September Movie Watching

September, my least favorite movie month. I saw three films theatrically this month, plus one on-demand. I'll start with the best, which was World's Greatest Dad, the Bobcat Goldthwait directed-Robin WIlliams' starrer. I saw it on demand (it got a simultaneous theatrical and on demand release) because a friend forced me! And now I can't decide whether I'm glad I saw it at all (I might have skipped it) or whether I'm mad I didn't see it at the theater. It was a truly great film... if very cynical. I gotta tell ya though-- don't miss it. The script is just first rate and I truly hope word gets around and Goldthwait gets an Oscar nomination. Williams, too, by the way is very good and the casting was right on the money. DON'T go by the terrible trailer on this one.

I caught up on Julie & Julia and found it to be very enjoyable. And I didn't think the modern story dragged... don't listen to the old fogey Streep-lovers! In fact, I thought the two stories were woven together quite seamlessly. Streep (and Stanley Tucci) both deserve, and probably will get, Oscar nominations. I also predict that the film will find its way into the Best Picture category. Four reasons for this: a lot of people saw it, it's "prestige," it's well reviewed, and fourth and most importantly— with the Best Picture nominations expanded to ten, the Academy has to pick five films to be nominated without corresponding Best Director nominations, and they will have no problem keeping Nora Ephron's name off that list.

Jennifer's Body was not the box office success I thought it would be. And, although it had a nice screenwritery sense to the dialogue, dare I say it suffered from no character development. Right, I know, its a horror genre piece.... but I had no reason to follow the two female leads through their paces. And Megan Fox, although she sure got her close-ups, was never hot enough in this entire movie as in that one opening-the-hood-of-the-car shot in TRANSFORMERS (nor was she particuarly well used in TRANSFORMERS 2).

EXTRACT was a pleasant surprise. I laughed a lot. And although Jason Bateman just plays his Arrested Development character-- I like that character! And although I GROANED when I saw Gene Simmons name in the credits, he is HILARIOUS in his small part!

July Movie Watching

July is such a great month for movies, maybe because it's always the "lighter" fare.... you'll see them just to get out of the heat. Somehow, just saw four theatrically this month. It would have been five but I got sick from dinner a third into Public Enemies. This is only the second time in all my moviegoing years that I had to leave the theater and miss a movie (can't remember the name of the first movie but I do remember rushing home on the subway in NYC!). Never got around to seeing PE, but it kind of (and surprisingly) bombed. The little I saw looked just average.

Saw Year One (it was a free screening!). My friends bemoned how awful it was and I wasn't about to argue. The makers didn't try too hard on this one. It was one of those movies where the only time spent after coming up with the premise was on the casting.

Bruno was, unfortunately, a letdown. It did have a few scattered laughs and shocks, and it at least proved how brilliant Borat was in retrospect. Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher were in the theater when I saw it, that was cool.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was, to me, the best Potter after the (brilliant) Prisoner of Azkaban. Although I like the series, these two are also, unfortunately, the only really good ones: it'd be hard to pick third place from the rest. So, it's nice they pulled this one off. The only bad thing about it is was the conclusion, which only works at a mid-chapter level. What I liked best about the movie was that I really felt like I was a part of the Potter world while watching it. A bit lengthy, but not too bad.

Lastly, I saw Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Again a free screening, but I gotta tell ya, within minutes I was wondering why the hell I went to it. I guess since I haven't seen the other two (theatrically or otherwise) I felt compelled. Ugh. And it's yet ANOTHER IN AN ENDLESS LINE OF ANIMATED MOVIES ABOUT A LOST FRIEND THAT NEEDS TO BE RESCUED!!!! ENOUGH ALREADY ANIMATION PEOPLE. GET A NEW STORY LINE!!!

June Movie Watching

June was a busy movie watching month for me as I saw eight films theatrically, as follows:

The Hangover. Unfortunately it never "quite" took off as the "action" was off-screen during the night of debauchery. However, there was just enough spark in the recreation of events and a few good laughs to make this a solid recommend-- and the best end credits of all time.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. What a waste! What particularly stings is the original movie had such a masterful ending-- and the ending to this one was laugh-out-loud idiotic. Side note: On the electronic sign above the theater, was the abbreviated: The Taking of P-- Ha!

Moon. Wished this was better, but it kept my interest and was a nice antidote to the usual summer movie fare. Sam Rockwell just can't find that "big" movie.

Drag Me To Hell. This movie has been wildly overrated. And I did enjoy it to an extent, but it all seemed lazy. When I was walking out of the theater I heard I guy say, "I'm trying to remember who told me this movie was good."

Whatever Works. Well, this was the one last hope that Woody could have a third good film from the '00s-- and it didn't happen. Loved Evan Rachel Wood (so different than in The Wrestler) and Ed Begley Jr. (funny!).

Food, Inc. Made some interesting points, but I think it didn't stretch itself as a feature film work.

The Hurt Locker. Not a 100% bona fide classic, but excellent nonetheless. Didn't like the ending, nor the tacked-on "day X" titles but it had a compelling story line and a solid lead performance. Everyone is clamoring to say that Kathryn Bigelow is the unsung auteur, but I suspect she just is a reasonably talented filmmaker who this time got lucky.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. What can I say? The critics are trying to outdo themselves with clever ways of bashing it. The fans, in terms of $$$ have spoken. Me: I was a little bored by it (as with the first) but thought it was OK overall. Actually could have used a bit more Megan Fox! I'm not going to throw stones, because I just don't care that much.... but IRON MAN is the franchise for me these days.

On TCM, watched: Tarzan, the Ape Man (1932)-- really good, if a bit lengthy (made long by such things as weird five minute Cheetah monkey sequence) and David Copperfield (1935), well cast but unfortunately overrated, I love the book but it IS perhaps unfilmable.

May Movie Watching

My favorite movie month of the year. I saw five movies theatrically this month, eschewing anything "small."

Caught the midnight showing of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I liked the trilogy a lot, and even if I consider this a "4" the "idea" of it didn't bother me that much. What seems to have bugged critics (as well as myself) was the SHAMELESS inclusion of all these other X-Men characters to test the waters for sequels-- even when they had little or nothing to do with the plot. However, despite the bad reviews, and a definite formula, I thought Wolverine did well as a popcorn flick. It was a pleasant, if unmemorable, open to the summer movies.

Star Trek is probably going to turn out to be one of the biggest hits of the summer-- clearly kids are seeing it again and again if you look at the numbers. And good for it. Although I wasn't ga-ga about it (the plot is outlandish), it was an exciting time at the movies. The casting of EVERYONE was right on the money (I particularly liked Zachary Quinto as young Spock). Plus it didn't feel like a film that was all about exposition, even when that's exactly what it was. The thing I was most distracted by was Leonard Nimoy's dentures! (Not, however, his performance-- it'll be a nice swansong, if he makes this his last.)

Terminator: Salvation was the film I was most anticipating. And, oddly, as with last year's film most anticipated (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull), I have the IDENTICAL review. That is, it was total nonsense, but if you removed your brain and just sat back and enjoyed it was a solid little piece of entertainment. Did anything make sense, could I easily follow the "timeline" of the Terminators (even though I'm a fan), did Christian Bale deliver a performance that wasn't identical to Batman-- the answer to these questions, is no. But at least it wasn't a disasterous embarassment and derailment of the film series, so there's THAT. My friends and I agreed however, that Cameron didn't show much of the "future" in his films, because, essentially, there is no story there. This movie proved it. It will be hard not to come up with a "2" to this one that doesn't have the IDENTICAL plot. If they were smart they'd "break the rules" and just do ONE more Terminator movie and call it a day.

Night at the Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian was best summed up by the 8-year-old kid behind me. During the tag he blurted out: "This movie is so LONG!" Now I know people who liked this movie. Old people. I just thought it was SO talky. Constant chatter and "schemes." And it's very hard to get over the fact that all these historical figures would know so much about eachother's eras. But of course, that's criticizing a movie about wax figures coming alive for being unrealistic, right. SPOILER: A tip. When you're trapped in an hour glass, with sand falling down on you, don't try to get on top of the sand. Just stand in the middle and have it all bury you.

Up is yet another instant Pixar classic. Although I have to say, it REALLY disappointed in the end-- went for the obvious I thought. It's first act was amazing to me-- loved every second. Second act very good, third act just "good." However, it will easily be one of the best films of the summer.

On TCM I saw 1932's Best Picture nominee Smilin' Through (Now I know why it's so obscure: a stagy thing with over-the-top performances) and They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (I took some time thinking about this movie, but decided that overall it didn't succeed, if a noble effort; by which I mean I think it was depressing for depressing's sake./Gig Young DID deserve his Oscar though-- a great performance and a REAL change of pace./Also: this was the LAST Best Supporting Actor performance that I hadn't seen-- I've now seen them all [!]).

I also went to the Egyptian Theater here in L.A. to see the original Dracula on the big screen, with special guests Bela Lugosi, Jr. AND 99-year-old Carla Laemmle [who had the first line in the movie]. I'm happy to report that Carla is doing VERY well and has a book coming out. Crazy she's still around-- she also had a bit in the 1925 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA!

April Movie Watching

I saw two films theatrically this month: just wasn't excited by the month's line up. A third film I saw on March 31: Michael Caine in Is Anybody There? Went to a screening in which Caine appeared. He was very entertaining and took a variety of Qs from the audience. He was so great that I'd hate to pan his movie, but let's just say you don't need to rush out.

The two April films I saw were the documentary, Anvil: The Story of Anvil and Adventureland. Anvil was a fascinating look at failure but didn't quite come together completely and, clearly, the filmmakers did not have an "end" to the story and kind of made one up. Worth perhaps a peek. Adventureland is being TOTALLY mismarketed as a "wacky" comedy, which it's not. In fact Kristen Wigg/Bill Hader's comedy relief comes dangerously close to detracting from the film [the trailer would practically have you believe they're the stars]. Adventureland has a definite "you have to be in the mood" quality, but it's a high point in the 'days of summer' genre.

On TCM saw: One Night of Love (good, but has a lot of cliche moments: It Happened One Night had nothing to fear on Oscar night) I Married a Monster from Outer Space [1958] (a semi-cult classic which was very good, but considering where they could have gone with it, such a missed-it-by-that-much experience; had the filmmakers gone all the way with the ramifications of the relationship between the woman and her "alien" husband, who begins to have human emotions-- it could have been a knockout), and Lubitsch's Broken Lullaby (his "notorious" drama, starts strong, but then gets pretty heavy and the acting's not too hot either; has that early '30s stage bound feeling too; an interesting curio though and definitely no-holds-barred in terms of its antiwar message).

March Movie Watching

This month had a lot of promise at the multiplex, with mixed fulfillment.

Watchmen was a distant film and as a viewer I felt that the entire time I had to work to engage myself. This is not the sign of a lazy viewer, it's the sign of a bad movie or at least in this case, a not-that-great one. And yes Dr. Manhattan's dong was just far too distracting. I liked pieces of the movie here and there, however: "You're locked in here with me!"-- for example. On the whole I thought it was decent, but I know I'll never revisit it.

Sunshine Cleaning was a movie I enjoyed a lot. However, after I walked away, I realized that what little that got resolved at the end was oh-so tied up in this neat little bow. But it had that desperately needed originally so lacking in almost everything-- at least everything that is set in a contemporary, realistic setting.

When I stood up after Duplicity, the woman behind me said, "It was OK." That about summed it up. What is with Tony Gilroy? Is he the M. Night Shyamalan of urban contemporary thrillers? You wait and wait and wait for the end. And Michael Clayton had a much better ending than Duplicty, so I had much more forgiveness for it. But then again Duplicity won't get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture as Michael Clayton did, so there you have it.

And then, I saw I Love You, Man-- easily the best film this year to-date and possibly the funniest comedy since Borat. The premise is familiar-- in fact there was a french film a year ago with this very plot. The structure is formula. But Paul Rudd finally finds his niche by mixing in a heavy dose of self depreciation. One quibble: who doesn't know the band Rush? (a [minor] plot point)-- this was the only misstep in it. And I wasn't even dying to go see it!

On TCM, I watched a lot of Oscar-winners as per their annual "31 Days of Oscar." The one I was most curious about was the first Oscar-winner for Best Film Editing-- Eskimo (1933). The bastard step-child of Nanook of the North, in the misdt of the drama, is a very un-Nanook sequence in which a white trader rapes an Eskimo woman. Some of the film is Nanookish with hunting for food etc. but this storyline dominates the film and its third act. The "Oscar-winning" editing involved a lot of weird rear projection mixed with the semi-documentary stuff. To the modern eye it looked pretty bad. But the movie, on the whole, is worthwhile.

Also saw Best Picture nominee Picnic (poor!-- what a terrible movie), Here Comes Mr. Jordan (pleasant, but not the **** film the Leonard Maltin Guide claims it to be), and Vacation from Marriage (writing winner/ OK, talky-- has some Imdb fans, but I wouldn't recommend it).

Finally saw La Roue (1922)-- a really great 100 minute film, buried in four-and-a-half hours of excess. So, I would certainly recommend it, but it's a tough slog through such a running time: a shame that it has to be qualified so negatively. Again, the reason why I'm secretly glad (don't tell!) that the version of Greed we have is 2 hours, 15 mins.-- because I know this version is a masterpiece-- what the longer versions were like I don't know... but perhaps we were robbed of an even greater work.

Also caught In Cold Blood (1967): very good, but also not a supreme classic-- yet it was the best movie I saw on TCM this month. And, although I'm sure this is blasphemy, I found the Quincy Jones score to be dated and disruptive. Also on my "lists" to see: I caught This Is England (2007) on IFC-- strong start, atmospheric, but ultimately, skippable.

Caught the "last of the silent adventures" The Iron Mask (1929) on the big screen-- its flaws were so easily forgivable in the face of that irresistible Fairbanks charm.

February Movie Watching

I saw four feature films theatrically this month. '09 is off to a slow start but there were two gems in February: Fanboys and Coraline. Fanboys is struggling critically and commercially-- I think the "we've had it with Star Wars" contingent is the majority among critics these days, evidenced last year by the unnecessarily lambasted Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Although I liked Fanboys I can accept the notion that we seriously have to move on. Coraline was the best of the contemporary stop-action animation movies I've seen. I don't think that great classic has happened yet (Nightmare Before Christmas is holding that slot until the real one comes along), but it'll come: and it'll be the first Pixar-buster for the Animation Oscar. I also saw New in Town and She's Just not that Into You and my only excuse is that both were free screenings.

On TCM, I watch the odd The Human Comedy. It was this strange bird... just sketches from the life of an idyllic town meant to boost moral during WWII. It was long and a bit boring but had this unusual dreamlike quality about it, and therefore is impossible to dismiss. I'd recommend a look, but I know it's not a great classic. It was nominated for Best Picture in 1943 and I would have probably put it on my ballot then too. I noticed when I looked it up that I have now seen all of the Best Picture nominees of 1943. On a side note, the 1943 radio broadcast of the Oscars has been posted on the Internet Archive (link). It's less than an hour and really wild to listen to, especially since Casablanca was the surprise (!) winner and Jack Benny had to scramble to find someone to accept the award.

January Movie Watching

January is the slow month for movies (new releases-- not the previous year's hang-overs). But it's always fun to take in a few low-expectation films... and there is an occasional surprise. Cloverfield, after all, was on my top ten for '08 and it was a January release. Plus, it's nice to "ring in" the new movie year.

I saw just two movies theatrically this month: My Blood Valentine 3-D and Paul Blart: Mall Cop. I admit that I actually did, perhaps foolishly, have expectations for My Bloody Valentine. It wasn't awful, but what a letdown. Paul Blart: Mall Cop was a bit embarassing. It did, however, somehow, manage to drag itself up to "tolerable" by the end of the movie. It's the kind of movie that doesn't warant discussion-- if you see it you know what you're getting into, i.e. a timewaster. I hope Kevin James gets a better script next time: he's a funny guy and tried REALLY hard.

On TCM, I watched Fire Over England, which I'd seen as a kid on AMC (in the olden days). A decent costumer, with a great Flora Robson performance. I also watched Contempt, the Godard film-- I enjoyed it but I think (like many, but not all) that it's really NOT a "great" film. But I look forward to seeing it again someday, despite it's non-masterpiece status in my eyes.

December Movie Watching

December is always the busiest month for film watching. I saw 12 films theatrically this month.

I saw I've Loved You So Long for the Oscar buzz on Kristin Scott Thomas-- it wasn't worth it! Dull as dirt. Then from one of the worst to one of the best...

Frost/Nixon was one of the best films of the year. Stellar in every aspect, and to my mind the most recommended "Oscar" film this season. It's easily one of Ron Howard's top films (maybe his best alongside Apollo 13). Howard will probably never make a "masterpiece" per se, but he can surely make some solid "Hollywood" films.

The Reader wasn't bad, but not great-- pretty much what the reviews are saying. However, the more I think about it, the more I feel that Kate Winslet will win the Oscar for Best Actress-- and it'll probably be for The Reader (unless this is considered "supporting"), which makes it kind of a must-see.

Three films benifitting from terrific old-timer male lead comebacks: The Wrestler, JCVD, and Gran Torino. I hope that Clint does stick to this as his last performance. Plus, I certainly wouldn't want him to win, but I would not be upset to see Clint placed in the Lead Actor category for an Oscar nomination (although I don't think I'd have room for him on my own personal ballot-- much too competitive year for Lead Actor, this year).

At a second-run theater, I caught up with My Winnipeg-- and I'm glad I did. So odd, but such a worthwhile experience. (And I was glad to have seen it mid-month just before Ann Savage's passing [on Christmas Day].)

Three entertaining films: Bolt, Benjamin Button, Valkyrie-- they certainly run the gamut.

Three so-close-to-classics: The Class, Doubt, and Revolutionary Road. The Class just couldn't get itself out of the ordinary and there was SO much good stuff in it-- in other words, why would I want to see the film again?-- a shame. Revoltionary Road had a lot of terrific scenes interpersed with the same old (plus the era finds itself in the long shadow of Mad Men these days). Doubt was the whole Oscar package, but not for the ages.

On TCM on saw Dreyer's Vampyr (laying on my DVR since October)-- interesting, not great. I also saw a couple of the Charles Laughton films from last month-- Rembrandt (mostly a showcase for Laughton) and The Barretts of Wimpole Street (well done, mostly an actor's piece).

November Movie Watching

November is the early Oscar film rollout month, with a couple blockbusters rolled in for good measure. This November we're one blockbuster short with the push of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to summer '09.

I saw seven films theatrically this month. First, I caught up with the barely-playing Synecdoche, New York. Ever since I heard that Charlie Kaufman had made his directorial debut I was dying to see it. It didn't get the best word-of-mouth from Cannes; although a friend of mine saw it and liked it. Then it got released and did very poorly review-wise and box office-wise. I couldn't get anyone interested in seeing it with me! Hence the delay from October. During the first third-to-half of the movie I was not loving this movie... then it really began to peak my interest and even though it did, to some extent, seem to go on and on, I found it to be very funny and to contain all these little nuggets of truth. And no, I couldn't explain to you entirely what was going on, but there was enough to hold onto even in an initial mystifying viewing to say that there was really something here. I can understand anyone who would like to dismiss it and never look at it again because of it's non-traditional narrative-- I feel that way about a lot of movies that "break the rules." But this one is an exception for me-- I eagerly await the DVD release and multiple viewings in the future. And Philip Seymour Hoffman was particularly good in it.

I saw an advance of A Christmas Tale and wasn't quite as enthused as the critics. It's a string of character study and plot is kind of all of the place. Despite Denueuve's review's, the film belongs to Mathieu Amalric. I think Amalric will reach the highest international status. Which brings me to my next film: Quantum of Solace. Yes, critically maligned, but I enjoyed it. I will admit that it's a bit of a break from the series-- but I think the series needed it. I'm glad they chose to develop the Bond character for a one-shot film. And the criticism that he doesn't act like the sophisticated character that we all know and love is groundless-- he just got his "00," he's simply a thug at this point. If anything, he was TOO sophisticated in Casino Royale.

In between, saw Role Models, which was moderately funny. Wasn't one I had really planned on seeing, but it was well-reviewed, and friends wanted to see it. I think it's not a stretch to say it would be a decent rental.

Also, caught Slumdog Milionaire. I liked it a lot, but wasn't too keen on the romance-- which, after all, is ultimately the whole movie. The "gimick" worked great, however.

Milk was my Thanksgiving film. I purposefully avoided looking up Harvey Milk up on Wikipedia, so I could see how much I "didn't" know. Turns out I knew next-to-nothing. I've heard of the Twinkie defense but did not know who it refered to; and as for Milk all I knew was that he was an openly-gay San Franciso politician of some sort. The movie works well as history lesson and drama. My one beef is that it didn't delve enough into the personal life of Milk. We see his lovers but little of their ACTUAL relationship. And he seemed only interested in running for something the entire time he was on-screen. Now I know this is the movies, but this is always a pitfall for movies that take place over a long stretch of time. Solution: concentrate on a specific moment in time.

Lastly, I saw tween-flick Twilight. I have to say it was quite good. If I had a tween/teenage daughter I would be happy that (a) I could take her to a movie that didn't have any sex in it and (b) that I could sit through and enjoy. The key to its success, really though, was a brilliant eye for casting-- not just the leads, but down the line. For the next one, they need a bigger budget for effects.

On TCM, I watched The Year of Living Dangerously, which I agree with the Maltin Guide, is much more of a "mood" piece than a fully-realized feature: but good on those terms.

October Movie Watching

October is a bit of an in-between month for movies, but a few gems sometimes emerge that get Oscar/critical/popular reaction.

I saw a whopping eight films theatrically this month, including some catch up. The pre-October released films I saw were: the French thriller Tell No One, the popcorner Eagle Eye, and the Ricky Gervais-starrer Ghost Town. Should have left them be (or at least waited for DVD)!

The five October releases I saw were all worthwhile. Religulous was criticized for being too "light," but I think it was smart to take that tone considering the subject matter, and I was glad that it kept that tone throughout and didn't suddenly get "serious." W. was a mixed bag. I think Oliver Stone should have just done what he clearly wanted to do and slam Bush, rather than trying to come up with a "balanced" character study-- it would have made for a better movie. Also: W. took on FAR too much in terms of its timeline and left itself open for criticism about what was left out (the actual 9/11 day, the 2000 election, his daughters, etc.) Happy-Go-Lucky had the most annoying trailer I've seen in a while and I was like "hell, no!" even though I always seem to like Mike Leigh's films. When it got 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, I knew I had to give it a try. It was imperfect, but I enjoyed it's originality. Rachel Getting Married was tough to watch at first, but ultimately I thought it was very well done, with many excellent performances (I especially liked seeing Debra Winger back on the silver screen). Changeling was solid but left me kind of "eh" in the end. SPOILER ALERT: Why did we need to see the execution? Plus: we needed to see Jolie's relationship with her child a bit more if we were to connect with her loss later. Plus, an historical gaffe: the 1934/35 Oscars were NOT broadcast. But, I kept thinking about the movie... and so I had a change of heart on it a few days later and in general would recommended it, if mildly.

On TCM, I caught quite a few films: Headin' Home (a mild silent starring Babe Ruth-- looking thin!), The Informer (a re-watch: it's been a very long time and I was worried I'd like it less, but I still think it's a great film [if a little "broad"]), Playtime (Tati's film was more Mon Oncle than M. Hulot's Holiday-- I liked a few gags [like the broken glass door bit], but ultimately found the film hard to stomach), The Night of the Iguana (pretty good; Burton interesting in it), and No Man of Her Own (Gable and Lombard's only film together has a terrific first 2/3 and the last 1/3 is just nothing-- a squandered opportunity).

September Movie Watching

As I stated in my August end-of-the-month entry, September is probably my least favorite month for movies. Mostly it's because any audience-pleasers are released during summer and any great dramatic films are pushed to "Oscar season" leaving this dead spot. And, again, September is back-to-TV month anyway.

I saw just two films theatrically: Burn After Reading and Choke. I would say that the two were about at the same level for me. In both, I knew I wasn't seeing anything great but was never bored and found a few moments here and there to be pretty funny. I've read the Choke book and a lot of it is left out, but I think they got the gist-- maybe its just unfilmable. (Really liked the appearance of Joel Grey as one of the recovering sex addicts.)

On the Fox Movie Channel, I caught The Song of Bernadette, which I'm sure I saw as a kid but have no memory of. Its actually very, very good-- a pleasant surprise. Rather than just a hokey thing, it actually examines the negative aspects of Bernadette's vision. And what a cast— Lee J. Cobb, Vincent Price, Charles Bickford, Gladys Cooper, etc. Jennifer Jones delivers what is expected of her, and at least at the end gets to emote more than a wistful innocence.

On TCM I caught a couple of the Kay Francis films they were showing: Jewel Robbery and One Way Passage. One Way Passage is the more celebrated of the two, but I wasn't in love with it. Jewel Robbery was a blast though. A bit talky, but one aspect of the plot-- that thief William Powell softens up his prey by giving them marijuana cigarettes, has to be seen to be believed!

I also watched the rare 1912 film Cleopatra. Most of the 1910s features are unendurable. Richard III (1912), for example, is torture. Cleopatra however, was pretty decent.

I watched Fellini's I Vitelloni, which I liked as a primer of things-to-come from Fellini (however it seems that many consider this his career highpoint!).

I also finally saw A Night To Remember (1958). After a slow start, it turned out to be very good. James Cameron had 40 years of technology in his favor, but dramatically, Night is just as potent as Titanic.

August Movie Watching

August is the bittersweet movie month. We get a slate of blockbusters but also the knowledge that the dreaded September-October not-good-enough-for-Oscar-but-let's-market-them-that-way releases are on the way. I guess Sept-Oct. are really TV months anyway, but still.

I saw five films theatrically this month. First off, I'll comment on the anticipated comedies Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder. Yes, Pineapple was extremely violent (with no regard for human life) plus the heroes are basically deadbeats— but, I saw it as just a live-action cartoon. I think, taken in the right spirit, Pineapple is palatable and really just a goof. Tropic Thunder was a very funny outing. It seems to have many detractors. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that despite terrific performances, it really isn't a comedy classic, and maybe it ought to have been. But I just rated it on the laugh-meter, so I enjoyed it.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona saves the decade for Woody Allen. It will easily be one of the biggest commercial hits of his career, its getting Oscar buzz, and for the first time in a long time it's a Woody Allen movie with strong word-of-mouth. Now, for me, it is nowhere near Match Point level quality-wise. However, it's easily at the top of the pack of Allen's other releases in the '00s. The Larry David movie that's next up will be an interesting decade-closer for him.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Well I was wrong about this one. Which reminds me— my entire summer box office predictions were TOTALLY off! Oh well! But SW:TCW has, basically, bombed and the critics (if unjustly) savaged it. I actually really liked SW:TCW, but even I think enough is enough for the Star Wars sequels.

Lastly, I caught up with the documentary Man on Wire. A fascinating story and I like the approach. Not one you necessarily have to see theatrically, but certainly of interest.

On TCM, I caught Green For Danger, which I've been dying to see. Not quite the **** classic the Maltin guide labels it, but a gem nonetheless. Anything, just about, with Alastair Sims is worth seeing it seems. I also saw a couple of Laurel & Hardy's just cause. Swiss Miss-- very funny and Blockheads-- OK. I think Blockheads is a little more "pure" L&H, but somehow, the ones with odd locals and corny songs and subplots appeal to me more.

On HBO (I've been housesitting), I saw I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (you get what you pay for) and Disturbia (nifty and contemporary Hitchcock update, with a tongue-and-cheek over-the-top finale: probably played better theatrically though).

And, off topic, I've been tuning in to a bit of the MDA telethon-- the last vestige of vaudeville! Jerry is hanging in there. He seemed frail during the opening but has pepped up since.

July Movie Watching

I saw five movies theatrically this month, which constitute some of the biggest blockbusters of the year.

The first one was Hancock, the July 4th offering. Will Smith scored another big moneymaker with this one, but it was among his weakest entries— if still offering a decent amount of entertainment value. Although I liked it in general, I could detect what appeared to be studio tampering. I generally dislike longer movies but when this one clocked in at 92 minutes, I got the sinking suspicion that the studio's plan was to make a not-so-great movie palatable by getting you out the door before you realized what happened.

Next, I caught up on late-June's Wanted. A popcorn movie that I liked. It was a 2008 compilation of every action movie from about 1999 onward shoved in a blender. This will be a big year for Angelina Jolie, with The Changeling due out October 31. I did notice that annoying thing in which something in the trailer is NOT in the movie. I think this scene was put into the trailer to ramp up the "sexy" aspect— he says "Is this where we bond?" and she says: "Would you like to?": not in the movie. *** SPOILER ALERT*** : I think this scene and potentially others are not in the movie because the producers decided the relationship between the two leads should be toned down specifically due to the fate of her character, so we wouldn't feel badly at the end; they left their relationship more distant and cold so we could accept this ending— that's my theory anyway.

Hellboy II was another fun one. I liked the original movie (which seems like it came out ages ago). This one was fun for its settings and the characters— especially Seth MacFarlane's "Johann Krauss": I want that action figure. The plot had a string of improbable moments and familiar devices, but was acceptable.

Then, the BIG ONE: The Dark Knight. Burning up the box office charts, The Dark Knight wasn't perfect but was a hell of a ride: and what a showcase for Heath Ledger. Ledger was excellent and the choice of doing his make-up the way they did was a masterstroke. Two things impressed me most about the movie in addition to Ledger's performance: the camerawork and the tone. The tone is where the influence will be felt in subsequent movies. And finally! I'm so sick of the jokey one-liners, etc. in every action movie (and subsequently in the comic book genre). Both Casino Royale and The Dark Knight (and probably Quantum of Solace) will erase these action movie cliches for the 2010s. On the minus side, the movie seemed to be unrelenting, you couldn't catch your breathe, and there were many plot holes (on Imdb someone listed 24 of them)— however, you just kind of went-with-it. It's definately been exciting watching this movie leap the rungs on the box office list. I suspect it will indeed get one of the five Best Picture slots come Oscar time, as well.

Lastly, I saw Step Brothers. It seems to me that this movie was generally panned, not because it wasn't funny, but because reviewers were uncomfortable with the premise itself. A 40-year-old man acting like a child is just not acceptable. However, it was a satire, folks! Now, unfortunately it wasn't all that brilliantly funny, so it would be hard to say within any kind of certainty that this was the reason for the critical drubbing, but it seems like it to me.

On DVD I watched The Boondock Saints, which a friend lent me. What a CRAZY movie. Pretty ambitious too. I can see why there is a cult following. You'll never look at Willem Dafoe the same way again.

On TCM, I watched two classics from the 1950s— 3:10 to Yuma (terrific: actually better than the remake [which I really liked] and with a different ending) and Douglas Sirk's Written on the Wind (also amazing, although I didn't think it ended strongly). I also watched 1965's A Patch of Blue. It's as manipulative as can be, but I have to confess it really stayed with me: that poor girl! By the way, I'm finding these Elvis Mitchell: Under the Influence shows to be so pretentious: ugh!— I watched the Bill Murray and the Quentin Tarantino ones.

June Movie Watching

I saw just four films theatrically. There were a bunch of "skip its" for me this month, including Hulk, The Happening, and The Love Guru.

First up, I saw the much-maligned You Don't Mess With the Zohan. I've seen next-to-none of Adam Sandler's films theatrically, but this seemed just weird enough to see. Although it was lengthy, the jokes that connected were evenly spread and I had a good time. I'm surprised it got so trashed by the critics. If I remember correctly, when Phillips suggested to "rent it," Roeper was mortified.

Get Smart had me sinking in my seat during its opening thirty minutes or so, but it got better as it went along and I really liked the casting. I'm not seeing a sequel here (then again there is a Pink Panther 2 coming up...). I'm glad for Steve Carell's sake that it was a hit (if it had flopped as bad as Evan Almighty he would have had a problem). By the way— Carell has one "r": looks funny when it's spelled correctly.

Kung Fu Panda and WALL-E. What can I say? I thought they were fun, nice, visually striking.... but just not that deep. I have to be honest. I so preferred last year's Ratatouille. I'm definately in the minority on this I realize (although a few friends seem to agree with me). But this is the harsh review; generally both have a lot going for them.

Watched just one thing on the tube: a 1939 Laurel & Hardy— The Flying Deuces. No great moments (a la the dance in 1935's Bonnie Scotland) but solid laughs from the boys-- a lot of fun and just an hour-or-so long.

May Movie Watching

I saw six films theatrically this month. May is one of my favorite months of the year for moviegoing, second really only to December. Coincidentally, I have the same feeling for May as I do December-- I hate having to watch movies in these months with a critical eye! In May it's because I just want to have fun, in December, it's because I hate that you can't help watch each release thinking is it (top ten) "listworthy"?

I saw the four big Friday releases (skipping the fifth— Sex and the City), only one of them— Speed Racer— turned out not to be the big new release in it's weekend, What Happens in Vegas took that prize.

First off, Iron Man. What a great way to start off the summer (albeit still spring) movie releases. Iron Man was everything it was supposed to be— and my new most anticipated franchise-in-the-making. I just love the suit-- the way it works, the possibilities for action set pieces, the possible actual science behind such an invention. I wouldn't put Iron Man in any classic film pantheon, but, again, sticking to my loathe to criticize May movies-- it was a blast and I highly recommend it to the few who haven't yet seen it.

Speed Racer— the Poseidon of this year in terms of cost versus box office— seemed like it'd be a fun ride. I actually saw this with a crowd of friends who were all pumped up for it. I'm totally unfamiliar with the TV show; it just looked like it could be a lot of fun for its production design. And I guess it was. Kind of a bloated mess; it seemed that the people who did like it, were determined to like it based on their love of the original show.

I caught up on last month's Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay. It's so much better than the critics are making it out. No, it didn't quite capture the "magic" (if you want to call it that) of the original film, but on it's own, still a very funny film. Although Neil Patrick Harris is still playing himself, despite his coming out since the last movie, he still "plays it straight" so to speak.

I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian at one of my favorite theaters in Los Angeles, the historic El Capitain theater (which exclusively shows Disney releases). The audience was kid-filled and very excited. There was a lot of clapping. I got caught up in the whole thing and enjoyed it too, but it's one of those movies that, an hour later, you're wondering what the heck it was all about. I read the book in the days before seeing the movie and I commend the filmmakers in starting the movie in the right place, making important cuts, and making a post-Harry Potter, post-LOTR, 2008 movie. However, I think they overshot it and went a little too big. A worthy effort nonetheless. I think I remember, from reading them as a kid, that the third book in the series, The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader" was very good-- so I look forward to the third film, slated for May 7, 2010.

After mucho hype on Ebert (Phillips) & Roeper I caught The Visitor. By the way, have you noticed this month that the producers of the show came up with the "See It" of "Skip It" device-- poor Ebert thought he would always be able to use the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down ace-up-his-sleeve as a negotiating device: they certainly called him on it. As much as I respect Ebert and have loved his reviews and opinions over the years it really is time to let go of the show. The title of the show really needs to be changed— it's been two years since Ebert's been off it. Anyway, I digress! I saw The Visitor because of the great reviews and because I haven't seen much independent stuff lately. Well I was "had." It wasn't much. I did like the fact that the central character was a bore and actor Richard Jenkins kept him interesting despite his being a dullard, without suddenly making him "change" at any point. Other than that, a warm nice-try, but highly skippable.

And finally the big one— Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I wrote a whole blog entry on Indy's latest adventure. Plus a follow-up about the earlier "Saucer Men" script. It was interesting to see Phillips and Roeper debate the film— Philips represented our minds (and my ranking it as "skippable") and Roeper represented our hearts (forgiving it of its many, many faults). I think audiences in general are completely in tune with this-- let's just hope Spielberg and co. understand that they got this free pass and don't make a habit of this kind of "filmmaking." In Spielberg's interview with Richard Schickel which has played on TCM he said it himself: 'I realized if I have a great script and I'm a great director (he was more modest, I'm paraphrasing) I could have a great movie' [he was commenting on Duel]. Well, that's exactly what happened here, the script was just a silly adventure, so we got a silly movie.

On TCM, I watched two movies I hadn't seen before. Five, Arch Obler's treatise on five survivors of nuclear war, felt exactly like a Twilight Zone episode (predating the series by 8 years). That said, it's only like a slightly-better-than-average Twilight Zone episode. It was pretty well directed, though, I must say, all things considered. Of course, the problem with such a movie is no matter what, it has a bleak end, no?

I also saw the cult classic Reefer Madness. I absolutely loved it. I can totally tell why it's a cult film. Despite the ridiculousness of it, it's such an entertaining flick. You'd think it would be "square" but compared to actual '30s mainstream Hollywood movies, it's kind of hip. It's like a square '60s movie.

April Movie Watching

I saw four films theatrically this month, although the best movie of the month, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I saw in an advance screening in March.

Shine A Light was really worthwhile, whether you’re a Stones fan or not. Scorsese did a bang-up job and even at their advanced age (referenced many times in the film) the Stones put on a great show. The interview bits past and present aren’t as good as the filming of the concert itself.

Leatherheads was decent. As the reviews it received suggest— it was just all right. Oddly, it had a ‘30s/40s film style, but is set in the 1920s. In my opinion, John Krasinski outshone his Oscar-winning co-stars.

Son of Rambow was ambitious but didn’t do much for me: I guess the filmmakers had the best intentions, however, so it’s hard to fault.

Smart People was very funny. My friends and I joked though that it was so “white” people. Then watching the movie I was embarrassed that the only time you saw anyone of color is when Thomas Hayden Church shouts to Dennis Quaid “Don’t forget, I love you…” (he was reminding him what to say to Sarah Jessica Parker) and there is a cut to three tough guys—oh brother!— the nadir of the film.

By the way, last month, I suggested that Horton Hears a Who! was destined to break into the top 100 domestic grosses— it hasn’t come close, currently at #164, with the summer movies ready to push it off the screens.

This month on TCM I watched Up the River (1930), Spencer Tracy’s first movie and Humphrey Bogart’s second. It wasn’t great and is only recommended if you’re curious to see these actors in this early part of their career—but trust me you could skip it. More interestingly to me is the terrible condition the print is in. There were, no exaggeration, over 100 jump cuts where short pieces of the film and/or sound are lost as well as scratches throughout— it seems amazing it even exists when you see what poor condition it’s in. Even though he plays a con, Bogart shows his real life Broadway actor/blueblood background, before he developed his tough guy persona.

TCM presented the two restored Abel Gance films: J’Accuse and La Roue. Both at epic length, I watched J’Accuse, which was the one I was most interested in seeing of the two. It was very good, but mostly “very good for its day.” Although it was admirable in content and technique, it didn’t really bowl me over truth be told. The restoration, however, was stunning— just perfect. I’m glad I saw it but, easily, Napoleon is far and away Gance’s lasting masterpiece. I also watched Kevin Brownlow’s hour-long 1968 BBC documentary Abel Gance: The Charm of Dynamite, covering his silent period. The documentary featured revealing behind-the-scenes footage of the making of Napoleon— illustrating its many innovative filming techniques (hand held, etc.). It speaks so highly of La Roue, I might need to catch up on that film (four hours is a big chunk of time to schedule though!).

Flipping the channels, I caught the “Easy To Love” number from the Jimmy Stewart-Eleanor Powell musical Born to Dance— odd number but nice song (I knew the song from an old album of movie songs I had once borrowed from the library as a kid: it was funny to happen to catch this exact moment of the film after all these years).

March Movie Watching

I saw seven films theatrically this month. March has become one of my favorite months of the year for movies. No longer just the dumping ground for not-good-enough-for-Oscar and not-good-enough-for-summer movies, the last several years have seen March releases of: ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004), V FOR VENDETTA (2006), and 300 (2007).




The first movie I saw this month was THE BANK JOB-- highly touted on EBERT (i.e. PHILLIPS) & ROEPER. Although it delivered a certain level of excitement, it was a disappointment and I could feel the audience was let down when the lights went up. Not bad by any means, it just didn't hit the bulls eye. I went to THE BANK JOB because 10,000 B.C. was sold out (!) [although I was planning on seeing THE BANK JOB at some point].

So I caught 10,000 BC the second weekend of its release with everyone screaming about how historically inaccurate it was and it's 7% Rotten Tomatoes reading seemingly a statistic everyone knew. But I just wanted to see it: call it the NATIONAL TREASURE theory of movie-going. And I'm being honest: it wasn't bad. And, in fact, there was scattered applause when it ended. It was just a fun popcorn movie with some good effects and an easy-on-the-brain (cliche-ridden) narrative. If you want to hate it, it's an easy target. Trailers shown for DARK KNIGHT and GET SMART show promise.

I caught up on the February release JUMPER (free screening) and although it started off OK, it just went every which direction: major screenplay trouble. Diane Lane's casting in this movie is a textbook example of "wasting" an actor.

HORTON HEARS A WHO! was everything I'd read: padded, padded, padded. It's one of those films, however, that parents are probably thrilled with, because it's at least palatable and has a foot in their own childhood. It's set to become one of the top 100 grossing domestic films: having reached $117 million this weekend-- it'll be there in a few weeks. The showing I went to was at 10 PM on a Sunday, hoping to avoid the kiddies. However this was the beginning of spring break I guess. Although I was literally the only one in the theater when the trailers began, before the first trailer had finished, all hell had broken loose and a stream of parents with children from infants to toddlers streamed in. Kids were running up and down the aisles. And naturally I got one of the little buggers sitting directly behind me kicking my chair the whole movie long.

Every once in a while I'd check imdb to see when Kimberly Peirce would follow-up her brilliant BOYS DON'T CRY-- which made my top ten in the distinctly competitive year of 1999 (easily one of the greatest movie years of all time). Well it took nine years. And I think she lost her touch. STOP-LOSS seems like it should have been made before BOYS DON'T CRY: it's a total step back creatively. It was, to be blunt, amateurish. A total derailment. And it's not that it was terrible, but nine years is plenty of time to create a first-rate movie (even if the "stop-loss" concept is a recent one: put a movie in-between while you figure this one out). When Quentin Tarantino finally gets around to filming INGLORIOUS BASTARDS I intend to hold him up to the same high standard, i.e. the longer I have to wait the better I expect it to be.

I saw an advance screening of FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL. Absolutely incredulous plot, but a very funny film. I really enjoyed it. Not quite SUPERBAD in my book, but close. I don't think it's one for the ages but for 2008 it's worth a look. And again, happy to see a comedy that isn't made for 12-year-olds get produced.

Finally, I caught up with THE COUNTERFEITERS, the Austrian film that won the Oscar for best foreign language film. Saw it with the old folks at my local art house cinema. The trailers were endless: and none looked at all interesting. THE COUNTERFEITERS was very good and interesting but not nearly a knock-out. If you're interested you'll see it but if it didn't sound all that worthwhile to you by the trailer, you could skip it.

Saw a couple of films on TCM. I don't actually think I'd ever seen Laurel & Hardy's celebrated short THE MUSIC BOX (1932), so I caught that. It was amusing and I laughed out loud at least once. But not quite the brilliant masterpiece it's considered (nice that the boys got an Oscar though). It's also funny to see hottie hot hot hot Rose McGowan talking L&H with Robert Osbourne before the movie (almost as amusing as the movie!). Also saw the Nazi-era German TITANIC (1943). This was fascinating. Highly recommended. And James Cameron must have seen this before making his film: it has a shipboard romance (with a very Arian blonde chick!), stolen jewels, and a more accurate sinking than the other pre-Cameron versions. The propaganda is waist deep: those arrogant British! That rich conniving John Jacob Astor! Look at the one German officer: he saves the little girl. Despite all of this or because of it: keep an eye out for this movie when it comes back around. Also saw the silent documentary GRASS (1925). This was a well-structured film about the trek to green pastures by a nomadic tribe in Iran. The first third you get to know the people, the centerpiece is a battle across the rapids of the Karun river (a highlight), and the climax the climbing of the Zardeh Kuh mountains in Turkey/Persia and descent on the other side. Might only warrant one viewing but worthwhile. Great score was put to the film too.

I also rented the 1965 version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS, as I'd never seen it. It was pretty decent. Rather than a remote island, it's set on a remote snowy mountaintop. The acting is good and the story holds up. Shirley Eaton, a year after GOLDFINGER is on display in various states of undress. A ** 1/2 star outing. I wonder when we'll get another version: it's been almost 20 years since the last one.