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.

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 Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)

 

"Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" was probably my favorite book when I was a child. And ff you don't know, well now you know.

But "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs"- the movie - has very little to do with the book. I suppose that's to be expected; the book's plot is minimal and could never fill up a feature-length film (though I would like to see an attempt). Nevertheless, just in case you were wondering, "I wonder how faithful the movie is to the book," the answer is: not much at all.

Book aside, if we judge the movie on its own terms, it's an excellent kids' movie. It's sharp, it's inventive, it's very funny. The visual gags are constant and the characterization is top-notch. And, no surprise, it was written and directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. The main character is voiced by Bill Hader and I need to note that Bill Hader has a perfect voice for animation.

My one complaint about the movie is the way it turns into an action movie towards the end - I'm fully on board for most of the movie but that's the only part where I start to lose interest. But that had me thinking: is there any animated movie made nowadays that doesn't devolve into an action film? Sad, but I can't think of a single example.

Mr. T voices Earl Devereaux, a balls-to-the-wall policeman who prioritizes his wife and kid above everything. Here, the usual Mr. T persona is given a new physicality - it's a nice blend of new and familiar. It's an excellent performance and a fun character.

This is a double recommendation. If you're looking for a kid's book, get it. If you're looking for a good family movie, this is a must-see.

The Song Remains the Same Review

 

According to him, the highlight is "Dazed and Confused" but for me, it's "No Quarter." And I forgot all about the gangster shootout - I always skip to the music.

Never Been Kissed

"Never Been Kissed." Have you seen this movie, I mean, have you SEEN this?

I had never seen this movie. I vaguely remember when it came out and I never saw it on tv reruns or at a friend's house or anything. I recently decided to check it out since it stars Mike Stoklasa and Rich Evans.

This movie is insane. It's not of this world. It's like aliens tried to make a romantic comedy using fragments of knowledge gleaned from watching other movies, not knowing how human society actually functions. It's like the latter works of Adam Sandler if they were filled with real actors. "Adam Sandler" is probably the best way I can describe it - it's like no one in the movie acts like a real person and nothing that happens would really happen. It's like a dream.

I was completely unable to watch this movie in one sitting, which is not as bad as it sounds. See, I watched it in 10 minute increments across many days as if it was a fantastic tv series and I didn't want to run out of episodes. Many days I wouldn't watch it at all because I didn't want it to end. And 10 minutes was about all I could take at any given time before my head would explode. Nothing in this movie made sense to me and I was completely entertained.

I wanted to know, is it just me, was I in a weird mood, is it just the era of the 90s? I mean, I don't remember specifically, but I remember this being a standard 90s movie. If I watched "Edtv" or "Miss Congeniality" will they all be like this? I'm almost afraid to find out. What did Roger Ebert say? Roger Ebert gave this a positive review! I'm so lost.

There isn't a "How Did This Get Made" episode about this movie but there needs to be.

It Runs in the Family / My Summer Story

It Runs in the Family / My Summer Story (1994)

 

There are a few things requiring explanation before this last installment of exploring "A Christmas Story" sequels. The first confusing thing about this movie is the title. No one can agree what the title is; it switched, different sources label it differently. I'll use "My Summer Story" since that's what Netflix uses. The second confusing thing is the continuity. This movie takes place only a short time after "A Christmas Story" which means that although it's technically "A Christmas Story 3" it takes place before #2. This is because, though made in 1994, it was originally supposed to be the direct sequel to "A Christmas Story" with all the original cast reprising their roles. But that didn't happen and by the time it was made a decade later, only Ralphie's teacher, Miss Shields reprises her role.

I mentioned that a large part of the success of the previous sequel (a huge part) was Jean Shepherd's involvement. This movie not only gets Jean Shepherd but employed the director of "A Christmas Story" Bob Clark as well. And so, to my shock, this movie turns out to be the best, most faithful "A Christmas Story" sequel and quite good. I couldn't believe it.

It's still true that no sequel compares to the original - there's no way to recapture the magic - but, with lowered expectations, this movie is good enough. I think it was hurt partly by the casting of Charles Grodin as the dad. This is the era where, when Charles Grodin is involved in a family movie, you're expecting "Beethoven" levels of quality. The poster and subject matter also don't help - it looks like it's going to be another "Dennis the Menace" or "Problem Child" and nobody wants that.

But the mother is played by Mary Steenburgen, who's excellent, and Ralphie and his brother are  played by Kieran and Christian Culkin, who are very good. The star of the movie is clearly Jean Shepherd both in terms of his writing and narration (which seemed a little excessive in this installment). The wacky psychosis of his family and the "tall tales" of his youth are so enjoyable.

Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss (1988)

Strange name but "Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss" is actually the sequel to "A Christmas Story" it's the actual #2, you might say, even though that name is taken.

Whereas "A Christmas Story 2" was clearly just a cheap cash grab, this does actually feel like a real movie - it feels like a real sequel even though the first is a classic and this is not.

First off, Jean Shepherd was actually involved in this one, reprising his role as the Narrator and as writer. That's 90% of it. Secondly, there are actual actors here doing believable work. You can think of these characters as real people. You got Jerry O'Connell as Ralphie (remember Jerry O'Connell?), the dad is played by Doogie Howser's dad and the mom is the girl from "Mama's Family". Oh man, "Mama's Family". That's a post in itself.

The impact of these actor is a really big factor and a stark contrast with "ACS2". The Jean Shepherd/slice of life style means the entire movie hinges on believing that this is a real family. On the one side of the spectrum, you have "ACS2" with cartoon cut out characters and on the other side is "ACS1" where I refuse to believe that those people were not a real family. This one works because it's closer to the latter. There is a point in the movie where the mother is yelling upstairs to get everyone out of bed and as she yells her voice goes up into annoying screeching territory and it perfectly captures that feeling. Likewise the annoying younger brother is actually annoying and, similarly, reminds you of growing up and knowing kids like that.

The plot is simple: the first half of the movie is the family anticipating their upcoming Summer vacation, the second half of the movie is them driving to Michigan for their Summer vacation. That's it. I was surprised as I was watching it that there wasn't really a central plot, exactly, just a series of episodes but Shepherd's style is to write about life and that's life. The road trip where there is no central plot but consists of simply a series of things go wrong is pretty much the same idea as "National Lampoon's Vacation".

It's funny that this movie and "A Christmas Story 2" both start with Ralphie being years older and both have plots that revolve around him getting his first job. The fact that ACS2 flirts with the Teen Comedy genre and this movie keeps him respectable - focusing just on how tortuous the job is - is a telling contrast.

This was a made-for-tv movie, made by Disney (and PBS) and there are parts where it shows. I mentioned the good story and actors but some of the direction is pretty rough. It also drags on a bit towards the end. Let's face it, it can't compare with an absolute classic and even if it could, Summer vacation as a concept can't compete with the magic of Christmas.

A Christmas Story 2 (2012)

"A Christmas Story 2" isn't the worst movie in the world. If you're looking for a real "so bad, it's good" movie, this won't suffice.

Several years after the first movie, Ralphie is in his teens and dreaming of getting a car.  He's also dreaming of a certain girl at school. His dad is still wrestling with the furnace and trying to save money on a Christmas turkey by ice fishing for Christmas fish. Oddly, his father is played by Daniel Stern who was the narrator on "The Wonder Years" which was inspired by "A Christmas Story".

If you watched it having never heard of the original, you'd say it was competent, not good, but not terrible. The problem is it's SUCH a terrible, terrible idea. Every moment that you try to connect this movie to the first one in your head, you're reminded how this movie is horrible by comparison. It doesn't help that so many of the jokes are direct references to the first movie. This is a sequel 20 years removed from the first but they still try to make it a formula. There's also some bad green screen - fine, it's a low-budget movie, but, again, the first movie's low-budget never shows for even a single frame.

There's one strange, mind-bending aspect of this movie that was interesting. As Ralphie and his teenage friends get into embarrassing and compromising situations, it almost becomes a slight "teen sex comedy." But the first one was, in many ways, about Ralphie getting embarrassed; it makes sense that that would continue when he was older. In that way, there's a similarity between "A Christmas Story" and "American Pie" that I never considered.

Anyways, there are two other "A Christmas Story" sequels, making this "A Christmas Story 4" in a way. I'll be trying to find the other two.

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?

Oscars 2018

It doesn't feel like it, but it's that time of year again. If you're like me, you spend 364 days a year wondering what Hollywood's political opinions are and now, on Sunday we'll finally find out. It's so exciting. Where would we be without their leadership?

I thought the movies this year were generally better than last year but it still feels like another "down" year. I have to wonder though, with so many "down" years in a row, maybe it's just me. In the words of Mike Stoklasa, "movies make me want to be dead."

ON WITH THE SHOW!

Best Actress

Nominees:

• Sally Hawkins in “The Shape of Water”
• Frances McDormand in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
• Margot Robbie in “I, Tonya”
• Saoirse Ronan in “Lady Bird”
• Meryl Streep in “The Post”

This is the only category this year where I have a real clear winner.

First off, I'm a sucker for Meryl Streep. I know people complain about how she always wins awards but I'm one of the people that finds her great in everything. I think the difference this year is that her part in "The Post" doesn't really require any particularly extraordinary talent. It's a very pedestrian role in a very pedestrian movie.

A special note on "I, Tonya" - it's the worst movie of any nominated this year. It's a movie that portrays its characters as idiotic, psychotic, stereotypical morons and then has the audacity to expect you to care about what happens to them. What garbage.

Saoirse Ronan is great in her role as is Frances McDormand.

My Pick: Sally Hawkins in "The Shape of Water". So much of acting (most of acting) is in the voice and so it's so interesting that someone playing a mute woman could be so effective. Such is Sally Hawkins. I'm a fan of Frances McDormand so I won't be too disappointed if she wins but Sally Hawkins was by far the most moving.

Best Actor

Nominees:

• Timothée Chalamet in “Call Me by Your Name”
• Daniel Day-Lewis in “Phantom Thread”
• Daniel Kaluuya in “Get Out”
• Gary Oldman in “Darkest Hour”
• Denzel Washington in “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

Lots of parity here. Aside from Chalamet, it's all great acting and fine performances from everyone. It's a coin flip race... I've arrived at a winner but perhaps through bias...

My Pick: Denzel Washington in "Roman J. Israel, Esq." I mentioned how I'm a sucker for Meryl Streep, well I'm a sucker for Denzel Washington too. I can't say I've seen all of his movies but I'm always impressed by his performance. This movie is no exception. 

My pick, among all the performances, may even come down to a single scene - it may be that close. I won't spoil it but there is a scene where Denzel's character is interviewing for a job and during a dry monologue about his experience he breaks down. The speech is delivered so naturally, so subtly but so powerfully that I feel I can't pick anyone else. Make no mistake, the movie itself is very mediocre... but Washington shines anyway.

Best Picture

Nominees:

• “Lady Bird”
• “Dunkirk”
• “The Shape of Water”
• “Get Out”
• “Darkest Hour”
• “Phantom Thread”
• “The Post”
• “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
• “Call Me by Your Name”

This category is a tough one. All I needed was one movie to rise slightly above the rest but it didn't happen. That's not to say they're bad, it's more that there are a handful that are pretty equally good.

First, a note about "Call Me by Your Name". In the year of #MeToo, in the year of sexual scandals in Hollywood, that same Hollywood has seen fit to nominate a movie for Best Picture which involves a sexual relationship between a 30-something man and a 17 year old boy. This is brilliant. Aside from the fact that it's not a great movie, I almost hope it wins for the amazing irony. I'm told that within the logic of the story, the older man is supposed to be 24 but the actor portraying him is in his thirties for sure.

So with that out of the way, "The Shape of Water" is a beautifully made movie but I was not on board with the premise. "Get Out" is an extremely well made movie but it's a horror movie and I've never seen the point of horror movies. "The Post" is unremarkable. I'm a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson but "Phantom Thread" is ultimately pointless. "Three Billboards..." has all the makings of a Best Picture but it goes out of its way to make sure that every character is unlikable. I can get into a movie where all the characters are flawed but you can't make them so flawed that I hate them all and the only difference between them is the reason to hate them.

My Pick:

This year it was between "Lady Bird" and "Dunkirk" and I basically couldn't decide.

"Dunkirk" is a movie that does only one thing but does it extremely well. It builds incredible tension and maintains that tension for 100 minutes. It's an absolutely astounding action movie that literally does nothing other than that.

"Lady Bird" is a very simple slice-of-life story about a young girl going through high school and preparing for college. She fights with her mom a lot, she aspires to be great but hates school, she has trouble with boys. It's extremely narrow in its scope but it has good heart and there is a certain universality to it - everyone remembers that age, etc.

And so the problem is deciding which one is better. On the one hand, I'd want my Best Picture to have more light and shade than "Dunkirk", on the other hand, I'd want my Best Picture to be about something more than "Lady Bird". One is too big, one is too small. One has only action and no characters and the other has only characters and almost no action. It's so close and I've flip-flopped a few times but my pick, since I have to pick, is "Lady Bird".

Re:View - Joe Versus the Volcano

The guys at Re:View talk about "Joe Versus the Volcano".

I have to revisit "Joe Versus the Volcano". I saw it in the theater when it came out and never understood why it was such a flop. I can imagine it may have been too weird for general audiences, particularly at that time. But post-"Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", perhaps people can more fully appreciate it now.

I don't know, I always have trouble figuring out what general audiences are thinking. All I know is, I love the movie and think it's underrated.

Half in the Bag - Ghostbusters

"It's finally arrived. The most politically divisive film of the year. A f***ing Ghostbusters remake. Guess that's where we're at."



"Wait, I think there's an Electro-Voice Phenomenon.... Let's listen to it..."

Roger Ebert's Great Movies

When I was growing up "Siskel and Ebert"(the show as well as the critics) were very much in their heyday and I always found them fascinating. It seems to defy all logic that I did. I went to the movies maybe 2 or 3 times per year and there was a strict rule about only seeing movies rated G or PG. So why would a TV show where two guys discuss movies - movies that I hadn't seen and couldn't see - be interesting?

I'm not sure. I could analyze it but it's easier just to say I find movie discussion inherently interesting. Why did I love watching Bob Ross when I was never going to paint?

Roger Ebert came back to my consciousness again when I was going through the IMDB 250 list. I found some movies on the list to be absolutely unwatchable and devoid of anything worth celebrating. "How could people actually like this?", I'd wonder. But the IMDB 250 is a system of votes, not a person, you can't just ask unless you want to post that question on a forum and be dismissed as a "troll".

But I found Roger Ebert's "Great Movie" reviews online and they were the key. Even if I disagreed, even if I was absolutely unchangeable in my hatred for a particular movie, Roger Ebert usually had an essay that explained what people saw in a particular movie, what was unique about it, how it changed the history of film. Like "Siskel and Ebert", whether we agree or disagree, the discussion is still interesting.

Last May I decided to watch every movie in Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection and read every review. There are about 372 entries and slightly more movies in the list. There's an inexact correlation between essays and movies because one entry might be a trilogy, one essay might be about the classic Warner Bros. cartoons, one entry, "The Decalogue" is really 10 movies, and so forth. But it's around 372 and as of tonight I've finished watching every movie and reading every essay.

Now that the list is completed, I'll continue missing Roger Ebert's film reviews... and Siskel's for that matter. It's strange how they could be so successful and yet no one has come along to replace them. Perhaps the modern world is happy using review aggregators, just skip the opinion and arrive at a number. One of the knocks on film critics is that people simply don't like to be told what to watch and what not to watch. I think that misses the point. The child version of me certainly didn't see it that way watching "Siskel and Ebert" on television and I don't see it that way now.

The different reactions that movies elicit reveal the differences in the people watching them. A movie watched alone is fine but how much richer is a movie watched, discussed and contemplated with others. Yes, watch any movie you want to see and avoid any movie you don't want to see, but read the review of someone you respect, regardless. The purpose of a worthwhile review is not to tell you what to do. The purpose is simply start the conversation.

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.

The Super Bridges

As always, I have an ongoing project to boycott the Super Bowl as long as I don't have a rooting interest (Pre-2011, 2011, 2012, 2013). This year's Super Bowl replacement activity was..... watching "The Bridges of Madison County".

This movie came out in 1995 and got a lot of press as being a tremendous "chick flick". I had never seen it but was always curious about it so it seemed to be the right thing for the Super Bowl.

"The Bridges of Madison County" is about the bridges of Madison County. Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood star as bridges #1 and #2.

"The Bridges of Madison County" is about a housewife (Meryl Streep) who has an affair with a photographer (Clint Eastwood). She finds true love but must decide whether to follow it or stay with her family.... And that's pretty much it. It's a very simple story told in pretty tight confines - it's the type of movie that could have easily been a play (even though it really wasn't).

Meryl Streep is as excellent as always and Clint Eastwood is good too. There isn't a whole lot to say about this movie... it's a simple story, well told. It's somewhat sensual or erotic and it kind of becomes a tearjerker at some point. The whole movie depends entirely on the chemistry of the two leads and that works.

Conclusion: Definitely better than "The Notebook", probably not as good as "Steel Magnolias". Although, with that last one, it's kind of an "apples and oranges" situation.

7/10.

Movie Review: Field of Dreams (1989)

Field of Dreams (1989)

The problem of male-male affection is a tough one. Boys will stop kissing their dads around 7 or 8 (if they ever did at all). Around 14, it becomes uncomfortable to give their dad a hug. Into adulthood, physical affection will devolve to, but at least stop at, a handshake. Men will rarely examine what their father means to them (or anyone for that matter but especially their fathers) and, even if they do, are the group who's least capable of expressing those feelings.

For most sons (at least in the U.S.) one of the earliest and fondest memories we have is "having a catch with dad". It will be ingrained in their memory forever right next to the smell of grass and the way the hot sun feels. Throwing the baseball is a physical expression of love that never "goes out of style" even if you may stop doing it. The thrower imparts a strong visceral sensation on the catcher but does it indirectly, through the baseball, from the "safe" distance of several yards. And, done in the unassailable name of "sports".

Which brings me to the climax of "Field of Dreams". I will not begin to cry when Kevin Costner asks the simple question, "Hey dad!... Do you want to have a catch?". But that's only because I'm smart enough to start crying a few minutes earlier... in preparation for that line. Because I know it's coming. And I know what comes next. Note the way Ray (Costner) catches the ball and pauses briefly - he knows the exact meaning of that sensation and that moment. Hopefully, we do too.

Ray describes the years he spent estranged with his father: "I wanted to come home but I didn't know how"). We, as the audience, know that time cannot be undone by anyone. Whether the reasons are major or minor, in big ways and small ways, we can never go back home again. The fantasy of the movie allows us to witness one man who is suddenly excepted from that law. Whether that's cathartic or tortuous, it's both perfectly unique and extremely emotional.

9/10.

Super Bowl: Steelers vs. Magnolias

Of course I have an ongoing project to boycott the Super Bowl as long as I don't have a rooting interest (Pre-2011, 2011, 2012). This year, the theme I chose was "chick flicks". But which ones? I tried to think of the two most prominent "chick flicks" of all-time. I debated and discussed it at length with others - and thanks to everyone who contributed! My conclusion, controversial as it may be, was that the two movies at the very top of the list must be "Steel Magnolias" and "Beaches".

That was my decision. Then I called an audible... the third series of "Downton Abbey" and the new episode was airing opposite the Super Bowl anyway so "Beaches" was scrapped. "Downton Abbey" is a fantastic show but as much as I love it, it certainly qualifies for the "feminine" moniker. I feel no shame. As long as John Bates and Anna Smith end up together, everything will be just fine. Also, I hope Lady Edith Crawley finds someone - she's been so unlucky in love! Poor, poor, Lady Edith...

Alright....

Steel Magnolias (1989)

"Steel Magnolias" is about a group of women. These women love each other. They're there for each other - in good times and bad. They gossip, discuss clothes, do their hair and vent about their relationships. In this world, Men do exist - but only barely. Men are a net evil on the world but only marginally... and these women, supporting each other as they are, can persevere past these problems.  Separately, life might be impossible... but together, they know they can make it through. I know everything with them is going to be A-OK... and, oh yeah, the script calls for just one more thing.... BRING ON THE TERMINAL ILLNESS!!!

Given that I've still never seen "Beaches" or "The Lake House", seeing and enjoying "Steel Magnolias" in the theater is my greatest "chick flick cred" achievement. If I listen to the conventional wisdom of society, I shouldn't really enjoy it. But, watching it again, I still really like it. I like dramas where the plot is completely character-driven. I like dramas that follow the characters over a period of many years - showing the full spectrum of life experiences. And the dialogue is real and smartly written. The Lifetime "melodrama" (such as it is) only comprises a small percentage of the movie - most of it is large portions of southern fried comedy - but even so, it is touching. The acting (Shirley MacLaine, Olympia Dukakis, Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Dolly Parton) is absolutely top-notch.

One of the few male actors in the movie is Tom Skerritt who has the unhappy task of informing "the ladies" that Goose died. That guy can't catch a break.

Overall, a really, genuinely good movie. Not earth-shattering, of course, but better than most.

Better Than "The Notebook" / 10.