Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

1994 manic comedy

Rating: 9/20

Plot: The titular detective is hired to find the Miami Dolphins mascot before their Superbowl appearance.

Ok, I don't get it. I watched this--yes, it was my first time--because I read something somewhere and was convinced that this was something. Jim Carrey was unleashed with this 1994 release, and his performance almost looks like the performance of somebody who is trying to ruin the movie. It's almost dada, Jim Carrey as an avant-garde genius or a Marx Brother whose wires became crossed during the time travel process. Nothing about the character makes sense, and once you get used to Carrey's rhythm, this is almost entertaining. Then, it's just annoying. I'm glad that Jim Carrey didn't spend his entire career doing this crap. I will say this though: You're not going to get any other opportunity to see Tone-Loc talking to Jim Carrey's ass. I'm really not sure how the other actors and actresses, some who were at stages in their career where they shouldn't have been desperate, put up with these shenanigans. I laughed exactly one time while watching Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, and that wasn't even because of anything Jim Carrey did. No, that was Alice Drummond as Mrs. Finkle with the line "Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell." I will not be watching the sequel to this movie unless I am tricked or in a P.O.W. camp.

Oprah Movie Club Pick for June: Blue Velvet

1986 neo-noir thriller

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Jeffrey, home from college because his father is hospitalized after a stroke, finds a severed ear while throwing rocks at a trash can. He takes it to a detective, but he and the detective's daughter decide to do a little sleuthing on their own. They uncover a sinister world of kidnapping, sexual depravity, and Roy Orbison lip-synching routines. Soon, Jeffrey is up to his nipples in shadows.

It's been suggested that Jeffrey's story is a neo-noir exploration of the Oedipus Complex, that Dennis Hopper's Frank is an abusive father figure, and Rossellini's Dorothy represents the mother. (See Fetishism and Curiosity by Laura Mulvey--Chapter Nine is all about this and can be found [mostly] online.) It's an interesting idea, but I couldn't get through the entire chapter either because I'm too lazy or not smart enough or some combination of the two. For me, Blue Velvet is really straightforward, perhaps Lynch's easiest movie to digest. It's still Lynchian--sprinkled with his trademark dark quirkiness and horrifying outlook on sexuality and violence. Of course, according to imdb.com, there are also allusions to Lincoln's assassination, so maybe I'm not digging into this nearly enough. I don't buy the Lincoln stuff, however. A Lincoln Street? Frank's last name being Booth? Victim's shot through the head? Seems like a reach or two to me. Something else learned from the imdb.com trivia page: Lynch (during the filming) and later Rossellini both find the rape scene that Jeffrey watches from the closet funny. I find that extremely odd. I don't see any humor in that scene at all; in fact, I think it's one of the more horrifying moments in film. I've always thought Lynch and I had similar senses of humor.

Anyway, this is a movie about things that are submerged, things that either people don't know about because they're actually hidden or people just want to pretend to not know about. Or it's about mysteries and what happens when you're curious enough to start uncovering those mysteries--sociological mysteries as well as personal ones. "It's a strange world." Those words are said during several conversations between Kyle MacLachlan and the lovely Laura Dern's characters. Lynch never hides the strangeness in our world. In fact, he brings it to the focus in his movies, and that's one of the things that can make watching his movies a sometimes-uneasy experience. That submerged strangeness is shown metaphorically right at the beginning of Blue Velvet. There are shots of white picket fences, flowers, a guy watering his grass, and waving firemen to the saccharine crooning of "Blue Velvet" by Bobby Vinton. Suddenly--a gun on the television and a hose caught in a bush, the latter which I just typed and wondered if it was meant to be as dirty as it looks in words. And then insects snarling subterraneanly. Above, things are just peachy, but just below the surface, there's all sorts of nastiness. Look at MacLachlan's goofy character. He's nothing but innocent at the beginning of this thing. Hell, he tries to impress a high school senior with a story about the kid with "the biggest tongue in the world" and something called "the chicken walk." We don't see any evidence that there's anything darker going on with his character until he is in the nightclub watching Rossellini's character for the first time. Then, you see the lust on his face in a brilliantly acted scene. Just eyes, and you see everything start to unravel. Or maybe you don't if you're watching this for the first time. I don't know. Of course, earlier in the story, Jeffrey is plotting to break into a women's house, but there's still a kind of childish naiveté with that whole scheme. No, the sinister nature--submerged evil goop--in Jeffrey will be uncovered a bit later in the proceedings. Dennis Hopper's Frank Booth is the personification of that evil in society and maybe in all of us. And what a performance that is! There's a physicality to his character even when he's not moving, and each curse word he utters--and those are numerous--seems to pack more meaning than when I curse at people when I'm driving. And "I'll fuck anything that moves!" is one of my favorite lines/deliveries of all time. Hopper's at the height of his unhinged powers here. The great Jack Nance is in there, too, introducing himself as Paul multiple times and asking Jeffrey, "Have you ever been to pussy heaven?" Oh, and Brad Dourif. I like all the performances in this movie. They're the typical performances David Lynch usually gets in his movies, performances always threatening to completely cross the line into soap opera performances. They're performances that--almost thankfully--remind you that you're just watching a movie.

Other stuff:

Knife seduction--Lynch would have had to call in a double or stunt man for me, first because my naked rump is disturbing and covered with a layer of hair and second because I would have gotten to excited, lunged at Rossellini, and been stabbed. It would have been a Brandon Lee end to my career.

Oil drill shadows spotlighted on a brick wall. This doesn't have much unusual imagery. There's a guy with a gas mask, a few random shots of candles, and, of course, the severed ear with ants crawling all over it. But Lynch deliberately uses a spotlight to throw the shadow of an oil drill on the wall. I guess it must be important. Digging? Sexual symbolism (i.e. being drilled)? Something else?

There are references to logs or logging, and the town's called Lumberton. It really made me miss the presence of the Log Lady.

Heineken product placement--the first time MacLachlan is drinking it, you could almost mistake the scene for a commercial. It's awkward.

A blind guy working in a hardware store--seems like throwaway stuff. Is there anything deeper with this character?

"I have your disease in me now." I'm not sure if that's hot or creepy.

"Yes, that's a human ear all right." For whatever reason, that makes me laugh. Either the detective doubted that Jeffrey knew what a human ear looked like or he didn't believe him.

There's a song that plays when MacLachlan and Dern's characters tell each other they love each other--"Mysteries of Love" apparently, lyrics about how "Sometimes the wind blows"--and it might be the worst thing I've ever heard in my life. And I can't figure out why anybody would play that at a party unless they were trying to clear the room. It's Julee Cruise singing to Angelo Badalamenti's music. Badalamenti's the piano player in this, by the way. I like a lot of what Badalamenti did here, especially during the title credits where the work could almost be mistake for something Bernard Herrmann did. But this "Mysteries of Love" song is the worst thing ever.

I could have done without Mike, Sandy's boyfriend. I guess something needed to happen so that Rossellini's can wander into the background completely naked, but that pretty great scene could have been completely terrific without that distracting little subplot that didn't need to be there.

Dern discusses her dreams, talking about how it was dark because there weren't any robins. Of course, Hopper refers to it being "dark" a couple different times, too. MacLachlan's response is a beautiful "You're a neat girl" to which she responds, "So are you." Just beautiful. Those crazy kids living in this messed-up world. I sure hope they make it.

Scooby Doo! The Mystery Begins

2009 television movie

Rating: 10/20 (Abbey: 15/20)

Plot: Details the origin of the Mystery Inc. as the gang get together for the first time to solve a mystery at their high school and clear their names.

This might be a little better than the theatrical movies. I also might not have paid that much attention to it. The real mysteries: Why does Fred a brunette sans ascot? Why is Velma Asian? How much money did they spend animating that dog? The dog looks pretty good for a television movie, but if you're going to animate the titular dog in something like this, you might as well animate everything else. And you know what? They did that several years ago, retelling the same story again and again and sometimes adding Don Knotts to the equation. There's really no reason for this to exist. Well, unless they want to add a CGI Don Knotts, and I'm all for that.

The biggest problem with this is the MacGuffin. It would be completely worthless, so the antagonist going to all the trouble he does in the movie to get his hands on it makes almost no sense.

Broken Flowers

2005 mystery movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Don Johnston's a sad Don Juan, but his life just isn't complete. His latest in a series of likely hundreds of girlfriends walks out on him, and the same day he gets a letter from an anonymous former lover informing him that he has a 19-year-old son who might be looking for him. His nosey neighbor does some research and sends Don on a journey of self-discovery in which he visits four of his girlfriends to find out which one sent the letter. Journey of self-discovery? That sounds like crap they'd write on the back of a dvd box.

This movie can be summed up by describing the contrast between Don and his neighbor, humorously played by Jeffrey Wright. Winston's got the family, a cluttered but colorful home, a bubbling enthusiasm, a desire to explore and seek answers. Don's alone in a quiet and almost bare-by-comparison house and almost seems resigned to the fact that he is going to die alone. This is as enigmatic as most Jarmusch flicks are, and although I'm sure Don's journey is supposed to represent the stages of something-rather, I can't place my finger on what those stages are or even what they're the stages of. To me, this is a movie about reflecting on the past in order to attempt to grasp something that was missed. I love the mystery of the thing and the little visual pink clues dropped all over the place. Murray's fun to watch although he isn't terribly funny. As usual, he shows off this ability to say more without any words at all than most actors can say with an entire page of dialogue.

This reminds me: I need to see that other Jarmusch movie that I haven't seen yet.

Witness for the Prosecution

1957 courtroom drama

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

Plot: Sir Wilfrid isn't supposed to be taking any stressful cases following a heart attack. Of course, he's not supposed to be drinking or smoking cigars either. So when a juicy murder case falls into his lap, he can't help himself. Married inventor Leonard Vole has been arrested for the murder of an old woman. He claims he's innocent, and his wife helps back up an alibi. But when the trial begins and the wife takes the stand as the main titular witness for the prosecution, things might get more stressful than Sir Wilfrid imagined.

This Wilder/Christie piece is an enormously entertaining courtroom drama with a little dark humor thrown in. It'll appeal if you're looking for a twisty and turny mystery or if you're looking for a fun character study. Charles Laughton's Wilfrid is just the type of character I really like--kinda violent and really surly, the old guy I'll eventually be provided I live that long. Tyrone Power and Marlene Dietrich get top billing here, but this is really Laughton's show, especially in the early going. Don't get me wrong--Dietrich is really good, too, in this multi-dimensional role. Power? He could have been anybody and probably gets in the way too much if you want to be honest. The writing sparkles, lots of wit and irony. One line that I liked was when Laughton compliments Vole by telling him he thinks like a criminal. Pretty brilliant writing. The twists in this work which is really something considering how much time has passed and how much stuff like this has been duplicated. I won't type anymore because that poster up there is telling me not to. The poster up there also calls this "the most electrifying entertainment of our time," and although I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate, everything Billy Wilder does could be described as electric and entertaining. Subtly electric!

I should point out that Jennifer claimed right after the opening credits that she had the whole mystery figured out. She wouldn't elaborate, probably because she didn't want to ruin things for me. At the end of the movie, after the last big twist, she started laughing maniacally and then ran circles in the yard.

Sherlock Holmes

2009 action movie/bastardized lit

Rating: 13/20 (Jen: 11/20)

Plot: Slobbish detective Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson attempt to solve the mystery of who is trying to terrorize Londoners. Turns out that it's a dead guy! Oh, snap!

The more this went on (and on and on), the more I actually ended up liking it. Unfortunately, it was never enough to completely save the movie. This is one of those movies that seems like it was written by eight different people. They all started out in same conference room around a massive oval table, a picture of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in front of an empty chair to give them inspiration. Maybe they all smoked opium, listened to violin music, and wore deerstalker hats to get in the right mood. In fact, I'm sure they all must have been smoking opium. They had trouble agreeing on much, just as you'd expect from a gaggle of writers, and decided to split up, write portions of the plot on their own, and reassemble later to paste it all together. So Guy #1 ran off with his head full of all these supernatural elements because he digs vampire movies; Guy #2, the traditionalist of the bunch, left with his convoluted explanations to show off Holmes' deductive knack and powers of observation; Guy #3, lover of action movies that he was, decided to storyboard a few ultra-modern fight scenes; Guy #4, lover of romantic comedies that he was, figured a little romance on the side wouldn't hurt anything; Guy #5 figured it was about time to put all that research he'd done on Masonry back in graduate school to use, also remembering the popularity of that Da Vinci Code movie; Guy #6, awakened from yet another terrorism-fueled nightmare, decided to put his irrational fears to use and include biological weapons; Guy #7 had writer's block and failed to contribute anything at all; and Guy #8, a chemist without any friends at all, decided to Bill-Nye-the-Science-Guy is up and add a bunch of stuff that nobody but he and the friends he would have had if he had had any would understand. They reconvened and threw all their ideas on that big oval table. But some dastardly foe, likely from a rival movie studio although that's yet to be proven, set the table on fire! The writers panicked, rapidly assembling the most coherent story they possibly can before their hard work perished in the flames. Sure the final result was a complete mess, but they decided that modern audiences won't mind if there's some nifty special effects to go along with it. I was a little annoyed by the slow-mo modern fisticuffs and Guy Ritchie's flashy direction. It's all stylistically interesting but very distracting. The story was also frustratingly complex, and after a while, I was so confused that I just gave up trying to figure out what was going on. Yes, it does all come together in the end, but it wasn't enough to make up for the previous 110 minutes of frustration. I don't easily forgive when something or somebody makes me feel so stupid for so long. The special effects team did create some cool settings (love moody London here), and as readers of my blog know, I always like Robert Downey Jr. He and Jude Law have fine chemistry. Rachel McAdams also provides some eye candy. I suppose there are enough nods to the original source material to appease some Holmes-aphiles while the purists will likely turn up their noses and pooh-pooh the whole thing. I'm somewhat in the middle. I'm not in a hurry to see this again even though it's the type of thing that repeated viewing could help, but I wouldn't mind renting the sequel when it comes out.

Brother's Keeper

1992 documentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: The Brothers Ward have lived in the same dinky and rickety shack in the middle of Middle-of-Nowhere, New York. They've got the minds of four-year-olds but work hard. The other occupants of Middle-of-Nowhere, New York, don't pay much attention to them until Delbert is accused of murdering his brother for reasons ranging from euthanasia to, more bizarrely, sexual frustration. The townfolk rally around the brothers after he apparently confesses to the murder, an act that Delbert's feeble mind may not have fully understood.

Watching the Ward Brothers is a lot like watching the Beales in Grey Gardens, an oft-uncomfortable invasion of privacy that, at times, you almost feel bad watching. The brothers are simple minded, yes, but in a way, it's hard not to admire the simple lives they lead. It's just hard to believe that people like this exist in our fast-moving 21st Century culture, and that's even prior to the revelations that their dirty little shack might contain some dirty little incest secrets. So Brother's Keeper works as a cultural document. The dynamics of the whole city mice vs. the country mice thing added another layer, and the courtroom scenes were riveting. The documentarians treat the subject matter both objectively and lovingly. You can tell Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky spent a great deal of time with the brothers, and you get such an intimate portrait of them. We don't get all the answers because they don't really matter all that much. Brother's Keeper sets up more questions than it answers, but that's part of the beauty of it. I also really liked how this showed the media's despicably voyeuristic role in a case like this, the almost gleeful talking heads that flocked to Middle-of-Nowhere, New York, to report on the story. In the end, I felt almost happy that these filmmakers helped me see the humanity in this mystery, made me seem like a much better person than the slimy news reporters and the big city big-wigs. I ended up liking simple-minded Delbert quite a bit, and after the filmmakers contrast scenes with him admiring his chickens that he keeps in a run-down school bus converted into a coop with a brutally and graphically violent scene featuring a random guy slaughtering a pig, you just get the feeling that there's no way Delbert could have done anything cold blooded. Or maybe he could. Who knows? Euthanasia or death by natural causes? Perhaps it's the little liberal in me trying to get out, but I don't think it even matters.

Brewster McCloud

1970 bird documentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: After stealing from the wardrobe of Waldo (of Where's Waldo infamy), the titular Brewster hides out in a bomb shelter deep within the Astrodome. He spends his time studying birds, developing intricate wings so that he can fly, and exercising his flying muscles to prepare for when the big day arrives. He's helped by his guardian angel, the woman in the shower in that one scene in M.A.S.H. Meanwhile, a mass murderer is apparently on the loose in the greater Houston area, and a

Whether or not you actually like this movie (and I suspect there's only a small percentage who will), you've got to at least appreciate how different it is from anything else, even other Robert Altman movies. I imagine there are a lot of Altman fans who wouldn't necessarily like anything about this movie, and a lot of fans of Brewster McCloud who might not like any other Robert Altman movies. But I don't know who those second group of people might be. Part-fantasy, part-social statement, part-murder mystery, part-nature documentary, the mash-up that is Brewster McCloud succeeds as an oddball in the oeuvre of Robert Altman and cinema in general, like a crazy aunt you forget you have until you read about a news story about how she's living in a studio apartment with more than thirty cats and piles of Popular Mechanics magazines with all the eyes cut out of the pictures. About that comedy--a lot of it's the sort of humor where you're not even sure if there's an intent to be funny. There's an odd combination of the old-timey slapstick you'd expect to see in something from the 20s (chase scene with a portly Astrodome security guard and Brewster before the latter has gotten a line), word play reminiscent of a Laurel and Hardy feature (a hilarious exchange between the detective and a guy about the height of a suspect), and really dry humor that you might miss if you blink (opening music credited to Francis Scott Key). The movie begins with a tongue completely piercing a cheek and popping out the other side and never goes back in, a big ol' middle finger of a movie after Altman's success with M.A.S.H. I really like Bud Cort in this, but Sally Kellerman as that sexy wingless guardian angel and the always-sexy Shelley Duvall are also really good. This is a fun movie that gets better with repeated viewings, and I'd definitely recommend it to three or four people, none who I have actually met yet.

After the Thin Man

1936 sequel

Rating: 16/20 (Jen: 15/20)


Plot: Nick and Nora return from their honeymoon, the retired private dick swearing that he's finished solving cases for good. But not so fast, Nick! Nora's cousin's hubby's been missing for weeks, and her family wants Nick to find him. The couple have no problem doing that, but the case gets a bit more difficult and dangerous when somebody murders him. Oh, snap! Nick has to discover the identity of the real murderer in order to save his cousin-in-law from the electric chair.

As with the first in the series, the banter between the couple is more interesting that any of the Dashiell Hammett mystery. It inspired the wife and I to entertain ourselves by pretending to be Nick and Nora. We glued a bunch of fur to our eleven-month-old and taught her how to bark. Then, we imitated the snappy dialogue of Loy and Powell. I played Nora.

Me/Nora: Let's go solve a mystery, Darling.
Wife/Nick: You drink to much.
Me/Nora: (Weeps uncontrollably and becomes unresponsive)
Baby/Asta: Woof!

It wasn't quite as good. And this one, although entertaining from start to eventual finish, is not quite as good as its predecessor. It tosses in Jimmy Stewart in an interesting role and an assortment of oddballs to populate Nick and Nora's house for a funny surprise party. The murder mystery and its subsequent solving is dopey and convoluted, but I think that's part of the appeal with these things. We'll get to the others in the series soon.

Note: It's hard to get glued fur off baby skin. Find an alternative.

The Wicker Man

1973 pagan musical nightmare

Rating: 19/20 (Anonymous: 20/20; Amy: 16/20)

Plot: A policeman from the Scottish mainland flies to a mysterious island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl. The island's inhabits, a bunch of heathens, aren't cooperative as they prepare for May Day festivities.

What I love most about this movie is its sense of humor. Sure, it's got an assortment of musical selections that can stack up against the soundtrack of any other movie. It's got a great scene with Britt Ekland (Mary Goodnight in the recently-reviewed The Man with the Golden Gun) dancing around naked. It's got another of those Christopher Lee performances where he plays a sophisticatedly evil and tongue-in-cheek baddie. It's got loads of weird-looking beige-teethed Scots wearing an assortment of animal masks. It's got a gradually unfolding and hypnotic mystery that builds to one of the most shocking images in the horror movie history and a jaw-dropping finale. It's got a thematic backbone, delicious irony, and a literate script. It's got a sex scene with stuffed animals. It's got some beautiful shots of this exotic and erotic locale and its people. And it's unique. There just aren't movies like this. But what I love most is that sense of humor. No, it's not as funny as the remake with Nicolas Cage (few movies are), but there's so much hilarity as the islanders dick around with the detective. This is a movie with more great moments than a movie should be allowed to have (love the hare, the dance they're all doing at the end), and it would be difficult to find a movie as unsettling as this one.

And yes, Anonymous, the gravedigger (Aubrey Morris) was the guy in A Clockwork Orange.

The Thin Man

1934 murder mystery comedy

Rating: 17/20 (Jen: 16/20)

Plot: A thin man goes missing. After the murder of a couple of his acquaintances, retired detective Nick Charles, vacationing with his new wife Nora and their dog Asta, finds himself involved in the case. It's unfortunate because all he really wants to do is drink and spend Nora's money.

The first time I watched this, the mystery, even after William Powell's Nick summarizes the whole thing at a dinner party at the end of the movie, was a complete mystery to me. I lost interest in that part of the story, the part you'd think would be pretty important since, and just enjoyed the banter between Powell and Myrna Loy, the zippy dialogue and prickly but playful teasing. It was so entertaining, and I'd never heard early 30s movie banter this good before. Now that I've seen The Thin Man a second time, the mystery part of the plot still doesn't make all that much sense to me, but there's still something so fresh and fun about the rapport between the two leads. I love their little dog, too. This movie will be celebrating its 80th birthday in a few years (probably with a lot of drinking), but it's got ten times the laughs and fifty times the wit of a modern movie with "man" in the title like I Love You, Man. The Thin Man can't hide all its wrinkles. Every scene involving a gun looks dated because the characters hold their weapons in such an old-timey way. It's also very obvious that this was a quickie production. However, it's stuffed with a class and elegance that modern movies painfully lack, and I'm looking forward to watching the thirty-five sequels as I continue my quest to break the world record for watching the most consecutive movies with "man" in the title.

Knowing

2009 movie

Rating: 7/20

Plot: During the opening of an elementary school time capsule, a college professor's son opens up an envelope to find a piece of paper filled with seemingly random numbers. Upon further investigation, those numbers give the dates, the casualties, and the longitude and latitude coordinates for major disasters taking place in the fifty years since the burial of the time capsule. The college professor realizes that the numbers falling into his hands was not accidental and rushes around trying to prevent the final three disasters from occuring.

Nicolas Cage is on a roll! The meanest thing I can say about this one is that it reminded me of Shymalongadingdong's The Happening, although it's nowhere near as terrible (or as funny) as that one. Still, I did laugh at a few inappropriate times, mostly at America's-worst-actor Nicolas Cage's screaming of a few lines. One scene involving a baseball bat, a tree, and the line "You want some of this?!" almost had me on the floor. The almighty special effect can't save a pair of action scenes from being either schmaltzy or ludicrous, and all attempts to insert some emotion or meaning into this one seem forced and gay. The twists and turns in this are sloppy, the equivalent of driving your car on an unpaved road that is winding for no particular reason. Even with that, there's some predictability. I'd give credit for a good ending, but I'm not sure if the ending was actually good or if I was just happy that the movie was ending. I can't recommend this like The Happening, but it does make me wonder how long it's going to be before Nicolas Cage and Shymalongadingdong combine forces to make what will without a doubt be the worst movie ever made.

The Private Eyes

1981 comedy

Rating: 14/20 (adjusted for Don Knotts bonus)

Plot: Inspector Winship and Dr. Tart have been sent from Scotland Yard to a sprawling mansion to investigate the murders of Lord and Lady Morley. Occupying the secret-passageway-ridden mansion are the adopted daughter of the Morleys and a motley assortment of hired help including a samurai, a hunchback, and a guy with no tongue. They encounter ghosts with bombs, buzzard puss, cleavage, a torture chamber, and a few murders as they investigate the case.

Quite possibly the funniest movie ever made, The Private Eyes benefits from the chemistry between Knotts and Conway and top-notch old-school humor. I'll come clean and admit that I can't look at Don Knotts without laughing. All Don Knotts has to do to get a laugh from me is be present in a scene, and he's present in many scenes in this movie. Conway, who co-wrote the script, is also good. Screwiness, horror, an intriguing story, twists and turns, cleavage, mystery. This film's got it all! An undeniable masterpiece!