Once

Now, this is a charming little movie. I’d been eagerly waiting to see this smart and romantic Irish film from director John Carney and it finally came to a Tulsa theatre. I loved every second of it and it’s one of my favorite films of the year. Once is full of low-key performances, great songs and real screen chemistry from two performers who aren’t really actors but who deliver a level of honesty that I’m not sure “real” actors could.

Made on a shoestring budget, Once begins with a busker (never named but played by Glen Hansard) singing his heart out on the streets of Dublin and having to deal with all the annoying people who distract or want to rip him off. It’s not an ideal audience to sing your personal songs with a tattered acoustic guitar.

Enter the girl (also never named, played by Marketa Irglova), a direct yet wide eyed, hard working Czech immigrant. The girl and the guy connect and are soon thinking of playing songs with each other and maybe, just maybe, falling in love. There are complications. In movies and in real life, there are often complications.

One of my favorite aspects of the film is the way it uses whole songs to reveal the character’s personality and inner feelings. Hansard and Irglova actually wrote and perform all the songs in the film, which furthers the intimacy on screen. Hansard, from the Irish rock band The Frames (Carney used to also be in the Frames for what it is worth), definitely has a heart-on-fire as it aches kind of style which Irglova nicely tempers his passionate singing with low-key harmonies and lovely piano. I thought the amount of songs might get repetitive but it’s in the songs that these two people truly belong to each other whether they can be when the songs end is another question to be answered.

The lack of money involved in this was a bit distracting at first—Carney uses long zooms for some of the street busking scenes so Hansard would act natural, as would the people around him as he performed, but it produces some shaky camera and focus issues when he does this. The interiors were also severely lighting challenged a time or two. I got used to this though and it actually worked in the film’s favor by the end. It gives Once a hint of realness that a glossy, too pretty film might not have had.

Once is highly recommended and will certainly be in my top ten for 2007. Great songs by Hansard and Irglova and a sweet, understated romance between two people who meet on the Dublin street, use music as a catalyst to their relationship and then…I’ll stop as I don’t want to reveal too much of the story—this is a good one here people, I sure hope people get a chance to see it in a theatre this summer to combat the gluttony of action films and sequels the studios shove upon us as Once is the perfect antidote.

Shooter

I like a good revenge flick. The simple act of enacting painful vengeance on those who have done you wrong has propelled stories of every genre from westerns to action films to Hong Kong throw downs. Shooter is firmly in the family of somebody tried to set me up to take a fall but I ain’t having none of that and will kill every one in my way on the path to truth genre.

Mark Wahlberg plays Bob Lee Swagger (based on name alone, how could I not like this film? Bob Lee Swagger? What a great revenge flick name!), ex-Army sniper bad ass that lives in the mountains with his dog and grows a mangy beard, long hair and surfs the internet. The government show up on his cabin doorstep and ask him to do his patriotic duty and help prevent the president’s assassination. Soon, he’s on the run, a patsy in a government conspiracy and looking to exact revenge on those who set him up. In other words, he ain’t having none of that!

Like most people seeking revenge in these kinds of films, they are usually skilled in the ways to kill and have no compunction unleashing their fury on the guilty or the innocent. Bob Lee Swagger is such a killing machine. He can deliver pinpoint death from a variety of weapons (the firepower on display will make gun fetishists highly aroused. I can see Michael Bay attending a screening of this and sitting on the front row with a giddy grin on his film-Anti-Christ face.) and ropes in a few others on his quest for payback (and a little truth too).

Shooter is extremely implausible with lots of holes in the story but since I like revenge films—I’m also into films about snipers!—I surprisingly kind of liked it. Shooter is what it is, a genre movie bubbling with testosterone and a really high body count. On the day I saw it, that was enough for me.

June movies

The best film and the most fun I had at a movie in June was for a midnight movie at the Circle--Raiders of the Lost Ark. Aiding the atmosphere was the packed house who were completely into it. What makes Raiders of the Lost Ark such a timeless, wonderful movie is the combination of fun and adventure and technical skill shown by director Steven Spielberg. Spielberg is a master of setting up suspense or orchestrating thrilling scenes and this might be his high point in sheer diversity and control over what he is doing. Raiders of the Lost Ark is pretty much perfect.

I hadn't seen Raiders of the Lost Ark in fifteen or so years and watching it with a full theatre late into a rainy Tulsa night was absolute perfection and was a reminder of why I love the entire movie experience. It's not only about the movie--it's sometimes about who you watch the film with as you are sharing this couple of hours in the darkened theatre. At times, I'm offputted by my fellow movie goers and the talking/cell phone issues--but this weekend, watching Raiders of the Lost Ark, the eagerness and love from the audience toward this movie made the entire experience much more enjoyable. I see a lot of advantages in watching films at home on my big screen but watching them alone or with one or two friends can never approach this kind of bond when a group of people watch a great movie together. It just makes you feel good about being alive!

I also really loved Knocked Up--a hilarious, vulgar but kind of sweet--a tale about a mismatched pair who come together due to an unplanned pregnancy. Jud Apatow (The 40-Year Old Virgin) has made another very funny, adult aimed comedy rife with one liners, memorable scenes and a cast of reminders of his great TV shows Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared. See this if you haven't already. Maybe the hardest kind of great movie to make is a comedy and right now Apatow is at the top of the heap in making smart, hilarious films.

I also saw Sicko and this is recommended as well. It's an important flamethrower into the shameful health care system we have in America regarding HMO's. We have a corrupt, money hungry system that values profit over human life and sort of makes me sick to see another reason why the government has sort of turned its back on the people in the race for $$$ and power.

Here's my June movies--a few of which I rewatched since I was in Helsinki and like watching films in other countries.

Death Proof (2007, USA)----2.5
Shooter (2007, USA)----3
The Departed (2006, USA)----4
Hot Fuzz (2006, England)----4
28 Weeks Later (2006, England)----1.5
Ocean's Thirteen (2007, USA)----2.5
Meet the Parents (2000, USA)----3.5
Paris Je'Taime (2006, France)----3.5
Knocked Up (2007, USA)----4
Gun Crazy (1949, USA)----3.5
Sicko (2007, USA)----4
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1982, USA)----5!

Two Mules For Sister Sara

Eastwood or Wayne? Keaton or Chaplin? Lee or Chan? Katherine or Audrey? Vorhees or Myers? Truffaut or Godard? Spielberg or Scorsese? These are a few of the many choices that might point a person in the direction they gravitate toward regarding film taste. When it comes to westerns (or oaters as I like to say around the house), I’m an Eastwood man.

I just have never been drawn to Wayne’s films the way I have to Eastwood. Wayne’s too much of a “hero”. Eastwood’s protagonists are much more “grey” in their heroism. I like that. I love the Eastwood squint. I love the way his characters often have no name, are usually loners, and are hell bent on killing and revenge as a solitary act. In Eastwood’s westerns, people who ride with him are usually tag alongs, extra weight, useless and needing help in the rugged, frontier setting.

The Don Siegel directed Two Mules For Sister Sara (1970) is a very pleasant western with some of the elements I love so much in an Eastwood film of this sort. What makes it surprisingly fun though is the way it twists some of the Eastwood standards over to reveal lighthearted moments.

Clint, as Hogan, rides alone (of course) until he comes across a nun trying to get away from banditos. Begrudgingly for Hogan, the nun becomes useful when she provides information regarding an armory Eastwood wants to rob. Sara, the nun, played by Shirley MacLaine, has a lot of spunk for a nun. She’s prone to cursing, swigging alcohol and other non-nun like behavior and this gets Hogan’s attention. “If only this feisty and attractive nun wasn’t a woman of the cloth!” he hints to Sara during a drunken moment of their journey. The pair bond during the trip to the French garrison to settle the score/rob the place.

Two Mules For Sister Sara has similar aspects to many westerns—people on an arduous journey via horse/donkey over treacherous terrain, intentions to rob and the planning of that robbery and the always usable story of a small band of underdogs, joining together to defeat those who are the villains (in this case, the French military). Even with those standardized elements, the comedy from Eastwood/MacLaine, their chemistry and a memorable Ennio Morricone score makes the film a fun, worthy addition from a bygone era of great westerns.

Oh, for the record: Eastwood, Chaplin, Lee, Audrey, Vorhees, Truffaut, Scorsese. You?

Death Proof

I saw Grindhouse when it was released and liked its subversive spirit, fake trailers and mayhem but I was lukewarm to Quentin Tarantino’s contribution Death Proof. In Finland, I re-watched it to see if I might change my mind. When the film ended though, I’ve decided it was more of a failure than I thought.

Released as a stand alone in Europe (I bet they wish they’d done the same in America with its lukewarm business), minus the fake movie trailers (maybe THE best part of Grindhouse!) and even including the “missing” reel where Butterfly gives Stuntman Mike the lap dance. Death Proof is too talky (another weak QT script) and the film needs more adrenaline, violence and seediness to make it truer to the kind of film it replicates.

Death Proof is supposed to be a 21st century version of the sensationalist, drive-in, b-film, grindhouse kind of movie. You know, real car crashes, sleazy action, T + A, over the top violence and performances. For the most part, the film falls flat in the face of such “low brow” attempts.

Tarantino spends way too much time focusing on the silly banter between girlfriends and less time on car destruction and T + A—let’s face it, if QT wanted to really do a ‘70s drive-in/grindhouse picture, these starlets would be cavorting around topless and in their panties more than once and for no reason. Although QT does get to further promote his fondness for the female foot as he gives us multiple lingering shots of dry and wet feet. These films were known for their T + A, not T + A + F!

Regarding the ridiculous banter, I don’t know what has happened to Tarantino and what he writes these days. When you watch his first three films—Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown—the dialogue is so electric and original it jumps off the screen and almost jolts you. A second or third viewing is a must to let Tarantino’s wave of words seep fully into you. Not now. Kill Bill and Death Proof have none of that spark except for a stray line or two. Some scenes in those two films are down right embarrassing. I’ve seen QT all motor mouthed on TV saying Death Proof has the best writing of his career and I think, “What is he talking about? Is he drunk or high? Was his brain injured in a way that has debilitated his ability to write or properly judge his writing?”

There are good elements to Death Proof. The car stuff is riveting and the final chase/showdown harkens back to an era of real cars, real stuntmen and no CGI bullshit. Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike was also great but he wasn’t in the film enough. Why Russell wasn’t in this more instead of the endless girls yapping to one another is beyond me. Stuntman Mike should have been out there causing more carnage on the road, instead we get a bunch of girls eating breakfast and talking on and on.

The muscle cars and Russell save Death Proof from being a total failure but it’s another disappointment for Quentin Tarantino. I’m starting to believe he’ll never recapture the zeitgeist he had in the 1990s although I’m hopeful his WW2 film will be a return to greatness his early films were.

Watching movies in Finlandia

No trip to another country is going to stop me from watching movies unless they don’t have theatres or the films aren’t in English. I saw nine films in a theatre on this trip—three cities, two countries. The bulk of my movie watching was in Helsinki where I saw six. I saw two in Tallinn, Estonia and one in Turku, Finland. Here is what I learned.

I have fallen in love with the Finnish people and how they behave in a movie theatre. It is going to be a shock to return to the American norms that seeing a film consist of. Noise, either people talking or cell phone abuse (ringing or being opened) is the kind of noise I’m hinting at. This sort of noise is virtually nonexistent in Finland. Imagine that!

Do you know how surprising and wonderful it is to sit in a theatre and not get disturbed by nitwits who must discuss what is happening or attention deficit starved people who can’t bare the thought of missing a precious phone call for ninety minutes of their self-important existence? Let me tell you it is indeed wonderful. Of the seven films in Finland I saw, I heard or noticed a total of ZERO cell phones. Amazing. I did see one cell phone in Tallinn for the record. It was almost the same with talking. Only one film had two teenagers who wouldn’t zip it—the other films were completely and utterly silent. This just goes to show you how rude and lacking in manners a lot of Americans are. This rudeness manifests itself in public quite often these days, especially in movie theatres. Oh, how I wish I could watch movies year round with the civilized Finnish people.

Candy. There were some quirky choices thanks to the Candy King stores located next to many theatres. I had to be careful here as the Finns are into this strange salty licorice that sends my taste buds into revolt. I did find some new hard candy that I liked. I also broke out the old fashioned combo: raisonettes with popcorn at one film. That’s a classic.

Assigned seating. I wasn’t so into this at first (I’d done it in other cities in Europe so it wasn’t new) but as long as the people around you are quiet—and these incredible Finns are!—who cares if you sit in an assigned seat. And you do get to choose your seats from what is still available so it isn’t like they force you to sit on the front row or some other seat you despise.

Tickets remaining. I love this feature of Finnish/Estonian multiplex. As you stand in line to buy a ticket, the number of tickets left for each screening flashes after the start time. American theatres should do this now I tell you.

Commercials. Sadly, I was bombarded with 5-10 minutes of commercials just like in the U.S. At least they were in Finnish and I didn’t have to sit through some Nascar/Coke promotion or those wretched Coke young director short films. Anyone else think those films are garbage?

Theatre hopping. I’m highly skilled in the art of theatre hopping but admit it is an impossible or very difficult thing to accomplish in Finland. Each theatre is opened only a couple of minutes before the film starts. There is always a ticket taker who checks/tears your ticket as you enter. After the film you exit en masse out the back—usually some stairwell or onto the street itself. It’s also not possible to LEAVE the theatre and return from the entry doors as those doors are locked. You can leave but it is through the exit doors. I am sure this violates some kind of civil rights—like the right of every American to go theatre hopping!

So there you have it, the similarities and differences of going to movies in Finland. I urge all of you to be like the Finns if you aren’t already: don’t speak during a movie and for the love of all that is good in the world, turn off your cell phones! You aren’t important enough to not miss a call and even just opening the phone and streaking rows of eyes with light is a big disturbance. Maybe we can rise up to the level of the Finnish people and actually do what we have collectively gathered in a darkened room to do—watch a movie in peace and quiet. Wouldn’t that be a lovely change of pace?

Finland etc

I'll be in Finland/Estonia for the next few weeks in case anyone is wondering why the recent frenzy of posts stopped. I'll be sitting next to the water, eating cloudberry concoctions, taking lots of photographs and probably watching a film here and there. Or maybe rioting in Estonia as they've been taking it to the streets recently.

Avenue Montaigne

Ah, Paris. If you want romance, passion and a dose of falling in love, nothing beats a film set in the city of lights to have the heart throbbing and enflamed. Avenue Monaigne is the sort of French film that leans so heavily on its setting that there should be a character in the film's credits that reads: Paris--as themself. I could come up with a list of these kinds of French films that could be a genre of itself known as "Paris" but I don't have time for that today.

If you love French cinema, as indeed I do, watching one of these "Paris" films is not necessarily a bad thing. Paris is beautiful obviously so why not exploit its charms? At times Avenue Montaigne goes too far in this direction--the Eiffel Tower shows up at least a half a dozen times (look at the poster for the movie that I've located!) while couples linger in each other's arms or are on the cusp of brushing lips while the famous structure watches on. Avenue Montaigne wears its love of Paris on its sleeve and has all the elements that make up the myth of the city so attractive to people around the world.

Avenue Montaigne is a multicharactered story with people based around a particular street who become entangled in each other's lives. Some people are alone, some are lonely, some are ending relationships, some are beginning relationships, some are starting jobs, some are ending jobs, some are going through mid-life crisis, some are young, some are old, some are male and some are female. As they meet one another they get together and talk about all the old Parisian topics: love, art, culture and life.

I've always meant to go to Paris but haven't gone. In my old school (see post of May 12) romantic yearnings I really only wanted to embrace the full-on cliche of the place and go with my wife or the soon-to-be Mrs. Replicant. That plan hasn't come to fruition so now I'm thinking about just going over there and seeing the damn city by myself! Forget about all the cliche romance and just go. Cliches are boring anyway.

Avenue Montaigne isn't a great movie but it's great at giving you that romantic, enticing "Paris" as movie character that the local touris guilds surely appreciate. It's effective advertising for the city as I've thought little about the movie but a lot about getting on a jet and flying to Paris, with or without a wife at my side.

Air Guitar Nation

I confess: I am a closet air guitarist, although I prefer my air guitar playing in the car as I drive. I have been known to lay down some serious air riffs on the steering wheel of my car as I barrel down a highway or am stopped at a city traffic light (the latter is somewhat embarrassing if I’m in the midst of serious “playing”!). There’s something incredibly freeing and participatory in playing air as a song booms from the hi-fi, the world passing by the car window meaningless and insignificant. If this sounds familiar, the hilarious documentary Air Guitar Nation is for you.

When I reviewed The Wind That Shakes the Barley a few weeks ago I put out the bold claim I doubt I see a film I like more the rest of the year. Can I say the same thing about Air Guitar Nation regarding documentaries? I would like to see a documentary I liked more but it’s going to have to be really good as Air Guitar Nation might be one of the funnier, more appealing music documentaries I’ve seen in a long time. That’s really saying something as there have been a storm of quality rock docs the past few years.

Air Guitar Nation is set in 2003 as a group of New Yorkers organize a U.S. Air Guitar Championship competition with the winner going to Finland to represent the USA versus the best air guitarists in the world. This may seem silly and a big time waster but these people, who take on alter egos like Bjorn Turoque, Krye Tuff, Nikki Tits, Roxxy McShaggy and Snatchface, are deadly serious. The competitors talk about the importance of the act and the liberating qualities of getting on stage and just letting go. There is humor but also an appreciation for the variety of styles and techniques (even nude air guitar action!) as an emerging art form.

While crowning the US Champion, a rivalry between Bjorn Turoque and C-Diddy is established. The pair are vastly different in style. Bjorn prefers the style of an energetic pogo with great hand/finger work. C-Diddy taps into his “Asian-rage” while wearing a robe, some kind of Hello Kitty belt strapped across his chest and just shreds the fire out of maniacal solos. C-Diddy is an air guitar animal who leaves the crowds stunned at his prowess much to the surprised, but happy, bafflement of his slightly embarrassed Asian parents.

Who will win the U.S. Championship and represent the country at the World Championships? How will the first ever American do in the competition when faced with some hardcore Fins and other Europeans who take air guitar playing deadly serious (and who belief the act of “airness” will lead to world peace)? Air Guitar Nation will answer these questions while providing much hilarity, a great soundtrack of rock and roll classics that I know you’ve played along with at least once in your life.

Had you seen me leaving the Circle parking lot after the film—you’d have seen me doing unreal air solos while playing along to Boston’s first album—one of the classic records for attaining “airness”. I wasn’t in front of 4,000 screaming Europeans or a crowd of anyone but my intentions were pure. I like to think by playing along with Tom Scholz, I was doing my part to bringing just a little more peace to the world. All thanks to air guitar playing.

Twin Peaks Viewing Society of Tulsa

Tonight was the first meeting of a new group in Tulsa: the Twin Peaks Viewing Society! As of tonight we've got 32 members who came to watch the pilot episode. The plan for the society is to watch the entire series--from pilot to season one to season two to Fire Walk With Me.

We had various kinds of pies of course. We had homemade caramel and apple. I'm bringing doughnuts next week. Lots of doughnuts. The next meeting of the TPVS is May 23 if you can make it.

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.