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 THE GRADUATE

The Graduate.  Dir. Mike Nichols.  Screenplay by Calder Willingham and Buck Henry.  Based on the novel by Charles Webb.  Ft.  Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft and Katharine Ross.  MGM, 1967.

T, this movie isn't funny.  In fact, it is nothing short of disturbing.  It is uncanny to watch a young Dustin Hoffman pontificating and bemoaning the "next steps" after graduation that parallels a constant struggle in my own life.  While I have chosen to keep moving forward instead of stagnating in limbo, graduate school doesn't always feel like as a big a step forward as I would like.

Watching this movie brought up a lot of bad emotions about what happens to people who thrive in school, but have no life skills.  How does being a track star translate into becoming a successful, banker, butcher, baker or candlestick maker?  It doesn't.  The sad reality of this movie is that it reminds viewers that you can be good at some things and still fail at life.

That said, I think that the example of this particular kid is not at all the same as many who struggle with the beginnings of life after college.  Self-definition is hard in this new, liminal phase, where you go from the top to the bottom.  All bets are off, and there are no more rules and restrictions that limit you.  You are free to do as you please, and the worst part is, no one is really judging or, really cares (except your parents and your ex-mistress).

First of all...  If I ever found out T., or anyone else I dated... or was friends with... or had some kind of important personal relationship with... had some kind of strange sexual relationship with my mother, I wouldn't try to get with them.  That is disturbing and didn't make any sense.  Besides, what is the appeal of this guy anyway?  He is a depressed lazy but who doesn't rise to the challenge of life at all.  Instead of making hard decisions and progressing forward, he just stagnates in la-la land while his family and their friends shake their head in disgust.  We thought you were so much better than this.

The girlfriend is perhaps the worst character.  With her glassy eyes and her inability to stand up for herself, she lets the world tell her what to do and who to be.  If a man shows her attention, even if that man has already slept with her mother, that is enough.  And, after she runs away, after being married to another man, her new boyfriend won't even look at her?  Why?  Because she is a disgrace like him.  There is no love or chemistry lost between them.

Benjamin had nothing else to do, so he decided to become a stalker instead of volunteering, looking for a job or picking a graduate school.  Get it together, you strange freak show.

This whole film was absurd and frustrating.  I hated it.  I hated Benjamin, his mother-lover, and his girlfriend.  It was all too much.  Yucko.

M's Musings on THE TOWN

The Town.  Dir.  Ben Affleck.  Screenplay by Peter Craig, Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard.  Based on the novel by Chuck Hogan.  Ft.  Ben Affleck, Rebecca Hall, Jon Hamm, Jeremy Renner and Blake Lively.  Warner Bros, 2010.

T. and I thought we'd celebrate Thanksgiving by going to the movies last night.  When we arrived at the theatre, we realized we didn't know what any of the movies were.  Strangely, there were no posters, and no real advertisements, so we ended up piecing together what each of the movies were about in a haphazard way.  We asked a group of stoned teenagers.  This was their recommendation.

When chatting with them, we realized we knew exactly what movie this was.  In fact, T. mentioned that he had been waiting for this movie for months.  Who knew!  I came in with no expectations, beyond the fact that this was a "heist film".

I was pleasantly shocked at how much I enjoyed this film.  Ben Affleck was bang on, stealing my heart while still making me want to avoid him.  I loved how "all in the family" this story was.  Each of the crew members were tied to each other by family, sex, money and drugs.  As a result, the individual actions or desires of one member are subject to the interpretation and punishment by the group.

For the bank manager, I thought that she was kind of sympathetic, but very quick to fall for Ben.  The tatooed dream boat with an honest blue collar job, is a thrill for the "toonie" yuppie who otherwise spends all her free time helping the innocent and gardening for the community.  The extremes between the idyllic woman and the criminal with a heart of gold were perhaps a little too extreme.  If they developed her character a bit more, gave her something besides her "sunny days", I think she would have been more likeable.

I found the search for the water very moving.  I felt completely caught up with her steps as she relived it. I can only imagine how the trauma of such an experience could affect a person longterm.

T. taught me about the "death by cop" suicide attempts of the various crew members, which I thought made sense.  If you only have two options, life in a maximum security prison or death, I think I would make a last stand, too.

I found it did really validate the crew's actions and emphasize their humanity.  That, mixed with an unsympathetic cop who also went home to "nuke his dinner" really disrupted the binary of good/evil which made the movie more interesting.   The bad guys were "punished", but the system itself was put into question.  I liked that.

Overall, I did find that the movie was too violent.  I found it occasionally shocking, but that probably was mostly to do with the fact that the characters were relatively well developed before they were killed. This wasn't a random massacre, but a carefully executed game of cat and mouse by men on both sides of the law.

It was also interesting that they chose to throw in a sister/lover character to act as a foil to the bank manager.  She was disregarded by Ben Affleck, but at the same time, they did make a point of showing the two of them having some kind of weird pity fuck earlier in the film.

I thought this was an interesting, fun and powerful film.  Usually heist films have way less heart.  Good job, Ben Affleck.  I think we may need to consider expanding our repertoire to include more of your films.

M's Musings on DICK TRACY

Dick Tracy.  Dir. Warren Beatty.  Written by Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr.  Based on characters by Chester Gould.  Ft.  Warren Beatty, Charlie Korsmo, Glenne Headly, and Madonna.  Disney, 1990.

I liked all the colours.  And I liked the faces.  They were very bizarre and unbelievable in a very convincing sort of way.  This movie IS comical, but at the same time, it tried to really stay grounded in its own universe.  I liked the consistent association the characters have with styles and colours in determining their identities.  I liked the over-the-top dress, particularly because none of it was questioned.

On some of the exterior shots, I was very much reminded of Halifax with the bright coloured and individuated houses and businesses.  I think the world should always be painted in that kind of technicolour.  I find it very expressive and inviting.  It appeals to my senses to see so much loveliness captured on screen.

My biggest complaint about the film was about Tess Trueheart.  Though she did, indeed have a true heart, I hated that she never confronted Dick Tracy about cheating on her.  I mean, I know that Warren Beatty liked to screw women, but a sweet girl like Tess shouldn't have to stand for it.  It broke my heart to watch her stand by her man...  I know he really and truly loves her...  But that isn't good enough if he can't keep his tongue in his mouth and his dick in his (yellow) pants.

The kid was the best character.  I liked him best as the kid, before he became Dick Tracy Jr.

I like the characterization of the different villians, particularly Al Pacino which looked like a caricatured version of himself.  In many ways he is playing a pretty normal role for himself, but because of all the extra makeup and what not, it seems newer and more unique.

I definitely ennjoyed this movie from beginning to end.  It is light, easy, and has a fun, full cast.

And, I didn't want to tell T. this, but, I am positive that I've seen it as a child!  A happy memory, indeed.

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 The African Queen

The African Queen.  Dir. John Huston.  Based on the novel by C.S. Forester.  Screenplay by James Agee, John Huston, John Collier, and Peter Viertel.  Ft. Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn.  CBS/Fox, 1951.

Admittedly, I was excited to see this movie because it was starring big name actors from the 50s.  It turned out that I wasn't ready for a big ol'dose of colonialism and a lack of chemistry between the two big players, Katherine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart.  I found Katharine Hepburn completely unlikeable, and not at all interested in doing anything but boss around a man she saw to be her economic and moral inferior for most of the film.  She may have been dependent on him for her own well being, but she was quick to show that she did not like him, would actively and maliciously work against him, and that, at the end of the day, would prefer to die than to listen to his advice about the inadvisability of their adventure.  The way she referred to him dismissively by his last name made my skin crawl.

On the other side of the boat, we have Humphrey Bogart.  Equally unlikeable, as both an overly submissive and drunken buffoon.  He is completely bewitched by the power Hepburn is producing, and figures that it is his place to do as she says to protect himself (and his rum).

The blossoming love story I didn't buy.  Nor did I buy their death-defying journey.  It was hard to create a sense of urgency when each of the shots was... more of them on the boat.

I did appreciate Bogart's highly unlikely ingenuity.  His ability to come through on every unrealistic demand that Hepburn placed on him was astounding.  I don't know why he bothered.

It has taken me over a week to review this film, because I frankly have been avoiding it.  I am not sure what to say, except that I really didn't like this.

M's Musings on HOWL

Howl.  Written and directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman.  Based on the poem by Allen Ginsberg.  Ft. James Franco.  Werc Werk Works, 2010.

T. and I checked out the Atlantic Film Festival on Friday night, only managing to make it to one show during the whole week plus of festival.  We may have only been here for a month, but seriously... We should have tried a little harder.  If this film was a testament to the excellent, high-calibre films being featured over the last week, then we really missed out.  

This film, which was equal parts obscenity trial, staged interview, poetry reading and computer generated artistic rendering, was a fun and interesting way to connect to Allen Ginsberg and his poetry.  While I would argue that some of these sequences were better than others, I liked the pastiche approach and the various interpretations it allowed the poem to operate within simultaneously.

Each of the four parts was shot in a different way, and from a cinematic perspective, I must say I was most drawn to the "documentary style" of the interview with Ginsberg.  James Franco managed to support an entire movie where he was the only central, consistent figure.  Pretty bad ass, if you ask me.  I completely bought that Allen Ginsberg was griping to a journalist in the wake of the obscenity trial he was not a part of.

While I liked the poetry reading sections in black and white, the audience reactions seemed really forced.  Would this have been shocking?  Ho-hum?  Something in between.  The clapping and laughter occasionally made me think more of a comedy club then a poetry reading.  I felt like the audience of hipsters was titillated, but not truly engaged.  Maybe I am just reading too much into it.

In the court room, which was filmed just like any court-type drama, we have very eloquent lawyers giving speeches and attempting to answer bizarre questions.  What makes a piece of work literature?  What is artistic merit, and how do we determine it?  Questions for all the ages, to be sure.  I thought the feel-good style of pitting the "bad lawyer" with the prudish witnesses against the "likeable, cares about literature lawyer" with the deep, more thought provoking witnesses almost seemed too extreme.  That said, if the reactions really were that polarized, it makes sense.  That is the nature of a court case, I would assume.

Also, for the record, I bet those beautiful speeches weren't just from the heart.  I bet they had copious notes, if not a full speech for their final statement.  Seriously.  You can't just pull that kind of thing out of the air.

The visualizations were very interesting, tumbling and bizarre.  I found it of note, in a film that frankly deals with issues of "deviant" notions of sexuality for the time period, that the majority of the sexuality being portrayed was so vanilla.  Homosexuality was dealt with frankly by parts of the film, but shirked it in other moments, which I thought kind of muddled the message.  

For example, here are two photos of Allen with his partner...  Only one of these moments is recreated in the film.   I bet you can guess which one.

I thought they could have pushed the envelope even further.  But then, the visualizations were entirely interpretive, so really, they could have been whatever the CG guys wanted them to be.  One thing I know for certain:  the flaccid penises were of a generous size.

I liked that the images were constantly in motion, moving and changing shape and scope as the poem was being read.  I didn't always know what to do with what I saw, but that didn't invalidate it for me in any way.

Why does an animal howl?  Is it an expression of pain or triumph?  In titling his poem Howl, I think the answer needs to be somewhere in between.  And that's kind of what I thought about this movie.  It wasn't universally celebratory, but I'm glad I saw it.

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 THE APARTMENT

The Apartment.  Dir. Billy Wilder.  Screenplay by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond.  Ft. Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, and Fred MacMurray.  MGM, 1960.

I know that going in, I really wasn't sure what to expect.  Given the title, I first thought it was going to be some kind of psycho thriller.  Then, Trev told me it was supposedly a comedy about a guy who had a super sweet apartment that he uses to move up the corporate ladder.  Then, I discovered that it was the follow up movie to Some Like it Hot.  So, I figured, ha ha!  It will be a funny comedy.  Then there was Jack Lemmon and I said, alright, let's do this thing!

During the first hour or so, I couldn't help but make connections between this film and Babyface.  I kept thinking about how men and women must manipulate the same structures to try to succeed in the corporate world.  Sad but true, poor Baxter loses autonomy over his place of residence in exchange for a small boost up the corporate ladder.  But, as he moves up, the game stays the same, and he continues to lose more and more.

Enter Fran, the lovely elevator operator.  Baxter's innocent love interest.  Also, unbeknownst to poor Bax,  mistress to Baxter's boss.  This is the moment when we know all will be right in the world, as Bax can save the day, get the girl, and get his apartment back.

But this is not exactly how the story unfolds.  Having a depressed Baxter bring home a woman on Christmas Eve only to find Fran having attempted suicide and dying is not exactly a fun romp through the corporate ladder.

This movie was dark.  And long!  I mean, this girl's suicide is blamed on Baxter, is literally cast off by the superior, and is left for Baxter to deal with.  And, Fran is still alive, so he has to deal with nursing her while everyone thinks he is the scum of the earth who drove her to do this.

Seriously depressing.  I'm not sure if I was in too sombre a mood to appreciate the humour of this movie, because I took it seriously, and thought it was a really bleak take on society.  Its not surprising to see how the attitudes propagated there helped create a generation of people like us, looking around, wondering why the economy, etc, is crumbling at our feet.

As much as I liked Fran in the first few scenes, her devotion to her lover seemed unusual after the suicide attempt.  I mean seriously...  what does this guy possibly having going for him?  He has some money, sure, but you returned his "payment", and now are just stuck with his less than stellar personality.

Watching Baxter act as a bachelor was the highlight for me.  When he strains his spaghetti with a tennis racket, it made my day.  Here is a guy who is just trying to do things right, and is just beaten to shit for it over and over.  I wonder if he even got to enjoy his dinner?

The ending of the movie seemed forced given all the horrible stuff that transpired throughout.  Though in some respects I got what I wanted, I left this film feeling very unsatisfied.  I think this film didn't fit comfortably into a genre, and that's ultimately what got me.  It wasn't a comedy or a tragedy.  It was just a drama that leaned in both directions at different times.

I think I would have been happier with one or the other.

M's Musings on BIG

Big.  Dir. Penny Marshall.  Screenplay by Gary Ross, with Justin Schindler and Anne Spielberg.  Ft. Tom Hanks, Elizabeth Perkins, John Heard, Jared Rushton and Robert Loggia.  20th Century Fox, 1988.

This movie was heartfelt and delightful from the very beginning.  Seeing kids act like kids, but in 80s garb, made my day.  It made me think... what more do you need to be happy?  Ah... to be able to rock the side ponytail with no repercussions...  Sigh.  

Tom Hanks was wonderful in this film.  Completely enthralling.  He captivated me from the moment he took the screen.  Seeing him run around in patterned tighty whities, trying to find something to cover himself was sweet.   He just really seemed to pull of the youthfulness.  I completely bought that he wasn't just playing a kid, but really was a kid stuck in a body that was all stretched out and hard to handle.

The dynamic between him and his best friend was good, though I thought a slightly stronger child actor would have been able to pull it off better.  As the dominant member of that friendship, watching Tom Hanks look to the kid to help him find a place and negotiate bank transactions, etc, was just delightful.  When he had to spend the first night in his hotel alone, I wanted to jump into that film set twenty years ago and tell him everything was going to be alright.  Super sweet.

The dynamic between Josh and Susan was super weird.  I never quite got comfortable with that.  I know I am a super prude (which T told me throughout this movie no less than fifty times), but kids in sexual situations with adults is never okay.  Even in silly fantasy scenarios.  That freaked me out and made me super uncomfortable.  It would have been better if Susan didn't want him so badly.  It was just terrifying. And then... the "maybe you could contact me in ten years" scene at the end...  Also too much for me.  Seriously lady, keep it together.  Think it through.

That said, the best moment in the whole movie was when Josh morphs back into a kid in Tom Hank's fancy suit.  It drags along the ground, and he turns back to look at Susan.  Seeing the innocence and confusion in his face as he struggles with having taken on more than any kid should have to...  was a touching moment that was really well shot.  

It was good to be reminded he was still so small and young, and that he had no place in the world of the "big".  

All in all, I am glad the film treated this as an ideal scenario, and not some realistic imagining of what it looks like when young people run away from home and end up in big cities.  I wasn't ready for Josh to pimp himself out to various male clientele on the streets of New York.  I wasn't ready for him to lose twenty pounds and be picking through garbage.  I wasn't ready for him to go to jail and be taken advantage of even more...  I'd much rather see him designing new toys with a Keep Out sign on his office door.

Awesome movie.  It seems sad that I didn't see it before now.

M's Musings on RUSH HOUR 3

Rush Hour 3.  Dir. Brett Ratner.  Screenplay by Jeff Nathanson.  Based on characters by Ross LaManna.  Ft. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker.  New Line, 2007.

Having just returned to my computer after four decontamination showers, I am ready to say something about Rush Hour 3.

Chris Tucker was paid $25 million to be in the film.  I hope he used the money to do something to work against racial stereotypes, just like the character he played.  So, hopefully his future is in drugs and skin.  He probably has a very nice fur coat, too.  And a rap cd, dropping next month.  I apologize for saying such things.  This is not the way people should be encouraged to speak or act, unlike this film suggests.

This movie was just awful.  I was so sad to see that after three films, there was no attempt to move beyond the typecasting of the first film.  I would have liked to see...  another film entirely.  There is no way to fix this film.

I hope that someday, new non-English speaking talent, as well as racially diverse talent of any kind, can experience a "break through" in the film industry without resorting to taking on roles like the ones written here.  This movie was written for people who feel patriotic because they like to exclude people.  They are the ones who encourage stereotypes, because they themselves are stereotypically dull and, unfortunately, racist.

I look forward to watching a slew of excellent movies to bury this day in review history.

Please, please don't make another one.

M's Musings on RUSH HOUR 2

Rush Hour 2.  Dir.  Brett Ratner.  Screenplay by Jeff Nathanson.  Based on characters by Ross LaManna.  Ft. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker.  New Line, 2001.

Thank God there was a second one!  God forbid we let this film franchise fade into obscurity.  Nah... We'll do it one better:  we'll make Rush Hour 2 the top grossing live action "martial arts" film of all time.  And then, we'll celebrate it.  Take that, China!  Take that, kung fu!  Who needs you, anyway?

T and I only half watched this movie while writing our carefully thought-through reviews for the last movie.  From what I saw, I was impressed.  No, honestly, I am serious.  This movie was actually better than the last one.  They took a more no-holes-barred approach to the humour.  Instead of tip toeing around being offensive...  this film is like, shit man, I am going to lay out every white stereotype I can about black people AND Asian people in an hour and a half!

Asian people are cuddly, but asexual, "like Snoopy".  Black people like titties.  Asian men have small penises.  Black men need small bills because they are broke ass.  Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

The best part of this movie was all the dialogue in Chinese.  Particularly for T. and I, who watched it without subtitles.  At one point we just looked at each other and said, "It's not like it matters anyway".  We need to do a cleanse and watch a good martial arts movie.  Maybe it's time we review Hero.  It is both beautiful, and stars Zhang Ziyi, who is also beautiful.  In Rush Hour 2 she plays the evil villian who never, not once, speaks English (it makes her easier to villify that way).

Before I go wash my eyes out with soap, I'd like to mention one more thing:  This movie did not have even a fleeting reference to a Rush Hour.

That is all.

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!

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.

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.

M's Musings on SOME LIKE IT HOT

Some Like It Hot.  Dir. Billy Wilder.  Screenplay by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond.  Based on a story by Robert Thoeren and Michael Logan.  Ft.  Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon.  MGM, 1959.

Gender and performativity.  This film was made for a women's studies classroom.  Whether you like it or hate it, it does an amazing job of showing and telling the ways in which femininity and womanhood are performed actions that are associated with attributes and characteristics that are learned and reproduced based on culturally inherited values.  When we see the 'gals', Josephine and Daphne overemphasize words, practice their walks, raise their voices, it is only the beginning.  When we see Sugar (seriously?) use her body and play the "saviour" of Shell Oil Jr's lost manhood, or when we see Daphne accept Osgood's proposal to take him for all his money, we see femininity at its extremes.   No matter how you see it, this movie is fun.

It seems to me that this film relies on the time honoured comedic tradition of gender bending in a way that is not particularly nuanced, or any any way remarkable.  But, its conventions, which we are all familiar with make us positively anticipate the action and plan accordingly.  You don't watch a comedy like this for its underlying message.  You watch it so that men need to readjust their boobs, and realize that being a woman is a whole lot harder than it looks.

I really like that the Joe/Josephine character performs economic status as well as gender.  These social conventions are all equally false, but they are rooted in things we find important.  I tried to discuss performativity with a group of second year English students once.  They understood gender, but they didn't understand race.  It took a bunch of tries, but in the end, they got it through a mix of Stuff White People Like and White Chicks.   Performance of wealth I think is a something universally relatable, and something many people feel more comfortable with than the idea of performing gender or race.  We know that when we buy name brand clothes, wax our car, or tell our date they can order anything they want off the menu, we are trying to improve how we are perceived economically.  When Joe becomes Shell Oil, Jr, Sugar treats him differently.  In fact, she responds by creating a higher economic status for herself though stories of the conservatory and coming out parties.

This movie was a product of its time.  I don't think we could see it recreated in the same way right now.  Interestingly, like Baby Face, the film was tried by the film board for its sexuality.  Marilyn Monroe's kisses were too hot for the National Legion of Decency, which classified it as condemned.  Since this was the end of the 50s and beginning of the 60s, this rating did not result in a censored version being released.  Instead, it resulted in the disbanding of the Production Code several years later.  That said, this film did not get approval from the MPAA, and so it was not released with this endorsement, which we in today's society just assume is there, and really don't know the difference one way or the other.  We live in a time which is somehow both more tolerant, and more interested in controlling.  Now we are allowed to be make more sexually focused films, but we aren't allowed to produce a Hollywood film that does not pass a board verdict.  So, though we are less aware of it, censorship of sexuality is still a major part of modern filmmaking.  This goes against the themes of this movie, and those like it, which encourage us to explore sexuality and the conventions that surround it and pollute it.

My one major reminder, as is the case in all entertainment which uses the convention of gender bending, is that those who are fooled always forgive and forget.  I have yet to see a comedy, from Twelfth Night to Tootsie, where gender confusion is treated as a serious problem.  Its like it is allowable for us to step outside gender conventions, as long as it isn't for "real".  What about the people who really do want or need to perform a gender other than the one pushed on them by their genitalia?  No one is ever upset in comedies when people confuse gender boundaries, which, in real life, can be extremely poorly received.  The reality of these situations is that people place WAY too much stock into gender categories.  Many, many types of abuse happen as a result of an over reliance on these pretend differences between men and women.  Dramas such as Boys Don't Cry treat this issue with the seriousness we need to remember these issues are rooted in.

We laugh when we see something that makes us uncomfortable.  This gives us an opportunity to explore why these things are important to us, and whether they have any real inherent value at all.  Marilyn Monroe's femininity is more over the top in this movie than is the case in any of the hyperbolic gesturing either of the men make in that direction.  So, break this down, think about it...  and then imagine Josephine in a bathtub with a suit on under the bubble bath, and makeup and a wig on her face.  The person in there is neither of these, but instead, exists somewhere on the spectrum in between them.  That's where the rest of us are, too... somewhere in the suds.

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!

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.

M's Musings on ALIEN

Alien.  Dir. Ridley Scott.  Screenplay by Dan O'Bannon.  Ft. Sigourney Weaver, Bolaji Badejo, Yaphet Kotto, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, and Ian Holm.  20th Century Fox, 1979.

**I should clarify that T & I watched the Director's Cut from 2003, which had (apparently) about four minutes of footage that was changed from the original.

A family member once described Sigourney Weaver to me as one of the most beautiful women in the world.  When I confessed that I had no idea who she was, I was told she was the woman in the Alien movies.  As will quickly become a recurring theme in these posts...  I knew nothing about this film.  Until today!  She is indeed, beautiful.  But, it seems to me, she can also demand to be heard, think on her feet, and survive an alien encounter (or two, or three!).

The dynamic between the different crew members on the film, largely separated by class, stood out for me as a point of interest.  This crew was not bonded together in a thick-as-thieves kind of way.  Each person performed their function, with only the repairmen, engineers Parker and Brett, showing a real sense of camaraderie.  The "natural" submission of Brett to his superior officer is questioned by Ripley, who disagrees with his complacence and willingness to obey.  I kind of liked that the two men stuck together against the badgering of the rest of the crew.

More to the point, I liked that the crew didn't "come together" as a result of the crisis.  The characters do what they are told, but we don't learn about their wives back home, the children that they have never met, or any other personal details that allow us to bond with the characters or see relationships building between them.  At all times, a sense of order was imposed by one officer or another.  The crew seemed to generally follow the pecking order, and, after a loss or removal of a crew member, who re-jig the hierarchy based on the remaining group members.  I found the whole thing quite without emotion, except for the occasional "OMG!"  or "WTF?"

Even after Kane's face is raped by the Alien and it later explodes out of his chest, the crew offers few words of condolence or emotion as he is launched into space.  In fact, only Lambert seems to be unable to keep her shit together.  Her job at the beginning of the movie is to help chart our progress, and by mid film, her job is to snivel and scream and be passively taken by the Alien into his mucky-goo lair.

I also loved that though Ripley is protagonist of the film, this is not made clear until near the end.  As she demands to be heard as she is overridden by the other characters, we follow their stories until they meet their timely demises.  It isn't she that is the star of the film, she is simply the only one who makes it to the end.  While we are meant to associate with her the most (cause really, we, the audience, would also make it through the ordeal) it is the wordless, evolving Alien that is only character that audience really connects with.

The interior and exterior of the ship were impressive.  I loved the computer fortress room that was Mother.  It was excellent that the two computers betrayed the humans, and particularly that the mother character was pithy, emotionless, and generally uninterested in the fate of hew crew.

I suppose my only criticism with the film is that the Alien itself was played by a tall black man. Bolaji Badejo, a Nigerian design student, was asked to play the role because of his height (7'2).  The fact that his body was considered "alien" seems vaguely offensive.  I suppose given technology restraints they needed SOMEONE to go into a suit, though so many of the earlier versions of alien seemed to be modeled on aquatic life, insects and animals.   Why did the alien NEED to evolve to a vaguely humanoid shape?  Are we afraid of something out there?  Or, are we still expressing our fear of the other through projecting "alien" characteristics onto other human beings?  Though I don't think this really is the ultimate goal of the film, it is still something to be aware of.

To end on a happy (but perhaps unrelated) note, I think the cat was the most alien creature in the film.  Having recently inherited three kittens, I can't help but constantly be surprised by the actions they take and their general treatment of their "lesser" human counterparts.  Why didn't the crew just do what it did?    It managed to survive and get snuggles during the sleep-freeze process.  Smart little bugger.