The Great Muppet Caper

1981 shenanigans

Rating: 16/20 (Jen: fell asleep; Dylan: 13/20 ; Emma: 18/20; Abbey: 20/20)

Plot: Kermit and his twin brother Fozzie are newspaper men who, along with their photographer Gonzo, aren't doing a very good job. They get one last shot to report a big story and travel to London to get a scoop on a jewel heist.

For my money, this is the funniest of the Muppet movies. And Jim Henson's just showing off here in this more freewheeling and irreverent follow-up to The Muppet Movie. He's got Muppets swimming, a Muppet multitude riding bicycles, Muppets flying through the air, Muppets climbing up the sides of buildings. There are so many moments where you just scratch your head and wonder, "How the hell are these puppets doing that?" Yes, the story is more than a little goofy, and a lot of the puns are very nearly painful. But the cameos aren't as obtrusive as in the predecessor (Peter Falk is particularly funny), and, if I'm remembering clearly enough, there are more Muppets involved in this one. The Swedish Chef, that eagle guy, Stafford and Waldorf, Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem, Bunson and Beaker, and a bunch of others not even I can name all have their chance to be funny. A lot of this takes place in a dilapidated hotel called The Happiness Hotel, the only free place Kermit, Fozzie, and Gonzo can find in London. It's a place slightly better--maybe a fourth of a star better--than the motel I worked at. Only it's got a bitchin' bus. And when I imagine that bus without all those Muppets hanging out the window, it makes me want to tell a stranger about it while grabbing him by the shoulders and vigorously shaking them. Charles "Freakin'" Grodin hams it up--in a good way--as the villain while John Cleese and Peter Ustinov are also funny in small roles. Oscar the Grouch also has a brief cameo appearance. But it's really the five guys who do the voice work for thirty-three (if I counted correctly) Muppets that are the stars here. The Muppet movements and, as weird as it feels to say this, facial expressions helps them blend into the settings and make them feel like living things, but it's the voice work that gives them their personalities. Lots of laughs during this family movie night, so much that I'm surprised Jen didn't wake up. Oh, and this makes yet another musical for family movie night. The songs in this are fine if not especially memorable. The Electric Mayhem get to throw down on the bus. I wonder if that bus would have been allowed at the airport. My boss at my motel told me that I had to take the magnet with our name off the door when I picked up customers at the airport because "we are not allowed there." I never asked what the hell he meant by that.

I'm going to have to re-evaluate my ratings for all these Muppet movies. The Muppet Movie and the new one were both 15/20 according to the blog. Treasure Island was only a 12/20, but it's not very good. I guess Manhattan isn't on the blog, so that might be an upcoming family movie night pick. But that rating for The Muppet Movie seems awfully low, especially since it does have memorable songs and, if I'm remembering correctly, a wild Muppet sex scene.

Trivia time: Charles "Freakin'" Grodin was in one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Want to guess what that was?

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

2004 action-comedy

Rating: 18/20 (Jen: 18/20)

Plot: The titular pop oceanographer barely raises enough money to venture out and make a sequel to the documentary in which his friend and long-time collaborator was eaten by a shark that may or may not exist. Zissou deals with his fading popularity, his possible son who tags along for the adventure, a cute and pregnant magazine writer, and a variety of obstacles that threaten to derail production.

Bill Murray fans--here's your chance to see Bill without a shirt. Murray's the sun for the solar system of this movie. A lot of the humor with his character is the writing, but any future comedy mega-superstars need to look here for a course on comic timing and deadpan perfection. Check the scene where he answers the question about the purpose for killing the shark or the little pause and lean-back before he engages in fisticuffs with a heckler or his "OK, man" answer to Ned's introduction of himself. In Will Ferrell's hands, this character would be lost, drifting through an insipid ocean of slapstick and pointless screaming. In Murray's hands, the character is still lost, but he's lost in this existential funk, in his malaise, in his truths and consequences, and in the chore of being human. And yes, I realize how pretentious that might sound, but if you're going to write about why you like a Wes Anderson movie, you better be prepared to go full hipster or not go at all, right? I've watched this little character study more than any other Wes Anderson movie, I think, probably because I think it's his funniest. Still, I've not been able to put my finger on what it's about exactly. There's a lot of playing around with reality vs. this manufactured reality. You get the documentary footage, all scratchily authentic, and it's so obviously staged that you start to pick out scenes with Steve and his maybe-son Ned that also have to be staged. And then you wonder how much of the action sequences that go unapologetically over-the-top are actually real. And you wonder if all those sea creatures Henry Selick animated are real or imagined or both. I fooled myself into believing that the scenes that are showing Zissou's real emotions and the scenes where he's hamming it up for an audience--call it the real Steve and the documentary Steve--are actually filmed differently, framed in unnaturally stiff and more naturally free ways respectively. Of course, I could just be making that up. Either way, I do know that the big payoff, the scene with all the characters humorously crammed into that tiny yellow submarine, is definitely real, and Bill Murray's "I wonder if it remembers me" really touches me and just might be his finest acting moment. No, wait. Let me take that back immediately after I typed it. Murray's finest acting moment is after he explains how their helmets played music to Cate Blanchett's character and then demonstrated with a little dance. If Murray's the sun, all that orbits around him is about perfect in this. Anderson's usual attention to detail gives us Steve Zissou and crew action figures (which, I believe, I hadn't noticed before), plenty of beautiful sea life including a Crayon Ponyfish and this lovely scene that mixes the pink of fish with the blue of the water--two colors that probably should never ever be seen together like that, all those wonderful Bowie songs performed in Portugeuse by Seu Jorge, a three-legged dog, an acrobatic whale. And speaking of acrobatic, how about the way the camera maneuvers during the scene that gives a tour of the Zissou boat and then later during the scene where they steal from Goldblum's sea lab? Those are both so perfectly orchestrated that it makes my nipples hard just thinking about them. The periphery characters and the actors who portray them are so perfect, too. Willem Dafoe wouldn't necessarily be my first choice to play a needy German, but he's hilarious here. Owen Wilson, Anjelica Huston, Michael Gambon, Jeff Goldblum--all perfectly cast. And I had to give this a bonus point for Bud Cort, and his little smile after they do that little hands-in-the-middle teamwork thing in an elevator has got to be one of my favorite movie smiles ever. But then I had to take the bonus point away because Kumar Pallana isn't in this movie. One more thing--I've always wondered if the beginning scenes at the screening of Part One of the latest Zissou documentary with the ornate theater and the terrific Mark Mothersbaugh music and the giant painting and the way the shots are framed was a nod to Peter Greenaway. It makes me laugh to think about all that formality leading to a guy in overalls coming to grab the microphone from the stage.


Note: I just checked the rulebook, and I am not allowed to take away a bonus point just because Kumar Pallana isn't in a movie.

Moneyball

2011 baseball movie

Rating: 15/20 (Jen: 17/20)

Plot: The somewhat-true story of Billy Beane, ex-ballplayer and GM of the small-market Oakland Athletics. Going against traditional baseball logic and the advice of his team scouts, Beane leans on the advice of math whiz-kid Paul and attempts to replace three key players lost to free agency with misfits no other team has much interest in. After a slow start, his team begins winning, giving credence to his oddball ideas.

This is a solid movie with some good performances (Full disclosure: I had no idea that was Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe) but the music gives it the atmosphere and depth of a television drama and more than a few Hollywood touches keep things a little flat. For a die hard baseball nerd, this is a real treat as you get in-depth look at the innards of a professional baseball team. I especially liked, even if they weren't all that realistic, the phone conversations that Beane had with other general managers as trades were (almost) discussed and dealings were done. There could have probably been more baseball action, but it might have distracted from the real story. The combination of actual footage and reenactment was really well done though. Pitt "just talks" his way through this (Jen's words, not mine) but has enough personality to make you want to follow the character around. Initially, I thought his story meandered a little too much, but it all came together nicely at the end. The "annoying" little girl (again, Jen's words) who played Pitt's daughter (Kerris Dorsey) was really good in limited screen time. Also given screen time: actual baseball player Royce Clayton as Miguel Tejada. Oh, and that White Sox first base coach (Tom Gamboa) who was attacked by drunken fans in Kansas City. No, that can't be right. He must have been a Royals first base coach attacked by fans in Chicago.

Chad Bradford, the guy with the goofy wind-up, trivia: Bradford would literally scrape his knuckles on the pitcher's mound dirt occasionally when he threw pitches.

Easy Rider

1969 hippie manifesto

Rating: 17/20

Plot: A couple hippies strike it rich with the resell of some cocaine. They decide to get on their motorbikes and travel across the country to New Orleans. Along the way, the meet some hippies, a bunch of people who don't like hippies, Jack Nicholson, and some whores. Then, they die.

I'd taken all these wonderful notes about Easy Rider, how it's a laid-back indictment of the American dream with a graceful and poetic narrative-within-the-narrative about the history of America and the failure of capitalism. Stuff about the symbolism of Captain America driving a motorcycle fueled by cash and how free sex is more pure than sex you have to pay for and how freely chasing your ideals will only get you shot by some rednecks. Or maybe it was wasting their freedom got them shot by the rednecks. It was great stuff, but you'll have to take my word that it existed because I ended up wadding it up and stuffing it down my pipe and smoking it. I like the three leads--nonchalant and doomed Peter Fonda as Wyatt, the continuously giggling Dennis Hopper as Billy, and the lively Jack Nicholson in that goofy football helmet. I also really like the look of this movie; Laszlo Kovacs' cinematography perfectly captures the American landscape and the mysteries of our past, working almost like a visual folklore. Although I think a lot of the scenes were filmed by stoned locals Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda encountered on the journey. Easy Rider takes a turn for the weird near the end during a cemetery acid trip scene, dating the movie somewhat but nevertheless a nice trippy diversion. This is a movie just flooded with music, probably too much, and people who don't like this movie very much will argue that in addition to the thing being a relic from an era they probably don't like much, about sixty percent of the movie consists of shots of the actors riding their motorcycles while flower power anthems blare. Fair enough, but it perfectly captures the moods and wasted ideals of the time, and if you look a little deeper, you'll see it's packed with meaning. One thing I can't stand though--the blinking transition thing. That's just irritating.

Santa Claus

1959 Mexican Santa Claus movie

Rating: 3/20 (Jen: 1/20 [fell asleep]; Emma: 2/20 [fell asleep]; Abbey: 10/20)

Plot: Pretty much your standard Christmas story. It's Christmas Eve and Santa Claus is somewhere in space or heaven overseeing his sweatshop while children from many different cultures help him prepare for his magical flight. Of course, Satan wants to stop him and sends demon Pitch to tempt kids to be naughty and kill Santa. And of course, Santa has to get help from Merlin the magician to survive the night and ensure that the nice children wake up with a living room full of presents. Even the poor little girl who just wants a freakin' doll!

You have to love a Christmas movie that has the ability to punish viewers who fall asleep while watching it with hellish nightmares of holiday demons and laughing reindeer robots. This is bizarre from the get-go. It starts with a seemingly endless scene with Santa playing an organ while showcasing the variety of countries that the jolly old elf has apparently kidnapped children from to work in his sweatshop. For a moment, I thought I was watching a live-action film based on Disney's "It's a Small World," something I'm sure is on the horizon. Each group of children got to sing a little song that sounded like it could have come from the country they represent, and my favorite was when the American children did "Mary Had a Little Lamb." Seriously? That's the song that best represents America? It's not even a Christmas song! The next scene takes the viewer naturally to hell where the "King of Hades" lights a firecracker and leads a poorly-choreographed dance. Then it's back to Santa where we get a chance to see just how he knows if you've been sleeping or if you've been awake or if you've been bad or good. Apparently, he's got a big machine with giant lips, a telescope with an eyeball, and a satellite thing with a human ear attached. The surreal props and goofy sets show some creativity, but it also makes it obvious that the people who made this thing only had a rudimentary understanding of Santa Claus. I mean, there aren't even elves and his four reindeer are clunky robots. Speaking of those robots, at one point one of them laughs (he he he ha he ha ha ha ho he) and it might be the scariest thing I've heard in my entire life. Santa's almost nonstop maniacal laughter (nonstop except when the devil is trying to murder him) isn't much better though. There's just so much about this movie that is so awkward, and a lot about this movie that is downright unsettling. A pair of dream sequences--one with giant dancing dolls and one with a kid who opens up coffin-like presents containing his parents--are just weird, and almost every scene with Pitch gave me the chills. Of course, Pitch was a poorly-costumed red-painted demon, so I guess that was the desired effect. One of the scariest moments was when the little poor girl was having a repetitive conversation with the devil about stealing a doll. She must have said "No, I don't want to do evil" five or six times. The good characters, absent-minded Merlin and a magic-key-making blacksmith, are fun. Merlin's got this weird bouncing gait that makes Torgo's walk look normal, and the blacksmith has some hair glued to his chest to, I guess, make him look more blacksmithy. Nobody's going to mistake this for a Miracle on 34th Street or an It's a Wonderful Life, but this just might be my new favorite Christmas movie. Like those movies, you get to learn beautiful lessons like how "a dream is a wish that the heart makes" or how people on earth eat "even smoke and alcohol." Fun for the whole family unless some of your family members would rather not have Satan anywhere near their Christmas entertainment.

The Importance of Being Earnest

1952 movie

Rating: 17/20 (Jen: dozed off)

Plot: Two rakish pals, Jack and Algernon, decide to both be Earnest instead in attempts to win the hearts of their beloved. Things get wild, and that pun, ladies and gentlemen, is intended.

When folks discuss using CGI to adapt or update older films or make brand new films with computer-generated John Waynes and Humphrey Bogarts, I always get really excited. I think that sounds like a terrific idea! I mean, they inserted John Wayne into a Coors beer commercial years ago. That was a turning point in my life actually, the exact moment when I decided I was going to start drinking. And I've never looked back. Technology could do wonders with this movie. For example, there are characters I'd really enjoy seeing naked in this movie, most obviously Edith Evans, and I think we're at a technologically-enlightened time when computer graphics geniuses should be able to handle something like that. And speaking of Edith Evans, her delivery of the line "A handbag?" is probably the most perfectly-delivered line I've ever heard, and all 17 rating points (I debated giving it a 17 1/2, but we don't do fractions here at shane-movies) are because of that line. No, that's not true. I liked the performances, almost universally, even though they reminded me of the staginess of movies from the 1930s. I was surprised at how funny this movie actually was, mostly that sophisticated kind of comedy where you don't want to laugh as much as you want to golf clap or chuckle inwardly or say, "I say, that certainly was witty," and then cough delicately into a napkin but not delicately enough to keep your monocle from falling off. The writing is clever and randy. I find it impossible to believe anybody ever talked like these characters do which really makes this, in my mind, the 1950s equivalent of the second Matrix movie except with much less kicking and punching. Maybe the CGI gurus could add some kicking and punching when they update this. This movie benefits from its simplicity. The Victorian setting is a colorful one, and my television screen was stuffed with lots of pretty things to look at, but theres' nothing really flashy or frilly with the direction so that we're focused on what we should be focused upon--these pretty ridiculous characters and their ridiculous dialogue. Satirical , still fresh, shaded with irony, and as expected with something that Oscar Wilde penned, intelligently funny, like verbal slapstick for stuffy squares.

Reportedly, this is Ass Masterson's third favorite movie. I wonder if this really is a link between the dastardly villain and Cory, who recommended it to me, or if I'm just being paranoid again.

Away We Go

2009 romantic comedy

Rating: 14/20 (Jen: fell asleep while we watched it, finished it the next day while I was at school, and then refused to rate it)

Plot: John and Maya, a seemingly happy couple happily living in sin, are expecting their first child. They convince themselves that they're not where they want to be to raise their child and go on a road trip all over America and Canada, meeting with friends and relatives to find the perfect place.

Cute little movie with likable leads and an assortment of quirky extras. I really want to call the movie "sweet" but I'm almost afraid that will offend the movie, and I wouldn't want that. John Krasinski is going to have a tough time shaking his character from The Office. Here, he plays a vulnerable guy, romantic in every sense of the word. It's not an entirely different character from his Jim but it's different enough, I guess. At least he's got a beard. Maya Rudolph--Minnie Ripperton's kid--is really good, too. She's not conventionally pretty, but she still exudes this cute vibe I kind of dig. She lacks a beard. Neither Krasinski or Rudolph over-do things here, and they bounce off each other naturally. The dialogue isn't natural at all, but I liked it. The movie was sneaky funny with the couple sort of playing straight man and woman to some terrifically goofy and sometimes terrible human beings. The majority of the side characters don't seem realistic at all, and it almost works to make the movie seem more like a parable than an attempt at verisimilitude. This movie's got its share of bigger names in some of those almost-cameo roles, and there are some very funny performances in there. I really liked what this movie had to say about trying to make it in a world that is kind of ugly, and I thought the ending really nailed it.

Kairow recommended this movie when we saw Jimmy Tupper vs. the Goatman of Bowie. And it's not even based on a comic book!

I Love You, Man

2009 movie that Cory didn't warn me about in time

Rating: 8/20 (Jen: 6/20)

Plot: Paul Rudd's character (c'mon, you know the guy) has popped the question to his girlfriend of eight months. Zooey says yes, but soon after, she and her girlfriends start thinking that it's odd that Paul Rudd's character has no male friends. He overhears a conversation about their concerns and frantically tries to befriend another male so that he'll have a best man for his wedding. Enter Jason Segal's character (you know him, too). They hit it off wonderfully because they both like Rush. However, Paul Rudd's character has problems juggling his new friendship, his life with his future wife, and trying to sell the Incredible Hulk's house.

This is rated R, and I think I figured out what that R stands for. It's R for Recycled. This is essentially an Apatow clone, raunchy as all get out; a potential frat guy favorite; a smorgasbord of references to drinking, puking on people, sex, and man caves. I would almost swear on my wife's life that almost every line in this movie has been yanked without mercy (for the audience that is) out of a handful of other recent comedies and rearranged, like a William S. Burroughs' cut-up text, into I Love You, Man's script. About 85% of that script is Paul Rudd's character (you know, that guy) being really awkward as he attempts guy talk, slanging it up and trying to match the cool he hears in the banter of other men. He succeeds in being awkward, but he doesn't quite get to both awkward and funny. An ongoing gag about Paul Rudd's character (him) sounding like a leprechaun was actually pretty funny. Pretty funny. But most of the Klaven speak just seemed like an OK supporting actor trying way too hard to be a leading funny man. The best example is in a scene where (that one guy) Paul Rudd's character's fiance finds out that Paul Rudd's character (see: any other movie or television show with Paul Rudd) plays an instrument. He repeats "I slappa the bass" ad nauseam (in fact, Paul Rudd's character [you know who I'm talking about, right?] still might be saying it) while Zooey critiques his attempt at a Jamaican accent. I can understand the scene being in the movie, but I don't understand why it had to be twenty-five minutes long. Part of the problem with this is that it seemed the performers were given lots of room to improvise. Is some of the stuff they come up with funny? Sure. But when you have almost two hours of that same kind of funny, it gets tedious. Watching people in tuxedos and fancy dresses throwing pies at each other might be funny for a couple minutes, too. Would you want to watch a two hour pie fight though? Maybe the producers of I Love You, Man just wanted to jump on the green bandwagon, recycling and reusing what's worked the last few years to assemble this all-too-predictable comedy. Or maybe they're just really lazy.

Now that I think about it, I probably would want to watch a two hour pie fight. But only if Tarantino directed it.

The Quiller Memorandum

1966 spy movie

Rating: 15/20 (Jen: 12/20)

Plot: Quentin Quiller is playing an elaborate and deadly game of hide-and-seek with neo-Nazi fiends in Germany. Obi-Wan Kenobi helps him out. Several people try to give him cigarettes, and he gets it on with a sexy school teacher. Not bad for a cheap weekend spy fantasy camp run by amateurs!

"Can I help you?"
"Yes, I'd like two tickets for The Quiller Memorandum."

I wouldn't have done it. I wouldn't have seen this movie in a theater back in the mid-60s because I wouldn't want to say that title through that little hole in the glass to a person who can probably barely hear me. Even if the man who would later play Obi-Wan Kenobi was in the movie. This could have used some more thrill and a more engaging main character. Segal's Quiller doesn't really do much. But it all works in a kind of quiet way, and there are a couple really good scenes. I also liked the music performed, I believe, by the Quiller Memorandumers. The Pinter-penned script makes this quite a bit different from your average spy movie.

Waiting for Guffman

1996 mockumentary

Rating: 14/20 (Jen: 11/20)

Plot: Speck-on-the-map Blaine, Missouri is celebrating its 150th birthday with an amateur stage performance about the town's history. Corky St. Clair, a dramatist with unrealistic aspirations, gets together a couple travel agents, a Dairy Queen employee, and a dentist and prepares his show. And what a big show it is, for Guffman, straight from Broadway, is due to arrive, enjoy their performance, and get them a shot on the big stage.

I'm not sure there's one joke I'm going to remember in this one. No, I take that back. I'll remember David Cross's cameo as a ufologist. Still, I chortled quite a bit, as much as I would during three episodes of Parks and Recreation anyway. Guffman satirizes middle America fairly well, and I like how the characters, other than Christopher Guest's Corky, aren't over-the-top. Good comic performances from those types of guys who are good at this sort of thing--Eugene Levy, Don Lake, Fred Willard, and the wonderful Paul Benedict. In case you don't know the name, Paul Benedict is that one guy. It all builds up to the big night and the big performance, but it's sort of like a firework that's a dud. It pops a little, throws out a couple sparks, and fades. Overall, this is like a joke that builds to a predictable (but still funny) punch-line, but it's a fun enough way to pass some time. I can't get enough of the mockumentary format.

I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With

2006 fat guy comedy

Rating: 9/20 (Jen: 5/20)

Plot: A fat actor living in Chicago with his mother is having a bad day. His agent drops him, he's fired from his job, and his girlfriend dumps him. He sneaks out of an Overeaters Anonymous meeting and heads right into an ice cream shop where he meets Sarah Silverman, a woman I'm not even convinced is human. She's bizarre, but he digs her, and eventually, they do it.

Jen hated this movie so much that she's barely spoken to me today except for a few times when she's hollered things. It's not been a good year for Curb Your Enthusiasm-related movies as Jeff Garlin wrote, directed, and starred in this affair. Sure, you get to see Sarah Silverman, suspiciously sans head, in underpants, but you don't get to see Jeff Garlin in underpants which is why I took the chance with this one anyway. There are a couple mildly amusing moments, but I only laughed one time during a scene involving a giant pirate head. But I laugh at mascots all the time, so that probably wasn't really funny. Seriously. Next to the place where I get gas, there's a Kentucky Fried Chicken, and the first time I saw the Colonel (not him, but some sort of statue) sitting on a bench inside, I laughed for a solid ten minutes. Gas was leaking all over the ground, I was rolling around and holding my sides, an elderly woman kept asking, "Is he having a seizure or something?" It was great. And sporting events? If there's a mascot involved, it doesn't matter what the final score is. Everybody wins! My first erection was actually at Busch Stadium in St. Louis as I watched Fred Bird dancing on top of the visitor's dugout. I've been to Disney World a few times, but I'm no longer allowed to go back because I humped Pluto's leg and fondled Baloo the Bear. It's a lifetime ban, one that I think is really unfair. But I digress. Back to this ridiculously titled movie. The story's a bit random, and there were too many characters in this movie for only a few minutes. The writing had an improvisational quality to it, usually something I'm not going to mind at all, but the problem was that it just wasn't all that funny. So, to recap: Sarah Silverman trying on underwear? Good. Pirate? Great! No scenes with Jeff Garlin trying on underwear? Depressing. What do we learn? A two-hour movie featuring nothing but Jeff Garlin on top of Mr. Redlegs while Sarah Silverman tries on underwear in the background would probably be the greatest movie of all time. Get crackin', Hollywood!

Songs from the Second Floor

2000 black comedy

Rating: 17/20 (Jen: 12/20)

Plot: Tired pale souls wander in the solitude of a crowded purgatory.

I searched and searched for this about six years ago, finally found and watched it, and was kind of disappointed. Roy Andersson, not exactly a prolific filmmaker, has a follow-up which has just found its way onto dvd, so I thought it would be a good time to give this a second chance. I'm really glad I did because it really connected this time. There's a fragmented narrative in here--something about a corporation going out of business, a traffic jam, a guy burning down his furniture store for the insurance money, stuff that wouldn't be out of place in a Monty Python production--but the story doesn't matter. This one is all about the images, and Andersson's got the sort of eye that make a film survive entirely on images. The camera is static, moving (I think) during only one scene, and you really get the sense that you're watching a photograph filled with people and objects who decided to break the laws of photography and move around a little bit. They're photographs from incomplete dreams, stuffed with surreal imagery like multiple crucifixes, magician tricks gone wrong, scurrying rats, former generals trapped in cribs, the wandering dead, and group flagellation. The dialogue's occasionally dippy, and it'd be hard to argue with somebody who thinks the drab colors give this a monochromatically faded and depressing appearance, but there's something in every single scene that fascinates, whether it's because it cleverly connects to another scene, contains complex choreography with things or characters moving in the background, has interesting geometry and angles (lots of really long streets and hallways, sets actually constructed in a studio), or is just too bizarre to not pay attention to. One observation: the characters' interactions are so completely unnatural (I'm not sure there's one conversation with characters who are facing each other) that it's at least depressing and almost unnerving. That's one of the many aspects of this that make it not very easy and not for everybody, but it's a unique work of art with some heavy philosophy that was not only universally relevant at the beginning of the millennium but is actually even more relevant today. I look forward to seeing You, the Living, apparently the second piece of an unfinished trilogy. My favorite scene is the one in which the main character (or the closest thing to a main character this has) is introduced on a subway. It's a moment that was simultaneously beautiful and hilarious, just like all of the world's best things.

Julie and Julia

2009 duo-biopic

Rating: 13/20 (Jen: 16/20; Becky: 18/20; Tom: 8/20)

Plot: An extremely whiny wannabe writer named Julie moves to Queens with her supportive and loving husband. She hates her friends and her job and doesn't understand why nobody else thinks she's the most important person on the planet. Since all egomaniacal whiny wannabe writers wind up starting blogs, she decides to start her own, a three hundred and sixty-five day adventure in which she'll cook all five hundred and some recipes in the Julia Child cookbook. Her irritating story is juxtaposed with Julia Child's life with her own supportive and loving husband and her developing interest in cooking. The two meet, and the bitter elderly Julia Child (***spoiler alert***) defeats Julie in an epic fight with utensils and rolling pins and then forces her husband to watch as she debones her and devours her lifeless carcass while giggling madly through blood-stained false teeth.

I would have really liked this if it was just called Julia. Meryl Streep is great in her portrayal of the quirky and fascinating Childs. There's some humorous banter between her and her husband, and there are also some very touching moments as well. When the movie focused on Julia Childs, this was actually good. Unfortunately, there's a Julie in the story, too. She wrote the blog, she turned the blog into the book, and the book and blog gave her the easy fame she longed for. If the character in the movie is anything like the real person, as I suspect is the case, then the real person is irritating, pretentious, and hopelessly self-centered. The most revealing part of her story is when she finds out that Julia Childs hates her. It was easy to see why. Almost everything she says is irritating, and every minute detail of her life is blown up into a major drama. As my faithful readers know, I'm not generally a hateful fellow, but I genuinely hope that people start randomly attacking her with food at all her future speaking engagements. Julie is played by the mousy Amy Adams, sort of a Meg Ryan lite. And it's hard to imagine an actress lighter and fluffier than Meg Ryan. This is the type of role that will likely cause me to never give her a fair chance in another movie. Actually, her annoying character in this might cause me to completely avoid any future Amy Adams movies unless Crispin Glover or Vincent Price happens to be in them as well. So, to sum it all up: Meryl Streep is great. Somebody needs to slap around Julie Powell. Oh, one final note. If you watch this hoping to see a Julia Child sex scene, expect to be disappointed. Close counts only in horseshoes and hand grenades and not in Julia Child sex scenes.

Batman: The Movie

1966 superhero movie

Rating: 14/20 (Jen: 16/20)

Plot: Batman and Robin must save the world from four brilliant villains--the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler, and Catwoman. That's right. Not just one villain. Not even just two or three. Four villains! And not just Gotham City. Not just America. The entire world!

Best Batman movie ever made or, as anonymous says, "the energizer bunny of bad movies"? Is Adam West's performance the greatest performance in any Batman movie? And is the shark attack scene the most thrilling action sequence in Batman movie history? Discuss.

Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2

2003, 2004

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Beatrix Kiddo, a member of The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, gets knocked up and decides that it's time to hang up her samurai sword and settle down in Texas. Bill, her old boyfriend and father of her unborn child and head honcho of the aforementioned squad, doesn't like that idea and crashes her wedding rehearsal in a violent manner. Four years later, after Beatrix wakes from a coma, she's not very happy about it and wants revenge. So she hunts down Sonny Chiba, gets herself a sword, and does some killin'.

There's such an odd combination of grace and mayhem in these movies. The fight scenes and choreography are terrific, but the quiet moments preceding and following the fight scenes are terrific, too. Sure, that killing spree in the House of Blue Leaves is entertaining and beautifully choreographed, but the long-shot prior to Beatrix's arrival and the tranquil wintry scene following that slaughter are in some ways even more exciting. I've seen enough kung-fu movies to appreciate the allusions in both halves of this revenge epic, and I've seen enough spaghetti westerns to appreciate the allusions in the second, less frenetic installment, and it's really an interesting marriage of these movies. Tarantino's got a good eye and ear, and the visuals and music collide in stunning ways throughout both volumes. There are some song choices I don't like, but for the most part, the recycled soundtrack stuff fits great with the action. And while there's truly some virtuosic filmmaking going on here, Tarantino often gets in his own way and makes a mess of things. Kill Bill is probably far too ambitious and sprawling, and it could easily have been a series of films. I would have loved to see more characterization for the other assassins anyway. The dialogue is strong although once again, Tarantino's goofiness gets in the way (see that "Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" line). There are also a lot of great humorous moments hidden amidst the strewn limbs and blood-stained walls. My favorite is the conversation with Bill and the four-year-old daughter:

Bill: What movie do you want to watch?
Daughter: Shogun Assassin.
Bill: Shogun Assassin is too long.

Together, these are a really solid, if uneven, film. It is a bit jarring that Beatrix goes from killing about a hundred people in the first half and only one in the second.

Iron Man

2008 comic book movie

Rating: 11/20

Plot: Part two of the biography of baseball Hall of Famer Cal Ripken who broke Lou Gehrig's "iron man" consecutive game streak. This is the part of the future Oriole superstar's story in which he winds up in Afghanistan where terrorists are forcing him to build a fancy missile. Instead, he builds a suit of armor and busts out of there. "Ain't no time to [censored] around," he said. "I've got spring training to get ready for." Cue Black Sabbath song.

It's starting to get to the point where if you've seen one comic book superhero movie, you've seen 'em all. And I'm not entirely sure why I keep subjecting myself to them. Robert Downey Jr. (the greatest actor of all time) doesn't really need to be in this. His performance seems half-assed, and anybody who sort of looks like him (read: dreamy) would have sufficed. I'm not sure what was going on with his facial hair anyway. About one-fourth of this movie consists of montages of Robert Downey Jr. building things and despite the guitar music accompanying that building action, I wasn't exactly moved. The story is predictable and really sort of lame in a way that mirrors the recent Hulk movie, and although I know I should probably not tear something apart because of what seem to be scientific illogicalities (of which this has many), that stuff really seemed to get in the way of the story here. I also thought the Iron Man looked dopey, and the action scenes, even though the special effects were adequate, were mostly at a distance which did nothing to bring the action into my living room. And I hated the rock 'n' roll soundtrack. Ho-hum.

Robocop

1987 action movie

Rating: 12/20

Plot: Rookie cop Murphy gets all shot up by a giggling bunch of thugs in what has to be the worst first day in the history of employment. That's what you get for workin gin Detroit, I guess. He's reconstructed as a half-robot/half-Murphy by a Omni Consumer Products into a crime-fightin' machine. Fragments of memories surface, and Robocop wants revenge.

So what happens if Robocop gets shot in the lower half of his face? Seems like an attack on the mandible would do some damage. You'd think the bad guys might be smart enough to figure that out. "Hey, there's one part of Robocop that isn't covered with metal. Let's aim for that since shooting him in the chest during the last 45 minutes of this movie hasn't worked." I don't think I buy the Robocop-as-post-modern-masterpiece idea, but this is still a goofy, ultraviolent movie that manages to be entertaining enough from beginning to end. I do like some of the satirical jabs at consumerism, our violent society, progress (?), and the media, but I don't think this is cohesive or consistent enough to be taken all that seriously. I think the part where the guy drives his truck into a giant container of toxic waste might be one of the greatest moments in the history of movies made about half-robots/half-cops though. I'll give Robocop that much.

Buster Keaton Saturday: Sherlock Jr.

1924 romantic action-comedy

Rating: 17/20 (Emma: 17/20; Jen: zzzzz)

Plot: Our protagonist dreams of becoming a detective which could be detrimental to his real job as a projectionist. When accused of stealing and pawning a watch belonging to the father of the love of his life, he is booted from their home.

A novella of a movie? At a bit under fifty minutes, this is too long to be a short and too short to be feature length. Emma and I picked it because we'd all already seen it and the other two members of the household who are able to remain waking participants of Buster Keaton Saturday have come up missing. Sherlock Jr. sort of takes a while to get going, but it would be a great introduction to Keaton's work since it's got a little taste of everything he's known for. Creativity/invention in the denouement of the motorcycle and car chase and (especially) in a scene involving Buster walking into a movie. There are sight gags, including a tricky safe and Buster's attempt to "shadow" the culprit. There are a few stunts and pratfalls. There's a train. There's a fantastic chase scene. There are clever bits of "dialogue" ("It's your dollar? Describe it.") and romance. There's a down-on-his-luck protagonist who is easy to root for. And there are wonderful "How's he even doing that?" moments. I love a scene where he plays pool with an explosive ball, and this has one of my favorite Buster Keaton moments when he appears to actually leap through both a suitcase and a human being. His buddy Houdini probably taught him that one. My only gripe is that the music used for my dvd copy (composed in the 90's, I believe) is awful.

Trivia: This is the movie in which Buster actually fractured his neck during what looks to be a prosaic stunt and didn't even realize it until years later. This is also the movie that contains the only time Buster Keaton used a stunt double when he was needed to perform the stunt of another actor in the same scene.

Helpful hint: If interested in renting a Buster Keaton dvd, Sherlock Jr. and Our Hospitality are paired together. Since they're both good ones, it might be a great place to start. You'll have to put up with that terrible music though.