The Right Stuff (1983)

Director: Philip Kaufman
Starring: Sam Shepard, Scott Glenn, Ed Harris, Dennis Quaid, Fred Ward, Barbara Hershey, Kim Stanley, Veronica Cartwright & Pamela Reed

* * *

Here's a guy's movie. Machines. Drinking. Manly men slapping other manly men on the back as they secretly plan to one-up him the next day. Competition and dreams. From sound barrier to the barrier of the atmosphere, The Right Stuff follows the men who test the most advanced technology in the world from their puddle-jumping days to the days of becoming American heroes. A brilliantly-paced three-hour survey, The Right Stuff has dead-on acting, great effects and a story that's OUT OF THIS WORLD!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

But seriously, it's really good. Check it out.

March 8
apartment TV, morning

* * *

D

Madonna: Truth or Dare (1991)

Director: Alek Keshishian
Starring: Madonna & company

* * *

Let's just get through this one, shall we? Truth or Dare is a black & white documentary following Madonna and her troupe of dancers on Madonna's Blond Ambition tour in 1990. It's great that a woman of Madonna's celebrity (especially at that time) would allow such an intimate documentary to be filmed--and then not censor it--because it really just shows how shallow she is. She creates dramas in her life because...well, people are supposed to have drama, right? She simultaneously craves attention from those that surround her while driving them away to the best of her ability. Truth or Dare is equal parts fascinating and repulsive. Here is the celebrity life with all its superficiality, fake drama and coarse personality. It's the prettiest train wreck you're likely to see.

February 18
friend's apartment TV, night

* * *

D

My Life Without Me (2003)

Director: Isabel Coixet
Starring: Sarah Polley, Amanda Plummer, Scott Speedman, Deborah Harry, Mark Ruffalo & Leonor Watling

* * *

Here's a beautifully acted tragic but uplifting film (How many times have you heard that one in just one week's film reviews? It's true here nonetheless.) about a woman (Polley) whose doctor announce to her that she only has six months to live. She keeps the information to herself and goes about making and executing a "list of things to do before death". We follow her as she makes a man--besides her husband--fall in love with her. We watch her bring her neighbor over in hopes that her husband will fall in love with her. Some scenes are hard to watch, but the film provides plenty of levity. Here is a character freed from the grind. Here is a character who must enjoy the time she has left. My Life Without Me is a quiet film with a great script and a great cast, and should be enjoyed in an environment and mindset conducive to that.

February 17
friend's apartment TV, evening

* * *

D

What About Bob? (1991)

Director: Frank Oz
Starring: Bill Murray, Richard Dreyfuss, Julie Hagerty, Charlie Korsmo & Kathryn Erbe

* * *

It seems I can take Bill Murray being the sarcastic jerk more than I can take his playfully dumb roles. In films like Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day, Murray's sarcasm is either a charming quirk of his character's personality or a trait whose eventual absence signifies the terminus of his character arc. In What About Bob?, the Bob character doesn't have an arc of his own. His character remains the same as the rest of the world develops around him. It's essentially a one punch-line film where Murray does something annoying and Dreyfuss reacts. The chaos of the specific events escalate, but nothing else really changes. This is not Oz's best work, nor is it Murray's.

February 17
apartment TV, early afternoon

* * *

D

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

Director: Jonathan Demme
Starring: Denzel Washington, Liev Schreiber, Jon Voight, Kimberly Elise & Meryl Streep

* * *

Here's a thriller that's a worthy adaptation of its original source material. What you trade off in great black & white photography you make up for in acting. Everyone's top notch and seeing the original is a bonus as the remake drops references and red herrings from the original fairly often. Entertaining and intelligent, The Manchurian Candidate is enjoyable even without a viewing of the original film.

February 16
apartment TV, early evening

* * *

D

Basketcase (1982)

Director: Frank Henenlotter
Starring: Kevin Van Hentenryck, Terri Susan Smith, Beverly Bonner & Robert Vogel

* * *

The acting in this one...terrible. The premise, however, is so bad and absurd that it's worth watching despite (or maybe because of) the poor performances. It involves a mutant Siamese twin being carried around in a basket by his twin brother killing the doctors that separated them years after their birth. It also involves the brother talking to his mute mutant brother and a sexual attack by the mutant (who, by the way, has no genitals). Absolutely absurd.

It's because of this absurdity that this film is worth watching. It's like the director got the worst actors he could find to say the worst lines and then gleefully through the poorly made-up mutant brother on the only woman who would get naked in his film. Unbelievable and hilarious. Worth seeing in a bad movie marathon but not recommended watching alone and/or by one's self.

February 14
friend's apartment TV, late night

* * *

D

American Gothic (1988)

Director: John Hough
Starring: Rod Steiger, Yvonne De Carlo, Sarah Torgov, Janet Wright, Michael J. Pollard & William Hootkins

* * *

It's amazing. One can actually see Rod Steiger thinking as he performs...I was in fucking On the Waterfront. His performance, though solid, doesn't make up for the (expectedly) poor script and acting. The film follows a group of young promiscuous adults (naturally) that land their plane due to engine troubles on a deserted island (naturally). They (naturally) soon discover that the island is, in fact, inhabited by a family of backward, hillbilly psychopaths (do I even need to say it at this point?).

The killings aren't terribly bloody, but the family is predictably quirky and murderous. No points for originality, but the Ma and Pa characters go far enough to make this film worth watching for connoisseurs of low-budget horror. Not a must watch, but as stated before Rod Steiger turns in a decent performance despite the material.

February 14
friend's apartment TV, late night

* * *

D

The Gate (1987)

Director: Tibor Takács
Starring: Stephen Dorff, Christa Denton & Louis Tripp

* * *

Awww, little Stephen Dorff! He still had that fox-look to him even as a 12-year-old. In this film, however, he's not playing the fox-faced bad guy. He's the scared-for-his-life-but-must-save-the-day-for-the-love-of-his-sister good guy. As a bonus, there are some genuinely scary moments in the film. Creepy zombies steal children through the walls. People's faces get bashed in and melt. Dead mothers turn into dead dogs. The walls crawl.

All in all, it's not a terrible 80's horror movie. The effects--even by today's standard--are quite good. Any movie that incorporates meddling kids, Cthulhu references and heavy metal is okay in my book.

February 13
friend's apartment TV, late night

* * *

D

The Witches of Eastwick (1987)

Director: George Miller
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Cher, Susan Sarandon & Michelle Pfeiffer

* * *

Good lord. I'm not sure I've mentioned how much I like Jack Nicholson, but I do. Very much. Chinatown remains one of my favorite movies despite it being one of the first I watched when I took the plunge my freshmen year of college. His "Jack playing Jack" performance always entertains me. Large mansion, multiple partner sex (three women, one man), a town scandalized, and Nicholson spouting just the right vulgarities to get it all. I joked with the person I watched this witht that Nicholson probably thought they were just filming a documentary about his life. The Witches of Eastwick was entertaining as hell and had surprisingly deep messages about modern conservative religion, the Feminine and modern male mating ritual. Good stuff, as Nicholson being Nicholson always is.

February 13
friend's apartment TV, night

* * *

D

Mannequien (1987)

Director: Michael Gottlieb
Starring: Andrew McCarthy, Kim Cattrall, Estelle Getty, James Spader & Meshach Taylor

* * *

The cheese...the cheese is overwhelming. Here's another example of an "80's movie". We can define this as a film that would never, ever be made outside of a certain decade. I mean, this lady met and inspired the greatest minds in history, but she ends up falling for Andrew McCarthy? Nothing against the brother, but he isn't Michaelangelo. I think we can all agree to that, no? Bad fashion, bad acting, ridiculous premise. Entertaining movie, if you can bear everything terrible in the movie. That's a lot, by the way.

February 13
friend's apartment TV, late evening

* * *

D

Sixteen Candles (1984)

Director: John Hughes
Starring: Molly Ringwald, Justin Henry, Michael Schoeffling, Gedde Watanabe & Anthony Michael Hall

* * *

Another John Hughes 80's classic. I'm ashamed to say that my viewing the other night was my first full viewing of the film, but whataya going to do? I led a sheltered life. Sheltered from the joy that John Hughes brought to millions of others while I was still reading Jack London novels. Hurray for nerds and the underappreciated. This anthem's for you.

February 13
friend's apartment TV, evening

* * *

D

Intimate Strangers (2004)

Director: Patrice Leconte
Starring: Sandrine Bonnaire, Fabrice Luchini & Michel Duchaussoy

* * *

Intimate Strangers is another quiet film from the maker of The Man on the Train (2002). The plot involves a woman who mistakenly sees a tax attorney instead of a psychiatrist, and the tax attorney doesn't correct her. Of course the woman finds out shortly after that the tax attorney isn't a shrink...but then she continues to go to him anyway.

The film enfolds slowly, and unfortunately the rewards don't quite live up to the build-up. The two leads have a nice, quiet chemistry together, but their relationship never quite develops as much as one would like. It's a quiet film, but it does have some rewards for those who are patient. Unfortunately the film tries one's patience quite a bit. I would avoid this one unless one has a quiet Sunday afternoon alone.

February 12
apartment TV, evening

* * *

D

Groundhog Day (1993)

Director: Harold Ramis
Starring: Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell, Chris Elliott & Stephen Tobolowsky

* * *

Groundhog Day is probably the most inventive comedy to have come out in the 1990's. Its story of a perpetually repeating day until the main character gets it "right" not only has spiritual overtones--which was not lost on the spiritual community according to the number of letters from religious groups that director Harold Ramis received after the film's release--but it's able to illuminate the everyday, underlining the spectacular that happens right in front of us everyday.

What's so great about the movie is that everything that happens in the film feels like it could happen. Specifically, Bill Murray sells that his days actually do repeat themselves in a seemingly endless loop. [NOTE: Ramis estimates that Murray's character is actually stuck in the loop about ten years according to his estimation.] The cast of supporting characters (and character actors) is also incredibly impressive.

Speaking of character actors: special mention goes to Stephen Tobolowsky for his portrayal of "Ned! Ned Ryerson! Bing!" He's a walking punchline, and the thought of having that character walk up to a person everyday being...well, Ned Ryerson! underlines the absurdity of the entire scenario.

The film has everything one might want in a romantic-comedy. It emphasizes the comedy over the romance. It's got the great one-liners [PHIL: I'm a god. RITA: You're God? PHIL: I'm a god. I'm not the God...I don't think.]. It's got a message but not one that feels forced. It's got a great cast of supporting actors, but most importantly it's got Bill Murray at the top of his game, which is great for any movie of any genre.

February 12
apartment TV, afternoon

* * *

D

2046 (2004)

Director: Wong Kar-Wai
Starring: Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Li Gong, Takuya Kimura, Faye Wong, Ziyi Zhang

* * *

With 2046, Wong Kar-Wai furthers his artistic study of unrequited love. Just as Wong Kar-Wai's Fallen Angels extends his work on Chungking Express, 2046 is the un-official sequel to In the Mood for Love. All of these films have a bittersweet quality to them. Wong Kar-Wai instills a kind of innocent yet ironic comedy in the coming and going of his characters and of lovers perfect for one another but who meet too early or too late or consistently just miss meeting one another. Wong Kar-Wai's stories obsess over time but only time defined as "too late" or simply being the "wrong time".

The events in the film revolve around the number 2046, hence the title of the film. The movie was originally intended to be a futuristic sci-fi film set one year before China will grant Hong Kong its independence. There are still elements of that in the film, but 2046 is not a time. In both parts of the story--the fiction and the fiction within the fiction--2046 is a place. It's at once a kind of futuristic love hotel and a 1960's apartment number. In both cases, it's where one futilely turns for love.

The actors in the film are a who's who of Hong Kong cinema. All are accomplished actors, and all are gorgeous. The look of the film is something between Alphaville and In the Mood for Love. The portion of the film with Tony Leung plays as a straight sequel to Kar-Wai's previous film while the futuristic part continues his Godardian references in both the style and tone of his films.

While Kar-Wai doesn't break any new thematical ground with 2046, he further refines what he's started with his films for the past ten years. For fans of French New Wave. For appreciators of quirky, intelligent comedy. For general lovers of cinema. It's not a can't miss, but you really shouldn't.

February 11
apartment PC, late night

* * *

D

Secret Honor (1984)

Director: Robert Altman
Starring: Philip Baker Hall

* * *

Secret Honor has one of the great screen performances in cinematic history. Philip Baker Hall plays Richard Nixon in this one-man movie of Nixon babbling insanely into a tape recorder at once defending himself of Watergate charges to some imagined judge and at once reminiscing on tangents about his colossel failures and how he is the American dream.

It's a credit to Altman, too, to adapt the original play to film with such grace and fluidity. The camera floats through the room following Hall's manic-depressive performance. Altman injects the play with another element that both underlines Nixon character's paranoia and gives the film its main visual motif--the security monitors. In fact, when we see Hall through the monitors his resemblance to Nixon is absolutely uncanny.

P.T. Anderson fans may know that it was this film that so impressed Anderson as a young man that when he got a chance to work with Hall when Anderson was a production assistant, Anderson promised Hall a part in his first movie. Philip Baker Hall has had a part in every P.T. Anderson film except Punch-Drunk Love. Much like Quentin Taratino's re-discovery of John Travolta, Anderson introduced Philip Baker Hall to a new generation of film viewers. For those who want to see what so impressed Anderson and for those who want to see one of the greatest film performances, take a gander at Secret Honor.

February 11
apartment TV, late night

* * *

D

Raising Cain (1992)

Director: Brian De Palma
Starring: John Lithgow, Lolita Davidovich, Steven Bauer & Frances Sternhagen

* * *

I should get this out of the way upfront: I'm a fan of Brian De Palma. Most people...aren't. His films are often derivitive of Hitchcock films. I generously call them derivitive; usually they're blatant rip-offs.

The joy in watching a De Palma film, however, isn't in the plot of his films. It's in their execution. Cinephiles know De Palma for his medium specificity. That is, he uses techniques that are particular to film to help tell his stories. Most people know De Palma, for example, for his consistent use of split screen.

While De Palma opts not to use split screen in Raising Cain, he does display his usual technical gusto with long tracking shots down staircases, into and out of elevators, to close-ups to two-shots to three-shots and back, etc. As for the plot: think Psycho with a father and an extra personality, and it's pretty easy to figure out the rest. The acting is appropriately campy.

Raising Cain--like other De Palma films--shouldn't necessarily be watched for its plot. It's a film to appreciated for its technical aspects more than for its plot (although the plot is enjoyable for those that appreciate camp). For a better example of a (non-gangster) De Palma film, watch Obsession or Blow Out.

February 11
friend's apartment TV, night

* * *

D

Man on Fire (2004)

Director: Tony Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell & Christopher Walken

* * *

It'd been a while since I'd seen a good action movie before watching Man on Fire. The most important part of a good action film is the set up. Why do we care about the action? Film theorists compare musical scenes in musical films to action scenes in action films; both film genres are defined by these respective sequences, but it's these very sequences that interrupt the flow of the film. Effectively, the narrative stops during these scenes unless the writer or director is clever enough to interject some plot into the scenes. Thus, it's the set up that happens before the scenes that primarily define the action and diminish (or even abolish) the inherent gratuity. The best action movies start off with a bang--a promise to the audience or a sign of good will--then slow down considerably to define the context for the action of the rest of the movie. Think of action movies like The Professional and Mission: Impossible, and you'll get a good idea of what I'm talking about.

There are other action movies, however, that even eschew flashy openings, making the audience take it on blind faith that the action will kick in after the first act set up. Ronin--in my opinion, the best action movie ever made--does this, and so does Man on Fire. While Man on Fire doesn't have nearly the wit and wry humor in the script that Ronin has in its, the style of the cinematography, the quick pace of the plot and the chemistry between Washington and Fanning's characters is more than enough to keep the viewer interested despite not having much action. In fact, the first real action sequence doesn't occur until about an hour and a half into the film. It's a credit to the film that one doesn't really even notice that there hadn't been any action until the action actually starts.

The most notable quality of the film is the ultra-hip cutting and shooting with an inventive use of subtitles. If anyone saw Tony Scott's BMW Film, Beat the Devil, you'll be familiar with the style already. It's as if Scott took the much-maligned "MTV style" and figured out how to use it.

While Man on Fire won't go down as a classic of action cinema, it is a sleeper that offers an entertaining viewing experience and some better-than-passable acting for those that can get past Man on Fire being part of the glut of Washington action films that came out at basically the same time (John Q and Out of Time being some other). Also, any film with both Christopher Walken and Mickey Rourke is worth watching due to their participation alone. So you get a good action movie out of it, too? So much's the better.

February 10
friend's house TV, night

* * *

D

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Director: Robert Wise
Starring: Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Hugh Marlowe, Sam Jaffe & Billy Gray

* * *

As most people know, 1950's American sci-fi B-movies tended to be thinly veiled Communist or A-bomb horror stories. The Day... remains safely within these parameters. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite have the campy appeal and creepy action of other 50's B-movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Whereas ...Body Snatchers conflicts reside in...well, in the invasion of body snatchers, the drama from The Day the Earth Stood Still comes from Klaatu--the alien invader--berating that contemporary (American) culture for its barbarism.

He also had the annoying 1950's alien quality of referring to anything to do with the Earth to another Earthling with the second person possessive. For example, instead of saying, "I'm going to go 'drop the kids off at the pool'", Klaatu might say, "I'm going to go 'drop off one of your Earth kids at one of your Earth pools" or "I've got to take one of your Earth shits". With that habit in mind, I refer you to this.

Though a classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still drags without the interesting or exciting plot conflicts of other B-movies. Watch it for research, or watch it for nostalgia. Do not, however, watch it with friends.

February 9
apartment TV, afternoon

* * *

D

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Starring: Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman

* * *

Eyes Wide Shuts is a film of potentialities and frustration. Kubrick proposes a world dichotomies: night and day; male and female; loyalty and revenge; high and low society. It's a film about a night of sexual explosion in the city and, literally, the morning after.

It's a film where the blue night encroaches into the golden day, where social circumstances barely contain sexual frustration and desire. In Eyes Wide Shut, the social and sexual extends into the personal in the form of marriage where familiarity, adaptation and responsibility suppress the sexual urges toward one's partner.

The first night in the film concerns an on-coming city-wide orgasm. An orgasm that circumstance and coincidence denies Dr. Bill Harford (Cruise). The next day the city has been satisfied while the good doctor remains frustrated. In trying to reconstruct the previous night, he realizes that the city refuses to acknowledge anything of the previous night's debauchery.

Even in his dream-reality of his night exploring the city's orgasm, the doctor's desire are frustrated. Even his wife was satisfied in her dream (a nightmare, she claims, but only after awakening to her husband).

Eyes Wide Shut is a film about the unconscious nature of sexual desire, the encroaching of the id into the superego. It's structure follows the plot of a night and day's amorous encounter: the satisfied party content to ignore the previous night's events, the frustrated party wishing to repeat the experience successfully. Sex becomes a journey into a realm of absurd dream-logic. Rules that normally apply during the day offend during the night and most certainly vice versa. The following morning is both a literal and metaphorical awakening where both parties must obey the rules of the daytime while knowing what had happened before they slept. Eyes Wide Shut mimicks these events and illuminates the bizarre rituals and other strange goings-on of a sexually charged city and the confusion of being left unsatisfied.

February 9
apartment TV, late night

* * *

D

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (2004)

Director: Mamoru Oshii
Starring: Akio Ôtsuka, Atsuko Tanaka, Kôichi Yamadera & Tamio Ôki

* * *

Picture an animated version of Bladerunner as directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, and you'll get a good idea of the pacing, tone and plot of this sequel to Oshii's Ghost in the Shell. The story involves a new series of robots that are loose on the street and kill their owners and its up to a grizzled, depressed cyborg to solve the case. Sound familiar?

Not only does the plot bear a more-than-passing resemblance to Bladerunner, the production design looks familiar as well. While the animation is typical to what can be seen in the first Ghost in the Shell, the frames are just as full and atmospheric as the best live-action film.


The aesthetic in Innocence can only be described as stylized retrofuturistic decay.

Innocence is thematically similar to Bladerunner, too. It examines the sometimes imperceivable difference between organic and inorganic or specifically between the puppet and the puppeteer. How mechanical enhancements can human beings add to themselves before they become machines? Is there a difference?

The primary differences between the films are in the extremes. Whereas Bladerunner also incorporated pets into its examination of Replicant/human, Innocence expands this notion of organic-emulation to transportation machinery with planes that have metal "feathers" and wings that flap or submarines whose propulsion is similar to that of a whale swishing its tail. Innocence's city is dirtier and more futuristic than Ridley Scott's Los Angeles. Innocence's violence is more violent. Its slow moments are more pensive. This is where the Tarkovsky comparison comes in.


Has robotic noir become a genre?

Characters in Innocence tend to quote philosophers with every other phrase they utter. They spend long, still, existential moments examining the nature of their realities with one another between bloody gunfights. It's as if Oshii presents us with the extremes and thinks, they should find something to take away from all this! Certainly, there are many interesting bits of philosopy brought up in the film, but it's nothing one can't gain (or hasn't gained) from reading Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy. The film's slow pace lends a mechanical feel to the whole affair, but complaining about this choice misses the point of the film.


Here's the aftermath of a shootout and another example of Innocence's busy frames.

Try not to watch the film as an intellectual meditation. It feels like being in a room with sophisticated English gentlemen smoking pipes and playing chess in a tastefully lavish while they spew quotations from first period philosophy. At first your distinguished company and elegant surroundings will impress you. Eventually, though, you'll start to listen to the conversation, and you'll start to think, shouldn't these guys be smarter than me...?

February 7
apartment computer, late night

* * *

D

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

Director: Steve Oedekerk
Starring: Steve Oedekerk, Fei Lung, Ling Ling Tse & Chia Yung Liu

* * *

20th Century Fox's marketing for Kung Pow prior to and during its release into theaters misled those who viewed it. Watching the commercials and trailers, it seemed that the film would be nothing more than Steve Oedekerk fighting animals and using animals to fight. The promotional materials just didn't look funny. They just looked...bad.

After having watched the film in part a few years ago and in full this afternoon, it's safe to say that took the idea that Woody Allen had in What's up, Tiger Lily? (1966)--that is, taking a foreign film and dubbing it nonsensically to create comedic effect--and adding genre spoof on top of it. In fact, Kung Pow is a mixture of the ideas in ...Tiger Lily? and Carl Reiner/Steve Martin film Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (1982) where Martin is inserted into a number of films noir to create a unique plot and spoof the genre.

Oedekerk's film is funnier than both of these other films perhaps because the early Hong Kong kung fu films are inherently bizarre to a Western audience or perhaps because Oedekerk is just bat shit insane. Babies rolling down hills? Gerbil-chucks? A face on a tongue? Nothing in the film makes sense--especially not the plot--but that's the point. The name of the game is absurdity here, and Oedekerk has the wherewithal to keep a straight face throughout, even when battling a CG cow.

Kung Pow gives too much of a good thing, however, and with the plot wearing thin toward the film's end the jokes just don't produce the same shock they do earlier in the film. You'll be looking for the climax of the film about fifteen minutes before it happens, and you'll be disappointed when it does.

All in all, the film's outrageous soundtrack and over-the-top genre spoof are worth sitting through a slow introduction, and it's a good idea to step out before the film hits the final fight scene. I don't want to ruin anything about it, but the good guy wins. Definitely recommended for those with absurdist senses of humor and gatherings with alcohol.

February 7
apartment computer, afternoon

* * *

D