The Truman Show

1998 movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Truman Burbank begins to realize that he is the star of a reality show that people have been watching since his birth.

I love the great premise here and think it's wonderfully prescient, but it's hard to ignore the movie's flaws. First, there's Jim Carrey. I'd love to see this exact same movie with somebody who isn't Jim Carrey, somebody not nearly as recognizable. Carrey, as you'd probably expect, overdoes things a little bit. Another issue is that this spells everything out for the viewer a little too much. This could have been cleverer if the audience would have figured out the movie's secrets right along with its protagonist. The worst comes at around the halfway point of the movie where Cristof is interviewed, a scene that treats the movie audience like morons. The fact that they take one call which happens to be Truman's true love interest is also a little hard to swallow. And then there's the camera work or perspective of this thing. It seems like nobody could make up their mind whether the camera should be in the reality show or a more traditional third person thing. Still, there's something fun about watching one everyman's existential collapse. Watching the extras in Truman's world and the producers of the show try to hold everything together is also a lot of fun. As waterlogged as this movie seems at times, there are more than a few great moments. The scene where Truman reunites with his father is especially magical, goosepimple-inducing. This completely artificial thing is being manufactured, but Cristof's reaction is so good as he orchestrates and makes art out of somebody's life, like a fist-bumping God. Speaking of God, is this a metaphor for religion? I think it might be, but I've never heard anybody complain about it. Cristof is played by Ed Harris who isn't one of my favorites, but he's really good here. Carrey's fine, too, and would play that everyman perfectly if he was less Jim Carrey. You do really root for his character, especially when he's trying to construct a picture of his lost love from magazine pieces. There's just something so romantic about that. This is a good movie, but it's frustrating knowing that it should have been a great one.

Lemonade Joe

1964 Czech Western musical parody

Rating: 16/20

Plot: The titular sharpshooter tries to rid a sinful town called Stetson City of whisky in the 1880s.

The good guys wear white and refuse libations while the bad guys wear black and are actually named Badman. With 1920's color tinting and slapstick, way too many songs, ridiculous fight scenes that are speeded-up, and stock characters, this both pokes fun and pays homage to Western musical comedies. It also nails capitalism as Joe seems to exist only to shill lemonade that has a name suspiciously close to Coca-Cola. Kolaloka? That's close, right? There's plenty of silliness here--a trumpeter in black face who engages in a shoot-out with the good guy in what might be the best shoot-out I ever see, a trickster bad guy named Hogofogo who probably gets the best song, a guy who eats violins, and lines like "The night is cold; I'll need to put on my woolens" preceding a climactic trip to a place called Dead Man's Valley. The hijinks make this really entertaining even though it seems to go on a little too long, and although all the parts of this remind you of things you've seen before, it all comes together uniquely and isn't really like anything you've seen before. This is the best Czech Western I've seen and much better than Blazing Saddles despite the lack of Gene Wilder. Fun stuff!

A Woman Is a Woman

1961 Godard fun

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A stripper desperately wants to have a baby with her boyfriend, but he desperately doesn't want a baby. That's where the movie loses all credibility because the stripper is played by Anna Karina, a woman who nearly any male would be willing to do anything for, especially if it involved having sexual relations with her. Her boyfriend's flirtatious buddy seems interested, probably because he's normal, and that creates some conflict.

This one's got shane-movies favorites Anna Karina and Jean-Paul Belmondo, the latter who looks a little like Bobby Fischer and the former who I would like to invite into every single one of my dreams. Godard creates good dreams, and he can also screw with an audience better than any other director. There's a spontaneity to this that is infectious and refreshing although there are some people who would find it intolerable. Godard and his characters constantly remind the audience that this is all just a movie. They break into song like only characters in a musical can. Michel Legrand's music stabs at you like a candy-coated knife, really maddening the way it comes in and out unexpectedly. A lot of the sounds and edits seem like mistakes, but you know it's all Godard's idea of a joke. Words appear on the screen, things like "Because they love each other, everything will go wrong for Emile and Angela." He flashes shots of random elderly pedestrians during a conversation with the main characters, and he includes a lengthy scene where characters are just sitting at a table listening to a song (the funny "Tu t'laisses aller" by Charles Aznavour) while looking at a photograph. The fourth wall is busted repeatedly, mostly in comical ways with characters bowing to the audience, speaking directly to the audience, and, in what is one of the most erotic things I've ever seen in a movie, winking. Anna Karina looked directly at me and winked. And I woke up three days later in a pool of my own juices. Wait, did I write that it broke a fourth wall? This wink broke a fifth and maybe a sixth wall. And then there's a moment where she strips because, you know, she's a stripper, and the music she performs to sounds like the theme to Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, something that has the potential to travel back in time and give me my first erection at the age of four. I also liked a little dance she does in a tight blue dress. Hot Tamale! I'm glad my wife doesn't read my blog. Godard dicks around so much with this that it's a wonder he was allowed to continue making movies, but it's all very funny. They "I'll go with who performs the most amazing feat" scene made me laugh, and I also liked an argument that included the words--unspoken--"pernicious mummy." And those sounds coming from the bathroom! Oh, and I loved this conversation:

Karina: Would you rather have fish or meat for dinner?
Brialy: Fish.
Karina: What would you have preferred if you were having meat?
Brialy: I don't know. Veal.
Karina: And if you were to have beef rather than veal, would you prefer a steak or a roast?
Brialy: A steak.
Karina: And had you answered roast, would you prefer it rare or well-done?
Brialy: Rare.
Karina (getting the roast): Well, you're out of luck. My roast beef's a little overdone.

That's just beautiful and perfectly and nonsensically describes these characters and their relationship. And they trill their R's. The introduction/opening credits were interesting, by the way--large colorful words popping rhythmically onto the screen to introduce the three leads. I wonder if it influenced Gasper Noe. This movie really isn't Godard's greatest achievement, but it's a lot of fun and has this great energy.

I feel the need to point out that Anna Karina is not really naked in this movie.

The Muppets Take Manhattan

1984 Muppet movie

Rating: 15/20 (Jen: fell asleep, but drowsily said 18/20 when asked; Dylan: 13/20; Emma: 16/20; Abbey: 18/20; Buster: 20/20)

Plot: Kermit and the gang, after the success of a musical production performed at their college, go to the titular borough to try to get the show on Broadway.

Why is more disturbing for me to imagine Kermit (a frog) engaging in coitus with a human female than with a porcine one? Or is it just disturbing that I'm thinking about that at all? Or is it just really disturbing that I have been kept awake at night thinking about it and can't stop myself? This isn't my favorite Muppet movie, but the voice work (50 Muppet characters voiced by 6 guys if my counting is correct) and puppet manipulation is always enough in any Muppet movie to make it worth the time. There's just something exhilarating about seeing these characters on the screen. Usually, it's a more-the-merrier situation, and the climactic big show/wedding scene at the end, with hundreds of Muppets including some recognizable faces from Sesame Street that got Buster excited brought out the giggles. Jen was just excited to see Muppet Babies, so excited that she fell asleep immediately after and started drooling all over the couch while sleep-singing the theme song from that cartoon. As expected, the movie's really funny although not all the gags are going to work. You get the feeling with some of the material that the writers half-expected some of the jokes to be flops though, and that adds to the fun. I also liked the songs in this one.

Here's a list of my favorite Muppets:

1) Dr. Teeth
2) Gonzo
3) Lew Zealand
4) Swedish Chef
5) Animal
6) Floyd, bass guitar
7) Waldorf
8) Statler
9) Zoot, sax player from the Electric Mayhem
10) Kermit
11) Crazy Harry
12) Beaker
13) Sam the Eagle
14) Bunsen
15) Fozzie
16) Janice, the Mayhem guitarist
17) Mahna Mahna
18) Rowlf
19) Rizzo the Rat
20) Beauregard
21) Camilla, Gonzo's chicken girlfriend
22) Scooter
23) Miss Piggy

Am I missing any notable Muppets?

Cry-Baby

1990 Johnny Depp movie

Rating: 13/20 (Mark: 14/20)

Plot: It's kind of like Romeo and Juliet except it takes place in Baltimore in the 1950s. The titular bad boy falls for one of the preppy kids, and the squares don't like it.

I've never claimed to be a fan of Pink Flamingos, but I think I prefer that John Waters to this more Hollywood-friend version. This at least has Johnny Depp who even at this stage in his career seems willing to take whatever character is thrown at him and make it his. Seriously, Depp takes every character he plays and gives a performance that makes it impossible to think of anybody else being that character, and that's regardless of whether or not he has a bird on his head. Of course, he's also Johnny Depp, so he's a little distracting in this movie. He also didn't do his own singing in this, and neither did his Juliet, Amy Locane, and that's just not how a musical should work. This also has Iggy Pop who I'm becoming convinced is the finest actor of this or any generation. He actually can't act naturally doing anything at all. He's also distracting because any time he's on the screen, you want to pay attention to him, even if he's just in the background, to see what unnatural faces or movements he's going to make. Traci Lords, Ricki Lake, Mink Stole, Willem Dafoe, and Kim McGuire are all in this, the latter playing a character called Hatchet Face. The plot and dialogue are silly, but the songs and dance scenes are pretty good and the whole thing's entertaining and harmless enough. But should a John Waters' movie be harmless?

House

1986 horror-comedy

Rating: 13/20

Plot: A writer struggling with the loss of his son and break-up of his marriage moves into his late aunt's haunted house and has to battle both literal and psychological demons.

Entertaining horror-comedy here, but I kept getting distracted. First, it was good to see 80's sitcom superstars George Wendt and Richard Moll. But with Wendt, I found myself wondering how much he weighs now and had trouble focusing on the plot of House. Speaking of Wendt, if I were the director of House, I would have been a little more over the top with the horror and violence and included a scene where William Katt's character enters a hole in the house, stumbles around a bit, encounters a few ghosts, and emerges from George Wendt's rectum. That that scene wasn't in this movie shows that we're dealing with amateurs here. The second distraction was William Katt's V-neck sweater worn with nothing underneath. I'm talking about a deep V here. I suppose there's nothing wrong with the style choice, especially for 1986, but I was distracted because I was wondering whether or not I could pull that off in 2013. The third source of distraction was the appearance of a Masters of the Universe action figure, Buzz Off. I started thinking about the height of popularity of these toys and wondering if I was too old to be playing with them back in the mid-80s when I was entering my teens or when I was in my 20s. Luckily, I didn't need to focus too hard to get this. It's your typical haunted house movie with decaying fiends and silly shocks, but there's the missing child thing and a few Vietnam flashbacks to give this a bit more story. Things are a little too commercial, but the special effects are grotesque enough. A monster in an upstairs closet drips with ridiculousness, a reanimated giant fish, a bunch of tools, and a purple-dressed ghoul all recall Evil Dead 2. I wish that purple-dressed thing wouldn't have spoken though. I also wish "You're No Good" wouldn't have been used during one of the movie's better moments--a dismemberment montage. The music for most of this could have been lifted from any horror movie, and the Vietnam scenes seem artificial. But this has some creepiness and a few laughs. Just not George Wendt's rectum.

Surviving Life (Theory and Practice)

2010 psychoanalyticka komedie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A bearded gentlemen meets a beautiful woman in a dream and tries to discover a way to dream more so that he can be with her.

I've waited and waited for this to be available for me to watch and finally gave up and watched it on Youtube. Worth the wait? Absolutely! New Svankmajer should 1) be more of a regular thing and 2) should be celebrated as a holiday. This one seems very cheaply done. There's stop-motion, a lot more than in the last feature film, and a lot of the animation is cut-out stuff similar to the hilarious soccer short called "Manly Games" in this collection. This is very funny, too, and although I reckon the imagery and surrealistic asides would befuddle a lot of people, I couldn't keep the smile off my face while watching this. Half of this takes place in the main character's subconscious, the perfect setting for a surrealist like Svankmajer, but the conscious world isn't without the surreal touches. The main character spends a lot of his waking hours being psychoanalyzed, again perfect fodder for Svankmajer. The inside of the noggin is, after all, where all of his movies take place, isn't it? The odd visuals--chicken-headed folk, animated meat, a gigantic tongue, rolling apples, eggs, bananas, extracted teeth, antlered men, faucet-headed people, watermelons, flowers sprouting from women's heads--are easier to digest in this, like Svankmajer is picking and choosing from The Rudimentary Guide to Interpreting Dream Symbols or something. The psychological issue at the heart of the whole thing's been used enough to become a cinematic cliché, but none of that makes this any less fun. If you like your avant-garde animated movies on the playful side, this is definitely for you.

Three's a Crowd

1927 comedy

Rating: 14/20

Plot: A lonely man saves the life of a frozen pregnant woman and starts to dream that he has a family. Unfortunately, her husband could return at any time and shatter those dreams.

This is the first of that trio of movies that Langdon ruined his career with. I like how he pulls it off with very few title cards, and the film's got a good look to it. There are really just a pair of settings--his humble abode with comically-tall rickety steps leading up to it and the street--but there's a lot done with the settings. Langdon also includes a dream sequence with a boxing match, and although Keaton, Chaplin, and probably Lloyd (I can't remember) did boxing better (and funnier), there was something comical about seeing Langdon with a humorously gigantic boxing glove. The dream sequence starts with cool visuals--stormy winds, great lighting, the face of the husband peeking through the window. Unfortunately, comic loneliness is difficult to pull off, and this movie doesn't balance humor and pathos with anything close to the ability that Chaplin had. It's a movie that really can't decide if it's a comedy or a drama, and it's just kind of in limbo, no-man's land, something that isn't really all that funny or dramatic. When Langdon's character (named The Odd Fellow according to the credits) is alone and playing with a doll, things work ok. The movie grinds to a halt once the woman enters the picture and the character becomes domesticated, taking care of a baby and making pies. The pacing's bad, and the comedy feels awkward. There is one brilliant shot featuring a lamp and streetlights that I thought was very touching. Worth watching for silent comedy fans and better than the Capra movie, but this is nothing special.

The Strong Man

1926 comedy

Rating: 13/20

Plot: A soldier more accurate with a slingshot than a machine gun starts working with a strong man--not really the titular strong man--after the war. Letters from a Mary Brown kept him going during his soldiering days, and he decides to look for her. After an adventure with a different Mary Brown who turns out not to be a Mary Brown at all, he finds the real Mary Brown.

This was Frank Capra's first film, and it's a total mess. It feels more like 3 1/2 short films strung together and called a complete movie. I could forgive that if it was entertaining or funny, but it's really neither. Langdon plays a more heroic character in this one, but it's difficult to sympathize with the character because, as I said in the last post, he's not very likable. The best bits are probably with the fake Mary Brown character played by Gertrude Astor. Langdon does move and react well, and he has a childlike innocence that makes the story work. Well, until the end when his character seems to almost be an entirely new person. There's nothing that will have anybody in the aisles, but this has a couple moments that somebody wouldn't be made fun of for calling them classic moments. One involves a walk up the steps with Gertrude Astor, and another is a toss from a car down a hill with a surprising result. The climactic scene is a mess, but I do like this little pose Langdon keeps repeating.

Monsters University

2013 prequel

Rating: 15/20 (Jen: 18/20; Emma: 17/20; Abbey: 17/20; Buster: 19/20)

Plot: Awkward and definitely non-scary Mike, since a field trip to Monsters, Inc. as a little fellow, has always dreamed of being a scarer. Sully's the son of a former all-star scarer. They meet in college and with the former working as hard as he can to make up for a lack of natural talent while the latter gets by solely on his, they don't initially get along. In fact, their disagreement escalates to the point where an accident gets them thrown out of the scaring program. They have to join a fraternity of oddballs in order to enter a scaring contest and get back in the program. Then, the whole movie sort of borrows the plot of Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise only without Curtis Armstrong.

Look at all those potential toys on the movie poster up there! At least they're almost all new faces. With the exception of the two main monsters and Randall, Pixar fought the urge to force a bunch of characters from the first movie into this thing. A lot of them make appearances, but they're on the periphery or maybe the periphery of the periphery. Waternoose, for example, is only seen briefly in a picture, and the details changed about him were funny. Roz and Ratzenberger's Abominable Snowman might be a little forced, but they not in the thing long enough to be any more than a gag. I went into this experience with low expectations. I wasn't thrilled about a sequel (well, prequel) to Monsters, Inc. anyway, and after the abysmal Cars 2 and the mediocre Brave, I just didn't have high hopes for this one even though the possibilities in this Monsters world really do seem endless, a well that I'm sure the Disney people wouldn't mind dipping into again and again with a television series or a bunch of sequels. This isn't upper-echelon Pixar exactly, but it looks like they're heading in the right direction. For me, a prequel should really deepen your understanding of the characters, allow the characters that you already feel like you know and love to develop and grow. This story does that with Sully and Mike very well, and it makes the friendship we see in the first movie something a little more special. Randall's developed as well, albeit more generically, and Buscemi does a great job taking a little edge off the voice since his character is way less confident and malicious and a lot, well, dorkier. Goodman and Crystal are good, too, and so is Helen Mirren as a new character--the sort-of villainous Dead Hardscrabble. Love how that character moves, and the sound effect added to her walking. The animation is a lot better than what we saw in the first movie, especially with the backgrounds and setting details. The first movie pretty much takes place in one setting, and it looks plastic at times and after a while is a little redundant. The ancient buildings and the foliage on the Monsters University campus allow for a lot more texture variety. There's almost nothing spectacular about the setting details in that first movie. Here, the backgrounds are really lovely, the Pixar people building on the photo-realistic details we're getting in CGI cartoons these days. The story itself won't blow away anybody who has seen any number of underdog stories on film, but there was a nifty unexpected twist at the end and the morals of the story--stuff about friendship and teamwork--are great and, like the best Pixar stuff, filled with heart. The new characters are mostly welcome additions, and some of them are really funny. The movie's a lot of fun, at least when you're watching it for a first time, and there are a couple scenes that are even exciting without being as goofy (or as long) as that door sequence from the first movie. A dramatic scene near the end of the movie is very well done. Oh, and there's one shot of Mike and Sully sitting beside a lake under a full moon that people will want made into a poster. Beautiful.

Here's my updated list of my favorite Pixar movies, something that I could more than likely change depending on my mood:

1) Toy Story (bonus for being the first/sentimental reasons)
2) Up
3) Finding Nemo
4) Ratatouille
5) Toy Story 3
6) The Incredibles
7) Wall-E
8) A Bug's Life 
9) Monsters, Inc.
10) Monsters University
11) Cars
12) Toy Story 2
13) Brave
14) Cars 2

I'm not really confident in that ranking. 1-6 could all shuffle a bit. 7-12 could shuffle. I'm really unsure where to put Wall-E. I'm confident that 13 and 14 are in the right place though. Regardless, it's still a remarkable resume from the Pixar people.

Oh, the short, a cutesy love story about umbrellas. It wasn't bad. I watched most of it thinking that it was really lazy. "This is just live action with some animated faces on the umbrellas," I thought. I'm still having trouble believing that it was all animated. They're just showing off. The story for this one was the sort of thing you'd see in a silent comedy, only with inanimate objects.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

2008 teen romantic comedy

Rating: 13/20 (Jen: 17/20)

Plot: Sad Michael Cera meets a girl who without his knowledge has been appreciating the mixtapes he's made for his ex-girlfriend who he still pines for, and they have an late-night first date trying to find the location of a secret gig by their favorite band.

This movie wasn't made for me despite my love for Michael Cera. I'm going to spoil things for you if you haven't seen this, so if you want to see this, stop reading. At the end of the movie, the titular couple are in a recording studio where Kat Dennings' character ends up making sounds that you would ordinarily hear when copulation is taking place or when somebody is enjoying an especially tasty doughnut. But then it's revealed that Michael Cera's character still has his pants on. Am I missing something here? This whole thing isn't a terrible love story, but it's not a profound one or even an all-that-believable one either. The leads are fine--he as the same dorky/hip character he always kind of plays and she as a sort of wounded girl on the threshold of something--but some of the auxiliary characters are annoying. The story's sweet, and a lot of the dialogue's really good. This tries very hard and might succeed for its actual audience which is not me despite my love for Michael Cera. I didn't like the soundtrack nearly as much as the one in The Perks of Being a Wallflower which might only succeed in dating me. Devendra Banhart does have a song, however, and he's also got a brief cameo, too.

Dummy

2002 romantic comedy

Rating: 14/20

Plot: Steven's a 20-something still living with his parents and sister. When he loses his office job, he decides to buy a doll and fulfill his dream of becoming a gastriloquist. While he works on his craft, he befriends a woman at the unemployment office and deals with his nutty friend and his nuttier parents.

Not sure why I didn't see this when it came out since I'm a fan of both ventriloquism and awkwardness. It's a comedy. Don't be thrown off by the poster which shows the titular doll like it's some kind of Chucky-esque horror movie. It's also a pretty funny comedy, one of those with characters so quirky that it would be hard for this to have anything more than a cult following. You've got a dad who builds model battleships while watching pornography, the main character's punk rocker pal played by Milla Jovovich who gives the worst advice ever, and a sister way over her head with a wedding planner business. The latter's played by Illeana Douglas who really does look like she could be Brody's sister. Brody's terrific with the ventriloquism thing, gradually getting better as the movie goes on. He does well with bringing out the puppet's personality which, in a strange way, brings out the personality of his own character. This is almost a coming-of-age movie with a guy in his late 20s. He acts like he's about 12, but he is expressive and nails awkward. Oh, and Jessica Walter is in this, playing a character not far removed from her character on Arrested Development which is fine with me. The story kind of falls apart, going a few places that are a little too unexpected, but there are plenty of low-key funny moments--Milla's punk move when listening to Klezmer music for the first time, the sister's bitchy criticism ("You look like a child molester!"), a magician's act with a rabbit, and Brody's attempt to get his gal in a romantic mood with a little Sousa. Sousa seduction! And "I always look both ways when I cross the street," a line that definitely needs context, is some pretty brilliant writing. If you like your comedy with a full serving of awkward, this one's worth checking out.

This Is 40

2012 comedy

Rating: 13/20 (Jen: 16/20)

Plot: Pete and Debbie reach the titular age and deal with problems with finances, their sex lives, their parents, and their businesses.

What are people's opinions on Megan Fox? Does she have some degree of likability? I haven't seen a lot of Megan Fox movies--Transformers where I barely noticed her because it made my head hurt and Jonah Hex which I didn't like--but I almost always like when she's on the screen, and I know my wife has the hots for her. Is the consensus pretty much that she's hired for her shape? I like a lot of the talent in this. Apatow's wife (Leslie Mann) looks better than she sounds (didn't care for her voice) and has good chemistry with Paul Rudd. I always sort of like Rudd, despite the size of that chin of his. Apatow's daughters play their daughters. Albert Brooks and John Lithgow play the dads, the latter still looking a little confused from that Planet of the Apes thing. Apatow-regulars Segal and Melissa McCarthy and Chris O'Dowd are all funny in these, I'm guessing, largely-improvised scenes. Or at least they're based on improvisation. The humor does have a spontaneity to it that I like even though these comedians' streams-of-conscious too-often take them right to the scatological or genital to get laughs. Best of all might be Graham Parker playing himself, and I don't believe he makes a single dick joke. The problem with this movie is that there's way too much story. I like the relationship of the leads and their struggles to work through things even though things frequently got uncomfortable. But this movie's plot was the perfect storm of crappiness, and it was a lot to juggle, both for the storytellers and the audience. I guess that's why the movie had to be over two hours long, likely too long for a comedy like this. After a while, you're checking your watch as much as you're laughing. I really think about half of the subplots could have been dumped without making a difference, and that might be a clue that they're completely unnecessary. An editor was probably needed. That or somebody needed to finish the script. I was also a little annoyed at all the contemporary allusions, a thing I generally hate in movies because it pretty much ensures that people won't be interested in them in twenty or twenty-five years. I will say that my biggest laugh might have been the mention of John Goodman's name, however. This is funny enough and has a lot of recognizable situations for a nearly-40-year-old married guy like me to be worth watching, but it's unfortunately just way too long with far too many cheap laughs.

Major League

1989 baseball comedy

Rating: 14/20

Plot: Like Slap Stick only with baseball and no Paul Newman. The owner of the Cleveland Indians throws together the worst collection of players she can find in order to come in last place and enable her to move the team to Miami. This was pre-Marlins, by the way.

This could have been much better and would have been much worse if Bob Uecker wouldn't have come along when the movie was starting to lose some steam and saved things. Pretty much everything he says in this is funny, and Major League Baseball should actually put him in the Hall of Fame a second time just for his appearance in this movie. James Gammon is also funny and brings the perfect voice for the team's manager. The other characters are hit and miss. The characters played by Dennis Haysbert (not easy to recognize), Charles Cyphers, and Corbin Bernsen are really just there for one joke, but the writers definitely do their best to get the most mileage out of those single jokes. Wesley Snipes is a little rounder as the terrifically-named Willie Mays Hayes, and Charlie Sheen's character has a little depth even though Sheen himself only seems to have a single facial expression. The best thing about them is that they all pass as baseball players. When baseball wasn't happening, the relationship between Berenger and Russo was, and I just didn't care about that subplot at all. I guess you have to try to bring the gals along somehow though, right? This has plenty of funny lines ("This guy here is dead!", "Look at this fucking guy.", "I look like a banker in this.", "He was a juvenile delinquent in the off-season.", "Yellowstone?", "Vaseline ball hit to short."), but nothing is quite as funny as that ridiculous mascot that the Cleveland Indians are still allowed to have--the offensively-grinning Chief Wahoo. Oh, and this starts with a Randy Newman song, and Randy Newman songs make everything better. His particular brand of irony really complements the Cleveland imagery during the opening credits.

The Search for One Eye Jimmy

1994 mockumentary

Rating: 14/20

Plot: A film student decides to make a documentary on his old neighborhood but instead joins a manhunt for the titular moron.

This was pretty funny but very uneven. Really, I was glad I watched it just for the interesting cast. The ubiquitous Sam Rockwell pops up near the end and is as funny as you'd expect him to be. Steve Buscemi plays a creepy loser, the kind of role he was built for. This movie, he gets to spend a lot of screen time with a cardboard wrestler. Michael Badalucco's the butt of a lot of jokes, mostly a recurring gag about the size of his head. I was pretty sure I spotted him in Zubaz early in the movie, but they turned out just to be ill-fitting sweatpants. Samuel L. Jackson is a mentally-unstable Vietnam vet who gets to say, "If my dick hadn't been blown off in 'Nam, I'd whip it out and piss in your face." Nicholas Turturro may get the funniest lines, and I'll credit him since a lot of this seems to be built on improvisation. Referring to his glasses as "subscription" and explaining the names of his father and himself ("Who's your father?" "Junior." "Junior Senior?" "Yeah." "And you're Junior Junior?" "That's right.") were funny. There are actually a ton of Turturros in this, probably breaking some kind of record for most Turturros in a movie. John's in it only briefly but memorably as Disco Bean, "temperamental artist and neighborhood legend," and this thing is probably worth seeing for his dance moves alone. It's a kind of physicality that reminded me of what makes him so great as Jesus in Lebowski. Tony Sirico's also really funny, and Jessica Beal makes an appearance. This isn't great filmmaking exactly, but I thought it was a funny enough entry in the mockumentary genre.

Silver Linings Playbook

2012 best picture nominee

Rating: 15/20 (Jennifer: 19/20)

Plot: Pat, a substitute teacher who spent a few months in a mental institution after beating up the man his wife was sleeping with, moves into his parents' attic. He tries to figure out a way to reconcile with his wife, a difficult task because of a restraining order. He meets a friend of a friend who happens to be a friend of a friend of his wife. She's got problems of her own, and the two figure out they're in a romantic comedy. Things progress from there.

Boy, was I wrong about this one. One, I assumed that I wouldn't like it, an odd prediction since it has Bradley Cooper in it. Two, I thought for sure it was setting up for a Shamalammadingdong-esque twist where protagonist Pat was just imagining all of these people. I'm still not entirely sure I want to believe that everything that happened in this movie actually occurred in the movie's reality. I want there to be something a little deeper with this story, I guess. The main character is bipolar, so I guess hallucinations or delusions wouldn't really have fit. Still, that cop who keeps popping up at just the right moments, Chris Tucker's character--the lone black man in Philadelphia, it seems--showing up inexplicably in all these places, all the pieces falling together so unnaturally. It's hard to take at face-value, isn't it? As pure rom-com cotton candy though, this is really pretty good. I really liked the performances. Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence play characters who really should be unlikable, but their performances here are a testament to how good looking they both are. I'm not sure I'd call what Lawrence did best-actress-award-worthy, but she's good and really easy to like and root for. And there are all these gratuitous shots of her posterior which the Academy Awards people must have enjoyed. Bradley Cooper might have been a little too wide-eyed at times, but he wears a trash bag better than anybody I know. De Niro and Jacki Weaver plays his parents, the latter more in the background but very funny when talking about her crabby snacks and homemades. De Niro's character is sneakily nuanced, his performance barely under control. He's good though. It's a great ensemble cast that really helps this thing swim, and the thing just was refreshingly entertaining despite the pain that some of the characters were suffering. It does kind of hit a point--the "parlay bet" scene--where things get a little too unbelievable, and after that, it all feels a little too much like a movie. Again, those pieces fall into place a little too neatly. You really almost expect that you're being set up for a devastating ending to this thing, at least for a handful of the characters. But they're all so likeable that the Hollywood endings slapped on this ends up being satisfying.

Or maybe the complete lack of a twist is the twist? That this so comfortably embraces its Hollywoodness should maybe be applauded.

Here's a twist--I'm giving movies Bradley Cooper bonus points from now on. In fact, I might do it retroactively. I'll have to find my A-Team write-up.

John Dies at the End

2012 horror comedy

Rating: 12/20

Plot: A pair of slackers get involved with a drug called "soy sauce" which causes them to drift between two dimensions. They have to save their world from something named Korrok.

What a mess! It's almost a delightful mess, but it's unfortunately just a little too much. I applaud its creative spirit and unique vision. The story and director Don Coscarelli take chances, but the budget's neither tiny enough or large enough to make it work and this desire to be 21st Century and hip gets old after the first, mostly fresh, twenty minutes or so. A lot of me wants to just appreciate the craziness of all this--animated meat that seem straight from Jan Svankmajer, a dog driving a truck, insects that would make Cronenberg giggle, exploding Robert Marleys, a creepster who'd be right at home in a David Lynch movie putting some giant insect thing down a guy's shirt, a punk song about a "Camel Holocaust," bare-breasted people from another dimension, and Paul Giamatti. The movie seems to get more coherent as it goes, but when you really think about it, it's just a movie that is pretending to be coherent and not doing a very good job at it. It also gets more and more frustrating as it goes, building to something that is so poorly realized with computer effects that you end up caring about what happens less than you care about the characters. And you didn't really care about any of that unlikable lot anyway with the exception of a dog. There's enough here to probably make this a cult classic, but I can't think of any reason why I would watch it again. Cool poster though.

Slap Shot

1977 hockey comedy

Rating: 16/20

Plot: The aging player/manager of a hockey team learns that it will be the team's last season because the mill that provides most of the jobs for the town is closing down. He starts spreading the news that a town in Florida is planning on purchasing the team while encouraging some goons to play a more violent form of the sport in order to drum up interest in the Chiefs.

I'm not sure how I watched this as a kid, but it was a movie I liked. Paul Newman makes cussing seem so cool, probably influencing my potty mouth. Unfortunately, his clothing repertoire in this also influenced my wardrobe which probably explains a lot about my formative years. I don't find this movie terribly funny. In fact, it's a little loud, kind of a busy movie. I also don't have any interest in hockey, but I do really enjoy the hockey scenes in this. I love how the camera moves low, right over the ice. The use of real-life hockey players with a Paul Newman who apparently could move smoothly on the ice himself, along with the colorful dialogue ("Frog pussy"), give this an authentic feel. The Hanson brothers, played by a Hanson and a pair of Carlsons, are fun character even when they're just sitting around doing nothing. You almost want to laugh at their antics before they happen because they're the type of characters who you just have to see to be reminded of antics you've previously seen. A goofy smile on a teammate's face when the Hansons first play as he says "These guys are a fucking disgrace" sums it all up beautifully. This has an interesting clash of realistic violence and hockey mayhem--little bits of blood on Newman's uniform after a first fight, for example--mixed with some goofy comedy slapstick hijinks that for whatever reason just works. Unlike a lot of sports comedies, I think this one grows with time. Newman--who should have won an Academy Award for this performance based solely on the way he says "retarded" in the movie--said that this was one of his favorite roles and that he had more fun filming this than any other movie. I think it shows. I'll always have a sweet spot for this movie.

O.C. and Stiggs

1985 teen comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: The titular high school friends terrorize the Schwab family and the suburban middle class in general.

I know, I know. Giving this much-maligned Robert Altman inexplicable teen comedy that may or may not be a parody of other teen comedies a 15/20 is going to get me called an Altman fanboy or something, but I really dig this movie. Like a lot of Altman movies, this is light on plot. It's breezy, a series of non sequiturs and oddball moments and half-heard lines, a hodgepodge of the bizarre. It's ornery Altman, one that might laugh at the same fart joke he's already heard three times. But you know what? This movie is downright entertaining and very funny. There's an absurdist slant to the whole thing that makes it, although still very much an Altman bastard of a movie, very different from other movies. You almost have to appreciate a movie that isn't going to appeal to anybody who might be the intended audience--not the people who like raunchy teen comedies like Porky's or the people who liked Altman's movies in the 70s. The rapport of the leads--Daniel Jenkins and Neill Barry, neither who went on to do all that much--is great. There's a natural connection that helps hold this whole mess together. Ray Walston gets a great part as gramps, and Dennis Hopper is in there playing a crazed Vietnam vet like only Dennis Hopper can. It's also got one of the coolest movie cars you'll ever see, a car the characters buy specifically because it will be really loud and disrupt the lives of ordinary people. And that's kind of how this movie is--it's disruptive jab in the eye. In a good way! Nearly brilliant and undeniably stupid, this baffling little film would be almost impossible for me to recommend to anybody but myself and fans of King Sunny Ade.

Yogi Bear

2010 family fun

Rating: 11/20 (Emma: 14/20; Abbey: 20/20; Buster: nr)

Plot: Yogi and Boo Boo have to help Ranger Smith save Jellystone Park on its 100th anniversary after the mayor decides to sell the land in order to help balance the budget.

Buster saw this dvd sitting around the day I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey. I asked her, "Hey, Buster, do you want to watch a Kubrick movie with me?" and she said, "Yes!" a little too enthusiastically. She patiently watched the monkeys and some of the space stuff before asking me, "Daddy, where's the bear?" Apparently, she thought Stanley Kubrick directed Yogi Bear. Three-year-olds are so dumb!

This is one of those television show adaptations that doesn't include any evidence that a single creative mind was involved in the production. The thing's completely harmless and mildly fun, but it has absolutely no zip and feels uninspired, bland. The animated bears look pretty good although the conversations between the human characters and them don't seem natural at all, almost like Tom Cavanaugh, T.J. Miller, and Anna Faris aren't even sure if there will be bears talking to them in the finished film. "Alright, I'll run through these lines, but if you don't stick a CGI bear in this, I'm going to be pissed!" I really like Tom Cavanaugh because he starred in one of my favorite television shows of all time, and I wish the poor guy's career was going a little better. Unfortunately, he's awkward. Dan Aykroyd provides the voice of the titular goofball, and it's probably among the least annoying work of his career. And Yogi Bear, along with his sidekick, is an annoying character who I really don't want to spend an hour and a half with. Boo Boo is voiced by Justin Timberlake which probably explains why I was aroused while watching this thing. The story's weak and predictable, the humor is spotty, and the characters probably aren't as likable as anybody remembers them. This was maybe better than I thought it would be, but nobody is going to list it among Stanley Kubrick's best works.

Look at that promotional poster up there. That's my favorite thing ever. It might not automatically look like Yogi and his little pal doing it "bear style" to anybody who isn't a pervert, but the "Great things come in bears" tagline invites the image. Somebody had to have been fired over that one.