M's Musings on SO I MARRIED AN AXE MURDERER

So I Married an Axe Murderer.  Dir.  Thomas Schlamme.  Screenplay by Robbie Fox.  Ft.  Mike Myers, Nancy Travis and Anthony LaPaglia.  Sony Pictures, 1993.

Well, no actually, you didn't.  While the idea of her being an axe murderer was an excellent one, what is the point if it is actually her crazy ass sister?  So there was some kind of weird sexual tension between the two of them that was never resolved...  Between who, you say?  Well, between all of them, in a weirdo sort of way.  Pick your two.


My favourite part of the movie was the decision to make the love interest a butcher.  The jokes throughout those sections made my day.  I liked the tension and hilarity it added to this idea of her being a murderer.  Somehow, the film never stopped being lighthearted, even in its most serious moments.  Instead of almost dying... Mike Myers gets kicked in the balls.  So, he kicks back.  Huh.


I am not much of a laugh out loud kind of girl, nor am I super into romantic comedies.  I liked that this particular comedy played down the romance in favour of the crazy.  I was not surprised to learn that Mike Myers is the same kind of comic in every film he played.  I guess I was expecting something a little different.  I see exactly how he "evolves" as an actor throughout the last couple of decades.  In most ways, he really doesn't.  Its just the same jokes for a new, slightly more youthful audience.


Okay, so I hated the scene where he first goes to her apartment.  She didn't turn on the light until they were in the middle of the hugest room I have ever seen.  Can you imagine following someone you just met more than 20 feet into a dark house before turning on the light?   I realize this is petty and pathetic, but that is the one thing that really caught me up.


The Scottish parent storyline made me happy.  As did the World News.  My grandmother also reads tabloid magazines, though unfortunately she does not read them in earnest (to the best of my knowledge).  This just made me wish that she did.  I hope that she does, and that she secretly looks for photos of our family and friends... just hoping to solve a crime or be horrified at the depraved way in which we lead our lives.


Do redheads go grey in that particular fashion?  I hope that I don't.  I kind of hoped that I would never go grey, except in the most uniform of ways.


Final thought:  I enjoyed this movie, but it didn't overwhelm me.  I didn't laugh out loud one time.  But, I am still glad I saw it.

M's Musings on SCREAM

Scream.  Dir. Wes Craven.  Screenplay by Kevin Williamson.  Ft. Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette.  Dimenson, 1996.

In celebration of Hallowe'en, we decided it was time to catch up on our reviews, and watch something "scary" for a special Hallowe'en issue of MT Sentiments.  Like every other genre of classic film, I wasn't allowed to watch scary movies.  So, like 95% of the movies we watch and review on our blog, I had never seen this classic which was an important part of my childhood and young adulthood.  I simply never had the experience in the moment.  For films like this one, you just can't re-live it once you are past your teenage years.  I think I would have thought this film was a lot more clever if I was a 15 year-old virgin.  Ah well.

The one thing I kept going back to while watching this movie was how old the actors are who play the teenage roles.  When you ARE a teenager, you don't find it strange, because you want so badly to have the maturity of those people.  The kids who are actually 16 are playing 12 year olds.  There is no way they could handle the range necessary to be an angsty youth.  Angsty youth have no idea what life after high school is like, so there is no way they can ever be convincing in these roles.  You need the wisdom in order to recreate the experience.  Remember, teen movies are always about re-presentation, they are never about the original experience.

This statement is an excellent segue into the most interesting feature of this film.  Its self-reflexive discussion of the genre of the teen slasher provides another level of experience onto the conventional story it is telling.  Its awareness of its own limitations is parodic and charming at times, even if it is a bit over the top.

I made jokes to T throughout like this is so meta.  And the movie is deconstructing itself.  It is so pomo.  While I was making fun of the convention of being aware of the conventions of a genre, I am sure that as a teenager I would have been really impressed by this.  This is the time in our lives when we first really start to see the broader patterns that reappear in various cultural phenomena.  We know enough about genre that we can anticipate action and talk about the predictability of a story in a way that is a mix of disdain and superiority which is unique to the high school moment.  It is important to feel better than the entertainment you are mindlessly consuming.  You have to be too cool for your own life.


Overall, I thought this movie was really fun.  It helped get me back into a moment when the "millennium" was an ominous event looming in the horizon.  It helped me remember what a horror movie the whole high school experience really is.  Perhaps the various hacking and slashing is closer to the truth than we like to imagine.  Everything feels like the end of the world or the end of your life, even when nothing is going on that you will remember in six weeks, or even six days.

It was fun to re-live the up-and-coming actors of the mid-90s.  Though I really didn't see most of Friends until it had already ended, and only ever saw the last episode of Party of Five, I was immediately presented with these two women who would occupy so many people's tv sets for a good five to ten years.  It was a very nostalgic experience for someone who is not very violent and doesn't really enjoy watching violence on tv.

I don't think this movie is supposed to be scary.  It is too self-aware of its conventions to be overly outrageous in its portrayal of the various murders.  Instead, it is just silly.  The killers are in a Hallowe'en costume and talk on cell phones.  They get stuck in garage door openers, and string up principals on the football field.  It is just supposed to be over-the-top.  It doesn't actually need to keep you awake at night.

I'm glad I watched this, but now I am safely ready for bed.  Stuffed with mini-chocolate bars and a late night dinner of chicken wings, all in all it has been a pretty good Hallowe'en.  We even stuck a carrot in a pumpkin to make a witch nose for our Jack o'lantern.  Hope everyone did something fun and didn't get up to too much trouble.

M's Musings on GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Great Expectations.  Dir. Alfonso Cuaron.  Screenplay by Mitch Glazer.  Based on the novel by Charles Dickens.  Ft. Ethan Hawke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Robert DeNiro and Hank Azaria.  Twentieth Century Fox, 1998.

Did not meet my expectations.  In fact, like Pip in the novel, my expectations were frustrated in the end, and doubted throughout.  At every point I was on uneven ground, which just made for a more frustrating movie watching experience.  I have no idea why this movie was made.  Seriously.  It didn't need to be updated.

I don't think Great Expectations was ever conceptualized as a coming of age tale in the 80s and 90s.  This is a time that doesn't need to be recorded.  The poverty of Finn (Pip) was understated enough that it was unbelievable.  I think at one point Joe ate at McDonald's.  How very low brow.

Gwenyth Paltrow is a total bitch in this movie.  I mean, Estella was supposed to be.  But she is just SO unlikeable.  This is the thing.  It didn't seem like she was acting.  Her conscious body displays seems so deceptive and twisted.  You just know she is going to be impossible.  She is the nastiest sort of tease... I don't know why anyone would like her.  That said, she is probably a good match for Ethan Hawke, who is also completely unsympathetic.

I hate the idea that Finn is an artist.  I don't buy it.  Don't try and make this into a buildungsroman.  I don't want to watch an artist grow up, and I really don't want to watch him rely on a muse who is a heinous bitch with no soul.   The art in the movie was too interesting to be done by Ethan Hawke.  If he drew at all, it would be very realistic, very unoriginal work.  I think it would be mostly line drawings in pencil... and no one would ever believe he was the next big thing.

The main couple was so frustrating and unlikeable.  Robert DeNiro is wonderful, and so is the guy who plays Joe.  Both of those guys should have more screen time.  The Miss Havisham character was about 40% of what I was hoping for.  Without the wedding dress, it is hard to imagine her desperate sad, story and to feel the necessary sympathy and pity that makes her endearing...

I also hate that this quintessential British story was set in Florida.  Florida.  The class system isn't stringent in Florida.  Nor is it in New York.  These are not substitutes for the old world.  It has to be in a place where class is very evident, identifiable by key markers that do not operate on a sliding scale.  We need to see performance of class in more regards.  I know Finn drives a pick-up instead of a luxury sedan... but that just didn't cut it.  That said, the moustache is an interesting example of class markings.  Only the poor ones have it in the movie.  Heh.


Overall, I am not impressed with this adaptation.  I think this book would be difficult to adapt, but at the same time, they could have done a better job.  This isn't the story as it needs to be told.  I look forward to a better adaptation... some day...  and I hope that it is made by people with British affiliations.

M's Musings on SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE

Sleepless in Seattle.  Written and directed by Nora Ephron.  Based on a story by Jeff Arch.  Ft. Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan and Ross Malinger.  Sony, 1993.

I needed a mental break today, but I just couldn't give it to myself.  Thankfully, T. insisted.  He put me to bed and made me watch this.  I have complained much of late over the whole romantic comedy genre.  These are movies that are neither funny nor romantic.  Just a whole lot of Tom Cruise being crazy, and me wishing that we hadn't shopped around in this genre.

Sleepless in Seattle worked better than everything we have been watching, I think, because it really didn't try to be funny.  This isn't a romantic comedy.  It's just a drama that tries to be romantic...  That said, it isn't really romantic at all, either.  In fact, the two actors share about two minutes of screen time, combined, in the whole film.  They could very well have filmed together for one week, and that's it.  Double billing extraordinaire.

I liked seeing women be emotional on screen and have men make fun of them.  I don't know if that is terrible and politically incorrect, but its true.  It's a giant reality check.  If T. doesn't remind me that I am getting too emotional, I let it take me over completely, and am pretty much the worst person to be around on the entire planet.

Now:  Movies as escapism which set unrealistic expectations.  Yes, the women of the 90s are screaming, "rah! rah! down with love and romance!" but secretly hope they can find their Cary Grants and Humphrey Bogarts.  This is what I have to say:  if it feels good do it, even if you are going to get made fun of mercilessly.  If you want to watch these movies and go somewhere else, live the dream (if that's your dream), then more power to you.  Especially if it helps you grow and be creative.  Just, above all things, make sure it really makes you feel good, and is giving you energy instead of taking it away.

I hate Meg Ryan.  I don't know why.  There is just something about her.  I think she is completely unconvincing in most roles, and that's why I can never manage to really believe she is capable of the strong emotions she professes.  I don't know what I want, but she isn't it.  Believe the things you say, and I think it comes across better on screen.

Tom Hanks, you are sweet.  I like you as a dad, though not as well as I liked you as a kid.  This seems like a relatively recent follow-up movie (five years... so only sort of kind of), and I thought you were continuing to endear yourselves in the hearts of women.  The scene with your dead wife was a bit creepy, and I loved the awkward scene where he calls for a date.

Overall, this helped shake some stress away, and didn't make my day any worse.  I am still hoping to find a better film in this genre, but I am also looking forward to hunting around in another area all together.  I wonder what treasures T. will come up with next.

For a different take on this film, check it out as a horror movie.  Pretty accurate.  Tell me what you think of this 60 seconds of cheekiness.

M's Musings on JERRY MAGUIRE

Jerry Maguire.  Written and directed by Cameron Crowe.  Ft.  Tom Cruise, Renee Zellweger, Cuba Gooding Jr.  Sony, 1996.

You know what, I actually had kind of high expectations for this film.  I am not usually so swayed, but enough people have talked about this as some ideal romantic comedy, that I kind of thought I was going to be swept away by its brilliance.

Suffice it to say, I wasn't.  Not only is the profession of sports agent really difficult to relate to as an audience member, but Tom Cruise is a super weird guy at that.  I wanted him to SHOW ME  THE MONEY, but instead, all he did was SHOW ME THE CRAZY.  I didn't need any more crazy in my day, thank you very much.

Tom Cruise is infinitely unlikeable.  He doesn't treat women nicely, in fact, his character has no problem with the fact that he is incapable of intimacy.  He runs around all day, screaming and wheeling and dealing, and then comes home and bangs some broad to get out his ya yas.  Very respectful, Jerry Maguire.  I am definitely fantasizing about THAT tonight.  

Barf.

I didn't even feel compassionate toward Renee Zellweger's character.  She was starry eyed, overly emotional, and easily manipulated.  She is by no means independent, though before she hooks up with Jerry she certainly is able to take care of her own.   I think one thing this film did do a good job of expressing was the desire to find a father for one's children over a partner for yourself.  The fact that Jerry bonds with the child is important, and the only real source of joy in the whole movie.

That little kid *almost* made this film worth it for me.  

Next time, I am not going to be persuaded by promises of romance.  Having seen very few romantic comedies, I am hoping that there are some out there that really do tug at my heart strings and make me love again!  As of this moment, all these films make me do is think... oh god, please don't tell me anyone is looking at this film as a romantic ideal.

I am so glad I have T.  Not only is he sweet, charming and good looking...  but he'll never be a sleazeball like Jerry Maguire.

Dear Readers, if you know of a happy romantic movie, send it our way.  I am going to suggest skipping the genre all together if we get any more duds.

M's Musings on NOBODY'S FOOL

Nobody's Fool.  Written and directed by Robert Benton.  Based on the novel by Richard Russo.  Ft. Paul Newman, Jessica Tandy, Melanie Griffith and Bruce Willis.  Paramount, 1994.

This is the first film with Paul Newman I have ever seen.  I can tell you right now, without a doubt in my mind, it is the first of many.  A pair of very good friends of ours recommended this movie to us, and we were saving it up for most of the week as a treat.  For once, I believe that this is a movie that T has also never seen.

While this film could be incredibly sentimental, and, at times, is, I think it does an admirable job of emphasizing the triumphs and failures of everyday life.  As a character, I don't really think Sully "grows".  It is the audience more than the character that seems to develop.  As the story unfolds, we begin to open ourselves up to the reality of small town living in the world created within the film.  I loved that no one in the film was really ahead of anyone else.  Everyone was just doing their best to get by, judging each others choices as they attempt to do the same.

Sully's strange flirtations with Toby (Melanie Griffith) definitely seemed a bit over the top.  I guess what we are supposed to appreciate is that Sully quietly takes care of everyone in town.  He's the guy everyone loves to hate...  But he knows how to give people what they need.

I like the idea of being accountable for who you are now, in the moment, instead of constantly atoning for the past.  You can't repair all the mistakes you make in your life.  But, you can make changes to your life at any point to make a difference in future interactions.  Seeing the rekindled relationship with the grandson is particularly touching.

As the film closes, nothing has really changed.  Sully leads the same life, while situations around him has changed.  But, the outlook is positive.  Make the best of what's around.

These are the things that made the film for me.  Be sure to look forward to them if and when you check this out!

The relationship between Sully and his landlady.  Their every interaction is memorable.  I think I'll look for Jessica Tandy in earlier work as well.

The little kid and his watch.  That may have been too sappy.  But, talk about heartwarming when he clutches the watch while he returns the lawyer's leg!

Driving the truck down the sidewalk.  Talk about awesome.

I have a few complaints, though they are minor.  I thought the son character was really boring and unlikeable.  No wonder the dude didn't want him to help on the job.  He needed to be more complex and witty if he was going to stand up to and act against his father.  He made English professors everywhere look totally pathetic.  I personally don't need that kind of role modelling!  In general, I thought Dylan Walsh's performance was mediocre in all aspects.

I also wasn't convinced that the Christmas season needed to piled on.  It just pushed things too close to the overly sentimental line.  I would have appreciated it more, I think, if it was a crappy, middle of the winter time when we lost that.

Complaints aside, what an uplifting film about making due, and making your own happiness.  Loved it!

T's Take on CANADIAN BACON

What can I say? It's a classic. Really the only Michael Moore movie I can point to and say the word "classic" without irony. I remember my parents laughing about this movie and talking about it as being hilariously political, but when I watch it now the movie's humor feels somehow sapped. So much of this movie rings true today in so many ways... It was very over-the-top and ridiculous in its time, but even then there was a clear edge of terrifyingly transparent reality. I guess by this point in my life I've seen the messages conveyed here play out some many times over that much if it isn't funny anymore. I'm not afraid of Americans prodding Canada in an effort to stir up war tension. I am afraid of that country bringing some terrible wrath down upon themselves as a result of Government/Big Business crossbreeding, because you know damn well they're not annexing Mexico. Not as a first choice, anyway.

Every time I have a chance encounter with an American they're incredibly guarded and distainful at first, but after about twenty seconds of conversation they they open right up with their opinions and convictions, almost all of which tend to be extremely rational and humanistic (basically). I remember speaking with one woman about box stores: she was telling me with dismay that they used to have a great selection of bookstores where she was from, but a Half Price Books moved in and chased out all the competition. She said it hurt their town and put too many people out of business who cared about books and employed a bunch of fifteen year olds who didn't read because that was the only set of people who would work for what they paid. And yet, everyone shopped there. She said, "This is happening everywhere. Who's going to pay for all of this? I feel so sorry for your generation. Things are just going to get worse."

Hunter S. Thompson wrote on October 16, 2001: "Generals and military scholars will tell you that eight or 10 years is actually not such a long time in the span of human history — which is no doubt true — but history also tells us that 10 years of martial law and a war-time economy are going to feel like a Lifetime to people who are in their twenties today. The poor bastards of what will forever be known as Generation Z are doomed to be the first generation of Americans who will grow up with a lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed. That is extremely heavy news, and it will take a while for it to sink in. The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed. The last half of the 20th century will seem like a wild party for rich kids, compared to what’s coming now. The party’s over, folks."

I thought Alan Alda made a great stand-in for Bush, even though Jr. wasn't around for years to come when this awesome movie came out. As near-omnipotent superspy Snake Plissken used to say: the more things change, the more they stay the same. It's just one crisis after another, isn't it? The worst part is that they seem more and more authentic. Either the puppetmasters are growing more confident and skilled in their coercion or we're just spiraling faster and faster out of control. If these are the days in which greasy government officials don't need to invent pretend calamities to keep us spending and perpetuate their own control we are well and truly fucked.

Last night Michael Moore gave me chills. Quote me.

This movie is gut-splittingly hilarious and absolutely terrifying at the same time. You feel either one (or both) at any given time because it's not impossible to imagine many of the characters behaving the way we see them in this movie. Here we see a stupendous, goofy world where anything is possible and everything is hilariously over exaggerated. In creating such an environment Canadian Bacon jerks us down to grim realities that North America as a whole has yet to face fully fifteen years later. The actors do a great job of capturing the haplessness and simple-mindedness Michael Moore clearly wanted to portray in the various classes and I caught myself laughing so hard I needed to rewind more than once. Having said that, any instance where the person you're watching some supposed cinematic gold alongside falls asleep repeatedly before ten o'clock it doesn't really say much for the narrative.

No characters learned from their mistakes, we saw no growth or development, everybody in the film was two-dimensional, the schemes were transparent and less than well thought out... The outcomes were predictable and the general tone very baseline. In the end it was all a little too true to life for comfort.

Watch Canadian Bacon.

M's Musings on CANADIAN BACON

Canadian Bacon.  Written and directed by Michael Moore.  Ft.  John Candy, Alan Alda and Rhea Perlman.  Fox, 1995.

My expectations of what this movie was about and my experience watching the film were very different, to say the least.  I thought this movie was totally Canadian, set in Canada, and a parody of exclusively Canadian life.  When I saw that Michael Moore was director.... I was just confused.  The CanCon, while high, was not the real focus.

In actuality, this film is a critique of American culture and society, which hyperbolizes Canada to help emphasize some of the societal and governmental problems of the US.  The film doesn't critique Canada, but instead essentializes us as a sweet, docile country with a heart that is an easy and unjustifiable target for America at the end of the Cold War.  Without the money that comes from warmongering, many people are out of jobs and desperate.   The current president incites hatred against a common enemy, both accusing and blaming Canada to gain political sway.

The movie has a lighthearted tone, and I, for one, mostly like its portrayal of Canada.  While not at all realistic, its nice to imagine that overall the American caricature of Canada is friendly and caring, if a bit gullible.  The constant rearranging of the RCMP acronym was sweet.  My favourite moment was when the "night shift" at the power plant was an old couple reposing in a living room setting.  If only life were really like that!

The film does, however, point to the relatively unclear identity of Canada as a nation on the international stage.  In general, the portrayal is very diminutive.  Its one of those movies where the message is supposed to be that America really needs to reassess its corrupt values and government.  But, another of its underlying messages is, well, at least we are brave and strong unlike these sissy, small Canadians.  The fact that we could be so easily manipulated and controlled by the government was a frustrating admission to our lack of independence and power.  

Though fifteen years old, I think many of the issues presented here are as real now as they were then.  The world is still struggling economically, and now the divide between rich and poor is even more extreme.  The "closed power plant" scenario of Niagara Falls seems to be applicable to large portions of both countries.  

How do we define ourselves and deal with these economic issues?  Besides scapegoating and warmongering, tactics that have largely failed, what are our options?  Surely to god we can come up with something better.  I know it.

While this movie is a comedy, I think its outlook is pretty bleak.  National pride is not a useful commodity.  It doesn't fix problems... it only seems to provide a sense of security and comfort in uncertain times.  

I wouldn't watch this again.  I appreciate the film's goal, but I wasn't engaged with it.  I had to watch it in two sittings, and then I had to double check plot points before posting.  Maybe it just wasn't my genre.

T's Take on GHOST

Ghost.  Dir. Jerry Zucker.  Screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin.  Ft. Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore and Whoopi Goldberg.  Paramount, 1990.

M: I wish they'd change the hair. Or make them both better somehow. All I see is hair. Bad hair.

M: Why is she dressed like a man?

M: This is one of the top ten romance movies? For what?

M: We should have just watched Beauty and the Beast

M: This movie sucks! It sucks! Why did we watch this movie if you knew it sucked?! You did this to us! You did it with Ghost!

M: Baby... Next time we have sex do you want me to pretend I'm Patrick Swayze in Whoopie Goldberg's body? Is that what this is about?

I sat through this movie for her. I saw it a second time because she wanted to watch something romantic. When she said that, I bit my tongue, because I love her. When she suggested Ghost, I didn't flinch. The man inside me was screaming and crying and scratching at the walls of my psyche, but I held back, because why not? She's done some pretty heroic and incredible things for me in the past. No judgment in brainstorming, after all, and it's not entirely up to me what we watch. The complex inner workings of the Modern Woman are largely unknown to me. Relationships are about compromise, and it was, before tonight, my understanding that chicks dig the Swayze.

Having said that, I was both relieved and dismayed at her response. It's good to know that she is, in fact, a human being with full sensory capacity. But if she's not going to get all weepy about the tragic death of Sam Wheat, why did we watch it? I went into the film hoping for (at the very least) a bargaining chip to be used at a later date. At this point I can't see using Ghost as leverage to get Total Recall into the mix... She's blaming me for this fucking movie. Even now, at this very moment, she's scanning the internet and saying things like:

M: "You know, you can buy Ghost on VHS at Amazon for fifty-nine cents. What a ripoff."

M: "Yes! This movie is commemorated in the top ten worst movie lines ever. 'Ditto.' Pfft."

So what can I say? The story was flimsy and requested far too much suspension of disbelief. I hated all the characters. The storyline itself confuses romance with men jumping through hoops for their partners. I hate that shit. Why does romance always have to circle around a confused, helpless woman? Who cares? I wanted that Pourto Rican dude to kill her. The inevitable 'woman in peril' hook came up far too many times to be effective, and the whole money-laundering thing they kept dragging us back to felt forced.

Again: who cares? This movie was too squeaky clean and predictable to even approach being watchable. Why didn't Sam kill either/both of those guys when he had the chance? You're telling me he wouldn't? He gives four million dollars to the salvation army so that no-one would come after the psychic? Why not have her speak with Molly and divert that whole confluence of events? What? If they both just disappeared to some Caribbean island... I'm getting mad, now, and I'm sorry if we're getting off track.

He couldn't have gotten at least some of it to his girlfriend, who's only source of income is pottery?! I hate to try forcing logic into something that's not meant to be observed practically, but that's why she was with a banker in the first place! Now she's got the mortgage on a New York city townhouse to contend with, funeral bills, even the cost of living in that city would be back-breaking after a few weeks. They clearly weren't married, so what happens with his life insurance? Money never really seems to come into these boiled-down idiotic love stories. It's immaterial when compared to the loss of a loved one, I understand that, but she didn't need to think clearly to recieve the money.

I felt Patrick Swayze was miscast in this movie as an actor. Besides that, the character was not a man. It was not a male person. They tried to make him seem more masculine by having him dislike Macbeth and act hesitantly around the notion of marriage, but that was really the only attempt at humanizing him in that way - everything else was him reacting with an over-exaggerated gasp to the plotline. Every bad movie has some side character who's only job is to push the plot along; everything they say is the next step in the story. Usually this is a roommate, or a sibling, or a best friend. It shouldn't be the male lead.

This was a ghost story. It was a story about a ghost. It wasn't a love story, or a tale of resilliance and lasting affection that supersedes space and time... It was a fucking bank caper. Who cares? It doesn't matter! Things like this happen all the time! It would have been nice to see Demi Moore do anything but cry. Or have anything come out of it that was good. The best thing that happened was Demi Moore learned that she truly was loved by Patrick Swayze, who is now dead and gone forever, so enjoy your reopened wound. You know what? If Swayze hadn't interfered, that Willy guy probably would have avoided her, come back when the house was empty, got the money, and she never would have known the difference. Instead she was menaced by a man with a knife and lead on an emotional roller coaster and came out with the ghost (pardon the bad pun) of a man nobody could ever live up to the memory of. That banker dick probably would have been exed out by whatever faceless and briefly mentioned organized crime outfit (read: "... These people are drug dealers!") he was working for anyway, because when four million dollars goes missing you don't get to keep eighty thousand. You're not getting paid off. They're not real keen on witnesses like that. When that guy goes back for his cut he winds up in a hole. Nobody's giving you money, you idiot!

I guess the underlying current of Justice is what really bothered me about this movie. Bad people go to hell, Good people go to heaven, true love prevails and crime doesn't pay. Because that's not boring and useless and oversimplified at all. Never mind the super creepy Whoopatrick touching scene. Lesbianism isn't creepy. Patrick Swayze posessing Whoopy Goldberg's body and touching on his girl is creepy. Even creepier is the way Whoopy kind of... Submittingly subjected herself to it. Yuck.

Don't watch Ghost.

M's Musings on GHOST

Ghost.  Dir. Jerry Zucker.  Screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin.  Ft. Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore and Whoopi Goldberg.  Paramount, 1990.

No offense to fans of the early 90s...  but seriously, didn't you have something better to spend your money on than Ghost?  Holy crap this movie was bad.  I didn't enjoy a single minute of it.  I must have moved around, whined, complained, and blamed T. for the full 127 minutes I spent watching this movie.

Earlier today I figured, we have enough posts under our belt, so, it must be time for something romantic.  You know...  warm our hearts, help us reconnect with our sappy sides after watching someone like Marilyn Monroe remind us how fake human interaction really is most of the time.  We perused some lists of top romantic movies, such as this and this, and I decided, what the hey, this might be a fun mix of supernatural and sentimentality.

But it wasn't.  And T. knew it.  He had seen this movie before.  He let us waste our energy watching this pile of refuse for reasons unknown to me.  My guess is that he wanted me to be dissuaded from suggesting romantic movies in the future.  But, what he may NOT have realized, is that now the hunt is ON!  Since that was so terrible, I want to find one that really takes my breath away, steals my heart, and makes me sigh inadvertently.

T., get ready for every romantic movie you have never before been subjected to!  Muhahahhahaaa!

And when you are ready to tear out your eyeballs, remember this:  You could have stopped this!

In short:  There was no chemistry between the actors.  All the acting was really choppy and poor.  Especially emotional close-ups of Patrick Swayze.  The special effects were distracting and weird.  The racial stereotyping was aggravating and not at all comedic.  The ghouls and heavenly light were just sad.  And, finally, the pinnacle of a movie should never be, "Ditto".

I hope someday people realize how bad this movie is.  Twenty years later, I would hope that any attachment to this story is gone.   Let me know it is just a hoax.  Seriously.  Because I just don't get it.

Enough said.

T's Take on CASINO

 

The top five most badass entities, living or dead, real or fictional follows in this order:

1: Jaws
2: Leonidas
3: Nicky Santoro
4: Predator
5: Conan

Nicky Santoro is a personal hero of mine. He was an innovator. He made a lot of smart plays and balanced home life against a hectic work schedule extremely effectively. Very few characters I've come across are capable of that type of violence while maintaining approachability and a high sense of order. Nevermind being all-around Radical. Who's chewing on a toothpick? Total douchebags. And Nicky Santoro. He's the only other one.

Nicky doesn't care about you. You're not appealing to Nicky's fucking good nature. If he's helping you out, it's because it helps him, or because it stabilizes the natural order of things. That's it. You are an insect. And really, he doesn't see himself as much more either. It wasn't about how cool he was or how people ought to think of him: Nicky was doing what Nicky was doing because it got him further along. He saw people as creatures and the world as a big jungle. As far as his see-want-have process went he didn't let much stand in the way of his pursuits. He didn't feel bad about robbing or stealing or killing or torturing. If you weren't strong brave and creative enough to win, protect yourself and prosper, you didn't deserve it. It's not Nicky's fault you suck.

That's really what constitutes badassness, in my opinion. Pursuing what you want in the boldest and most practical manner without apology or self-doubt is the mark of a truly remarkable being. We look to Nicky in awe because we, the common Lower Being, understand that living your life in this way is to forgo philosophical fulfillment and any chance at happiness in the traditional meaning of the word. We understand that we couldn't be happy spending a large portion of our lives in jail. We understand that there is no joy to be had in storming through bars and casinos and betting joints stabbing and smashing and grabbing at lowlives. This is not work we wish to do. The very nature of that undertaking is the absolute lowest of the low, the worst kind of existence most of us can possibly imagine. Constant subjection to this lifestyle would ruin most people.

Herein lies Nicky's gift. By simple virtue of who he was by the time he reached adulthood the man had completely disregarded the world and society we all seek to thrive in. He happily accepted the Worst Part of Everything as his domain. A lot of people attempt that, but few pull it off to this degree. He was very reactionary. When he realized the FBI was watching him, he just went to the people selling surveillance equipment to the CIA and watched the government right back. His "Well, fuck you then!" attitude and penchant for violence was very shocking in juxtaposition to his more reasonable moments. If something wasn't politically sound as per his money making arrangement and The Grande Scheme (sic), he was the first to encourage other characters to step back and think about what they were doing. Not that he wasn't the instrument of his own demise ultimately, but I doubt even he was shocked at that.

The real guy, Anthony "The Ant" Spilotro (named as such after being publicly referred to by an FBI agent as a "pissant") seems very much to the same tune. Reading up on this guy's life, the movie played very close to reality in many ways. Not much seems to have been changed. I can imagine Nicky Santoro having multiple "mopery" arrests in his youth, as well. Mopery apparently means exactly what it sounds like: moping around in the streets aimlessly. This is the kind of bullshit law that gets made so that police have something to slap onto people they know are out bumming around looking for crimes to commit. That sounds like Nicky to me, in his shoplifting and purse-snatching phase. Nobody's born this hard-line, but you can believe certain paths will get you there in a hurry. Apparently The Ant finally got Made in the Italian mafia before he ever got to vegas for, you guessed it, popping some dude's eyeball out of his head by cramming it into an industrial vice and tightening.

Nicky: [about beating Tony Dogs to get information out of him] You better hope he gives me a fuckin' name soon, or I'm gonna give him yours, Frank.
Frank: Yeah, thanks a lot.
Nicky: I know you woulda ratted by now.

(... Torture ensues.)

Nicky: Give me the fuckin' name!
Tony: Ch-Charlie M.
Nicky: Charlie M?
Tony: Charlie M.
Nicky: Charlie M? You made me pop your fuckin' eye out of your head to protect that piece of shit? Charlie M? You dumb motherfucker!
Tony: Kill me.
Nicky: I'll kill you. You motherfucker you! Frankie, do him a fuckin' favor.

So anyway. Nicky Santoro knew how to Get Things Done, and for that I'll always cherish the gold cinematic moments he gave me. Joe Pesci nailed this performance and stole the show, hands down. Robert De Niro is a genius, of course, but I would call Mr. Pesci's work here the finest I've seen, maybe of his career. Some of his monologues still give me chills just to think about.

Nicky: I think in all fairness, I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. For instance, tomorrow morning I'll get up nice and early, take a walk down over to the bank and... walk in and see you... and if you don't have my money for me, I'll crack your fuckin' head wide-open in front of all those cocksuckers down there at the bank. And just about the time that I'm comin' out of jail, hopefully, you'll be coming out of your coma. And guess what? I'll split your fuckin' head open again. 'Cause I'm fuckin' stupid. I don't give a fuck about jail. That's my business. That's what I do.

So there you have it. One of the finest examples of what it is to be a striving human animal in the world. If you don't own Casino already you can get it at most big box stores for less than fifteen dollars now, so there's no excuse. Casino has long been one of my all-time favorites, and I could talk about the masterwork script or nail-on-the-head acting, the set design or the tone... Whatever. It's awesome. You need it. Watch Casino. You don't know shit about movies.

Rest in Peace, Nicky.

M's Musings on CASINO

Casino.  Dir. Martin Scorsese.  Written by Nicholas Pileggi and Martin Scorsese.  Based on a book by Nicholas Pileggi.  Ft.  Robert De Niro, Sharon Stone and Joe Pesci.  MCA/Universal, 1995.

For years I have been telling T how much I disliked this movie, without even having had the decency to watch it.  When I suggested we take it on several days ago, T was shocked but willing to let me watch it as long as I was a good girl and didn't complain.  I told him I would be good, as long as we were allowed to watch it in several sittings.  Thus, a deal was struck.

And, I'll be the first to admit it, I was wrong.

I liked Casino.  For the first hour, I kept waiting around to discover what the central plot of the film was going to be.  Once I learned that the action was set around a decade, not just a few key events, I eased off a little and just let Ace or Nicky tell me where they wanted the deal to go.

To get over a really too straightforward narrative, the film opens with an explosion and then backtracks twenty years, letting the events unfold leading up to that moment.  Not exactly original, but useful enough for the viewer, who now has a marker to look for several hours later, when the film begins to wind down.  The "perspective" of the film, which shows events while they are narrated by Ace or Nicky, is inconsistent.  The back and forth style is by no means trying to be "he said/she said", as the camera angles and style of shooting doesn't change based on who is doing the voiceover.  This keeps a sense of omniscience which I think is kind of confusing with the multiple narrators.  Are we seeing things as they are, or as they are remembered or told?

We know we can't trust either character to "tell us the truth".  Ace constantly blames Nicky, and vice versa, as they point to events and problems that first elevate them, and then shatter their success.  At one point, another guy has a minor voice over... and for me, that blew it entirely.  They need to find explore some other ways of expressing interiority for that character.  Too many cooks, if you know what I mean.

Most notable, in my opinion, is the role Sharon Stone plays as Ginger.  While a fascinating character at the beginning of the film, she quite quickly becomes one dimensional.  Her status as a top swindler and prostitute is glorified by Ace, who really sees her as a woman with exceptional talent and beauty.  I was excited to watch her help build up the empire and continue to surprise us...  But instead she sells out to Ace for some jewelry, and is just a pathetic, unhappy loser for the rest of the film.  Her drug use is somewhat downplayed in terms of screen time, but her consistent coked-out fits show the after effects of her extensive drug and alcohol abuse.   Her screaming is so irritating... but I really felt like it made the performance.  She acted the way I would project that the wife of a gangster might act. Her affair with Nicky was both disgusting and the icing on the cake.  It was clear she had completely lost her edge, and was no longer capable of being top of her field (if she ever was to begin with).

I found it interesting that both Nicky and Ace really emphasized their children as a priority, far more than their wives.  The idea of family in gang culture, of maintaining solidarity at all costs... was something I really hadn't thought that much about.  I liked that Nicky cooked his son breakfast every morning.  And, I liked that Ace was happy to let Ginger go, as long as she left his daughter alone.  I figured there would be a gender divide... but it seemed that the divide seemed to prioritize children and de-prioritize spouses, not prioritize men and de-prioritize women.

One last thing:  I hate Joe Pesci's grading voice throughout this film.  It made me want to hurt somebody.  But, I suppose that is how he was supposed to sound and be.  I was kind of glad when he was bludgeoned to the point of death and buried alive.  And that isn't a very nice thing to say!

T's Take on WAYNE'S WORLD

Party on, M.

I quote Wayne's World much more than I realized before re-watching this movie. Mike Myers can't help but be hilarious in his winsome, goofball way. The funniest bits weren't the rediculous catch phrases or the storyline aspects - most of those were weak and forced. It was the parts when Wayne was allowed to get carried away with silliness. The Milwaukee bits, the obtuse product placement, basically every time he reacted to something, distracting his girlfriend while she's on the phone with mummy-humping and crossdressing...

That's the Wayne Campbell I wanted to hang out with. I realize he was doing the rocker thing over-the-top on purpose, but Wayne's World is a necessarily gimmicky movie that plays on a lot of low-hanging fruit. Most of that fruit, of course, is considerably more commonly overdone and much less hilarious now, but I felt like a giggling little kid again for about a half hour of its combined one-hundred and seventy-four. The first half isn't very... Erm... Compelling(?) and in the beginning I often wonder why I ever liked this movie, but by the end I'm always won over.

One of the reasons I like Wayne's World is that most of its jokes are immediately appologized for afterward. Mike Myers did not want anyone mad at him, clearly. Like when the boys are hassling a cop, but it quicky turns into chummy guy-time... The spoofy montage about how boring Milwaukee is with a follow-up sarcastic jab to Alice Cooper, quickly followed by a short diatribe about how the town really is more than meets the eye:

Wayne: So, do you come to Milwaukee often? (facetious grin)
Alice Cooper: Well, I'm a regular visitor here, but Milwaukee has certainly had its share of visitors. The French missionaries and explorers began visiting here in the late 16th century.
Pete: Hey, isn't "Milwaukee" an Indian name?
Alice: Yes, Pete, it is. In fact , it's pronounced "mill-e-wah-que" which is Algonquin for "the good land."
Wayne: I was not aware of that.

PS: you can't appear informed, politically correct and enlightened if you're casually referring to First Nation peoples as "Indian".

The funniest thing about Wayne's World is that a lot of metal enthusiasts I've known referred to the movie as being Excellent, loving it to pieces and quoting it often, having no idea that the entire MTV character concept was a complete mockery of the kind of douchebaggery that surrounds the rock scene. When asked to stretch his three minute bit on how useless and empty-headed hardcore rockers tend to be, I think the end result came out as a little more loveable and straightforward than what was originally intended.

Still, the movie is fun and I have fun when I watch it. There's a very Bill and Ted too-stupid-to-hate goodness here that leaves you with the notion that some people are still decent and occasionally the good guys win. It's easy, it's a fun ride, and it brings back memories.

"... Entertaining, whimsical yet relevant, with an underlying revisionist conceit that belied its emotional attachments to the subject matter." - Wayne Campbell

M's Musings on WAYNE'S WORLD

Wayne's World.  Dir. Penelope Spheeris.  Screenplay by Bonnie & Terry Turner and Mike Myers.  Based on characters by Mike Myers.  Ft.  Mike Myers and Dana Carvey.  Paramount, 1992.

Party on, T.

I have always wished that I watch SNL.  But I really never have.  Between that and a childhood void of movies that were rated higher than PG, it is no surprise that this was my first encounter with the WOW (by which I mean World of Wayne... duh!) was this afternoon.

While I wasn't rolling in the aisles at every funny moment, I have to admit, I really enjoyed it.  It was constantly appealing to different kinds of humour.  In particular, I liked how there was a constant interaction with the camera in a mockumentary that predates The Office or Trailer Park Boys but is concurrent with the rise of the reality tv show (a la The Real World).  Wayne & Garth made asides to the audience, and constantly broke the wall that separated the world of the film with the world of the viewer.

When Wayne argues against corporate sell-outs with the extreme product placement (reminded me of 30 Rock), again, the film was being self referential in a way that was clever AND hilarious.  The contrivance of the conflict in the movie was stupid.  Would two bozos be willing to talk about arcade games in order to continue their show and quit their dead end jobs?  Of course.  But that really isn't worth watching.  Instead, the boys are willing to have corporate sponsors for their FILM, but their characters in the SHOW wouldn't sell out in that way.  We were willing to include product placement in our film... but in a film where dudes don't want to sell out...  it either needs to be really emphasized or guiltily hidden away.  Since it seems far fetched that the two bozos with mullets could convince the world to buy anything... you only have one option.  (Side note... the $$$  people made on this film is impressive...  its longevity is also impressive what with all the merch, catch phrases, and general stamina this movie has had over the years).

The various times the movie stops and starts again at the end was perfect.  How do you keep the film from becoming so cliche that it loses some humour?  Layer on some cliches, and offer a choose-your-own-adventure format.

I feel like this movie would be funny if you were feeling like an intellectual snob, or if you just wanted to hear Wayne order the cream of "sum yung guy" and make penis jokes.