HairyLime

Caught this one on our 'On Demand' cable service last night. I'm a big fan of 'submarine movies' with all their cliches and standardized plotlines (the 'silent running sequence', the 'depth charges sequence', the 'battle weary captain' the 'going too deep and the pressure is going to crush us sequence'). I wasn't expecting much at first, the acting by the bit players was wooden and the dialog a little corny, but once the two main characters were introduced and the chase begun, this turned out to be a pretty decent little war film. Mitchum and Jurgens were both great, and it was interesting to see a war film that actually avoids taking sides, and treats the enemy with a bit more respect and intelligence.

 

Some other favorites: Run Silent Run Deep, Tokyo Bay, U-571, Das Boot, Crimson Tide, The Hunt for Red October

I was frequently reminded of my favorite 'Sports Movies' while watching this Canadian Film, and how the best of them can move or excite or thrill despite the viewer's complete ignorance of the particular sport. I'm thinking of 'Breaking Away' (bicycle racing), or 'Hoosiers' (basketball), or 'Eight Men Out', 'The Rookie', 'The Natural' (baseball), 'Slap Shot' (hockey), 'Remember the Titans' (football), 'Rocky', 'Cinderella Man' or 'Body and Soul' (boxing) or even the recent 'Dodgeball'. All manage to engage the viewer in the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat regardless of whether you are a sports fan or not. There are times in this film that the filmmakers got close to the net, and a couple moments where they scored a goal, but they couldn't quite put together a hat trick with this one. The hockey action scenes were well filmed and edited, and gave a sense of excitement. I particularly enjoyed the scene where the notoriously violent New York player tries to 'get' our hero, but gets a surprising comeuppance. But the scenes never quite seemed to flow together enough to get the audience in a 'cheering' mood, but were just pockets of excitement here and there. I frequently found myself confused about what was going on. Perhaps this is one of those movies where you need to be familiar with the sport/sporting legend to fully appreciate it. The lead actor did a fine job, portraying the simple french canadian machinist/hockey star with a calm dignity and stubborn drive, and the 'fight for french canadian dignity' was effective and interesting. Roy Dupuis reminds me of a young Rock Hudson, or possibly Sam Raimi favorite Bruce Campbell. The whole 'family drama' angle kind of left me cold. I really wasn't overly interested in the 'brother in law who can't good tickets to the games' subplot, or the 'poor people fence' or the 'father in law who doesn't approve of the son-in-law' subplot (seems like they tried to squeeze too many subplots into the mix, and couldn't quite decide which one to emphasize or expand on, so all are given short shrift)..and the wife seemed almost an afterthought to the story (There is a scene where our hero goes all gushy over his newborn baby, but then we never see the kid again after that).. The actor who played the Montreal Canadiens coach was particularly good (and looks real familiar to  me, I'll have to IMDB him to see where else I've seen him). Some of the camera work seemed a bit unnecessary, especially the sudden switches to washed out black and white for certain scenes (with no particular rhyme or reason that I could decipher). Could've been a condender, but left me a bit cold. A cut above most of the other 'Spout Mavens' discs I've received.

Hmm. Saw this last night with the family unit at our local 'cheapie movie' theater, which plays a mixture of 2nd run blockbusters on their last legs mixed with a sprinkling of independant features (I think this one is already on DVD if I'm not mistaken). Not really what I was expecting, but that isn't always a bad thing. I admire all the actors, who all did a spectacular job, but the story was a bit uncomfortable to sit through. It is always a bit nerve wracking to watch a movie in which the main character gradually becomes unhinged, because you have a tendency to see things through their eyes, and on the one hand, you can see why their actions make sense based on their own inner logic, but on the other hand, you can't divorce your own personal feelings from that of the character you are watching, and you find yourself fighting the urge to scream at the screen "STOP IT - what the heck are you thinking?" I was reminded of such films as Scorcese's Taxi Driver, or King of Comedy, or Nick Nolte in Affliction, or Gene Hackman in The Conversation. I suppose we can be grateful that this movie didn't choose the conventional route of the the main character finding 'mr. right' and settling down to a happy ever after life. While the ending seemed a bit unrealistic (she's going to get her job back and be forgiven of attacking her neighbor with a hunting knife and embezzling funds with a few phone calls?), I did however like the final 'summing up' where she compares her 'love of animals' with all the other various forms of love and affection and obsession that others cling to, and really, is it any less meaningful - but I suppose what it comes down to, is where YOUR obsessions and interests cross the line and impact others (and THEIR loves, interests and obsessions). I guess I admire this movie, but I can't honestly say I enjoyed it.

Rented this one on the basis of a few interesting trailers and a couple conflicting reviews. The movie started out pretty good, and had some interesting camera work and special effects throughout, but it was too long, and meanders around aimlessly in the middle and then by the time the movie picks up steam at the end, it feels less like a satisfactory conclusion, and more like a video game hero who just beat the 'big boss' at the end of the level. Rather disappointing overall.

Starting to notice a trend in the four movies I've received as part of the 'Spout Maven's' group. Each of the movies has involved a young boy, set adrift, abandoned, neglected by adult foibles and shortcomings beyond his power to either influence or comprehend. In "Clean" it was drugs and show business, in "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things" it was a whole myriad of child neglect nightmare scenarios, in "Mother Mine" it was WWII and the foster parent program, and, now in "Roads to Koktebel" we have alcoholism and abject poverty. This movie is what you would call 'deliberately paced', which is an art film term for slow moving. This film was so slow in fact, that I was convinced at one point that it was moving backwards. We are introduced to a father and son travelling with little or no means of support from the big city of Moscow to a new life at a sister's house by the Black Sea. The father and son seem rather distant from each other, the father speaks in curt sarcastic tones to the boys' occasional questions, and the boy has a stern far off look of sad determination much of the time. We gradually understand by the father's refusal of vodka, that he had a drinking problem at some point, which may have added to their bad fortune, and that the boy's mother died at some point in the past and may have led to the drinking, but it is never spelled out in so many words. At one point he falls off the wagon with a persuasive host, and shows signs of alcoholic desperation for a single scene, but seems to get over it rather quickly (a shotgun to the shoulder will do that I suppose), and when they are taken in by a somewhat attractive woman doctor, the father falls under her charms and abruptly changes their plans and decides to stay there with the woman. The son gets fed up with the father and takes off to complete the journey alone. There are frequent allusions to flying and albatroses throughout, and when the boy reaches the 'sea' we are treated to a few confusing scenes that I suppose have something to do with the 'flying' metaphor, but they were lost on me, I'm afraid. The film is beautifully shot, the bleak Russian landscapes and life of poverty were filmed with a real love of composition and color. I was reminded of the Cormac McCarthy book "The Road" (except without the cannibals), in which the boy eventually leaves the father to find his own path - and I was also reminded of the wonderful film "Sullivan's Travels" about the filmmaker who wants desperately to make a 'serious film' about 'real people', 'real poverty and real desperate lives', and discovers that real people go to the movies to escape their 'real poverty and real desperate lives' (and to make this point the movie is wonderful in the way it uses every cheap escapism trick in the book, slapstick car chases, caricatured stereotypes, pratfalls, and Veronica Lake does a number of titilating shower scenes).

Another example of how a decent director can manage to get a good performance out of usually 'over the top' comedians by simply reigning them in. (Jack Black in Nacho Libre, Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine, Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love come to mind immediately). Not quite as good as most of the recent crop of esoteric independent films that have been crawling out of the woodwork in recent years (Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine, I Heart Huckabees, etc etc) with oddball plotlines and a leap of faith and imagination by the audience required, - but overall, I think it works and is an enjoyable film on many levels. Maggie Gyllenhaal is appealing as the romantic lead, Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman give workable but unmemorable performances, and Will Ferrell does a fine job as the bland everyman lead - the one character which seemed totally unnecessary (except as someone for Emma Thompson to converse with) was Queen Latifah who seemed totally out of her element here.

Been a problematic viewing history for me on this movie. Saw the last third of this a couple months ago on cable, and noticed over the past week that it has appeared in our 'on demand' menu from our local cable company, but have been having trouble with the feature, it keeps giving me error messages when I try to call it up, and then last night we finally got it going, but then in conked out on us about halfway through the picture. But I think at this point, I've seen most of it. I really like the musical version from the late 60s, but it was interesting seeing a bit more faithful adaptation of the story. Beautifully cast, gritty and squalid, with some fine performances by Ben Kingsley as a bit more sinister Fagin than Ron Moody's sly tongue in cheek performance. Barney Clark gives Oliver a bit more moxie than Mark Lester's fey pantywaist interpretation, and makes the story a bit more believable as a result.

Saw this last weekend, and I had pretty high expectations for it, based on the word of mouth and reviews that I'd seen. I think it is a welcome relief in the heat of summer from the usual hollywood crap to see a small, cinema verite bittersweet romance make it to the multiplexes, which could account for its popularity with the starved moviegoing public. I was a bit underwhelmed. The music was ok, the male lead "guy" (Glen Hansard) who I had seen before as the guitar player in "the Commitments" was great, his singing was impassioned, his awkward mooning over the girl was believable, and his quiet relationship with his vacuum cleaner repairman father was cute. The "girl" on the other hand, I just didn't see what he saw in her, her vocals and piano playing were a bit dull and wooden, her personality wasn't really fleshed out very much - perhaps it was enough for her to just "like his music" (where did the money come from to rent to recording studio? I'm a bit unclear on that?). As for the film overall, a bit heavy on the MTV sequences (but probably more enjoyable to watch than more painfully awkward conversations). The 'Dublin Street Musician' culture that we got a glimpse of in the beginning was kind of quirky and interesting, and on the plus side, the movie really knew how not to overstay its welcome, clocking in under 90 minutes (ending just about at the point where I was checking my wife's luminous watch to see how much more of the movie we had coming).

(originally posted in the 'Spout Mavens' discussion board, but I think it was supposed to be posted here, so have copied it here)

I'm not sure how I am expected to respond to this movie. I received it in the mail earlier in the week, and read on the outside of the package about how this was based on a book/memoir that was later exposed as a fraud. The description didn't encourage my interest much (it certainly doesn't sound like the 'feel good hit of the summer', that's for sure), but I gave it a try nonetheless. My first session lasted about a half an hour into the film. If I'm supposed to be horrified by the abuse this child endures, then it isn't working, because I've been warned ahead of time that it is a fabrication. Perhaps the actors and story will overcome that and draw me in. Not much luck there either. The 'mother' character does nothing but inspire incredulence alternating with revulsion, while the 'child' is one minute pitiful and the other minute annoying and tiresome. A couple nights later I forced myself into another session with the film, where we get to meet the fundamentalist grandfather (played with usual stony indifference by Peter Fonda), and the only laugh out loud moment of the film occurs (which so far, has been the only highlight of the film), where the child mishears "psalm" and brags that he knows some "songs", and proceeds to do a hilarious rendition of the Sex Pistols "Anarchy in the U.K." complete with loogie on the floor. Then the mother came back into the picture and I groaned aloud, and prepared for another tedious 'life on the edge' tableau. I got as far as the boy beginning to cross dress and seduce the mother's boyfriend, and it lost me again. I may return to finish this off, but don't hold your breath. Its a bad sign, when, after an hour into a movie, you don't really care how it ends. (and apparently I didn't even get to Marilyn Manson, a pity, I'm sure)

Manipulative, opinionated, unbalanced, and points out what is wrong with America .... and you know what? Kudos to Michael Moore. I am not one of those who feel that documentaries need be well-balanced, objective and fair, like people "perceive" the news to be (or should strive to be). My only problem with Moore's films is that I sincerely doubt that anyone who really needs to see and hear what he has to say will ever pay him any mind, and will instead hide behind their preconcieved notions, with their fingers in theirs ears, chanting "la la la la - I dont' hear you", or ignore the message, and attack him or his filmmaking methods in retaliation rather than deal with the issues. We just saw this movie at an afternoon matinee, and my only reservation is that we cheaped out and paid matinee prices instead of full price, which it deserved. I love that movie that has you talking and discussing for nearly the entire ride home (and we had to drive clear across the other side of town to catch this one). I was moved to tears at a few points, laughed my ass off at others, and left with a mixture of feelings of activist zeal and hope for the future. And even if it never does a thing for our sad health care system in this country, I am encouraged to be in a full movie house for this picture, that is given a round of applause as the credits roll.

I'd seen the original version with Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum years ago, I'd read the book by John D. MacDonald on which it was based (definitely much less interesting that either film version, don't you love when a mediocre source material spawns a much superior work when translated to film - The Godfather, Kiss Me Deadly also come to mind), and I've seen the Simpsons spoof with Sideshow Bob numerous times, but I had yet to see this remake from start to finish (I'd always caught a little bit of it here and there, but never was quite drawn in enough to commit). The other night I finally got around to watching the whole thing from start to finish, and while it is a bit overblown in places, I was impressed by quite a lot of it. Some interesting reviews here on Spout, be sure to check out MaryMcilwain's 'Joe Don Baker' tribute, and Quint makes an interesting point about the film echoing 'Frankenstein' (which hadn't occurred to me before, but I can definitely see it now). While DeNiro is definitely over the top most of the time, he effectively creepy, and downright frightening in the final sequences, and there are some very fine supporting roles throughout, the aforementioned Joe Don Baker, and Scorcese's then-girlfriend Illeana Douglas in a wonderful bar pickup scene with DeNiro (and of course, the cameos by Mitchum, Peck & Martin Balsam, each given interesting parts to play that fill out the movie, rather than a cheap walk-on like some movies would resort to). Some of the directorial choices are over the top as well, but you really can't fault them because they work so well despite their attention-getting qualities (the constant storm cloud backgrounds seemed a little Spielberg-ish to me, and the 'Gingerbread House' in the high school drama class scene seemed a bit excessive, but on the other hand, it ended up being one of the truly creepy scenes in the movie). I'm upgrading my star rating on this one from three to four.

Went to the movies tonight, and let the wife drag me to a chick flick. Normally I'm more than open minded about these types of films, but this one left me cold from almost the opening shots. It seems to really have some worthwhile things to say, but has a hard time cutting through the schmaltz and the bland direction and screenwriting to say it.

Hard to put my finger on, but it felt as if each of the actors were working in an isolation chamber, and never seemed to make any sort of connection with each other in a believable way. All the money seems to have been spent on all the big name female talent, and we are left with a lot of leftovers in the male parts (Barry Bostwick?), which is a special problem considering the 'man who is the love of her life' is played by such a dead fish, that you wonder what all the fuss was about, plus a script that looks as if it were copied almost verbatim from the novel (and sometimes sounds rather awkward coming out of characters mouths).

My biggest problem is with Claire Danes, who is totally miscast as a woman from the 40s/50s with mannerisms and acting style straight out of the 90s (a similar thing happened recently with 'Black Dahlia' where Scarlett Johansson and Hilary Swank are miscast as the female leads). I would have preferred Natasha Richardson to have played the younger version of Vanessa Redgrave, then at least there would have been some slight resemblance to the older character (a fact that seems to have been the only job requirement for the actress who plays the young Meryl Streep - for which the resemblance is uncanny and almost creepy). A lot of pretty scenery, a lot of female bonding (the beauty and cycle of life, yadda yadda yadda), and a few beautifully romantic settings that look straight off the cover of a supermarket romance novel. Take your wife, get some points.

Up until now, my only exposure to the whole 'Spaghetti Western' genre has been through Sergio Leone's 'Fistful of Dollars', 'A Few Dollars More', 'The Good, The Bad & The Ugly', 'Once Upon a Time in the West', 'Fistful of Dynamite' and the odd ridiculous Terrence Hill comedy/westerns featuring his 'Trinity' character. I ran into this one this evening on IFC, and was struck right away with the different feel this one had. A lot of the same 'bigger than life' characters with outrageously precise shooting prowess, lots of 'in your face' violence, extreme close-ups, out of sync dialog, elaborate gun hardware and strange gallows humor, but on the other hand, it had characters that weren't quite totally good or totally bad, just with different agendas, and sorry to spoil the ending, but it was a real shock to see the 'hero' not come out on top, and those he hoped to save from the 'villain' slaughtered mercilessly and the sadistic bounty hunter ride off unsullied into the sunset. I loved the snow covered landscapes and sets, which gave the whole film a rather stark appearance in keeping with its existential themes.

Saw this one tonight with the wife, and boy what a satisfying movie. I'm sure that on paper, this looks to be a total hoke-fest, with plot turns that you can see coming a mile away, but it manages to transend the formula thanks to wonderful quirky direction, and heartwarming performances, especially the instantly appealling Keri Russell, the lovably quirky Adrienne Shelly and homespun wiseacre Andy Griffith. Many laugh out loud moments, a few tears,  a completely satisfying ending, 2 hours that flash by way too soon, and leaves you with a horrible pie craving for the ride home (one of her pie recipes actually caused me to groan out loud, it looked so good). Heartilly recommended. Dig in.

Been a long time since I've seen one of Almodovar's films, the last two being 'Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down' and 'High Heels' (mostly because of Victoria Abril), but I have noticed how busy he has been in the interceding time, but for some reason or another, the descriptions just didn't grab me. I suppose I shouldn't let that stop me in the future, because the description for this one didn't really grab me in a big way either, but I was drawn to it because of the good press that Penelope Cruz was getting, and her oscar nomination, but boy was this a pleasant surprise all around.

Pedro Almodovar's look and methods haven't changed much over the years, he is still able to take the most outlandish storylines and flesh them out in such a way that you totally accept them,  - what seems totally farfetched and cornball at the halfway point of the movie, completely turns around and resolves itself into a believable and satisfactory conclusion in the final half an hour -- and characters that you deeply care about by the end of the film no matter what sort of troubled past they may have, or deeds they may have committed. The neon bright splashes of color are still there, and his propensity for writing strong, interesting female roles, and the chance is always there, that somebody is going to break out into song, at any given moment, and it totally works. Penelope Cruz, who I had previously pegged as yet another of hollywood's imported 'latin bombshell flavor of the month', does some marvelous work here, and even sings beautifully in one of the more moving segments of the film.

While unquestionably dated and a bit silly at times ("you hip to my rebop daddy-o, or are you a square?"), the heart and center of this movie, the young charismatic Marlon Brando is what keeps you coming back. Based on a true event, it nevertheless seems mighty improbable that these swing dancing leather clad delinquents could ever terrorize even the 'squarest of squarejohn' townsfolk. Brando plays the prototypical 'rebel with a heart' whose savage nature is calmed by the love of a 'good woman'. However Brando reaches beyond the stereotype to show us a rebel who is frankly bored to death with rebellion, but too proud and stubborn to see any other way of escape. He stands head and shoulders above everyone else in the movie and declares his star power with a sneer and a shrug and a mumbled "What've you got?" in answer to a passing remark "What are you rebelling against, Johnny". A young Lee Marvin also gives a decent performance as one of the gang.

I noticed the other day that our 'on demand' cable movies have a number of old Woody Allen flicks listed this month, and I revisited this one the other evening. I was once a big fan of his films, and a lot of my friends use the excuse of his messy personal improprieties to explain his films falling out of their favor in recent years, or the fact that he has a bad habit of pairing himself with younger and younger leading ladies leaving a bad taste in their mouth.

My falling away has more to do with his insular vision, the way he sets his stories in the same comfortable environs of priviledge and class, and the few times he ventures outside of it, the tone comes across as condescending, or as if he's 'slumming'. You may say that he makes films about 'what he knows', and that's fair I suppose, and you gotta applaud the guy for regularly churning out halfway decent material without spending a gazillion dollars a picture, and still attracting talented actors to work with him picture after picture.

I saw this one only once many years ago in the theater, and I remember it quite vividly, because it was the night before my son's birth. Two interweaving storylines, of which the Martin Landau one is definitely the more interesting, because it seems to step outside that usual 'Woody Allen Comfort Zone', and could be one of the only movies in which a cold blooded murder, where the body and blood is displayed and lingered over.(I know, there were murders in 'Manhatten Murder Mystery', and 'Radio Days', etc, and his jokes frequently drop names like Leopold and Loeb, or Charlie Starkweather etc - but even with the serious undertones they were mainly played for laughs - ) Martin Landau gives a terrific performance as a man wracked by guilt, but ultimately having to live with the punishment of his own culpability rather than the tidy retribution of the authorities. The Woody Allen storyline concerning his shallow but successful brother-in-law and an extramarital unrequited romance with his producer (Mia Farrow of course) is much less interesting, but even so, manages a suitable payoff at the wedding scene. The movie tries for some heavy philosophizing while it wrestles with moral dillemas, regarding some subplots about an elderly life affirming jewish philospher who is the subject of Allen's struggling documentary and some heavy handed but effective symbolism regarding the blind Rabbi (Sam Waterston, another Allen regular) dancing with his daughter at his wedding to "I'll be Seeing You". Overall, not a laugh riot like many of his films, but there are some laugh out loud moments (Woody's reaction to his sister's 'dating experience' is one memorable example), and plenty of gristle on the philosophical bone to chew on long after the movie's done.

Lush, beautiful, grand and outrageous, Duel in the Sun feels like one of those huge budget costume melodramas like 'Gone With the Wind', with 3 scenery chewing costars that read like a who's who of Old Hollywood royalty. Barrymore, Gish, Huston, and we haven't even gotten to the big names yet. Gregory Peck has fun in an unusual 'bad guy' role, and Joseph Cotton is stuck yet again in the 'nice guy who doesn't get the girl' role that he was so great at, with those sad hound dog eyes and wounded 'aw shucks' tone of voice. Not quite the ending I was expecting, which made it all the more fun, as the two 'bad' (sinful) characters get what's coming to them, yet still manage to leave the audience with a satisfactory romantic ending.