Shane Watches a Bad Movie on Facebook with Friends: Abar, the First Black Superman

1977 Blaxploitation sorta-superhero movie

Rating: 4/20 (Fred: 4/20; Josh: 3/20; Ryan: 5/20; Libby: Was not able to finish because she had to explain racism to her 8-year-old son)

Plot: A black doctor experimenting with rabbits moves into a white neighborhood with his family. The white folk don't like it so much and respond like any normal racist would--killing their new neighbors' pet and hanging it at the front door, shouting racist things, attempting to steal their Frisbees, attempted murder. The titular local civil rights leader begins to defend them. Eventually, the doctor perfects his potion and turns Abar into a superhero.

I love movies that are in English but still dubbed. The dubbing makes the guy playing the doctor--J. Walter Smith, who also co-wrote this and then did nothing else at all in the movie biz--seem like an even worse actor than he is, something that I imagine was very difficult to pull off. Tobar Mayo plays the superhero, and I don't know if it's his build or his bald head, but I thought he could have pulled off action star in movies with bigger budgets. He was in Killer of Sheep which is a movie much different than this one although it tries to accomplish some of the same things. And he was "Third Indian" in Escape from New York. This is really inept filmmaking and storytelling. The first hour of the movie focuses, sometimes uncomfortably, on the racism. Director Frank Packard (his only directing credit) plays the Martin Luther King Jr. card early and often, hammering you over the head with the message. Then, the movie shifts gears dramatically, the doctor starts shooting rabbits to show that he's perfected the formula to make rabbits bulletproof, and we get more of the sci-fi superhero nonsense that my Bad Movie cohorts and I wanted for this week's selection. And it is nonsense! Sure, this titular superman can fight, but he's also got these telepathic abilities to turn prostitutes and drug dealers into college graduates, liquor into milk, and purse snatchers into quality citizens. He can also cause giant snakes to materialize. Superman can't do that! It's so goofy, and I think at this stage, the movie's message gets a little muddy. After all, this movie was really focused on the clash between hateful whites and black people minding their own business, not on the problems with black urban youth. The last half hour isn't enough to salvage this and make it an enjoyable bad movie although there is a twist at the end with Frisbee woman that has to be seen to be believed. And there is a misshapen pimp who made me laugh. Tony Rumford plays Dr. Kincade's son, and he's the worst child actor I've seen in a while. This was also his only role. His is a performance that stands out, and trust me, that's difficult in a movie like this. This is an interesting little socially-critical document, but it's not anywhere near a good movie and probably not a very good bad movie either.

Bowling for Columbine

2002 documentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Michael Moore pisses off gun nuts.

I had one person, one of those guys who doesn't really understand the Constitution or especially the 2nd Amendment, tell me that Michael Moore says in this movie that people should have their guns taken away. I have seen this twice, and I must have missed that part both times. Michael Moore isn't always fair and he is guilty of using propaganda techniques to sell his ideas, but there's really no point in this movie where the filmmaker points a definitive finger. That might be the documentary's fault actually. Moore raises questions about violence in America, specifically gun violence, but doesn't really answer them. This is very well researched, and there's a wealth of information about our gun laws, tragedies like Columbine, violence in the U.S. compared to other countries (some with nearly identical laws), America's bloody history, and often insane reaction to violent acts. Conservatives who hate Michael Moore will find lots to hate here because there's lots of Michael Moore in this. And they'll kneejerk, saying that Michael Moore is telling everybody that we should do this or that we should do that, but I just don't see it here. As I said, he's exploring this issue that really needed to be explored 10 years ago in the wake of Columbine and, sadly, needs explored just as much today in the wake of Newtown. The most important thing to learn from all this is that there isn't a simple answer to the problem but that there is very definitely a problem. Like all Moore's documentaries, this is presented in a way that makes it all as humorous and as entertaining as it is tragic or troublesome. Scenes where Moore gets himself a gun at a bank or attempts discussion with Dick Clark (a pointless scene, one example of where this meanders a little more than it should) or Charlton Heston are typical of the director. There are also conversations with Terry Nichols' brother John Nichols, one that also manages to be both chilling and humorous as he refers to Timothy McVeigh as a "nice guy" and says he isn't familiar with Gandhi; shock rocker Marilyn Manson who makes a lot more sense than he should; and Matt Stone, odd to me since I just saw a Michael Moore marionette explode in Team America: World Police. Oh, and few clips of scantily-clad women holding machine guns which, as anti-machine-gun as I am can still appreciate as a warm-blooded American male. Most chilling to me: the 911 calls over the security camera footage of Columbine and Charlton Heston speech footage juxtaposed with a father of one of the victims of that tragedy. This is an important movie, just as important as it was 10 years ago, and I suspect that people who have negative things to say about it ("Michael Moore wants to take our guns away!" or "This movie is filled with lies!") haven't even seen it.

"Take the Skinheads Bowling" is one of my favorite songs ever, by the way. There's a cover of it here over the credits. It's Teenage Fanclub though I prefer the original Camper van Beethoven version.

I would also like to point out that Michael Moore, according to Michael Moore on Twitter, has not made a dime from this movie. I'm not sure if that's important or not.

Emperor Tomato Ketchup

1971 blockbuster

Rating: no rating

Plot: In a land governed by children, kids run around abusing adults and drawing X's over things.

The only thing I really knew about this movie is that the band Stereolab grabbed its title for one of their album titles. I'm not sure what it's about. It's a frenzy of worn black 'n' white shock images, a lot involving children doing things they're not supposed to be doing. I'm sure director Shuji Terayama is saying something here, but it's going to be next to impossible for most viewers to see it through some really shocking visuals. The imagery invited Holocaust comparisons and thoughts about censorship and totalitarian governments, but none of it was cohesive enough to make a point that a dumb guy like me could fully grasp. No, I'm the type of viewer who's content in being entertained by a scene of a little person emerging from a hole while wearing an army helmet and what appears to be a diaper, running to another hole where he extracts a chicken that he takes an ax to, an act accompanied by a too-loud screech and some scattered applause. There's no real dialogue, but there's some words thrown in (found sound or stock sounds, I assume), none of it that I could understand because I don't speak whatever language it's in. There are also some words that appeared in white on the screen that I wouldn't be able to read even if I could read German. The music is nice if not all over the place. Like many foreign avant-garde productions, I'm missing way too much context to fully appreciate this or even understand it. This might have loads of interesting ideas but it's distracted by its own imagery.

Note: There's a 70-something minute version of this and a much shorter 20-something minute version that I'm guessing only shows the highlights. Like a Michael Bay movie with just the explosions maybe.

American History X

1998 movie

Rating: 14/20

Plot: A guy with a giant swastika tattoo on his chest goes to prison for curb-stomping a guy who was attempting to steal his car. By the time he gets out, he's decided that black people aren't so bad after all and wants out of the white supremest club he's in. Danny, a little brother who emulates big brother in every way, doesn't understand Derek's transformation. Derek wants to start over and keep his little brother from following in his hateful footsteps.

Fun trivia: The two Edwards grab a bite to eat in the same little coffee shop that they try to kick Walter out of for screaming about toes in The Big Lebowski.

Am I wrong for thinking that this is extremely well done but ultimately pretty pointless? The acting's good, especially Norton who takes on a dangerous role and runs with it. The difference between his body's shape here and his body shape in other movies from around the same time is almost shocking. There's a look Norton gives while being arrested that is one of those movie moments that you'll never forget. It's a powerful performance in a powerful story, but it doesn't really add up to a powerful movie. I didn't like the other Edward in this one, pouty Furlong who is just a bit too feminine in this movie. The colorized present contrasting with the black and white flashbacks thing was an effective device. This really is a great movie in bits and pieces. I just wish those bits and pieces built something a little more meaningful.

Urine Couch Movie Club: Forrest Gump

1994 retarded man movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Terminally dumb guy Forrest Gump, habitually in the right historical place at the right historical time, bumbles his way through a few tumultuous decades of America. He meets presidents, becomes a war hero, starts a successful shrimp business, hooks up with the hot drug addict who just so happens to be his childhood sweetheart, and runs a lot. It's all mildly entertaining.

There are tons of things that I really like about this movie. I like the cynical look at the American landscape during the 60s-80s, and there are a lot of funny moments. Robert Zemeckis, when he's not busy giving innocent children terrifying nightmares with those creepy cartoons he's currently unleashing, is real good at creating that artificial movie magic. Most of the credit comes from the special effects wizardry of putting the titular retard in archival footage of presidents or removing Lt. Dan's legs. But the delicate floatings of a bookend feather, the too-clean Hollywoody Vietnam scenes, and the period details are also very well done. I always thought this meandered a little too much and seemed thematically or satirically uneven, but then I read the book which has Gump in outer space and shit which makes the film version seem simple and straightforward by comparison. Great performances from top to bottom. I never really thought Tom Hanks deserved that second Oscar for this performance, but he really does a good job at humanizing this character who could have easily been ruined by a Jim Carrey. I believe this is the first time I ever noticed Gary Sinese, and I liked the depth and arc of his character. This is bursting with music, undoubtedly an attempt to make crusty old hippies all nostalgic. Overall, it's a movie that I can like without really crossing the line into loving territories because it just goes too far too often, yanking at heartstrings like a demented harpist and stretching a character just a little too thin. My favorite part: when young Forrest is running and his leg braces break off. It would have been better if the technical geniuses responsible for giving Clark those rubbery legs in Superman would have done their thing. Pulp Fiction should have won the Best Picture, by the way.

Oprah Movie Club Pick for July: Why We Fight

2005 documentary

Rating: 17/20

Plot: An investigation of American military action in the 20th and 21st Centuries and what really drives the Uncle Sam War Machine.

You know what surprised me most about this whole thing? How reasonable and intelligent John McCain came across. I don't follow politics at all because I'm that type of American citizen. You know, an American citizen. But the snippets of McCain and decisions that he's responsible for (like, say, who his running mate should be) left me questioning the guy's integrity and intelligence. He was a voice of reason on that side of the political fence. My favorite moment in this documentary, by the way, was watching McCain's reaction to news that the vice president was on the phone for him. His eye started twitching, and it looked like he was going to have a heart attack or something.

I blame the Greatest Generation for this whole mess, by the way. I'm also the type of American citizen who, though unapologetically uninformed (probably even misinformed), likes to point fingers.

This is a ton of information, like director Eugene Jarecki backed a dump truck to my lap and unleashed. I thought the structure of it all was pretty complex. That might just be because I wasn't able to turn my mind back on completely after watching Seed of Chucky for the other shane-movies blog movie club--The Urine Couch AM Movie Club--that only the ghost of Gene Siskel, the ghost of Gene Shalit's mustache, and hookers and drug dealers are invited to participate in. And yes, I worry that there are now two too many movie clubs on this blog. Anyway, I ended up liking the structure of this documentary. I think I was expecting chronology when Jarecki was giving me themes. The ideas of revenge, imperialism, government secrecy, oil, and all that are all pretty standard stuff that even a dumb guy like me is aware of. Where this gets really dark and disturbing is when it looks at think tank the propaganda techniques used by politicians to dupe the American people, the propaganda techniques used to get poor or middle-class kids to join that American military machine, and the benefits of war to all those corporations. The idea of America becoming a "New Rome" was mentioned at the beginning and then again at the end, and that's scary. I know as much about history as I do about politics, but I know what happened to Rome--a guy on an elephant burned it down and now nobody dares speak Latin in public venues. Or something like that. So is it inevitable that somebody will burn us down and create a world in which nobody wants to speak American? This also did a good job of explaining the whole Saddam Hussein thing. I knew the bare bones of that situation, but this made it a lot more clear for me. I always suspected that Donald Rumsfeld was more evil than Hussein anyway.

Jarecki keeps returning to Eisenhower's (apparently a president) speech which nicely holds this documentary together. "God help this country when somebody sits at the desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do." Eerily prophetic, no? And the narrative that surfaces in this flood of information shows that "disastrous rise of misplaced power" that Eisenhower warned against.

Also holding things together in a very touching way: the interviews with the father who lost his son on 9/11. I really felt sorry for that guy, and you can't really blame him for any of the emotions that he had or how he acted upon them in his story. The sad irony that his son's name was on a bomb that essentially did the same thing that tore his heart out has to be something that eats at him every day. The other personal touch this documentary adds is the story of the kid who is joining the air force. I kept waiting for that to end in some big moment, but it never did. He was just absorbed. I don't know. Maybe that is a big moment.

Another irony: We live in a time when technology and the way the media works should make things more transparent to the average Joe, that plumber who Sarah Palin and John McCain kept talking about, but because those average citizens are as apathetic and naive as I am, they are somehow even more in the dark. God help this country when its citizens are too busy watching videos of kitties playing keyboards to care about what is going on with their leaders and our country's international policies.

Speaking of kitten keyboard videos, sorry for the tardiness with this Oprah Movie Club post.

Battle Royale

2000 cult classic

Rating: 15/20 (Mark: 18/20)

Plot: Forty-two students are transported to an island, given a random weapon (firearms, paper fans, nunchucks, tasers, etc.), and instructed to kill each other off. Their old teacher, "Beat" Takeshi Kitano, is there, too. I think there's something like this in the "No Child Left Behind" act.

My favorite thing about this movie: I busied my brain trying to guess how a pair of binoculars and/or a pan lid were going to come into play, and then nothing ever materialized. Battle Royale gets some points for effort. People who don't like it will tag it with a violence porn label. People who do like it will talk about it as a satire of the Japanese educational system and how society demands that children compete against their peers. And maybe I'm just desensitized to this sort of thing, but I didn't think it was all that violent. And I didn't think the satire--muddled and missing a few pieces--added up to much. There are a ton of characters in this, but the ratio of interesting characters to uninteresting ones is a problem. I liked the teacher (and Kitano [Zatoichi in the 2004 version of the blind swordsman movie]is always pretty awesome) and the crazy girl (Chiaki Kuriyama--Gogo in Kill Bill Volume One) and maybe the mean kid who doesn't get any lines. The others, including the rest of the forty-two children, aren't really memorable. I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice the quantity and variety of violent acts by limiting the amount of characters, but there sure were a lot of characters to keep track of in this. And, as you can probably guess, they all looked almost exactly the same, which made any subplots or connections between the characters kind of confusing. I did like that this movie wasn't afraid to show not only all those scenes of Japanese pop idols dying tragic deaths but also showing it all with a healthy dose of black humor. The action's paced well, and I liked how this explored the varying psychologies of children put in traumatic situations. This definitely lost a point because of the sickeningly melodramatic score. I have no problems watching a kid with an ax sticking out of his head stumble around on a television screen. However, I have no tolerance for bad film music.

Sweet Movie

1974 sweet movie

Rating: 13(?)/20

Plot: Spoilers abound! It's also disturbing, so you probably shouldn't even read it. It's the juxtaposed tales of a pair of women--Miss Canada, the winner of a virginity beauty pageant who, as a grand prize, marries a rich Texan, is urinated on by his golden phallus, attempts to leave, is taken to the inside of a water (milk?) tower by a muscular black man, watches him skipping rope while naked, has intercourse, is shoved in a suitcase, meets a Latino pop singer, has intercourse with him on the Eiffel Tower, flees to a commune where the participants of a vulgar banquet show off an array of bodily functions, and eventually writhes around in a tub of chocolate. The other woman pilots a candy-stuffed boat with a giant Karl Marx head on the front. She picks up a young man, has sex with him, seduces a bunch of children, and then kills them all. The end!

Finally, the movie I've been looking for--something a little bit more disturbing than Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom. This is Dusan Makavejev, the same dude who directed Man Is Not a Bird, a pretty dull movie that went over my head during the notorious "man" movie streak. I'm not sure why I keep watching these Eastern European films from the 60s since I'm missing so much of the political context. I was born in a later decade and in another hemisphere and all. But hey, I almost got this one, seeing one of the woman as a representation of capitalism and the other as a symbol of revolution. It's a superficial reading, sure, and I don't know exactly what all the pooping and lip synching Spanish pop singers and Nazi documentary footage of a Russian massacre and grown men acting like babies and the blood/sugar/sex/magic and Battleship Potemkin allusions are all about. Unlike Man Is Not a Bird, this is anything but dull. It's wild and wildly unpredictable, not always in a positive way. It's challenging viewing, and, being the type of film that was banned pretty much everywhere, guaranteed to offend anybody who is even halfway decent. To me, the coprophilia, sexual depravities, and seduction of children is more shocking in this than in Salo because in this, it's all sugar-coated. This, much more than Pasolini's film, looks more like a movie packaged for the masses, more pop art than moody European drama, and your brain is just trained to expect a certain kind of images with colors that bright. It's also called Sweet Movie. I don't know if it was Makavejev's intent or what, but the bombardment of shocking imagery, after a while, started to feel a bit more comfortable. One early golden shower from a golden penis will bring out a "What the hell?" but the blow is lessened by the time you get to a scene where one man urinates into another man's mouth. Oh, who am I kidding? No, it isn't. That banquet stuff with avant-gardist Otto Muehl near the end is just disturbing in any context. But does it have artistic merit? I did like some of the set design, especially that funky boat and the collage work (the revolutionaries and pop icons pasted on the inner walls) inside. But yeah, I just don't know. I'm sure this movie is either a trashy masterpiece and much better than I think or just plain trashy and not nearly as good. Either way, I wouldn't recommend it to anybody, but it did make me think. About my movie choices.

And I kind of hope you didn't even bother reading this.

Bob Roberts

1992 political satire

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Ultra-conservative folk singer Bob Roberts wants to be a senator. A film crew follows him on his campaign while reporter Bugs Raplin tries to uncover a story of corruption.

As I've here stated ad nauseum, I love the mockumentary format. Generally, you don't 100% buy what's going on in your typical mockumentary, but you forgive them because they're hilarious. Bob Roberts isn't your typical mockumentary. It's not laugh-out-loudly hilarious, but it's got the realism. The cast, including all the extras, is gigantic, but they step on each other's lines like they would in real life and none of their actions seem extraneous or unnatural, helping me buy every inch of what was happening on the screen. That's actually pretty scary when you think about it. Bob Roberts is like a mockumentary that Robert Altman would have made. And although I didn't exactly laugh, the biting satire made me nod in appreciation more than any movie I can remember. It's an impressive achievement for first-time director Tim Robbins who also wrote the thing, starred as the titular right-winger/singer, and co-wrote the songs. It must have been exhausting. After all, tongue-lashing a nation for its hypocrisy, shortsidedness, and naivete is tiring work. This wouldn't click with everybody, and like a lot of great movies, it'll offend some people. Giancarlo Esposito as the reporter, Alan Rickman as an advisor, and Gore Vidal as the incumbent are all very good. I also dug all the Bob Dylan references, some album covers and the "Subterranean Homesick Blues" thing.

The Intruder

1962 drama

Rating: 16/20

Plot: William Shatner arrives in a small southern town where school integration has just become the law. People of the town don't like it much, but most have decided that there's not much they can do about it. Until The Shat comes along, that is. He pontificates the crowds into a lather, inciting violent acts and threatening behavior against the blacks.

If this movie was better known (it was the only movie Roger Corman made that lost money according to the dvd box), Shatner's villain is the kind of character that could have ruined his career. Just seeing Captain Kirk admire a burning cross or riding (sans white hood) in a convertible with three Ku-Klux-Klan guys made him despicable enough, but he's so slimy in other scenes that have nothing to do with racism, too. I wish I could type with confidence that the character and the actions he ignites in this dumpy town with these dumpy people are exaggerated, but it's an unfortunate and embarrassing part of our American history. At times, it's almost like a Cliff Notes version of the segregation/integration issue, but it's still a ballsy movie, especially for the early 60s. I imagine that if the same exact movie came out today, and I wouldn't be as impressed, but there's just something cool about a movie coming out at this time where the clear line between the good guys and bad guys pretty much separates the white characters from the black ones respectively. Even the white characters who end up doing right things are flawed enough to make them less than heroic. The score's powerful with its driving horns, and there's an intense denouement that, if not entirely satisfying nevertheless works very well, leaving things as open-ended as they probably were at the time. Good movie.

Capitalism: A Love Story

2009 left-wing propaganda

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

Plot: Some tubby guy whines about how capitalism only works for people willing to take advantage of the system in evil ways at the expense of the people it won't work for.

I wept seven different times last week for a variety of reasons, and one of those times was during this movie.
Michael Moore manipulates, delivering his messages in cutesy ways and more often than not coming across like a snarky panda. That's what he is actually. He's Propaganda Panda, unprofessional even because he wears that baseball cap. But here, he's nothing but right, and this documentary is an often surprisingly moving experience. Capitalism has the devastation, hope, and humor present in Moore's best work. And there sure is a lot of information packed into this, enough that I could see somebody arguing that it's all unfocused and sloppy. But with the exception of some interviews with priests and some silly shots of cats flushing toilets, all of these parts are important in building the whole, and that whole is something that every American should probably see. And not just the filthy liberals who voted that socialist we've currently got in the White House either as Moore has made a movie for the demos in our democracy. Even if viewers aren't moved to do anything, they're getting a good story. There's good vs. evil and tons of plot twists. There's even a hint of a terrifying unhappy ending at the beginning of Moore's film when he juxtaposes shots from modern times with what looks to be a film strip about the fall of Rome. Solid stuff. Thanks, Propaganda Panda!

I tried to get Jen to write a guest review, and she refused. She did criticize Moore for wasting film time with gimmicks. She wanted more substance and less Propaganda Panda, I guess.

Man of Marble

1976 Polish movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: A female film student works on her dissertation, a documentary about Birkut, a Polish bricklayer used in propagandii as a Socialist symbol. It's a swift rise and a painful fall, the filmmaker discovers as she interviews individuals from his past and searches for Birkut himself.

This is really long and as dry as marble, so a lot of patience is required. I suppose this could be a case where the movie is much better than I think it is, but I'm not Polish and I'm not a Communist and I'm not opposed to Socialism and therefore lack the context for this to make complete sense to me. I'm not qualified to write about most of the movies I write about, but I'm even less qualified to write about something like this. It do kind of like the structure, an almost Citizen Kane-esque gradual unveiling of a character. Except there's no sled. The scenes with the director aren't terribly exciting, but I do really like how much fake news footage, propaganda films, and other footage is mixed in. The stuff looks authentic, and the guy who plays the titular man does a really good job. It really gives it a sort of fake-documentary feel and a different flavor. So did the soundtrack, reminiscent of 70's blaxploitation funk. Some of the music is so bad that I'm sure there wouldn't be a lot of people who would oppose removing it and replacing it with something better. I'm far too lazy to look it up, but I do wonder how a movie this critical was even allowed to be created and shown to people.

Special shane-movies trivia: This is easily the least humorous Polish movie I've ever seen.

Fred Tuttle: Man with a Plan

1996 mockumentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Vermont farmer Fred Tuttle, a widower who lives with his sick father, needs money. He comes up with a plan (not the titular plan) to run for congress because congressmen make 80,000 dollars a year doing almost nothing. He starts his campaign against the incumbent, the normally-unopposed Bill Blachly. Despite tremendous odds against him, Fred Tuttle manages to raise thirty dollars and twenty-seven cents and starts to become a serious contender for the seat.

This is down-home goodness, very cheaply produced but full of local flavor and colorful caricatures. I was surprised how much I laughed out loud, but Tuttle himself was funny nearly every time he opened his mouth, and although a lot of the humor didn't work at all (see: the shady newspaper reporter holding up a barn wall), there were more than enough times when this just hits the spot. I love the "plan," an anagram he repeats throughout the campaign--Friendly, Renewable, Extra Terrestrial, and Dinky. He'd have my vote based on Dinky alone! I loved his interactions with a speech coach, his promise to debate Blachly "any time, any place, and in any language," and his promise to put a "chicken in every egg." Writer/Director John O'Brien has a style that grows on you as the movie goes, and I like how he finds humor in the little things. I've never been to the state, but O'Brien uses sneaky sight gags (again, not all of them funny) and several shots of its landscape to make it seem like a bizarrely beautiful and wonderful place. I'm fairly positive there's not a real actor in this thing as O'Brien uses locals at the annual "World's Fair" and demolition derbies. And I'm pretty sure that this was shot sans script, and the freedom given to these normal people to just improvise as themselves went a long way in painting a realistic picture of the place and its political landscape. At times, I wondered if the performers were even aware they were performing as a couple of these scenes make Fred Tuttle look like a 73-year-old Borat. This movie might be tough to find, but it's worth the trouble. Why should you watch Fred Tuttle: Man with a Plan? Same answer the character gave when asked why people should vote for him--Why Not?

Man of the Year

2006 dramedy

Rating: 10/20

Plot: Comedic talk show host Tom Dobbs (side note: Isn't there a real talk show host named Tom Dobbs?) decides to run for president. He's got no chance although with his hilarious speeches and shooting-from-the-hip approach, his popularity grows and he even gets an invite to a presidential candidate debate. Election day arrives, and to the surprise of everybody, Dobbs wins. However, the computer people running the vote just might be hiding details of a malfunction that gave Dobbs the victory.

Ah, Barry Levinson's movie almost tricked me. I anticipated more of a dumb comedy, but more than half of Man of the Year has more elements of a political thriller or drama than your typical comedy. So I was almost tricked into liking this thing, but the longer it went on and the more I thought about things, the more I realized how empty it was. As satire, it's incomplete. As a drama, it's color-by-numbers. And as I expected before popping it in, the comedy doesn't work either. The comedy comes mostly from conversations with Dobbs and his cohorts or from Dobbs speeches, sound bite after sound bite that I think are supposed to sound politically profound but mostly sound like stuff I've already heard before. There's dialogue where it seems like Robin Williams was given room to improvise, and those are the moments that failed most obviously. I will give credit to Man of the Year for using three of the most distracting actors working today (Robin Williams, Jeff Goldblum, and Christopher Walken) and somehow keeping the whole thing coherent and tolerable. Watching scene after scene with Robin Williams giving speeches or debating with quick flashes to Walken saying, "Yes!" or "Bring it home!" got pretty old though. The most irritating character is actually played by Laura Linney. Her performance is also irritating, but the biggest problem is that almost everything that happens to her character Eleanor Green is something that could only happen in movies. Even her name is a movie name. I just didn't believe in any of these characters, so I couldn't believe in their stories. This is a film that probably could have said something. But it doesn't and ends up incomplete and unsatisfying.

A King in New York

1957 comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Following a revolution in his European country, King Shadhov retreats to New York. He's got ideas about making the world a better place with atomic energy, but he finds himself penniless after his trusted confidante flees with everything he brought to America. Fortunately, he's tricked into attending a dinner party that turns out to be a sort of reality show, and companies are all of a sudden willing to pay him thousands of dollars to use his dickfarts to sell products. At some point, he meets the son of communist parents and winds up having to defend himself against charges of being a communist.

This really takes its time getting anywhere, and once it does, you almost wish it hadn't. You could never accuse Chaplin of being too subtle, so the political stuff in this, especially with what was going on with Chaplin and America, isn't surprising at all. What was surprising to me was that there were actually some funny moments in this one. There's some fun satirical stuff here about commercialism, movies, and fame in America. This is also worth seeing because it showcases Chaplin's acting chops. I'm always surprised to see Chaplin not overdo things in this later films. It's not Monsieur Verdoux or the earlier silent classics, but I liked it better than Limelight.

Paths of Glory

1957 war movie

Rating: 18/20

Plot: Some children living in the same neighborhood play an elaborate game of war. They're having a blast until Kenny, the boy playing the general, gets mad because he doesn't think a bunch of the other boys are playing right. "C'mon, fellows! You're supposed to do what I say because I'm the general." The war game eventually falls apart when Walter's dad comes outside and yells at all the kids for digging giant trenches in his back yard and blowing up a birdhouse. Walter's punished. Two other boys are also punished for ruining good school clothes. Later, the boys stop playing war and begin lusting after women instead.

I'm not sure why I always avoided this movie. It's probably because I don't usually like war movies. This one is pretty close to perfect though, an early Kubrick work that unflamboyantly shows off his virtuosity. The battle scene, with an impressive long tracking shot, is wonderfully realistic and tense, and the court martial scene, the climactic scene with the three scapegoats, and the gripping finale are all memorable. There's also an underlying gray humor, most obvious in the cockroach scene but also in the irony and absurdities of these characters make. The general himself, a non-comic performance (contrast to the characters in Strangelove) by George Macready, makes a great villain, ironically the only real enemy in this war movie since you don't ever get to see the soldiers on the ant hill. I love how Kubrick shows his shallowness and heartless egotism in the simple scene where he's conversing with the soldiers in the trenches. Thematically solid, this succinct near-masterpiece has great emotional and philosophical depth. Powerful shiznit.

Recommended by Cory.

Big Man Japan

2007 monster movie

Rating: 12/20

Plot: The current Big Man Japan--a sort of superhero who, when electrocuted via the nipples, grows to enormous size in order to fight monsters--finds his popularity waning. In fact, despite coming from a long line of popular Big Man Japans (Big Men Japan?), popularity that peaked with his grandfather, it seems that nobody likes the sixth Big Man Japan at all. He lives alone, mundanely discussing why he likes seaweed and umbrellas, and waits for calls to go to the power plant to increase in size and battle monsters. A documentary filmmaker captures both sides of his life.

Oh, I wanted to like this movie so much. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if I'm rating it too low actually. It's got really goofy monsters, a faux-documentary style, a great dry humor. There's also a surprising intellectual depth, or maybe an intellectual ambiguity, that makes it a lot more interesting than just a parody of Japanese monster movies, something which, by the way, doesn't need to be parodied. It's got an almost disturbing jarring effect as it juxtaposes the guy sadly and mundanely detailing the minutia of his sad and mundane every day life with the completely bizarre battle sequences with imaginative and stupid-looking monsters. I like the contrasting effect though; it's disturbing in a good way. There's a genuinely surprising ending (with another jarring contrast) that leaves things richly ambiguous. And it keeps you thinking long after the movie has ended. So why don't I like it very much? That's hard to articulate. I don't like how it seems to abandon the mockumentary approach a few times. I don't really like how the movie looks at times. Some of the monsters are original and cool (I especially like the one that uses an eye on a retractable stalk as a weapon), but more than a few of them were just dumb looking and made me wish they'd gone to more traditional looking foes for Big Man Japan. The fight choreography itself is also really weak. And I think the political statements, although they seem like they'd be really obvious and heavy-handed, are confusing to this Westerner. I'm really not sure what this movie is trying to say. Is it about Japan's past and the influence of other cultures? Is it about the effect of consumerism, specifically an American influence, on Japanese culture? Is it about future concerns? There's a chance I would like this more if I watched it again. My rating has changed from a 12 to a 14 to a 13 and back to a 14 then back to a 12 after all. But for now, this reminds me of how I feel about Popeye's fast food restaurants.

Mr. Freedom

1969 satirical farce

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Freedom-fighting superhero Mr. Freedom is summoned to France to fight off the French Anti-Freedom movement and communists from Switzerland. The French don't want him, so with the aid of Marie Madeleine and other freedom-lovers (Dick Sensass, M. Drugstore, Freddie Fric), he starts his own organization to battle against the evil Moujik Man and Giant Red China Man. And Jesus.

There's a nerve near my left elbow (only my left elbow) and very close to the ulnar nerve. And like that nerve (the funny bone), this place near my left elbow (only my left elbow) tingles on occasion, generally when stroked. I call it the absurd bone, and it tingled like a mo-fo the duration of this combination of deranged agitprop and pop art diarrhea. This work by documentary filmmaker William Klein was just crazy, utilizing comic book effects (gun shots you'd expect to see in the old Batman t.v. show), insane humorous touches (pink KKK guys, Yves Montaud's cameo as the deceased Captain Formidable), the goofiest costumes you'll ever see, inflatable villains, and excessive and almost sickening colors. The stoopid clobbers you over the head with this one, but at the same time, it's impossible not to catch the genius and the message behind the madness, no matter how heavy-handed the latter might be. I'm sure that anti-American message wasn't appreciated in the center of the Vietnam conflict, and the scary thing is that the message is just as relevant today and still wouldn't be appreciated. I couldn't believe it when Mr. Freedom said, "You with me or against me?" in a way that made it seem like this was made during Bush's administration. There are some terrifically comical scenes throughout this. Freedom's appearance in his red white and blue costume made from sports equipment, his guns a-blazin'. The freedom pep rally with songs and speeches and a video montage of what makes America great that I had to watch twice. The trip to the U.S. Embassy that resembled a colorful supermarket. The wild training of the freedom fighters, absurd in an almost Heironymus Boschian way. There are some great lines in this. Every conversation between Dr. Freedom and Mr. Freedom is hilarious, and Mr. Freedom's rambling speeches, which he delivers in this quick cadence, are great. The first question at the American Embassy--"Welcome, Mr. Freedom. How's Batman and John Wayne?"--made me laugh. I won't spoil more. This easily has both rubbery boots in the "not for everybody" camp, but if you're in need of having your absurd bone stroked, this might be the film for you. And if you're a communist? Well, I'm not sure there is a more anti-American movie. I look forward to more William Klein flicks.

Milk

2008 biopic

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Well, I really thought this was going to be the biography of Kirk "Milk Dee" Robinson, one half of the late 80's/early 90's rap duo The Audio Two. Their biggest hit was "Top Billin'":

"Check it out: MC am I, people call me Milk. When I'm bustin' up a party, I feel no guilt. Gizmo's cuttin' up for the suckers that's down with me. The One of us, that's how I feel. To be down, you must appeal to the Two, we're rated R, we're gifted, and we're going far down the road to the bank. While I'm here, I'd like to thank Mom and Dad, they knew the time. Gizmo's scratching. Milk Dee's rhyming. Milk is chillin'. Giz is chillin'. What more can I say? Top billin'. That's what we get, got it good. Since you understood, would y ou stop scheming and looking hard? I got a great big bodyguard." And so on.

Milk isn't about rappers. It's about homosexual politician/activist Harvey Milk and his fight for gay rights and against American idiocy. But that's boring. I demand a biopic on rapper Milk Dee! If it's about Gizmo as well, then I'm fine with that. Are you listening, Hollywood? Let's get on the ball with this one!

Milk's a better movie than Slumdog Millionnaire and everything else I've seen from last year even though it didn't win. Sean Penn deserved his Oscar. I don't know why, but I'm always suprised when I see what a good actor he is. He's really good here, transforming himself with his voice, his expressions, and his mannerisms into Harvey. His performance sparkles! I was also really impressed with the period work that went into this. Stock footage, grainy film, and wardrobe were used to give it a 70's feel, and I'm not even sure how 1970's San Francisco was reproduced so accurately. It looked too big to be on a studio but blended too well to be special effects. The amount of actual footage used in this makes it remarkably documentary like. Some of that actual footage touches, some of it shocks, and some of it (I hope) embarrasses. The storytelling is well done though patchy in parts, and I appreciate how Van Sant some of the darker, less heroic moments in Milk's life. The supporting cast is also very good, but I would have liked a little more characterization with a few of them. The story needed to be told as much as Milk Dee's story does, and I'm glad it was told with the elegance and the maturity that it was. God bless America!

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

2008 documentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: All about the volatile America of the 60s and 70s and the vanguard journalist/counter-cultural voice who was at the heart of it all. This covers the Hell's Angels writings which got him on the map, his writing for Rolling Stone, his running for sheriff of Aspen, his attempts to search for the American dream in Las Vegas, his unique coverage of the 1972 presidential campaign, and his failure to complete his assignment to write about a boxing match between Ali and some guy who makes grills. Hunter does some drugs, shoots some guns (once at himself), and wreaks some serious havoc.

The title is accurate because even though the focus is on the good doctor, it does a great job of interweaving the cultural happenings that stirred his emotions and kept his fingers tapping on that typewriter. There's a ton of archival footage mixed in with famous people lovingly (though not ignoring the man's flaws) sharing anecdotes that shape Thompson as both a writer and a human being. The filmmakers also do a terrific job of using a lot of Thompson's own words, some in the doctor's own voice and some read by others, including Johnny Depp. The amount of music used in this, although it does aid in the creation of a timeline, is overwhelming and oppressive, and the large chunk of Thompson's funeral shown at the end kind of cheapens things. Hunter S. Thompson, whether you like him or agree with his lifestyle and philosophies or not, is such an intriguing personality that it's impossible not to be entertained by his story. This documentary tells that story really well. It also made me want to read some Hunter S. Thompson!