#64 - Doctor Dolittle

Nowadays you can go to a big blockbuster Hollywood movie and there are a number of possibilities of what you could get. You could get a really awesome big budget movie, or you could get an extremely crappy big budget movie. Another thing you could get, and this is important for our discussion, is a movie that has aspirations of being great, and by all means could have, and should have been great, but by misguided planning or a complete misunderstanding of what makes the story great, you end up with an disappointingly bad movie. Wait. Am I talking about Doctor Dolittle here? Yes. Yes I am.

So, what wrong with this movie? It's clear that they put a lot of time and effort in to the project, and the art direction reflects that. The visual design is really well done, but the problem is that its not enough. This movie was two and a half hours of mostly boring, underwhelming, and misguided film making. You see, this is a story that is suppossed to be whimsical and magical, but it is rarely any of the two. We have a man that can talk to animals, relate to animals, and sympathize with animals, but he can't relate with human beings. Thats called quirky. Really quirky. But there was nothing quirky about Rex Harrison performance at all. In fact, I don't think his performance was really that good, or at least he was given much to work with. He's stiff, he's kind of flat, he's kind of boring, and worst of all, he barely sings any of his songs. He's the title character and most of his songs are in that rythmic speaking style that isn't singing, but isn't talking. It's a freaking musical, let's act like it. The major problem with this is that most of his songs sound the same, therefore lending to the boring nature of the movie.

I submit two movies, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Both of these movies have a magical world that is part of the real world around us, but essentially is unknown or unseen. As the movies unfold there is a revelation about these worlds that is filled with imagination and wonder. This is what Doctor Dolittle should have done, and it does not. The end of the movie has the guy flying on a a large lunar moth. To which I said, "Wow, thats a great shot", and "Nice to get a lunar moth harness on short notice". The scene when he talks to the whale is great. They are on a island that floats around in the ocean. This is all magical stuff, but it came after too many minutes of boredom. Its as if they spent all of their money trying to make an enormous spectacle and they forgot the essence of the story. I will say this, there are some songs that are well written, well sung, and would have been perfect in the type of movie this should have been. They were all sung by Anthony Newly.

And now, the worst part of the movie. Usually the sign that you are watching a bad movie happens towards the beginning. It let's you know that you are in for a bumpy ride. Well, this movie waited until the very end to show you. You see, the main objective for Doctor Dolittle in this movie is to find the Great Pink Sea Snail. It's a huge mythical pink snail and he goes through numerous adventures to find it. You knew he was going to because it's that type of story. The thing is that when it showed up, IT WASN'T PINK!!!! It was GREEN AND TAN!! The funny thing about it is that throughout the whole thing they used the word "pink", but as soon as the thing showed up, that word dissapeared from their vocabulary. Oh well, we can't all be geniuses with our millions.

#63 - The Serpent's Egg

Ingmar Bergman does German Expressionism. To be honest, I would have had no clue that this was the case if it wasn't for the bonus features. You see, I have never seen any German Expressionist films. Hell, I've never seen any Bergman films either. So, I guess what we have here isn't the norm for Bergman, but according the bonus features, its a honest recreation of German Expressionism, so I have that to go off of. I will say that I enjoyed the movie on its own, mostly because of the ending, but it was the DVD features that really brought it into perspective, so I am thankful for that.

With no prior experience, I am going to talk about German Expressionism based on what I have seen on this DVD. I know of, and have seen images from Fritz Lang movies, but I don't really know too much. I know some of you out there do.(I'm talking to you Boog!!) There was a tremendously strong sense of a life spinning into chaos while everything was in extreme decay. And this is social and personal decay we are talking about. I found some of it to be disturbing, as it was meant to be, but a lot of it was kind of boring. I only mean boring because I had no idea what the point was. I didn't know why I was watching this movie, or what the point was. I now understand that part of it was my naivete about the film style. I also found that I just had to watch the movie and the point was made quite clear. The ending of this film is truly great filmmaking. It's paranoia. It's fear. It's shock. It's all captured through the lens. I do not want to say anything about the end other than it's a huge "Oh shit!!" moment. It is a moment that absolutely destroys the foundation of the world we thought we were watching.

I have to mention it because it is apparently part of the style, but there are a number of cabaret scenes in this movie, all of which are done in a grotesque style. It's that poor, downtrodden cabaret where the colors aren't bright, the clothes are dingy, and the makeup is gawdy. Its an interesting element of the decayed world that has been created.

I am interested to see more Bergman films, partly because this was a good film, and partly because I am interested in seeing what his films are normally like. Good thing is that this movie is part of a boxed set. Bad thing is that for some reason the whole thing didn't get put into my queue. It doesn't make any damn sense and is another stupid thing about the blockbuster.com membership. Normally when a movie is part of a boxed set it offers to put the whole set into your queue, but it didn't on this one, and it didn't on some others. So while I have a Kurosawa set and an Ed Wood set buried in my queue, I also have random Shirley Temple, Kimstim, and Merchant Ivory films from boxed sets scattered throughout the list. What kind of crap is that? I wanna these other movies, but this ridiculous obsession with keeping things random compels me to now just rent the damn things. Instead I will plague my eyes with crappy Don Bluth cartoons, made for TV movies from the BET network, and military reports on nuclear tests. What the hell is wrong with me?

#62 - National Velvet

Is there a term for something that is the opposite of a guilty pleasure? Whereas a guilty pleasure is something that is not good, you know its not good, yet you enjoy it anyways(pro wrestling, soap operas, crack), the opposite of that would be something that you know is good, yet you still hate it. Actually, I dont hate this movie, so I guess this isnt the best example. But I do hate the fact that I dont hate it. Let me explain. This movie is well directed and well acted, but it plays up on the sappy and cheesy at such a high level that I began to be torn. The dislike for the cheese was battling with the appreciation of a well made movie. I couldnt understand why so much sappiness was intenionally put into a movie that was created with such care. I got my answer at the end. This movie was made during the war and was sent overseas for the soldiers to watch. Got it. Anything to help soldiers escape the horrors of war. I can get behind that. Of course, I'm not a soldier in WWII, so I can still point out the bad stuff.

First of all, can we get some consistency in the accents? We are in Ireland. These are all Irish people. The dad's Irish. The mom's Irish. In fact, so is Angela Lansbury's character. Same goes for Mickey Rooney. As well as Elizabeth Taylor. Then why in the hell didnt they ALL have Irish accents? Speaking of Mickey Rooney, not a bad job doing a character I'm not used to see him play. I am used to the comedic Mickey Rooney, and you dont see that side of him, except for the scene when he gets drunk, then its a classic Mickey Rooney caricature. And while we are on the subject of short actors, let's talk about the little brother. By now, you should all be aware of my dislike for most child actors. This is not the case here. He actually does a good job playing the character. Problem is, I hated the character so much I still wanted to knock the shit out of him. Especially the scene where he goes into a temper tantrum. I think I ground a layer of enamel of my teeth in that scene. Speaking of teeth, I didnt need that part at the end about the kids tooth. If you have seen this before, you know what I am talking about. I'll spare the rest of you.

To finish up, let's talk about the big star. Of course I mean Elizabeth Taylor. So is so fresh faced an innocent in this movie, and already a very talented actress. Having seen very little of Taylor's work, I was amazed at how good she was at such a young age. The problem is that after about two-thirds of the movie you realiz that the youthful, innocent, far off gazing, dreamy eyed speech she gives is the exact same thing she does in EVERY SCENE!!!! I'm not even kidding. EVERY ONE!! No matter what, she is a little plug of positivity, innocene, and believing in your dreams. And you ask why I think this movie got too sappy? "I should like to ride horses." "I should like to ride horses all day." "I should like to ride horses down by old man Barleycorn's barn." UGH. And the scene that tops it all, is when she and Mickey Rooney show up at the competition. She gets out of the trailer. She starts to walk around with an overwhelmed look on her face. Finally, she gets to a patch of flowers where she closes her eyes, takes a deep breath, and blissfully cries out, "HOR-SES!!" I almost vomited. Nevermind the fact that she was just in a trailer with her favorite horse in the world for over eight hours. No sir, what brings her more joy than anything in the world is being surround by the smell of other horses. Thats what clams her, the smell. Not seeing all the pretty horses. The smell. I know I get relaxed when I go to a kennel and smell Alpo and wet dog. Ridculous. Cheesy. Sappy. This very scene is why I am torn about this movie.

#61 - The Horse in the Gray Flannel Suit

Time to come clean. I have seen this movie. Well, not really. At least I'm not sure. I know I have seen a lot of it, but it was a LONG time ago when the Disney channel actually showed old Disney movies. You know what I'm talking about, the days of Mouseterpiece Theatre and whatnot. So its been a few years. I don't know if I ever saw the whole thing or not and I sure as hell never knew the title. I believe this is on the cusp of qualifying for this dog and pony show I am doing here. I have made sure that I am only watching movies that I have never seen in their entirety and in one straight shot. This is a very good example of one that I have seen a lot of, but never seen the whole thing. At least I think thats the case. There are many movies out there that fall under this category. Some of them may shock the hell out of you, so I wont say the titles of them. But enough of this shite, we have a movie to talk about here.

This is just good clean fun here. Nothing too serious, nothing to over the top. It's true wholesome family goodness. The difference between this and what they make now is that this isnt stupid annoying crap. It may not be an intellectually chanllenging movie, but they didn't insult the intelligence of the audience by dumbing things down into a bunch of sight gags, stupid shtick and fart jokes. Don't get me wrong, a well placed fart joke can be hilarious, but those cases are few and far between. Its just a simple, little, entertaining movie about a father who buys a horse for his daughter as an advertsing scheme. Give it a few years and you may have a remake with Lindsay Lohan. Nah...there's other, more popular classic Disney movies that they can remake with her. This one doesnt even have Jodie Foster or Hayley Mills in it, so it doesn't qualify.

There's really not much else to say about this movie, but there is one thing I want to mention. Is there a more likeable character anywhere in all of filmdom than the one played over and over by Dean Jones? Seriously. How can you not like this guy? I couldn't tell you if he is a really good actor because the only thing I have seen him do other than this character is the evil vet in Beethoven, but what he does, he does well. I have seen numerous other Dean Jones movies. They usually involve animals and a young girl. And you can't bring up Herbie cause that car eventually went bananas and I am counting it as a monkey. Just cause I can. But anyways, this Dean jones fellow has good comedic timing and a genuine, sincere, gentle way about him. You can't help but root for him cause he is such a nice guy, and not in a nauseating kind of way. Check some of his stuff out, but go for Herbie first, or the outer space cat one. And I don't want any nasty letters from the Fred MacMurray fan club either. You can save it.

#60 - A Troll in Central Park

Now that lights are turned on for a new theatre on the shores of Green Bay in Wisconsin, and now that my mosquito bites have begun to stop itching, and now that I have a decent internet connection that I dont have to be in a lobby of a Best Western to use, I can get back to writing reviews of crappy movies. I know you have been waiting, anticipating, and damn near beside yourself for this review. I know you are thinking that Rock a Doodle was such a bad movie that there is no way that Don Bluth could make anything worse. Well my friends, he made something worse. That something is A Troll in Central Park.

I know I have said this before, but I will say it again, it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, the premise of the movie is that in a land filled with ugly, nasty trolls, there is one troll that looks like a cross between a leprechon and Dopey. Where the evil nasty queen troll has a purple thumb that creates nasty stuff, this little tub of goo has a green thumb that has the power to create plant life, but most importantly, beautiful flowers. Kill me already. Please, kill me already. The queen troll hates flowers cause they are pretty and so she banishes him to a nasty place, the nastiest place of them all, New York City. Apparently, this mythical troll community is in the general vicinity of EUROPE and this fat little troll basically immigrated to Central Park. Which he loves at first, but then hates cause its scary and cries himself to sleep in a trememndous cavern that he finds in a crack under a footbridge. THATS RIGHT!!! A tremendous cavern that is under the hills, trees, and lawns of Central Park and is only accesible from a little crack under a footbridge!! Are you freaking kidding me? I know its a cartoon, but its set in a real place. How about a little bit of reality to that world. I know its asking too much of a cartoon with a troll in it, but if you take something from a fantasy world and put it into a real location, try to make that location realistic, unless the fantasy characters change it. Oh, and they change it. This little fatty takes him green thumb and makes this cavern into a lush garden of beautiful flowers and whatnot. It sickening really. The whole love of beatiful flowers was really quite nauseating. What was even more nauseating was the musical number that went along with the flowering of the cavern. As well as the musical number that went along with his proffession of love for flowers that is sung to the girl that stumbles into the cavern. Here is what I don't understand, in Rock a Doodle you have Glen Campbell playing a singing rooster and you cover up his songs with crappy action sequences, yet in this movie you let Dom Deluise, of all people, sing his freaking heart out about the loveliness of flowers. There was no covering up of the songs, just a bunch of pretty flowers blooming all over in a pretty little garden of cavern buried under Central Park and only accessible from a crack under a footbridge. Oh, and the crap about the dreams coming true really gets annoying when a toy boat gets turned into a huge vessel that floats through the air in a huge fantasy sequence that all takes place in a cavern...blah...blah...blah. And of course the queen troll comes to Central Park, tears the place apart into a wasteland which is explained by an amazing tornado and the kids have a happy ending. The cuteness level of this cartoon is vomitous. The cliches of the angry kid, having dreams, and that pretty and nice things win over ugly and mean things is so badly iverdon in this thing that I wonder how these people sleep at night. It's ridiculous. It's bad. It's overdone. It's ill conceived. It's not entertaining. It's poorly written. It has annoyingly sappy songs. The villains are annoying and over the top. The main character is way too sweet and happy to even be remotely palatable. The big sequences are disgustingly fantastical and unrealistic in what is suppossed to be a realistic world. I mean it when I say that no words I put down here can do justice to how bad of a cartoon this was. Hideuosly repulsive. A waste of time for everyone involved. I'd rather vote to make sure that my favorite Big Brother All Star makes it back into the house this summer. I'd rather watch Matt Lauer interview Brittney Spears and mistake it for legitimate journalism. I'd rather watch Jay Leno ask Trace Adkins to elaborate on what he was going for with Honky Tonk Badonkadonk as if there was some sort of hidden meeting or social commentary we may not have been able to pick up on without an explanation...oh wait...I did happen to see that. This review is over.

#59 - Rock a Doodle

When I said that Disney was trying to copy Don Bluth cartoons when they were making Oliver and Company, this is not what I had in mind. You see, Disney was copying the good and/or successful Bluth cartoons. This is and was neither. This is bad writing, overdone storyboarding, and a series of individually bad ideas that add up to a great big steaming pile of poo.

First, the writing, of which there are two egregious sins. To start off, what the hell kind of a name is Chanticleer? This is the hero of the whole movie. The guy who brings up the sun. The guy they go to the city to find so that they can save the world...or at least the barn. I shouldn't have to get on imdb.com to find out what the hell the hero of the movie is. Try something simple, like Buck, or Clucky, or Big ol' Chicken Guy. Hell, I would have taken Feivel over Chanticleer. And while we are on the topic of this hero, lets talk about his singing. Voiced by Glen Campbell, you would think that there would be a number of songs in the movie that Chanticleer would have, and there were. Problem is, EVERY song was covered up by a crappy action sequence as the rag tag farm animals tried to reach this dipshit. How do you do that? You go out of your way to get a legitimate musician, and then cut him off with crappy, overdone action sequences? Which leads me to the overdone sequences. Just because you have the capacity to draw and create massive, energetic, a hugely sweeping action sequences does not mean that you have to fill the entire movie with them. There had to be at least six or seven of the standard action sequences where animals are flying everywhere, things are breaking all over the place, close calls and narrow escapes are happing and all that usual crap. Maybe one or two beyond the obvious final sequence is neccessary, but COME ON!!! It was muddy. It was confusing. I had sensory overload. It took away from time that could be spent with an actual story. And another thing, can't you draw an owl any other way? The big ol evil owl looked WAY too similar to the Great Owl from Rats of Nimh. I can accept a drawing style that animators have, but when you have a villain from one movie look like a non-villain character from another, that just weak. You know what else is weak? The decision to make the main character a live action child turned into a cartoon cat by a cartoon owl walking on a real tree. What the hell was that? A real life barn is gonna be saved by a fake rooster in a cartoon world? Stupid. Oh yeah....I almost forgot....the main character....played by a little kid....

Whoever is responsible for this little kid needs to be punched in the face. That person needs to be pulled out of their beds in the middle of the night and beaten with reeds. I could not stand the annoying voice of this annoying little kid. It was okay when I thought he was just gonna be a live action kid at the begining and end of the movie. Imagine my dread to find out that he turns into a cartoon cat and is there the whole time. My head hurt and my bones shook every time I heard that kid pronounce his R's in that suppossedly cutesy kid way. It's funny if you are Homestar Runner. It's annoying as hell when you are a stupid little kid/cat thing. You know what else doesn't help? The fact that the writers didn't feel the need to give the kid anything more than a loud "Oh no!!" every time he was near impending doom. This is especially troublesome when he is in the middle of EVERY single overdone action sequence. I am thinking of taking a hammer to my head right nut just thinking about it. DAMMIT!! This movie was painfully bad.

#58 - Oliver & Company

For those of you who have been reading these reviews every other day for the past few months, you may have noticed that there was no review yesterday. Well, I was north of Green Bay, Wisconsin in a motel with no internet. That's the way it goes. But hey, after this review I only have three more to write before I am caught up with my DVD viewing. That means that a review every other day is soon coming to an end. Maybe its time to ween you off of the teet a little bit. It's not always best to quit cold turkey. But hey, we've got a movie to talk about.

I actually learned something while watching this cartoon. I learned why they used to call the 80's the dark days of Disney. There's a nice laundry list about what is wrong with this movie. First and foremost, I'm just wondering why Disney felt the need to stray from their proven formula for making cartoons and tried to copy what Don Bluth was doing. I know Don Bluth used to work for them and all, but when he left, he went on to do his own thing. Disney should have kept doing their own thing, because it worked. Sure, there were hits like The Rats of Nimh(one of my faves from my youth), An American Tail, and Land Before Time, but that doesn't mean you try to copy it. Once you start copying someone else's style you lose what makes you unique, and you lose me. In no way does the story and style in this movie resemble any other Disney cartoon that I have ever seen. I am confused as to why it was felt this kind of thing was neccessary.

You wanna know what bothered me the most? It was the fact that there were clashing animation styles. The backgrounds of the docks, alleys and streets of NYC were well drawn, well textured, and well colored. But the lines used to draw all of the characters did not match that background. They just didn't. Usually the animated characters stand out a bit from the background, but they fit into their surroundings. Oliver, Dodger, and all the other mutts did not. And then to top it off, they have all of the vehicles. I know that this was one of the first cartoons to use computers in the animation process, but in the middle of a world with a textured background, and mismatched, yet free moving characters, there are stiff, rigid, and angular vehicles. Nothing matches with each other. Sure, you have to start the computer technology somewhere, but man, you could have done better than this.

Here's another thing...where's the memorable characters? There isn't any characters that you could see in a parade down Main Street in Disneyland. The only performance that is even mildly entertaining is Cheech Marin, and it's only just okay. And come on!!! Billy Joel? A dog with shades on? You've got to be kidding me. And hey, Dom Deluise is much better as a bird than he is a warm hearted street urchin. Shame on you Disney. You tried to do something cause you got scared that you didn't rule the cartoon world anymore, and you ended up making a big old pile of steaming crap. Thank god you've gotten it together since then.

#57 - The Yearling

This was dangerous territory here. The trepidation towards watching this movie was quite high. Why? Take a look at that picture. We are talking about a high potential for annoying child actor here. I flashed back, all the way to A Hole in the Head. I was certain that there wasn't going to be a crappy song in the middle of the movie, but that didn't mean I wasn't going to grind my teeth away listening to an annoying kid in a sappy movie. But that's not what we got. Believe it or not, the kid wasn't completely annoying. There were definitely times when he tried my patience. A few too many uses of the words "Pa" and "Gee", and not necessarily in that order.

This kid undertook an extremely hard task. He had an unbelievable range of emotion that he had to portray throughout the entire movie. I would imagine that going from youthful innocence to the harsh realities of life and death is a hard thing to express for anyone, much less someone so young. And he does it quite well. A little unbelievable at times, but he is committed to what he is doing which is admirable. And since he is the main character of the movie, you might think that he has the daunting task of carrying the whole thing. Oh, no. For that, we turn to the rock. The foundation. Gregory Peck. You probably already know this, but this guy is amazingly good at what he does. You see, I haven't seen to many of his films, so I just don't know. Blown away at his wisdom and stoicism in To Kill A Mockingbird, I was floored to see him be the foundation of a family yet again, but in a completely different way with a completely different character. And no less effective. And Jane Wyman was solid too with a mother dealing with the heartache of lost children and a hard life in general. This ain't Falcon Crest.

Let's talk visuals here. This movie was made in 1946 and the color is absolutely amazing. The lost art of film studio sky cyc's is on full display in this movie and they tremendously well done. And the nature shots are amazing. Particularly the scene with the running deer. It was beautiful and breathtaking. Check it out. You could be pleasantly surprised like I was.

#56 - Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I tell you what, don't go into this movie expecting to anything that you have ever seen before. I went into it expecting a Harry Potter type of movie, and that is not what I got. For the first part of it, I was stuck in that mindset and wasn't really enjoying what I was watching. Once I caught on to what was going on in the movie, it blew me away with it's uniqueness and imagination. You see, I haven't read any of the books that this was based on, so I had no idea that it would even be possible to mix a dark comedy and a family movie. That's right. That's what I said. A dark comedy mixes with a family movie. I never even imagined that the two things could be put together, and then work so well together.

I'm not gonna bore you with a plot summary because most of you reading this have probably seen the movie. The fact that the meat of the whole movie is the kids avoiding being killed by their evil uncle Olaf is amazing to me. Most family movies have kids getting captured by the bad guys, but they usually aren't in too much danger. Besides, the bad guys in those movies have something else on their mind other than the kids and they just want to capture them so that they can't ruin their plans. Count Olaf wants to kill them!! That is his objective. Someone tell me of another family movie where the main focus of the bad guy is to kill the kids. And I'm not talking about killing the kids so that they stop interfering with their plans for something else. I am talking about their deaths being THE objective. You can't do it. Especially in a big budget Hollywood movie.

I loved the art direction of this movie. The Victorian style is already unsettling and disturbing, but when you skewer, and twist, and tweak it, you have stepped it up another level. Olaf's mansion and the house on the cliff are especially well designed. It just creates a magically dark world that sets the tone for whole movie. Well done there.

And let talk about one of my favorite subjects: child actors. Well, no problems here. All three of the kids were well cast, and good actors. Maybe the boy was a little stiff, but he's a quiet bookworm, so it's okay. The girl was an interesting balance of sadness and sweetness. And that baby. I know they used a pair of twins, but how in the hell did they get those babies to do all of that stuff. I've never seen a baby that was so much fun to watch. From the smart ass comments translated from baby gibberish to the shot of her hanging off of a table with her choppers, I enjoyed every part of that kid.

As far as the other performers go, everyone did a great job of commiting to the world that was being created. Jim Carrey playing a number of interesting characters, especially the Italian scientist. Glenn Close(Check that - Meryl Streep) playing the ultimate worry wart. Billy Connelly playing...Billy Connelly. And how about Jude Law getting paid to be in shillouette the entire time and never having to learn lines since all of his dialogue was recorded narration. Nice gig there.

Like I said before, most of you reading this have probably already seen it. But in case you haven't, DO IT!!! It's absolutely unique. Like Falling Angels, I wanted to watch it over again right away. I also wanted to watch the DVD extras which I rarely take time to do with these rentals. The fact that I watched any of them is saying something. WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!

#55 - Ring of Bright Water

From the makers of...and the actor of...and the actress of...Born Free, it's a movie about another animal in another part of the world. Instead of lions in Africa, it's an otter in England. Seriously, you did some happy ass movie about lions in Africa and then follow it up with some happy ass movie about an otter in England? The only thing that could make that more annoying would be if the main actor and the main actress were married. Oh..wait.

Actually, once you get over the sappiness of the married couple making another animal movie, you realize that it's not that bad of a movie. I'm still not sure why anyone would go see this in a movie theatre, but it was made in a time without cable television and you couldn't see anything like this on the TV. I guess it makes some sense.

What doesn't make sense to me is how the main relationship of the movie got started, the main relationshi[p being the one between the man and his otter. You see, the man works in some office in London and isn't happy with his empty desk job. One day he walks by a nearby pet store and is mesmerized by the otter in the window. Over time he decides to purchase the otter as a pet....hold on, let's go back. Did I just say he saw an otter in the window of a pet store in London? Are you kidding me? Was it common to find non-domesticated animals for sale in pet shops in one of the largest cities in Europe? Am I completely off base to think that this situation seems a little out of whack here? It's an OTTER, and it's in a PET SHOP, and it's in the middle of LONDON, ENGLAND!!!! And the way he acts around it is kind of odd too. Trying to take a look at it without the otter knowing he's looking. The begining of this movie didn't sit well with me because I thought the guy was an idiot. Luckily he buys a cabin somewhere in the Highlands or something.

Once we get into the hills, the movie gets okay and we get the usual man/animal relationship movie. Not a Turner & Hooch kind of a relationship, but an Old Yeller kind of relationship. Apparently this movie was based on a book that I can only imagine is in the same vein as a Where the Red Fern Grows kind of book is. In other words, lots of adventures based around someone and their best buddy animal. I don't know, it's not that it's bad, it's just not too terribly exciting. We arent talking about My Side of the Mountain kind of boring, but it's along those lines...just no stupid kid. Oh, and the otter gets whacked, but in these kinds of movies the animal always dies. So I didn't ruin anything.

#54 - Falling Angels

You may have to bear with me on this one. Not only am I writing this on my birthday, but I went to a Cubs game earlier and then boozed it up a little afterwards. (Reds won, Griffey Jr. got a HR, and Jaque Jones the former Twin hit a HR too, so I was pleased) But it's late, my typing skills are a little rough, but I will do this review dammit.

And let me just say, this is a good movie. It definitely is one of those ones I wouldn't have picked on my own. The DVD was released by this group called The Film Movement. They release monthly DVD's of art house type movies. Kind of in the way Time Life does business. The reason I probably wouldn't have picked it is because I can only go so far with art house movies. Most of them are foreign because apparently, only foreign countries make art movies. And they are independent too, and there is a huge level of pretentiousness surrounding art house and independent movies that I just don't want to be a part of. But this is a good movie, and its from Canada too, ya hoser.

This movie is a bit of a dark comedy that deals with what happens when people don't deal with tagedy and try to ignore it. But it's not so much about the people who are denying the tragedy, it's about the impact it has on those around them, most notably the three daughters in this movie. I can't stress enough how dynamic the relationships in this movie are. There is a level of love overshadowed by a level of disdain in this movie that is really powerful. The three daughters each deal with the unspoken missing truth in their family's life in a different way. The mom is a zombie of regret and the father is overbearing and cold. I really want to talk about it more, but I don't want to say too much about it because the truth unfolds so well that I really don't want to ruin it.

I read something about it on imdb.com that was titled, "Blame it on dad, again." That couldn't be further from the truth. If you just take what you are given at the begining of the movie, then yes, it is a blame it on dad kind of thing, but towards the end there is a level of acceptance, redemption, and repentance that let you know that this is more than just a blame it on dad festival.

Another note about the DVD: WIth each Film Movement DVD they have a short film on the disc. The one on this disc is about three minutes and it is about a guy who breaks each of the ten commandements in about...three minutes. It's quite funny and is a good complement to the film. Rent this movie and come back and tell me what you think, because it is really well done. I wanted to watch it again right after I first watched it, and that's saying a lot.