The Night Before (1988)

 

Did you know there's an 80's romantic comedy with Aunt Becky and Keanu Reeves as the two leads? This was news to me.

In "The Night Before," a guy (Reeves) wakes up on the street in the bad part of town, with no memory of what's just happened. He seems to be disheveled, though wearing a tuxedo, and has no money and no car. How did he get here? Steadily, memories of the night's events come back to him. He's supposed to be at the prom with a date (Aunt Becky) who doesn't like him, she's dating him because she lost a bet. He recalls that he and his date took a series of wrong turns which lead them both to the ghetto where their innocence gets them into increasingly more trouble.

This is one of those comedies where things go from bad to worse, to even worse, up until the end where things magically end happily. This is "After Hours" meets "Judgment Night" meets "The Hangover." It's not bad but not my cup of tea. The main high point of the movie is that Keanu is still in his "Ted 'Theodore' Logan" phase of acting, which is just the best.

Re:View - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Jay watches "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" for the first time and I am there for it. Or is it "here for it." What's the millennial clickbait wording? I don't remember these things. 

My review of this movie from 2012 here. I don't really have any update to it. The "infectious" line is true, it really grows on me. And I emphasize the score... more specifically, "The Ecstacy of Gold" has become one of my favorite songs in any movie.

Ask Max (1986) and its Place in the BMX Movie Pantheon

Somewhere on the internet someone suggested that there was this movie, "Ask Max," about a kid who invents a bike that can jump by the press of a button. This sparked my memory as something I had seen...

The movie stars Chunk from "The Goonies" as the kid inventor and aired as a Disney made-for-tv movie in November of 1986. It has a super-rare running time of 44 minutes, which turns out to be a great length for a children's movie, in my opinion.

The story is a standard setup which launches a somewhat unconventional story. Max is a kid inventor who's unrealistically smart but his inventions are always getting him into trouble. Max is also bullied by the jocks and has his eye on the prettiest girl in school. He's also fatherless which isn't explained and his mom sometimes has trouble paying the bills.

So he invents a bikes that's super rad because it does sweet jumps over cars and stuff.

So this is where things turn. In order to help his mom with the bills, he sells his bike invention to a major corporation and he includes in the contract that he gets to be on the Board of Directors. So you can imagine it's a slight oddity that this Disney movie... meant for kids... then turns its attention away from the sweet BMX bike in order to have discussions on breech of contract, gross profits, product lines and layoffs.

Then, with his newfound money, the story becomes a Richie Rich/Blank Check story, as a kid is suddenly able to buy anything he wants. Then, the story returns back to the corporate world as Max tries to save a plant from being shut down.

Nothing about the movie sparked any memory whatsoever except for the idea of a bike that jumps automatically, which, strangely, accounts for a very minor amount of running time. It feels like the bike that jumps is featured for 5 minutes before getting to the real meat of corporate greed. Still, assuming there isn't a second movie with this exact plot device, I am left to assume that this is the movie I remember from childhood.

So, if you're having trouble keeping track, here is the rundown:

• "Rad" is a movie about a high-school kid who races against the pros in a BMX race. It features Ray Walston.
• "Ask Max" is a movie about a little kid who builds a BMX bike that can jump. It features Ray Walston.
• "The Dirt Bike Kid" is a movie about a little kid who gets a magical dirt bike that can fly.
• "The Skateboard Kid" is a movie about a little kid who gets a magical skateboard that can fly (and talk).
• "BMX Bandits" is a movie I've never seen.

What's Your Favorite Independence Day Movie?

"I came to America in 1914 by way of Philadelphia..."

 "What's your favorite Independence Day movie?" I thought it was a fair conversation-starter. I thought of it ahead of time but when I was around people, I forgot to ask it. There aren't many movies that revolve around July 4th. There are so few that one might add war movies to the mix. That's a discussion in itself - somehow "Saving Private Ryan" doesn't feel like an Independence Day movies but "Glory" does. And, is it me, or are there way too few movies about the Revolutionary War? You'd think there'd be a billion of them. But, narrowing the field as best I could, and having the advantage of advance notice, I determined my answer was "Avalon" (1990).

"Avalon" is my favorite type of movie: it's largely plotless, only revolving around the relationships between people and the passage of time. In this case it shows a grandfather immigrating to the United States, follows the second generation as they go into business for themselves and much of the action is seen through the eyes of the third generation played by child actor Elijah Wood. It's the kind of movie that hits me harder than any other but I can't share with anyone because it's "boring."

Roger Ebert postulates that "Avalon" is about the deterioration of familial ties and it's the contention of the film that the fault lies with the rise of television. What a harrowing tale when you consider that it's not just television anymore, it's internet, youtube, apps, video games and social media. Watching it now, it's clear that he's partly right: the television's effects on the family is a running motif, but it's also undeniable that the main fault of family break down is simple human fallibility - petty bickering, rivalry, stubbornness, and so on.

I think of "Avalon" as a meditation on the generational continuum we are all on. The grandfather tells his story to the grandchildren who listen with rapt attention. When he tells stories to his children, they've heard them all a million times and are tired of them. Consider the experience of the storyteller himself: "If I knew things would no longer be, I would have tried to remember better." He also sums up the entire film: "Jules, if you stop remembering, you forget."

Mr. T in Not Another Teen Movie (2001)

 

"Not Another Teen Movie" is an over-the-top parody movie of the Teen movies of the 80s and 90s. It's extreme, it's stupid and it's offensive - and I mean that in the best way possible. I am a sucker for these spoof movies, granted, but I put this in the "best of the best" category within the genre.

Why is this not considered a classic? My best guess is: it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. It would be around this time or a little later that all the horrible "Scary Movie" cash grabs would start up and I suppose this might have been lumped into the same category and forgotten.

Regarding Mr. T, this is a strange role for the T man. Or actually, it's a standard role but within a strange genre for him. Raunchy sex movies are not Mr. T's style but yet here he is. When he did "D.C. Cab" he was almost apologetic about its R rating and how it didn't agree with his values. With "D.C. Cab" you could make the case that he was just starting out and desperate for roles. But that isn't the case here.

As in "Spy Hard," it's a very small role - Mr. T plays the Wise Janitor Here to Impart Knowledge. And he also is dressed as a rather random homage to "I Know What You Did Last Summer".

Mr. T coaches Captain America

The joke that stood out to me most, watching it this time around, is the football coach. That actor commits to the bit. He acts with the fire of a thousand suns. The other joke - that got me this time but always gets me - is "Do it for Marty's torso!" Classic. The "cheertator" speech is great too. I could go on and on.

Mr. T in Goldy 3: The Search for the Golden Bear (1988)

When was the last time you put a VHS tape into the VCR and watched a movie? At some point in your past, you watched a VHS movie for the last time and nobody knew it. 

In 1988, Mr. T appeared in the movie "Goldy 3: The Search for the Golden Bear" and it's perhaps so bad that it's not available to watch anywhere - even bootlegged. So I spent actual money to buy an actual VHS copy on actual eBay... actually paid to have it sent through the physical mail for days and actually sat down and watched it.

It should be noted that Mr. T's imdb filmography lists "Goldy 3: The Search for the Golden Bear" as coming out in 1988 and "The Magic of the Golden Bear: Goldy III" as coming out in 1994. You'd assume they were the same movie - the information is 90% the same - but they each list different leads. I have to assume they're the same and imdb is just inaccurate.

So this is a "frontier times" kids' movie where a female Tom Sawyer-type (Jessie) has a bear for a pet. Full disclosure: I did not watch "Goldy 1" and "Goldy 2" in preparation for this "review."

Mr. T plays a Native American who lives in the wilderness, communes with nature and specifically talks to the animals. Periodically the animals visit him and give him updates on what's happening to Jessie. Watching Mr. T talk to animals in Native American garb is a trip. Though... Here's one for the record books... This may be the only role Mr. T has ever played (other than himself) where his mohawk is completely appropriate for the character.

Cheech Marin is also in this movie and he plays a terrible magician whose show is failing. In desperation, he looks into a crystal ball, sees the town where Goldy lives, sees Goldy and is shown that Goldy is the key to making a great show. He sets out to obtain her. The main thing I want to point out here is that, in the reality of the movie, Marin is a completely inept magician and also possesses real magical powers.

So Cheech tries to buy the bear from Jessie's family and when they refuse, he uses tricks and magic to try to steal Goldy. The plot gets somewhat convoluted from there... in fact at one point I realized I had spaced out partway through and didn't know what was happening anymore and had to rewind it and re-watch a sizable chunk of "Goldy 3." That was a hard pill. I sum up: Jessie and Goldy run away into the woods, Goldy appears to be shot, turns out to be ok, they meet Mr. T, Cheech Marin regrets being evil and everything works out. Also in the end, they all agree to hypnotize Goldy to make her go back to living in the wild. So there will definitely be no "Goldy IV." Bear hypnotism!

The movie has a "Fall" look and feel and an "Ashokan Farewell"-esque soundtrack. It's a great world. But that's it for the positives. The plot is boring made-for-kids oatmeal and the acting is amazingly horrendous. There are a few kid-acting moments that are so bad, it occurred to me they would be wonderful memes for the Information Superhighway. After all, this movie doesn't exist on the internet, I could be the first to release them. But I just can't work up the energy to figure out the VHS-to-GIF conversion. Plus, it's Saturday night and I'm watching a children's movie alone - I'm not sure I get to laugh at anyone.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

When I heard "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" was going off the air I knew I had to make sure to watch the last week of new shows. There was no acknowledgement within the show that it was ending, the last 5 shows were just 5 more shows. But still, there I was, every day glued to the screen, watching Mr. Rogers. I mention it because it seemed like unusual behavior for a college student.

I remember many years prior to that, being home sick from school in 6th grade and following the same "sick day" routine I had always followed: "Sesame Street", "Mr. Rogers", "Price is Right", "Shining Time Station" (for the aesthetic, I never really got the show). But this time (and afterward) there was a kind of crisis of identity: as a 6th grader, I'm clearly too old to be watching Mr. Rogers - waaayyy too old - but I knew that if I was being honest with myself that really was what I wanted to watch. Do I respect the shame, another instance where it's time to grow up? But who am I kidding if I watch a TV show I don't want to watch when no one else is around?

The guilt of my middle school viewing was turned into the shameless college appreciation by an event in between. I was at the doctor's office with my mom, in my late teens and I was waiting in the waiting room. With nothing but magazines for entertainment, I grabbed one and read an article about Fred Rogers. I don't remember much about the article, it was too long ago, but it made a huge impact on me. It described Mr. Rogers walking through the streets of New York City and how he would be mobbed by crowds of people wanting to talk to him. But rather than just the usual celebrity worship, people wanted to tell him how much he meant to them, often weeping. One person might've had a parent who died when they were young and they saw Mr. Rogers as a surrogate dad. Or another was abused and hearing an adult tell them they were special every day completely altered the course of their life.

And all of these stories, all of these tears, coming out of a hard city, plus Mr. Rogers' attitude of talking to each one as if they were the only person in the world, it suddenly dawned on me that Fred Rogers was very much a modern Christlike figure. I do not use that phrase lightly. Where in this world do you see so much import and thankfulness centered on one man? And where is the object of that adulation so humble and willing to serve others? It is not coincidence, I think, that Fred was an ordained Presbyterian minister who saw his mission as ministering to children.

In the grand scheme of things, my childhood was pretty good and I have nothing to complain about. I could have seen "Mr. Rogers" as just another kids show that I was too old for, plus laughed at all the parodies at how silly it all was. But what isn't broadcast around the world is the millions of children who watched him over the years and the incalculable spider web effect that has on the rest of their lives and the lives they touched that there was at least one adult who was empathetic.

"A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" is not a biopic, it's a drama and Fred Rogers isn't even the main character. But it's extremely well done and hits the right notes exactly as it should. Biopics have become a tired formula anyway. The movie, "inspired by true events," follows the life of a writer as he attempts to write an article on Mr. Rogers. Is this the same article that I read? I'd like to think so but I'm not sure. It goes without saying that Tom Hanks is perfect casting and plays him as well as anyone could. This is the most emotional a movie has made me in a long time though it's tough to recommend, in some sense. If you view Mr. Rogers as a hokey weirdo, your view of this movie will probably be similar. If you're a big fan like me, the other extreme is true. In short, I think one's enjoyment of the film will probably match the reactions to Fred Rogers, himself. That's fine. What's a one-size-fits-all review in a world where every single one of us is special?

IMDB 250 - Parasite (2019)

If you're looking for a film to watch, I recommend the South Korean film "Parasite" (2019). It's a comedy, it's a drama, it's a suspense/thriller, it's a horror, it's social commentary... it's an experience in every sense of the word. 

Don't read anything about it, but be warned that it's South Korean. South Korean films tend to be intense and disturbing, and this movie is no exception. Disturbing for sure, but the best film I've seen in a long time.

Rad Roundup '16

Well, it's Valentine's Day so let's take a look at what's happening in the world of "Rad"...

Heroes of Dirt

Bill Allen, star of the movie Rad, has a new-ish BMX movie, "Heroes of Dirt". Well, well, well, looks like the local boy thinks he's a pro.

Right from the start, the connections are apparent. There's a kid who loves BMX and dreams of competing in the Big Show with the professionals. The opening scenes show him trying to evade a police officer who, as it turns out, really cares for him. Oh, and his parents don't really approve of this BMX stuff either. Bill Allen plays the father.

But that's largely where the similarities end. This movie isn't intended to be a remake or reboot, but a movie of its own. It's actually a little surprising how little the plot really revolves around BMX - it's really more about kids stuck in a life of crime and it strangely turns into a kind of a heist thriller.

The part that was the biggest surprise to me is that the film takes place in Allentown, Penna. (Allentown? More like Bill Allentown.) I had vaguely heard of it for a few years but I didn't know it was being shot locally. I'm honored to have just been in the same state as Bill Allen, even if I was never aware it was happening. At one point someone goes to jail and the "jail" that he gets sent to is clearly Eastern State Penitentiary. That kid is going to do some hard time.

This is one of those low budget movies where they really do a pretty good job of hiding the fact that it's low budget even though it's inescapable. In particular, there are some weak acting moments. The cinematography is pretty excellent. Overall, it kind of constantly rides that line of good/bad so I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. I give it a pass though, I think you gotta take what you can get or you're screwed.

Turbo Kid

"Turbo Kid" is also a low-budget movie and also a movie that came out last year but, unlike "Heroes of Dirt" has no direct connection to the movie Rad. But the opening scene is a kid riding on a BMX bike to the song "Thunder in Your Heart" and we know what that's about....

"Turbo Kid" is a unique movie concept. It came out last year (as I said) but it's in the style of a post-apocalyptic 80s film set in the distant future of 1997. The style is an 80s era projection of what the future would look like. Think "Mad Max" but with a kid on a bike instead of a car.... and also with a sense of fun and some clever, comedic elements.

The movie strikes the perfect balance between paying homage to all those classic 80s hits and also not falling into the one-trick-pony "remember the 80s?" schtick. This is a smart movie with a nice sense of fun and really likable characters. It's got "heart". It's got heart AND it's got Michael Ironside with an eye patch.

But the real star of the movie, for me, is the completely synthesized score. The movie SOUNDS great.

I highly recommend seeing "Turbo Kid" but not to everyone. It's the kind of movie that you have to "get". You have to be on the same wavelength, but if you are, it's pretty great.

My Rad Career

“If Bill Allen was hanging from a cliff and I was holding him with one arm, and I was holding my girlfriend with the other, and I had enough strength to save them both, I would let go of my girlfriend just so I could make sure that I had a really good grip on Bill.” - Daniel Tosh

So says the promotional website for Bill Allen's new book. It also has a positive quote from the screenwriter of "Rad". "RAD" HAD A WRITER?!

Bill Allen has a new book out. It's an autobiography in which he talks about the making of "Rad", how he was cast and his days (apparently) hanging out with Brad Pitt and Brandon Lee. I haven't read it and I don't know that I ever will but I can't help but be curious.

Official Website.

Movie Review: Shoah (1985)

Shoah (1985)

"The hollering and the crying and the shouting which was going over there on, it was impossible. Their cry and their holler was in your ears and your mind for days and days - and at night the same thing. From that howling, you could not sleep a couple night[s] of that. All of a sudden, everything stopped, like by a command."

"Shoah" is a 9 1/2 hour long documentary about the holocaust.

Here, the term "documentary" is stripped of its Ken Burns-like implications. The movie is real, yes, but there is no narrator, there are no historic photos, there is not a second of archival footage, there are almost no historians, there is no chronological re-telling of historical events, there isn't even much chronology at all... This is a movie as a series of interviews with eye witnesses. It's perhaps specifically aimed at those who would deny the history. In countless specific instances it says "Here is a victim, this is them describing things they experienced. Here is a Nazi officer, this is them describing what they did and saw. Here is a citizen who lived near the death camps, this is them describing what they witnessed first-hand."

The film is purposeful and stark. But there are some "stunt" interviews. In one sequence, the director goes to a bar and strikes up a conversation with a bartender there. The bartender does not want to talk on camera. We learn the reason he's being interviewed is because he's a former Nazi who worked in the camps. He does not wish to answer any questions. The "interview" started with innocent questions but he locks up instantly. It's as if he saw the camera and immediately knew what it was really about. I think he was living in constant fear of this very thing for decades.

There are also times when the placement of interviews is suggestive. An interview with a man who visited the Warsaw ghetto shows him recounting the horror in minute detail, clearly still reliving it once again, 35 years later. That interview is immediately followed by an interview with a German official who was partially in charge of the Warsaw ghetto. He says he doesn't remember much from the war period. Then, when the names of people he worked with everyday are read to him, he squints as if straining to remember. When a few dates are read to him, he writes them down so he'll have them.

The horrors of the holocaust might be easier to accept - perhaps - if we could attribute them to a few high-ranking Germans - or even if we could place blame on only the Germans. Some of the most deplorable moments of the film are when ordinary Poles are interviewed and asked how they reacted when Jews were being exterminated in their towns. Sometimes they're even asked what they think of the Jews today. It's evident that anti-Semitism was not limited to one country or one time period. And it's amazing how easily it can be found today - it only takes a few probing questions from some "everyday" people.

The heart of the documentary is obviously the interviews with the Jewish victims. The events they describe are unspeakable but they recount them anyway, many times out of an obligation to history. It struck me how rare crying was. There is crying, certainly, but most of the time they recount the events plainly and without flourish. It's as if there are pains so deep that there is no emotion left, they turn cold. In a way, this is more impactful - the events are presented, the emotion is left to the viewer.

In place of archival footage and photos, the interviews are interspersed with footage of the historical sites today. Overgrown grass, trees, some bricks, these are mostly quiet pauses that allow the viewer to reflect, to absorb, what has come before it. There is one shot though that startled me more than any other I can think of. There is a first-person shot that slowly creeps down the railroad track leading to the entrance to Auschwitz. It's such a simple shot but I don't think a more haunting, more nightmarish shot has ever been devised, or ever will. How could it?

As I said, "Shoah" is a documentary that eschews many of the trappings of conventional documentaries. But there is one holdover: the film begins with a scrolling text introduction. Within only a few seconds, the introduction sets the tone of the entire movie. In essence, the introductory text says... There was a death camp in Poland near the town of Chelmno. 400,000 men, women and children were sent there. Of the 400,000 people, 2 survived.

Movie Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Every year at New Year's when the clock passes midnight, groups of people will traditionally sing "Auld Lang Syne". But why? The original poem that the song is based on is about whether the past is worth remembering - whether the recollection of good memories is worth the cost of remembering the bad ones. The phrase "auld lang syne" can be translated "old times" or "days gone by". The original song goes:

Should Old Acquaintance be forgot,

and never thought upon;

The flames of Love extinguished,

and fully past and gone:

Is thy sweet Heart now grown so cold,

that loving Breast of thine;

That thou canst never once reflect

On Old long syne.

"Eternal Sunshine" asks the same kinds of questions though it revolves around a completely different holiday. The movie begins with one of the great first lines in all of film: "Random thoughts for Valentine's day, 2004: Today is a holiday invented by greeting card companies to make people feel like crap." The line is delivered in voice-over by the main character Joel, played by Jim Carrey. Joel is in a long-term relationship with Clementine (Kate Winslet) but is informed that she has chosen to end the relationship by having him erased from her memory. A small company named Lacuna, Inc. has discovered a medical procedure which allows people to safely have memories erased such that, to the subject, it's as if they never happened. Joel is so devastated by this news that he decides to have her erased from his memory also. The problem is the procedure is unstoppable and irreversible and part-way through he changes his mind.

The question that the characters face is the question of whether, in the final analysis, their relationship was really worth it. If all of their experiences with the other person - the euphoria, the fighting, the regret, the hurt, the togetherness - if it could all be summed up like an accounting ledger, does the end result turn out to be negative? If it is, then is a person better off wiping the ledger clean? "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is, in some ways, an exploration of the Tennyson phrase "'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" stretched over 100 minutes.

But while Joel is grappling with the question of whether his experience with Clementine was worth it, I wonder if the movie is posing an even larger question to the audience. I think the movie asks whether romantic relationships and romantic love IN GENERAL are really worth it. At least I think it hints that way.

Consider that the movie presents us with quite a few different relationships comprised of many different personalities with different parameters and different histories. Consider that with all its variety, there's one thing that holds true in every presented case: the relationship is not making anyone happier and the relationship is not making anyone better.

There is a man in the movie who falls in love with a woman only to find her with another man. There is another man pursuing romance through predatorial means. There is a married man who has an affair and by the end, his wife has found out the devastating truth and will probably divorce him. Another character is falling in love with a woman but finds that his love is unrequited. And then, there is one particular couple who Joel spends much time with (played brilliantly by Jane Adams and David Cross). This is one of those couples who seem to spend every waking hour of their lives fighting. In lesser movies, "fighting" denotes melodramatic screaming and slammed doors. But this movie is too smart for that. Here, the depiction is of a couple whose conversation is non-stop bickering - their entire lives seem devoted to cutting down the other with passive-aggressive digs. Each insult is met with under-the-breath muttering, each comment is met with a retort, no mistake goes unnoticed, no negative thought goes unspoken. It's a couple that we've all known or seen somewhere in our lives. It's exactly those relationships that you look at and think, "why are they even together?" After all, it can't possibly be worth it. Can it?

As Lacuna's machine goes through Joel's memories, erasing them one by one, it suddenly comes across the good ones and Joel is forced to re-live those as well. Joel realizes, of course, that he doesn't want to let go of those memories. One such memory provides my favorite visual in the movie: Joel and Clementine lying together on a frozen lake in the middle of winter and gazing up at the stars. Joel has one of the moments so rare in life: "I could die right now, Clem. I'm just... happy. I've never felt that before. I'm just exactly where I want to be." And Carrey gives it the perfect tone. But the moment is fleeting and soon that memory is gone.

A while later, Joel's remembering the day that he and Clementine first met. They're at a beach party and they sit together and stare out at the ocean. But this memory will soon be erased too. It's here that Kaufman uses the fleeting nature of Joel's memory to speak to the fleeting nature of life itself:

Clementine: This is it, Joel. It's going to be gone soon.
Joel: I know.
Clementine: What do we do?
Joel: Enjoy it.

As the mind machine traverses the synaptic connections of Joel's brain, we see the various events in Joel and Clem's relationship in a "stream of consciousness" order. The usual slow and predictable ebb and flow of human relationships is replaced by a collage of context-less episodes. We see a horrible fight mashed right up against blissful euphoria and we struggle to assimilate the two into a cohesive idea. It's reminiscent of "Slaughterhouse-Five", the classic story of a man who becomes "unstuck in time". One moment he's married, the next he's a child, the next he's fighting in WW2 - we have to consider his life as a mosaic rather than a portrait. It's a task we're not accustomed to and it doesn't come easy.

There's a musical example of this too. If you can get past the fact that William Shatner is involved, there's something interesting to be found in the oddball non-hit "In Love" by Fear of Pop. The song tells the story of a relationship from two perspectives. The background singers (Ben Folds) are singing lyrics from the the relationship at its peak ("Hold me in the morning / and tell me I'm / The only one alive"). Meanwhile, the lead "singer" (Shatner) is speaking from some time after the proverbial plane has crashed into the proverbial mountain ("I can't tell you anything / And I can't commit / You're right / I can't commit ... To you!"). The back-and-forth flow of the song between the vocalists forces shuffles and intertwines the two perspectives. It leaves us to try to reconcile diametrically opposite feelings from the same person but from across two different points in time. In theory, it's all up to interpretation. Personally, I have to give the Shatner side more credence, though. Have you heard that guy? That guy is angry.

At the end of the movie, it's up to Joel and Clementine to reconcile the extremes of their love/hate - to come up with their own "sum of experiences". The last scene of the movie is yet another one of those scenes that feels utterly unique to "Eternal Sunshine". Joel and Clementine (who think they've just met) listen to audio tapes of themselves listing all the things they hate about the other person and all the memories they don't remember.

Joel [on tape] And the whole thing with the hair - it's all bullshit.
Joel: I really like your hair.
Clementine: Thank you.

They hear the pain and devastation they're capable of causing each other but they decide to give a relationship a(nother) try anyway. It's an ambiguous ending, technically. One could view it cynically and say that it's literally a case of "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who are the brain-erased versions of Joel and Clementine, we might wonder, to think they know better than the versions of themselves that lived and learned and experienced? They're being willfully ignorant - they're still following the siren song of physical attraction even after they've seen the consequences.

But I don't see the ending as cynical and I don't project that the movie is trying to be either. I think, I hope, that the ending of the movie drops a hint that they've learned the one thing that will "break the cycle" they're in...

Joel: I can't see anything that I don't like about you.
Clementine: But you will! But you will. You know, you will think of things. And I'll get bored with you and feel trapped because that's what happens with me.
Joel: Okay.
Clementine: ....Okay... Okay.

By accepting the other's flaws, by acknowledging their own flaws, they've moved beyond their own selfish, self-centered thinking. For the first time they have the possibility for a relationship that's both self-less and forgiving. Thinking back, for all the poisonous relationships we've seen throughout the movie, that's the one thing no one had figured out. With people, as with memories, acceptance is absolutely invaluable - often, good and bad are hopelessly entangled.

9/10.

Movie Review: Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music

Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music (1970)

When asked about what it was like to be at Woodstock, the people I've heard, in second and third-hand accounts, will tell you how it was muddy, there wasn't enough food, it rained and there weren't enough places to shower or go to the bathroom. Asked about what it was like to play at Woodstock, the artists will tell you that the sound was bad, artists cancelled at the last minute, the playing order had to be improvised sometimes and notable acts obviously performed stoned (to their dismay when they heard the tapes). But the event has become the defining event of a generation that one simply HAD to be at - probably partly due to generational nostalgia but probably the release of the documentary movie "Woodstock" played a large part too.

I remember seeing clips of "Woodstock" on PBS when I was a teen. I've always appreciated the music of that time but found the presentation of the movie a bit silly. Much of the movie consists of split-screens two or three frames wide - I suppose they thought they were really being "far out there" when they thought of that. And the interviews with everyday concertgoers - aren't they just stoned out of their minds? These people thought they were starting a revolution?

But watching it now, I was completely missing the point. I laughed at the extent to which it was "of its time" but that exactly what's to love about it. It's dirty and spacey and experimental because it's a product of that time. The split-screen (most of the time credited to Martin Scorcese, though he credits director Michael Wadleigh) IS amazing - it creates the sense of the "bigness" of the event. The interviews with flower children ARE valuable because they give a sense of the people living in that time and place. Even when a revolution fails, it is nonetheless interesting to examine the attempt.

Some of my favorite interviews in the film don't even involve hippies (at least directly). The film crew goes around to talk to the townspeople who live in the Woodstock area and ask the invariably old people what they think about all these visitors descending on their home. Many of the old people don't like it and say so. I was wondering what the intent behind these interviews is. Are we supposed to laugh at the "square generation" as they "don't get it"? I don't think so. I'll take the filmmakers on their word that it's an honest attempt to capture a spectrum of opinion.

And then there's the music.

Watching the Director's cut, at almost 4 hours long, there's a good deal of music that I don't care for. And many of the best bands are not even featured. The Band were so unhappy with the sound, they refused to allow the video to be released. As I said, they were not alone - The Grateful Dead and Creedence Clearwater Revival were others with similar stories. Carlos Santana is in the movie but his performance is under the influence of mescaline - he thought it was safe to take it and then was told he was going on stage early. But even with all of these drawbacks, the music soars. Crosby, Stills and Nash do the entire "Judy Blue Eyes" suite. Sly and the Family Stone are amazing. Joe Cocker does "With a Little Help from My Friends". And, of course, Jimi Hendrix gets significant screen time. It occurred to me watching it this time that when he comes to "the rockets' red glare" and "the bombs bursting in air" he extends the section to actually express the rockets and the bombs bursting.

There's more than a little distance between me and the Woodstock generation. Far from a muddy pit, I watched the concert from my couch. I was, I admit, occasionally distracted by my laptop and I had no trouble using the restroom. But it is Summer and, over the four hours that I watched "Woodstock", the day slipped into night and I felt no need to turn on a light. Watching in the dark, bathed in a stream of images from that historic event and soaking in the great music, it did feel like a magical experience, it did feel transcendent even if the strongest thing I had ingested was iced tea. Oh, and it just started to rain.

8/10.

Movie Review: Saturday Night (2014)

Saturday Night (2014)

Filmed in 2008, premiered in 2010 and officially released in 2014, I'm surprised that I had never even heard that this movie existed until today.

"Saturday Night" is a fly-on-the-wall documentary that follows the cast and crew of "Saturday Night Live" for the production cycle of one episode (one week). The host (John Malkovich) is introduced on Monday and from that point they have 5 days left to write and produce an hour and a half of  live television.

This movie is exactly what I was expecting and exactly what I wanted. You always hear the lore of SNL - about how the writers stay up all night to try to squeeze out sketch ideas, how sketches can be killed by one bad rehearsal, how no one can memorize the lines because rewrites are happening right up to the time of going live - but you ONLY hear about it, there's never been a way to see it up close. In fact, most of the inner workings of SNL seem to be pretty well shrouded in secrecy. This movie really takes you inside and places you in the middle of everything that's happening.

Directed by James Franco, the film is extremely low budget but I get the feeling that that has more positives, in this case, than negatives. For one thing, I think a full documentary crew would be seen as too intrusive to the show and wouldn't be allowed access to begin with - better to have a few people with handheld cameras. But it also helps to shed the weight of being "a documentary". I don't need an interview about what Chevy Chase did in 1976 and I certainly don't need the backstory of how the show began. The movie is simply: how are these people going to get a show to air this week? Will it be funny? And the handheld cameras, unsteady as they may be, suit the stressful, hectic feeling perfectly.

7/10.

This movie is very hard to find (I thought) except that while writing this review, I found it's on Hulu. That was easy. You can watch it (with commercials) here.

IMDB 250 - Rang De Basanti (2006)

Rang De Basanti (2006)

Awful. Awful. Awful. Paper-thin characters, paper-thin plot, totally unrealistic but here's the good news - they managed to tell it all in just a hair under three hours. There must be lots of scenes left on the cutting room floor. To top it all off, it's a movie that has the audacity to murder. Huzzah! At one point, a guy joins the air-force and it's a total of 5 minutes of screen time later that the news announces his plane crashed. That's probably the world record for quickest Goose. Just tortuous, stupid manipulation.

I won't bother reviewing this movie in the usual way - it's not worth it. I don't even care. There's no way this should be considered even a good movie, let alone one of the best. If there are enough dumb people out there to keep it in the IMDB 250 then we all deserve what we get.

The good news is, this is IMDB keeps yearly "snapshots" of the Top 250 list. I'd seen every movie in every list from 2007-2012 and this is the final movie I had to watch to complete the list for 2013. The only problem is I just looked and they recently added more snapshot lists going all the way back to 1996 so that'll keep me busy for a while.

It's funny to see what the list of 1996 looks like. Keep in mind that the internet was only for nerds back then so that explains why "Star Trek: First Contact" is somehow the seventh greatest movie of all-time. But the nerd factor of the internet can't explain everything so there are quite a few other surprises. There's not one but TWO Wallace and Gromit shorts in the top 10. Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke" at 27. "That Thing You Do" at 35? It's a good movie but how'd that happen? The Transformers movie is on there but not the one you're thinking of... The cartoon from the 80s is on the list. So surreal.

Anyways...

3/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 383.

IMDB 250 - The Hobbit : The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit : The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

In my previous review of the first "Hobbit" movie I said the movie was enjoyable but I didn't understand the whole magic aspect. This movie picks up where the last one left off and runs with it... and from start to finish, I didn't understand a single thing in it. Not a single thing. I don't know why anything happens to anything else. I'm watching it saying to myself "why?", "what?" and "why?" and also "what?".

At one point, the gang is off on their quest doing the whole "quest" business and Gandalf says peace out and just goes off and does his own thing. I even think he says at the time, "This place is dead anyway", but I'd have to rewatch it to be sure. As much as I didn't understand the "A" story, I understood the Gandalf sub-plot even less. Much less. From memory: he goes to a place, he talks with a guy, he sees a vision, he turns the "Lost" wheel and transports to another Dharma station. Is it wrong to think he's bored? Maybe he's senile and wandering aimlessly. I hope he comes back to the movie at some point.

So without any understanding of the larger picture (or any of the specific details), I'm left with the fantasy and spectacle aspects. Even if I don't know why the giant spiders are attacking, between the spiders and dwarves it's easy to know who to root for. There are many "action" scenes in this movie and they work are at least still enjoyable on a simple visceral suspense level. It would be pretty hard to not enjoy a giant battle or a giant dragon or a giant battle with a giant dragon.

6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 382.

IMDB 250 - The Hunt (2012)

The Hunt (2012)

Lucas is a male teacher who lives alone and works at a kindergarten.  He lives in a small small Danish town where everyone knows everyone else. One day a female student says that Lucas exposed himself to her. Could she be making it up? The head of the school suspects not: "I don't think children, not in that way." Lucas is sent home and the girl's parents are called in and told the story. The girl recants, says she made it all up but her parents assure her that it did happen - sometimes when memories are bad, we convince ourselves that we made it up. Lucas finds his life is changed forever - he's fired, ostracized from the community and eventually arrested.

This is Director Thomas Vinterberg's second movie in the IMDB 250 and both deal with sexual abuse. The first was "The Celebration" (1998).

As you'd expect, this isn't the kind of movie that makes for a great Friday evening. Or any evening. This movie is difficult to watch. It's harrowing material. But by no means does that mean it's a bad movie... far from it. It's a thoroughly realistic situation with authentic characters who act the way people sometimes act. Particularly when the stakes are so high and the accusations are so heinous.

7/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 381.

Movie Review: Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)

This is a slasher movie. And like many slasher movies, it begins with a group of sexy teens headed (unescorted by an adult) to a lake house. They have beer, bros and music and it's time to party. There is a legend that a group of teens was murdered at this very spot years earlier but that's not a big worry.... and there are a couple of creepy "mountain man" locals who seem to be staring and carrying scythes but no matter.

But this is where the movie gets interesting.

The movie steps back from the main college kid plot and follows the creepy locals to explore their perspective. It might be, we start to suspect, that they're actually fairly normal people. In fact, they might be pretty nice guys once you get to know them. I don't know, could it be, perhaps, that this whole "psycho killer" "mass murderer" thing is just one big misunderstanding? What if we sat down with the "slashers", had some chamomile tea and talked things over?

"Tucker & Dale vs. Evil" is an extremely clever turn on the slasher genre and a very funny comedy. Very much in the vein of "Shaun of the Dead" and certainly "The Cabin in the Woods". It's available now on Netflix Instant and definitely worth checking out.

7/10.

Movie Review: The Bridge (2006)

The Bridge (2006)

The Golden Gate Bridge is the suicide "capitol of the world". Documentary filmmakers filmed it for a year, capturing actual suicide footage and then interviewed the friends and family members of the deceased to learn their story. The film is the fullest exploration of suicide I've ever seen - it explores mental illness, the causes of suicide, the warning signs and the pain that's left for the living.

The most harrowing story (and the one that made me watch the movie) is a man who decides to kill himself and realizes he's made a huge mistake the second his hands let go. It's absolutely chilling. But he survives to tell others his experience.

Obviously, with this subject matter, the movie is extremely intense. It's an experience that's not for everyone... and it's not something that I'm going to watch on repeat... but it is well made and powerful.

8.5/10.

IMDB 250 - Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001)

Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001)

This movie is 3 hours, 44 Minutes and 29 Seconds long. Feel free to stop reading the review now because that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

"Lagaan" is a movie about an Indian town in colonial times who challenges the Evil British to a game of cricket. If the villagers win (in a game they don't know anything about) they will not have to pay the back-breaking taxes levied on them. If they lose, they'll have to pay triple.

I say "The Evil British" because the movie makes sure to avoid all nuance and subtlety. The Good Guy is good all the time and is never not good. The Bad Guy is a mustache twirling baddy who has no redeeming qualities. In one of his first scenes, the main bad guy ("Captain Evil") meets a vegetarian and makes him eat meat. But it's against his religion, the man protests, and besides what does Captain Evil even get out of it? Nothing, but he's just pure evil and, as we need to keep the movie under 4 hours, he needs to be established as pure evil.

Following the Good Guy everywhere is the terrifically attractive Love Interest who makes her affections obvious. The Good Guy doesn't seem to notice or care. What is he thinking? Will they ever be together? Then mid-way through the movie he declares that he loves the Love Interest. Why did he not say anything before this? Because that wouldn't be contrived enough for this story.

Of course the movie ends with the climactic BIG GAME... The Big Game... of Cricket. In between song and dance numbers, the movie packs in every cliche from every terrible sports movie ever made by humans. Heightening the action slightly is that it's cricket and I have no idea what's going on. At the midway point of the match the score is 273-3 and it's not looking good for our heroes but there's always a chance that they'll make a miraculous comeback. And at that point in the movie, I knew I was nearing the end and looked at the time... still an hour left. Have you ever "neared" the end of a movie and there was still an entire hour left to go?! I have.

4/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 380.

IMDB 250 - Underground (1995)

Underground (1995)

My first impression watching "Underground" was that it reminded me a lot of "Black Cat, White Cat" and it turned out that it has the same director. So that's a private victory for me.

"Underground" is a Yugoslavian film that follows a group of characters from the beginning of World War II, to the end of the war, through the Cold War until the Yugoslav Wars. It doesn't play the comedy as comedy or tragedy as tragedy, it simply presents life as a series of strange, chaotic and unpredictable events.

I feel I've been saying things like "it's not a bad movie, it just didn't do anything for me" way too often lately. So, I'll skip that. It doesn't help that as charming as some of this movie is, it's almost 3 hours long. I remember liking "Black Cat White Cat" though.

5/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 379.