#40 - One Good Cop

This movie actually came in a two DVD set with Copland. Kind of like those annoying two-pack's you see at Costco that always seem to have one movie you want, but the other movie is one that you already own, or that nobody should ever want to own cause its a flaming piece of crap. As far as blockbuster.com is concerned this two-pack is considered a boxed set, which can be placed in your queue list as a set, or the discs can be placed there individually, which is a process that can be silly and not worth devoting any attention to right now. I bring all this up because I was thinking that this movie might be a good one. If one DVD in a two pack is usually not a very good movie, and Copland was not a very good movie, then this one has potential. Well, I was wrong. There can be two bad movies in a two-pack.

Let's just start off with the first sign that this was going to be a stinker. In the first scene that we see Michael Keaton's partner, played by Anthony Lapaglia, he is waking up in the morning, his daughters come in, you realize that the mother has passed away, its all very touching. What you do notice is that he has a cut on the bride of his nose. Okay, that's fine. Next scene with him is later that morning when he meets Keaton . . . and the cut is gone. Hmm, maybe he just cleaned the blood off is all. Well, they go to an apartment building in a bad neighborhood investigating a shooting or something. While there, they get jumped by three guys and in the ensuing scuffle, HE CUTS THE BRIDGE OF HIS NOSE!!!!! Seriously, how did that get missed? Or if it was noticed, how in the hell do you leave that in? I'm not one of those annoying jackasses who pays attention to the bite patterns on a sandwich in some scenes, but this is a cut RIGHT BETWEEN HIS FREAKING EYES!!! I guess the bad guys just reopened the wound.

So the Austrailian who acts like and Italian ends up getting killed. Don't worry, I'm not ruining anything since his death is the catalyst for much of the rest of the film. But then Mikey and his wife Renee Russo have to look after his kids after they haven't been able to have children. Are you sensing the dramatic tension yet? So we get a good cop/good husband thing, which could be an okay idea for a movie, just not this one. Really, this is the movie for you if you enjoy generic, cliche cop stories interspersed with REALLY sappy dramatic moments. And the two just dont really blend together. There is a cop moment, followed by a husband moment, then a cop moment, etc. Oh, there are generic Hispanic bad guys too. And there is Benjamin Bratt working outside of his normal range and playing a cop, if you can believe that one. And by the way, does Renee Russo do anything different in any of her movies? I have no problems with her as an actress, loved Get Shorty, but she is always the female lead in love or falling in love with the male lead. Think about it. Lethal Weapon. Ransom. Tin Cup. All the same damn thing for her.

In conclusion, this movie is a piece of crap.

#39 - America's Atomic Bomb Tests: Operation Hardtack

Every once and awhile, something comes along to shake the foundation upon which you stand. Something comes along that makes you question the activities that you once thought were a good idea. You wonder if you are wasting your time with things that were meant to be innocent and fun. I'm not talking about this DVD in these terms because the subject matter is so apalling and devestating. Instead, I am saying this because this DVD is so unbelievably BORING!!! I mean, it was a complete waste of time. It was so dreadful and hard to watch that I questioned the idea of watching just about every DVD that came down the pipe. We are talking about the very foundation of this whole little exercise/journey/thing that I am doing. I wanted to turn it off, I really did. I didnt even get that feeling watching Promised Land or For Keeps, and god knows, if any two movies deserved to be shut off, it was them. So what could be so dreadful to someone who actually recommends that people watch the movie Gigli so they can see what a monumental train wreck of a bad idea it was? What could be so dreadful to someone who actually watches pro wrestling as a guilty pleasure? I'll tel you what. This is a DVD with four 20ish minute films from the Air Force reporting results of atomic bomb tests to the Department of Defense. Are you still awake? Its done in that 50's educational film style that we saw in the FBI moments of A Street With No Name. It was cool at first, but that lasted all of three minutes. That left about 77 minutes of BORING science. I can't even begin to explain some of the crap they were going on about. Shock waves in different types of soil. Air pressure differences from different explosion heights. Shock waves in water explosions and all the scientific mumbo jumbo and explanations to go along with it. I mean COME ON!!! The only people who could possibly be interested by this are extreme military history buffs. But seriously, did these things really need to be put onto a DVD? Did they even need to be released to the public? I'd rather watch Falcon Crest on DVD. I'd rather watch new episodes of So NoTORIous. I'd rather watch Toby Keith being interviewed by Jay Leno. I'd rather watch I Love the 90's cause god knows we need to reminisce about the time waaaay back when the Spice Girls when doing their thing. I'd rather watch Saved By the Bell on Adult Swim.(credit for that one goes to Bubba: http://damommasboyz.com/columns/btrain/bt_06-05-01.html ) The worst part about the entire DVD? There was no sound on the last film. None whatsoever. You would think that that would make it better, like muting Brittney Spears videos. But NO. What was confusing to understand when they were trying to explain it to you was even worse when you had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on except for they blowing stuff up. Whats worse than that? The fact that this is one disc in a three DVD set. My patience will be strongly tested. I will be forced to remember the real reason for watching everything is to be pleasantly suprised by movies I wouldnt have otherwise chosen to watch. From now on, this type of endeavor will be known as Searching For Before Sunrise. If you don't get that, check the archives and read the review.

#38 - The Mysterious Man of the Shroud

Here we have another made for TV documentary along the lines of In The Grip of Evil, except that this one doesn't completely suck. Analyze that sentence. By saying "doesn't completely suck" I mean its nowhere near as painful to watch as Grip of Evil was, but it ain't the best way I have ever spent an hour.

Honestly, the story surrounding the Shroud of Turin(if you hadn't already guessed the subject matter) is quite interesting. This documentary traces the origins of what the shroud is believed to be, as well as the journey it has taken into modern times. There is a huge debate in religious circles as to the validity of this piece of fabric being the actual shroud of Jesus Christ, and this documentary explains both sides and all of their arguments quite well. There is both scientific and historic evidence that confirms and denies the authenticity of this artifact. Religious beliefs aside, I think its an interesting story about a controversial piece of history.

In what may be the most unneccessary video footage of a documentary narrator, we are graced with the presence of Hector Elizondo. Apparently Gary Marshall wasn't making a movie. I say unneccessary because there is really no reason for us the see Hector in this thing at all. But at least a couple of times in between commercial breaks(remember...made for TV) we get to see Hector standing in some fake historical library saying what could have been said without seeing him. I mainly bring this up to ask the question: Why do all documentary narrators have to hold one of their arms across their midsection poised for an ambiguous gesture? You know the pose I am talking about. One hand in the pocket. The other attached to a forearm oddly gesturing for suppossed emphasis. They all do it and Hector is no exception. News reporters, or "TV journalists" like to do it too.

In conclusion, the big selling point of this whole dog and pony show was that with modern technology, for the first time we were going to see what people could see if they used just a fraction of their imagination. That's right, we were going to see a three dimensional representation of the image on the Shroud of Turin. Could we be looking at what the real Jesus Christ looked like? The anticipation was killing me, especially since they mentioned it going into every commercial break. And then...the big moment. I was completely underwhelmed. It reall wasn't that big of a deal. The interesting thing about it was that when they showed the back of this guy, they DIDN"T GIVE HIM A BUTT CRACK!!!!! What the hell is that all about. Is it going to disrupt someones Christian sensiblities to show Jesus with a butt crack that probably had for most of his life? "Mommy, why doesn't Jesus have a butt crack like we do?" People who would be offended by that are the kinds of people offended by a boob at the Superbowl. What the damn point? It looks weirder with him having a rounded hump back there. And for those of you wondering about the other side, his hands cover the area so they can get away with it. That's it. I have talked about Jesus' nether regions enough for one day.

#37 - The Street With No Name

Oh boy, another film noir film. Did I just say that? Anyways, even with my limited exposure to true film noir, I can safely say that this was film noir light, or diet film noir, or the Tab of film noir. Shall I go on? You see, the movie isn't bad, it's just not as good as what I have seen before. Of course I am thinking of White Heat since I recently saw it. (and reviewed it...check it out...by now it's in the archives...figure it out) This just didn't have that raw intensity that you saw in White Heat. But there were some good things in it, but also some bad things. Well, not necessarily bad, but things that left you going "huh?".

First of all, the crime story aspect of the movie was entertaining. Like I said before, it didn't have that intensity you got in White Heat, but it was an entertaining story. The main villain, while not completely ruthless and cold blooded, was well played. As was the undercover cop. I guess I just can't say it enough, its not the best film noir, but it is an entertaining story. It's just the other aspect of the movie that's a little bit odd.

Part of the premise of this movie is that it shows how the FBI does it's investigations into criminal activity. But it does it in the style of a 50's educational video. Follow me here...you're watching a crime movie and some commissioner or other high ranking officer says to get that stuff to the lab, or see what the guys in forensics say, or something like that. Then we get the cheesy narrator talking about life in the hallowed halls of the FBI. Your left sitting there wondering what the hell happened. All of a sudden you're watching How To Survive A Nuclear Attack meets CSI. The only thing is that this movie was made in the 50's, so the investigative technology is completely outdated!! There's one part where and FBI officer has a name or something and goes to check the files...IN THE CARD CATALOG!!! It's hard to look past the time gap with something like this because it calls so much attention to the amazing processes the FBI uses to catch criminals and processes used are just so old. Its just a number of weird moments in an otherwise okay movie.

#36 - In the Grip of Evil

Like the last review, I really don't have any patience setting anything up with this one. This thing blows. It seems that there is a true story that William Peter Blatty based The Exorcist on. This is a little documentary about that story. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Especially after just seeing the movie, it should be interesting to see. Well . . . it was . . . but the thing sucks so that lasted about five minutes.

Before I get into what exactly sucked about this little thing, I do want to mention some of the things I got out of it, cause there actually were some. I found it interesting that the child who was possesed and exorcised was actually a young boy. That and there were a number of elements from his story that manifested themselves in a number of various ways, at least from what I saw in the movie. Don't know about the book...yet. Was that detailed enough for you? TOO BAD!! Thats as detailed as I wanna get cause that's as detailed as it deserves.

You see, this hour-ish long thing is an okay idea wrapped in a nice package of wasted time. First of all, they didn't really have that many pictures or anything related to the story, so most of what was seen was all dramatic re-enactments. And since it was all in the past, the re-enactments were done with that little bit blurry, not really focusing on any thing style thats okay if you have a quick flashback, but the whole damn thing is a flashback!! It's a story...about something...from the past. Don't plague my eyes with a crappy convention for the whole damn show.

There were interviews of priests and other people related to the story that did give a little bit of legitimacy to the thing. And I forgot about it until just now, but one of them was a priest in the room during many of the boys exorcisms. This was actually quite interesting and captivating, but its like eating a cheeseburger after shoving dog poo into your mouth for an hour. Sure, you're eating a cheeseburger, but you still have the taste of poo on your tongue. The truly good thing about this thing was that it was short. It is definately not what I had in mind by watching everything. But I'll keep watching these damn things because I may actually be suprised by one of them. It has happened. But seriously folks, this is the kind of crap that makes me look forward to watching teen movies about gymnastics. STICK IT!!!

#35 - Mickey

I'm not even going to set anything up. This movie sucked. Apparently John Grisham grew up playing baseball, so he decided to write a movie that contains baseball. Hey John, stick with the lawyers. Tell a Christmas tale every now and then if you must, but leave baseball alone. This movie is only partly about baseball anyways. You see Harry Connick is a bit of a shady accountant, or lawyer, or something like that. Maybe Grisham did have a laywer in this. I don't remember and it doesn't really matter. He did some questionable things, you might call it cooking the books, and the IRS came a calling. But you can't feel bad for him cause he did it right after his wife's death cause he needed the money. That makes cheating on your taxes okay.

Did you catch the part about baseball? No? Well his kid is a pitcher and was about to play in his little league championships, but good ol' dad had to run away cause the lawman was on his tail. What does he do? Goes to Vegas, lies about his kids age and gets him onto a little league team that does so well it goes to the little league world series, and its not until the kid takes off his fake glasses that people catch on to their whereabouts. So the IRS tracks Harry down and he goes to jail. Right? Well, not so fast. You see Cuba is playing in the series and this kid is their only chance of beating them which would be good for a certain U.S. senator. Are you freaking kidding me? International politics swinging on the outcome of a little league game with an ineligble player brought there by a father evading the IRS, but everything is okay because the father and son love each other. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Am I suppossed to believe that not one person would catch on to this crap because Harry Connick is charming? Am I suppossed to believe that nobody would catch on because a kid has dyed hair and fake glasses on? Am I suppossed to believe that the IRS agent who has been hunting down Harry is going to sit next to him during the game, waiting to arrest him until after its over, and is going to be completely involved in the game, even though he really doesn't like baseball? Bunch of contrived crap told in a family safe environment. Hey, just cause it's a family movie doesn't neccessarily mean its crap, but this one doesn't help the argument.

As I was watching this movie I was thinking about how the kids look great playing baseball, but suck as actors. Turns out, thats what they did. They got real little leaguers to play the little leaguers. Its a good thought, but SOMEBODY has to be better that the main kid. He wasn't just bad. He was obviously not an actor, but got an actor job. I guess he tried his best, but it was no good. Next time, use actors because you can film around bad baseball skills, you can't do the same with bad acting skills. Oh my god. Did I just say "next time"? This time I really threw up.

#34 - The Exorcist

Mark up another movie on the "How have I never seen this before?" list. Seriously, this is more egregious than not having seen Raging Bull until recently. It just never happened. God knows I have seen enough clips and heard enough about it. Hell, I bought an original copy of the book by William Peter Blatty. Have I read it yet? No. It's on the shelf next to all the other books I have bought and not read yet. It's the curse of the B & N discount. ANYWAYS, this movie is a classic, and for very good reasons.

I actually watched the Director's Cut, otherwise known as "the version you've never seen". How very true. Having never seen the original movie, I am in no place to comment on the additions. I'm not completely sure that it makes a difference when all is said and done, but if any of you have seen both, let me know. There is one scene in the Director's Cut that I know wasn't in the original and it was pretty damn cool. Its when Linda Blairs character runs down the stairs bent over backwards and crawling like a spider. Its really quick, and is a pretty frightening image. I'm glad they put that one in.

So, if you dont already know, this movie is about a demon inhabiting the body of a young girl, and the exorcism that follows. The movie does an excellent job establishing the innocence of the girl which makes the possesion that much more difficult to see. What happens when she is fully possesed is some of the most graphic, brutal, frightening stuff I have ever seen, but it is completely honest to the story and the world that has been created. That honesty is what makes those moments so powerful. Throughout this movie are tremendous images that all lend to the mystery and ahunting nature of the film. I don't want to talk about many of them because I want to keep it a secret if you have waited as long as I have to watch this movie. One of my favorite images is when Max von Sydow is looking at the statue of the demon he has accidentally released. Can you say foreshadowing?

The performances are strong. The writing is strong. The directing is strong. Everybody was at the top of their game with this one. I could write for hours on all of the aspects of what makes this movie good. It is so absorbing, and just as soon as it gets you in, it gets you right between the eyes. Pay attention to the priest questioning his faith. Pay attention to the starkness of the sound design. Pay attention to the quiet uneasiness in the beginning of the movie and compare that with the violent madness that comes afterwards. This is truly good film making.

#33 - Day After Trinity: Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb

Uh oh. It's gonna get all educational in here. Thats right. We got us here a documentary about the father of the atomic bomb, J. Robert Oppenheimer. This is a PBS documentary from the early 80's, and has all the fun and excitement of a PBS documentary from the early 80's. Honestly, it's hard to find something to write about it. It's informative, well researched, and thouroughly presented. It's just kind of boring.

To be honest, I did get interested at certain points. There was a lot of information that I didn't know about. For instance, I didn't know that the atomic bomb went from development, through initial testing, and into actual usage in about two years. That absolutely blows my mind. And the fact that the people working on the project were so unbelievably diligent to the point that they really didn't think ahead towards what it was they were making it for. It just seems bizarre to me to think that there was this undertaking that the people involved had great pride in, but the consequences weren't completely considered. I'm not passing judgement on the scientists working on the Manhattan Project, it's just an amazing thing to try and wrap my head around.

The thing that struck me the most was the response of the scientists and the United States after the bomb was actually used. Most of the scientists were completely shocked when they heard that the bomb was used. There was genuine guilt after the entirety of what the result of their work was finally hit them. The most unfortunate thing was that Oppenheimer became a bit of a celebrity as he went around the country promoting proper testing and regulations, but during the red scare was accused of being a Communist and was eventually disgraced. What kind of of crap is that? Here is a man who devoted his whole being into developing a weapon of tremendous signifcance that eventually led to the end of the war, and he is treated like a traitor. Shameful. Led to his early death. Kind of sad when you think about it.

So, the story that is told in this documentary is quite interesting. Lots of information I didnt know presented in a dry, boring format. I'm sure there is some movie out there that could tell this story in a more intersting way, but then you get the bending of the truth for dramatic purposes and that's not always the best. I guess I would say that if you are really interested in this topic, watch this documentary. If you are only sort of interested, get a book or something. If you arent interested at all, you just wasted two minutes of your time reading this and I am openly mocking you for that. Nice work...sucker.

#32 - Million Dollar Baby

I don't know how I was able to avoid hearing what this movie was really about. It sure didn't lack press coverage, what with being the best picture of the year and all. But like the Sixth Sense, I was somehow able to avoid hearing everything about the movie when I watched it, and that made such a tremendous difference. So I'm not going to say what happens in this movie. I want to save it if you have never seen this movie. As you may know, my rule on this review page is that I will give out spoilers, unless I think the movie warrants otherwise. I don't want to ruin something for someone if the movie deserves it. This movie deserves it, so I will talk around things.

First off, I found myself wondering why Hillary Swank won an Oscar for this role. She was good as a plucky little white trash girl who just wanted to box and had all the heart and spirit in the world. But I couldn't understand why she even got nominated. Then, what I will refer to as the "Oh shit!" moment occurred. Are you kidding me? I got it then. And yes, I am referring to what I talked about in the first paragraph. I refuse to say what happened. If it kills you not knowing, and that makes you go out and watch this movie, then I have done my job. You should.

What happens after the "Oh shit" moment is truly heart wrenching film making. But it's not sappy and over dramatic. It is played honestly and subtly, knowing that we have been engaged in the characters from the beginning, and that this relationship we have developed is all we need to understand and feel for the struggle in the movie. I feel as though I have said too much already, but I couldn't write this without mentioning how well Harry Callahan crafted this movie from beginning to end, with a little bit of why.

Technical discussion segment begins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . now. When you watch this movie, pay a little attention to the lighting. Its all natural lighting, but there is a distinct difference after "Oh shit". All of a sudden there is darkness everywhere except for a lone light source. The shadows, darkness, and stark nature of the lights amplify the tension. And for those of you that may ask, because you have asked, this is not a noir thing going on. Noir is way more stylized and has some fill light and back light. This is not stylized and is one single light. There, I have said my technical stuff with out getting too technical. Now go watch this movie.

#31 - White Heat

I really need to catch up with my viewing. I'm writing as much as I can, but if you have read the comments from the Raging Bull review, this movie was mentioned. That marks the second time that someone has made a comment on a review and referenced or referred to a movie that I have watched, but not yet reviewed. I don't know about you, but I think that's lame. Rest assured, I am working on it. I am now down to about twenty reviews to catch up to my viewing. But still, I watch!! I watched a real piece of turd tonight, but that's for another time. Right now we talk about White Heat.

I loved this movie!!! It is so intense, so raw, so rough, so in your face, and so unbelievably captivating. James Cagney is built like an insane brick wall. If you ever meet a guy like his character, DON'T PISS HIM OFF!!! Some of the looks he gives are absolutely priceless. The scene in prison when he finds out who tried to kill him and then talk to the guy is great. He gives this guy a smile that says, "Hey, accidents happen. Okay buddy?" But at the same time it says, "Your not gonna live very long." It was mean, it was cold, it was crazy, it was fantastic to see.

Since it was commented on earlier, I feel compelled to discuss the females in this movie. They're no good dirty dames!!! Well, the mother isn't exactly a dame, but she's no good. She is the fuel for Cagney's insanity, but also the only one who can keep him in check. Interesting dynamic. Not quite Oedipal, but still not exactly the same thread as Ozzie and Harriet. Virginia Mayo is the no good, dirty, double crossing dame. She sneaks around behind his back, he treats her like crap, she's no angel, he's pure sinner. Good times. Interesting dynamic here too since she is dating a psycho mamma's boy, but she isn't exactly the kind of girl you'd take home to mother.

It was refreshing to see a movie that wasn't dumbed down for an audience. Throughout this film I was thinking about what they would have done were they to make this movie today. The answer would have been that they would have ruined it. The shining example of this is towards the end of the film. There is the driver of the truck who is the only man who could identify the undercover cop in Cagneys' gang. You know this as soon as you see the guy, they don't beat you over the head with it and make a big deal about all the close calls they have. It plays natural. The tension is already built in. And your right there with them until the end. And what an end. Classic. Watch this movie.

#30 - Men of Respect

Here we have another Shakespeare adaptation set in modern times. Of course I say another because I have seen a number of them in recent years, but this one was made in 1991, so I guess the other ones I have seen are actually the "another" Shakespeare adaptations. That doesn't make any damn sense. Anyways, this is an adaptation MacBeth and is set in an Italian mobster environment. Not a bad idea. As we all know from watching the movies, mob families have their heirarchies, chains of command, backstabbing, plotting, and the like. My first thought was that this could work. Uh oh. When I say things like that it is usually followed up by some description of the opposite. Well, I'm not one to disappoint.

It's not that the idea doesn't work, in fact it fits very well. The problem is that they stuck to the original play structure WAY to strictly. The characters and dialogue were modernized, but the scenes were essentially the same as in MacBeth. This is a problem because it's just not very fluid on film. There is a rhythym to Shakespeare and the dialogue flows in and out of the structure of the scenes and acts. In my mind, if you change one, you probably need to change the other. Okay, maybe thats not completely true, but in this case, it wouldn't have hurt to try. Instead we get stuck in this limbo area where everybody is playing this natural modern style, but it just feels clunky because one thing doesnt flow well into the next

For comparison, I submit two movies. A Midsummer's Night Dream and Ten Things I Hate About You. In Midsummer's they presented the story in Victorian times, but they used Shakespeare's dialogue AND his play structure. There was a naturally flowing rhythym to the movie and it worked well for me. In Ten Things, they updated the dialogue AND modernized the structure to match. It had its out rhythyms, but the spine of the story was still intact and the movie was surprisingly well done. So there. Either, or. All or nothing.

Having said all that, we have another film with the odd occurence of admirable performances in a bad movie. It really is a good cast with John Turturro, Stanley Tucci, wait...you can read the damn poster yourself. They are commited to the characters and the story they are telling. Its a nice thing to see, but hard to watch when the film doesnt come across very well.

#29 - Cop Land

I remember when this movie came out, all of the talk was about Sly Stallone putting on thirty pounds for the role. Apparently there is an assumption out there that gaining weight for a role implies extreme dedication to the part. Reality check....gaining weight is the easy part. Plus, thats why they make fat suits. I am way more impressed by people who get into top physical shape, or even lose weight for a role. Also, when the talk of a movie is an actors weight, that tells me that the movie probably isnt so hot cause there is nothing else worth talking about.

You must be asking why he gained all the weight. Well, he plays the sheriff of a town in New Jersey that is populated by policemen from the NYPD. Get it? You see, he is in a "safe" neighborhood with no crime. So he doesnt have much to do and is therefore complacent and weak willed. But did he have to gain why to show this? I would think that a more effective solution for portraying this would have been better acting and better writing. As written, Sly's character is subtle and racked with internal struggle. Both of which do not play towards Sly's strengths as an actore, and yes I thinl there are some. But you have to know this and write in other things that he can do to show his struggle. Don't make him just sit there and contemplate, show me his inability to act even though he wants to and knows he should.

This movie suffers from an unfortune waste of talent. Harvey Keitel was not very effective as a heavy, because he didnt have to be. Sly wasn't much of an obstacle to him, so there was no real clash between the two. Ray Liotta's character was completely transparent. Oh, and the premise for everything was good. I completely forgot to mention the fact that the cops originally secured the land for their neighborhood by working with the mob. There IS conflict here. There IS a struggle. It just does not come across at all.

Techinical sidenote question: What movie was Howard Shore composing the score for? Was it an epic action kind of movie like Backdraft? Or was it what was actually presented on film? I'm thinking it was the former. I know this guy has won awards and all that stuff, but he composed a score for what the movie wanted to be, not what it actually was. Therefore, the musical score was NOT GOOD. You got those snare drums you hear in cop dramas followed by a swelling horn section to get you pumped up to watch a fat, yet still pretty ripped, Sly sit and contemplate. Oh, shame on you Howard Shore. You could have salvaged something out of the movie by helping to give some drama where it wasn't. Instead, you just reminded us that we weren't watching what we should have been watching.

#28 - Dog Day Afternoon

I was caught completely off guard with this movie, and I'll tell you why. You see, I occasionally watch Spike TV, and if you don't already know, it advertises as the network for men. Therefore, there is a lot of programming along the lines of Ultimate Fighting reality shows and a weekly Van Damme movie. On top of that, they occasionally show unedited and uncut movies, the most frequent being The Godfather. Dog Day Afternoon is on this list of movies. Now, I was expecting a bank robbery movie with a lot of guy oriented, actiony, shoot em uppy type stuff. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Now brace yourself, because this caught me completely off guard. Al Pacino robs the bank because he needs money so that he can get a sex change operation for the man he is having an affair with. Uhm, excuse me? Are you telling me that a movie with a main character that is gay has run unedited on a cable network that shows James Bond Marathons almost every time there is a two day weekend. Seriously, this network shows chicks in jail movies from the late 70's. The though of this subject matter being on that Spike TV never crossed my mind.

All that aside, the movie is great. Pacino bumbles through the early parts of the robbery as every thing that could go wrong, does go wrong. It actually quite funny to watch him try to stay in control while still being the nice guy that he really is. You instantly have sympathy for his character because you know that deep down his motives are pure, you just don't know what they are yet. This movie has moments that are funny, sad, tense, and uplifting, and mixed in throughout is a social commentary about the nature of the press, the police, and the perceptions of what it is these two entities really do.

An aspect of the film that was interesting to me was that after the revelation that Pacino's character was gay, crowds of homosexuals came and rallied in his defense. It made me wonder about people rallying behind a cause regardless of the situation. These people knew nothing about him other than he was gay and robbing a bank, but they disregarded the criminal activity and made him a hero because of his sexual orientation. Its an interesting dynamic to this movie that is filled with situations that make you think. This is a good movie that is honest, raw, and one that everyone should watch. When you do, pay attention to Pacino's eyes, especially in the scene when he is talking to Christopher Sarandon on the phone. His eyes are unbelievably expressive and more than anything else, tell the story of the movie, which is based on true events.

#27 - Boxcar Bertha

This marks the last movie in the Martin Scorsese boxed set, and its unique from any other Marty S movie I have seen. It's one of his earlier ones and clearly has no budget. But that didn't stop him from making an intriguing and in some ways experimental film. There are a number of shots and angles that were not "traditional" in any way. The nice thing about them is that they don't distract from the story. There isn't any moment in which you see something that looks good, but is unnneccessary. The innovative shots are not done in the usual independent film way of trying to get more story out of less resources. Its pure directorial vision.

The movie is based on the stories of an actual woman who used to ride boxcars around the south during the depression era. Along the way she meets a number of people and sees the honest kindness and the cruel nature of human beings. She becomes somewhat of a Robin Hood of the depression as she and her companions begin to rob trains, banks, and rich old bastards. Its a tale of whimsical innocence in the midst of a social commentary. I think a large budget in the wrong hands would have overdone things. Most of the time in this film is spent in empty places, such as the woods, abandoned houses, and of course, boxcars. This bareness, this emptiness is a reflection of what these people have in terms of worldy possesions, but the vibrancy and movement of the film expresses what the life that exists on the inside. There is your social commentary.

After seeing these four movies by Martin Scorsese, I feel that my theory of intimate epics still has some validity. I came up with this theory after New York, New York and Raging Bull, but I think it pertains to The Last Waltz and Boxcar Bertha as well. The Last Waltz is intimate in its look at The Band, but the film is ultimately about music on a much larger scale. Boxcar Bertha is mainly about Barbara Hershey's character who is shy, soft spoken, and innocent, but her tale is anything but small. I have more of an appreciation of the Martin Scorsese's films I have seen now that I have seen these films because I now see a style of film making. I see a mode of expression, even though the subject matter may be different in each one. I want to see some of his more recent films to see if this is still the case.