Monthly Movie Journal: May 2011

Perhaps this one was built up a bit too much for me. Or perhaps my expectations were ridiculously high because it is, afterall, a Pixar effort and how damn good do those tend to be?! But gotta say I was disappointed in Wall-E. Oh, the animation kicks ass, the sound is awesome, and overall it's a technical marvel. But the story just didn't sweep me up.



I'll admit to being amazed at how much emotion they were able to convey (and draw from an audience) with no dialogue for the first 25 minutes or so. In fact, I may have preferred the film if stayed dialogue-free for its entirety. When the talking did begin (and there's still not much of it) nobody really had much important or clever to say. Er, except you know, a bunch of pro-Green warnings about the anihalation of nature, etc. Which is FINE, but doesn't necessarily make for a very fun movie.

The humans in the film are lazily drawn after-thoughts (yes, I get that humans are universally depicted as lazy slob parasites- that's not my complaint) and the robot/droids are countless and unremarkable (except for our hero). I'm afraid even animated films need a decent supporting cast and Wall-E severely lacks in this department. My other big complaint is the non-stop noisy action sequences that never really stir up any excitement or suspense. With so little dialogue, I guess the film had to be filled with something else, and busy unremarkable action scenes seemed to be the animators' specialty.



I did enjoy the numerous references to 2001: A Space Odyssey but, finally they were stretched to their limit as well.

Oh yeah, and I expected to cry and I didn't. Not even close. Boo.

Okay, well now that I'm done trashing a delightful enough kids' movie and no doubt future-animation classic I'll try and get on with my month.

There, ya see that boys and girls? This is what over-consumption of alcohol can do to you. It leads to bad decisions, not only the night of boozing, but often the next day.

Only a crippling hangover could ever leave me feeling so uninspired and helpless as to have me turn to something so mind-numbingly stupid as this movie. And that's just what happened.

Honestly, this belongs on the Mission Aborted Shelf as I passed back out some 60 minutes in, but I felt I should call attention to my mistake as a preventative measure for others.

A worthy second installment to the franchise that I hope to complete by the end of the month. And I'll tell ya, that Matt Damon fellow sure is cute when he's angry.

Review by pamela voorhees

This Brit creature-feature was actually more of a bad-ass than I'd ever have guessed. It's 85 minute feature time suits it just fine as the pace never drags, even if its credibility does at moments. Definately more violent and brutal than I'd ever have guessed, along with performances that hold up pretty nicely.

Don't get me wrong- if you're not a tried and true fan of horror than certainly don't bother. But fans of the genre should give it a look if they feel like they've already seen every worthwhile horror flick of the last 10 years.

Currently streaming on netflix

I think you have to hang a plot and some suspense around this. It was just so dopey and so endless and so repetitive. The guy's got talent, but thumbs down for this movie.
--Richard Roeper

I'm afraid those were exactly my feelings. Once the awe over Jaa's insane abilities wears off, we're left with a bunch of movie that fails to excite any further in any other way. Just a crap story-line filled with crap characters, sprinkled with some really cool stuff, then, in case we missed it, a bunch of obnoxious alternative angle slow-mo shots that really just kind of holds up the end credits.

This is basically a Thai version of exactly the kind of American garbage that I try my best not to see- except that Tony Jaa is cooler than Jason Stratham, Vin Diesel, and Paul Walker combined. Really I wish I had just "youtubed" the street-chase/fight scenes and moved on.

Released by WaltDisneyNature, and aimed toward families with children during it's theatrical campaign, Oceans works well as a general introduction to its material. For the more inquisitive among us we find little probing into the deeper specifics of any one life-form or phenomenon of the deep blue sea.

But it must be said that the photography here is stunning and includes some of the best instances I've ever seen. It's a shame it's not supported with a better script, as the one here merely gestures toward some sense of vague profundity without ever really telling us much of anything informative. And Pierce Brosnan's narration gets the job done, but little more. Too often he sounds bored instead of sounding like whatever it is he's trying to convey.

A promising beginning slowly gives way to an unfocused mess of a film that crumbles under the weight of its own material. Good performances all around (and especially by Kirsten Dunst) offer some consolation, but ultimately I wouldn't recommend this.

Gave this a look, due largely in part to the giraffe's strong recommendation. Must say I'm glad I followed his advice!



Presented almost exclusively as a series of still photographs, this French short film stirs the mind, heart, and imagination in ways that shouldn't have been possible. Hard to find a better way to spend 30 minutes than with this sober, yet poetic imagining of time-travel, love, fate, post-apocalyptic society and more.

A confident debut from a director who has really begun to make a mark on the landscape of cinema. Three seperate stories connected not only by a horrific car-crash, but also through many thematic qualities each play out in a fully realized and strongly developed manner, though with mixed emotional impact and narrative power.

This is an impressive film in all technical regards, and it's statements about class distinctions and struggles in director, Inarritu's native Mexico City are interesting. But I can't say I ever got swept away in its vision, nor did the film particularily resonate with me an any deep level. While it's doubtful I'll ever sit down with this one again, I do feel more inclined now to revisit 21 Grams and Babel (my favorite of the 3). And as undeniably talented a director as Inarritu is, who possesses such bold vision, Biutiful certainly remains a film I'm excited to watch.

This film could've simply been an Edward Norton vehicle showcasing the actor's versatile talents, but through a thoughtful, if not exactly stunning, script and some solid supporting performances Leaves of Grass quietly becomes something more. The movie's refusal to comply to any genre-related expectations works mostly as a strength, though I suspect some viewers may feel that in the end this also partially prevents the film from reaching any truly profound heights in terms of dramatic impact or insight. While I was amused and charmed by the film, I never felt truly moved.

The estranged-family -theme of the film was easily the most compelling aspect of the story, particularily the focus on identical twin brothers (Norton) who grew up close before drifting quickly and widely apart. We can imagine these two as childhood friends, competitors, and co-conspirators and we believe the alienation and emotional distance they now regard one another with. An eccentric mother and absent father play part in the emotional canvas that these two must use as they create themsleves, their identities. A lot of this plays out well, but the film never quite breaks through to any kind of wholly satisfying and meaningful level.



Still, Leaves of Grass is very much worth watching, even if a part of me wishes the material was in a more artistically confident and accomplished director's hands. Certainly it shouldn't be missed if you're a fan of Edward Norton who really does bring a considerable amount of life to this interesting story.

My thanks to the giraffe for bringing this one to my attention!

Currently streaming on Netflix

High on blood and gore, but low on scares The Horde is a slick-looking, testosterone-fueled French language zombie extravaganza that never wholly satisfies. In terms of content, the film owes a lot to Romero's classic Night of the Living Dead and offers nothing really in the way of zombie-innovation. Which is fine. More frustrating though is the film's over-reliance upon rapid-cut action scenes and seemingly interminable shoot-ups and hand-to-hand combat sequences. Most of them look good, don't get me wrong, but after a while they overstay their welcome.

A fine performance from the female lead acts as one of the film's greatest strengths. Surely legendary movie badass Lt. Ellen Ripley was very much in mind as the crew went about their business.



The story lacks however, and we can only stand so many "allegiances come into question" scenarios before we begin rolling our eyes to the back of heads like a bunch of undead flesh-eaters. Sprinkle in a bit of casual racism, a dull approach to suspense, and too many instances of over-reaching for guilty humor, and the experience quickly turns a bit yawn-inducing, no matter how many craniums are split and rounds of ammo are fired. Only the most indiscriminately blood-thirsty of horror fans need bother.

Mirthful and charming, bluntly observant and slyly irreverent. This 22-minute, Geoffrey Rush clay-mation deserves to seen!

Excellent review by PvtCaboose91

Currently streaming on Netflix

Not exactly sure why I bothered with this one. I pretty much got exactly what I expected, except a bit worse. And I never though I'd hate Winona Ryder quite so much as I did by the end of this garbled mess of a movie. Otherwise, this pretty much says it all:

Review by Cranky Hanke

Saw a trailer for this in front of The Horde and apparently I decided I needed to see it...before the week's end!

Good enough to keep you watching, bad enough to make you kind of hate yourself for renting it in the first place. On a post 2000's horror-movie-scale I give it a 'C'. On a ways-i-decide-to-spend-my-time-scale I give myself an F. Especially having just sat through The Dilemma the night before!

With Wild at Heart David Lynch seems to set out to accomplish one thing only: to create an instant cult-classic phenomenon. While the film enjoys some cult status, it doesn't seem to have achieved the iconography that Lynch set out for. Watching the film, the movie seems to have all the ingredients: a seductive and relentless energy filled with moments of shocking violence, black as tar humor, and over-the-top melodrama of a truly eccentric variety. Multiple allusions to The Wizard of Oz are even thrown in, perhaps in effort to more firmly ground the film within viewers' collective unconscious.

But there's too much working against the notoriety and cult-celebration that Lynch seems to have hoped for. For starters we have the unfortunate title (preserved from the novel the film is adapted from). This is not the title of a film that is "cool" to like. Also, if Nic Cage's main-stream star-power doesn't pose a big enough obstacle in ensuring the "hipness" of the film, than perhaps it's Lynch himself that has simply gotten too big to author a true cult-hit. Audiences have grown too familiar with the man, and discerning viewers and critics alike will quickly observe that Wild at Heart is far from the director's best work, let alone most bizarre or otherwise fascinating.



Surely this is Lynch's most straight-forward effort that I've seen from him (which may come as relief for some), but it's probably also the least magical. While I admired the film's infectious energy and unbridled performances, there's surprising little here that I feel will stay with me for any length of time.

A surprisingly engaging documentary about the rise, fall, and tentative re-emergence of the Professional Bowlers Association. This movie interestingly catalogs the once great, but lately negligible presence of bowling in American culture and television rooms.

No, this is obviously not a scene from the film, but you should see this criminally under-seen indie effort anyway.

Shocking to me that most people and critics alike found so many good things to say about this film. What a bore.

Through the first 15 minutes or so I didn't much like this. "Great", I thought. "Here's another uncreative approach at trying to capture the essence of a dick-headish, albeit great, writer."

Luckily, the film began to expose its soul and at the same time shed some revealing light on the wounded, but relentless soul of it's subject. By the end I was struck by the unadorned, yet extremely thorough scope of this documentary and the surprising intimacy it achieved.

Coppola shows the same confident patience in his story-telling here that helped make The Godfather great. And he's truly one of the masters behind a camera. Combine that with a fantastic performance from Gene Hackman and The Conversation becomes a pretty captivating film. The musical score is one of the best I've heard from the decade, and there are sequences in this film that really mesmerize, sometimes in an unsettling way.



I'll admit things were a bit tricky to follow at times here, and I probably lack some historical knowledge that would heighten my experience watching this film. But even still, this is a movie that kept me thinking long after it ended and truly evoked real feeling as I watched it.

Masterfully crafted, yes, but also purely entertaining. This late entry into the celebrated film noir genre distinguishes itself from many other titles in its sheer accessible, engrossing watchability. From the amazingly orchestrated tracking shots, to the wonderful set-pieces, from the strikingly beautiful Janet Leigh to the inflated and sweaty Orson Welles-- who much of the time looks as though he may just keel over and die without a moment's notice-- it becomes impossible to look away from the splendor on screen.

Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" Essay

This is movie magic, pure and simple, from the classic days when Universal was the name in monster movies. A heck of a lotta fun filled with some great comedic lines, cars falling of cliffs and bursting into flames, and evil plans of unlimited villany! This one just about has it all. A stronger role from it's leading lady and a less hurried (though still awesome) ending would've made it just about perfect.

For an 89 minute film full of plot holes and sloppy editing, this sure is a celebrated movie. On the other hand, I can begin to see what defenders of this picture love. But I'm just not one for vague religious imagery and allusion the way others are. I do appreciate well-drawn characters though, which this movie certainly provides. And some pretty shocking content is confronted here, so much that it's of little wonder that the film's 1960 release drummed up quite a bit of controversy. For those that don't know this film served as the inspiration for Wes Craven's Last House on the Left which came about some dozen years later. I wasn't aware when I began watching the film, but caught wise before the movie was half over.

Anyways, if you know Last House then you know the basic story-line of this film. And you can see where that would ruffle some feathers. Throw in some criticism of Christianity (and I'm always game for calling any religious belief structure into question), a bit of Norse/pagan ideology, and contemplation over ideas revolving around justice and revenge and you've essentially got The Virgin Spring. This is my first Ingmar Bergman film, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that while watching it I often felt that I'd rather be seeing a Kurosawa movie.



Even so there are some interesting questions raised here and a good deal of things left to chew on. Perhaps I'm just uncomfortable and new to the language of Bergman, but can't say I liked this movie as much as I was "supposed to" like it.

This is the real deal! Wonderfully shot with a superb and smart script, and filled with both chilling and heartbreaking performances. Imagine the best of the old Universal Studios monster movies crossed with the strongest of Twilight Zone episodes, then add a dash of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and sprinkle in some Dr. Frankenstein. This is a must see for fans of horror and for fans of great cinema.

Review by Citizen Caine

The opening visual flourish soon gives way to a more subtly lyrical cinematography, a shift that underscores where Chukhrai’s interest lies; though set in wartime Soviet Union, Ballad walks away from the genre of war film just as Alyosha walks away from the fields of war. After disabling the German tanks, the accidental hero turns down a medal, asking only for leave to fix the roof on his mother’s village house. This, then, becomes a kind of road movie, with our clean-scrubbed hero instinctively helping everyone he meets on his many train rides home. Despite his youth, Alyosha has a strong moral sense, whether standing up to a ridiculous bully guarding the train, or taking back the soap he has brought to a soldier’s wife when he discovers that she has not faithfully been awaiting her husband’s return. What emerges is a portrait of life and problems behind the lines of war: our hero helps a veteran who, having lost a leg, is afraid to return to his wife, fearing she might reject him. While Alyosha exhibits a natural goodness and quiet heroism, typical of films of the thaw is the absence of Communist or Soviet rhetoric and pomposity of earlier war films.

-- Vida Johnson, Criterion Collection Essay

On it's surface this film succeeds greatly as an entertaining and comedic thriller. But what makes it even more special is the metaphysical symbolism at work and the engrossing meditation on despair and redemption I felt going on. The vast underground Budapest rail system serves as the setting for the entire film, but somehow watching Kontroll brought all the entirety of the cosmos to the front of my imagination.

A surprisingly fascinating and highly entertaining look at the story and major-players behind the controversy over the ownership of home-run ball #73. Fans of baseball will want to see this, but more importantly anyone who appreciates cautionary tales about human-nature or the devolution of social values may want to give this a look!

Generally I'm not a big fan of stuffy period-piece dramas, but something drew me to this film. Most probably it was all the gothic energy present in the trailer, and the guilty fact that I've still never read the book. In any case Jane Eyre is a perfect example of a film that has a whole slew of things going for it, but adamantly refuses to become great, or even very good. It just never touched on any level that I wished it would.



Oh, and the fact that the film opted not to show us the most exciting, potential-for-great-drama event of the whole damn story was something that really pissed me off and left me utterly bewildered. Maybe it just wasn't in the budget. Great performances and a well-realized tone just aren't enough to save this one from total forgetable-ness.

I was seriously becomming afraid that I was too old to have THIS MUCH fun at the movie theatre. Thor put my fears to rest. The most compete and entertaining summer blockbuster to come out in years. We've all sat through some underwhelming, disappointing garbage in our lives- you owe it to yourself to see this one!!



For a spot-on assessment of what makes this movie so good, and such a great surprise hit in quality actioneer film-making see here:

Review by PvtCaboose91

Trailer for Everything Must Go

Based off the fantastic short story "Why Don't You Dance" by one of my all-time favorite writers, Raymond Carver, there was no question I was going to see this film first chance I got, and little question that I would at least partially enjoy it. The only real question in my mind was whether or not the film would ultimately evoke the same emotional tones present in Carver's story. I cared very little how and where the film decided to stray from/embellish its source material-- but hoped above all that the story's spirit would remain it tact.

In this sense, the film-makers scored big. I'd even say they got it damn-near perfect! In terms of my literary sensibilities and my admiration for Carver, I could not have been more pleased.

As a film-goer, and one appreciative of lower-key examinations of complexly human ideas, I was equally impressed. The performances here are universally strong. Rebecca Hall and Laura Dern do very well with the screen-time they're allotted and they play opposite Will Ferrel's alcohol-soaked desperation with no small amount of grace. Even more notable was the child-performance from Christopher Jordan Wallace, son of the late rapper Notorious B.I.G. In fact, if this were a more widely distributed film released later in the year, I wouldn't be surprised if he received a Best Supporting Actor nomination. He occupies his role in a way that's so convincing it appears effortless. Perhaps it's because he's completely new to the screen and doesn't know any "tricks" that his performance and deliveries seem so authentic.



And of course we have Will Ferrell in a subdued and nuanced performance that really harnesses a dramatic power greater than we've ever seen from him and only began to observe in Stranger than Fiction. Love him or hate him I think most will find it difficult not to concede a respect for his work here. Personally I've enjoyed Will Ferrell's comic energy on many occasions, and can think of MANY actors I'd sooner not watch. In that sense and in light of all the other personal biases at play here, it would seem that a strong recommendation of this film is built-in from the very beginning. Maybe so. But I think most patient and thoughtful cinema fans will appreciate this movies for its fine cinematic executions and its keenly observant focus.

A true comedy-classic of the 2000s among a pretty short list of American Comedy Classics of the 2000s.

Review by lotr23

Remains a fresh, smart, and inspired piece of film with a sense of originality so unobtrusive, we almost miss just how clever this film is. A little of its magic has worn off since the last time I watched it, but this is still a solid and rewarding film.

My Quick Pick Six

Good: Eyes Without a Face / Everything Must Go

Bad: The Dilemma / Zombies, Zombies, Zombies

Weird: Wild at Heart / The Pier

Biggest surprise of the month is unquestionably Thor . What was supposed to simply whet our appetite for next year's comic-book inspired extravaganza blow-out of a summer season instead barged into theaters as it's own 5-star feast fit for kings.

Ong-Bak was also surprising... in the way it really sucked.

33 movies watched in the month of May, and 31 of them for the first time. That's one new film a day! Not sure I can keep such an exhausting pace up for much longer, but a cinematically productive follow-up to April was exciting, though at times the quality dragged in comparison. Still, there were no shortage of good films watched and I enjoyed some true classics over the last several weeks.

Unfortunately this month was the most modern-leaning of the year so far and I sat through a number of 2000-something released films I could just as easily have skipped.

Here's how it shakes out:

Total films watched: 33

Watched for the first time: 31

Among 31 first watches:

1930's: 1
1940's: 0
1950's: 2
1960's: 3
1970's: 1
1980's: 2
1990's: 1
2000's: 15
2010/11: 6

Total Foreign Language Films: 9
Total Documentaries: 4

My Ratings:

1/10: 0
2/10: 1
3/10: 3
4/10: 2
5/10: 2
6/10: 4
7/10: 5
--------
8/10: 7
9/10: 4
10/10 3