#113 - Ma Barker's Killer Brood

As the schizophrenia continues, we get another selection that has three movies on one DVD. This time around, the set goes by the title, Classic Gangster Movies. If there is anything I have learned while doing this, it is that the adjectives used to describe these kinds of movie collections are usually the exact opposite of what the movies should be described as. In this case, the only thing that makes them classic is that they are old. I suppose that the type of movie is classic, as well as how they made it, but in my mind, classic means that it is memorable and can stand the test of time. I'm assuming that none of you, except maybe one, have heard of this movie. And thats a big maybe. Therefore, this movie is no classic. It's not even a cult classic. It's just another old movie that is being put onto a DVD without the decency of digital remastering. Nothing as bad as Spooks Run Wild, but is it too much to ask to put forth some sort of an effort to make the movie look and sound better? Enough is too much!! You have the technology. We all know it works. We have all seen the results. I'm begging you DVD makers to use it.

But that's not why you came here today. You wanna know all there is to know about this movie. Well, I'll give you some info. It's about an hour long, black and white, has mom with a killer brood. Actually, it appears that in the midst of all these classic(there's that word again) gangsters, there was a team made up of a mother and her children. I would say that this is her story, but I get the feeling that the entire thing is a completely fictitious. I have no historical evidence to back that up, but it just seems to be the case. I'm sure the two Dillinger movies had plenty of fictitious moments, but they seemed to have a few more moments, such as his death, that were based on fact. This doesn't seem to be the case with this one.

Now that we have established that this is a movie filled with made up stuff in it(who knew?), let's actually talk about the movie itself. It's not too bad. It's not good, but we finally have another bad movie that has enough elements in it to make it fun. The best is Ma Barker herself. The movie is really all about her and the way she runs the show. If you believe this story, she was more of a badass and more coniving than Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly, and all those guys combined. And let me tell you, the name Barker was never more deserving than for this character. It's ridiculous and over the top, but seeing her literally bark out orders to everyone in her nasty cold blooded style is pretty amusing, and at some times quite humorous. It takes a while for the movie to get going, which is hard when it's only an hour, but once the boys grow up to be men, it gets to be more like the gangster type movie it should be. I can't say that it's worth a recommendation, but it wasn't too bad.

#112 - Cyrano de Bergerac

Knowing that this movie was coming up, I intentionally kept my review of Jose Ferrer's Cyrano brief. I knew I was going to be writing this review next, and I knew that I couldn't write about this Cyrano without referring to the other one. It wouldn't make any sense to not do a comparison of the two, and what's nice about it is that I get two compare two movies that are producing the same story. With the Dillinger movies, I had two different kinds of movies that only shared a main character. It wasn't like they were both going off of the same material. But in this case, both movies are derived from the same play. It becomes more like a comparison of how the two filmmakers presented the story. This may be obvious to some, but I felt it to be a noteworthy tidbit.

First of all, this is a French production with subtitles. While I am fine with that, I have a problem with being able to fully evaluate the acting. Don't get me wrong, I can tell if the actors are bad or not, and they are all pretty good in this one, but I can't fully analyze it like I want to. With Jose Ferrer, every single word was crafted and spoken with a purpose in mind. I can't analyze Gerard Depardieu on that level because I don't understand French. I don't know the words he is using and I can't comprehend his use of inflection or how he emphasizes certain words. I was bummed about that because I couldn't fully compre the two performances like I wanted to. I know that some of you out ther are saying that there is no comparison, but I would disagree. This version of Cyrano is a lot less theatrical in it's style, and therefore Depardieu's performance had to be created to fit in that world. I can only say that his performance was very well done, but I can't say how well he fit into his world compared to how Ferrer fit into his.

I can say that while the earlier Cyrano was all about Jose Ferrer, this version seemed to be more about how well the filmmakers adapted the play for film. And they did a great job with that adaptation. The performances were more natural and the scenes flowed in a way that was less scene by scene, and act by act. But I got the feeling that they wanted to show you more of the adaptation instead of letting happen naturally. What am I talking about? Well, in this case, I am referring to the art direction. A tremendous amount of care and detail was put into recreating the various sites and locales that were the period for Cyrano, whatever period that was. They were actually very well done, and with ALL of the wide angle shots, you could see so much of it. It seemed like every new set had it's own wide angle shot so that you could see how good they were at making an authentic period looking building interior. I only have a beef with it because it gave the film an epic scope for a story that is quite intimate. Even the scenes on the battlefield are intimate, but for some reason, I can't remeber very many wide shots for those scenes. I think there was one or two while the battle was taking place, but nothing like they had earlier in the movie. You have a budget, use it wisely. Don't try to wow me with pretty pictures for a story that stands up on its own.

What it all comes down to is that I woul like a mix of both movies. Personally, I like my movies to be movies, and my theatre to be theatre. I am not the biggest fan of plays on film. Adapt the screenplay to fit the medium, or stage it in a less theatrical way. Of course, if the Ferrer version was done that way, his performance would not have been the same, and I loved his performance. Give me the intimacy of the earlier one, with the natural style of the new one. Give me the english language. I only half mean that. I have no problems with subtitles. If had to make a choice, I would go with Ferrer's Cyrano, but Depardieu's version has it's merit. Both are good movies.

#111 - Cyrano de Bergerac

There is a part of me that looks forward to watching some of the older Oscar winning movies. It kind of has to do with the same idea behind me no sequels first rule. I like to see what came before so that I have a better understanding or point of reference of where other movies come from. But there's something particular about the Oscar winners that I like. I think it's because they are supposed to the best, and therefore, my mind puts them down as "the" point of reference for everything else. I don't always agree with what I see, as in The Great Ziegfeld, but at least I have that perspective. I will admit that I get more geeked up for the pop culture type of movies, but I watch those for different reasons. I have another set of standards for them, and expect different results. It's the way it should be. You can't watch an art house movie through the same glasses as a summer blockbuster, and vice versa. It does a disservice to both.

Needless to say, mostly because the picture says so, this is one of those older Oscar winners. And I bet you can guess what award it won, and who won it. That's right, Jose Oscar Ferrer. What? Oscar isn't his middle name? Oh...right. Anyways, this guy is good. Without taking the time to see who else was nominated, it's easy to see why he won. It is amazing to see how in control of his character and the material he is. Every move, inflection, gesture, and glance is carefully planned out, and there are no wasted movements. Everything he does serves the ultimate purpose of the character and the script. I was unbelievably captivated by his abilities.

The movie itself was well done, especially if you like theatre. It was essentially a play shot for the big screen. One set per scene. Scenes broken up into different acts. Not a whole lot of adaptation done in the way of the script, but they did make a good effort to vary up the camera angles in the scenes. It helped make that aspect of the movie more interesting, which I think is important for a style choice that doesn't always lend itself to great cinema. That, or they really wanted to give you every possible look at the nose, which I think has nostril size inconsistencies through the movie. All I'm saying is that at some times it looked like one nostril was bigger than the other, and at other times it looked like they were the same. This is not a critcism because I dont wan't to be a film continuity geek. Just something I may have noticed. It's not confirmed. I could be totally wrong.

#110 - Spooks Run Wild

Take everything that was bad about King of the Zombies, amplify them, and then add even more things that are unbelievably difficult to sit through, and you have Spooks Run Wild. Seriously, this movie wasn't even good in a nostalgic sort of way. It wasn't even good in an "it's so bad it's good" sort of way. The fact that it's a Bela Lugosi movie other than Dracula, which is the only movie of his I have seen, doesn't even keep this one from drowning into the depths of despair. The thing was only an hour, and it was too hard to sit through. In fact, the disc was damaged, and I couldn't even see the last chapter of the movie. Normally, whenever that has been the case, I have them resend the movie and I don't write anything about it until I have watched it all. With this one, I refuse. I won't do it. You can leave your comments that tell me how that breaks my rules about seeing a whole movie from beginning to end, but I don't care. I'm never intentionally letting this movie into my place of residence again. And just for the record, it is the second movie on the Ghostly Grins DVD. For those with short memories, I won't be watching the last movie on the disc because it is a sequel, but I am getting that movie and it's predeccesor whenever blockbuster.com decides to send it to me.

You wanna know what really sucked about the movie? It's called The East Side Kids. Six kids, who are apparently hooligans, as well as from being from some sort of an east side, are the main characters of the move. It seems that they are also intended to be the humor of this movie. The problem with all of this is that at best, they only occasionally display some sort of humor-like substance. The rest of the time is spent with humorless tedium. They try too damn hard to sound like the humor of the day. I say, leave it to the proffessionals. It's why they are legends, and you ended up sweeping floors in some warehouse in a forgotten back lot for a shut down studio. I'm not a fan. Can you tell?

You wanna know what REALLY sucked about the movie? The picture quality. If I wanted to watch a worn out VHS tape, I would have checked out one of my own. If I wanted to watch a worn out VHS tape via digital technology, I would have transfered one of my own to DVD. Is it too much to ask that if you take the time and effort to put a movie on a DVD, you actually take the time and effort to make the damn thing viewable. It looked and sounded like a poorly transfered videotape. The contrast was so bad, that some dark scenes were IMPOSSIBLE to see. And it's a monster movie, so there are a shitload of dark scenes. And I know that some older movies have the occasional case of choppy editing. I have learned to accept it since it's usually quite rare or infrequent, except for this one. Some scenes have three or four "jumps" all on one camera angle. Ridiculous.

How is it that people can cram so much bad into one hour? I know they do it on TV all the time, but movies are a different beast. They serve a completely different purpose. These days, they'll a least stretch out the crap they put onto the big screen to at least an hour and a half. You would think that with only one hour to work with, you would try to use your time wisely, but they don't. They wasted every single second. If I could see the movie better, or at least the whole thing, I don't think it would make on bit of difference. This movie was dreadful.

#109 - King of the Zombies

Oh man, there is a crapload to talk about with this one. Which is kind of odd considering that it's only an hour long. But my plate is full, so I'll get right to it. First and foremost, we have some legal business to discuss. WHAT? It's true. You see, there is a bit of a dilemma involved with this movie. Actually, it's not the movie itself, it's the DVD it came on. This movie was part of a three movie DVD entitled Ghostly Grins. No problem with that, we have run into this before. The problem is that the third movie on this DVD is a sequel, and I have not seen its predecessor. The conflict here is between the well established "no sequel" rule, and the desire to watch all three movies in the DVD, as they have been packaged for sale. After brief deliberation with unofficial consultant, Bubba K, Esq., it was more than time to bring the matter to my legal representation, Fosberg and Chubbs. After much discussion, it was determined that I cannot sacrifice the "no sequel" rule. While willing to go along with whatever ruling was reached, I didn't feel right not watching the last movie. But alas, luck was on my side. There just so happens to be a DVD with the sequel and it's predecessor on it. Therefore, I can rent this DVD in order to see all movies on the DVD, and keep the "no sequel" rule intact. So it's done. The only problem is that blockbuster.com is continuing to deliver its movies in a ridiculously inconsistent manner. So, I'm watching the first two movies on the DVD, and I'll have to wait until the other DVD arrives to watch the other two movies. Kind of a pain in the ass, but this strengthens the "no sequel" rule. Maybe next time I will pay closer attention to what movies are on a DVD compilation, and do something about it ahead of time.

Anyways...King of the Zombies. Sounds good doesn't it? Well, you would be wrong. It's not a very good movie at all. But like many older movies, there is a bit of entertainment to be had by watching them, purely on seeing how bad they are. The good ones reach a level of being so bad that they are good. This one has it's moments, but ultimately it falls short of that status, probably because there is too much talking and not enough zombie action. And lets be real, the zombie action that is there, isn't that great. I mean, how is it possible that an hour long movie about zombies can have moments of tedium? Instead of a movie where they have to fight off zombies and destroy the king of the zombies, we get a bit of a whodunnit on a a tropical island, mixed in with a bit of campy humor. But its all so obvious, from crashing a plane into a graveyard, to the menacing master of the house, and the freaking title of the movie. The problem is, they drag it out over most of the movie. "Something's not right here." "I agree, but I don't know what it is." Gee, what could set you off? Could it be that the master of the house has a striking resemblance to Ardath Bey in The Mummy?(That's the old one people) Could it be that this guy has a wife who is essentially a vegetable? Could it be that every time you enter into a scary house, there is usually a reason for it being so scary? Seriously, you took an hour to tell your story, and most of it was spent on two guys figuring out the most obvious mystery known to man.

And here's the big kicker of it all...the movie is blatantly racist. I'm not talking about anything as blatant as black face, minstrel type of rascist, but it's more than your run of the mill black milkman kind of character who enters the room with something along the lines of a "Yessuh". Let me explain. One of the boneheads who takes to long to figure out what's wrong with the island has a valet, or whatever he was called, and this guy is black. The man is the comic relief because nothing says funny more than a sassy black sidekick. Okay, fine. Whatever. But it gets really rascist with some of the lines they wrote for him. I have examples, and I wrote them down to get them exactly right. First and foremost, the plane they are all in crashes on a strange tropical island. The valet wakes up with his head on a tombstone. He is afraid that he has died and begins to freak out when the other two find him and reassure him. What's his line after that? "I thought I was a little off color to be a ghost." Are you kidding me? I mean, I knew this went on, but I had never seen it with my own eyes, and had no idea how blatant it was. The guy sees a zombie for the first time, and what does he say? "If it was in me, I sure would be pale now." I was shocked. But as bad as it is, you've gotta keep this stuff out there. I know that there are people out there who would be so appalled at this, and they would never want this movie to be seen again. But I say it stays. This kind of thing was the norm back then and we have to know what it was like in order to make sure that we are never like that again. You take this away, as bad as it is, and no one learns from it. All that aside, I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be watched because its a crappy movie. Forget the rascist part, the movie sucks on its own merit.

#108 - Born to Kill

Well, I didn't have to wait very long. Those of you who read my Dillinger review(the old one), know that I was withholding judgement on Lawrence Tierney until I saw more of his work. I couldn't tell if he was a great actor playing a great part, or a one trick pony that fit perfectly into the kind of movie that was being made. I have reached the conclusion that he is the latter, but I am okay with that. I'm sold. I think he's great. Sure, he's not the best actor, but what he does is so entertaining to watch it doesn't matter. It's not like he's Keanu Reeves doing Shakespeare. This man is stone cold, hard boiled, and all those other descriptions of a classic gangster heavy. His death stare is absolutely perfect. You do not want this guy to give you his death stare. It will turn your blood cold. I realized that I had reservations about him because the movie he was in wasn't that great. Put him into something with a better script and better director, and his talents come shining right through. While writing this I also realized that for some dumb reason, I called him Gene instead of Lawrence in my review of Warren Oates' Dillinger. I fixed it, so all of you who noticed...(stunning silence)...can withhold your comments.

Now that I have said all of that, I will tell you that I think this movie actually belongs to Claire Trevor. It's all about that no good dirty dame. She gets caught up into Tierney's world of murder, and is somehow attracted to it all. She starts playing the game. Not the murder game, but the deception and backstabbing game. I gotta tell you, she is a worthy adversary for Tierney and at many times proves herself to be on equal standing with him in the department of being stone cold nasty. I can't say that I understand the reason for having them be in love with each other, except for danger attracting danger, but it is what it is, and the interaction between the two of them is so tremendously compelling that I can look past it. Major kudos to Claire Trevor for sticking it to the king of hard cases.

This movie forces me to specify another sub-category in this film genre. I wouldn't say that it's a film noir like White Heat because it doesn't have that stylized grit to it that noir reminds me of. It's not a gangster movie because none of these people are gangsters. Sure, Tierney is a criminal and has some underworld type things going on, but were aren't dealing with organized crime or anything like that. I guess the only label I can put on it is Crime Drama, but that's kind of by default. I don't really have a good label for this kind of movie. I guess it could be a pulp kind of thing, but I don't really have a good definition for what is pulp, so I can't go with that. I guess the main thing is not what it is, it's what it isn't, and that's a noir film or gangster flick.

#107 - Dillinger

A few weeks back, I review another movie by the same title starring Lawrence Tierney. While I enjoyed the movie, I found myself wanting more out of the story and portrayal of John Dillinger. Soon after posting, I got a message from my friend Boog. On his own movie page(It's under My Peeps...figure it out shmuck), he had recently talked about watching this movie back in the day, and in his message, he suggested that I watch this version of Dillinger. I was interested in this movie after reading what he had written, but I was more excited that I was actually going to be able to watch a movie that someone had recommended to me. Boog has recommended movies before, and while I make note of them, I can't bring myself to put them in my queue because it would break up the anal retentive nature of my movie placement process. This does aggravate some, and they have refused to recommend movies to me anymore. All I can say is that it's not personal, I just have a thing going and I don't wanna break up one of the most important aspects of it, the randomness. Having said all that, I actually had this DVD out and ready to watch the same day that Boog sent his message. And I did watch it that day, which was in late February. This goes to show you how behind I am in writing my reviews. I have just been a bit lazy about writing them. I have still been watching movies, just not reviewing them. Do not fret, they will be reviewed, and in the order of viewing. I have about six to do, and believe me, the schizophrenia is ridiculous. But that's not why you came here today.

Everything that I wanted out of the Tierney version of Dillinger, I found in this one. The story starts off a bit differently in this one. Dillinger has already established himself as one of the nations top bank robbers, and thankfully so because we are able to start off with a truly wonderful scene. In this scene, we see Dillinger robbing a bank, but it is shot from the perspective of a held up bank teller. Dillinger, who is masterfully played by Warren Oates, looks through the bars of the teller window and exudes confidence, charm, and a restrained ruthlessness. It was completely captivating and in a matter of moments, established the kind of person that Dillinger is. There are movies than can't establish a convincing main character at all, and this one does it in the first five minutes. Not to mention the symbolism of the iron bars.

I found the story to be pretty good as well. It's less plot driven than the Tierney Dillinger, and this left room for a look at what makes Dillinger tick. This is not to say that we are witnesses to an epiphany about the mindset of a notorious bank robber. Instead, we are shown a hint of humanity, as opposed to Tierney's stone faced ruthlessness. It might not be fair to compare the two movies since it's clear that there were different reasons for making them, but since I have seen them so recently, I can't help but do it. Warren Oates is just phenomenal. He has a great supporting cast, but he commands full attention, and delivers on every account. I particularly like the scene where he is parked on the border of Mexico. He could easily drive on over and be done with it all, but he's a bank robber, and doesn't know anything else. He's trapped by his own devices, and even with the opportunity to escape, he can't break free from it. This depth of character is completely missing in Tierney's performance, but he was in a different kind of movie. His performance actually fit into the film, it's just that his lack of depth made his movie good, while Oates' performance makes his movie great.

Another thing that appealed to me was the look of the movie. The picture quality has a grainy texture to it, and I find this to be a crucial aspect to the mood of the film. It doesn't have bright colors, and it doesn't have sharp lines. From what I can tell, this was a trend in the 70's and may have something to do with technology allowing filmmakers to do more location shots, but in this case, it was clearly done for a reason. I also have a feeling that this movie was overshadowed by the popularity of Bonnie and Clyde, but I think it has it's own wonderful merit. I haven't seen Bonnie and Clyde, so I can't get into that discussion, but it is in my queue, and someday, we will come back to it. For now, I have to consider this the best of the genre in that time period. I reserve the ability to retract that statement in the future.

#106 - Comic Book Confidential

Now this is what I am talking about. Where Comic Book: The Movie failed, this documentary succeeds. What we have here is a history of comic books that is told in a way that the fanboys can appreciate, and that the not so hardcore fans, like myself, can get interested in. Why, I might even go so far as to say that someone who isn't really a fan of comic books might enjoy this movie. This is largely due to the fact that the director of this documentary treats comic books as a legitimate art form, and gives them the respect that they are due. Add to that a little bit of being well made, and you have the ingredients for a good documentary.

I will admit that I am probably biased. Well, maybe not biased so much as I was bought off early. The first person we see interviewed in this documentary is none other than William M. Gaines. This man's father is responsible for the creation of comic books and Gaines took that creation and ran with it. He created some memorable comics, most notably Tales from the Crypt and one of my all time favorite things ever, MAD Magazine. Don't worry, it was a comic book first. Having him and Harvey Kurtzman in this movie was a treat for me because I read a TON of MAD Magazine growing up. While I didn't always understand all of the humor related to current events, or much of the references to historical moments or personalities, I recognized the sarcasm and satire that was contained within. My parents didn't let me watch rated R movies, but they had no problems getting me a copy of MAD. Little did they know that MAD would rot my brains in more ways than a movie could ever do. But it was a comic book, and comic books are for kids, right? Needless to say, MAD is directly related to my humoristic tendencies, as well as my cynical outlook towards many of the things that make up this world as we know it. That's why I was bought off early. Seeing Bill Gaines in his office, which I am presuming was at MAD headquarters, was enough to suck me in. Good thing the rest of it was worth watching.

So we get a history of comic books, which is nice because like all art forms, it went through periods of struggle, misunderstanding, and adaptation. What makes this documentary good is that it talks to some of the men who laid the foundation for the industry. And to top it off, they read segments of their comic books. Jack Kirby reading the origin of Captain America. Will Eisner reading from The Spirit. In fact, most of the comic book creators featured in this movie read from their work, but it's the old timers that really stand out in my mind. They brought a great historical perspective about how they began writing comics as well as the struggles they faced, especially the Comic Book Code.

I felt as though this documentary had three parts to it. The first being the origination of the medium. The second being the evolution of the medium through the years, as well as the simultaneous explosion of underground comics. There was a lot said about the underground comics that came out of San Francisco in the late 60's, but there wasn't quite the level of historical perspective that you got from the earlier artists. There was definately a sense of what and why, but I didn't quite get the same feeling of impact they had on the comic book world. I have a feeling that this may be due to the fact that this documentary was made in the 80's, and the impact, from a strictly historical perspective, wasn't completely understood. It was clear why they were an important part of the world of comic books, but I didn't get a feeling of the complete social impact, I could be completely wrong, but that's the feeling I got. Finally, there is a segment on current comic books. No historical perspective at all, but a good understanding of what has evolved from the layers of comic book history. It's unfortunate that this movie was made in the 80's because I wanted them to keep going. There's fifteen more years to talk about. But if that movie wasmade today, they wouldn't have gotten to talk to Bill Gaines, and that was the highlight for me personally. So I take it as it is. I have no choice.

#105 - Comic Book: The Movie

There are times when I am forced to admit that what I am watching was just not made for me. What I am talking about are things that are probably well loved by people who are great fans of the subject matter, but since I am not one of those people, I end up being completely un-entertained. But for some reason, I have this ability to see why these things are enjoyed by those fans. My biggest example of this phenomenon is The Vagina Monologues. For those who don't know, this is a play that is performed all across the country, every year on Valentine's Day. A few year back I worked on one of these performances and it was there that I realized that while it is a hugely celebrated event, I was clearly not the target audience. This is not a criticism, but at the same time, I don't feel that I can completely praise the work. Now is the point in the review where I relate a play that is a celebration and a liberation of womanhood with a mockumentary staring and directed by Mark Hamill and set at a comic book convention. Hey, the phenomenon is the same, be it liberated women or hardcore comic book fans.

I like comic books. I'm much more of a cartoon fan, but I enjoy comic books also. Much of my humor was formed in my youth by reading every issue of MAD magazine available and it's obvious rip-off Cracked. Hey, you gotta get your Don Martin fix somehow. While hanging out on the periphery at times, I have never been too deeply immersed in the comic book culture. I enjoy the artwork and storytelling talents involved in their production. I would also enjoy attending a Comic Con convention. I'm just not fully absorbed into it on the level that I think the target audience for this movie is.

First of all, there's the cameos. Most of this movie was shot on location at Comic Con when they held it in San Diego a few years ago. Needless to say, there were a ton of comic book people on hand to take part in the movie. Some of them were obvious and pointed out as such. Matt Groening, Ron Perlman, and Ray Herryhausen are some that were on the floor while they filmed. But there were many moments that were obvious cameo moments, but I had no freaking clue who the hell they were. There was a list of the cameos in the credits. I knew some names, recognized others, but most I had no idea who they were. But I guarantee you that serious comic book fans would have not only known those names, but they would have recognized those people when they were shown in the movie. These were the moments where I didn't think this was a movie for me. Comic book fans probably LOVED the cameos. It had no effect on me.

Having said all that, let's talk about it as a movie. There are some things I enjoyed, but there are things that I didn't that may have been responsible for not being able to overcome the fanboy element. I think the most important thing is that as far a mockumentaries go, it's just not very good at it. There were too many scenes that were obviously scripted. The point of a mockumentary is to tell a story, but in a documentary style. Documentaries don't have narrative scenes in them. The climactic scene itself belongs in a narrative film, not this one, at least not how they presented it here. And the thing is, the truly mockumentary moments were the best parts. The interviews with Stan Lee, Kevin Smith, and Bruce Campbell are great, but the best is when Mark Hamill is wandering around the convention floor interacting with attendees. He is playing a hardcore idealistic comic book fan with a tendency towards the golden age, and it's quite entertaining to see him roam the floor. Another great thing is that most of the other principle actors are cartoon voice over performers. of course, I didn't know all that until looking at the special features. And get this, former Baywatch babe, Donna D'Errico was in the movie playing the actress hired to play Liberty Lass, and she was quite good. She played her part very well and at times was quite humorous. I was shocked. She was also pretty damn hot, but nothing was as hot as the brief shot of the chick dressed up as Hawkgirl. But that's a different story for a different time.

#104 - My Left Foot

And the schizophrenia continues. If I remember correctly, this movie was fifth on my queue list when it was sent to me. On top of that, the movies that it jumped over should have been sent a while ago. Instead of boring you with the same old rant, I will give some kudos to blockbuster.com, but also voice a concern. The kudos that they deserve are for their delivery speed. I don't know what they did because the enevlopes are the same, but I have been having a tremendously good streak of one day turn arounds for deliveries and returns. It had been two days, which is nice, but one is even better. I know that Netflix advertises a one day delivery, but that's not what I have and I can only base my response on what I know. One thing I do know is that all DVD's not readily available can REALLY cause problems when it comes to multiple disc sets. This is my concern. I have a three disc set coming up that, unlike the Beasties Video Anthology, is very disc order specific. And wouldn't you know it, as of right now, the first disc is not readily available, and for some reason, this is one of the sets that isn't locked in to be sent in order. I just know that they are gonna send the other two discs first and I am going to have to sit on them until the first one decides to show up. That means that I would essentially be down to one disc at a time. One step forward, two steps back. But I endure because I have seen the worst already, and nothing that happens with this list can compare to what this list has already done to me. How about we talk about this movie?

My first impression of this movie was that it was very good. I though it was well made, well acted, written, directed, and all that stuff. The more I thought about it, and it is quite thought provoking, I enjoyed it more and more. The attention to detail and the filmmakers commitment to their storytelling is amazing, but there is something that stood out to me. I guess I am used to Hollywood movies with a disadvantaged main character where they force feed the sympathy, as if you couldn't have some yourself. This movie does not do that. Okay, let's play catch up for those who don't already know. My Left Foot is based on the autobiography by Christy Brown, who happens to have been born with Cerebral Palsy and only has full use of his left leg. He wrote the whole book using...have you guessed yet...my left foot...no...wait...his left foot. Anyways, I get the feeling that Christy Brown does not ask for sympathy when telling his story, and this movie does not either. It's basically his story of how he learned to be a human being despite his tremendous disadvantages. There is no pity. There is no heart break. There is tremendous internal strength by Christy himself, and his entire family.

I can't finish this review without talking about the Oscar winners in this movie. It is purely coincidence that I am writing this the day after sitting through the snoozefest that they put out as the Oscar broadcast this year. I could easily rant on and on about that, but I have chosen not to because I just don't feel. Do keep in mind that this is a criticism of the Oscar broadcast overall. Ellen was good, but the only Oscar nominated movies I have been able to see were Cars and Children of Men. Talk about schizo. Anywho, the Oscar winners in this movie were Daniel Day Lewis and Brenda Fricker. While I don't know who the other nominees were, and haven't taken the time to see who else was nominated, I can honestly say that they absolutely deserved them. Lewis was amazingly able to recreate the uncontrolable actions of a palsy victim. But it wasn't a caricature. There was never a time when I felt he was showing us a palsy victim. It was so unbelievably honest and in the midst of it, he was able to show us a human being with great frustration, heart, determination, and charm. Forrest Gump and Rainman ain't got nothin on this guy. And the kid playing a young Christy Brown was amazing also. And Brenda Fricker, man oh man. She's one of those actresses that you see all the time, usually in some sort of matronly role. Well, she is phenomenal. The struggle of not knowing what exactly to do in the face of hardship, yet willingness to do whatever it takes, and with a smile. The struggle of someone who knows what a cruel world it is because she has lived it and therefore is afraid to let her son out into it, even though the reward is probably greater than the risk. The struggle to support your child, even though you have little hope that he could ever lead what is considered a normal life. She portrays all of that, and a tremendous amount more. And she makes it look it easy. It's so subtle, and is a wonderful complement to Lewis' performance. I can't say that there has never been a movie like this before, but I sure haven't seen anything like it.

#103 - Dillinger

I don't know if you can read the tag line on the top of that picture. If you can't, I shall repeat it for you. It says, "His story is written in bullets, blood, and blondes!" How great is that? Aliteration aside, that is fantastic, that's how great it is. Think about it. Is that not the perfect tag line for a low budget black and white gangster movie from the 40's? Believe it or not, I really have nothing more to say about it. I just think it's classic.

You may have noticed that I refered to Dillinger as a gangster. I used this term for a reason, but first, let's go back a few months. I don't remember when, but some time ago I rented, watched, and reviewed a couple of movies by the names of White Heat and The Big Heat. These are classic movies of the noir genre. I know, I know, get to the damn point. I'm only mentioning it because I think there is an important distinction between noir films and gangster movies, even though the subject matter is somewhat similar. I found those two noir films to be much more dynamic and intense than Dillinger. The suspense was at a much higher level and the performances by the leading actors were superb. Dillinger seemed to be playing on a much lesser level in terms of drama and overall storytelling. The noir films were more psychological and suspensful, whereas Dillinger was more...well...bullets, blood, and blondes. It's not really a criticism of the movie other than it's what makes this movie just good and entertaining as oppossed to great. I enjoyed watching this movie because it was my first real introduction to the 40's gangster style, but White Heat and The Big Heat were much more satisfying to watch.

Now, I can't write a review about this movie without mentioning the main man himself, Gene Tierney. Myself, I only became aware of Tierney after watching Reservoir Dogs, as I assume many out there did as well. Or at least they rediscovered him. According to the film synopsis on blockbuster.com, this was the first movie to launch Tierney into cult stardom. I took particular note of this mostly from what I saw in Reservoir Dogs and what I know about Quentin Tarantino. What do I know about Tarantino? No more than anybody else does, but what is particularly of interest to me and my point is that fact that he is a film geek. I know that before he broke out, he spent a lot of time of watching a ton of old movie while working at a renal store. This made him a bit of a film historian. The knowledge and perspective he gained is not only evident in his directing choices, but I know that he uses it in his casting. Unlike most people in Hollywood, he remembers great performances and chooses to use those people in his films. Hence, John Travolta, Pam Grier, Robert Forster, etc. Well, to get to the point, Gene Tierney has to be one of those actors, and Dillinger is apparently where it all got started. So I paid special attention to his performance, and I gotta say, I wanna see more. Not because I was caught up in his tremendous portrayal, but because he appears to be a one trick pony. Its a damn good trick, but I wanna see more to really get a feel for his abilities. This is not a slam on his performance. He is a damn good tough guy, but I don't know that there was much acting going on there. I think Tierney is a legitimate hard ass who could easily knock the shit out of you if you pissed him off. I just feel like I need more information before I submit my final verdict, which is odd because I apparently have enough information to blab on like I know what film noir and gangster movies are after only watching a little bit of each genre. Oh well, that's my damn story, and I ain't changing it.

#102 - Rembrandt

Look at that picture. Doesn't it look like he got caught in the middle of something and is trying to play it off like he's not doing anything wrong? We're not talking like he was doing something inappropriate to a nude painting or nothing, but that guy got caught in the act. I bet he was painting a nude picture of the hot young neighbor lady and his old bitty of a wife walked in on him. "Uh, I'm not doing anything. Well, yeah, I'm painting...something. No...no...you can't see it. Why? Uhm...it's not done yet. You know I don't like to show my paintings until I'm done. What are you talking about? I've always been like that. No, no, don't look!! Hey, I think the goats just got out of the yard. We don't have any goats? The pigs? The hedgehogs? The newts? Oh yeah, we don't even have a yard. Okay, if you promise not to look until I'm done...I'll promise to...uh...let you throw all my stones at the next witch hunt. Deal? Deal. Okay. No, I love you more. NO, I love you more." Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but by looking at that picture you can tell that Rembrandt is up to something more than just painting.

And why, pray tell, would I spend so much time in my opening paragraph with all of that rambling on? The answer is simple. There's not a whole hell of a lot to talk about with this movie. It really doesn't do or say anything. You get a segment of Rembrandt's life that is clearly being told in a fictional way. That's fine and dandy, but by the time our story begins he is already a well renowned and famous painter. Okay, there goes any of the potential dramatic tension as he struggles with his art. He has a couple of wives, both of whom die, but you don't really care because it doesn't seem to affect him all that much, or at least beyond those particular scenes. There really is no dramatic tension in this movie whatsoever. And while I am no expert in the life and times of Rembrandt, I just have to think something interesting happened to him. Since this is probably the case, you could have put that into a movie, especially when it's fictional account of his life. That's right, these guys made up what happened, and yet nothing really happened, and yet, things seemed to happen. I don't get it.

Paradox? Did you say "paradox"? Well, yes boys and girls, there is a paradox in this movie. And that paradox is a simple case of bad writing, yet good acting of that bad writing. I'll explain. We all have learned of my dislike of what they did for the life of Rembrandt, but Charles Laughton's performance of this character is really well done. In other words, I hate what you're doing, but you're doing it well. That's a weird place to be. On top of that, the scenery was well designed, and believe it or not, the directing was well done too. That's right, it's a movie that was merely average, yet I am applauding the acting, scenery, and directing. While this sounds impossible, I believe it can actually happen when filmmakers seem to have made exactly what they wanted to make, but the final product just didn't work. It's unfortunate, but I guess it happens.

#101 - Danger: Diabolik

Oh baby, this is choice. What we have here is another link to the Beastie Boys. The Beasties used clips from an old super spy looking movie in their Body Movin video, and if you couldn't guess, this is that movie. It turns out that the guy is the best thief in the entire world and spends the movie evading the law or sexing up his hot lady friend. Usually, one leads to the other cause nothing is a better aphrodisiac than high dollar smuggling followed by a narrow escape from the law. One of the things that made this movie interesting was seeing what the Beasties took from this movie and put into their video outside of the obvious use of film clips. There is a surprising amount of stuff, and it's used in some interesting ways. If you haven't seen the video, they show it on this disc along with a little interview with the director of the video, Nathanial Hornblower, a.k.a. Adam Youch, a.k.a. MCA.

Aside from the Beastie Boys connection, there is a TON of stuff here that amuses the living hell out of me. This is another case of seeing the source material for a seemingly endless amount of spoofs. And the style of this movie is so over the top in every aspect that it is quite easy to do a spoof of. Everything is way over the top. The heists, the escapes, Diabolik's underground lair. By the way, the guys name is Diabolik. What's interesting about the film's style is that if you take any of the individual elements of the film(plot, acting, scenery, cinematography), they are ridiculous. None of it is believable and could easily be considered cheesy. But the makers of this film went to the extreme in all aspects. How many times have you watched a movie where the film makers were too scared to commit to the ridiculousness of what they are making, and therefore ending up making the movie worse than what it would have been if they just had some cojones? These guys went there with everything. Sure, there is overacting around every corner, but does it matter that much in a movie where the government takes all of their gold and melts it into one huge brick as a lure to catch the master thief? AND HE STEALS IT TOO!! Look, it may not be your thing, but it is certainly amusing, and consistent from beginning to end.

And now for the serious analysis. There is a point in this movie where the government puts a bounty on Diabolik's head. He decides that no one can cash that in if there is no money. So he blows up all of the country's financial institutions, thereby destroying all financial records of any kind. First of all, that's ridiculous. Second of all, that would NEVER be allowed to be filmed in this day and age. This is not a condemnation of the current atmosphere that is sensitive to all things deemed "terrorist", it's just something that put things into a bit of a perspective for me. This feeling was supported by some of the things in the bonus features. The bonus features brought up some things that I hadn't thought of, but are related to what was on my mind. Mainly, what the mindset of Italians was in the late 60's. Think about it, the main character of this movie is a villain, and not in an anti-hero way. He is a criminal, the police are trying to catch him, and we are rooting for him to get away. He makes them look like fools at times, and we enjoy every bit of it. It's an interesting reversal of what we are used to seeing and puts more things into perspective for me. Of course, there's also some sweet lovemaking with his hot ass lady friend on the piles of cash that they had just stolen and taken to his underground lair.

#100 - Beastie Boys: Horseplay

TAADAA!!! Trumpets blaring!!! Horns...also blaring!!! It's a momentous occasion complete with sweeping changes. Okay, it's not that sweeping. A new template to change things up, and it's the shwanky new Google thang so I can add things on the sidebar without having to know HTML, which is good because HTML and me are not on a level playing field. And add things I did. I have lists of reviewed movies I really liked and strongly disliked. If you can't figure out which is which, you...are...a...moron. I have put all of the movies that fall into their respective categories in for now, but I will whittle it down over time so that I don't have a super long list there. In case you hadn't noticed, I aim for brevity. I was shocked to see that I recommended about a third of the movies I watched. Of course, the majority of them were movies that weren't good enough to fully recommend, or bad enough to totally hate, which is kind of sad. And since HTML is my mortal enemy, and since changing things over deleted some custom changes I had done for the old template, there is no sitemeter or subscription option at the bottom of the page. But do not fret!! I will somehow figure out how to get those back. I had help putting them there in the first place, I will require help to put them back. Anyways, I hope you enjoy the new arrangement. If you don't...tought shit. I'm not changing anything until review 200.

But let's get to review 100 since that's what you really came here for, isn't it? Oh, you're bored at work? I have no shame, I'll take it. Well, here's another DVD that is related to the Beatsie Boys. I say related because it's the unauthorized biography of the band. When it's unauthorized, that means there is either something in the biography that subject matter doesn't want you to know, or the subject matter had absolutely nothing to do with the production of the biography. This was the latter, and therefore, is pretty lame. Well, it's not really that lame, it's just not very worthwhile. First of all, this has the look and feel of a cheepie, direct to DVD production. Also, I think it's British. I have no evidence of this other than the fact that the narrator has a British accent. At least it was only an hour long.

Here's my real beef with the whole thing: while there was a lot of info about how the guys got together and developed their sound, they weren't involved at all, so it's was interviews with ex band members and childhood friends. Sorry, but I need more than what that can offer me. And the thing that really blows about it is that there are NO Beastie Boys songs. UGH!! Bleech! I understand that this was a low budget operation, but if you aren't going to have any of the tunes you are talking about, I'm not interested. What's funny is that there is a brief moment where we actually hear from Mike D himself. The only thought that came to me at that point was, "They ponied up to get a short clip from somebody else's interview, but they couldn't swing some freakin' tunes?" But by far, the most hilarious part of the whole thing is the interview with the old band memeber who got kicked out before they even called themselves by their current name. What's funny about it is when he is talking about being kicked out for drinking too much and all that crap, he is sitting in a bar and drinking a beer. I'll reapeat: While talking about being kicked out for too much drinking, HE WAS IN A BAR, DRINKING A BEER!!! At what point didn't you realize that your drinking issues caused you to miss out on millions. I hope for your sake that the producers paid for the tab cause you probably need all of the money they are giving you to do the interview. But I digress. Kind of a lackluster DVD for a milestone review, but what are you gonna do?

#99 - The Work of Director Spike Jonze

Those of you out there that are regular readers of this page may be confused by this DVD entry. Why would you be confused? Well, if I didn't know any better, and usually I don't, I would wonder how in the hell a DVD that celebrates the work of one of the most imaginitive directors in recent times could possibly be related and/or linked to an old black and white movie about loggers in Wisconsin. The simple answer is...IT DOESN'T!!! Well...actually...the grammatically correct answer would be...IT ISN'T!!! You see, in the last few weeks to months, the ability of blockbuster.com to send the DVD's in my queue in the order that they were placed into said queue has been quite lacking. It's common for them to send the #2 movie before the #1 movie. Sometimes it just happens. But when the movie is listed as available, I pretty much expect it to be...well...available. I have been sent the #5 DVD, even though there were four DVD's on the list in front of it, all listed as available. I have had the #3 DVD sent, that according to blockbuster.com needed a short wait before the inventory was restored enough to be able to send me a copy. Problem is, there were TWO movies in front of it that were listed as available. That's right!! They sent the unavailable one before the available ones. In a way, I'm all for it. You all know I am going for a random thing here, this just makes it a little bit more schizophrenic. I just wish they would get their damn availablity straight. I don't want the top of my queue list to get clogged up with unavailable movies, but I also have no faith in the fact that they are actually unavailable. I also don't want to delete the unavailable ones from my queue because I do know that in time they can become available. Oh well, I'll just keep on rolling with what they send me, but don't be to suprised by the order of DVD's because sometimes it's just not gonna make any damn sense.

And now for the DVD at hand. I love this guy. You know I love this guy, especially if you read my review of Adaptation. His imagination, his conceptualization, his ability to make the abstract normal, and his commitment to his vision are all top notch qualities. TOP NOTCH. But this DVD is all about his music videos. This means I get to see a couple of Beastie Boys videos again, and a couple of Weezer videos that I already have on DVD. But there are a bunch more from the like of Dinosaur Jr., The Breeders, The Pharcyde, Fatboy Slim, Bjork, and more. It's kind of a greatest hits of his videos, cause he made a lot of them and theres only about twenty of them here. There's a ton of stuff on this DVD also. Tons of commentaries as well as some short documentaries. I had to split it up into three viewings. The videos, the videos with commentary, and the documentaries. I'm not gonna comment on everything, but I will comment on what stood out to me.

The flaming guy on the cover is from a Wax video. As good as the video is, I probably couldn't recognize the song if you played it for me right now. Maybe I could, but the point is that I get so absorbed in the video that I don't really pay attention to the song. The Pharcyde video is phenomenal. Again, I don't remember the song, but the video is tremendous. They filmed it with everybody walking backwards and then played it in reverse, which has them moving forward, but in an odd way. The best part about it is that the members of Pharcyde memorized the song in reverse. This means that even though they are walking forwards/backwards their mouths match the lyrics of the song. There is a special feature with a behind the scenes look at that video which is quite good. Making a video for a Notorious B.I.G. song where everybody is played by kids is not only imaginitive, but the attention to detail Spike used to replicate the style rap videos had in the 90's is so good, I had moments where I thought it was a replication of an existing video. I wised up after listening to the commentary by P. Puffy Daddy Combs, which brings me to the commentaries. The commentaries were done by the artists who Spike made the videos for, which I find to be quite interesting. Some of the videos have commentaries from performersin the videos. This is highlighted by Christopher Walken commenting on his Fatboy Slim video...which is one of the best ones on the disc. Also, there is an extended commentary segment where the Beastie Boys do commentary on some of Spike's other videos. Very entertaining, especially when they joke about how Spike still owes them money. Finally, and I am cutting myself off here because there is a ton of stuff to talk about but I don't want to blab on forever, the Bjork video is tremendous. I'm not a big fan of Bjork. Just not my thing. But this song is actually quite good, and the video does a bang up job of highlighting the music and its charm. And you can't go wrong with a dancing mailbox. The Fatboy Slim video for Praise You is probably his most famous and widely praised video, but I mention it for another reason. The fictional dance troupe that Spike created for the video took on a life of its own when it went to perform at MTV's Video Music Awards. There is a documentary on the disc about their preparation for that performance. It might be the most entertaining part of the video, mainly because of Spike commitment to the character throughout the whole thing, including the awards ceremony. Finally, and believe me I am cutting this short because I don't want to babble on more than I already have, but I certainly could, the Bjork video is tremendous. I'm not a big fan Bjork's. Just not my thing. But this song is actually quite good, and the video supports and emphasizes the music about as well as any video I have ever seen. Wildy fun and inventive. I mean, you can't go wrong with a dancing mailbox.

#98 - Come and Get It

Oh goody!! Nothing is more exciting than a story about loggers in Wisconsin around the turn of the last century. That's right. I said loggers....in Wisconsin....turn of the LAST century. Kind of makes the title a wee bit ironic if you ask me. But, let me just say that this movie is only partially as boring and unentertaining as it seems. By that I mean that it's not completely boring or unentertaining, but it ain't exactly something I would put at the top of my list of lumberjack classics. And don't act like you don't all have your own little list of favorite lumberjack movies. Firestorm doesn't count cause he's a firefighter and just happens to be in the woods. That, and no movie that stars Howie Long as the main character should be in a favorites list of any kind.

This movie was adapted from some book that I don't remember the name of because I watched this a while ago and haven't gotten around to writing the review until now. I can't help but feel that the book was more entertaining, which is usually the case, but I think more so for this movie, and I'll tell you why. The story is one of those sweeping tales of ambition, lost love, and all the crap that goes with it, and there's a lot of stuff in the stories that can't fit into a whole movie. It seems to me that whomever adapted the novel decided to stick with the most important plot points and try to fill in what they can between those points. Don't expect me to know who adapted the novel. If I can't be bothered to remember or even look up the name of the novel, what chance is there that I would know or look up the screenwriter? Absolutely none. To get back to my original point, with little more than important plot points, I found it hard to really get invovled in the movie. It's like when I read The Partner by John Grisham. Whole lotta plot, and little else to sink your teeth into. The difference being that one is about a lawyer who staged his own death in order to cover the fact that he stole a crapload of money, and the other is about LOGGERS IN WISCONSIN!!! Let's review. A movie about loggers that is more plot than anything else. Wake up the kids!!!

I will admit that there is a part of me that is curious about the whole story. Since it is based on what I can only assume was a popular novel, then there HAS to be more to the story than what I have seen, and that may be some well written stuff. A lot of times the stuff that is cut out of the movie versions of a story is the most imaginative aspect of that story, but really hard to transfer over to the big screen. I think this is why we should outlaw the phrase "the book was better" as a criticism of a movie. It's not a valid point. I can't tell you how many times I wanna know how a movie is and the first thing someone says is that the book was better. NO SHIT!! But thats not what I asked!! I didn't ask how the adaptation was. We may get to that in our conversation, but it's not what I asked. If the movie was better than the book, that is something that is worth pointing out because it is extremely rare. The only movie that comes to mind at this point is Lost World, and that wasn't even that good of a movie. Kind of tells you how I felt about the book. Along the same lines, I really get iritated by the purists. You know the people I'm talking about. These are the losers who raise hell because a movie wasn't exactly the same thing that the book was. Two words for you: "loosely" and "based". Get over it. I open up Yahoo! one day and there's a story about people who are unhappy that the movie Eragon doesn't follow the book that well. With all the things in the world to get upset about, you have to piss and moan about a movie based on a book about a kid riding a fuckin dragon? Yes, I have been disappointed when a movie screwed uo the story of a book I enjoyed, but I will talk about the aspects of the movie that I didn't like and why. Just saying the book was better doesn't say anything at all because it usually is. And these people get so adamant about it. Well you know what, you purists can go jump off a cliff, and take the continuity error geeks and editing mistake eye-hawks with you. Have I ranted enough? Good.

#97 - Hoffa

If I remember correctly, there was a trend in the 90's of making biographical movies on controversial subjects or individuals. I'm thinking along the lines of JFK and Nixon, but I haven't seen either of those, nor did I take the time to look up when they came out, so I could be talking out of my ass. It just seems like there was a trend back then and this one was in the middle of it all. Todays trends include superheroes, uplifting sports tales, and my least favorite, horror/monster movie remakes. Superheroes and sports tales I understand because these are stories that have been around and/or shared for years. As far as the horror/monster movies go, if you have something to offer us with a remake, then go for it. Otherwise, I'm not interested. And since I haven't seen any of them other than King Kong, it's shows that I'm not interested, and besides, King Kong is on a different level than the remakes anyways. Have I gotten too far off track yet?

I had low expectations for this movie. Mostly because there was a bunch of controversy around it, and I don't remember it doing that well. That controversy probably has to do with the controversial nature of the subject matter, and while box office results are in no way a measuring stick of the value of a movie, I had a feeling that it was another built up epic that, despite it's good intentions, fell short of the hype. Well, I think we have a rare case where none of that happened. First of all, it's an interesting movie. Most of that is due to the top notch performances by Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito, but another part of it is due to my next point. This is not a carbon copy Hollywood biopic. I sat through much of it thinking that they were setting up Hoffa as a hero, but the there were moments where he does some pretty underminded things, so he's not a good guy. I couldn't tell what they were saying about him, until it hit me that they weren't taking a stance at all. They were remaining ambiguous about one of the most controversial figures in recent American history. There are people who think he was a no good criminal who was in with the mob, yet at the same time, you have someone who was loved and revered by working men all over the country. Polar opposites, and now you get to decide. I think that's quite interesting and unbelievably brave. Normally, a movie tells you what they want you to think. I get the feeling that people have come to expect that, and when they don't see it, they reject it, which is a shame.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is a tremendous breakthrough of cinematic achievment that deserves another look. I'm just saying that it does something different than what I normally see from this kind of movie. I have no doubt that this isn't the first movie to do such a thing, but as far as I know, it's the first one I have seen, and I think it's unique for such a high budget Hollywood movie. Even with all of that, there is something dangerous about this movie that I have to mention. Much of what you see in this movie is fictitious. Danny DeVito and Armande Assante's characters were both created to move the story along. While I have no problem with historical fiction, there is no indication in this movie that these two people are fabricated. I had to watch the bonus materials to find this out. This is the kind of thing that changes people's perception of history. I don't normally watch the bonus stuff and if I hadn't I would have thought that most of this was accurate. Dramatic liberties aside, Hollywood has to be careful with the big stick that it wields. I recently watched Robert Wuhl's Assume the Position again and much of what he talks about relates to this matter. Be careful Hollywood, and more importantly, be aware movie goers. You can bitch and moan all you want when a movie hasn't been adapted word for word from the book, but think about when history is changed. I'll get off my soap box now.

#96 - New York Stories

I liked exactly two thirds of this movie. This is when those of you who don't know anything about it go, "HUH". Well, this is one of those movies that is actually three short films with a common theme. It's like Four Rooms, except that it was released first and there are only three segments and I haven't seen Four Rooms anyways so I don't really know that its like four rooms in any other way than structure but that was my original point so I'm rolling with it. I bet if you guess really, really hard, you could figure out what the common theme in this movie is. The thing is, they aren't movies about New York, they are movie set in New York. And remember, I only liked two thirds of it. At this point, if it isn't completely obvious what that means, then maybe your time would be better spent trying to figure out why donut holes don't really fit into the holes in donuts.

First segment: Life Lessons by Marty S. You may have forgotten because it has been awhile since reviewing some of his movies, but that's Martin Scorsese. This movie is about an established artist, played by Nick Nolte, who has hired an aspiring young artist as his assistant, played by Rosanna Arquette. Now there's some backstory of sexual relations and her doubting her artistic abilities and his ability to create something for his next show, but what really makes it all interesting is the jealousy he portrays as she tries to break free and discover her own artistic voice. There are moments when he is a mentor, there are moments when he appears to be a manipulative pervert, there are moments when his jealousy causes him to make a scene in public, and there are moments when he appears to be truly remorseful in a pitiful kind of way. I found myself wondering if he was in control of his actions, yet fueled by jealousy, or if the jealousy was in control of him and he was intentionally fueling it himself. I'm not sure if that made any sense, but we get the answer at the end of the segment, and I'm not gonna tell you what it is. Just know that it's an "OH NO YOU DINT!!" moment.

Second Segment: Life without Zoe by Francis Ford Coppola. Another classic director. It has to be good, right? NOT!! This movie about a rich couples daughter who primarily lives in a shwanky Manhattan apartment with her butler while her parents are off being rich around the globe. Apparently she's a savvy young girl who has a knack for getting things and people together to come together. In retrospect, I guess I can see some of the intricacies of the script, co-written by Franky and his daughter Sophie, but it seems like more of it was written by a young girl...like Sophie. I just couldn't wrap my head around the storyline and that's mainly because I didn't know what kind of movie it was supposed to be. Much of it has the feel of a Nickelodeon type movie with a kid main character that uses their little wiles to save the bake sale, or some shit like that. But then, it's filmed in a style that is completely different from a kids movie. It's a juxtaposition that just doesn't make sense to me because most of it is cutesy stuff that contradicts much of what I see. I found myself wondering why the hell I was watching this movie. Did Franky walk down to breakfast one day and say to Sophie, "You write something and I will direct it, just make sure it's in New York." Then he reads it and goes, "Oh shit, she wrote a fucking kids movie. I know mobsters and Joseph Conrad, not kids movies. Oh well, we can call the whole thing art, give it a limited release just before the end of the new year and hope for some Oscar buzz." Hmmm...not so much.

Third Segment: Oedipus Wrecks by Woody. For those of you that have been reading all of these reviews you may remember that Radio Days was my first Woody Allen movie, and I wasn't too impressed. Well, this little segment is more of what I was looking for. It's stereotypical Woody and I know this because all I know are his stereotypes. Insecure Jewish guy who seeks advice from his therapist because of the neuroses he has developed from the relationship with his mother. It's classic, well I think it's classic. Woody is Woody, his mother drives him crazy, and his neurotic rambling is quite entertaining. Here's the twist, and it's funny as hell, they go to a magic show where his mother is volunteered to go on stage. She gets put into a box, the magician pokes swords through, and abracadabra, she has disappeared. But when he removes the swords and opens the box, she is actually missing!! Fantastically funny moment. Especially Larry David as the stage manager. Well, she appears a couple of weeks later, but it's just her head floating in the skyline over New York City. So bizarre, yet so amusing. And it's great writing too. Most of his neurotic nature is unfounded, and when she is gone, he feels that a great weight has been lifted from his life, but then his neuroses are amplified as she tells all of Manhattan the things that drove him crazy in the first place. Julie Kavner is great as the psychic who tries to help him out. Quite amusing. And I am ending this review because I have gone on longer than I usually like to. Felt I needed to give each segment is due, even if one of them didn't have much to offer.

#95 - Star!

I have made it abundantly clear in the past that I am not very fond of musicals. Rather than babble on about it again, I'll go a different route. This route is one where I say that even though I don't like the genre, I know top notch talent when I see it, and everybody knows that Julie Andrews is top notch talent. I love Mary Poppins and can deal with most of The Sound of Music, but let me tell you, I think her performance in this movie is better than the both of those. And those are classics!! This movie is over three hours long and she is on screen for a vast majority of it, and there was no moment where I felt that what she was doing was out of place, overdone, or that irritating, which in my mind is easy to do with musicals. Can you say segue?

Here's where I once again redefine what a musical is in my mind. Rather, I will explain to you why this movie is not a musical, and therefore led to my better enjoyment of it. To me, a musical is when you have a story where the characters break out into song at seemingly random, yet predictable moments. Look everybody, we are having a sleepover and I am imagining that I am Sandra Dee.....let's sing about it!! Why does Star! not fit into this category? Because it's a biopic about a stage performer. Julie Andrews plays stage legend Gertrude Lawrence and every song that she sings in this movie is a performance. You can't have a movie about Johnny Cash without music, but that doesn't mean the movie is a musical. The same rule applies here. If the movie is about a singer or band, that singer or band has to perform in the movie, but since that activity is the natural action of a singer or band, then the movie is not a musical. I'm sorry, but farmers in Oklahoma don't dance around and sing in the corn fields. By the way, that's a new rule I just came up with so if Fosberg and Chubbs could draft that up and fax it over, I could take a look at it and make it official.

The question I had about this movie was why it wasn't more popular considering the performance by Andrews. I mean, when it all comes down to it, I only thought the movie was okay. Andrews was great and Daniel Massey as Noel Coward was a tremendously entertaining foil. But why hadn't I heard of it before? I perused the net and found a summary on some site by some dude(I don't remember the details) and he seemed to think it was because the character was dependent on a relationship with a man for true happiness and this didn't sit well with the women's lib movement in the late 60's. Uhm...how can I put this...WRONG. Way to put a modern spin on something and not really watch what was there. Let's not forget that she was seeking a deep interpersonal relationship with anyone. Let's not forget that she tried to have a relationship with her daughter and that didn't work out. Sure, a lot of time was spent on her relationships with a handful of guys, but he search for a meaningful relationship was only the focus of the latter part of the movie and was clearly the result of having spent her life searching for the limelight and focusing on her own fame, only to find that she had little to show for it in the way of true friendship. I think I found the real culprit for the lack of success of this movie by reading the blockbuster.com synopsis. It says that this movie was marketed as the follow up to The Sound of Music. Oh marketing guys, why do you set yourself up for failure by trying to pull something like that? When you take a movie that is legendary and try to attach something that is completely unrelated to it, there is no way that you can possibly meet the expectations that you have established. No matter how good this movie is/was/may have been, people must have gone in thinking they were going to see something like The Sound of Music, and that is not what Star! is. Screwed up by crappy marketing. Good thing Hollywood has learned from their mistakes....ahem....

#94 - The Beastie Boys Video Anthology: Disc 1

Not only has it been a while since I wrote my last review, it's been a while since I watched this DVD. A busy work schedule and the holidays have proven to be a distraction, but not to worry, football season is almost over and that means more movie watching time. Of course I make no guaruntees since there is only about a month between the end of football and the start of March Madness, and then soon after the end of basketball and hockey is right around the corner. Basically what I am saying is that you are gonna have to deal with what I give you. I ain't gettin payed, and you ain't payin nothin, so you better be happy with what you got.

As far as this DVD goes, you had to know it was coming. You could be an imperceptive moron, and if that is the case, then every day is a suprise to you, isn't it? I will iterate again about how stupid blockbuster.com can be for sending the second disc first. And for those of you who are saying, "Why don't you use Netflix?", well, blockbuster.com was cheaper at the time. They have since corrected that, but I don't feel like changing. I also have an irrational tendency to reject the trendy stuff. For example, I don't have a myspace page. I know. It's crazy. Here's another thing, I don't want to own a Razor cell phone. I must be crazy because you see those things EVERYWHERE. Most importantly, it's a good that this page isn't really a b@#g, because that is the most annoying trend of all, if not the most annoying phrase in recent history, and I wouldn't want to be a part of that.

Am I rambling on or what? I must be avoiding something. Actually, it's more of a case of not having much to say that I didn't already say for the second disc, which was the first disc I got. Good videos, good music, all the same points about the camera angles and the remixes. Blah, Blah, Blah. Here's the real scoop. I also had to break this DVD into a couple of two and a half hour segments. I watched every remix and camera angle available. The problem is that these two disc came around a time when the finances were a bit tight. In other words, I was broke. So I stayed home and did nothing for a weekend. Unfortunately, this same weekend my Xbox was broken, and the cable and internet were not working properly....for the WHOLE WEEKEND!!!! Over the three evenings of the weekend, I watch the majority of these discs and I wanted to smash my brains in. There is something known as too much of a good thing, and this was it. Too many remixes in a short period of time is enough to turn your brain into shit.

In order to make actual comments about the DVD itself, I give you this short paragraph. The different camera angles for Intergalactic are some of the best in the entire set. The Beasties in space suits running around the train stations and streets of Japan is great to watch, especially because it's crowded and the people don't know what is going on. Side note on the angles, the angle changing feature wasn't working right on this disc and it made it harder to watch them. Add that on top of what I said earlier and the rage was compounded. While Body Movin is a good video, it was never my favorite Beasties song. I didn't think it really sounded like the Beatsies and was kind of disappointed. Turns out I am an idiot because the version that has been released is the Fatboy Slim remix. I finally heard the actual song. Still not my favorite, but more like their stuff, which is good. Side note on the video, the movie that the video is a spoof of is in my queue list. Lookin forward to that one. If you don't know what the movie is, too bad!!! And in closing, the last video on this disc happened to be So Watcha Want. Another one of my all time FAVORITES by these guys, so I went home happy, figuratively speaking.