The Shining (1980) - Revisited

I get a lot of hell for my opinion on this film but it's just how I feel.  This movie is so overrated it's a cliche.  I love Mr. Kubrick but this film is not a masterpiece and of all his movies it's my least favorite.  Okay, before I go on, I should add that there are many incredible elements to this film.  The cinematography is iconic, the scene design is as eerie as hell, and the way it's edited, twin girls and all, it's a visual treat.  But as for story this film is weak.   Which is disappointing because the book it's based on is rich with story.  But Mr. Kubrick decided to toss away all that character depth and importance and show haunting visuals instead.  Watched once his smoke and mirrors might scare you but upon a second viewing you see his tactics for what they really are: hollow games.  Jack Nicholson is one of my favorite actors and yet on this film he hams it up and chews up the scene like some clown.  What a disappointment!  Sure it's memorable but how powerful and truly frightening it would have been to actually see a husband and father, who you really care about and believe in, turn into a monster.  How tragic and heroic it would have been to see a man choose death to save his family from the monster inside him.   How much better it would have been if Kubrick took us somewhere else beside a Daddy-Gets-Cabin-Fever-And-Goes-Berserk movie.   Which leads me to the Made-for-TV version that Stephen King was involved with, a chance to correct these wrongs.  But alas it's a made-for-TV movie and no matter how good or bad it is (and it's not bad but not great either) that version is destined to fade away into the ether while Kubrick's lamer interpretation will live on as a classic.  But what I see is a giant missed opportunity from a genius unwilling to understand the book he was adapting.  I see a talented actor allowed to overact and another talented actor struggle to be in a movie she shouldn't have been cast in.   But hey, it's a classic and that's that.   I just wish Mr. Kubrick would have devoted as much to its story as he did to its visuals.   Now that would have been a masterpiece.  Grade: B.

Thor (2011)

When I heard they were making a movie out of the Marvel Superhero Thor, my first thought was cool.  Then when I realized that they would be setting this up for the big Avengers movie coming out next year I became worried.   Instead of being a movie about Thor I feared it would be a movie about an Avenger.   Well, my worries were put to rest because Kenneth Branagh delivers a movie that would make any Norse God happy.  Chris Hemsworth is perfect as Thor, even with the beard, and Anthony Hopkins is sensational, as expected, as his father Odin.  Not to say the movie is flawless.  It's an enjoyable film but it does have a couple weak points that could have hurt the film but thankfully don't. 

Spoilers: The first is the love story.  Natalie Portman's presence alone helps but the film's hurried pace in the middle doesn't allow for their relationship to blossom.  I know the producers want their movies cut to be under two hours but just one more scene between them would have helped show that they were falling for each other (of course, I'm sure there were a lot of teenager boys who hated that a love story was in there at all but alas I'm a hopeless romantic so I loved it).   The other problem is that they don't really spend much time showing Thor's transformation from arrogant prick to selfless hero.  It makes me almost wish they'd produce a TV show where you see a hammer-less Thor trapped on Earth learning how to be worthy to lift the Hammer again.  But I realize that's silly.  The filmmakers expect the audience to accept that Thor is a new man in the passing of five minutes.  They barely pull it off.  This is what summer movies are supposed to be about and that's fun.  Now I'm excited for Captain America and see the last piece to the Avenger puzzle.  Grade: B+

Asterios Polyp by David Mazzucchell (Graphic Novel; 2009)

David Mazzucchelli's Eisner award winning work is a splendid example of the unlimited possibilities of comics.  This book is a must-read for any who love comics that have a lot to say and in an unique way.  There is no superheroes here, just a professor of architecture who is in many ways a prick.  Yet he's an enduring prick and seeing his life unfold in neon colors and through flash backs is unforgettable.  Packed of philosophy and the mechanics of a man's psyche, what you have here is something special book designed with guts and originality. 

The Caine Mutiny (1954)

Humphrey Bogart plays the unbalanced captain of the Navy battleship, the Caine, in this WWII film based on a Pulitzer winning book written by Herman Wouk.  It's not so much a war movie as a drama that challenges the concept of "the chain of command" and if there's ever a time to break that chain.  Fred MacMurray plays the most devious role in the film as the ship's "little devil", you know the one sitting on your shoulder whispering of betrayal.  Van Johnson is the honest man, a leader in his own right that must look out for the crew.  But funny enough none of these men are the main character, Robert Francis is the the book's eyes and ears as the one who bares witness to all that happens.   Then there's Jose Farmer as the lawyer at the end of the film, a man with a golden voice who knows how to argue against his own reservations.  There's even Lee Marvin in a small but memorable role as one of the deck hands.  Overall a decent film and well-worth an evening of movie watching, especially if you enjoy Mr. Bogart.  Grade: B+.

Why I Don't Watch Trailers (Commentary)

If you ever go to the movies and see a guy with his eyes closed during the trailers, that guy is probably me.  Okay, I'm sure I'm not the only one out there but I've come to loath the trailers before films.   Which is ironic because when I was a kid I loved the previews (as I still call them).   Now with the Internet though I can learn what's being made as it's being made.   Trailers are unnecessary for me; I love movies and if there's any promising aspect to a film I'll be there.   But that's not the main reason I hate trailers.   They give away too much.   The editors who cut these trailers have zero interest in servicing the storytellers who crafted the film, they're only job is to sell tickets.  If giving a twist in the plot gets people in their seat, then show it, it doesn't matter.  Worse, they give you a glimpse of every visual stunning moment of the movie.   I sometimes watch the trailers for films after I see the movie and I'm in shock.  But they do it because a stunning visual will get people to see it as an empty promise that there's "more where that came from"; never mind that they're lying.  Avatar is like this.  The official trailer shows sequences of the final battle; we even see that Jake is going to learn to fly.  What happened to the art of subtly?  I guess one could argue that today's audiences need the extra motivation; and maybe such an argument is right.  All I know is I've been burned before and I'm not getting burned again:  Examples (spoiler alert):  In the trailer for What Lies Beneath (the Zemekis 2000 thriller) they tell you that Harrison Ford is the bad guy.   When I was watching the film I realized that the audience isn't supposed to think that until later.   Why would they edit that trailer like that?   You're telling me that it's that hard to get people to go see a movie starring "Harrison Ford" that you have to tell them that he's playing the bad guy?   In the trailer for Paranormal Activity they show the ending.  I couldn't believe it!  Why would you show that one of the main characters is going to be thrown at the camera like that, especially when it's the high point of the film?  Do I need to go on?   Not that this practice is new, I realize that.  I've watched trailers for older films on DVD and have been shocked by what they showed back then.  It doesn't matter the decade.   I guess when I was a kid, storytelling was new and I wasn't smart enough to figure out the story.  Today though I've watched enough movies that I sometimes figure out the whole film with very little information.   I'll joke to my wife or friend, "Hey, we got to see another film for free."    So here's my rule of thumb:  if it's a movie I know I want to see and that I'm exited for (like Harry Potter 7, Green Lantern or Cowboys and Aliens) I close my eyes and zone out.  If it's a movie I'm curious about I'll watch the first thirty seconds or so (I can sense when they're going too far) and I then look away.   Of course if it's a movie I don't want to see I check it out (pretty much anything directed by Michael Bay).   Am I the only one out there like this?   Are there any other times when a trailer gave too much away and actually spoiled your enjoyment of a movie?    Perhaps I'm just weird.   

Glee (Season1) 5/23

If you love musicals or even just music in general you most likely will fall in love with this program.  I did.  With wit and some nice corny zip the writers of this show playfully tell the story of Spanish teacher, Will Schuester's quest to take his high school Glee Club to the Nationals.  But then there's the celebrated Cheerleader coach played with nasty charm by Jane Lynch, who intends to do everything in her power to make sure he fails.  What's wonderful about this show, besides its comedy, is how it ventures into melodrama that's effective but never so strong as to steal from the show's groove.  The entire cast is perfect and the music selections are always entertaining.   Episode to episode you'll be tuning in to see what happens, it's a real blast. Grade: A.

You Only Live Once (1937)

Eddie, unforgettably played by Henry Fonda, is an ex-con gone straight because of his love for the woman who waited for him to get out of prison, played heroically by Sylvia Sidney.  But the system won't give Eddie a break.  He can't get work and when someone robs a bank everyone suspects he did it.  This is a real work of art directed brilliantly by Fritz Lang.  In such a short time you know that these two love each other in away that most people don't understand.  Their sacrifices for that love make for a true classic.  It might have been made in 1937 but it's still as engaging as any movie made today.  Grade: A

Giulietta degli spiriti [Juliet of the Spirits] (1965)

Fellini's first color feature film stars his wife Giulietta Masina, whom he last worked with on Le notti di Cabiria.  The result is a bizarre mix of hallucination and surrealism.  The Guiliette of the film is a devoted house wife who enjoys dabbling in séances.  She entertains her extrovert-husband's friends when she'd probably enjoy spending an evening with him alone.  She's happy until she learns that her husband (a director by the way) is having an affair.   This knowledge catapults her psyche into a cluttered mind-spin that's beautiful to behold but kind of boring.  Okay, I'll admit it, this film didn't enthrall me as much as Fellini's other works.  I embraced his experimentation, and an artist responsible for such works as 8 1/2 and  La Strada, is allowed a film like this to showcase his courage to push the envelope, even if he pushes a little too hard.  But such a failure is a fascinating experience at times.  There's great imagery and sexy technicolor costumes and lots of flashy edits that at its time was probably stunning and fresh.  Today it's just blah and kind of dated.  Oh, it's a sixties LCD-influenced picture.   I'm not an expert on Fellini and perhaps I'll go read his biography after I write this but I'm curious how much truth this film mirrors his own relationship with the real Guiliette.  I can image Guiliette reading the script and muttering, "Oh great, here's our dirty laundry out for everyone to see."  Or maybe not, as an artist herself, maybe she charged forward wanting to put herself out there and announce to the world, "Here I am?"  It's certainly a film worth seening if you enjoy older films and want to see Fellini under the influence.  Grade: B-.      

Alice's Restaurant (1969)

Arlo Gutherie plays himself in this adaptation of his famous folk song.  What I liked most about this movie is how Arthur Penn somehow makes it work.  It's a messy film that goes all over the place with crisscrossing story lines.  Yet Arlo is intriguing enough to carry the film and Penn keeps the pace moving at an easy pace.  My favorite parts are when Arlo goes to the Army recruiting center and a powerful sequence at the end that almost seems out of place in a film that never really looks that great.  But what do you expect with a movie about hippies?  Grade: B+

Wise Blood (1979)

This adaptation of Flannery O'Connor's first novel, directed by John Huston, had me mostly uninterested.  Brad Dourif is a decent choice to play the disagreeable Hazel Motes, the ex-soldier who is mistaken as a preacher because of the getup he buys, who then goes on a baffling pursuit to preach his own "Church Without Christ" message, but he's kind of one-dimensional too.  Satirical and dark in tone, the screenwriters try to engage the funny-bone but for me at least they failed.   It's also not much of a commercial for the novel, for it made me want to avoid the novel like its poison.  Mostly it's a very uncinematic story that relies heavily on dialogue and kooky unlikeable characters.  I'd only recommend renting this if you're a huge O'Connor fan or you need to see everything that John Huson directed.  Grade: C+.

The Way Back (2010)

Peter Weir's latest film follows a group of men from a Gulag to the Himalayas in what could have been a boring film about walking, but instead it's a inspired and heart-wrenching film about walking; okay and also survival and hope and all the qualities that make us human.   What's not to love?  Great visuals, solid acting, historical plausibility and many surprises along the way.  Ed Harris is great as usual and Jim Sturgess holds his own with his best performance to date.  Why this film came and went from the theaters baffles me.  It's Peter Weir, the kind of director that everyone should know and should come out in droves to see, but maybe he'd not like that.  I expect this film will find an audience on DVD and will become one of those forgotten classics someday.  If you like films about survival and people going up against impossible odds, see this film.   It's a wonderful movie.  Grade: A

One tip and complaint: for some reason the film makers put up a slate at the beginning of the movie that pretty much gives away the result of the adventure.  It doesn't ruin the movie but if you can fast-forward through this intro and get to the visuals, I'd do it.  The slate isn't necessary and think it was a mistake to put it there. 

Strictly Ballroom (1992) - Revisited

In the mood for something funny and inspiring I re-watched Baz Luhrmann's first film, a romantic comedy about Australian competitive ballroom dancing.  Wow, it's not aged at all.  It's as fresh and funny as it was when I saw it in the theaters in the '90s.  Will Scott Hastings (Paul Mercurio) choose to dance his own steps at the Pan Pacific with secret partner Fran (Tara Morice), or will he conform to please his mother.   The corny high-energy performances may throw some viewers off but for me it's stylistically perfect.  Mr. Luhrmann's blends farce and romance seamlessly making for a perfect film for all hopeless romantics.  Grade: A.

If . . . . (1969)

Oh those British rebels of the 1960s.   Here Malcolm McDowell plays Michael "Nick" Travis, teenager living life in the English public school system.   Sometimes the film is black and white and kind of surreal but mostly its shot in a very dull color that's naturalistic and appropriate for the film.  Why it switches from color to black and white is debatable.   Dated in a good way, this film is a great example of systems of tradition and rules and conformity sometimes creating they very opposition they thwart.   Grade: B

Spoiler:  The end was haunting.  All I could think about was Columbine and other school shootings.  A film like this couldn't be made today.  What was purely fantastic in the '60s has now become a tragic reality.

Weeds (Season 2)

There's no telling what to expect from this wonderful Showtime comedy about a single mother selling pot to keep her family's suburbia lifestyle.  Mary-Louise Parker is so charming it's amazing she wasn't cast in more projects until now.  What I like most about this show is how unpredictable it is.  The writers know how to keep the audience guessing.  Nothing is typical. Zooey Deschanel makes a very welcomed appearance as Andy's Ex and Meital Dohan, as Andy's love interest, is hysterical.  And what's a show about pot without an Snoop Dog.  Dark, witty, with a sharp after bite this isn't a show for the easily offended, but if you're like me you'll be excited to start watching the third season.  Grade: A-.   

Easy A (2010)

Emma Stone becomes a star in this latest classic book or play turned into a high school comedy incarnation, the classic book being Nathanial Hawthorne's The Scarlett Letter.  At least the screenwriter admits it upfront by making it part of the story, which I felt was refreshing.   But let's get back to Emma Stone, whose always been a solid performer, but it's here where her charisma and comic talents come into fruition.   Not that she's the only good thing about this film, she's the highlight but there are a lot of praise to spread around.   Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci almost steal the show as the coolest parents to ever be set to film and even Amanda Bynes pulls off a solid performance as an overly-religious bitch.  In many ways this film is a tribute to teen '80s movies without feeling like a '8os film.  Certainly check this one out.  Grade: B+

Unstoppable (2010)

There's really no way anyone could get this simple but thrilling concept wrong.  I mean it's about a runaway train with dangerous explosives heading toward a populated city, and only two average-Joes can save the day.   It's predictable, as it should be, and it's fun as expected.  Denzel Washington is enjoyable as he usually is and newcomer Chris Pine proves he's more than just a younger Capt. Kirk.  Rosa Dawson is a nice surprise too.  If I wanted to I could go into nit-picky criticisms about obvious formulaic inventions such as the evil corporate guy and the weak love story for Chris Pine, manufactured purely to give more "depth" to the story, but I won't because at the end of the day it's a runaway train film and it works on so many levels.  Sure, it's about as memorable as yesterday's breakfast, it is what it's meant to be and that's a suspenseful ride.   

The Killers (1946)

The first adaptation of Hemingway's famous short story, in what is more of an extension of the main story, we follow an insurance investigator through an elaborate film noir world to explain why anyone would want to kill the Swede (played memorably by Burt Lancaster, a gas station attendant who passively allows two killers end his life without a fight, without even trying to flee when told they are coming to kill him.  The opening scene straight from the short story is as exciting and intense as a Quentin Taratino film and then it becomes the more typical detective story later on.  This was later re-adapted in the '60s with Lee Marvin.  (A film I will have to see and write about at a later date).   Having read the short story I found it pretty clever how the writers expanded on the story.  I would recommend this film for anyone who likes film noir and wants to see some solid storytelling.  Sure the best part of the film is its beginning but the rest is pretty slick too.  Grade: A-

Onna ga kaidan wo agaru toki [When A Woman Ascends The Stairs] (1960)

About an modern Geisha of the post-world war II Japan, this engaging drama with a strong female character focuses on a chaste woman trying to find love while keeping to a promise she made to her husband who died in the war.   I highly recommend this film, especially if you enjoy Japanese films of the 1950s and 60s.  Hideko Takamine invites us into her head with subtle ease; I really found myself caught up with her dilemma and carrying for her.  What is most striking about this film is how timeless it is, it feels contemporary.  I liked how Mikio Naruse frames and paces it.  This is what they call a "lost masterpiece" and I hope more modern audiences discover it.  Grade: A.

Shaft (1971)

A film more famous for its Oscar winning score than it's story, I've been wanting to see this for some time.  I've been wanting to see how much of a "man" Mr. Shaft is.  Oh, he's the man alright.   There's no denying it.  Richard Roundtree brings the street-smart, no-nonsense private dick to life, keeping him charming as he pumps up the badass concept up a few degrees.  He might work for the "white cops" but he never let's the "man" bring him down, he's above the system but a good guy.  Hired to find a crime lord's kidnapped girl he plays the criminals as well as the cops however he must to get the job done, all while sleeping with any girl he wants to.  The dated quality of the film, in this case, works in its favor, giving it a raw edge.   And as for the score, by Isaac Hayes, it's a perfect blend of cinematic scope and jive-hopping funk to work.  I'm new to the blaxploitation scene but I'll certainly be checking more out.  Grade: B+

Leaf Blowers (Commentary)

Oh, I hate leaf blowers.  I work late so I sleep in until 8:30AM.  But the guys with their leaf blowers don't care.  Their personal noise making devices, blowing unwanted debris from one part of the drive way to the other end of the drive way, are the most ridiculous inventions ever.  It probably wouldn't bother me if they were quick about it but no one with a leaf blower is quick.  They love their little phallic toys.  They're zoned in and love to watch as "stuff" floats away from them.   Once I looked out my window and watched this one moron spend ten minutes blowing cut grass blades back and forth in the same spot as if he couldn't decide what to do with it.  Hey, pal, what about get a broom?   Sweep up the grass blades and put them in a plastic bag.  You can blow your leaves or the grass into the street but the street sweeper tomorrow morning is just going to blow it back into your drive away again, or the wind is going to take it and blow it back up onto your porch.   That piece of litter that you are blowing into your neighbor's yard will just come back when he uses his leaf blower to blow it onto your property.  I'm sick and tired of these leaf blower wars.  Pick the piece of paper up and put it in the trash.  Stop wasting the gallon of fuel it takes to operate your little machine and get a rake, get a broom, use those muscles God gave you, you lazy morons!  

A Passage to India (1984)

For David Lean's last film he picked E.M. Forrester's classic novel that takes place in India.  Like many of his films, this one is grand in scope and shot with perfect cinematography.   Judy Davis plays Adele, a young British woman who travels with her fiance's mother, Mrs. Moore (perfectly portrayed by Peggy Ashcroft) to India for a great adventure.  The film can be divided into two parts:  the first being an introduction to India through two open-minded white women and then the second part which is a mystery that ends in a courtroom.   The first part is colorful and full of pleasantries and then Adele accuses an Indian doctor who was her guide of raping her.  Did he or didn't he isn't really the point but how the world reacts.  I liked his film very much but wouldn't call it Lean's best work.  It's biggest flaw might be the casting of Alec Guiness as an Indian.   Alec's performance is fantastic and only an actor of his statue could pull off such a feat unfortunately it's just not acceptable and dates the film.   If you like period films you'll like this one.   It's a long one but I wouldn't say too long.  It's too bad Mr. Lean waited so long to make a movie but I'm glad he was able to make this one before leaving us.