The French Connection

1971 action thriller

Rating: 18/20

Plot: Long before he would meet Olive Oyl, Popeye works with his partner in the narcotics unit where he tries to stop that guy in those Bunuel movies from making life a lot more fun for people in New York City.

One of my least favorite movies ever is The French Connection II which I'm reminded exists every time I think about The French Connection. That movie is as terrible as this one is brilliant, just one of those nearly-perfect movies from cinema's best decade. I guess you really have to start with Hackman's performance and the character created here. That or you start by wondering why a song performed in this movie had the lyric "It's customary in songs like this to use a word like spoon." No, it's better to start with the character, a kind of anti-hero. Hackman just seems so big, towering over everybody else. I think when I first watched this movie, I thought Gene Hackman had to have been 7'4" or something in that neighborhood, and not with a scrawny Manute Bol build either but a burly 7'4". Then, I realized that this was the same guy who was in Superman and wondered where his hair went and how he lost a foot and a half. I was a stupid child. Doyle's slightly racist, probably a misogynist, and chews his gum obnoxiously. He's loud and crude, but you never deny that he's really good at what he does, and I think it's impossible not to enjoy watching him go about his business. Oh, and he sure likes his boots on women, doesn't he? Partner Roy Scheider's good though somewhat overshadowed by the star, and Fernando Rey brings some class into this often too-gritty urban crime drama as the criminal mastermind. This movie is the epitome of grit, really diving into the oily crevices to bring out the soul of the story. Things get ugly here, but it works because the world Popeye Doyle is charged with protecting is an ugly one. I'm not sure the camera has to jerk around that much though. I like the attention to detail there is, all the tiny spectacles this movie has to offer. Love seeing Hackman chasing down a guy while wearing a Santa suit, a lengthy scene where the good guys are stalking the bad guys on the streets, that absolutely ridiculous little cat-and-mouse game on the subway that was really probably too ridiculous to even work. It's brilliant stuff. And then, of course, there's one of the best car chases ever filmed. And things end with a bang, literally. A bang more open-ended than any bang I can think of, an ambivalent bang. Great movie, but I'm always a little surprised when I think of it cleaning up at the Academy Awards. Wouldn't this have been more than a little daring in 1971? Regardless, it seems like people have been trying to make another one of these for over forty years.

Sorry about the spoiler on that poster up there.

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.

Argo

2012 Best Picture

Rating: 16/20 (Jen: 18/20)

Plot: One of those countries with all the oil finds a bunch of white people and decides to attempt the world record for the longest sleepover. Six people aren't invited, presumably because they are "dweebs," and they go whining to some friendly Canadians where they subsist on a diet of elk juice and sugar-free Pop-Tarts. The U.S. sends in a guy who they think might be Mexican because he has a dark beard to play a practical joke on them all.

This is very well done drama, tense and meticulously detailed. The period details and snippets from news footage or speeches helped nail the realism, at times almost to the point where I thought it was a little too much, like they were shoving the fact that all of this might have happened just like this in my face. It's definitely one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction type films. The best part about it, I think, is that it maintains high levels of suspense even if you know the outcome and the fate of all these characters. It's edge-of-your-seat stuff as things build to a tense crescendo, a final series of close calls after a whole bunch of other close calls. I'm impressed with Affleck's direction--as well as his depiction of a Mexican man--because he pulls this all off without any trickery. This is all fairly straightforward, pretty much exactly what a movie version of this story would have looked like in the 1970s if that were possible. I also liked that there was a little humor mixed in with the drama, a lot of it from the characters played by Alan Arkin and John Goodman.   Argo's got good performances, an authentic look and feel (I have no idea about the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of what's going on), a consistent tone, and a ton of thrills. I'd watch it again and probably enjoy it just as much. But is it really a Best Picture?

I heard, by the way, that they're working on a sequel featuring Boba Fett. That is definitely something to look forward to.

Oprah Movie Club Pick for January: The Ten Commandments

1956 Biblical epic

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

Plot: The story of Moses, told ad nauseum.

Sorry this installment of the Oprah Movie Club is arriving a little late. It has been a very long time since I saw this and had completely forgotten that it was told in real time like the 24 t.v. show. Seriously, Moses from his birth to his wandering off into the sunset after God told him, "Nuh uh! You ain't goin' to no promised land, Mo-fo-ses," all unfolding in real time.

I feel really bad for making my daughter watch this. I tricked her by telling her it was like an Indiana Jones movie, and then we didn't even get a shot of the Ark of the Covenant. That's right--no money shot! I thought that was a huge mistake. Abbey was confused about the overture and the guy coming from behind the curtain to chat with us at the beginning of the movie and then much much later, the intermission. I had to explain to her that going to the movies used to be a lot classier and that some of them would take up to half of a person's lifetime to watch.

Finally, there's a cool opening shot after the half hour of overtures, introductions, and opening credits. This movie's so big, and so much of it looks terrific. The colors pop, the set design is so big and expensive, and some of the special effects are very impressive. It's fun imagining a storyboard of this being shown to studio execs and having them laugh and say, "You've got to be kidding me!" The burning bush looks silly, and I know I'm probably going to hell for typing that, but it's true. You wait five hours and forty-seven minutes to see a spectacle, and that burning bush is the only reward? The snakes are a little cooler, and I liked the sanguine-ing of the river and the greenish Angel of Death mist although the latter could have been a lot cooler. That pull-back through the streets with that green smoky ooze was a cool shot though. I like what Cecil B. DeMille and his team's artistic and moody skies, but the piece de resistance is that parting of the Red Sea. Of course, the pillar of fire is weak, looking like something pulled straight from a G.I. Joe cartoon in the 80s. The obvious green screen, a random kid/master-of-the-obvious who tells everybody around him that the Red Sea has just been parted, and a guy who decides to poetically refer to God's nostrils try to take you away from the scene a little bit, but it's hard not to be impressed with the bigness of that special effect. My favorite part of it is a shot of three awe-struck women who, if he had any interest at all, Moses could have easily banged. And the Moses-standing-on-the-rock scene after the Hebrews get across is a nice movie moment. I also liked the set design for the Mount Sinai scene with God as a fire tornado and the Hebrew slaves--so many extras--showing us that they know how to party. I always liked, by the way, that they were breaking like two of the most important commandments while God was putting them on stone. But fire-stick duels, women riding men like horses, hot chick sacrificing. That's my kind of party although I really would have liked to see something closer to an orgy.

Yes, there's a ton of memorable scenes and fantastic imagery in the second half of the movie. The problem is that you have to wade through over five hours of character development to get there. You get an hour long scene of Moses talking to some sheep, and then they skim over two-thirds of the plagues? I wanted to see a frog rainstorm and cattle implosion or whatever else was in there. Sure, they mention "all manner of plagues," but we don't get to see them. And there's a lot of stagy acting with miscast actors. I do like Yul Brynner as Rameses and, of course, Vincent Price as Baka, but Ian Keith was pretty awful as Rameses' dad and Edward G. Robinson looked like he couldn't figure out what the hell he was doing there. Anne Baxter's a little hottie, at least from certain angles, as Nefretiri, and I nudged Abbey at one point to tell her that I wouldn't mind using Nefretiri as my footstool before realizing she was not the right audience for that. For the most part, it seems like everybody in this is just playing dress up. Charlton Heston wasn't a terrible Moses though. In fact, he's very convincing as Baby Moses, and I wasn't even sure it was him there. He's good as Old Man Moses, too, as he looked more and more like a crazy messenger of God. He gets to say all kinds of cool Moses things in that strong voice of his.

A question: Why does Aaron do all the stuff with the staff? Moses is holding the staff, and he's the voice of God and all, so shouldn't he get to do the magic tricks? But every time, he hands the staff to his brother. Did I miss something when I was fast-forwarding over a scene where Yul Brynner looks pensive for 25 minutes?

Is it just me or does it seem like every time the narrator comes in, it almost seems like he had to be awakened to read his lines?

There are a couple performers who steal scenes with small performances. First, there's Rameses's kid played by Eugene Mazzola, a bad child actor. "Mother, he turned a staff into a cobra." Mazzola's also in Terror in a Texas Town, that Western featuring a gun vs. harpoon show-down at the end. There's also a slave who dies in the mud, and his reaction to being whipped was awesome. Oh, and an old lady who says, "The Chariot! Ahh! Run for your lives!" It's great enough on its own, but I loved the little pose she struck afterward.

Did you know that Herb Alpert is in this movie, a drummer during the Mount Sinai scene? Not sure if the Tijuana Brass is in there. If they were, I might have gotten that orgy that I wanted!

Another question: What's the jackal and hound game they're playing in this? It looked like a blast.

Oh, another question: How many extras do you think were killed during the erection of the obelisk scene? That just didn't look safe.

So there are many spectacular moments in this Biblical epic, but that burning bush should have been in the first fifteen minutes of the movie. If I ever watch it again, that's probably where I'll start it anyway.

Too bad DeMille died after this one. I would have really enjoyed seeing a five-hour version of that story about Jesus meeting the little guy in the tree.

Bernie

2011 comedy based on a true story

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A small-town funeral director strikes up a friendship with a rich old lady who later turns up dead.

This has a much different tone than not only every other Jack Black movie you'll ever see but most other movies. It doesn't feel like a comedy most of the time though there are a lot of very funny moments. It's not a mockumentary even though Richard Linklater utilizes interview snippets with actual locals throughout the thing which kind of give it that feel. At least I think they're actual locals. There's absolutely no mystery, so it's not a murder-mystery, and although some of this takes place in a courtroom and Matthew McConaughey does a wonderful job of playing a lawyer, going against type and actually keeping his shirt on for the duration of the story, it's not a courtroom drama either. I'll call it a black comedy. Jack Black's performance is subdued, but he does do that thing with his eyebrows early in the movie to remind you that he's Jack Black. But he's perfect for this role--he's got the facial expressions, the voice, the singing ability, and these perfect little movements. In an opening scene, he plays around with what I thought might be a real corpse. I'm too lazy to look that up just like I'm too lazy to check to see if the "locals" were authentic or not. This is, after all, rapid fire! Shirley MacClaine is also really good here. All you need to watch is a scene where she chews refried beans to appreciate her genius. Bernie's got a fascinating story, and I liked its simple style. The murder scene, by the way, is perfection--the editing, the writing, the acting, and then bam--76 Trombones. Brilliant stuff.

The Honeymoon Killers

1969 cult classic

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Raymond and Martha, a gigolo and a portly prostitute who met via an online dating service in the 1940s, team up for a series of con jobs that gradually become more violent. Raymond seduces lonely rich women and sweet-talks them into giving him money. Martha tags along as his "sister."

John Waters likes this movie a lot. I'm not sure if I would have thought the lead actress (Shirley Stoler) would have reminded me of Divine had I not known that before watching this. She does though, even her mannerisms and facial expressions. She's not a professional, and neither is Tony Lo Bianco who I almost would have guessed was one of Laverne and/or Shirley's friends a few years later. Their performances, combined with the low-budget feel and late-60's black 'n' white, give this a creepy realism somehow even though I could listen to arguments that it has the exact opposite effect. Both Lo Bianco and Stoler have these little nuances that just work somehow. I really liked them despite how awful their characters are. I think it's how they are played so casually, with a disturbing pinch of comedy. And I like how the characters are played. They're not romanticized at all, and really, with the amount of time we get to spend with the couple's victims, the emphasis is not even on them all the time. The clash with these naive women victims in their cheesy Americana homes and these cold-blooded criminals is jarring, mostly because of the way the characters are treated. It's cold, and it's dark. Very dark. You don't need to see what happens in the basement to put it all together and realize that. There are so many unnecessary scenes that add to the weird cadence of this thing--a new bride singing "America" in the bathtub, a chemical reaction in a hospital during the opening sequence, an attempted suicide by drowning. There's also some cool camera movements including the opening stuff in the hospital and a terrific series of shots in a hallway after the first marriage (while that gal is singing patriotically) that end with a shot of a transom with some copulating shadows. It was hard for me to believe or understand why this was director Leonard Kastle's only movie. He, by the way, took over for Scorsese who probably would have just messed the whole thing up. It's one of the more peculiar one-and-dones I've heard about though. After all, this was Francois Truffaut's favorite American movie. Doris Roberts is also in this for all you Everybody Loves Raymond fans. I don't think she's the character who says, "I'm not so sure Hitler wasn't right about you people," though. How's that for a line, by the way?

I would definitely recommend this to fans of cult movies, John Waters, movies based on true stories, or people who enjoy the television sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond.

Sleepwalk with Me

2012 comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: Matt Pandamiglio, an aspiring comedian based on star and director Mike Birbiglia, deals with his new profession, a relationship that isn't really working anymore, and the increasing dangers of his somnambulism.

I had looked forward to this movie for a while because I like Birbiglia's comedy act. He's better than maybe anybody else at turning awkwardness into humorous. And the guy and his brother bought a van and converted it into one that looked just like the one in The A-Team. He's creative and funny, and the story he tells here about his love life, burgeoning comedy career, and sleepwalking is perfect material for a comedy movie. He's surprisingly expert as a first-time screenwriter and director at intertwining the three of those. What he doesn't have is a lot of charisma as a leading man, and I imagine there are viewers who wouldn't like his personality as much as I do and therefore not like his character all that much. Birbiglia's not a great actor, but he works well enough as an everyman to make this story work well enough. Part of the problem for me is that I'm very familiar with Birbiglia's comedy act and know a lot of the stories told visually here, as well as a lot of the jokes. This never feels like a "best of" Birbiglia or anything, however. In fact, a lot of his best-known bits are either not in this at all or started but not finished. I do wonder how somebody completely unfamiliar with the guy's comedy would enjoy this thing though. Maybe you should check it out and let me know!

People Like Us

2012 movie

Rating: 11/20

Plot: Some nondescript guy named Sam has all kinds of financial problems and no fighting robots to help him out of his jams. He finds out that his father dies, and although he does everything he can to miss the old man's funeral, he is curious to find out if he was left any cash. Unfortunately, a large chunk of money was left to some boy he's never heard of. Sam investigates and discovers that that boy is the son of a woman who might be a sister he never knew he had. So naturally, he flirts with her.

I like riding on planes because it forces me to watch a movie that I otherwise wouldn't watch. I wasn't thrilled to get this one, but I didn't figure it would matter anyway since I was traveling with a toddler. Luckily for me, Buster didn't had so much interest in the woman trying to read and then sleep in the window seat, and I could just let her take care of herself. I kept trying to place the nondescript actor playing the nondescript protagonist of this. He has the type of face which made me think he's somebody I should know, like he's the next big thing or something. I looked him up. Apparently, he's Captain Kirk and the guy on the runaway train with Denzel Washington. His character here is strange, almost a stalker, and his charming ways really do make it seem like he's flirting with a gal he knows is his half-sister. There's no way that the half-sister, played by the mundane and probably-too-polished-for-this-role Elizabeth Banks, wouldn't think that. But Chris Pine doesn't have much range at all. That picture up there is pretty much all he does except sometimes he does it in a sadder way. And then there's Michelle Pfeiffer who doesn't seem old enough to be Captain Kirk's mom, but I'm sure she is. This is a a nice enough story, apparently based on a true story, but the whole thing is almost painfully comfortable. It's an elevator music kind of movie, criminally pleasant, and I'm really surprised that I was able to stay awake during it.

Oprah Movie Club Pick for May: Schinder's List

1993 Best Picture

Rating: 18/20 (Jen: 18/20; Dylan: 11/20)

Plot: Businessman Oskar Schindler saves a bunch of Jews during the Holocaust. He's rewarded with a tree and a bunch of rocks and, long after he's gone, a movie that nobody will want to see because it isn't even in color.

So here's my question: Why were so many details changed? They're not significant details--the girl in the red dress, based on a real person apparently, survived the Holocaust--but doesn't it damage the integrity of the film? Even a minor rewrite is still a rewrite of history, isn't it? Isn't that what Inglorious Basterds is kind of about? It makes me question the historical accuracy of other things that happen in the movie, like when Fiennes character is shooting at people from his balcony.

Here's something else I wanted to bring up. Here's what filmmaker Terry Gilliam had to say about Schindler's List: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAKS3rdYTpI

It's a two minute clip. I know Cory made us watch a five-hour movie this month, but you can spare two more minutes to see what Mr. Gilliam has to say, right? I have my own thoughts, but I wanted to see what you had to say.

Another question: Spielberg refused to take any money for making this, and he doesn't sign any memorabilia related to the movie. That's noble and all, but a stronger move would have been to keep his name off the screen during the closing credits. Or at least not end his movie with a powerful scene of Schindler's Jews giving him rocks and then immediately splash "Directed by Steven Spielberg" on the screen after it.

I saw this in a crummy theater in Terre Haute when it came out, back before they'd invented devices that would enable my wife to check Facebook during the movie. Now I'm not completely sure about this, but I think that makes her almost as bad as a Nazi. Of course, Dylan only rated this an 11, not even twice as good as Dr. Strangelove, so he's probably going straight to hell. He called it "boring," and it is too long, arguably longer than it needs to be. If I had to cut anything at all, I'd maybe lose the big chunk where Goeth is going through a "pardoning" stage after that lengthy conversation that Qui Gon has with Goeth's maid. I guess I know what a scene where Goeth gets a manicure adds to the Schindler's List experience, but it could have been cut without losing much. It certainly is a long movie, but most of what you see on the screen needs to be there. I don't think our director wants humanity to get away without seeing some of this imagery. It's the same reason why people should have to read Night, almost like an act of penance. Also, this much time is needed to make what Schindler does realistic and comprehensible. You lose some of the space this movie gives the Schindler character, and you lose the real person that he was. And speaking of that real person, I'm happy this leaves in some of his defects. What we find out first about the man is that he was a selfish womanizer, and I think that's important. Neeson's so good here, both with those aforementioned flaws and the more emotional bits as Schindler transforms into the person who deserves to have a movie made about him. Fiennes makes a scary villain, a much scarier (and nosier) one than Lord Voldemort could ever have been. Just as Neeson gives the titular character some real flesh 'n' blood, Fiennes also gives his character, a character who puts a face and name on the evil and gives us something more specific to hate, some unfortunate humanity. And he's so matter-of-fact about it all. It's frightening. It's a brave part for him to grab at the age of 30-something, mostly because he's so good at being pure evil that people might not want to see his face on the screen ever again. He won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (CORRECTION: No, he did not. And neither did John Malkovich.), and if there was an Academy Award for Best Paunch, he would have gotten that, too. As evil as that character is, he did give me a pick-up line that I'll probably use once I leave my wife for getting on Facebook during Schindler's List and will need to find a replacement wife--"I realize you're not a person in the strictest sense of the word. . ." I don't think many women would be able to resist that.

One other question: Did they really say "fuck" that much in 1940's Poland? This is a legitimate question. It's a word with a fuzzy history.

Spielberg gives us a lot of pictures that are impossible to get out of your head. The handheld camera work during a lot of this startles. True, some of these visuals just seem too easy, the kind of stuff that a director who knows his name will be the first thing you see after the last image of the film might think will get him that Academy Award. The camera lingers on children, and piles of shoes or pictures, concentration camp atrocities, and dying extras get more than enough screen time. The ghetto scene is absolutely brutal. The little boy with the ears trying to find a hiding spot and the shot of him spotlighted in that desperate situation he decides upon is impossible to forget. Of course, there's the girl in the red coat. Ashes, the slow river of blood fighting through snow, the ominous crematorium chimney. One of my favorite moments is in the hospital when the nurse poisons some patients. One woman's grateful expression and that nurse's look of defiance when the SS arrive are both so beautiful. It's powerful film-making, and there aren't a lot of people who can watch this and feel nothing.

One more thing--I think it's a little sad that I have to look up the name of the accountant/factory-manager. It's Itzhak Stern. Maybe it's just me being bad with names.

My thoughts about Gilliam's thoughts: What are you going to leave this movie remembering the most? Is it a Holocaust movie or a movie about how one person can make a difference? Do you think about how evil humanity is as the credits roll or are you remembering the goodness of one human being? If it's the former with those three questions, Gilliam might have a point.

OK, your turn. What do you want to say about our Oprah Movie Club selection for May?

We Bought a Zoo

2011 movie

Rating: 11/20 (Jen: 15/20)

Plot: Benjamin writes about his adventures for a magazine, but he's about to have his greatest adventure ever when he buys a zoo and tries to get it up and running. His two children and he try to get over the death of the family's matriarch which seems awfully whiny since they seem to get all the free lasagna they can eat. The tiger's sick, and Scarlett Johannson's there to wave her cute little ass around.

I really thought that I was liking this sweet little movie, but the longer it went on, the less and less I liked it. In fact, I can't think of a movie with such a sharp descent from "Ehh--this isn't too bad" to "Oh my God! I need to wash the stupid from my eyes!" I will say this though: I like Matt Damon here. I don't know if the real Benjamin Mee is this likable, but Damon makes the character very easy to root for, despite or maybe because of his flaws. I also thought his daughter, played by a cute little girl named Maggie Elizabeth Jones, was really good, but then I remembered what human children are actually like and ended up irritated by what was actually on the screen as a cute little prop than an actual character. The son (Colin Ford) isn't much better at playing a human child, but that might just because I don't like people named Colin. Worst of the bunch is Elle Fanning, the convenient love interest for son Dylan, who acts like she's either been drugged, hypnotized, or hypnotized and drugged. Or maybe she's supposed to be vacuous in an almost eerie way, probably the product of home schooling. And Scarlett? Gosh, I want to like her as an actress, but she doesn't seem to have much range (but I haven't seen her in any superhero movies) and her character here was dopey and weird. I just have a tough time believing her as an actual female even though she wouldn't have slept with me in high school just like every other actual female. She looks more like a Scientologist than a person. And what the hell is up with Thomas Haden Church's head? I think there's something living in there. But these people aren't the main problem with We Bought a Zoo and neither is the amount of times the little girl says "We bought a zoo!" Although that repeated line might symbolize the collective problems I have with this syrupy thing. There's just too much movie here. It's predictable, and even the montage, Neil Young's "Cinnamon Girl" of all songs, shows up right when you know it will. Not bad soundtrack selections, by the way, with a choice Dylan cut and some Cat Stevens or whatever the hell he's calling himself these days. But I digress. There's what I imagine was penned to be the emotional heart of this movie, a scene featuring a tiger, that is just so artificial, and that's about where the movie falls to pieces. Add a fallen tree and a "Hi, Mom" that came closer than any movie to making me shove the business end of a spoon into both eyes and the handle into both ears so that I wouldn't see, hear, or be reminded of the scene again. Somebody should have stopped production and said, "Wait just a second--we can't show this shit to people!" Yeah, artificial. That's how I'd describe this one.

Papillon

1973 prison escape movie

Rating: 17/20 (Dylan: 14/20)

Plot: The true story of Henri Charriere, a thief wrongly arrested for the murder of a pimp. He's sent to an island prison in South America and decides that he doesn't like it very much. He develops a friendship with the wealthy and mousy Louis Dega who helps him plot an escape. His attempts don't work out very well.

"Put all hope out of your mind. And masturbate as little as possible." I have given similar advice.

This second feature in this little prison escape movie festival Dylan and I are enjoying might be a little bit long with an ending that is a little too short. If that makes any sense. You've got a lengthy set-up with some characterization and an introduction to the notorious setting. The prison escape and ensuing outcomes should have been split evenly in thirds for the rest of the movie, but nothing at all should be changed about the first prison escape attempt and the solitary confinement scenes that were the result. And that would have made a movie that you could debate is already too long even longer. Anyway, a minor quibble. There's so much to love in this. You get another cool prison-escape guy with Steve McQueen, and as much as I have trouble understanding what Dustin Hoffman is trying to say through his nose in some of his movies, he's as good as I always expect him to be. Not Mr. Magorium good maybe, but still good. There's a scene where McQueen and Hoffman wrastle a very authentic-looking alligator (or crocodile, whichever they have down there) that is almost as harrowing as the scene in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium where Hoffman and Natalie Portman are playing with bubble wrap. Speaking of the realism, that's one of the things I really like about this one. There's a brutality here that you just can't help but absorb, especially in that aforementioned solitary confinement sequence. The bugs, the cracks on the walls, McQueen's pasty skin, the beads of sweat, the costume filth, the cold cold cement, and even the darkness feel as real as you can possibly hope something on your television screen could feel. Later, it's the weather, the mud, the lepers. Even a chicken gets injured! This story meanders wonderfully, takes time to really savor the minutia. Contrast that to the brute quickness of a guillotine scene. Startling and effective without any unnecessary trickiness. I also liked a couple surreal dream sequences in this, and the opening scene with a prisoner march through the streets with more extras than I think I've ever seen in a movie was also an impressive cinematic feat. My favorite line: "Blame is for God and small children." Cool, cool movie, one made even cooler knowing that it is probably 100% true, not fabricated a bit.

Moneyball

2011 baseball movie

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

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

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

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

Cannibal! The Musical

1993 historical musical

Rating: 14/20

Plot: The story of Alfred Packer, the lone survivor of a failed mining expedition somewhere in the Rocky Mountains. Upon his return to society, he's tried and convicted of eating the rest of his party, something you're apparently not supposed to do on a mining expedition. His only hope to escape an impeding hanging is a young newspaper reporter named Polly Pry and some Japanese Indians.

This one, as you'd expect being an early project from one of the South Park dudes, is a mixed bag. It's a musical about cannibalism, so it's nothing I need to be talked into seeing. Since this is a Trey Parker project, you might guess that the songs would be pretty good. They are, too. Parker's songs have a way of feeling they could actually be in a legitimate musical until you listen really closely to the lyrics and hear things that would have Rodgers and Hammerstein reaching for their shotguns. Lyrical genius:

"The sun's as warm as a baked potato."
"The sky was a lot more blue when I was on top of you."
"My pa was an elephant, but that is irrelevant. My ma was an Eskimo."
"I've got a chest of wonder and balls of thunder. I can break right through a wall."
The entirety of the snowman song.

This is brazenly low budget, and I really got a kick out of the costumes and faux facial hair. The trapper characters' outfits were the best. They even had "Trapper" across their backs which made me laugh. My favorite characters were the Indians, played stereotypically by Japanese people. Favorite line: "We are. . .Indians. Look at all the teepees." All kinds of little oddities in this one--references to The Odyssey and unexplained aliens. This one isn't a home run or consistently great, but it can be mentioned in the same conversation as an Airplane or a Holy Grail, which a lot of comedy directors would take as a huge compliment. People will think a lot of this is pretty juvenile but there's enough clever in here to make it worthwhile. Also of interest to South Park or Team America: World Police fans or anybody who likes musicals or cannibalism. And if you appreciate both musicals and cannibalism? Hold on tight!

Urine Couch AM Movie Club: Unstoppable

2010 train mayhem

Rating: 12/20

Plot: Earl's brother from the Hey! I'm Earl television sitcom screws up and loses his train, a locomotive hauling a few cars with some deadly-dangerous stuff that, if it spills off the track in some Pennsylvania town like they think it will, could potentially destroy the earth. Thank God for Denzel Washington, a train conducting veteran who, with the help of an arrogant young buck, is there to save the day.

This is the best tall tale that has both a black guy and something to do with trains since John Henry! I halfway enjoyed half of this movie. It's predictable as an action movie. There are also too many scenes with people doing work which reminded me that I was supposed to be doing work and nearly ruined the good time that I was having there on the Urine Couch with the late Gene Siskel. My mind started wandering a bit as jittery action sequences started bleeding into more jittery action sequences which bled into quiet reflective scenes where Denzel and the kid talk about their lives. I started wondering if I'd be able to take care of business if the motel started to move, gaining momentum as it merged with traffic on 465. Would I be able to stop the thing? And would some of our weekly guests be considered toxic? Like, if we tumbled off 465 into traffic on 65, would we explode in a cloud of cocaine and filth, forcing Indianapolis inhabitants to evacuate the city in a search for cleaner air? Regardless, I bet we'd make the news. We'll likely make the news soon enough anyway. Our rivals down the street did after their manager, another Indian guy, was beaten to death and thrown in a dumpster. I can definitely see that happening at my place. What are the chances of two Indiana Indian hotel managers being murdered within a couple weeks of each other? I hope angry customers don't try to beat me and throw me in a dumpster. Or if it happens, I hope Denzel Washington pops out and saves my life, all with really jerky editing and multiple camera angles showing him ripping stop signs from the concrete and swinging them at the bad guys. I love that in movies like Unstoppable, by the way. It's like the director Tony Scott said, "Look, everybody. I've done a lot of these action movies and wasted a whole bunch of planes when doing Top Gun because the cameraman's thumb was in the shot or the explosion didn't look explosiony enough or whatever. We've only got so many trains and cars, so we've got to make this count" and then set up about fifty cameras to shoot the same shot of a huge train crashing into some cars. Then, he looked at the footage and said, "You know what? This is all good! We can't waste any of this shiznit!" and decided to use it all. All the shiznit. Seeing the same train-crashing-into-car scenes from the same angle, sometimes in slow motion, adds about thirty minutes to the movie. Without those extra camera angles, you'd be forced to either tell this story in about sixty minutes or add a lot more scenes of Denzel and the kid talking about life. Anyway, a lot of cardboard to chew through with this one.

127 Hours

2010 dumb guy movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Cocky thrill-seeker Aron Ralston goes on a little hiking adventure through some familiar canyons in Utah and finds himself trapped and completely alone after a freak accident that wedges his arm between a large boulder and a canyon wall. He spends a harrowing few days trying to figure a way out of the predicament and survive.

This could almost be a cell phone service provider commercial. After a few hours, Ralston could reach in his backpack and grab a phone only to find out that he doesn't get service way out in the middle of nowhere. Then, the guy with glasses could peek out from the top of the canyon and say, "What? No bars? Sucks to be you!" and then take off laughing hysterically.

Franco's performance is really good here, and I don't usually buy his characters in movies. I like him, but not so much as an actor. Here, he plays the lone-character-trapped-somewhere really well, and his initial panic and the ensuing mental breakdown is believable. This was certainly a pretty movie to look at, the camera taking in all these beautiful canyons, probably my favorite sort of movie landscape. The early parts of the movie with Franco running all over the place almost reminded me of a more hyperkinetic Gerry, that Casey Affleck movie where he and Matt Damon wander aimlessly and call each other Gerry. You ever see that one? I don't think anybody going into this will be surprised by the outcome. It seems like everything I read about this movie spoiled it within the first paragraph. It doesn't make the scene where 90% of him escapes his fate any less dramatic though. Franco's got an odd physicality with this role. He's stuck in one position, but he does a great job of somehow conveying a lot with body language and facial expressions anyway. I'm not sure I always like what director Danny Boyle's doing in this. It's that sort of modern direction that seems influenced by music videos and a lot of what Boyle does in this and his other movies just seems very plastic, but I do like the little camera and editing tricks that allows the audience to experience the mental anguish and breakdown that the character goes through. That includes one of my favorite movie moments of the year which involves Scooby Doo. All in all, this is a gripping hour and a half that, in the wrong hands, could have easily seemed like 127 hours. Better than I expected for sure.

Howl

2010 movie about a poem

Rating: 13/20

Plot: It's 1957, and poet/publisher Laurence Ferlinghetti is on trial facing charges of indecency for publishing Allen Ginsberg's lengthy poem Howl. This dramatizes the trial and shows Ginsberg reading the poem and discussing it and his life.

Appropriately, I watched this movie while starving, hysterical, and naked. I wanted to really like it; the subject's interesting and Franco's got Ginsberg's voice and quirky mannerisms down. Mary-Louise Parker's got a small role, and "Funky" Bob Balaban (or, Nabalab Bob backwards) plays a judge. The approach was interesting with all the dialogue coming directly from trial transcripts, interviews, Howl itself, or (I think) letters. There's a mix of poetry reading, the trial stuff, the interview stuff, and animation. Unfortunately, the parts don't really add up to a whole that is all that good. The biggest obstacle for me was the animation of the poem. I thought it was awful, and this is coming from somebody who can appreciate an abundance of phallic symbols. It's got this gross 2-D computer animated thing that just looked cheap. This could have and should have been a lot better, and I know it wouldn't have made much sense, but it wouldn't have hurt to have Mary-Louise Parker naked at some point in the movie. Or Bob Balaban.

Bronson

2008 Clockwork Orange for the 21st Century

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

Plot: Based on the story of Michael Peterson, England's most notorious and violent prisoner. At nineteen, he was sentenced to seven years in prison for armed robbery, and because of violent behavior in prison, his way of "making a name for himself," he's spent more than thirty years in prisons and asylums, most of them in solitary confinement. He is not a good role model.

Watched this with good buddy and blog reader Kent about a month ago. I had to do a search for the cliche "tour de force" on my own blog to make sure I haven't overused that phrase. Using cliches is bad enough, but when you overuse them? Well, make no bones about it, I know there's more than one way to skin a cat (proverbially) and that it's a good rule of thumb not to use cliches as a writer, and I'm not trying to toot my own horn or anything, but the day I start using cliches is the day pigs fly. I've used the words "tour de force" twice in the previous three-and-a-half years I've done this blog--once for Vincent Price in Theater of Blood and once to describe the performance of a camel. So although I don't really want to use the words again, I can't think of a performance where it's more appropriate than with Tom Hardy's here. Kent tells me that Hardy, for all you Nolan Batman movie fans, is going to be a Mexican wrestler in the next movie. I also noticed that he's going to be the titular character in a Mad Max movie that supposed to come out in 2012. I guess Mel Gibson is either too old, too crazy, too busy talking to a beaver puppet, or a combination of those. This Bronson performance is powerful stuff. He's witty, frightening, hilarious, completely unhinged, tragic, overly-theatrical, deeply human. For the most part, the script calls for a playfulness with this really violent persona, and Hardy plays him with just the right amount of bravado. It's that type of performance where you worry about the actor a little bit, wondering if he's every going to be able to come back down and be normal again. He's in (perhaps literally) every single second of this movie, and he hoists the production on his back and carries it like a fiend. Terrific stuff. The movie itself is flashy and gritty, and it really does remind me of A Clockwork Orange just like the quote on the poster says. You've got theatrics, classical music, ultra-violence, very dark comedy. And that aforementioned playfulness. This movie never takes the tragic tale of Peterson seriously while managing at the same time to say a little something serious about society and what we expect from our celebrities. There's even some animation thrown in. Bronson's also endlessly entertaining, one of those movies I felt like I could have immediately watched again. Probably not Kent though. He actually fell asleep. It was his third or fourth viewing of this monster though.

Shane-movies trivia: I think this movie might be responsible for a sebaceous cyst on my back exploding and leaking a smelly yellow pus all over the place. I can't prove it, but that is the type of movie this is.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

2002 biopic

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Based on the memoir of game show innovator Chuck Barris where the author claims that he worked secretly as a CIA assassin while developing such gems as The Newlywed Game, The Dating Game, and The Gong Show.

Well, looky there! It's the ubiquitous Sam Rockwell again. I'd either forgotten or didn't ever know that this is a Charlie Kaufman screenplay. It's his type of tale, but with George Clooney's direction, it's really more Chuck Woolery than Wink Martindale if you know what I mean. The Clooney does a fine job, by the way, not afraid to be a little experimental in approaching Barris's story and creating all kinds of nice moods to show the contrast between his mysterious and dangerous life of intrigue and his zany and hopelessly optimistic life as a television producer. I enjoyed some of the noirish and thrilling scenes in gray European alleyways just as much as the scenes of Barris showing Network suits the unbroadcastable Dating Game clips. Barris isn't exactly a likable character, but both sides of his coin make for some movie fun. And Rockwell can be thrown into that category of actors who are almost too good playing the real-life famous fellow they're playing. George Clooney and Julia Roberts play characters who in no way can be real which is probably the point, and Drew Barrymore once again succeeds in making me wish that somebody other than Drew Barrymore was playing the part. Barris's "life" is perfect for a black comedy, and even though this is fun and satisfying in a kind of dark way, I do like that Clooney plays it all straight. There's no winking in this movie, and I think that makes it a better film. Nostalgically, I enjoyed seeing the Gong Show clips since I remember watching that show as a little squirt.

I Love You Phillip Morris

2009 gay romantic comedy

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

Plot: Stephen Russell,, an on-the-surface happily married police officer , is involved in a car crash. Immediately afterward, he turns gay, proving once and for all (since this is a true story) that people aren't born gay and that the conservatives have been correct all along. He also turns to a life of white-collar crime, conning his way into very comfortable life style with his boyfriend, Jimmy. Until he's arrested. But life really begins for Stephen in prison when he meets the Phillip Morris in the title, a shy gay man who he eventually gets to bunk with. And yes, "bunk" is a euphemism there. Once they're released, Stephen tries to create a happy life for Phillip and him the only way he knows how--illegally.

I could have used a few different posters for I Love You Phillip Morris, but they were all, for whatever reason, pretty gay. This is a good comedy, and it's great for a romantic comedy, aided by two likable leads. Jim Carrey gets some good material to work, and although that side of him that people have been sick of for ten years occasionally rears its ugly head, his flamboyance never really goes over the top and the tender moments are believable. Ewan McGregor's just as good as Phillip. You really feel his vulnerability, and for whatever reason (probably because he's English), he wears gay pretty well. It's a fabulous performance, and I'm not just using the word fabulous because this is a movie about homosexuals. It's shocking to me that he's in a movie where he engages in gay sex and doesn't show his penis on screen though. I believed the two as a couple for most of this and thought they had good chemistry, and the make-out scenes were hot. This feels like too much, too exaggerated to have actually happened, and I wonder how much they stretched things for Hollywood. Comparisons to Catch Me if You Can are probably obvious, but this one is a lot livelier and has this radiance that feels refreshing. It's not all bright, however, as it approaches subject matter nearly taboo for comedy. There's what I thought was a twist that I saw coming, but it was really well done and led to one of the most touching scenes Jim Carrey will ever be involved in. It's all a hell of a lot funnier than Brokeback Mountain though.