it is highly, highly recommended.

Videodrome

All I need to say about this is: David Cronenberg. If that makes you think that Videodrome (1982) will be something off the beaten path then you know what to expect. Cronenberg likes the strange and out-there in his films—Crash (not the Crash from a few years ago but the ‘90s Crash about car wrecks and sex!), Dead Ringers—among many others that will freak you out. Needless to say, I’m a fan.

Videodrome stars James Woods as a TV exec named Max who stumbles across a hardcore s/m satellite feed called Videodrome. The signal is so real that it might be a snuff film but he still wants it to air on his channel that shows a lot of soft-core porn. Max meets a woman named Nickie (Debbie Harry, in her first acting role) who is into s/m and who also sees the video and gets drawn into its dangerous world.

I don't want to say much on the plot, as it would spoil some of the twists or turns into weirdness that develop. I really enjoyed Videodrome as it excels as what is a fantasy/reality horror film but also pushes buttons regarding issues such as the power of TV in the world and how it is connected to sex and violence in our lives.

One of Cronenberg's main obsessions seems to be the application of technology in our daily existence. In Videodrome, technology is literally inserted into the human body where it forces total control over the person's life. In one of Cronenberg's most recent films, eXistenZ (1998), some of the same themes cropped up. Both films use startling images of technology, as it becomes a part of the human body. Those ideas creeping up today in this world of machines is not much of a surprise but to have them so graphically expressed in '82 by Cronenberg is downright chillingly visionary.

Videodrome is a bizarre mind bender with fantasy and reality merging in a world of thought control, technology, sex, violence, TV, paranoia and philosophical cults. Very recommended if you want to step out of the mainstream into the darkness of the wilds and let Cronenberg lead the way. Long live the new flesh!

Viva Mexico!

I need to see a few films before I compile my best of 2006, as I need to see The Queen, Letters From Iwo Jima and The Lives of Others. If you notice the high scores of three of the films I saw in January you might notice the connection of three of them—a Mexican director. Those films—Children of Men, Pan’s Labyrinth and Babel will all by going for spaces in the my top 10 of ’06.

I loved those three films so much it will be hard to rank them against each other. Maybe I should give the trio a tie for the top spot and say Mexico wins? Take what you think are the three best directors from each country in the world and compare them with Guillermo del Toro, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Alfonso Cuaron and it will be a serious battle between what country wins. These gentlemen are making great, challenging works of art that can be thought of as best in the world after their last three films were released.

The most surprising in this group of three has to be del Toro for Pan’s Labyrinth. While I’ve enjoyed some of del Toro’s past films (Cronos and The Devil’s Backbone), nothing quite readied me for Pan’s Labyrinth and its blend of history, fantasy and brutality. Pan’s Labyrinth is breathtaking as you watch it but its most important quality is the fact you can’t stop yourself from thinking about it weeks after you’ve seen it. I know I haven’t as it creeps back into my mind from time to time.

The least surprising is Inarritu, and his latest partnership with writer Guillermo Arriaga, in Babel. I highly enjoyed Inarritu’s first two films, Amores Perros and 21 Grams, but the duo have gone all epic on us. Babel is set in multiple continents, has multiple story lines, uses multiple languages and has a non-linear framework that challenges you to think deeply about what you are witnessing. I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to write that last part of the sentence about a director making films today. Babel maybe a lot of things, and you may either love it or hate it, but I found it gut wrenching, invigorating and highly artistic (pay attention to all the various film stocks/techniques Inarritu uses as he moves from setting to setting).

Children of Men is the kind of film that I’m an easy mark to enjoy. If it’s about a dystopian future world I’m gonna be into it. I’ve loved stories like this since I was a teenager and discovering science fiction. I was not expecting the film to be as good as it was as I watched incredulous from the middle of the theatre. Cuaron’s film is so controlled, grey, oppressive and dark as ideas, dialog and action fly by at such a pace that I am certain this will go down as one of the all-time dystopian films in a few years. It’s that good.

How to choose the best of these three thrillingly different and wonderful movies? Maybe I won’t be able to and I’ll declare Mexico and movie lovers the true winner? Viva Mexico!

January movies

Here's the list of movies I saw in January. I'm also including my rating for said film. I do a 1-5 rating, 1 being terrible and 5 being perfect. For the record, I don't generally give out a 5 the first time I see a really, really good movie. What may turn into a 5 after a couple of viewings usually starts off w/ a 4 or 4.5.

Vacas--1991--Spain--3.5
Georgy Girl--1966--England--3
The Devil Wears Prada--2006--USA--3
Black Peter--1963--Czech Republic--3
The Fireman's Ball--1967--Czech Republic--5!
Children of Men--2006--USA--4
Casino Royale--2006--USA--3.5
Seven Men From Now--1956--USA--3.5
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot--1974--USA--3.5
Streets of Fire--1984--USA--3
Good Morning, Night--2003--Italy--3
The Family Stone--2005--USA--2
The Curse of the Golden Flower--2006--China--3
Amelie--2000--France--5!
Pan's Labrynthe--2006--Mexico--4
Old Joy--2006--USA--3.5
Shadow Magic--2001--China--3.5
Undead--2003--Australia--3
The Last King of Scotland--2006--Scotland--3.5
Babel--2006--Mexico--4.5
Blue Velvet--1986--USA--5!
Volver--2006--Spain--3