Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Director: Edgar Wright
Starring: Simon Pegg, Kate Ashfield, Nick Frost, Lucy Davis, Dylan Moran

* * *

Here's the film that Broken Lizard's Club Dread should've been. Instead of a horror film with comedic elements, Shaun of the Dead is a comedy that references horror films. The humor in this film shows the wit and sophistication of the shows on British TV, but the guys and gals who created "Spaced" show what they can do with a bigger budget and less content restrictions in their hilarious homage to great (and terrible) zombie films. The film's tagline essentially says it all: "A romantic comedy. With zombies." except with less romance and more comedy.

I'm unable to describe the film without either giving away plot or givng away punchlines. Needless to say, this was one of the funniest films I've seen all year. In fact, I watched it three times already in just two days. It's worth every re-watch, too. This film must be the perfect party film, and you need not be a zombie movie fan to enjoy this one. It helps if you want to get the dozens and dozens of references in the film, but this one pretty much stands up on its own. It's utterly fantastic. See it.

August 29
computer, early afternoon

* * *

D

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

Director: Paul Greengrass
Starring: Matt Damon, Franka Potente, Brian Cox, Julia Stiles, Joan Allen

* * *

I should begin by saying the I had very high expectations when I walked into this film. My man Nick loved it. I'd heard that it was actually quite good for a sequel from other sources. Perhaps it was these elevated expectations combined with my lack of sleep the previous night, but I didn't care for the film all that much. The plot felt superfluous, filler to pad the action set-pieces. The twists in what plot there was were easily predictable, and the hand-held "edgy" style to the photography was excessive well beyond the point of obnoxiousness.

Yeah, the acting was decent. Yeah, the action set-pieces were really incredible. On the other hand, I couldn't figure out why I should be watching the film and why I should care about Jason Bourne this time around. Besides the action and the acting, everything else was phoned in. The Bourne Supremacy uses the old standby revenge plotline where the bad guys are killed in order from least threatening to most, each death getting progressively more elaborate. It's not anything new, and the director doesn't ratchet up the tension enough even to make the final kill of the big baddie satisfying.

Unfortunately, The Bourne Supremacy isn't a rental. It's a film that's made for the big screen and should be seen accordingly. If you have any desire to go see the film, try to find the cheapest theater possible.

August 21
Beverly Theater, early afternoon

* * *

D

Collateral(2004)

Directed by Michael Mann

Starring Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx

Man. This was THE best movie of my summer. And No I haven't been able to make it to the small Indie films as I normally do, but somehow I doubt that would have much mattered. The notion that Hollywood pictures aren't as edgy or whatever as an independent is crap. Especially when that said 'Hollywood' picture is directed by Michael Mann.

Michael Mann has got to be one of the best American directors of the last 10 years. His body of work should speak for itself. Thief, Last of the Mohicans, Heat, The Insider. He even created TV shows Miami Vice and Crime Story, thereby giving the 80's style and Dennis Farina. Anyone that helped Dennis Farina into acting should be given a big hug. And a Trophy. With Boobies on it. Big ones. Where was I?

The main crux of this film is the relationship between Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx. Tom Cruise(Vincent) is on fire. This is his best performance in years. Its right up there with Magnolia, Born on the Fourth of July, and Interview with a Vampire. Its also as viscous as his turn in Last Samurai. However, much like Samurai Cruise is eclipsed by his costar, Jamie Foxx(Max). Really this is Jamie's movie. He shines. It makes me anxious to see Ray.

Half way thru I sorta wanted Vincent to get away with it all. Really. I didn't like the guy, but I understood him. I also started to really care about Max's fate. When you care for the characters the action means something. The idea that Max might actually get killed, or that Vincent would follow thru on his threats kept me totally riveted.

A lot of critiquing was made about the ending. Some said it was so awful that the whole of the film suffered. Others said it was contrived and disappointing. They would all be wrong. If you didn't see that ending coming from a mile away, especially after the opening, obviously you don't pay any attention to structure or economy of Character. I mean, why else introduce jade Pinkett Smith that way? What did you THINK the movie was going to do with her?

Also, much was said of Jamie Foxx's character. How the movie relied on him too much for too many things. And that what he was asked to do was unrealistic etc. Two principles of Movies come to mind: 1)The amateur will get you every time. Go watch The Shootist for proof. 2)Anyone is capable of anything at any time. All it takes is pushing the right buttons. Keeping these two things in mind, Jamie's turn of character in the second act for the thirds ultimate and inevitable conclusion is neither unrealistic or anti-climatic. As has been said by other critics(No, I'm not talking about Drew. I respect his point of view. But Leonard Maltin? NO).

This is a movie that makes extensive use of style. For some it might be a bit too much style over substance. I'm sorry but its a movie. There should be more style over substance. Otherwise we get what I call "Books on Film." Or a Merchant Ivory film. BORING. Wastes of my time. I'd rather go read the books or whatever those 'films' are based on. You know, like the first Harry Potter movie.

True there is a balance that one can find within style vs substance. And Mann found that better in Heat. However, Collateral plays fast and loose. Like the best episodes of Miami Vice, or Homicide or NYPD: Blue or [insert good show here]. Collateral has more life and energy than any other film this summer. Compared to Collateral half the fare this year lays on the screen like the abortions they are. Riddick, Van Helsing, Catwoman, Shrek 2. Bullshit. Lifeless wastes of time and celluloid.

Yeah, someone ought to give Michael Mann a trophy. He finally gave the cinemaplexes something they needed. Collateral is a fierce trip of a movie. Go. Watch. Enjoy.

-N

Collateral (2004)

Director: Michael Mann
Starring: Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx, Jada Pinkett Smith, Mark Ruffalo, Peter Berg

* * *

There's something very strange about watching a film shot and discussed in said film about a town in which I am currently living.

That was an oddly constructed sentence.

Regardless, everyone should be familiar with the film's premise at this point. They set it all up in the trailer. The point of the film, however, is not the plot. The point is the examination of the dynamic relationship of the characters within the film. More specifically, the point is the changing power structure of these characters. This struggle focuses, of course, on the interaction between Foxx's and Cruise's characters. Foxx must transport Cruise to survive. On the other hand, Cruise must rely on Foxx for transportation so that he may complete his assassinations.

Sadly, Foxx/Cruise's relationship never develops as satisfactorily as one would hope. The film's main infatuation is Los Angeles itself. While in Heat Mann managed to balance his meditation on the city with his story and character development, he doesn't do so quite as effectively in his most recent film. Collateral is mostly about set-pieces. It's about this action sequence or this particular assissination. All of these are great but--as Ebert points out in his review of the film--these play out more like a series of short films rather than a cohesive narrative.

The most troubling part of the film, however, are the questions that arise from the plot. The first one isn't a surprise and I'm sure occurred to many of you while watching the trailer; if Cruise's character is such a good hitman, why does his first and simplest killing of the night go so awry? There are many others, but presenting them here would ruin key plot points.

The main thing the film has going for it is its style. And, oh, what a style. Mann's post-modern noir is such a bizarre blend of the currently hip and the sublimely classic that it's difficult to describe in words. His films are to be seen rather than described. On that note, I've got to say that Mann makes great (and generally imperceptible) use of the digital medium.

While not everything in the story makes sense, to watch the film is to witness a modern noir epic. In addition, I haven't seen a Cruise performance this good since Magnolia, and you know how much I love that film.

[NOTE: While looking up Ebert's review of Collateral, I saw that he gave Collateral Damage three stars (he gave Collateral three and a half). I find this disturbing.]

August 8
Avco Theater, early afternoon

* * *

D

Near Dark(1987)

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Starring: Adrian Pasdar, Jenny Wright, Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, Jennette Goldstein, and Joshua John Miller

This is a vampire film. Its not your usual vampire film where you have candelabras and canopy beds and homoerotic subtext. Nope this is the blue collar Vampire film. And I mean that as a compliment. I really cannot stand the flowery overaggrandized gothic-romantic vampire stuff. I mean its nice, but DONE TOO DEATH!

Near Dark is the story of Caleb(Pasdar). Caleb meets the beautiful Mae. They spend the evening messing about and then before sunrise Mae bites Caleb. Then he turns in to a vampire and Mae's clan(Henriksen, Paxton, Goldstein and Miller) take Caleb in and try to show him the ropes. Try. Fail. Seems Caleb doesn't want to embrace the vampire lifestyle. So the movie involves an internal conflict with Caleb(he doesn't want to suck blood) and an external conflict with the Vampires(They want to cut Caleb loose and be done with it).

I think it would have been better had Caleb just fully embraced what he was becoming. But, in the interest of generating a conflict and an antagonist Caleb cannot become a vampire. He must fight(though its killing him) and resist Jesse(Henriksen, who is up for the idea of killing him).

In other vampire fare once a character is turned they seem to embrace the vampire within. In "Buffy the Vampire the Slayer' for instance, a demon takes over your soul thus explaining the bloodlust and turn of personality. That device isn't here. I wish it were. Because usually once you are made a vampire you cannot be unmade a vampire. Oh wait. Yes you can. Bigelow(who co-wrote this with Eric Red) has arranged a backdoor. Which leads to a human Caleb fighting the rest of the vampires.

Aside from all this, the movie seems to work. The love story involving Caleb and Mae is absolutely believable and drives the heart of this story. Its not so much a "BOO!" horror movie as it is a "Creepy" horror movie. Like Bride of Frankenstein the film is rich in atmosphere. Bigelow should be commended for her directorial choices. Especially in the staging of the bar sequence. Its horrifying and unsettling. All the things a good horror movie should be. Having cheap "Boo!" effects will only scare you for a minute, setting up a "Creepy" effect will scare you for hours maybe days afterward.

And even though the plot choices(Act the Third) are somewhat dubious, its at least different. Had the performances and action been weak the set-up would really have fallen apart. As it is, although you don't get what you want, you might get what you need. So check out Near Dark.

-N

To Have and Have Not(1944)

Directed by Howard Hawks

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Walter Brennan & Hoagy Carmichael

So this is the film debut of Lauren Bacall. This is when Bogart and Bacall started the 'Bogart and Bacall' romance. You know, the famous one. All this would seem like fluff, except that I swear I am seeing them fall in love on camera. The film just captures these two falling in love. Its mesmerizing.

The plot is rather basic: Bogart takes deal to help French Resistance for much needed cash. Along the way Gestapo sponsored French Police get in way, Bogart kicks ass, gets girl. Throw in witting badass lines, make 'the girl' cool and tough as nails. Then have Hoagy Carmichael play piano and sing songs. The End.

Its Howard Hawks, which means that no matter what I describe its just better for you to watch. Entertaining as Hell and well worth the time/money of ownership. Highly Recommended.

-N

eXistenZ(1999)

Directed by David Cronenberg

Starring: Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law, Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe

Hmmm... Where to begin. I think that the 'Directed by' title is very useful in discerning whether or not I want to spend my time on a movie. If the movie is by a director whom I am familiar with then I pretty much know what I might be in for. As with a Michael Moore film I know largely what I may be in for: Politics, humor, his 'truth' to get his point, etc. ad nauseum. Such is the case with David Cronenberg. If you are unfamiliar with Cronenberg, don't start here. I would suggest Spider or The Fly. This isn't because the latter are better movies than eXistenZ just that they may be more accessible to the uninitiated.

Having been exposed the several of Cronenberg's films, and liking most, I decided now was the time to rent this DVD from Blockbuster. They have quite a few of Cronenberg's other works and eXistenZ has me excited to see more of his work. I am glad I invested 97 minutes of my life. This is truly a unique experience. If you take all the reality shifting from Total Recall, the pseudo philosophic babble on reality perception from The Matrix and then rewrite it so it makes sense and is actually ... Well, written well... And then add the "Cronenberg factor" you might have an idea about this film.

This film is about a reality warping interactive video game. The game console is an organic tissue that resembles a uterus with handles and switches that look like nipples. The game attaches to your central nervous system via an umbilical cord apparatus that connects to a vagina(remember that 'Cronenberg Factor'?) like thing in your back, called a Bioport. One must lube the port in order to properly insert the cord( so its a lot like sex). Then the game starts and you are in. The only trick is once you get out are you really out.

This is the pickle that Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law find themselves in... The trick for the viewer is to spot when they think the game begins and reality ends. Is it at the 5 minute marker when you see them first implanting themselves into the game? The so called Denouement the 'reveals' the true nature of what you are seeing? Or has the game never stopped? Are we just seeing a slice of the game play from beginning of picture to end of picture? Has the game already been under way long before the film started? And who is to say that the ending we see once the credits role is really the ending at all?

The problem I have with this movie is that the 'game-play' itself really does seem like a beta test version of a well intentioned by badly scripted video game. I have played quite a few games in my time, and as my brother and all his friends and even Drew here are real hardcore gamers this film seems right up our alleys. Also, I'm fairly certain that they know what I'm talking about when I say "All your Base..."
Yeah, some of the plot twists seem like the worst of game cliches. Things invented just to get the plot moving. The real fun thing is that the movie acknowledges this fact and almost pokes fun at it... So, it works. Sort of.

So is this movie worth your time? Well as its only 97 minutes and the pace isn't to slow I would say yes. But I doubt you will get the same level of enjoyment from it as a fan or someone familiar with Cronenberg's past works. But I could be wrong.

As a fan of his work I really enjoyed this film. The atmosphere and tone are set by the color use, camera angles and Howard Shore's creeping score. The acting seems strangely stinted but not in a way that annoys... It more projects a deeper meaning. Consider that most of the people in the game are actual gamers that are acting characters in the game(a theme disgusted in the film) then the performances take on a weird Vaudevillian element. Every Cronenberg movie leaves me wanted to see more of his work. My hope is that you feel the same way too. If you do then I suggest and recommend eXistenZ.

-N

Lawrence of Arabia(1962) or And Now... For that review I promised all those weeks ago before the Migraine.

Directed by David Lean

Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alex Guiness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, and Claude Rains.

Let me just get this out of the way: Lawrence of Arabia is the best movie. Ever.

I get asked often, 'Nick, What is your favorite movie?" To which I stare blankly into space for about five minutes, then turn with a grin and say 'Why I don't think I can answer that question. It all depends on what mood I am in, and what I want to watch at that particular moment." My friends... That is now a cop out. Lawrence of Arabia is my favorite movie. Of all time. And not by narrow margins.

There is a lot that I can say, but that has almost already been said. If you want a real good review go read Roger Ebert's Great Film section on the Chicago Sun-times website. No I'm not going to pimp you a link. No yet*. I am not going to talk about the sweep of the camera or the startling beauty of the images. That's all been said, and as I said earlier in this run on paragraph, its been said better.

I just cannot seem to get this movie out of my skull. The sequence where Lawrence walks out into the desert at night, sits beneath a palm tree gripping a rock and thinks... Well it sounds stupid in print, but its thee pivotal scene of the movie. What he decides to do after that is was drives the first Act. That scene wouldn't have worked without Peter O'Toole as Lawrence. If you have never seen Peter O'Toole act, See this performance. Its breathtaking.

People talk about "Oscar worthy performances." "Star Making turns..." "Roles of a lifetime..." etc etc. Peter O'Toole, in one of the Academy's more foolish decisions, did not win Best Actor for this movie. He was Nominated but he did not win. In 20 years whatever a film won or did not win or was or was not nominated for will not matter. Off the top of anyone's head can you tell me who beat out O'Toole in 1962 for this Oscar? I have the Internet at my finger tips and I cannot tell you without looking. You know why? Cause all awards and accolades are just dust in the wind. In the 44 years since this films release the Oscars it won have not made this movie any better or worse. O'Toole is so brilliant that for 228 minutes he is prefect. And that is better than any award or critique one can hope to win.

I do not have the adjectives nor the acumen with which to use them to describe this movie. You just have to see it. Everything good thing you've heard about this movie is true. I am literally bouncing in my seat just thinking about the movie. It is The epic to beat all epics.

If this movie doesn't grip you, move you, rivet you, and capture your imagination you have no imagination. You have no soul. You have no heart. You should not be watching movies of any kind and this includes Dude, Where's my Car?. This movie is why film was invented.

-N

*Okay here's the link: Ebert's Review.

On the Waterfront (1954)

Director: Elia Kazan
Starring: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Eva Marie Saint

* * *

Well, the movie's great. Brando's Brando. I'm not sure what I can say. Everyone knows the "I coulda been a contenda" scene. If you haven't seen it, you probably should.

August 5
apartment TV, afternoon

* * *

D

Dogtown and Z-Boys (2001)

Director: Stacy Peralta
Starring: Sean Penn (narrator), the former Zephyr skate team, Henry Rollins, Tony Hawk

* * *

I'm not entirely sure what I can say about this movie; go see it, I suppose. Sure, the interviews and retrospective of the Venice beach Zephyr skate team--the team that essentially defined the aesthetic of skateboarding from then on and the team that essentially discovered the half-pipe--are interesting and romantic as hell. The real joy of the film comes from just watching the kids skate. Oddly enough, however, the moving images don't quite capture the energy of the sport as well as the myriad photographs do. If you care anything about skateboarding--hell, even if you don't--you should check out this story of, yes, how a ragtag bunch of kids from Venice, CA transformed a relatively dorky sport into an international outcast phenomenon.

Interesting sidenote: the director, Stacy Peralta, was actually a member of the original Zephyr team before he branched off to go into business of his own.

August 4
apartment TV, afternoon

* * *

D

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

Director: Frank Capra
Starring: Cary Grant, Josephine Hull, Jean Adair, Raymond Massey, Peter Lorre, Priscilla Lane

* * *

At first I thought my dislike for this movie was due to some kind of generational gap. I had to rule that one out, however, because I'd seen this as a play in high school and absolutely loved it. I think it has something to do with the script, but it has more to do with the direction of the film. I think the script puts the punchlines at the beginning of the film, and it puts too many of them. Look! The man who's always been against marriage is now for it! Two old ladies are actually murderers who fancy themselves simply performing euthanasia! A serial killer...who looks like Boris Karloff! A character who believes he's Teddy Roosevelt! It's as if this was how the writer pitched his idea to executives, and when asked what the film was about he closed up his briefcase, headed toward the door, and on his way out said, "Wackiness ensues." The film just tries too hard. Everyone mugs for the camera. After each of the gags I half expect someone to turn toward the camera, let out a "yuk yuk yuk!" and toss a cream pie. It feels like someone just assembled the oddest group of characters they could think of and forgot to make them likeable and/or funny, expecting the laughs to spring organically from the characters' mere existence and juxtaposition. Arsenic and Old Lace just tries to be too cute for its own good.

August 4
apartment TV, evening

* * *

D

[UPDATE: I just read this in the Arsenic and Old Lace trivia section on IMDb.com:

"Cary Grant considered his acting in this film to be horribly over the top and often called it his least favorite of all his movies."

That pretty much sums up my sentiments.]

Flatliners (1990)

Director: Joel Schumacher
Starring: Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, Oliver Platt

* * *

I caught the full-screen version of Flatliners the other day on HBO. I really wish I'd watched the widescreen version. The shape of the screen isn't as important as the message in this film, however. Flatliners is a disturbingly apocalyptic film, and the apocalypse will arrive shrouded in blue light apparently. Here is a fascinating premise for a movie: med school students essentially kill and resuscitate each other in an effort to gain ultimate insight into life through brushes with death. Death, however, is about atonement for one's sins, and a return to life does not negate this fact. This film fit in neatly with my theme for the moment because of reading Philip K. Dick's final trilogy of novels that deal with religion in a modern context and, thus, death. What the characters in Flatliners hoped to find in death was the answer to life. What does it mean? Is there something more? Is there a God? While the film doesn't directly answer any of these big questions, it does deal with atonement of sins. More specifically, it deals with unconscious guilt and what might happen in death without atonement. It's a grim but fascinating picture. It must have been Schumacher's one good movie in that particular decade. That being said, it's a doozy of a movie. Thought-provoking (more so from what one can extrapolate from it than from what is is the picture itself) and entertaining, it's certainly worth a view.

August 4
apartment TV, early morning

* * *

D

Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)

Director: Danny Leiner
Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn, Malin Akerman, Paula Garcés

* * *

As many of you who've read my other blog know, I was pretty excited about seeing this movie. I'll say right now, I enjoyed the hell out of it. I laughed and laughed. What I wasn't expecting was the breakneck speed with which the events of the film occur. Here's an 88 minute film, and it certainly feels like it. I think that was my only problem with the film in general; it was too short. The two lead characters are each perfect as their unique characters. The situations? Absurd, hilarious. Normally I don't mind such a breakneck pace--especially with comedy--but I liked these two bastards so much I wanted to be around them so much more. I guess I'll have to wait for the "Unrated" version to come out on DVD with some deleted scenes. I'd say it's a pretty good sign that really the only negative aspect of the film that springs to mind is that there wasn't enough of it. Unfortunately, the film not only left me wanting more; it left me feeling that there wasn't enough.

August 2
late evening

* * *

D

Garden State (2004)

Director: Zach Braff
Starring: Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Ian Holm, Peter Sarsgaard

* * *

Let's get this over with right now: I cried (the happy kind) watching this movie. There's something about watching a person coming to life and becoming self-aware again that strikes a chord with me, I guess. Braff is great, and this is Portman's best performance that I've seen since The Professional. The entire cast is great, in fact.

The brief version goes something like Braff comes home from Los Angeles for his mother's funeral and forgets his lithium, a drug he's been on since he was ten. As he's home he rediscovers old friends, meets new ones, and one can literally see Braff awakening from his lithium coma over the course of the film.

It's a film about opening up to other people and self-realizations. It's a simple premise, but it's funny how it's the simple things in life can be the most important. Garden State goes on a mission to prove just this. There's even a brief odyssey to a fascinating New Jersey site/life metaphor. This film has the energy of discovery about oneself and about learning to feel again.

I don't think I need to mention how great the soundtrack is. Just look for yourselves.

I think this is up there with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as one of my two favorite movies this year. Garden State isn't a perfect film, and I think I like it all the more because of that.

August 2
Pacific Grove Theater, early afternoon

* * *

D