#72 - Honey for Oshun

You haven't heard of this movie? Could that be because you don't speak Spanish? Or, could that be because you are not of Cuban origin? I told you I would watch everything and if atomic bombs and BET movies weren't evidence enough, this should be. The difference is, this movie has something to offer the world. It's a simple story of a man returning to Cuba thirty years after being seperated from his mother and brought to America. He is on a search to find out who he real is, and reunite with his long lost mother. Not neccessarily brand new stuff, but there are some things about movie that make it unique.

I think the most important thing about this movie is that it was shot on location in Cuba. For someone like me, that means I was seeing images of Cuba that I have never seen before. The search that this man has takes him on a Plains, Trains, and Automobiles type of journey across Cuba...only serious. The camera follows him through the markets of Havana, into the countryside of Cuba, and into remote coastal towns. He does this in broken vehicles, old bicycles, and in the backs of trucks. There is a sense of the environment of Cuba that I haven't ever seen. Usually Cuba is all about Castro and his rule, but this movie doesnt mention it all and sticks with a more personal look at what it means to be in Cuba. Of course, not mentioning Castro is probably how they got this movie made.

I did have problems with this movie. First of all, can we put all subtitles in yellow? Yellow is the best color to use because it is usually in contrast with everything else on the screen. If the subtitles are white, at some point they will be in front of the color white, and then NOBODY can read them. I had the same problem with some of the Italian movies reviewed earlier, but didnt mention it until now.

The second problem that I had with this movie is that it was WAAAAAY too dramatic. The internal struggle of the main character was a little too thick. Make that a LOT too thick. It made it hard to sympathize with the main character because he is ultimately a selfish bastard. He pisses his fellow travelers off which leads to shouting matches where everybody screams out how hard their life has been and why. Too much. There's already a structure there that works and the heavy drama distracts from it too much.

On the whole, for me this movie was just alright. Seeing images of Cuba I have never seen before was really what was the most interesting to me. How the main character got across Cuba was somewhat entertaining, but ultimaately was overshadowed by the heavy drama. About halfway through the movie I realized that this movie would probably have more impact on the people of Cuba or Cuban immigrants who have severed familial relationships. If you look up this movie on imdb.com, you will read a user's comment that slams this movie. Pay attention to the fact that this guy is from Mexico. Sometimes you have to put yourself in the mindset of the target audience to see the true value of a movie. This movie does have its faults, but there is a connection that is being made between the main character and people in a similar situation, and that is what really matters, not production value.

#71 - Smooth Talk

This one threw me for a loop because the most bizarre thing happens in this movie. And it's not a surreal, weird, or wacky sort of thing that happens. Its not anything gross, unusual, or disgustingly awful. It's basically one scene that stands out head and shoulders above the rest of the movie, and it caught me completely off guard, and floored me. I'll explain...

The premise of this movie is simple, Laura Dern plays a high school teenager who is spending her summer break learning all about male/female companionship. She basically acts like a floozy, not realizing what it is she is doing getting herself into trouble with her mother. Its a pretty typical case of fighting mother and daughter. Nothing new there. They fight. They say things they don't mean, but you know they really love each other, blah, blah, blah, blah. Really, I was not entertained at all watching this movie. I was annoyed by the way the girls acted in the mall. I was annoyed at the mother/daughter fights. I was annoyed by the oblivious father. It was not entertaining at all. I found myself wondering what the deal was with bracelets in the late 80's. I remember the fad, but I was only ten-ish, so the full impact of it was nothing to me. Seriously, how ridiculous of a fad was it to put about 150 metal bracelets on each arm? Or, as a substitute, three or four plastic ones. Thats a 50 to 1 conversion ratio. The plastic ones must be spendy.

Here's another thing in this movie that is one of the silliest things I have ever seen. Treat Williams acting like a tough guy. I know what your saying, Treat Williams acting like an actor is silly enough, but throw in tough guy on top of that, and its out of control. But this brings me to the point of the whole review. You see, early on in the movie, Laura Dern walks by Treat Williams and he singles her out, but then he goes away, never to be seen...until later. He shows up at Dern's house when her parents aren't home. I'm sure you can see where this is going. What follows is one of the most frightening and intense scenes I have seen in a while. I was sucked right in to the interaction between the two, not knowing what would happen, or exactly where it was going. I could not believe it.

That is what was so bizarre about this movie. I couldn't have cared less about the movie until that one scene came around and I was locked in. Then, there is an implication about what happens, the family comes home and everything is resolved quickly and the movie was over. That was it!!! Sixty-five minutes of crap, followed by a dynamic, riveting, and unbelievably intense twenty minute scene, and then five more minutes of crap. Movie over. What the hell is that? I can't recommend the movie because on the whole, it was lame. But that one scene is SO strong I want everybody to see it. But it's probably not as strong without seeing all of the lead-up to it, which is CRAPPY!!!! Paging Joseph Heller!! Paging Joseph Heller!!!

#70 - The Great Ziegfeld

Is it over yet? Are we done now? Seriously, I watched this movie a week ago, and I'm pretty sure it's only half way through. I'm mean come on!! This thing is THREE HOURS LONG. Emphasis on the word "long". Here's a sign that the movie you are watching is way too long: It's not really a musical(check the previous review), and yet it has an intermission. Hell, it has an overture for chrissakes. Overtures are okay if you are watching a stage production. Or, if the overture is more like an opening song with some sort of animated credit sequence, that would be fine. This just has a graphic that says overture. BOOOO!!! I know, I know, they played it while people were actually getting settled into the movie theatre and all that crap, but it's not a freaking musical. Why is it that Hollywood has to lump any movie that relates to music into the musical category? When stuff like that happens, people like WAH-Keen Phoenix win a musical Golden Globe for Walk the Line. That's just not right.

So this is the point in the review where I begin to explain why I didnt really like an Oscar winning movie or the Oscar winning performance by the leading lady. Just thought I would put it all out on the table right away. You see, I understand why it won an Oscar, but I still just thought it was only okay. I think the best way to describe it is to say that it was a Titanic type of Oscar. I think what they looked at was the fact that the scope of the movie was so massive, and yet the movie was complete and well made. I just don't think it was THAT great. Of course, I dont know what other movies were nominated that year, so it may have been the best movie anyways.

You see, I think it could have been at least forty-five minutes shorter. The production numbers in the middle of the movie were amazing technical achievements. The massive scope of of the two scenes was amazing, even by todays standards. The design, and execution of everything is even more amazing when you realize that they were done with only one or two shots. I also understand that it was probably an accurate recreation of the types of productions that Ziegfeld made, but spectacle only goes so far in my book and since these numbers were in the middle of the marathon, I was almost already out to lunch. I know it may sound odd to have someone recognize all of the achievments of a movie, and still not like it that much, but that is what I am doing.

I tell you what William Powell was AMAZING. His performance should have won an Oscar. I would have been more than fine with that. But the actual Oscar winner was Luise Rainer, and I gotta tell you, I was none too impressed. I think the problem I had was with the way the character was written. I hated the wishy washy, whiny, "you don't really love me", "I can't live without you" nature of the character. I am aware that at the begining it was intended to be humorous, but when it kept happening into the dramatic moments, I was over it, WAY over it.

I also didnt like the episodic nature of the film. I'm not talking about a Mother Courage kind of episodic structure. More like one story about Ziegfeld after the other. It made the life of Ziegfeld seem choppy instead of a sweeping epic that this kind of movie normally is. But hey, if I could dance like Ray Bolger none of this would matter because I would be the coolest person in the world. And if I was as awesomely funny as Fanny Brice, you might just have to close all the stores and put the kids to bed early cause it would be going down TONIGHT!!! What the hell does that mean?

#69 - Alexander's Ragtime Band

UH-OH!! The Musical Alert System has just risen the warning level from amber to burnt sienna. My teeth were fully grinding as I placed this movie into my DVD player. Most of you may know that I have a pretty healthy dislike for most musical without actually having seen them. Its essentially a dislike for the genre. It makes me want to puke with how cheesy and sappy these things can be. But, like many other movies I have reviewed in this little dog and pony show, I am seeing my first movie from a classic film maker. In this case it happens to be Irving Berlin, and it just so happens that this movie isn't really a musical. I'll explain...

When I think of musicals, I think of possibly bad songs invading sappy dialogue and cheesy overacting. Of course, think isn't the case with all of them. To name a few obvious ones...The Wizard of Oz, West Side Story, Singing in the Rain, Mary Poppins, Guys and Dolls, and of course, the first Broadway show I ever saw, Avenue Q. These are good. I enjoy them. But I want to stab my eyes out at the thought of Damn Yankees. What I have seen of Seven Brides For Seven Brothers is enough to make me want to O.D. on drugs for Restless Leg Syndrome. Oh, and then there is the king of them all: Oklahoma. Haven't seen all of it, but the empty feeling I had where my soul once was somehow went away when I changed the channel. I still haven't come to terms with the fact that Wolverine was in the revival.

Why doesn't this movie fit into what I consider a musical? It's because the music is imperative to the telling of the story, whereas I don't think it usually is in most musicals. This is a movie about a band that makes it big, breaks up, makes it big again, and all that stuff. You couldn't do it without music. Could you do New York, New York without music? Could you do The Commitments without music? Could you do Kazaam without music? I don't think so. Okay, I never saw the last one and its not enough in my queue list, so we are all saved...for now. But to iterate again(reiterate), the music is imperative to the telling of the story. And it helps that Irving Berlin is really, really, really good at what he does. It's very entertaining music to listen to and some of the dance numbers that accompany the music are fun to watch also. YES PEOPLE, I enjoyed this movie.

And speaking of New York, New York, I have a greater appreciation of what Scorsese was doing with that film. Knowing the kind of film historian he is, I feel that I have seen the research that directly went into the development of that film. But he puts his own storytelling style into it, thereby making a kind of modernized and raw version of the film I just saw. I will say that I enjoyed Alexander's Ragtime Band more, but that would have more to do with better music than anything else. Plus, I haven't gotten over my unwarranted feelings against Liza Manelli. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

#68 - Born Free

"BOOOOOOOOORN FREE. As free as the wind blows. As free as the grass grows....okay, I dont know the next line, but who out there really does? If any of you do, and you actually respond to this with the next line, I will delete it. I won't be a part of that kind of activity. I the song won an Oscar. Hell, it's on the freakin picture. And it's nothing like High Hopes was in A Hole in the Head, but with the way the song comes in at the end of this movie and with the type of song it is, its just too much for me to not make fun of. Its the music that we have been hearing throughout the movie and it just swells in and the lyrics swell in with it. It's so dramatical and upliftingish I can barely stand it. So here's a short list of Oscar winning songs: 1. High Hopes 2. Born Free 3. It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp. I think that pretty well sums up the 80ish years of Best Song winners, don't you?

I'm about as ambivalent about this movie as I was towards Ring of Bright Water(check the archives moron). It's one of those things that I watch and I know its good, I know it's well made, I know it's exactly what those two lovebirds wanted to make, and I can even see it's as popular as it is, or was, but I'm ultimately left with a feeling of "eh". It's alright. That's it. Just alright.

I think the reason I feel the way I feel about this movie is because is pretty much the same freakin thing as Ring of Bright Water. Oh sure, animals, characters, continents, and basic plot points are different, but the overall approach and goal by the lovebird film makers is essentially the same. An inimate connection between a human and an animal. Exotic or remote locales. People learning more about themselves through their relationships these animals. Got it? I'm not slamming these things, I'm not even criticizing them. I'm just not blown away by what I saw. I do realize that I saw these two movies out of order, but that just makes me understand why Ring of Bright Water isn't as popular. I get the feeling that most moviegoers felt the way I feel, only in reverse and without as much ambivalence. Here's a question? Have I overused the word ambivalent and its derivatives yet?

Here's something I picked up on while watching this movie. I was sitting there, watching the flick, and I realized that the acting isn't exactly spectactular. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't the greatest. And the writing wasn't exactly the greatest either, yet this was a popular movie. How does that work? Then it hit me as I realized that interesting dialogue and extremely dramatic acting wasn't the point of the film. The point was the animals and the relationship that develops. And that is clearly the point that Travers and McKenna were going for. They made exactly what they wanted to make and they did it in exactly the right way to convey their message. I have to give them all the credit in the world for that, even if I am "eh" about it all.

#67 - Splendor in the Grass

We got us a drama here. No, wait, we gots a Drah-ma. Even better, we actually have a DRAAAAAAAH-muh. It's that classic heavy handed drama from back in the Tennessee Williams/Arthur Miller days. These are the kinds of things that I always found easier to watch than read. Reading these plays was a good way to get my mind to wander or just fall asleep. It doesn't matter if they were well written classics with dynamic characters and hard hitting subject matter for the time they were written, they made me pass out. And boy, talk about still being hard to watch. I have only seen a few performances of plays from this time period and I would say that just one really grabbed me like it should have and thats because the actors in the lead roles were at the top of their game. In other words, these plays were always hard to read, and hard to stage. But we got some heavy hitters here, even if the director was a rat.

So, what do we have here in this draaaaaaaaaaaah-ma? We have a boy. We have a girl. And of course one is rich and the other is not. Remember the time period it was written in. Its practically a given that there would be some economic thing going on. And of course there are meddling parents that make things worse while trying to reassert their traditions in their children. I don't even know if "reassert" is the right word, but I used it cause what really matters is that the parents are stubborn, don't listen and do a good job of making their kids lives miserable because they try to force a tradition of life that the children don't want. Women act a certain way and don't marry because of love, they marry because of duty. Men follow in their fathers footsteps which in this case means Ivy League college and taking over the family business.

Before I go further, I want to say that this is a good movie, with great directing and good acting, but I do have issues with it, which are probably just me and not the movie. First of all, I don't think it was neccessarily adapted from the stage play that well. By that I mean that it had clearly divided scenes and acts that are just fine on stage, but didn't quite translate over to film for me. I think it has to do with the fact that it was filmed like you would film a screenplay, but using a stage play. Look at my Men of Respect review, same kind of problem.

Something occurred to me while I watched this movie. Why do all of the female characters from this period go insane over love or a lack therof? Like I said, I havent seen too many things from this period, but the ladies in the ones I have seen go fucking nuts and I am at a loss to figure out why this is so common. Is this the only way we knew how to let women be dramatic for a change? Sure, this movie brings up issues of women settling for marriages of duty as oppossed to love and then living a life of servitude because those are the traditional feminine roles in society, but I think it's a more damaging thing to have women go apeshit crazy when they don't have either. Oh my god. I just described Ophelia. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In summary, it's well made movie, but if you want to see something about youthful dreams losing their luster as life happens, watch The Last Picture Show.

#66 - The Fox and The Hound

"My name's Copper. I'm a hound dog." Okay, out of context, it doesn't seem like much of a quote, but the way it is said in the movie is the sweetest thing ever. A little puppy hound dog gruffing up his voice a little bit to let a little fox know who he is. Seriously, the quote doesn't mean squat without the proper pronunciation. If you have seen this movie and know what I am talking about, then do your best to imagine me saying this to myself about a hundred times during the last couple of weeks since that's how long it has been since I have seen this. Of course, I don't do it in front of other people, I do it in the privacy of my own home, so as to make it really odd. But anyways, on to more important business.

This movie made me hate Oliver and Company, Rock-a-Doodle, and A Troll in Central Park even more. This is due to the fact that it is a good cartoon made when Don Bluth worked for Disney. It has it style all over it, especially his classic cartoon sparkles. You know what I am talking about. Every movie Bluth makes has at least one instance where he throws in a shiny, sparkly something or other. Water droplets on a spider web, a fat trolls green thumb, magical sparklies from some magical animals magic... all those things. The titles were in a Bluth style font. The music, story, theme, pacing and action were all in that classic Don Bluth style, and it worked. The animation was well done. The characters were exactly what they needed to be to tell the story. They were well written, drawn, and performed. So, why does this make me hate the other movies more? Because it shows how bad of a cartoonist Bluth became and it shows how lame Disney was at that point trying to recreate the style of somebody who doesn't work there anymore instead of moving on and doing something new. Shame on both of you!!!

You see, in this movie, there is a lesson about friendship vs. identity. It isn't a subtle message, but you aren't beaten over the head with it like you were with the fat ass troll and his love of flowers and pretty things. The Fox and the Hound had also had some action sequences which were well done, well planned out and not too much. Well, maybe the bear with the blood red eyes was a bit much, but it was properly paced for the kind of movie it was and nothing like the overdone action sequences you saw in Rock-a-Doodle. It was simply a nice, charming, little cartoon without any spontaneous and unnneccessary singing from the characters. Do be sure, there are musical montages, but they are just fine and actually serve a purpose.

And here's why Oliver and Company sucks even more...it's like a sequel to a movie that doesn't have anything to do with the original production team, therefore leading to a copying of a style that is just lame as hell. I don't understand why a company with such great tradition as Disney would have felt the need to try to copy someone else's style, and then do a piss poor job of it. And I know in the Oliver and Company review I said that Disney shouldn't have gone away from is style. They shouldn't have gone away from their recipe for success. While I understand that this may lead to stale recreations and you have to try new things to keep the imagination primed, but you gotta go with what you know. I still think that, even though The Fox and The Hound is in no way the traditional Disney style cartoon. It's like an aberration. Nah, it's just a good Disney cartoon that isn't like any of the others.

#65 - River's Edge

I believe that if all independent films were like this one, then Sundance would have never taken off and independent films wouldn't have been as mainstream as they are now. And I am thankful for that because for all of the artistic value that this movie has...and there is some...I couldn't bear to sit through very many poorly executed movies like this. The concept is very interesting. High school friends are forced to deal with the fallout after one friend kills another. That's great. That's interesting. But there are all of these other odd things that are absolutely befuddling to me. Most importantly, there wasn't a very good explanation as to why the guy killed the girl in the first place. She was saying things about my mother, or something like that. WHAT THINGS!?!?! Why didn't anybody ask these questions? I would think that they might be important questions to ask when you decide to help your murderous friend or not.

This was the kind of thing that plagued the whole movie. Too many times, the reactions of the characters were unexplained, unnatural, and/or unmotivated. This led to a number of scenes that drove me crazy because I couldn't believe that real human beings would react that way. For example, three of the friends were discussing the situation and what they should do about it, while hanging out at the arcade playing video games. I've never had a friend kill another friend, but I damn sure don't think that people would act so nonchalant about everything. SOMEONE GOT MURDERED AND YOU ARE JUST STANDING AROUND DOING NOTHING!!!!! Oh, I know what I should do in the wake of my best friends murder...have sex with Keanu Reeves in the park cause I have a crush on him. Were you two people in the right movie at that time?

I have to admit that even though the writing and directing were questionable, I was still interested in what was going to happen. Partially because of morbid curiosity, and partially because I had to know if there was a point to the decisions that were made for this movie. For example, Keanu Reeves' character had a little side story of a bad family life based around his stupid little brother. I was interested in seeing what happened when the girl faced, mullet haired, sweat pants wearing, stupid ear ringed little shit got a gun and wanted to shoot his brother. I can hear you asking why that would be happening, and I wish I could give you a realistic answer, but alas, I am left with pure speculation because I have no real clue. Sure, he was angry because his brother beat him up for being a punk. Sure, he is a punk because he lives in a broken home. But these sterotypical situations are enough explanation as to why thsi kid is as bad as he is. He's a nasty little fucker and I don't know why. I can surmise why Dennis Hopper hangs out with a blow-up doll, but I really dont know about this kid.

And if we are going to talk about things in this movie with no explanation, we must talk about the performance of Crispin Glover. One question comes to mind. WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT???? Part stoner and part spazz, Crispin Glover spent most of the movie flinging out ridiculous gestures, and pronouncing his sentences and words with unnatural inflections. It was honestly an interesting juxtaposition. Here, you have a cast full of stiff, stoic characters that don't really do anything, and there, you have the one character who does something, yet it is one of the worst cases of overacting I have ever seen in a movie. Make that a drama. Make that a non-sappy drama. We have all seen bad overacting in comedies, action movies, and sappy ass dramas, but this sticks out in this movie. It is so odd to see this guy twitch his way through this thing. If he wasn't so bad, this movie may have been okay, but he carries the whole thing, and his performance is awful. I dont know how a director would have let this happen.