Greed, What Have I Done To Deserve This?, Paper Moon, & The 40 Year Old Virgin

Greed was very enjoyable at it's four hour length. Maybe a little slow, but that is obviously a limitation of silent films, unless they're going to have intertitles almost constantly. But the restoration for this works much better than the restoration of Lost Horizon. It's much better in a silent film to use pictures, and they were panned across and only parts were shown, giving it a much more cinematic feel. Very well done, restorer. But four hours is a very long time. I don't know if it would actually work at 9 hours. That would be insane. As a condemnation of greed, it works perfectly. In fact, it may have just been a little too perfect, as it became a little preachy, and the intertitles mocking the characters may be too much.

What Have I Done To Deserve This? is actually a fairly normal early Pedro Almodovar, no crazy gay terrorists or nuns. It does have a very strong performance from Carmen Maura, somewhat predicting her role in Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. It does have some of the typical Almodovarisms, with prostitutes, cab drivers, and homosexuals being a big part of the plot.

Paper Moon was a pretty interesting story of grifters in the Great Depression. The interplay between Tatum and Ryan O'Neal is excellent, and gives the movie it's chief pleasure. So cynical and pretty enjoyable. Madeline Kahn was also enjoyable in her early role.

The 40 Year Old Virgin was pretty funny, and it was nice that it was actually nice to the characters. That doesn't happen all that much in the recent string of comedies. And of course, Paul Rudd and Seth Rogen were the best part of the movie. They're almost always the best thing in whatever they're in. And for those of you who are interested, Space Nutz completely undeservedly won an AVN award for best film. And Stormy's breasts are terrible. Seriously, those things just looked terrible. Why do people insist on getting boob jobs if they're going to be that bad?

The Stranger, Spanking the Monkey, Gozu, Versus, & The Gingerbread Man

The Stranger is interesting from a historical standpoint, but the studio limitations, the main one being Edward G. Robinson rather than Agnes Morehead in the G-man role, make the movie nothing that special, except for the finale in the clocktower, which is pretty effective. Otherwise, Welles doesn't put too much of his own stamp on it, except for making the Nazis really really unpleasant. My favorite bit of weirdness was that apparently Edward G. Robinson can hear a dog being kicked within a 15 mile radius even when asleep. Thems some good hearing. But the thing that actually woke him up was something I immediately noticed upon the hearing of it. Nobody says things like that except for Nazis. Edward G. Robinson clearly wasn't at all intelligent as the rest of the movie made him out to be.

Spanking the Monkey was a little Oedipal for my tastes. Also strange seeing a young Carla Gallo. Interesting though, but sort of strange, and I'm not just talking about using Morphine for the soundtrack. Jeremy Davies is excellent, as is his mother. I thought that the ending was very appropriate for it, as that was one seriously messed up family.

Gozu is typical Miike weirdness. Insane yakuza imagining yakuza attacking dogs and cars, more lactation, reincarnation, plus a full-grown man being born during sex... I didn't even mention the cow-head. Pretty weird freakin' film. Not nearly as good as his other films. Still insane, but the weirdness doesn't seem to have as much of a point as others.

Versus is bizarre Japanese zombie-samurai-yakuza-(a bit of) vampire craziness. Good fight scenes, and a somewhat interesting idea for a movie. I don't entirely think that the movie's ending actually makes sense. There were some very funny bits, some very good gore, and the acting is acceptably crazy for the movie. Probably just would have been better if the director had actually made an ending. Sequels are fun, but it would have been nice for this one to make a little sense.

The Gingerbread Man is overlong and a mess of a movie. Branagh's accent is good, but the movie's nowhere near good for an Altman film. I'm only somewhat suprised, as it was in the midst of his dry spell. Not sure whether anyone could have made a good movie of this though. At least Grisham's other works are... well, actually none are particularly good. This one just seems to make a little less sense than the others. And that Mercedes convertible can really handle everything. I'm impressed.

Lianna & The Aristocrats

Lianna was an interesting and informative look at what happens when a woman realizes almost too late in life that she's a lesbian. John Sayles's second movie is pretty fascinating, as a look at how lesbians were viewed in the late 70s-early 80s. Just about my only problem with the movie is the gratuitous nudity. Of which there's a lot. And entirely unneeded. Maybe they should take my man card away. It's a typical great Sayles film, with a humanist streak that marks his best work. I love that his characters always act human, always speak normally. The awkwardness of the scenes after she came out just seemed so real. At least I imagine so. I'm not entirely familiar with what it's like to come out. Not that I plan on ever having that experience, because I'm straight. Just wanted to make that clear after my complaint about gratuitous nudity.

The Aristocrats is, by far, the filthiest movie I can imagine. Maybe there's a German Scheiße movie with a bit of pedophilia and snuff rolled in... but I don't know if those exist. Well, they probably do, but I don't know what that would be like. The movie itself is worth it for Bob Saget. Who is the funniest mf on the planet when it comes to filth. And the dirty aspects of people you don't normally think are dirty was just an added bonus. I watched it with a friend who kept asking me who the comedians were but the best part was watching her freak out when there was a particularly disgusting thing said. Or, even better, when a particularly disgusting thing was mimed. I don't need to see another person mime fisting or a huge penis for a while. Pretty sickly funny movie. It started to blend together. I did appreciate Paul Reiser bringing up the same problem I have with the title of the movie. I haven't even seen The Aristocats. After the movie I gave her a brief history lesson of censorship in movies. I could have gone into more detail, but it was getting sort of late. But if anyone wants a long discussion of censorship, then just bring it up with a little bit of time and just let me rant. Now, if only I could find someone who is really impressed with that...

The Decalogue, The Ladykillers, & Oliver Twist

The Decalogue was much more moral than I was expecting, but then again, it is a 10 hour long miniseries about the 10 commandments. It was also, however, a very well-made and interesting movie. My favorites were the abortion (2), voyeur (6), and Holocaust (8) ones, but all have something to recommend them (the black comedy of 10, the effective condemnation of 5, the heartwrenching scene at the lake in 1, and the gorgeous nighttime Warsaw photography of 3, to mention just a few more), and all teach morals in a way that more religious people should do: use a bit of humanity and not try to say that everything is black and white, right and wrong. Nothing is simple, even amongst the most absolute of commandments. Put simply, if you have seen Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy, and you haven't seen this, you are missing out. 10 hours of both brilliant filmmaking and fascinating moral complexities.

The Ladykillers was much more enjoyable than I was expecting, even as I was ultimately disappointed. Not as good as the original, and I'm not entirely sure why the Coen Brothers bothered to remake the movie. It's not like they have a problem finding places to put their delightfully maladjusted characters. It seems like with this and Intolerable Cruelty, they seem content to just have crazy people do crazy things, but not bring much to them. Considering how many absolutely brilliant movies they've done, I guess it's ok to coast a little, but I would like them to do something great again, instead of merely adequate. They really have the talent to bring the movie together, but sometimes they just need to write one and film it.

Oliver Twist is the David Lean version. And man is Fagin really really Jewish. All you need is the peyot and then he's a Hasidim. And he's got the big honking nose as well. And the miserliness. What a damn stereotype. It definitely is offensive. Too bad, because otherwise, it's actually a good movie with very high production values. Too bad it will forever be known as the anti-Semitic Oliver Twist.

I'll make a wish / Take a chance / Make a change / And breakaway

friend: what'd you do today?
me: did [coworker] tell you about the josh rales for senate announcement?
friend: who's that?
me: he was a republican up until last year when he decided to run for senate in maryland as a democrat
me: he has no name recognition, but a lot of money
friend: ok...
me: so his announcement was up off river road at walt whitman high school
me: his speech wasn't too bad, if you read it, but he's a terrible public speaker
friend: ok..
friend: (pretty cool that you got to go!)
me: that wasn't the bad part though, as after his speech, his wife was announced and instead of using the podium mike, she brought out a handheld mike
friend: his wife announced what?
friend: he'd already announced his candidacy, right...?
me: and the smooth jazz band started playing a bit of music, and she said that she was going to sing a song that meant a lot to her and her husband, and that it exemplified what they wanted the campaign to be about
friend: oh no
me: and then she started to sing breakaway by kelly clarkson
friend: excuse me?
friend: very funny
friend: i almost fell for it
me: I am not fucking kidding at all
friend: hahahahahahhahahaaha
friend: that's the most amazing thing i've ever heard!!!!!!!
me: I honestly felt terrible for her and the campaign
friend: but she clearly didn't realize how ridiculous it was!
friend: or she wouldn't have done it!!!
me: yeah, she was serious, and that's what made me feel sorry for her
me: [coworker] tells it much better than I do, but we both had problems not laughing before we got out of earshot of anyone there
friend: that's the most amazing thing i've ever head

The Professionals, The Harder They Come, & The Night of the Iguana

The Professionals is the Wild Bunch before the Wild Bunch, but without the genre breaking aspects of it. Still very enjoyable, even if I think the version I saw was edited. There was a random black blurry thing in the bottom corner covering Claudia Cardinale's breasts. I wouldn't point it out, except that it seemed really out of place. Because they cut away for the reaction shot and then cut back and her shirt was back up and the bar was gone, but the shot was exactly the same. Stupid censorship. It's not like the movie wasn't insanely violent and full of women with huge breasts and immense cleavage. Why is the nipple so dangerous to kids? And continuing that logic, why are the penis and vagina so dangerous as well? Well, anyway, it's pretty good, and Lee Marvin and Burt Lancaster and Woody Strode and Robert Ryan were all very good, Claudia was nice eye candy, but Jack Palance as the Mexican revolutionary turned outlaw was the typically horrible Hollywood makeup and bad accent job. Man, just get someone who's actually Latino to play him, rather than a guy who can just speak Spanish. Stupid Hollywood.

The Harder They Come is notable mostly for the most excellent soundtrack. (What? I just watched Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey) Very good soundtrack, movie is just typical outlaw stuff, only worth watching for that soundtrack. I think I can mention the soundtrack in every sentence of this here blurb. The soundtrack made up for the fact that it was frequently very difficult to understand their thick Jamaican accents. You could get about the same enjoyment in a shorter time by listening to the soundtrack while occasionally flipping through pictures of nudity and violence.

The Night of the Iguana probably would have been better as a film made in the 70s. Unfortunately, the original is probably considered as a classic, and so remaking it would be heresy. But I just kept thinking that scenes would have been better had they just allowed for a little more freedom in being explicit. They came so close to bringing up the L word and having the two Mexican boys there just for sex. But it just kept coming up short of attacking the real issues here. Which is that a priest, a baptist, and a nympho walk into a hotel... Heh. Oh, Richard Burton was suitably tortured, and the women were ok, but I wanted so much more. Tennessee Williams probably worked a lot better back in the 50s on the stage when he wasn't censored, and the subjects he goes on about were actually taboo. Now, they just seem quaint and repressed at best, and horribly naive and insulting at worst. This falls on the quaint and repressed aspect of the spectrum.

Match Point, Hammett, Tokyo Godfathers, & Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War

Match Point is probably Woody's best film in years. Although I have a soft spot for Sweet and Lowdown, it's probably my favorite since Hannah and Her Sisters. It's up there with those two, Manhattan, Annie Hall, Love and Death, and Bananas as his best work. It's that good. I was really impressed with Allen as, except for the opening credits, the love for scratchily recorded old music (opera instead of his usual jazz), and a few scenes that could only have been written by him, he actually made a movie that didn't feel much like an Allen film. Scarlett was very disappointing, as she was just incredibly whiny throughout the entire film. Unfortunately, it was just Allen's frequently poor writing of women that showed throughout the entire film. Seriously, he's really just becoming a bitter old man now. I wish Ewan Bremmer had had more of a role though. He was about the only character I liked. Well, the two police officers were the only ones I liked. Everyone else was either the idle rich or the evilly ambitious not quite as rich. That's also typically Allen, and it had the apartment porn that Allen loves, as that apartment on the Thames was quite possibly the greatest apartment on the planet. I want it so much. I liked that the ending wasn't clear, although I wish it had ended in a different manner.

Hammett was Wim Wenders's version of Dashiell Hammett living through a story out of his novels. Well, it would have been had Francis Ford Coppola not refilmed most of it. And the set was very well done. I was impressed with how much porn and the like they were able to show in a PG film, and then I remembered it was made before PG-13. Damn that rating. And damn the "moral" police for going after movies like this. Why can't they just understand that they need to be involved in their kids' lives to make sure they don't see what you don't want them to see? Anyway, I just really liked it, even if it makes about as much sense as The Big Sleep. Not nearly as clear as Hammett's stuff I've read. But it's still good for people who are big fans of him.

Tokyo Godfathers was a little too Christian for me. But once the plot started moving, the movie moved past that, and I got into it. I am enjoying the fact that there are non-insane and crappy anime films. And that they're not all made by Hayao Miyazaki. This is a touching story of three homeless people all with skeletons in their closets and how they reunite a baby they find in the trash with her parents. There are some very pretty scenes, but an overall sense of everything fitting together way too well and too many coincidences detracts from the movie.

Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War was bleh. I knew everything in that already. It was the 56 minute version, not the extended one. I doubt I'll bother with that one. I think it's a movie that was pretty damn useless. If it weren't so important of an issue, I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but if you want a fairly interesting version sub-hour long look at why we're in Iraq, and you don't want to read a bunch of good internet articles on it, then maybe watch this. Or just let me rant for a while, and you'd get the same information.

Harold and Maude

Harold and Maude isn't the great romance that the Farrelly Brothers think it is. It's merely very enjoyable, occasionally laugh out loud funny (I loved the bit where he talks to the general, the psychiatrist, and the priest and they're in front of pictures of Nixon, Freud, and the Pope), and with a soundtrack of Cat Stevens's best songs. Actually, a few were missing, but a lot of very good songs were there. Bud Cort was funny, and Ruth Gordon was very good, although not as good as in Rosemary's Baby. The computer dating was interesting. < Cosmo > A computer matched her with him? I don't think so < /Cosmo >. (Wait, was that just too obscure? I'm one of the few people who actually likes the movie. Maybe it's just the ending newscast.) Anyway, Harold and Maude was unfairly ignored when it came out, as it's definitely one of those 70's movies that is just so out there that you can't believe it was made.

Private Lives & Hamlet

I've now seen the movie version of Private Lives, which I believe I saw at the Playhouse in... 1997, according to their site. Which was very enjoyable. I do enjoy Noel Coward, and this has most of his more famous lines. Like "Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs." Which I certainly don't subscribe to, but I do think it is a witty line. Coward is not as good as Wilde, but he's almost as enjoyable. Robert Montgomery is actually good in it, and Norma Shearer isn't too bad. The other significant others were appropriately evil and annoying. That it was made in 1931 and very clearly was very anti-Hays Code makes it that much more enjoyable. I bet that the movie didn't help the censors.

Laurence Olivier's Hamlet deservedly won Oscars, and it may actually be the best version of the play that comes in under 3 hours long. Taking out Fortinbras and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will definitely cut out a lot. I don't entirely care for any of those characters, and taking them out does make it a lot shorter. It has most of the good lines, in fact, I didn't notice any missing lines besides those relating to those characters. I am not entirely happy with the soliloquies being done somewhat out loud and other times in inner monologue form, but those are not big deals when it comes to those extremely talented actors doing justice to the Bard's lines. And little makes me giggle quite as much as Hamlet discussing country matters with Ophelia. I am a 14 year old boy.

I also now have digital cable and a DVR. Oh noes! I clearly thought I had too much free time. I actually spent a large portion of yesterday reading Questionable Content. Music dorks, attractive women, and a robot who may be gay? Seriously, why didn't I know about this before?

Land of the Dead & Visitor Q

Land of the Dead is vastly superior to Day of the Dead, but that isn't really saying that much. Romero shows that he can do the barely hidden metaphor in a zombie film better than anyone else. That it has Dennis Hopper being an evil, evil man is an added bonus. My main complaint was actually that it had too much flesh eating. Yeah, I wouldn't have thought that possible. I did see the unrated version, so that could explain it. Leguizamo was actually not annoying either, which I also didn't think was possible. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the zombies getting brains and figuring out tools and the like. I know that Bub in Day of the Dead clearly was learning, but I think that the zombies learned how to do a little much in a very short period of time in this movie. I have to say that it was enjoyable, and I definitely prefer the slow zombies of this to any fast zombie movie (with the notable exception of 28 Days Later, which is the only good fast zombie movie I can think of, and that wasn't really a true zombie film). And how much better this was than the Dawn remake just goes to show that Romero is needed for any good movie in this universe (note that I'm including remakes, recuts (that horrible extended Night of the Living Dead), and movies that are supposed to happen in the same universe (the horribly nihilistic and mainly craptacular Return of the Living Dead movies)). Wow, that was horrible sentence structure. Score one for the non-writer.

Visitor Q is a typical Miike film. If you don't come out feeling extremely dirty after seeing one, I don't think you truly saw the movie. Incest, prostitution, beatings, lots of lactation, drugs, rape, necrophilia, loose bowels, pissing, you name it, this movie has it. Except a giant robot monkey pirate ninja zombie. They still haven't made a movie with that yet. Note that if they did, I would immediately love that movie. I think the movie is saying something about the state of reality TV and Japanese society, along with the damaging effects of violence and sex on family life. Plus, are we really supposed to think that Visitor Q is a god of some sort? Wait, that's sort of a spoiler, except that that's never really discussed in the movie itself. It just makes some sense if you try to figure out what the hell the movie is about. Because I'm not entirely sure it succeeds in what Miike's trying to do. It does succeed in being one of the most sick, twisted, weird, funny movies you're likely to see. Unless you've seen other Miike films. This is by no means a well-made movie (straight to video, boom mikes frequently visible), but it is unlike almost anything I've seen before. And for that alone, I thank Takashi Miike.

Interiors

Interiors is basically Woody Allen trying to be like Bergman, but failing. He also made better movies in the same style later, with Manhattan and Hannah and Her Sisters vastly superior. It's not a terrible movie, just utterly useless. The non-use of non-diegetic music is somewhat disconcerting, at least until I realized that was what was bothering me. Then I realized what was really disconcerting about the movie. I didn't like any of the characters except for Sam Waterston. All the others were, I think, Allen's idea of what Bergman's characters are like, except that he doesn't add any of the reasons why any of Bergman's characters are actual people. Although the acting is good, and it's a well-made movie, I just didn't get anything enjoyable out of it. The title was appropriate though.

Hercules, Tony Takitani, 2046 DVD, Affliction, & The Children of Heaven

Well, I've seen Hercules. The Disney animated version. Why did I watch it? Think of the geekiest reason you could possibly imagine, and then go geekier. I watched it because at some point, in the next year, I will own either a PS2 or a PS3, which will allow me to play Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2, both of which feature parts of Hercules. And I wanted to know a little about it before playing those. And it was on the Disney channel when I had some free time. See? That's pretty darn geeky. As for the movie itself, Megara was attractive, and James Woods was enjoyable, but man, those songs sucked and their abuse of Greek Mythology (why is it that they use Hercules rather than Heracles like every other Greek name in it?) was horrendous. Why did they have Hera be his mother, when her hatred for Zeus cheating was the reason for all of his struggles, not Hades trying to take over Mt. Olympus? Damn things like that just pissed me off mightily. And while the CGI, especially during the fight with the Hydra (which wasn't killed by fire, for some reason), was mediocre, it was in a cartoon which didn't bother me at all.

Tony Takitani's name was... Tony Takitani. Tony Takitani the movie is a fairly faithful version of one of Haruki Murakami's short stories, this one published in the New Yorker in 2002. This one, unlike a lot of his short stories actually has an ending, even if it's just a big bunch of depressing. And about the only thing it doesn't have that most of his stories have is cats. Well, cats and supernatural activities. It is a well-constructed film, with lots of slow camera movements showing characters alone, even when in public, emphasizing the theme. I'm actually surprised that Murakami allowed anything of his to be filmed, but this one seems like it was simple enough for him to allow it. Even if the end was different, and there were some other minor differences within it, even if a lot of the dialogue and narration were directly from the story. But if he's allowing films to be made, I really hope that he never allows anyone to screw up Norwegian Wood. I believe I would have to get violent were that to happen. I actually would love to see someone try, but any script changes would have to be approved. If I had the money, I'd pay to make the movie. Anyway, Tony Takitani was possibly the slowest 75 minutes ever made. But it was also extremely well made and accurately portrays the story.

I lost a hell of a lot of text about the 2046 DVD because I was writing it in Gmail and it disconnected in the middle. Damnit. It's probably a good thing because all I did was say how great the DVD was, that the CGI was intentionally like it was in 2046, that Tony Leung's English is very good and he should make a good American film at some point, and that I go goofy over the women in this movie. I also wish that the first deleted scene were back in the movie, as I think Gong Li needed another scene to look gorgeous, tortured, and hot. The alternate ending would have made what was clearly implicit in the rest of the movie blatantly explicit, thus detracting somewhat from the movie. The second deleted scene was interesting, as it did allow a little more insight into Chow Mo Wan, but it would have broken the barrier between the "present" and "future". All in all, if you loved the movie, but haven't seen the extras, it's well worth at least renting to see them.

Affliction was just an excuse to try to get some Oscar nods for Nick Nolte and James Coburn. In that it was successful. Otherwise, it was just another one of those terrible abusive father ruins kid's life movies. Even if it took a little longer than it normally would in this type of movie. Really nothing too special about anything in it besides the two actors. Willem Dafoe is boring as hell. So is the movie for extended periods of time. Were it not for the good acting, there would be nothing separating this movie from any other Oscar bait that is nowhere near as good as it thinks it is.

The Children of Heaven is basically a Disney movie about the poverty that exists in Iran. Baran, a later film from Majid Majidi, was actually good, this one not so much. I wasn't too impressed with the child actors, as anyone who's seen lots of movies knows, child actors are almost always the worst thing in a movie. When you have them as the main parts of a movie, it just is a bad sign for the movie. I don't care how novel it is that it's an Iranian film, I didn't get that much out of it. Maybe the movie is good for some people, but I just kept getting bothered by the kids and their extremely forced acting. It's much better when you don't have the kids trying to act sad or happy.

Bengals... & Million Dollar Baby

I really think God hates us. First off, there're 15 years between playoff games for the Bengals. And then, in his first playoff pass (a beautiful long bomb), he tears his ACL and might not be ready for training camp next year. And then Jon Kitna remembers that he's Jon Kitna in the second half and screws up everything. Damnit.

Million Dollar Baby was well-made, but it pretty much just reminded me of Mystic River, in that it was well-made, but there just seemed something off in it. I can't entirely put my finger on it, except that it seemed like a mixture of other movies. A little bit of Mystic River, a little Girlfight, and a whole big heaping of every single movie where Morgan Freeman is the old grizzled veteran being an influence (especially on a younger white person). It just made me think of The Shawshank Redemption a hell of a lot. Maybe its Oscar was something to make up for the lack of Oscars for that. Or maybe it was all about the big plot twist. That it was spoiled for me makes me not entirely the best person to judge whether it was earned. I think that it was clearly the right decision in this case, but I think that the movie made it feel a little too easy for her to get to the highest part of female boxing. I certainly think that you could have gotten rid of Jay Baruchel's character entirely and then make the movie more about how much Maggie loves her life. I don't think that was effective enough. A little too much depressing, not enough happy. Plus, we really don't have any idea of how much money she's making as a boxer, I mean, we have that shot of her checkbook, and then she somehow buys the house, and then boxes around Europe, and then boxes for 500k? These niggling problems just knock a little off my enjoyment of an otherwise good movie. The bits with the priest, however, were my favorite parts of the movie.

Murder, My Sweet & Russian Ark

Murder, My Sweet was somewhat disappointing mainly because it's a Phillip Marlowe without being Bogart. Now, I do enjoy Elliott Gould as Marlowe in The Long Goodbye, but it's mainly because it's almost an anti-Marlowe. Telling it straight just made me think of how much better Bogart was than Dick Powell. The problem is that not only is that matchup an unfair match, Hawks is a much better director than Edward Dmytryk. Although the plot doesn't entirely make sense, much like The Big Sleep, it doesn't work nearly as well to keep suspense. Plus, the twists either come out of nowhere or they're obvious. The drug sequence just seemed to be there, and made me annoyed. Now, having said all that, it is a compellingly interesting movie, and Powell is good. I just think that it could have been a better movie with a little more talent involved. I also need to read Chandler's stories, since I am such a big fan of Hammett.

Russian Ark was boring. Maybe I just don't care about a one shot 90 minute film done on digital nearly enough to care about a few hundred years of Russian history. But the guide guy just kept making me think more of Nosferatu, and reminding me of a vastly superior movie is never a good way to go about a movie. That's what I get from reading Ain't It Cool News. Man, that just sucked. It's really impressive from a technical standpoint, because there are thousands of people in the movie, and there are some good costumes, but I just kept thinking about how boring the movie was, and how that was a waste to do that much effort for a movie that had nothing to interest me in it besides the effort.

Blind Shaft & The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

Blind Shaft is a pretty good anti-capitalist Chinese film about killers in small mining towns. Plus it had nudity, which is not a bad thing. Not gratuitous, as it definitely seemed to emphasize the corrupting influence of the intellectuals and capitalists, along with anyone who likes to see naked women give massages or have sex. So basically, the nudity wasn't gratuitous as it showed the corruption of the killers and that they're trying to ruin the pure young Chinese youth. But it's also anti-bureaucracy in that the reason for the ability of these capitalist at all cost killers to continue their spree is that the mine owners have to pay more to get the killings hushed up than it would be to pay the killers off. Which is just insane, but probably a fairly accurate way to portray the hugely corrupt CCP. That the movie is both anti-capitalist and anti-communist party doesn't entirely leave the movie's point of view clear. Besides the pro-country bumpkin messages the movie clearly portrays. Is there a point to it besides just creating a great little brutal and funny neo-noir? To a certain extent, does there need to be when it's done so well? I'm definitely going to have to say that the messages of the movie are nowhere near as fully realized as the actual plot. It's fun to see a message movie so fully enjoyable.

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is one of those spy movies that's clearly way too intelligent and cynical to be popular. Le Carre's first novel to be adapted into a film was a movie that had to have been set very soon after WWII as a major reason for the disgust of the movie is the problem of Nazis and Jews after the war. I definitely can't do a full listing of why and how much I enjoyed the movie because so many of them are the plot twists that are inevitable in a spy movie. That it's more Harry Palmer than James Bond is only one of the reasons why I enjoyed it. Well, more James Bond circa now rather than the excellent actual spy movie Bonds of the 60s. Richard Burton is outstanding (he plays the drunk very well), and the entire cast (including M as a shopclerk!) makes it very excellent.

Carmen Jones, Arrested Development, and McGriddles

Carmen Jones is an outstanding retelling of Carmen set in the World War II-era South (I'm not entirely sure where it is supposed to be) and Chicago. It's rightly praised for almost everything. My only complaints are the use of racial patois in opera music. It doesn't seem right at all. Plus, I do sort of wish that they had gotten black opera singers instead of using Dorothy Dandridge and Harry Belafonte. Having said that, they were excellent in their lip-syncing performances. And I certainly cannot recommend many things more than Carmen Jones's Dat's Love. Yeah, original version is one of those perfect songs, but to see Dorothy Dandridge vamping around a cafeteria singing it and ordering a sandwich is one of those things that is just worth watching the entire movie for. I also feel a lot better knowing that I was doing the exact same thing that Michael Wilbon was doing this evening. Skipping the beginning of the FSU-PSU game to watch this. It was the first time it had ever been shown on TCM, and for this groundbreaking film, including Saul Bass's first ever title sequence, there is no reason not to see it. Also on TCM this month, which excites me immensely, is a tribute to Hayao Miyazaki, which includes some of the movies he has written and I haven't seen. Yay TCM!

Arrested Development this week was the best episode of this season. So many, many things were just perfect. I can't even go into how many things just made it the funniest show this season. All of the pokes at Faux, though, may have been the highlights. That this show is being cancelled is a crime. And what was up putting a new episode up against the ending of the OSU-Notre Dame game? I completely missed it live, you bastards.

I note this Onion AV Club link with only this: McGriddles are ridiculously good. I don't know why. They're everything I should hate. And I hated them until I actually tasted one. Now they make me want to go to McDonald's for breakfast.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith was better than I was expecting. In fact, it almost felt as good as Return of the Jedi. The problem was that I'm not entirely sure whether my expectations were just that low or whether it was actually a good movie. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was just low expectations. It still had many cringe-inducing lines, and there were terrible expository dialogue portions. Admittedly, the original trilogy had those as well, but there's just something better about those than the new trilogy. And, I think I finally figured it out. It's because of the ridiculous overusage of CGI. The original trilogy had some impressive matte shots, but the best part was that it felt real. CGI just doesn't feel right when it's used almost constantly. If it's allowed to be only part of the shots, it weirdly feels more realistic than if it is used constantly. It became completely obvious when I watched Serenity and all the bonus materials. You could see that it was somewhat sloppy, the CGI was occasionally blatantly obvious, but they didn't replace characters, didn't have them doing anything completely against the laws of physics, didn't have the digital actors change size at any points (something that is difficult to avoid, but is really distracting in some of the Jedi duels), and just felt real. As Joss says about the mule chase, comparing it to the pod race in Episode I, the fact that there are real shots in there, and that there's very little CGI, gives everything a weight that is completely missing from CGI now.

I hate to harp on this constantly, because there were some very impressive shots in Episode III, but the problem is that Lucas spends much too much time focusing on how to get the shots rather than attempting to make the viewer care about the people in them. The parts that affected me the most in Episode III were the playing of Leia's theme and Luke's theme at the end. I didn't care about Anakin's fall. It was forced, and not even remotely right. "What have I done? I'll do anything master!" WTF? Seriously, Lucas, you need someone to tell you how poorly you write dialogue. And you need to listen. I only cared about the things that were call backs to the original trilogy. I have, also, decided that if I have kids, they're watching the Star Wars films in the order they were made. There is no way in hell Revenge of the Sith gets any response without having seen the original trilogy. That is not how you are supposed to make a movie. You're supposed to make it so that it stands on its own, and any call backs are supposed to enhance the effect of the movie. When you make a movie, we're supposed to care what happens to the characters. Oh, and Lucas's hand fetish needs to die the same death as Count Dooku. Also, what's up with that name? Was he just trying to make people think of shit? Because that's all I think of. Maybe it's the movies.

Anyway, it's a sad state of affairs that fanboys the world over have hailed this as either somewhat better or almost as good as Return of the Jedi, because that one was the sign of what was to come in this movie. If only Lucas had kept the Wookies in Return, I am convinced that there would be nothing comparing the two movies. Just the pacing was much better. Lucas is a hack. Unfortunately, he's an incredibly rich hack who doesn't have to listen to anyone else. Think what a talented director could have done with the last two movies. Nothing could have saved the crap that was Episode I. If only he'd just cut that movie down (say, by taking Jar Jar out) and put that as a very short part of a real first movie that actually had some use.

Damnit. I think I actually hate Episode III after writing this. I didn't hate it when I started. All I could think about when writing this was how much was bad. What was good? Mace Windu? Ruined by the end of that fight. Obi-Wan? Almost saves the movie singlehandedly, except that he has to play too many scenes with Hayden "I Will Get Through the Movie with Only Three Expressions" Christensen. Everything that was good in it was almost immediately undercut by either completely unfunny humor or by some line that would be immature in a high schooler's livejournal. I can't even think of anything that was completely enjoyable in it. George, in trying to make me have a good idea about this movie, you just lost points on the entire trilogy. You, sir, suck.