Cory's Birthday Movie Celebration: Destroy All Monsters!

1968 monster mayhem

Rating: 14/20

Plot: A posse of alien chicks invades earth by unleashing the collective of monsters imprisoned on Monster Land. Some astronauts have to find a way to defeat them. Rawr!

That's right--the tradition of honoring reader Cory's birthday in the cheapest way imaginable is continuing. This year, I've picked what I believe to be fifth on his favorite Godzilla movie list.

This is a movie very obviously made for children. There's nothing wrong with that, and that's better than the cartoon I thought it was going to be with a first scene involving a rocket blast-off. All of these movies are a little goofy, but this one just feels goofier. I think it might be the heavy narration, especially during the first part of the movie. When the narrator said "a place called Monster Land," I again thought that I was watching a cartoon. I am glad that he introduced all the monsters though. I didn't remember their names later on though, except for the ones I'd already seen in the other movies. I'll tell you one thing about that narrator and his description of Monster Land. There's a whole lot of science going on there. Also making this whole thing so goofy that adults should be embarrassed for liking it (No, I'm not talking about you, Cory, because that would be a terrible thing to do on your birthday.): a scene where Rodan eats a dolphin; a scene where Rodan humps another monster, dryly, I assume; a doctor's suicide with an obvious dummy and the longest scream I think I've ever heard in a movie; the 1999 laser guns that make pew-pew-pew sounds; the dubbed voice of this old guy; and another dubbed voice that is supposed to sound French, I guess. One of the scientists says "the monsters look cute" at one point, and that might be part of the problem. Some of them are a little too cute. Despite the goofiness, this is almost wall-to-wall action. And I liked seeing the monsters in new locations with some familiar landmarks. The miniature stuff is well done although the movie's pretty much done with urban settings by the midway point. Some of the miniatures are complex and even having moving parts. And they're grander in scale, probably because they needed to make room for ALL monsters. The city does look a little devoid of people though, a little lifeless. Maybe at this stage in this series of movies, people knew the signs and found safe locations when they knew giant monsters were on their way. This is packed with monsters, probably too many! I still don't care much for Rodan, but I did like the spiky guy and the long guy. Son of Godzilla? Well, I just don't know about him. His voice is really silly, and he shoots smoke rings. I enjoyed the alien monster tadpole things, but the "burning monster" which turns out to not even be a monster at all is about the lamest thing ever. Oh, and Ghidorah and his trio of heads makes an appearance. They really weren't kidding with the "all" in that title! Of course, the star of the show is Godzilla, and he gets his moments. One series of scenes has some guys running from Godzilla in the woods, and I'm pretty sure some of the shots inspired shots in Jurassic Park. My favorite Godzilla moment comes early, a scene where he does a crotch chop move like that bowler Pete Weber. With the same lively music I've come to expect from these Godzilla movies and barely a slow moment, this is a fun and entertaining giant monster movie. Especially for children!

Happy birthday, Cory!

The Life of Emile Zola

1937 best picture

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A 19th Century French writer makes his living trolling society. When an innocent man is court-martialed for being a spy and sent to Devil's Island--a historically not-very-nice place--his wife comes to Zola to look for help. Zola risks his own freedom by trying to uncover the truth.

There are things that are dated about this, but it doesn't take away any of its impact. The titular character is nice and meaty, the kind screenwriters create just so that some actor can tackle the role and win an Oscar. Paul Muni's that actor, and his performance is a powerful one. He seems to gain wisdom as he ages, and gets all kinds of juicy lines to make Acting with that capital A happen. His big courtroom monologue should be more famous than it is. Muni shows some versatility since there's nothing gangsta about Zola at all, and he seems to get better as the movie goes on. I also really liked the performance of Joseph Schildkraut as the wrongly-accused Dreyfus; he nails one of his final scenes as he emerges from a prison cell as an older Dreyfus, and he does it without any words at all. Beautiful stuff. Dieterle's direction is simple and probably more effective for it. There are some lighting choices and slow zoom-outs that reminded me of moves from the silent era. Other than that, there's not much style to speak of which only helps you focus more on the complexities of the story. Like Argo, the history's a little hugger-muggered, but it's not as sneaky as Affleck's storytelling. There's even a title card that tells you it's not 100% historical at the beginning of the movie. This is a movie that is never really gripping, but it's consistently interesting, and the performances make it a 1930's classic that more people should probably know about.

And I really need to throw "muckraking" into conversation more.

Recommended by Cory.

Warm Springs

2005 polio movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: The guy from this movie has his political career and family life put on hold when he is diagnosed with polio and becomes a paraplegic. He retreats to the titular spa to rehabilitate. The movie sort of leaves things hanging, but I'm pretty sure he became president.

Cory recommended this about six years ago, and I kept putting it off because I thought it looked boring. There's a disturbing lack of kung-fu, and it doesn't have the FDR on Eleanor action that I hoped it might; however, I did enjoy the thing. It's certainly well acted. Branagh abandons Shakespeare (unless Shakespeare somehow wrote this) to play the future president, and he's just really really good. It's hard to explain why he's good. I mean, he nails the emotional ups and downs of FDR, but a lot of actors could have done that. What I like about Branagh's work is that he does these little things that humanize the character, taking FDR from some guy you've read about in history books to a guy you get to know as a human being and see grow in the context of the story. Cynthia Nixon plays Eleanor, that hot little number. Now, I'm sure she nails Mrs. Roosevelt's mannerisms and vocal inflection and all that, but she kind of annoyed me. Don't get me wrong--Nixon's good. She also does a good job with the human side, like in a scene where she discovers that her husband is boinking some other broad.  David Paymer and Tim Blake Nelson are also good although the latter plays a character who I am convinced is just Tim Blake Nelson. I didn't know while watching the movie, but I learned that they used authentic locations and stuff  along with actual disabled people to tell this story, lending the whole thing more of an authenticity. Branagh was actually swimming in the same pool FDR swam, staying in the same cabin, and driving the same car equipped with hand controls so that he could drive feet-free. I haven't verified it, but I think Branagh was also wearing FDR's underpants. I was also impressed with the effects used to make Branagh's atrophied legs. At least I assume that he wasn't using FDR's actual legs. And I'm also assuming that he didn't do something to himself to make his legs actually look like that. Daniel Day-Lewis might have done something like that. With simple direction and the great performances, there were a few scenes that managed to move me. I liked a lot with the Roosevelts' marital relationship, and a scene with a little girl walking nearly brought a tear to my eye. Good movie even though it has less Nazi werewolves than the other version I saw.

Tsotsi

2005 Best Foreign Film (2006)

Rating: 17/20

Plot: A thug inadvertently kidnaps an infant during a car-jacking and becomes a total wuss.

It's difficult to know how to read the denouement of this movie. And yes, I'm going to spoil things if you haven't seen this already, so you probably should probably skip to the next paragraph or not read this at all. Most people on Earth have no problem not reading my blog, however. Anyway, the ending. Is it an unhappy ending because our main character--the titular gangster--is about to be arrested and spend a significant portion of his life in prison? Or is it a happy ending because despite the trouble the kid is in, his soul is in much better shape at the end of the movie than it was at the beginning? This is a bleak movie with a bleak setting and desperate and characters who you never feel are going to be OK, but there are all these rays of hope that perforate the thing. I think I would go ahead and lean toward happy ending since the incredible amount of tension built up during a kind-of stand-off in front of the baby's home is at least eased in a way that would make the other characters happy.

This is a good film, and Tsotsi is the kind of juicy complex character that I imagine would be difficult to create, both by the actor and the director. Presley Chweneyagae plays him, very nearly to perfection. A lot of the performance is about body language, and the first shot we see of him in front of a window with this menacing sky behind him while his friends are trying to add four and five with some neo-reggae/rap hybrid music popping up is a great introduction. It's difficult for me to pinpoint exactly why this baby has such an effect on this character, but Chweneyagae's performance sells it so well that it doesn't matter. There's a bit of movie trickery in humanizing this thug with scenes of an old running Tsotsi morphing into a young running and crying Tsotsi, but for the most part, it's the performance that makes this complex character work. He goes from hardened thug to baby-faced human being, often within a few frames. There's so much that goes unspoken in this movie, and you can read it all on his face as he interacts with characters or wanders around, especially when he explores the child's room. I also liked Jerry Mofokeng who played a crippled beggar, and now that I know his last name starts with "Mofo," I like him even more. The baby was also incredible. The Johannesburg slum is a setting that allows for some cool visuals, a setting that doesn't make any excuses for the characters but that definitely helps explain how circumstances lead to bad decision making. I'm still not sure which visual is more shocking--a shot of the baby with ants crawling all over him or a couple shots of homeless children living in big pipes. The afro-rap soundtrack, most of it performed by a South African artist named Zola, seems a little oppressive at times, but it adds a lot of color, and I ended up liking it. In fact, I'm listening to the soundtrack now while typing this.

Recommended by Cory.

Raise the Red Lantern

1991 Chinese movie

Rating: 17/20

Plot: A young woman becomes the fourth wife of a camera-shy foot fetishist. The women compete for the affection of the husband who has the titular lantern lit for the woman he wants to spend the night with. They don't get along very well.

I don't know about you, readers, but if I were this guy, I'd get myself one large bed and just sleep with all of the women every night. And I'd get three more wives. Not that I even really know what to do with one woman, but it'd be cool to be able to brag to all of my rich friends.

This was the second Zhang Yimou/Yimou Zhang film that Cory has recommended. I've seen enough of him to know that there'll be plenty of color, and this doesn't really disappoint although it's not as flashy as Ju Dou, the other Cory recommendation that I liked at least as well as this; any of those artsy neo-kung-fu movies; or the fun Coen-remake A Woman, a Gun, and a Noodle Shop. I really liked the architecture, all labyrinthine and jaggy, and the splashes of color almost look like wounds against the bleak walls of this castle or whatever it is. I'm positive that I saw this back in the mid-90s and forgot about it. Likely, I wasn't smart or mature enough to watch it back then anyway. I still might not be smart enough as I really don't completely understand Li Gong's character. Li Gong's great, by the way, nailing these perfect complex emotions with the subtlest of expressions. Her character and the motivations of that character are bewildering though. The opening scene, powerful enough, is a close-up of her face as she's being lectured by somebody off-screen. She cries, and there's a fragility there. Five movie minutes later, she's got this confidence and seems kind of bitchy. Later, she develops into something more paranoid and bitchy. And then she goes crazy. I'm sure there's a subtext here that I'm not grasping because I'm not up on my Chinese history. It's a weird character though, one with this depth that neither Li Gong or the writers had to work very hard--or more accurately, very obviously--to develop it. The other actresses who play wives 1-3 or the servants are also really good although the third one (aka the hottest one) is supposed to be a former opera star but has a singing voice that might be the worst thing I've every heard. And I do like how the master of the house is barely seen at all. I think we see the back of his head more than his face, and I know we never see the latter in a close-up. This lacks the flamboyance of Zhang Yimou's later work, but its story is engrossing and just the right kind of slow and builds to a chilling climax.

I also liked how they blew the lanterns out.

Fog of War

2003 documentary

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Some old guy talks about war.

Cory recommended this about 3 1/2 years ago, but I'm not sure why I didn't watch it long before anyway. It's Errol Morris, and Philip Glass scored the thing. Errol Morris has never made a bad documentary, and there has never been a bad documentary scored by Philip Glass. That's a winning combination. I did like the music here, and Morris's style--which always seems not-quite-professional to me--gives this an interesting pace. It really is an hour and forty minutes of an old guy talking with a mix of archival footage, archival conversations, typewriter simulation, war footage, skull dropping experiments, and close-ups of nasty teeth. There are little touches--a freezing on McNamara's face while he still talks--that give this some flash, but this isn't something that should be mandatory viewing for Americans because of the documentary style. It's the message of these 11 lessons where McNamara talks about things that are scary because they really could happen, things that are scary because they almost happened, and things that are scary because they actually did happen. There's real tension in a chilling story about how we were "this close" to nuclear war, and that's despite me having a rudimentary knowledge of 60's history and knowing how it all turned out. I also found his discussion of Kennedy's death very touching. This one guy lived so much history, and it was amazing to watch him tell about what he's learned from it all. You know, because those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it, and all.

Ju Dou

1990 romantic tragedy

Rating: 17/20

Plot: The rich owner of a dye mill marries the type of woman who's likely to sleep with any goofy-looking guy who's willing to spy on her. An employee and nephew of the owner does just that, and a baby is conceived. They keep that a secret, the owner has a stroke, and the boy grows into a pleasant teenager.

This is a story with tragic depth and more than its fair share of stunning moments. There's tons to like here. Most obvious is the look of the film which is just gorgeous, probably expected from a movie Yimou Zhang (also known as Zhang Yimou) is associated with. Goings-on are so perfectly framed by the architecture of this dye mill, and the simplest things--an ascent up some steps, a donkey's eyeball, dye swirling in a pool, a dusty light beam through a hole in the wood, rain dripping from a hole in the ceiling, a flashy red shirt on a blue rainy night, an old guy's saggy pants, a dyed fuzzy weed, a shot of a kid with an ax--and make them into the most beautiful things. And of course there's Gong Li's general shape. I also like foreign movies that feature characters working with antiquated tools. It's like pornography to me, and I enjoyed all the moving parts and creaking limbs in the dye shop. I also loved the contrast early between the shirtless sweating men with their grimy tools and the titular wife as she unfurls the translucent clothes in the sunlight. So beautiful. I really liked the acting in this, especially the lovely Gong Li and Li Wei who plays the uncle. My favorite moment might be seeing the uncle's joyous expression when the boy calls him daddy in front of his parents. I also liked his eventual demise, one made more tragic because you've got a mentally challenged kid laughing at you. Of course, I also liked seeing him row himself around in his little cart. It made me a little envious, and I wanted a little cart of my own. I was really amazed with how they made these characters look older. A lot of it probably has to do with the acting as I really felt the pain these characters were living as they were trapped by their own lies and secrecy. Add a minimalistic soundtrack that I think was played on David Carradine's flute, and you've got a delicate little tragedy. It's a downer, but it's a beautiful one, a movie with themes that extend way beyond the rural setting in this foreign land with its weird little tools. A question: What's with the baby-in-a-barrel thing? Upright in a barrel while wearing a snowsuit? What the hell is going on there? Oh, and around the 36 minute mark, Ju Dou tells the nephew to "suck it" while at the 54 minute mark, the old guy throws out a "Who's your daddy?" Both of those made me laugh.

This was a Cory recommendation.

The Times of Harvey Milk

1984 documentary

Rating: 17/20

Plot: The assassination of Harvey Milk by that coward Dan White.

OK, so this is about more than the assassination. The assassination bookends the story, but the bulk of this is about the life and political career of the titular gay guy, and it's absolutely impossible to watch this and not think one thing: Aside from his sexual proclivities, which for reasons that I'll never understand really bother some people, the world could use a lot more Harvey Milks. At least more people just as caring and compassionate. The leadership skills displayed in this documentary are inspiring, and what he was able to accomplish in less than a year really makes you wonder why more can't get done by other politicians. I was surprised that this was made so soon after the assassination. Six years? Is that right? I'm guessing it helped the story have a wider reach and enough steam to reach Sean Penn. I wasn't very old when this happened, so I'm not sure if this was a big news story nationally. To be honest, I think I first heard of Harvey Milk when the Sean Penn movie came out. I had a wild range of emotions while watching this one. The recording of Milk reading from his will was chillingly prescient with Milk "knowing that I could be assassinated at any time." After the murder and the court case, I was as angry as I've ever been watching a documentary about something that happened over thirty years ago. I had to pause the dvd, go outside, and throw a rock through the window of a Radio Shack. And of course there was the shock in finding out that it was junk food that really drove Dan White to do what he did. And the candlelight vigil brought tears to my eyes, partially because I don't like seeing people sad en masse but also because of the amount of support for, I assume, what Milk represented. And what did he represent? I guess that would be hope since the movie ends with Milk saying that life isn't worth living without it. This is a well-built and moving documentary that everybody should watch.

Purple Noon

1960 remake of 1999's The Talented Mr. Ripley

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Rich Mr. Greenleaf sends Tom to Europe to retrieve his son Philippe who seems to be on an endless vacation. The senior Greenleaf believed the two were BFF's growing up. Philippe continues dicking around, so Tom decides to kill him and steal his identity so that he can buy a closet full of white jeans.

That poster is courtesy of Poland in case you're wondering. I was wondering why Cory would not only recommend a movie starring pop star Prince but why he claimed to have "thought of [Shane] when [he] saw it." I started watching and said to myself, "Why is Prince a white dude, and why's he speaking French?" Turns out that Prince isn't even in this movie, and neither is any artist formerly known as Prince. It's Alain Delon, a guy I've liked in a few other movies that don't have Prince in them. He's good here, too--creepy in an almost pleasant way which makes his whole persona that much creepier. He plays the sort-of two roles here really well with just the right amount of subtle differences, and even though he's convincing as a crafty dude, he's also got this palpable naivete that makes you know that he ain't getting away with any of this no matter how sly he thinks he is. There's a great little look he gives when an old woman tells him, semi-ironically (I have to say semi-ironically since I don't know what ironic means so that if somebody calls me on it, I can say, "Well, I did say semi-ironically.") "This is no time to be killed." Philippe, played by Maurice Ronet is such an unlikable guy that I actually couldn't wait for him to be murdered. I enjoyed the early characterization in this. So much is revealed when the mischievous duo buy a blind man's cane from him and then use it to pick up a woman. I like the little details, too. The fish market scene with its wild music and close-ups of all those fish faces, all the focus on the set-up and equipment when Tom is practicing his pal's signature, that kind of stuff. The ending is great in a lot of ways that other movie's endings aren't great, but my favorite scene is a murder scene, a death by Buddha where the victim's last sight is a chicken a few rolling tomatoes. His last words--"Ahwa-oo-oo." That guy deserved to die, too, mostly because he's a jerk who can't park. The aftermath of that act of violence, a hand over the banister with some ironic music and a situation where the dead must smoke a cigarette, is really nice, too. With constant jazz burbling below the surface and all kinds of tasty foreshadowing, this well pieced-together suspense story is a good one with or without Prince's involvement. Definitely recommended for people who know what ironic means or probably even those who don't.

Les Miserables

1935 movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: France's most notorious bread thief ends a prison sentence, fails to meet with his parole officer, fails a drug test or two, is caught with a hooker, and feels the scene of a rickshaw accident. He's relentlessly chased down by Inspector Javert as he attempts to start a new life and falls in love with a little girl.

Ten years for a loaf of bread? Wow, the French are serious with their crime and punishment. They're not wusses when it comes to prison either, and the prison scenes in this are grimy and realistic. There's a lot in this that is typical 1930's melodrama, but both the leads--a versatile Fredric March as the bread thief and the imposing presence that is Charles Laughton--manage to rise above all that and give memorable performances. They don't always have the best lines to read. Asking your host who knows you just got out of prison "How do you know I won't murder you in the night" seems like pressing one's luck. But they transcend a screenplay that isn't always very good and deliver the goods. Cory recommended this and has a thing for Charles Laughton. He's also enjoys movies with bad child actors, and this one's got a fairly offensive one, Marilyn Knowlden as young Cosette. She almost completely ruins a horse chase scene that is really pretty thrilling for the mid-30's, neatly edited with some flamboyant camera angles. And it looks dangerous enough with a horse running right into a box and falling down and everything, so maybe that's why Cosette is screaming like that. There's another chase through the sewers, a scene obviously pinched from The Third Man, that I really liked. And I believe there was music in exactly two scenes during this movie which I liked. 1930's movies are definitely better without music. Whistling, yes. Music, no. This feels to me like a color-by-numbers literary classic adaptation. It's a little choppy, almost a Cliff Notes or abridged version of Victor Hugo's story. Of course, I'm not planning on reading that 1,300 tome anytime soon to see what's missing or anything. I also don't think I've seen any of the other numerous versions of this although I did know the story. I avoided any versions of this because my high school band's little marching show had something to do with the songs from the Les Miserables musical, and those people annoyed me. It all led to a recurring dream--variations of the same dream anyway--where I made a trip to 19th Century France in a Delorean and shoved various musical instruments into the rectum of Victor Hugo. But despite my past hang-ups and the choppy way the story is told in this particular version, I was moved by the story and the denouements of both the protagonist and antagonist.

The Barbarian Invasions

2003 death movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: College professor and part-time philanderer Remy is dying. Not only that--he's dying with a few regrets. He spends his last moments on earth hanging out with friends, making peace with his estranged son and ex-wife, and befriending a heroin addict.

Don't be fooled by the poster for this one, friends! Despite its appearance on the poster, this movie does not have any shots of old man ass. It's still worth seeing, however, one of those that I can stack beside other movies that manage to be about death on the surface but really more about life--Ikiru, The Living Wake. Remy Girard's performance as the dying man touched me. His character's got a faux strength, but there's this hopelessness there as well, every spot on his countenance betraying this sadness because he knows he's messed things up. So much of the dialogue alludes to the past, both Remy's and humanity's. Lines--"The history of mankind is a history of horrors" or "History is a series of abominable crimes"--take on a double meaning. A central theme deals with the human need to have somebody there to forgive us for the horrible things in our past. I loved that line about embracing the mystery in order to be saved. This is a simple story with a hidden subplot about how "living grows on you," and although most of the story is driven by the dialogue (read: smart people acting all witty), there are some moving visuals as well. The trips through Canadian hospital halls are depressing enough, long shots following or in some cases leading the characters. There's a poignant shot of Remy sitting beside a lake, all the shots of his son (Stephane Rousseau) counting out money, that final twitch of Remy's mouth during the quiet death scene. Love the last image in his mind, the same as the first in his masturbation Rolodex. It was nearly enough to jerk tears from this middle-aged viewer. And wait just a second! Is that Philip Glass mixed in with all the classical music? Rousseau's performance is nearly as good as Girard's, but the beautiful Marie-Josee Croze comes along and nearly steals the show as Nathalie the heroin addict. It's a delicate balance between a victim and somebody who, as the drug dealer warned, will turn on you.

My question: Who are the titular barbarians? The 9/11 terrorists? Europeans, seen through the eyes of Native Americans? Remy's son, a representation of the evils of capitalism? Cancer?

This was a Cory recommendation, so maybe he can answer that.

Fly Away Home

1996 bird movie

Rating: 14/20

Plot: After Anna Paquin's mother dies in a car crash, she moves from New Zealand to Canada in order to live with a father she barely knows. He makes his own airplanes. Her new life is dull until she finds a bunch of goose eggs, watches them hatch, and becomes a mother goose. Almost immediately, she begins rapping about anthropomorphized eggs, women who live in footwear, and people putting fingers in (more than likely proverbial) pies. A problem develops when they realize the geese will need to fly south for the winter, something that birds apparently do. Anna and her father use his flying machines to help train the birds so that they can make the trip with them.

I couldn't watch this movie without thinking of Jeff Daniels, who despite his beard in this still manages to be Jeff Daniels, and a 23-or-so-year-old Anna Paquin having sexual relations while an audience of geese squawk. I think there should be a rule, even if it's just an unwritten rule, that once you've portrayed somebody's father in one film, you are not allowed to later film a sex scene with that same person, especially if you're going to sport a beard in that second movie. The Squid and the Whale is a better movie than this one although it has far less geese, and I hope watching this doesn't ruin that one for me.

I think this movie probably had a lot to do with the resurgence of "Yo' Mama" jokes during the mid-90's. It also should get an award for "Most Annoying Song in a Movie That Doesn't Have a Giant Boat in It"--"10,000 Miles"--which manages to be exactly twice as annoying as that one-hit wonder "5,000 Miles" from Benny and Joon. I don't remember that movie much, but I remember that Proclaimers song being in the movie approximately 5,000 times. "10,000 Miles" is only in this movie twice, bookending our goose story, but it managed to make me cringe the first time and nearly commit suicide the second. I did like Jeff Daniels in this movie even though I'm not sure his character should be winning any father-of-the-year awards. Putting your daughter in a situation where she has to watch you flying around in that contraption that probably should have broken both of your legs only a few months after Mom died while using her giant cell phone and driving? Geez, that's just not right, bearded Jeff Daniels! This movie could also be a whole lot shorter because I did find myself checking my watch more than a few times. And I don't own a watch, so I was really just glancing at my arm. I really liked the stuff with the geese though. A lot of the shots of the geese in the sky following that little aircraft around were really beautiful, and even better were all the scenes with the geese running. I would have paused the movie and gone outside to imitate them, but my surgeon has told me I'm not allowed to run or jump or--especially, he noted with a wagging finger--imitate a running goose. I also really liked a touching scene featuring geese hatching which was juxtaposed with a scene where Jeff Daniels' brother is watching wrestling that made me wonder if anybody would ever really watch wrestling like that. I can picture actor Terry Kinney asking director Carroll Ballard, "So what should I be doing in this scene?" and getting an answer similar to "Oh, just watch television and try to look natural." So naturally, he goes nuts. And nobody, likely even people who just watched this movie five minutes before reading this, have any idea what I'm talking about with this "watching wrestling" scene. Just trust me--it's wonderful. Anna Paquin shows us in this how children should act in movies. She's really good. Even better is the woman who says, "I ought to blow a hole in your liver!" This is a sweet little understated family drama with an underdeveloped environmental theme, thankfully underdeveloped since things could have easily gotten a little too preachy. It would have distracted from the greatness of the scene where Terry Kinney is watching wrestling.

Recommended by Cory, who will have to tell me if he remembers the scene with the wrestling.

Ridicule

1996 witty movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Some French guy travels to Versailles in order to get the king (Louis CXVII or something) to help him drain some swamps. He learns quickly enough that the only way to get an audience with the king is to be wittier than everybody else. He's assisted by a doctor whose lovely and bosomy daughter is trying to perfect her diving suit invention. Meanwhile, there's a whore who kind of looks like Lyle Lovett, and she keeps trying to play footsy with him while he's busy getting his wit on. I'm sure it would have all made perfect sense back in the 18th Century.

Just two minutes in, a guy whips it out (it, being the penis) and urinates on an old man wearing an eyepatch. Cory recommended this one; he really likes that sort of thing. Here are three things that stand out about this movie:

1) This is exactly why everybody hates French people. In a way, it's hard for me to believe that people were ever like this, but then I think about how people are today and believe that people were definitely like this. I like the characters' faces after they make a witty remark, most, by the way, that I didn't even understand. Their expressions made me laugh and want to punch some random French guy.

2) The writers of this totally took that "jawbone of an ass" gag (where a character thinks of a witty retort way too late as he's traveling home from one of these awesome parties) from a Seinfeld episode. You know, the jerk store one.

3) I'm going to try to find every opportunity I can to say "Your butt is wider than your mouth" to people. I don't even know what that means, but it definitely sounds like something.

I liked this movie though I'm not a big fan of stuffy period pieces regardless of how much beautiful cleavage they throw on the screen. The costumes and settings provided a colorful backdrop to the frequently clever dialogue. And although I thought a lot of this was a little cold or, yes, stuffy, I thought a scene near the end with some deaf mutes was pretty touching. If I knew anything about French history and what happened to some of these people after most of this movie takes place, I bet I would be able to appreciate some of the irony more. Nice recommendation, Cory, and definitely not something I would have popped in on my own.

Hobson's Choice

1954 dramatic comedy

Rating: 17/20

Plot: The titular guy with really no choice at all (hence, a Hobson's choice) is a successful but aging cobbler who, as a widower, raises his three grown daughters. He's cheap, drinks a lot, and could probably be described as verbally abusive to his employees and family. He won't allow his daughters to marry because he's worried about paying a settlement, so his oldest daughter takes matters into her own hands, forcing Dad's top boot-maker to start a life and business with her. Then, she tries to help our her two sisters.

Love the opening shots of a creaking sign in the shape of a boot, a venturing into Hobson's boot shop, and an investigation of the setting. I like when the cinematography makes me feel like I'm intruding. I liked the characters, too, even though I went into this thinking they'd be a little more manic, more comedic. Like caricatures. Charles Laughton plays drunk well, that 1920's kind of drunk that Chaplin and probably every other silent comedian did so well. He shows a surprising physicality here, and he does this whole sophisticated irritation thing so nicely. I think that's how the English get irritated. But I also really liked John Mills as Will Mossop, the lowly bootmaker with no aspirations at all. The movie's as much about his metamorphosis than it is Henry Hobson or any of his daughters although Maggie is just as much a protagonist as she makes every single thing that happens in the movie happen. Brenda de Banzie plays her with just enough of her father's character in her to make her motivations and actions realistic. But Will's story was really the emotional heart of this one for me, and Mills takes us through the journey in what I thought was a very natural way. So for me, this is a story about realizing your potential more than anything else. Nothing hysterically funny here, but it's an amusing little comedy with some dark edges. The interactions at the Moonraker with his odd-looking friends were funny, and a chasing-the-moon sequence reminded me a bit of W.C. Fields for some reason.

Another quality Cory recommendation!

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.

A Letter to Three Wives

1949 infidelity-mystery

Rating: 17/20

Plot: A whore writes the titular letter to the titular wives, claiming that she has run off with one of their husbands. Each woman considers the possibility, digging through her mind to find signs that that her husband is the one who's boinking their nemesis, the likely hot-to-trot Addie Ross.

I suspect Cory recommended this one to me because of Kirk Douglas's speech (and when is this guy not good, by the way) about teachers. Or maybe he's heard of my love for the vocoder, the device used to distort the thought-bubble voices of the three wives, weirdly mangling otherwise-ordinary lines like "Why didn't George go fishing?" Or maybe he just recommended it because it's a really cool movie, one I likely wouldn't have caught without his suggestion unless it was on the motel television at 4:30 in the morning or something. I liked the clever structure and the voyeuristic approach to the subject matter, especially with an almost creepy opener with a wandering camera. The characters are all developed so realistically, and like a mystery, I kept trying to put the pieces together in my head and figure out which husband is the unfaithful one. Or, as I was hoping, all three of the husbands leading to this gloriously raunchy menage a quartet during a steamy denouement. Here's a movie that I'm surprised hasn't been updated by Hollywood. Actually, maybe it already has. But I don't think it would work. A contemporary version of this would fail because it would clobber you over the head with big emotions where this one delicately paints pictures of these wives' guts. A remake would also likely be overly cynical, soap-operatic, and soundtrack laden, too. For whatever reason, this recalled one of my favorites, Unfaithfully Yours.

Good recommendation, Cory!

Harlan County, U.S.A.

1976 documentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Filmed account of a 1970s strike by miners who aren't allowed to unionize. They're also ticked off that they have a job that gets their clothes and teeth dirty. Well, what little teeth they have anyway. This is Kentucky that we're talking about. The dentists are probably striking, too. Scabs are brought in as the strike threatens to erupt into a fervent tickle fight.

This is a harrowing, objective human interest documentary that's worth your time for a few reasons. Firstly, as a cultural artifact with a glimpse of a segment of society that you just don't get exposure to on a daily basis. It's a hodgepodge of fairly ugly souls living in really ugly shacks that you can't imagine people actually living in. You feel for the people, and you end up liking a lot of them. Not all of them, however. Some of them are loud mouths. Secondly, for a fan of traditional folk music, I enjoyed hearing a lot of the locals singing songs straight from the notebooks of Woody Guthrie (or a Woody clone) with voices shaped by cigarettes and coal dust. Speaking of black lung as an occupational hazard for coal miners--I fear there's a similar danger at the hotel where I work. Knights Inn lung? And speaking of the music, there was a scene where a guy sang one song about "Sam, the Shuttle Drivin' Man" that featured a John Ratzenberger spotting. And let me stop you before you start in with your back talk--it was definitely him. Thirdly, this is a very well-done narrative with a human struggle that seems to get more and more complicated and dangerous as it goes. No narrator, few interview segments. This is just the camera mingling with these people and their situation. The style (or lack of style) puts the viewer right into the heart of the coal miners' struggles, keeping things right in your face the entire time. There are a few slow moments, but for the most part, this is really good stuff.

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.

Captains Courageous

1937 boat movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A spoiled and likely neglected rich kid has his silver spoon yanked right out of his ass when he's expelled from his boarding school, takes a tumble from his daddy's cruise ship, and is put to work by a crew of fishermen. It's comeuppance time for young Harvey as he befriends crusty fisherman Manuel and learns how to not be a complete pain in the ass.

What do I hate more than anything else in movies? Child actors from the 1930s! And Captains Courageous has an annoying kid (Freddie Bartholomew) playing an annoying character. I suppose we're not really supposed to like Harvey (Why do I keep wanting to call him Nathan?) throughout the first half of this movie, but I don't like him so much that I find it impossible to like him during the second half of the movie, too. I actually broke bones in my hand taking punches at my television screen during a scene involving ice cream. The other children at the beginning of the movie are equally bad. They probably all tried out to play Nathan, and director Victor Fleming just threw up his hands and said, "Whatever! They're all annoying. Just pick out the one with the best face and keep him the hell away from me!" I really liked when one of the kids asked, "Did you call me a sissy?" in a voice that makes him sound like a big sissy. I was really surprised that I didn't really hate this movie, a Cory recommendation, and Spencer Tracy gets all the credit for that. I really think all you have to do is give me a movie where Spencer Tracy is on a boat, and I'll be cool with it. His Manuel is funny, almost like a Marx brother with a little of Groucho's bite and a lot of little of Chico's voice. And he reminded me that I really want my own hurdy-gurdy. I really liked his character, and the bond between the annoying little brat and Manuel is realistic and touching. I'm also immature enough to crack up every time he sang, "Yeah ho, little fish." Once little Nathan is on the boat, this movie picks up, probably because bad things start happening to a bad little kid. I liked watching life on the fishing boat, too. This is the type of movie that kind of makes you wish you were doing what the characters were doing, and after a while, I kind of wanted to work on a boat with a bunch of smelly fish and probably smellier fisherman. Basically, I just want a job where I don't have to shower anymore. I'll even take the occasional hook in my arm if it means I don't have to shower. I also really liked the fisherman trash talk, and Lionel Barrymore as the grizzled captain delivers those lines well. All in all, this turned out to be a nice little adventure story on the high seas with believable characters and the right amount of heart. Yeah ho, little fish! Yeah ho!

One Day in September

1999 narrative documentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Eight Palestinian terrorists, angry that they had put in so many hours training for a bobsled competition that didn't even exist because it was the summer games, kidnap some Israeli athletes and trainers and demand that an impromptu bobsled competition happen immediately. The media and German security helps them out but can't get the bobsledding set up in time to make them happy. Things end badly.

This is a suspenseful narrative documentary in the same vein as Man on Wire. Michael Douglas narrates, but he's used sparingly. I think he's almost completely unnecessary because when this story really connects, it's utilizing the actual images from the tragedy, the news reports, and the interviews with the family members of the victims and one of the terrorists. That last one there--one of the terrorists, a guy hiding somewhere in Africa--gives this documentary a little more force. Without that guy's perspective, the story would have been incomplete. It doesn't exactly make you sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but it does make the story more well-rounded. The news footage succeeds in supporting the idea that the media is filled with fools who often get in the way and do more harm than good. It's best demonstrated in the scene where the poorly-trained German security men dressed in 70s athlete garb are positioning themselves for a sneak attack-and-rescue mission, a mission that is thwarted because the terrorists are watching it all unfold on television. It's tragically comical. I really liked how this makes the story personal, especially with the interviews with the wife of one of the victims. It also makes it perfectly clear that the terrorists weren't the only bad guys in this story. They were the baddest bad guys maybe, but the ineptitude of the Germans in handling a crisis like this and the lack of sympathy displayed by the Olympic organizers (the decision to continue the games while all of this was happening) puts them in the bad guy camp as well. This succeeds because it manages to create all this suspense even though you know how it all ends. And despite already being given the knowledge that none of these people are going to survive, you still are forced to root for them, optimistic about their chances. I did get really annoyed during a montage of horrifying images set to some rock 'n' roll at the end. Completely unnecessary.