#105 - Comic Book: The Movie

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

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

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

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

#104 - My Left Foot

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

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

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

#103 - Dillinger

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

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

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

#102 - Rembrandt

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

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

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

#101 - Danger: Diabolik

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

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

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

#100 - Beastie Boys: Horseplay

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

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

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

#99 - The Work of Director Spike Jonze

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

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

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

#98 - Come and Get It

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

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

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

#97 - Hoffa

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

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

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

#96 - New York Stories

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

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

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

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