#93 - The Beastie Boys Video Anthology: Disc 2

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "How in the hell is he watching Disc 2 first? He must be breaking some rule. That can't be allowed! I won't stand for it!! KILL THE MONSTER!!!" Okay, maybe the last part was a bit much, but this is a good example of how dumb Blockbuster.com can be. Sometimes when you put in a multiple disc set, it goes in to your queue in a way that the discs will only be sent in order. For some reason, this was not the case with this set and they sent disc two first. I expected that it might happen here, but I was hoping against it. I had a dilemma on my hands. I have a strict "no sequels first" rule. Along those lines, I have a strict "season 1 goes first" rule for TV DVD's. I was concerned that watching disc 2 first would break some sort of rule. The last thing I need to hear is a bunch of grief about not sticking to the rules that I myself have made up. Well, I consulted with the senior member of my legal representational firm, Fosberg & Chubbs. He told me that I was not breaking any rule since I was not disrupting any kind of chronological production release order. So, if you don't like that I watched disc 2 first, bring it up with him. I have been given explicit instructions that you must fill out all concerns in triplicate, combine it with a self addressed, stamped envelope, and shove them up your candy ass.

Let me start out by saying that I loves me some Beasties. I mean I LOVES me some Beasties. The very first CD I ever bought was Check Your Head and to this day it is my favorite Beasties album. Needless to say, I was pleased that the first video on disc 2 was for Sabotage. Not only is that one of my favorite Beastie Boy songs of all time, it might very well be their best video, EVER. For those of you who don't know, this video is the Spike Jonze directed take off on 70's TV cop drama intro's. Has nothing to do with the song, but what videos really do anymore. Besides, I don't really care because it's top notch entertainment, especially if you like bad wigs and mustaches. And the best part is that the disc has numerous alternate angles that show more video footage than you see in the final product. The video has about three story lines edited in and out. The different angles show the different stories. It's fun to watch. I can't stand it. I know you planned it.

Here's another great use for the alternate angles. The Beasties constantly employ a couple of techniques in their videos. One is that they take one long shot for the whole song and seem to ad lib everything while playing to the camera. They do this in a number of different ways, and then edit them all together. With the angles, you get to see the whole shot, which is very interesting to watch, especially the ones where they are walking along following the camera. The other technique they use is to do one take for the whole video, but they use multiple cameras for that take, and then edit them together. Well, you guessed it, you get to see the whole shot from each angle. Good stuff there.

The DVD also has a number of remixes for the songs. I am not a fan of remixes for anything, but some of the remixes were actually pretty good songs by themselves. The weren't that great and kind of hard to sit through. I watched each angle and listened to every remix individually, which took a long ass time to do. I broke it up into two viewings that were about two and a half hours each. If this was some music act that I didn't like, I don't know that I would be able to do that. In fact, I may have to veto some stuff in the future if it comes up. I vetoed the Al Green gospel music DVD, and I like Al Green. I just don't need to watch a gospel music DVD. Okay, a little off track there. It's a good DVD, lots of songs from lots of albums, mostly Pauls Boutique, Check Your Head, and Ill Communication, but there's even a song from Pollywog Stew. Talk about OLD SKOOL. It's quite enjoyable, and guess what...there's another disc coming.

#92 - American Splendor

I love it. I love it. I love it. You wanna talk about something that hits all the right buttons in my brain. I love the subject matter. I love the concept for the movie. I love the presentaton of the movie. Truly fantastic, well done, imaginitive, and quite unique. It's right up my alley in so many respects. Should I continue to go on and on about it, or actually say what it is I liked about it? Right.

First of all, the movie is a bio-pic. Or is it "biopic"? No, that sounds like an eye disorder or a problem in the renal division. Anywho, this movie is the story of Harvey Pekar, who happens to be the author of the classic underground comic book that I bet if you really thought about it, you could figure out the title of. The comics, which were originally drawn by Harvey's friend R. Crumb, are essentially autobiographical tales about his life as a file clerk, and this movie is based on those stories. Oh yeah, count me in.

But here's where it gets really good, and what I think makes it unique. Harvey Pekar is excellently played by Paul Giamatti. The narrator of the movie is Harvey Pekar himself. It makes sense. He was the voice of the comics, why not be the voice of the movie. But wait, there's more. We actually get to see Harvey in the movie. And not in a halucination scene sort of way like Fear and Loathing. We see him in a documentary style interview way. So, other than what we know about Harvey from the narrative portions, we get a little deeper and more personal than we otherwise would. I think this is a fascinating technique. It's not a case of using dramatic re-enactments to support a documentary, it's documentary type elements to add more depth to a movie. Where this really gets interesting is in the case of the people around Harvey. The other characters in the movie, specifically his wife and his co-worker, are interesting characters with bizarre eccentricities and quirks that you could see coming from a comic book world. But just as honest as Giamatti's performance is about who Harvey Pekar is, so are his co-stars. And we know this because the people they are based on are in the movie as well. It's fascinating to see what appears to be odd caricatures turn out to be real people. It's fascinating. It's funny. It's touching. It's well made in all aspects. Oh, and there's discussion about the social ramifications of Revenge of the Nerds.

#91 - Adaptation

I loves me some Charlie Kaufman. I loved Being John Malkovich. I thoroughly enjoyed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I haven't seen his others. What I love about his movies is how he is able to take an abstract concept and present it in a naturalistic setting using masterful levels of humor and quirkiness. What you then get is a movie that has interweaving elements of humor that is not quite at a dark comedy level, abstraction that's completely real to the world that has been created, and a surreality that actually combines the two together. He does not juxtapose reality and abstraction in order for us to step away from reality and view the differences through a lens. Instead, through his use of surreality, he combines the two together so that we can see, feel, and learn from the inside. On the surface we are given the unusual, the odd, the quirky, the offbeat, the peculiar. But more importantly, we are given a foundation of internal honesty that is at the very core of everything he presents to us. It's fantastic. It's dynamic. It's infinitely entertaining, and this movie may be the most honest of the ones I have seen because it is so introspective.

Let's see, how to describe this movie? The movie is based on the book The Orchid Thief, so you have that story involved, but the main character is actually Charlie Kaufman himself. Stick with me here, but the actual story of the movie Adaptation is about Charlie Kaufman writing the screenplay for the movie Adaptation. How good is that? Seriously. Wrap your brain around that for a bit. Is that not the best thing you have heard of in a while? At first, you think that the clips of the story you see is what he is writing. Pretty straightforward storytelling. Nothing different there. But, much of what we see at first is Kaufman's struggles with adapting a book that really isn't a story into a story without going too Hollywood with it. What's fascinating about this is that you, the viewer, know that he is writing the movie you are watching, but Charlie Kaufman the character does not. That's all I am going to say about the story. The last quarter of the movie is fantastic, especially once you realize what is going on. I give you the premise. I tell you it's good. But you must go see the movie, because it is even better than what I have said here, and besides, trying to explain it all would take longer than I am willing to give. And you should see it anyways.

A couple of things I want to touch on here. First, as good as Charlie Kaufman is at writing, I am eternally thankful that there are delightful lunatics out there in the world like Spike Jonze to make the writing work. I am also eternally thankful that there can be at least one music video director that doesn't make shitty looking movies, and the movies he chooses to make are Charlie Kaufman's. Secondly, the character of Charlie's brother Donald is fantastic. You see, Donald isn't a real person, yet he is credited as a co-writer, was nominated for an Oscar, and actually has an imdb.com page. That is terrific. And the fake brother being Charlie's internal alter ego with a Hollywood mentality is great. And he's Charlie's twin, also played by Nicolas Cage, and here's the crazy thing, they play well off of each other. How is that possible? The interaction Cage has with his two characters is tremendous and I can't even begin to think about how difficult that is to play off of somebody that you are going to play later. This is one of those movies that Nicolas Cage does that can make me forget and forgive the piles of turd he puts out there like Con Air and Gone In Sixty Seconds. These are the kinds of things he should be remembered for.

#90 - Bad Santa

It was actually the unrated directors cut packaged as Badder Santa. But I protest that name due to the fact that if there was to ever be a sequel to this movie, it should be titled Badder Santa. But they ruined it. Now they are stuck with Bad Santa 2. Snooze. And they can't use Even Badder Santa because that's what should be used to complete the trilogy. And while I'm on the subject, can we stop with the cute ways we title the unrated DVD releases? Seriously. Uncorked Edition? That's not even a play on words. It's not even witty. It's not even a freakin pun. Besides, I have come to the opinion that an "unrated directors cut" doesn't mean a goddamn thing. I'm sorry, but a different shot of a kid humping a pie is not the drastic change to the movie that the title implies. And it sure as hell doesn't warrant two versions to be released in stores. And speaking of two versions, if you are going to release Pan and Scan movies with the same cover as the Widescreen, PLEASE do a better job of distinguishing between the two so I don't have to go back to Target and try to return an opened copy of Batman Begins. Is that too much to ask? On another note, isn't Lauren Graham hot?

Seriously, huge crush on Lauren Graham. Partly because she's easy on the eyes, but she's funny too. From News Radio, to Celebrity Poker, and late night talk show appearances, I like her a lot. I've even watched bits and pieces of Gilmore Girl reruns, but I have to change the channel quickly before the fast paced, back and forth prattling between her and Becky give me an aneurysm. So, I got a picture of her showing a little tushy and some tongue, even if it is a foreign poster. I wasn't gonna get a Badder Santa photo. And here's the interesting thing about her in the movie, compared to the delightful lunacy that sums up everyone else's characters, she appears to be the only normal person in the whole thing. BUT, and that's a huge interjection, her kinky little fetish might make her the craziest one of all. I'm not gonna tell you what it is, but her "catchphrase" is one of the funniest, bestest, most unexpected things I have seen in a while. You wanna talk about coming out of nowhere. Fantastically amusing.

This whole movie was amusing. It's a dark comedy, which I like, and has a tiny bit of absurdity thrown in just to keep you guessing. I mean COME ON, that kid is one of the oddest creatures being passed off as a human being that I have ever seen on film. Was he written that way? Cause if he was, that kid pulled off a hell of a performance, cause he's just weird. And speaking of good performances, John Ritter was fantastic. It's a shame that he passed away during filming because I would have loved to have seen how he was meant to fit in to the rest of the movie.

I will admit that I wanted a little more from Billy Bob Thornton's character. As rude and crude as he is, I was expecting a little more rude, and a lot more crude. I guess it just didn't quite push the envelope for me enough, but I recognize that as personal preference and not neccessarily anything wrong with the movie. In all honesty, I think he was put on this earth to play this role. He was fantastic. The scene where he cusses out the mom and kid while he eats his lunch is making me laugh just thinking about it. The piece of lettuce that hangs off his mouth as he barks out at the two is such a fantastic and hilarious moment, that if I forget everything about this movie, I will always remember that part. Well, that and Lauren Graham's line.

#89 - Comic Book Villains

I think I can. I think I can. I wish I could. I wish I could. Ah ..... oh ..... ahhhh ...... uhmmm ........ not quite. Sorry. This is the little cult movie that couldn't. It wants to. It wants to in the worst way. It has a lot of things going in its favor. Things that definitely help in the desire to be a cult favorite type movie. But there are a number things about it that get in the way and it inevitably falls just short.

For those of you who don't know, and I am assuming this means all of you, I'll give a brief plot summary. In Smalltown, USA, we have two rival comic book shops. One is run by Donal Logue, a lifetime comic book purist. The other is run by Michael Rapaport and is more successful because they also sell toys, stickers, etc. A rich kid comic book fan lets both of them in on a secret collection of comic books that was owned by a recently deceased resident of their very town. What follows is are the cutthroat attempts by these two rivals to own this holy grail of comic book collections. I like to think of it as a dad in a crappy family sitcom on Fox versus a dad in a crappy family sitcom on Fox.

Sounds like a good premise, but where everything goes wrong is that it doesn't make up it's mind about what kind of movie it wants to be. There's a bit of the movie that attempts to be in the same vein as a Kevin Smith movie, especially parts of Mallrats and Chasing Amy, but the writing isn't quite up to par with Smith's. In Kevin Smith movies, the characters have legitimate literary debates about characters, storylines, and artwork. In this movie, it's more about how much comic book trivia Logue's character knows. Not as amusing, or effective.

Ultimately, this movie is a dark comedy because these people go to pretty extreme measures to obtain a fortune in comic book gold. This is fine. I would have no problems with that if they maintained the style throughout the movie. For example, there are scenes that have a quirky musical score playing underneath them. It's kind of like a Danny Elfman score, but more from Pee Wee's Big Adventure than any of his other stuff, and not as good. An Elfman sound would have fit a dark comedy, but they chose the wrong one to emulate, and the one they did doesn't fit with the Kevin Smith-esque moments. And then there is Cary Elwes' character, who we first see in a strip club drinking beer watching his girlfriend dance. He kind of treats her rudely, but that's okay because he's the heavy. He is the one Logue hires to steal the comics. You see, he's a bad guy, and we know this. Given that, I am at a loss to find the reasoning behind the scene where he is lying with his girlfriend, in the house he is renovating, talking about where he is going to put her music studio because he is doing all of this for her. Awwwww, it's so sentimental and unbelievably out of place for this movie, and his character. He's the tough guy. He's the mean bad ass. If you put an emotional aspect to his character into the movie, you have to keep it in the movie beyond the scene where you introduce it. Otherwise, that scene is an anomaly and should have been cut.

There is a lot of stuff in this movie that I really like. The relationship between Michael Rapaport and Natasha Lyonne is quite odd. I would have liked to have seen more. Donal Logue's character turns out to be really sleazy, skeezy, and pretty interesting, I would have liked to have seen it used better. And in my opinion, Danny Masterson is underused, while DJ Qualls is overused. This is probably because I like Masterson more, but he also seems to have the right wiring in his head for a dark comedy. Plus, the movie uses DJ Qualls as the narrator and apparently the main character, but really, the story revolves around Logue, so less Qualls would have worked. I guess what it all boils down to is that I would have told the story differently, or at least tweaked the screenplay in a number of ways.

#88 - The Secret Lives of Dentists

From foreign art house movies, we transition into independent films. When I made comments about art movies can only be art if they are foreign, that wasn't completely true. It's high art that is foreign dramas. The regular art, which is all we could possibly hope to produce in America, is available in the form of indie films. You see, there are obvious layers of art, and along with them come layers of pretentious people who are their champions. Therefore, my thick sarcasm. But as you come down from on high, things become more tolerable. What I am saying is that I like indie movies. I think that they are the source of some of the most imaginative and innovative work being done. But people can be just as snobbish about their indies as others can be about their art house flicks. Now that I sound like a broken record, which is probably more annoying than the people I am blabbering about, I think it's best that I talk about the movie I watched, especially since it's a good one.

I thought about why the creators of this movie chose dentists to show the secret lives of. I'll get more into it later, but the movie isn't about dentists specifically. Instead, it's a story about what may be happening to these people outside of the their office. Given that, I felt that it could have been any kind of medical doctor. The Secret Lives of Pediatricians. The Secret Lives of General Practitioners. The Secret Lives of Anesthesiologists. You get the point. For me the idea of a doctor as being the cheerful person you go see when you have problems and don't really know much about them beyond that is something that works regardless of what type of medicine they practice. But as I thought about it a little more, the relationship one has with a dentist is a unique one. You sit there with your mouth open, unable to talk while your dentist is picking and scratching away at your mouth. And yet you are able to maintain a conversation about whatever comes up. Also, if all goes well, you see your dentist more often then other doctors, and when you do, they are right in your face. It's a pretty personal, face to face relationship, yet you know very little about them beyond the moments you are in the chair, which is a pretty comfy chair. So, I think the choice of dentist is quite an interesting one.

But as I said, this isn't about what we know of our dentists. The main characters in this movie are a married couple and are both dentists that share an office. This adds an interesting dynamic because the story is about what happens as their marriage falls apart. This is a warning because a lot of the movie deals with the husband and his assumptions about his wife's infidelity. It's pretty brutal to watch at times because the signs are right there, yet he doesn't ask because he's afraid of what would have to happen if it were true. But here's the thing, this has some elements of a dark comedy, which make it that much better. Dennis Leary plays a patient that has some dental work that goes bad, so he confronts him about it in the ways that only Dennis Leary can. But after that, Leary becomes the devil on the shoulder of the guy as he tries to ignore the signs and keep his family together. It's great to watch Leary try to get this guy to just take a stand and lash out, while the guy attempts to maintain his mild mannered ways. It's a fascinating movie. Serious moments, humorous moments, and even some moments of delerium all add up to a pretty interesting and entertaining slice of life/character study sort of thing with a quirky little tweak to it. I recommend that everybody take a look at it, unless the infidelity issues would hit a little too close to home because some of those moments are pretty brutal to watch.

#87 - El Dia Que Me Amen

Just what you always wanted. It's more art!! While this movie is not a Film Movement selection, it clearly displays the inherit danger of my selection process. It is very easy to get caught in a genre rut. It's like the time a while back when I was stuck watching crappy Don Bluth cartoons that proved his work on Rats of Nimh and some others may have been an anomaly. Did I just use the word "proved" and "may" in the same sentence about the same subject? And it was only two movies, but it seemed like SO much more. Anyways, getting caught in a foreign drama/art house rut is not exactly the kind of thing that I look forward to. Of course, I have to remember that part of the reason for doing all of this is to be surprised by movies I wouldn't normally watch, otherwise known as The Search for Before Sunrise. This movie is a prime example of when that search goes well.

I don't exactly remember what the title translates into. Something about the day I fall in love, or something like that. And look at that picture. Love in the title and a romancy looking cover don't bode well. I am already not a fan of romances and there are obviously inherent dangers in even liking one. But this is not a romance. Sure, there are issues with love and all that crap, but it is by no means the point of the movie. The main character is a man suffering from a depression that is so severe that he is unable to leave the house. The story begins when his long gone childhood friend returns home and they are reunited. These two characters provide an interesting juxtaposition wherein we have a character who can't leave his house next to a character who has traveled the world, and yet neither of them are able to sustain meaningful relationships with those around them, not to mention their families. It really is an interesting contrast.

Now I know what you are thinking. You're thinking that a movie with a main character suffering from depression can't help but be bordering on the edge of over dramatic. Okay, maybe that's just me, but it was a concern because I just wasn't really in the mood to sit through anything like that. Thankfully, this is a different story. Joaquin(that's his name) isn't in the usual self loathing, introspective, emotionally wrought kind of depression. It's more of a fear to take a risk and connect with the outside world that has caused him, in his mind, to waste his life at such an early age. He spends much of the early part of the movie almost numb and dazed, but there is something in his eyes that a real person is still in there. You can't help but get behind this guy and root for him to at least break through, if not get completely better. He is aided by his childhood friend, who is struggling to overcome her emotional hangups, which means instant drama. It really is an entertaining movie filled with humor, charm, and a tremendous character that is done with the perfect mix of subtlety and measured energy, if that makes any sense. I was quite pleased with the whole thing.

#86 - Viva Laldjerie

Oh boy!! More art. This is another Film Movement selection, but I was able to find a picture that wasn't from the collection, and that's what I went with. And of course, it has all the elements that have been discussed in previous reviews: foreign + dramatic = art. More art than you know what to do with. More art than you can shake a stick at. More art than you can legally use to turn your nose up at others with. So put your scarf on, even if it's during the summertime, and let's go watch a film.

Now that I have said my standard and predictable diatribe about art house movies, I will say that this movie isn't that bad. Of course, I am comparing it to the tediousness of Raja. While this may not be a fair comparison because they are two different movies attempting to do two different things, it's what I did, and you'll just have to deal with it. What makes it good is that it's not Raja, and what makes it bad is that it's just okay. Well, bad isn't the right term because it isn't really a bad movie. I did have some problems with it, which in some cases may be due to my lack of knowledge about current events in Algeria.

The main character of the movie is a young girl whose name I can't remember, so we'll call her Viva. She lives with her mother, a former cabaret star who will go by the name of Laldjerie, or Jerry for short. What we get is a story about tradition versus modern times with a bit of western culture versus traditional Islam versus modern perceptions of Islam, all set in the city of Algiers. The story about Jerry is quite fascinating because she was apparently a huge cabaret star who has faded into past due to modern times and the taboo nature of what she used to do. Her search for validity and a connection to her past is quite interesting. It's Viva's character that I can't wrap my head around and since she's the main character, that doesn't bode well for my overall impression of the film. At the start of the movie, she appears to be an irresponsible young slut, but for some reason that doesn't last. She is a little bit at odds with her mother, but it's hard to say why other than the usual generation gap, which isn't that exciting to watch. She has a guy from the neighborhood who has a crush on her and borders on the edge of stalking, but nothing really happens with that. The more I think about it, she appears to be nothing more than a catalyst for what goes on around her. Some of her actions inadvertently cause others harm, but she doesn't know that she is responsible, so no lesson learned. Since I am unable to truly grasp the impetus behind the main character, I find it hard to truly enjoy the whole movie, even though there are a lot good things going on in it.

I would like to take this time to respond to a few comments made by some regular readers of this page known to you all as Fosberg and Chewy. It is in regards to my review of the movie The Notebook. Apparently, my manhood has been brought into question due to my positive review, however hesitant I was to say it. I believe the initial comment by Chewy had to do with renting the movie as oppossed to just catching it on cable. According to him, this would make me a girl. Of course the implication of his statement is such that would make one believe that Chewy watched the film on cable and of his own free will as opposed to a random selection, which is how I came to watch it. This would make Chewy much more of a girl than I. In response to all of this, Fosberg decided to throw in his two cents, declaring that what Chewy was saying was that I was a girl for actually liking the movie. Well, I hate to say it, but it seems to me that this is in no way way what Chewy was saying. Rather, I feel that this is a comment that was thrown in by Fosberg in a unrelated piggyback tactic that does not properly defend the merit of Chewy's initial argument, yet gives a "point" to Chewy. To which Chewy has since chimed in with his agreement. Well....I only have two responses. First, I thought that I made it clear that I was conflicted about the movie. I felt that I expressed myself quite clearly about enjoying a certain aspect about the film that was good enough to carry my interest through the uninteresting romance segments. I also felt that I was able to convey an appreciation for the work done on the movie, even though it is not my favorite genre. It isn't easy to step outside my own likes and dislikes to see the level of work done by others. Secondly, if you two bi-coastal butt buddies aren't man enough sac up and admit when you like shit that you normally don't like, then keep it to your damn self and don't bring your insecurities down onto me. Remember Chewy, you are the one who caught movie on cable, probably sitting alone in the dark with a pillow and some popcorn. And Fosberg, if you think I am a girl for liking this movie, why don't just come out and say it instead of "riding the backside" of someone else's comment. I guess if you are gonna hide your balls somewhere, Chewy's backside is as good as anywhere else.

That is all. I have said my peace. Let the shit storm begin.

#85 - The Notebook

Um...I don't really know how to go about saying this. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. But you might want to lock the doors, pull the shades, turn out the lights, put the kids to bed early, call in sick, consult a physician, know your cuts of meat, use only as directed, have your pets spayed or neutered, and most important, don't lick the poison frogs. You see, I liked this movie. NO!! WAIT!! I see why people would like this movie. No...dammit...I don't know. I think I liked it, and I don't like thinking that I liked it. But I didn't really like it because it's just an okay movie, and I LOATHE romances. Here's the key to it all: I really enjoyed a certain part of the movie that, while only a little part of the movie in terms of time, was good enough to carry the rest of the movie for me. I'll explain.

The main story, otherwise known as the RHO-mance, is set in the 1940's and involves a blue collar lumberyard worker and the young daughter of a well to do financier/businessman/rich guy. Heard this one before? OF COURSE YOU HAVE. There was nothing really new about the story at all. Guy sees girl, instant attraction met with instant rejection, eventual acceptance after some sort of a irregular behavior, activity or stunt, whirlwind romance, disapproval by the rich kids parental units, eventual fight and separation, years of sadness, longing, and resentment, and then the obligatory "random" re-introduction. Otherwise known as BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. The acting for the main story is well done, as is the directing, and even the dialogue is worth noting because none of it a sappy or over dramatic, even if it is the same old story.

Now, it's the side story involving James Garner and Gena Rowlands that really did it for me. Rowlands plays a woman suffering from dementia and Garner plays a man who keeps her company by reading her a story, which happens to be the main story of the movie. It is an absolutely fascinating relationship that develops itself quite well throughout the entire movie. If it was not for these two characters, I would have cared very little for this movie, but as I said earlier, it was their story that kept me so engaged in the movie that my attention was held during the same old love story. This is significant. It's like watching a bad movie just because there is a hot chick in it, except it's operating on a bit of a different level.

Finally, there is something I have to mention. Some of you know that I strongly dislike people who make a big deal out of simple editing incontinuities. I won't get into it again, but it ups the level of irritation in my body, which is already a little shaky. ANYWAYS, I have a simple note. A slight suggestion if you will. If you are shooting a scene at a carnival set in the 1940's, make sure that the modern day ride where people are riding in SPACESHIPS is NOT in the background. The ferris wheel is fine and quite appropriate. But other than a carousel, there is no ride that I can ride in the present day that should have been seen in that movie, much less one with freakin spaceships on it.

#84 - Raja

Here we have another movie from those crazy cats at Film Movement. You may remember my review of Falling Angels. That's the Film Movement movie that I really enjoyed, recommended that you seek it out...and nobody did. Don't try to tell me you tried. I know the truth. You're all fans of Rock-a-Doodle and got pissed off when I thought it sucked and figured I must suck too. Be that as it may, I will iterate again...nay...I will reiterate that people should take the time to watch falling Angels. And on that note, Raja is nothing like Falling Angels.

As I am sure I mentioned before, Film Movement movies are art house movies, which due to my prejudiced cynicism, the pretentious alarm starts going off in my head almost instantly. You get those people who turn their nose up at Hollywood movies just because they are from Hollywood. They turn their nose up at anything with a budget because in some way money can't translate into art, or even good movies. I know I'm generalizing here, but so are they, so that's what you get. So what makes a movie art? Well, first and foremost, it HAS to be foreign. This is crucial. It is imperative. Secondly, it has to be a drama because comedies are in no way an art form, unless it is a dark comedy or a social satire. Rule of thumb for this is that if you laugh out loud while watching the movie, it cannot be art. Finally, a movie is art if you can't eat popcorn while watching it, other wise known as the Eddie Izzard rule. Raja passes all of these rules with flying colors.

To this point you may have sensed a tone of dislike in this review. That may be because it is normal for me to rant and rave like I have been doing after I have watched something I disliked...or more accurately...hated. Do be clear, I did not hate this movie. The acting, writing, directing, and everything else is exactly what it needed to be in order to tell the story as it was desired to be told. What I have a particular distaste for is the genre. This is the first modern European drama I have ever watched and it fits the stereotype perfectly. It's stiff and rigid. It has a tremendous amount of internal angst wrapped around pent up desires and jealousy. Oh my god, the desire is thick, but nobody does anything. The two main characters play little games to make each other jealous, and apparently it worked because they hated each other at some point. It's hard to explain because according to the story there is a crapload of strong emotion, but it is pretty much all internal and in my mind had little justification. In other words...SNOOZE. I just don't get the appeal.

I think what made it hard was that one character spoke French and the other spoke Arabic, which to my untrained ear are both just foreign languages that couldn't be less discernible. So it seemed like they couldn't communicate at the beginning or in the middle, but at the end, they were communicating. Did I miss something? And if I did miss something, when the hell did I miss it? Sure, this movie had an underlying background about class differentiation in a post-colonial Morocco which apparently led to a heightened intensity of these two people's supposed passion as well as making their relationship that much more unconventional and taboo. That's all fine and dandy, but one would think these things could have been talked about in a more palatable format. I mean, can somebody do something? Can somebody actually say something instead of fucking around with indirect dialogue and heaping spoonfuls of subtext? PLEASE?