#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.