Boogie Nights

Yup, I watched it. I don't know why I watched a movie about the porn industry and expected it not to have a lot of sex in it, but I did. If you're wondering why I watched this movie in the first place, I'll give you three reasons:

1) Mark Wahlberg.
2) It's actually somewhat critically acclaimed, and Marky Mark's breakout film.
3) I was snowed in.

Whether any or all of those reasons is good enough for you is matter for a different discussion. I have an inexplicable "thing" for Mark Wahlberg (clarification: a "thing" is different than a crush; I don't watch his movies because I think he's hot and I want to see more of him; I watch his movies because he confuses and amuses me).

Apart from seeing more sex than I wanted to (and in reality, there was probably no more sex than was in The Reader, it just didn't look as pretty or seem as romantically tragic), I have mixed feelings about this film. On the one hand, it's about more than the porn industry; it's about a lost boy looking for a way to be something and thinking he finds the answer down his pants. It's also about what a significant number of other movies have been about, i.e., the downside of fame, fortune, and power, particularly when they're obtained through some illegal, unsavory, or atypical means deemed unacceptable by society (Ex: drug dealers, mobsters, prostitutes, rock stars). Maybe this is why the movie ultimately didn't do it for me - because the main story (or "message," if you will) seemed so familar. I've seen it before, recently (Blow, American Gangster ), and I've seen it before, done better (The Godfather and Godfather II).

Still, this movie deserves some credit for a) discovering that Marky Mark had more to offer than just his fit bod as an underwear model, and b) having the nerve to tackle the porn industry and essentially treating it as if it were just any other business. What's good about this movie, and at the same time what makes it sad, is that it shows us the most overt human vices - sex, drugs, money - and lets us see what happens when they're taken to their utmost extremes. Eventually, Dirk Diggler (Marky Mark's character) get's everything he ever wanted, loses it all, and, at the very end, slowly starts to regain it again. The thing is, even when he was on top, it didn't look all that appealing.

What makes this film still relevant, and at times - if you can call it that - touching - are the various moments of desperation and humiliation experienced by the ensemble of characters. There's Don Cheadle as the Western-clad, wannabe cowboy and pathetic stereo salesman Buck Swope, wondering to his buddy why he's not successful even as his friend tells him that fringed shirts are no look for a black man; Heather Graham and Julianne Moore as porn stars Rollergirl and Amber Waves, sobbing in each other's arms after deciding to be a surrogate mother/daughter pair while tweaking out on coke; John C. Reilly as Dirk's best friend Reed Rothchild, initially trying to one-up him like a little kid comparing card collections; William H. Macy as the director's assistant Little Bill who's forever stumbling upon his wife in bed (or on the lawn, or in the pool) with another man, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the porno groupie Scotty J, with his misplaced admiration for Dirk that leads to a supposedly drunken kiss and an ensuing love declaration. It's these moments and these characters - and their desperate attempt to find some sort of meaning in a world that has none - that provides the heart of the film. Ultimately, everyone in the movie has the same story as Dirk - not the fame and the fortune part, but the part that brought them to the industry in the first place - of a lost someone looking for a place to call home, or a somebody to think they're something.

The movie doesn't glamorize this world, nor does it make it look terrible. Instead, it tackles the whole thing with an "it is what it is" attitude - these are porn stars, yes, but they're people too. Boogie Nights doesn't pose a lot of questions, but it does present some situations that could lead to them. Nor does it make any attempts to provide the answers. It's just "Here are some people, they do what they do." Some have reasons for the choices they've made, and maybe some of these reasons are excuses for the way they turned out. They rise, they fall, and (if they're still alive), they find solace in the father figure that is director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and the camraderie of the others who have ended up, by chance or by choice, in the same sordid profession as they did.

The Reader

I've been wanting to see this film ever since I first heard about it. First, because Kate Winslet is probably my favorite actress and fantastic and diverse in everything she does. And secondly, I'll admit, because the subject matter seemed so salacious: older woman has sex with underaged boy and turns out to be some sort of Nazi. I'm not a pervert; it's just that there's no way you can read that description of a film and not think it sounds interesting. Plus, the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards and starred Kate Winslet meant that it had to be more than just a sensationalized sex story.

And it was. As soon as I finished watching it, I felt eager to recommend it to my family. Upon second thought, I realized that it really does have quite a few very nude love scenes and might not be the best "family film." But the reason why I initially failed to remember the multiple sex scenes in this film is exactly the reason why it's so good: this is one of those rare movies where I felt the sex/nudity was neither gratuitous nor did it overshadow the point of the movie. I can't say much without giving too much away, but for me, this film was ultimately about the life of one woman as discovered by a boy (and later man) who once, and perhaps still does, unconventionally love her. A truly good film has the ability to take an obscure and unrelatable situation (for example, a Nazi woman who has sex with fifteen year old boys) and help us see our own humanity in it.

King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes (funny, I always thought it was Shakespeare) "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Though we don't all consummate our lust for people that are off limits, and we certainly aren't all Nazis, the emotions portrayed in this film - wonder, innocence, uncertainty, excitement, confusion, shame, pity, anger, grief, love - have been felt throughout the ages, time and time again, by all sorts of people. This film recognizes both the beauty, and the frailty, of such emotions, no matter who they are felt by. While The Reader by no means celebrates the actions of the characters in the film, it honors the integrity of the emotions that result from them.

I am so glad I watched this film, and so glad that Ms. Winslet finally, finally won her much deserved Oscar.

The Fountain

I've watched so many movies since last posting, many of them memorable, and have at least a couple of unfinished posts waiting to be published, so rather than try to catch up thoroughly, I'm just going to give some very brief reactions to whichever ones I can remember. I have given no deep thought or extended contemplation towards the critique of any of these films, apart from the reflection that is a natural part of time's passage.


First up: The Fountain. This movie wasn't perfect - I suppose a few moments didn't quite "land" - but I loved it. Going into it, I knew nothing about the plot, when it had been released, or who directed it, and I couldn't remember having read a single review of the film. This was the ideal state of mind with which to go into watching this movie (and indeed, I wish I could go into more movies with such total ignorance). The movie is directed by Daron Aronofsky, who I later found out directed Requiem For a Dream, Pi, The Wrestler, and the soon to be released Black Swan. I hadn't seen any of those other films at the time; the only thing I knew was that he often uses the composer Clint Mansell, who wrote the epically memorable score of Requiem For a Dream that was used in The Two Towers trailer. The music for this movie is every bit as memorable and beautiful (I'm listening to it right now), and appropriately captures both the devastating, all-consuming grief and the eternal triumph felt by the main character in the story. Speaking of characters, the two main ones are played wonderfully by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Rachel Weisz was and always is lovely - both lovely acting and lovely looking. As for Hugh Jackman...I had no idea he could act! But he can, and he was excellent in this film - so good that I totally forgot he was Hugh Jackman at all, that buff, singing, Sexiest Man Alive.

A previous review sums up the story better than I can, so I'll paste that description here: "A love story weaving together three interrelated tales set in the past, present and far future, with the couples in each all played by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz: a medical researcher racing to find a cure to save his terminally-ill wife; the characters in a novel she's writing about a 16th century conquistador questing after the fabled Fountain of Youth for his lover, the Queen of Spain; and the same scientist, who mysteriously hasn't aged, traveling to a distant star in the 26th century, still searching for the secret of eternal life." I can see some people distancing themselves from this third sequence and dubbing it too "New Age-y" (I myself felt a slight pull in this direction), but don't if you can at all help yourself. There is actually nothing in the sequence that need be silly (or for Christians) heretical. Some may think this film advocates for its own specific vein of vague "spirituality", but I would disagree. Rather, I think it's a mediation on one man's attempt to deal with death, grief, and loss, and the very reason it's so wonderful is because it manages to be simultaneously acutely personal and relatedbly universal. One more thing I would like to mention: this movie is visually beautiful, especially the scenes in the snow.

Well, that was longer than I thought it would be, but in closing: see this movie, go into it with focus and an open mind, and you might be taken by surprise.

Revocation of previous statement

In my recent post about A Serious Man, I said "Actually, the Coen Brothers seem the sort who care about their viewers’ opinions about as little as I cared about the plight of Larry Gopnik..."

This is not true. I did care about Larry Gopnik, which I realized after talking to my mom. I think sometimes when people have such inconceivable bad luck, I get frustrated and take it out on them, because it is easier to feel anger and fed-uppedness than it is to feel sadness and sympathy. I felt this same sort of frustration during the first part of Jane Eyre, which is why it took me until the third read to actually enjoy the book. It's easy to start blaming the recipient of the misfortune for the misfortune. I think this is what I did with poor Larry ("Just STAND UP FOR YOURSELF and PUNCH SOMEONE ALREADY!"), which is why I left feeling cold hearted.

The larger point of this post is that I don't ever want the aim of criticism to supercede my natural human reaction the things. I do not want to fall into the trap of snark for snark's sake. Obviously, I hope to analyze movies fairly, objectively, and level-headedly, but I hope to always leave room for compassion and empathy, because what are movies if they cease to make us feel anything?

Vent

Actors who annoy me for reasons I can't articulate:

-Kevin Spacey (look at that self-satisfied smirk...or is it a simper?)

-Tim Robbins (when I see his face I think "Evil lurks beneath this seemingly harmless exterior")

Actors who annoy me for reasons I CAN articulate:

-Nicolas Cage (not a good actor, picks dumb movies to be in, perpetually lethargic-sounding voice, droopy eyes, unattractive, only got famous because he is a Coppola?)

A Serious Disappointment

This review is going to be short and not-so-sweet. It's probably been two months since I watched this movie and I am behind as it is.

The movie in question is last fall's A Serious Man, directed by the Coen Brothers. The reason I was so excited to see this movie is because a couple of scenes from it were filmed at St. Olaf, and a handful of students got to be extras, including Stephen.

To give you an incredibly brief synopsis: A Serious Man is about a Jewish college professor, Larry Gopnik, who, despite being an alright guy, has a whole lot of bad things happen to him in rapt succession: he fails to receive tenure, is bribed by a student, discovers his wife’s infidelity, must deal with his wayward and annoying kids, thinks he has cancer, and to top it off, has anti-Semitic neighbors…Larry is accurately described by most reviewers as “a modern-day Job”.

The acting is great (virtually all complete unknowns), the set pieces fantastic, and the abrupt quirkiness so characteristic of the Coen Brothers is present and in full force. But these elements, either individually or collectively, failed to make me feel anything. In my head I knew that it was truly tragic that all these bad things were happening to the same nice guy who didn’t deserve any of them, much less all of them at once.

The thing is, I just didn’t…..care. I guess I walked away from the TV screen with feelings of "I have it pretty good," but the sentiment was more obligatory than naturally induced.

Since I already know the Coen Brothers to be accomplished filmmakers (personal favorites include No Country For Old Men and Fargo), I won’t question their genius. I will however theorize on where they went wrong:

1) This movie was an inside joke, so inside in fact that they forgot to let anyone else in, namely their audience. I felt somewhat the same way about Burn After Reading, but at least didn’t get bored during that one (though had it not been so star-studded…Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand…I probably would have). David Denby of The New Yorker called both movies “bleak, black, and belittling”, and I am prone to agree.

2) They tried to make it funny, touching, satirical, perhaps even revealingly autobiographical, but missed the mark.

Since the Coen Brothers are just about as intentional as one can get when it comes to moviemaking, my guess is that #1 is closer to the truth, and that the movie I saw was exactly the movie they wanted me to see. They probably just hoped David Denby and I would like it a little better.

Actually, the Coen Brothers seem the sort who care about their viewers’ opinions about as little as I cared about the plight of Larry Gopnik, so scratch that last statement.

Regardless of any of this, I am excitedly awaiting their next film, True Grit, which in my mind will be No Country For Old Men with a 14 year-old female protagonist…truly intriguing!

Catch Up

I've fallen grossly, wildly behind. Reviews of A Serious Man, A Single Man, Inception, The Other Guys, Agora, and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo pending. I'm posting this so you all hold me accountable!

Top 100 Movies List Addendum

Here are some additions to my Top 100 Movies list, which is now at 134 and counting:


1. Ever After (thanks to Sarah for pointing this out)
2. The Scarlet Pimpernel (also Sarah)
3. First Knight
4. The Insider (thanks to Pete for making me watch it)

At some point I'm going to have to weed out some titles and consolidate the list to 100. I foresee that the two reasons for omitting titles will be a) because they're cheesy and not that well-made and b) because they depress me. However, I am loathe to do this, because many of the movies that fall into the "a" category make me really happy despite their stupidity, and many movies that fall into the "b" category are really sensational, they're just such downers or so disturbing that it bums me out to watch them.

AVATAR: Everything I Thought It Would Be and More

Vindicated (v): to free from allegation or blame; to confirm, substantiate; to provide justification or defense for (to justify, to defend); to maintain a right to

I'm going to come right out and say it. Avatar sucked, I knew it, and I've been saying it all along. Up until now I've been unabashedly bashing it without having actually seen the movie, which I felt I had the right to do because I was so wholeheartedly convinced that it was, is, and always will be an absolute poopstain of a movie.

Thus, I feel vindicated.

On Sunday night, I watched this film for the first time on a 30 inch TV in my boyfriend's basement. Now, before all the cries of "I do protest!" begin from those who assert that my criticism is rendered invalid because I didn't see it in 3D on the BIG SCREEN, I will say that no amount of special effects or technology can make up for a crap story, crap script, crap characters, and crap acting. If a movie lacks all of these things, it defeats the point of being a movie and is thus BAD. And thus should NOT be nominated for Best Picture. Succeeding on a special effects level alone is not enough for me. If I wanted to be visually wowed, then I'd follow the example of the men who stare at goats, do some LSD, and watch a 90's screensaver. No need to make the most expensive movie ever made about oversized blue people with tails.

You've heard it before, but I'm going to say it again, mostly because it's so damn true. Avatar is just a recycled version of Pocahontas (with Dances With Wolves, Fern Gully, and a splash of cliches from just about every other fantasy movie I can think of thrown in for good measure.)

---

It's been a while since I started writing this review, and I just can't seem to muster the energy to do a thorough job of finishing. Exerting my skills of film criticism would be waste in this case. I thought about posting some sample dialog from the film, just so you could see how bad the writing really is, but I would have had to copy and paste the entire "Quotes" section from imdb.com, which means this post would require a five-minute scroll just to get to the bottom of it. So I'll refrain. What I will do is highlight some particularly awful aspects that really bugged me.

1. Sigourney Weaver/her character: I haven't seen enough of Ms. Weaver's work to determine whether or not she's actually a good actress; however, she certainly didn't wow me in this film. What's more, every time she came on screen I felt thoroughly annoyed. She delivered all her lines like it was her first role in a movie and, out of sheer inexperience, was imitating every prior tough-woman role to appear on film. Clearly, this is not the case, as she is very experienced, but her performance seemed a parody at worst and self-referential at best. And maybe I especially love to hate her because she said that Kathryn Bigelow, who directed The Hurt Locker and is ironically James Cameron's ex-wife, only won the Academy Award for Best Director "because she had tits." Classy. You could probably find a like-minded excuse for anyone that's ever won ("his son had cancer", "he's never won before", "because he's black", etc.) Maybe the reason James Cameron didn't win was not, pardon my French, because he lacked tits, but because HE LACKED HAVING MADE A GOOD MOVIE.

2. A portion of "here's where we explain the plot" dialog: This is such an elementary blunder that I can't believe someone like JAMES CAMERON (who, correct me if I'm wrong, has directed a number of fairly successful films before) let it make it into his film.

Screenwriting 101: DON'T TALK ABOUT THE PLOT. Example: "I can't believe we're about to attempt a robbery on this impossibly well-secured building, owned by a man so vindictive that he will surely kill us if caught. Good thing I know exactly how to disarm the alarm system by doing X, and exactly how to pick the lock by doing Y, and exactly how to remove the 3.2 billion dollars in 4 minutes flat."

The Number One rule of screenwriting is "Show, don't tell." Film is a visual medium; save excessive wordiness for the stage.

Since it's been a couple weeks since I watched Avatar, I don't remember the specifics of the conversation I'm referring to, but the gist of it was, "Here we are coming up on Pandora (which contains this amazing resource worth gajillions of dollars, and we want it, but the planet is really dangerous and populated by huge ferocious blue people and lots of crazy wildlife, so we created these avatars piloted by marines that look just like the blue people so we can infiltrate them and talk them into moving) on your left..." Pretty subtle stuff, only not.

3. Giovanni Ribisi's performance as "Selfridge": I almost feel bad picking on him, because he's a pretty minor character and an up-and-coming actor who really didn't do that bad of a job. However, his characterization of Selfridge absolutely REEKED of Ari Gold (the iconic agent played by Jeremy Piven on Entourage), and though imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I think imitation is best left out of the dramatic arts unless you can somehow out-do he whom you imitate.

4. The creepy tail thing: If you haven't seen the movie, you won't know what I'm talking about. If you have seen the movie, and for some mysterious and disturbing reasons find the tail thing "cool", then YOU are creepy. For those of you who haven't seen it (SPOILER ALERT), the "tail thing" refers to the fact that all the blue people (excuse me, "N'avi") have long tails that have a little spout of hair on the end, much like a lion's, and they use their spouts to forge "connections" with other creatures by inserting them into these weird little tentacle-like plugs. Once their wiggly appendages have been "fused", a "bond" is formed, and the animal is calmer, more trusting, and more responsive. If you're thinking that the whole thing sounds awkward and vaguely sexual, you're right. Apparently there was originally a "sex" scene between the main dude and his blue lover in which they fused tails as a sort of love-making act. WEIRDED OUT.

5. CLICHÉS: Native American clichés, Other World clichés, Fantastical Creature clichés, Bitchy Woman clichés, Tough Woman clichés, Tough Military Officer With a Scar clichés, Impetuous and Brash Yough Military Guy clichés, Dialog clichés, Grandmother Willow clichés, Mother Earth Talk clichés, Circle of Life Talk clichés, Spirit Quest clichés, Star-Crossed Lover clichés. Name a cliché, and Avatar has it covered.

I guess I'll stop here. As my friend Jordan said, "If you took a shot every time something stupid happened in this movie, you'd be blackout drunk five minutes in." I have other better movies to review, though bashing this one has been fun. I do apologize to anyone whose tastes I've offended. Clearly, a lot of people LOVED this movie because it absolutely dominated at the box office. Whether this is because there was actually something to it that eluded me, or because Americans as a collective film audiences are idiots, I will leave to you to decide.

However, I do have to say that if this movie gave anyone that excited, "feel like a kid again" magic that movies still sometimes have the ability to do, then I respect your experience and am happy that anyone was blessed with the when-the-lights-go-down-goosebumps that I have been lucky enough to feel many times, for well-made and stupid movies alike (see top 135 list), throughout my movie-going life.

The Girl Who Stares at Men Who Stare At Goats

Thankfully, very little of this movie is spent actually watching men stare at goats. Unfortunately, the result is something only marginally more exciting.

The Men Who Stare At Goats is (or at least I assume it supposed to be) a comedy, starring George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Spacey. The films starts with a title card reading "More of this is true than you would believe..." And indeed, if any of it is true, then reality is pretty ridiculous.

McGregor plays hapless yes likable reporter Bob Wilton, who journeys to Iraq to pursue "the romance of war" after the romance of his own marriage fails. He thinks he's stumbled upon the story of a lifetime when he meets Lyn Cassidy (Clooney), a seemingly crazy special agent on an unknown mission. Lyn was once a soldier in the now defunct U.S. New Earth Army, an obscure unit employed to practice and conduct experiments in psychic and paranormal warfare, run by the ex-army-officer-turned-hippie Bill Django (Jeff Bridges). The driving motivation behind the project was to outdo Russia by becoming "the first superpower to create super powers."

After being introduced to just what exactly "psychic and paranormal warfare" entails (absurd activities such as "cloud bursting" and "remote viewing"), Bob decides to follow Lyn on whatever his mission may be. The two travel through the desert and experience a series of mishaps, before eventually ending up at a secret U.S. Army base run by a former New Earth Army defector, the "villain" Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey), who now conducts his own psychic research. Some goats are set free, some prisoners liberated, LSD is smoked/inhaled/consumed, or whatever it is you do with LSD, and that pretty much wraps it up.

Summary aside, this movie elicited no strong feelings in me one way or the other. I had the vague sense that it was supposed to be funnier than it was, and I'm left sitting here three days later trying with difficulty to remember anything much about the movie at all. The acting was obviously excellent, as you would expect from such an exceptional cast. I especially want to call attention to the performance of McGregor, who has mastered that rare skill of playing a character thoroughly, charmingly, and competently, but still knows when to step back and let someone else control the scene.

I think this film’s biggest problem is that it never decided quite what it wanted to be, tone-wise. It wasn't funny enough to succeed as a comedy alone, nor was there enough political commentary or judgment to succeed as a satire. There were fleeting moments of the absurdity and whimsy that makes some Wes Anderson films such a delight, but as they were just moments, I never felt sufficiently charmed. I'm sure there are those who interpreted what I've diagnosed as "lack of tonal commitment" as sophisticated and subtle humor, and thus greatly enjoyed this film. But there are also those who hated (I know because I’ve talked to them and they’ve been very vocal about it).

As for myself, I neither hated nor loved this film. There were some genuinely funny parts, but not nearly enough for me to recommend this movie or make me want to watch it again. If someone asks me if they should check it out, I'll ask them what their other options are: if it's between watching The Men Who Stare At Goats and going for a walk or reading a book, I'd say the latter, but if it's between watching this movie or oh, say, watching Avatar, then I'd say this movie will not only be well worth your time but also seem like the Greatest Story Ever Told in comparison.

Top 100 Movies According to Me

I've never consciously tried to compile my own list of the Top 100 Movies. I have my favorites, and that stock list of 5 or so films I rattle off when people ask me what I think are the best movies. And obviously, there have been lots of "100 Best Movies" lists published, by everyone from the American Film Institute (AFI) to imdb.com to TIME magazine. Inevitably, these lists are extremely subjective, and much of that subjectivity is due to the variance in criteria for judging what makes a movie one of the 100 best. Some movies make the list for sheer popularity's sake, some for their originality, some for their technical breakthroughs, and some because they are simply just well-made in every way (acting, script, cinematography, etc). In theory, you would think that that last reason should be the criteria for every entry to the list, but there are those rare movies that manage to be excellent in each of these categories and yet still fail to make us feel fondly about them.

My list will include movies that I love simply because they make me feel happy, or because they're associated with some positive experience or time period in my life, as well as those movies that I think are impressive feats of filmmaking for one reason or another. I don't know how complete my list will be, or even how well it will hold up a couple of years from now. I'm sure the few of you that read this will see entries that make you go "WTH?" as well as omissions that make you shake your head. But, I will reiterate that this is MY Top 100 Movies and that I am not trying to represent the people.

Here goes, in no particular order:

1. Star Wars: A New Hope
2. The Empire Strikes Back
3. Return of the Jedi
4. The Fellowship of the Ring
5. The Two Towers
6. Return of the King
7. The Godfather
8. The Godfather, Part 2
9. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
10. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
11. Sense and Sensibility
12. Emma
13. Little Women
14. Pride and Prejudice
15. The Importance of Being Earnest
16. The Departed
17. Philadelphia Story
18. Roman Holiday
19. Gone With the Wind
20. The Sound of Music
21. The Wizard of Oz
22. When Harry Met Sally
23. The Ten Commandments
24. Some Like it Hot
25. Goodfellas
26. Beauty and the Beast (Disney)
27. Robin Hood (Disney)
28. A River Runs Through It
29. Anne of Green Gables
30. Anne of Avonlea
31. Miracle
32. Catch Me If You Can
33. North By Northwest
34. Raging Bull
35. To Kill a Mockingbird
36. Singing In the Rain
37. On the Waterfront
38. Good Will Hunting
39. The Princess Bride
40. It's a Wonderful Life
41. No Country For Old Men
42. Rushmore
43. Gladiator
44. The Parent Trap (old)
45. Life is Beautiful
46. Cool Hand Luke
47. Into the Wild
48. The Graduate
49. Dog Day Afternoon
50. Serpico
51. Little Miss Sunshine
52. Before Sunrise
53. Before Sunset
54. A Streetcar Named Desire
55. Pirates of the Caribbean
56. Bend it Like Beckham
57. Dogfight
58. The Parent Trap (new)
59. A Woman Under the Influence
60. I Capture the Castle
61. Tootsie
62. Finding Neverland
63. Shakespeare in Love
64. Casablanca
65. Les Miserables
66. Ordinary People
67. Lars and the Real Girl
68. Enemy at the Gates
69. Big Fish
70. Remember the Titans
71. Pan's Labyrinth
72. An Education
73. Up in the Air
74. Shutter Island
75. You've Got Mail
76. The Lives of Others
77. 400 Blows
78. Bringing Up Baby
79. Psycho
80. Charade
81. Groundhog Day
82. In America
83. The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
84. Rebel Without a Cause
85. The Mission
86. Fargo
87. All the President's Men
89. Nicholas Nickleby
90. My Fair Lady
91. Taxi Driver
92. Gidget
93. Rear Window
94. West Side Story
95. Romeo and Juliet
96. The Reluctant Debutante
97. For the Love of the Game
98. Much Ado About Nothing
99. The Painted Veil
100. Millions
101. Crash
102. A Knight's Tale
103. Ten Things I Hate About You
104. Field of Dreams
105. Where the Wild Things Are
106. Caddie Woodlawn
107. Motocrossed
108. Johnny Tsunami
109. Breakfast at Tiffany's
110. The Crucible
111. The French Connection
112. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
113. Wait Until Dark
114. Remember the Titans
115. Cinderella
116. The Little Mermaid
117. Peter Pan
118. The Sleeping Beauty
119. Courage Mountain
120. Bull Durham
121. Training Day
122. Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken
123. Braveheart
124. Notes on a Scandal
125. Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer
126. Pollyanna
127. The Swiss Family Robinson
128. October Sky
129. American Graffiti
130. A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints

Apparently there are 130 "Top 100 Movies" on my list. I'm sure this list will change once I have time to mull it over. Below are a few films that I suspect might get added to this, but as I haven't seen them in a while I'm not sure:

-The Last of the Mohicans
-Rudy
-Rocky
-Hoosiers

And here are two that I felt compelled to include (but ultimately resisted the compulsion and didn't) because I actually don't enjoy these movies at all:

-Chinatown
-Pulp Fiction

Shawshank Redemption, which is probably on everyone else's 100 Best Movies list, both public and personal, is NOT on mine. I DO NOT LIKE THIS MOVIE and DO NOT FEEL BAD FOR NOT INCLUDING IT. I'm not even quite sure why. Despite the fact that it boasts a great cast of Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, and that it's very uplifting, and that many people I love and respect adore this movie, I just can't stand it. I also do not feel bad for omitting Fight Club, Memento, or Donnie Darko.

As I think of more good ones, I'll add them. I guarantee there are some I'm forgetting. Please comment on both agreements and disagreements, and remind me if you think there are some I'm forgetting that you know I like!

Robin Hood: Enjoyable Entertainment Despite 'Epic' Cliches...

Tonight I saw Ridley Scott's new Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. I hadn't read any reviews going into this movie, and knew only what I'd heard briefly from my mom and from snippets of the trailer I'd seen on TV.

Here's my overall consensus: Entertaining and enjoyable but ultimately forgettable film rife with content borrowed from everything from Braveheart to A Knight's Tale.

The Breakdown:

-Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett (obviously) did a wonderful job acting-wise. Do I even need to say this? It would be more shocking if either of them turned out a bad performance. However, I do have to say that trying to pinpoint how Robin "Longstride" is different demeanor-wise (or personality-wise, speech-wise, or looks-wise) from Maximus Decimus Meridius would be...difficult. A little older maybe, but this is typical noble/renegade/tough guy/respected leader fare that we've seen time and time again from Russell. Not sayin' it was bad; just sayin' it was nothing new.

Care Blanchett on the other hand made what could have been a really annoying role into a really likable role. (I cringe when I think of the original casting of Sienna Miller in this role...no one, at least not me, wants to see a posh, hipster Maid Marion. I don't care how unfair it is that she got fired because she made Russell Crowe look fat.) Her maturity, both as a person who is over thirty and as a renowned actress, added a gravity to the role that rendered some of her "sassy female" lines more bearable. I'm still not down with the whole "woman-going-into-battle-dressed-as-a-man" gig that modern films seem determined to do (ahem, Keira Knightly in every film!), but I do have to admit that she made it more believable than a lot of other actresses would have. Still, I wish filmmakers/writers/actresses wouldn't feel that being a strong, independent woman means that you have to go into battle with the men. I personally consider myself strong and independent (if not in body at least in mind) but would go to great lengths to avoid gashing open the flesh of my enemy alongside thousands of filthy and randy men. I do not consider this a weakness; I consider it common sense. Bottom line: the film industry needs to broaden their view of what it means to be a strong woman, and every portrayal need not include quippy banter and physical acumen.

Some other cliches:

-A villain in a dark cloak with a scar. (Do bad guys always have to look like bad guys?)
-A pouty, playboy, slightly effeminate prince.
-Raucous bar scenes with singing, dancing, and dirty people with bad teeth. And dangling boobs.
-Dirtiness all around. (Modern filmmakers are so adamant to make things "gritty")
-Shots of thousands of arrows flying through the air.
-Ethereal choral music when respected old men die (or anyone for that matter).
-Cheeky sidekicks, often with red hair.
-"Epic" battle scenes (NOT EVERYTHING IS EPIC!! Sometimes fights are small village affairs - mere scuffles and kerfuffles...I am sure of it. There simply weren't enough people for every battle to be 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 vs. 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) (I exaggerate)(But so did they.)
-Storming of a beach by thousands of ships...Holy Ben Hur, Batman! Ramming speed! (also, *cough* TROY *cough*)

Some things I did really enjoy:

The scenery - wherever it was filmed, I want to go there. I especially loved the scene where the men galloped out through the water to deliver Richard the Lion Heart's helmet to his men. I would give almost anything to gallop along the shore somewhere. And ride in an old-fashioned ship with sails. And sailors (with teeth.) (Clean teeth.)

Cate Blanchett's quote - "I sleep with a dagger. If you ever move as to touch me, I will sever your manhood." Strangely, I've felt compelled on multiple occasions to recite something similar.

Prince John - He grew on me. There's something about royal poutiness that just tickles and amuses.

Seeing MR. DARCY (Matthew McFadyn, from the most recent Pride and Prejudice) as the SHERIFF OF NOTTINGHAM! What an odd duo.

On a side but related note, there were multiple instances of "I've-seen-you-before-but-where?" actors and actresses in this film, including but not limited to John Hurt (Sweet Land), Mark Strong (Sherlock Holmes), Eileen Atkins (What A Girl Wants, Vanity Fair), Max von Sydow (Shutter Island), and Mark Addy (A Knight's Tale), to name a few.

In closing, I'll just say that if I had made this movie, I would have made it differently, and here's how:

I can't speak for anyone but myself on this matter, but the reason I'm drawn towards the story of Robin Hood is neither for its "epic" scope nor its historical truthfulness. What I love is the idea of the character of Robin Hood himself - an impish, mischievous, rascal with a lack of regard for authority and a soft spot for the poor. I like the idea of a band of outlaws living a scallywag lifestyle in the forest amusing themselves by playing tricks on the pompous and getting really good at archery. I like the idea of a romance with Maid Marion, a jolly Friar Tuck, and some loyal, "up-for-anything" buddies in the form of Little John and Will Scarlet. I do NOT care if they are "gritty" or if they behave according to every historical nuance.

Maybe someday I will make my own romping and lighthearted version of Robin Hood. Until then, I will have to remain content writing this review or maybe making some really cheesy paper dolls.

The Departed

I don't know what it is that makes me love this movie so much. I've thought about it a lot, and though I can come up with some reasons, no answer has been satisfactory enough to account for how happy this movie makes me.

Part of it of course is the Leonardo DiCaprio + gangsters + Martin Scorsese combo. But it's more than that. I can literally watch this movie 2x in a row back-to-back and not get sick of it. I'm sure the swearing and the violence of this movie should bug me, but they don't. I'm sure it's sacrilege of me to say they're necessary, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it anyways.

I think part of it is the extremity of it all - the reality that there are certain parts of being human felt so intensely that they can only be expressed physically. I'm not saying that I actually want to go around punching people and shooting people and swearing and screaming all the time. But maybe I'm saying that there's something cathartic about watching other people do so.

2 movies in one day

Today I watched both Lars and the Real Girl, which I hadn't seen, and The Curious case of Benjamin Button, which I had. Reviews or at least reactions to each pending...

I'll start while I'm behind

I have so many half-written movie reviews from this past year that I'm not even going to try to start this thing caught up. I'll catch up eventually but for now I'm just going to do what I can.

Most recent movie watched:

The Sandlot.

Crazy, I remember seeing this movie in THEATERS when it first came out, which either makes me really old or the movie a lot younger than it seems. I saw it with my kindergarten co-ed soccer coach and her daughter (my friend) Dagney. I remember my coach asking afterwards, "Did you think it was better than Mary Poppins?" Our response was yes, that it was better than Mary Poppins, but not as good as Beauty and the Beast. This may seem like sacrilege to the Mary Poppins fans out there (or painfully obvious to the die-hard Sandlot fans), but I was never a huge Mary Poppins fan myself (no romance!), so this is probably still an accurate personal assessment.

Anyways....some things I remember about that first viewing:

...thinking that my mother would probably not have wanted me to see this movie (seems silly now, but at the time there were some things that I knew were crude or pervy even if I didn't understand what they meant...like when Squints makes out with Wendy. Exciting but shocking to a 5 yr old!)

...having the phrase 'pee-drinking crap face' outlawed by Dagney's mother as a result of this movie (she used it on her brother Ryan in defense for him calling me 'a little piece of poop;' he thought she should get in trouble but not him because his insult had not been SPECIFICALLY vetoed)

Some things I don't remember thinking/noticing the first viewing:

....how cute Benny "The Jett" Rodriguez is....wowza. I'm allowed to acknowledge that he appears as though he would grow into quite an attractive man. Thus, the mustachioed actor they chose to portray him at the end is wholly disappointing.

...that it was set in the 50's/early 60's. I guess as a kid, time period is something a little more difficult to pin point. I just always remembered it being set in the year it was released in.

...how charming of a movie it really is. I know this movie is so oft-quoted and such a cult classic that constant references can get somewhat annoying, but after my recent viewing, I realized that despite its popularity, it really is something special. If this movie were to be made now, it would either be too precious or too serious. As it exists, it seems to have been created with complete obliviousness to target markets...a little too crude to truly be a "kids" movie, but lacking a heavy-handed historical nostalgia that would make it an adult film. In summation: I liked it. I'm sure I saw it once or twice, at least in part, between kindergarten and two nights ago in my 22nd year, but I really only recall my first viewing and this most recent one. Both were memorable.

And, as a fitting end to this blog post: my current housemates all call me Smalls. I was vaguely aware that this was a Sandlot reference, but never really put two and two together. After having rewatched the movie with such satisfaction, and after my initial dismay at being nicknamed after the wimpy kid, I can now say that I am honored to be called Smalls.

And also that I am going to imdb Benny 'The Jett' Rodriguez as soon as I post this.