Something Wild

1986 existential romantic comedy

Rating: 14/20

Plot: The good news--Successful businessman Charlie has just been promoted to vice president! The bad news--his wife and children have left him, and he's a little lonely. That's probably why he falls for Lulu, a free-spirited and sexually adventurous gal who kind-of kidnaps him for the weekend. They get busy in a cheap motel room before heading off to meet her mother and attend her high school reunion. That's where they meet Ray, played by an actor named Ray, Lulu's ex-husband who just got out of jail. Ray isn't happy to meet Charlie at all. Oh, snap!

As likable as I think Jeff Daniels is (and heck, the guy's very nearly lovable), his character is too dopey in this. I really had trouble rooting for the guy after a while, especially after Ray came along. Daniels' character suddenly had this wide-eyed hero-worship thing that was annoying. There's nothing wrong with Ray Liotta, but the movie jarringly shifted gears when he came along, changing from a quirky screwball rom-com to a quirky and unpredictable but ineffective thriller. I liked Melanie Griffith and the blend of flirtatious and naive that she brings to the character. And she's Melanie Griffith, so there's a little bit of naked in the movie. There's a whole lot of music in this, and I had to give a bonus point for The Feelies playing the high school reunion. This has an 80's feel, never good since the 1980's were the worst decade for cinema, but it recalls After Hours a bit with an everyman character being tossed around by the universe. I guess the difference is that Charlie has a little more control over his situation. Well, his nutsack does anyway. There's a Jonathan Demme quirkiness that makes this whole thing an entertaining weekend, a something wild about Something Wild that keeps it a notch above most other romantic comedies. And since I typed that last sentence, I probably shouldn't be allowed to blog anymore. So long, everybody!

I Love You Phillip Morris

2009 gay romantic comedy

Rating: 16/20 (Jen: 16/20)

Plot: Stephen Russell,, an on-the-surface happily married police officer , is involved in a car crash. Immediately afterward, he turns gay, proving once and for all (since this is a true story) that people aren't born gay and that the conservatives have been correct all along. He also turns to a life of white-collar crime, conning his way into very comfortable life style with his boyfriend, Jimmy. Until he's arrested. But life really begins for Stephen in prison when he meets the Phillip Morris in the title, a shy gay man who he eventually gets to bunk with. And yes, "bunk" is a euphemism there. Once they're released, Stephen tries to create a happy life for Phillip and him the only way he knows how--illegally.

I could have used a few different posters for I Love You Phillip Morris, but they were all, for whatever reason, pretty gay. This is a good comedy, and it's great for a romantic comedy, aided by two likable leads. Jim Carrey gets some good material to work, and although that side of him that people have been sick of for ten years occasionally rears its ugly head, his flamboyance never really goes over the top and the tender moments are believable. Ewan McGregor's just as good as Phillip. You really feel his vulnerability, and for whatever reason (probably because he's English), he wears gay pretty well. It's a fabulous performance, and I'm not just using the word fabulous because this is a movie about homosexuals. It's shocking to me that he's in a movie where he engages in gay sex and doesn't show his penis on screen though. I believed the two as a couple for most of this and thought they had good chemistry, and the make-out scenes were hot. This feels like too much, too exaggerated to have actually happened, and I wonder how much they stretched things for Hollywood. Comparisons to Catch Me if You Can are probably obvious, but this one is a lot livelier and has this radiance that feels refreshing. It's not all bright, however, as it approaches subject matter nearly taboo for comedy. There's what I thought was a twist that I saw coming, but it was really well done and led to one of the most touching scenes Jim Carrey will ever be involved in. It's all a hell of a lot funnier than Brokeback Mountain though.

The Docks of New York

1928 silent drama

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Career stoker Bill Roberts enjoys a night away from the bowels the boat, engaging in a bit of thuggery and floozy hunting and general nincompoopery. He's kind of like the 1920s white equivalent to our modern-day 50 Cent. I think his friends even call him Fitty. While strolling along the docks, he spots a beautiful gal attempting to end her life by jumping into the bay. He dives in and saves her.

I did not like Bill Roberts as a character nor George Bancroft's portrayal of a tough guy, silent acting that didn't go beyond standing over there and looking tough followed by a bit of standing over there and looking tough, lots of hands-on-hips muscle flexin'. He's a flat thug. I thought Betty Compson was great as Mae though, just the right amounts of vulnerability mixed in with this surprising control and charm. Cute as a goddamn button, too, that classical silent movie way where the beauty radiates from big gray-lit eyes and pours into my living room. You root for her not only because she's easy on the eyes but because she's fragile and you just know that Bill's going to screw everything up somehow because he's a big bastard. The narrative is typical silent drama, forcing a pair of misfits to fall hopelessly in love in less than fifteen minutes. Still, there's something kind of sweet about their romance, one that my cynical mind figured would end more tragically than it did. Their romance is a little brightness in a dreary world. Never before has the bleak blacks and greasy grays and wilted whites of 1920's cinema seemed more appropriate then it does in Bill and Mae's world. von Sternberg knows how to tell a story with a camera, too. Its movements are fluid and graceful even when the action on the screen is raucous and packed. And there are relatively very few title cards; they're used not to explain the action of the characters but to add some humor or nuance. You don't need them to explain the feelings of the characters when you've got scenes like the pocket-sewing one to delicately show what the characters' relationship is really about. The Docks of New York, despite being a traditional melodrama, has a look and feel of a movie from a later decade.

Cory recommended this. If there's a movie you'd like to see on this blog, just let me know!

Lights in the Dusk

2006 Aki Kaurismaki movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: The most pathetic man on earth, a security guard in Helsinki, falls for a blond gal who he doesn't realize is way out of his league. They begin dating, but it turns out she's only using him so that she and another guy can steal jewelry from the mall where Koistenin works. Meanwhile, a woman who Koistenin purchases hot dogs from wonders why he isn't interested in her.

Getting to see an Aki Kaurismaki movie has become like a special ocassion for me. This is Kaurismaki attempting noir, complete with the biggest dupe for a protagonist you'll likely find, a pretty nasty femme fatale, and lots and lots of smoking. The camera floats a little more in this than in some of Kaurismaki's earlier work, but the style hasn't changed much. Things still crawl along at a snail's pace (but in a good way!), slowly enough to frustrate most folks used to watching movies with scenes where stuff actually happens. That's what I like about these movies though. You really get to appreciate the nuances of these quirky, mostly sad and desperate characters. Kaurismaki's characters aren't exactly rushing through life, really making Finland seem like the lethargic place on the planet, and it would almost seem unnatural to see them do much of anything. In fact, it's almost shocking to see any of his characters moving around much at all. The jewel thieving probably has the most rapid movements, and it's shot so that you don't even really see the characters. Another scene involves our protagonist and three burlier fellows taking it outside, and the director chooses to not have the camera go outside at all. Instead, he focuses on a swinging door and, once it stops swinging, just a door. Then, the three burlier fellows come back in, just as we expected they would. It's sad and it's humorous, and that's just what's really awesome about these movies, their ability to be both simultaneously. I don't want to say bittersweet because it would sound like a cliche. I think the only appropriate adjective is Kaurismakian. By the way, this has a poignant sweet ending, the sort of ending that you learn to expect from this guy, so it's not all despairing over the miserable existence of a true loser.

Somebody needs to make this guy's movies more widely available. One a year. That's all I'm asking for.

The Talk of the Town

1942 romantic comedy

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Hunky Leopold Dilg is innocent! He's too Cary Grant not to be. Nevertheless, he's been arrested for arson and its subsequent arson. He manages to escape and retreat to his friend Nora Shelley's house, a house that has unfortunately just been rented to renowned law professor Michael Lightcap. Their philosophies clash while they half-assedly battle for the affections of Miss Shelley. As expected, a threesome ensues. And it's fiery stuff!

Cary Grant isn't as good an actor as either of his two co-stars, the sophisticated Jean Arthur or the cute-as-a-button Ronald Colman, but the three of them have this classy chemistry and get some nicely written stuff to bounce off each other. The dialogue's funny even though it failed to draw a single laugh from my melancholy soul, but I liked some of the philosophical/political stuff in there, the characters almost working more like symbols than actual people. This is one of the most literate screwbally script I've heard. I also really liked how this thing was shot. The quick edits of the preface set up the story in a cool way, and there was some interesting camera work during conversations with characters with some breakfast panning and the use of a stairway rail. I also really liked shots that managed to squeeze all the characters on the screen without seeming completely unnatural like a lot of movies from this era. You get all kinds of scenes where things are going on in the foreground while Cary Grant can be seen on the other side of a window. Director George Stevens knows how to utilize every inch of my television screen. There's one shot that befuddled me though. I don't recall a lot of close-ups in this movie, but there's this extreme close-up shot of a character named Tilney as he starts to cry. There were a few reasons why I liked the tears at that point in the movie, but I thought the close-up was odd. And I have to confess that I didn't really care for the ending of the movie at all.

Why Worry?

1923 silent comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: A guy probably named Harold travels to the tropics with his nurse and valet for convalescent purposes but ends up accidentally becoming part of a violent revolution. Viva la Harold Lloyd!

His character isn't really as likable here, but this swiftly-moving excursion is still fun. The protagonist (probably named Harold) is the type we laugh at because he's oblivious to what's going on around him, nearly for the entire movie. I liked the sight gags as he's exploring the town, mistaking men knocked unconscious for men taking their siestas. It's not until near the end that Harold (I'm guessing) undergoes a bit of an unbelievable undergoing and turns into Rambo. I easily could have done without the romantic subplot which seems like it was tacked on in a script rewrite or something. The best part of this movie isn't even Lloyd actually unless you've ever wanted to see what a Harold Lloyd movie would be like if Harold Lloyd was a little person. His costar, a giant named John Aasen, steals the show. IMDB lists his height as a bit over seven feet, but he dwarfs Lloyd and seems a lot taller than that. Guinness apparently had him at nearly nine feet. Somebody's tape measure was broken apparently. The absurd situations, including an attempt to pull out one of Colosso's hurt teeth, between the odd-looking duo are a lot of fun. "Colosso" was the first acting job in Aasen's versatile career. He also played a Giant Swordsman, Giant, The Giant, Circus Giant, Giant Man, Very Tall Golfer, Giant, Circus Giant, Giant, and Shorty. That's some diversity! Wait a second. Very Tall Golfer?

So, Cory...what did you think of this one? Worth seeing, but I reckon you don't like his character all that much. Amazingly, Maltin's got this rated higher than Safety Last! and Speedy.

Safety Last! (Again)

see original review here

1923 movie that is better than 2008's College Road Trip

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Students at an inner city school go on a field trip to the high school they'll be attending next year. When they get back to their school, they're treated to a movie. One group of students with an especially mean teacher doesn't like the movie that they're being shown (certified classic College Road Trip)and force-feeds them a silent comedy instead. The students whine and whine, and the teacher, probably because he's the devil, just sits back and laughs.

I even gave them a slip of paper to write some comments and rate the movie. When asked to describe the movie in one word, I got these answers:

boring
lame
boreing
old
funny
useless
silent
interesting
awful
old fashioned
wierd
retarted
quiet
relaxing
bum!
wordless
different
depressing

Their ratings: 15, 7, 14, 10, 8, 10, -20, 2, 15, 10, 1.5, 2, 8, 10, 17, 10, 1, 1, 3, 13, 2, 0, 9.5, 10, 3, -20, 1

But just like the last time I forced silent comedy on the youth of America, they watched for the duration (I read lots of noise from my two neighbors watching College Road Trip) and laughed at the appropriate times. They really got into the climactic building-climbing scene, oohing and aahing. Sure, Harold Lloyd got called "gay" a few times, and I know the music drove them absolutely nuts. Nevertheless, I think a lot of them liked the movie a lot more than their scores might indicate.

Other gripes (from their sheets):

"I didn't like having to read."
"The end was really good."
"It's not a movie. It's a big waste of time."
"It has no sound to make up for the silence."
"Black & white movies are boring and old."
"I don't like that the guy lied to the girl."
"It was funny. He was always doing something or getting into trouble, but he got by with it."
"I liked that he was trying to impress the girl but was an epic fail at life."
"I liked the music."
"It's too hard to understand."
"It was a horibile movie."
"People were moving too fast in some parts."
"It was mildly entertaining. Not bad--better than I expected." Same person: "I didn't like that the guy was lying through the whole thing."
"It had some funny stuff that made me laugh."
"No talking is boring!!!!!!!!!"

One more thing: Looking back at my old write-ups for Harold Lloyd movies, I always get annoyed with myself when I see how mean I was to the poor guy. I never called him "gay" or anything, but I was completely wrong in refusing to put him in the same class with Keaton and Chaplin. Dude's a comedy stud even though he moves too fast in some parts or stars in movies that are too hard to understand.

And here's a shot from the Harold Lloyd appearance on The Simpsons. Unless he's just yellow on my computer.

Girl Shy

1924 silent romantic comedy (with horses)

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Because of a speech impediment and a less-than-impressive status as a poor tailor's assistant, some character probably named Harold has trouble meeting women. He's girl shy. But that doesn't stop him from writing a piece of nonfiction with the ambiguous title How to Make Love to Women and attempting to find a publisher for the tome. He eventually does meet a girl on a train and engages in the lengthiest and most awkward sex scene in silent cinema history. A horse is involved.

Question: If a stutterer stutters in a silent movie, and there's no sound enabling you to hear it, does it make a sound? Another solid Harold Lloyd movie with his typically likable protagonist, some very sweet romantic moments, and an explosion of craziness at the end where the actor does something wildy funny (i.e. climbing up the side of a building [Safety Last] or clang-clang-clanging on a trolley through New York streets [Speedy]). In Girl Shy, he's racing against the clock, stealing cars and endangering the lives of everybody around him. I bought the sweetness of his character a little more than in some of his other movies, but I also enjoyed how he had no issues with misbehaving like a four-eyed gangster rapper. And I'm really impressed with the amount of vehicles they managed to throw into that wild chase scene at the end. I think it was a zeppelin away from breaking some sort of vehicular record. This also may have gotten a bonus point for a Harold Lloyd spanking scene. Hot! No way any warm-blooded male could watch that without becoming aroused. Which reminds me--a baseball coach at my school was telling me today that one of his players couldn't make it to practice because he injured himself by "diving onto his bed with a hard-on," hurting the member. It's doubtful, but I wondered if he was watching Girl Shy when that happened.

Another really gay movie poster, by the way. It might not deliver the gay that Feet First delivers, but it's still really gay.

Sherman's March: A Meditation on the Possibility of Romantic Love in the South during an Era of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

1986 self-indulgent documentary

Rating: 16/20

Plot: A guy's given some funds to make a historical documentary about General William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that devastated the South during the Civil War. He gets sidetracked and ends up making a documentary about his failed attempts to find love. Tracing Sherman's path, Ross McElwee meets various women, falls for them, and then watches his chances at a lasting relationship with them fall to pieces. Meanwhile, nightmares about nuclear war keep him up at night.

Full disclosure: I had to give this a bonus point once I found out the title was much longer than Sherman's March. At 2 1/2 hours, this is a little too long, and I'm not really sure who the audience would be for this sort of thing. People like me, I guess. It's got a Woody Allen vibe (or maybe a Michael-Moore-without-a-Point vibe), philosophically self-conscious, and folks annoyed by Woody's filmed dissertations on romantic love would likely be just as annoyed with this but for a lot longer. And it's essentially a guy making his own reality show in a time that predates reality television. But I like how McElwee's inner conflicts revolving around art as well as love become universal, and the freeform approach is as revealing as it is humorous. The film tackles a trio of discursive topics--love, nuclear bombs, Sherman--but they somehow come together as a cohesive whole. It's also a series of nice portraits of random people from America's South, almost working as an ethnological study on the side. You've got militia men, a woman who thinks slavery should be allowed for blacks who want to be slaves, and island-dwelling hippie chicks. The episodic, meandering structure makes this a very watchable, entertaining 150 or so minutes, and chances are, if you don't mind the guy, you'll probably enjoy this movie just fine.

Kick-Ass

2010 comic book movie

Rating: 12/20

Plot: Although he's not been bitten by a radioactive chicken or peed upon by a radioactive monkey, comic aficionado Dave decides to become a superhero. He sends off for a costume, dubs himself Kick-Ass, and wanders the city in search of crime to fight. He finds out quickly that fighting crime ain't all that easy after his first attempt puts him in the hospital with numerous broken bones. But he doesn't give up on his dream and eventually gets some media attention for his exploits. Meanwhile, a father/daughter crime fighting duo with actual superhero training and a hodgepodge of weaponry make plans to overthrow a big-time crime lord responsible for the death of their wife/mother. Their paths cross.

I'm not a comic book guy. Kairow is, and that's probably why one night during our freshman year at Johnson Bible College, the two of us and a guy called Wombat dressed up as superheros, left our dorm after curfew, and tried to find our campus security guard. I'm not completely sure what our goal was. We were probably just bored, and after Kairow had discovered that his pant leg (after he cut it off to make himself some bitchin' jean shorts) actually fit over his head, there's no way it wouldn't become a mask. And if he had a mask, he'd have to have a cape. And if he had a mask and a cape and a thing of Stain Stick and a cool superhero name like Stain Stick Man, then I'd have to have a costume. So I become the Human Fly with a jock-strap worn over some running tight things and a see-through hat over my face. And a tennis racket. I think that was the only thing I ever used the tennis racket for actually. Wombat was the type of guy who had both boxing gloves (no, he was not exactly a boxer; too round) and a monk outfit, so he became the Boxing Monk, probably the ballsiest of the trio since his face wasn't even covered. We waited outside our dorm entrance for a while before wandering off to find the security guard. We finally located them (didn't make me feel all that secure, I must say) and approached the car. Then, probably anticlimactically, we had the following conversation:

Stain Stick Man: Hello!
Security Guy: Hi.
Stain Stick Man: What are you boys doing out so late tonight?
Security Guy: Not much. How about you guys?
Stain Stick Man: Just fightin' crime.

Then, we walked back to the dorm. And that was pretty much that.

My point? We almost came up with this idea before the comic book was written. And it was a much more entertaining way to spend ninety minutes. No, I'm not saying that the makers of Kick-Ass ripped us off and owe us royalties or anything. I'm not exactly saying that it's a rip-off of anything. But it did have a tone similar to Scott Pilgrim, only less thrilling and with a protagonist who wasn't quite as likable or Michael Cera-ish. The romantic subplot made it seem derivative, like an 80's movie, and there wasn't anything going on with the main plot that felt like anything I've never seen before. It wasn't funny enough or playful enough to be satire either, so to me, it was just another comic book movie, and aside from a couple vibrant fight scenes featuring the cute little girl, a pretty tired one. Oh, and Nic Cage's surprisingly subdued performance as Big Daddy. I like how he Adam Wests it up when in the superhero garb, and the majority of the fun in Kick-Ass, is courtesy of America's finest actor. Craig Ferguson's also got a cameo, and it's always good to see him.

In a Lonely Place

1950 broken love story

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Dixon Steele, the oldest high schooler on the planet, has a book report due by Friday. Unfortunately, it looks like he's about to fail remedial English once again because he's got a lot of drinking to do and no time to read a book or report on it. Luckily for him, he runs into the goody-two-shoes who works at the book store, a gal who has read the book. He gets her to just tell him the story and then sends her home. The next day, the principal calls him in to the office and accuses him of murdering the book store girl, something that is against the school's rules. Just as the principal reaches for a detention slip, drama club president Laurel walks in with an alibi for Dixon. Inevitably, Dixon and Laurel hook up and even make plans to go to Dixon's 32nd prom together. But can their teenage romance last with the murder mystery still hanging over Dixon's head?

The reason this movie works is because of how director Nicholas Ray treats the characters. He doesn't spell anything out with Bogart or Grahame's characters; doesn't hide their imperfections, those flaws that will ultimately lead to them being as miserable you expect them to be at the end of the movie; and doesn't judge them or really ask the viewer to judge them. Their story is a tragic one, and it never feels like movie tragedy to me despite having such heavy contributions from the score (a good one) and the cinematography (also good--especially the lighting). Bogart's great with this sort of ambiguous character. He's quick and witty and tough, but at the same time needy and fragile and so unsure of himself. It's easy to sympathize with him. The audience's opinion (or at least mine) bounced around quite a bit--yeah, he probably did it; nah, this is just an unlucky break for him, probably another in a long line of unlucky breaks; wait a second, what did he just say?--and it almost seems like he wouldn't mind being put away for the hatcheck girl's murder whether he did it or not just to make up for past sins. Gloria Grahame's also really good, and her Laurel is another intriguing character, one who you feel sorry for because you know she's probably making the same exact mistakes she's made before while trying so desperately to do the right thing. Their romance feels real, real and real doomed, and it's tragic because neither of them really did enough to deserve the problems their budding relationship encounters. Well, unless Dixon killed that poor girl. That wouldn't have been very nice. This is a well-written drama, impressive in how it characterizes and fills the viewer in on the characters' pasts so well without the use of flashbacks or any dialogue that brings up specifics. Look closely enough, and you can almost see their souls. The story's tight with a consistent tone that, for whatever reasons, reminds me of noir or Vertigo even though it really has very little in common with either. One question though--those opening shots of Bogart driving in a car. What the heck was going on their? That was some of the most unnatural screen work I think I've ever seen. I kinda liked it though. And I also kinda liked this movie!

Megamind

2010 Dreamworks movie

Rating: 14/20

Plot: The titular big-blue-headed supervillain, after a life living in the shadow of his heroic arch-nemesis Metro Man, finally defeats his foe and wins control over Metro City. But the criminal mastermind, despite also sort of getting the girl, soon gets bored without the yin to his yang and creates a new superhero to fight against. When the new superhero turns out to be corrupt, Megamind, for the first time, has to try to save the city instead of destroy it.

I never look forward to animated features from the Dreamworks people and wasn't all that excited when somebody at school picked this for our students to watch on their party day. However, the onslaught of pop culture references and terrible modern music [Why can't the Dreamworks people just hire themselves a Randy Newman?] didn't distract too much from a cute little story that turned superhero/supervillain conventions on their heads and toyed with some of the genre's cliches. I liked the characters and thought the voice talents brought some vibrancy to them. I'm not Will Ferrell's biggest fan, but he's good with this sort of thing and shows some voice versatility as the dynamic protagonist runs through a range of emotions and takes some time to poke fun at Marlon Brando. I liked Jonah Hill and David Cross, too, although the former's got that voice that makes me think, "Who is that guy? I know that voice!" without really knowing that voice and the latter just makes me wish he was making Arrested Development instead of messing around with this kind of thing. Tina Fey is also in this, and you know that Tina Fey wouldn't waste her time with something that wasn't intelligently written. I do like the premise, and although it doesn't quite pack an emotional punch, the adult humor works pretty well without ever being nasty. And I liked the whole good-needing-evil thematic thing and the change our "hero" undergoes, something that wouldn't have worked if his character wasn't so well drawn out. I was most impressed with the animation. The people aren't animated in a way that improves on what Pixar did with The Incredibles years ago, but there's a lot of neat, creative details in the settings. The animators were really showing off with textures and reflections in this one, and I liked how they used color motifs for the central characters. This isn't a movie I'd care to watch over and over again, but I'm actually kind of glad I did see it once.

Still, it amazes me that the people at my school aren't asking for my opinion on what movies the youth of America should be watching. I have my own blog! But for whatever reason, when I bring up classic 1920's comedies that the students would enjoy, I'm ignored. Maybe it's because they know I gave Beauty and the Beast a 14/20. I wonder if it would help if replaced the soundtracks to the silent comedies with some Lady Gogol or Justin Beamer hits?

Manhattan

1979 romantic comedy

Rating: 15/20

Plot: For aspiring writer Isaac, love doesn't come easy. His former wife and current lesbian has written a book containing every damning detail of their relationship. His newest fling likes him bunches, but the problem is that she's only seventeen and still in high school. And to make matters more complicated, he's fallen for pretentious Mary, the woman who his married friend Yale is sleeping with on the side.

It's not my favorite Woody Allen movie, and apparently it's not Woody's either. But I really like the last close-up of Woody, a guy who could really only be a leading man in a romantic comedy in his own movies, and that expression that he makes. As a comedy, this is pretty uneven and not really all that funny. The characters aren't easy to like except for maybe Mariel Hemingway's character and Woody himself. I do like the performers who play those characters even if I don't like the characters themselves though. Still, there's a certain charm and artfulness to the proceedings, and the black and white cinematography creates a sort of intimacy with the story's inhabitants. It also shows off the titular setting, almost working like a visual ode to the city at times. So this one kind of grows on you as it goes along, but it's ultimately such a downer, a comedy too cynical to be all that funny . It's a mixed bag of a movie, one that I've always wanted to like or maybe felt like I should like a lot better.

Make Way for Tomorrow

1937 weeper

Rating: 17/20

Plot: Bark and Lucy Cooper, the elderly parents of five children, get those ingrates together and announce that they are losing their home. None of the children will take both parents in, and Bark and Lucy are forced to live apart for the first time in many many years. Things don't work out so well, and eventually, he's on his way to live with another one of his offspring in California while she's on her way to an old folks home. They get together for one final afternoon and evening and celebrate their lives together while dreaming of a time when they can share a home again.

Not much in the first half of the movie grabbed me. I liked the two central characters fine as 1930's characters. The children were all about the same, selfish and ungrateful. The interactions between the characters were depressing and even a little uncomfortable. Things developed dismally and then proceeded to get even more dismal. The movie wasn't terrible, but something was missing. Then, at about the halfway point, it became magical. What was missing was apparently face-to-face old people interaction. The scenes during the second half of the movie where they're spending time together are nothing short of beautiful, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried a little bit. That second half of the film is packed with touching moments, my favorite being where the Coopers break the fourth wall, interrupting a kiss to glance back at me crying on my bed. The film's structure--the movie throws out the main conflict right away with little background or character development and saves revelations about the protagonists for the end of the film as they discuss their lives together--creates this startling contrast. Especially troubling is the juxtaposition between how they're treated and talked about by their own children and their experiences with a car salesman and a hotel manager. I imagine the uncompromising conclusion wouldn't be satisfying for every viewer, especially one looking for a bright and shiny 1930's Hollywood ending, but it works as a saggy exclamatory mark at the end of a beautiful and touching movie.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

2010 rom-com fantasy mayhem

Rating: 15/20

Plot: 22-year-old Pilgrim's on the rebound after being dumped by his girlfriend. He spends his time playing with his band, Sex Bob-ombs (Mario reference), and hanging out with his high school girlfriend, Knives. They've even held hands. One night and falls for Ramona. Things are going well as they start dating, but soon, her evil ex-boyfriends start appearing out of nowhere to battle Scott, Mortal Kombat style!

I'm not a gamer although I have spent considerable amounts of time with a joystick, and yes, I'm aware there's a double meaning there. I'm not a comic book guy, and I probably wouldn't have known this was based on graphic novels if not for Kairow. Romantic-comedy ain't my genre, and over-the-top action movies annoy me. I really doubt, since I'm fastly approaching elderly, that I'm anywhere near the right demographic. Scott Pilgrim is a loud, often repetitive assault on the senses, a barrage of wackiness and fantastical mischief. But you know what? It's a hell of a lot of fun! It's a fervent and fresh approach to your old boy-meets-girl story, managing to have a style of its own despite plagiarizing from everything from the Batman t.v. show to Donkey Kong. It's a potpourri of pop-culture regurgitations, spewing technicolor from the television screen right in my lap, but I didn't mind a bit. The pace is rapid, and the jokes come a mile a minute. Not all of them connect (more than a few probably because I'm twice as old as Michael Cera) but it's stuffed full with so many of them that the fpm (funny per minute) is still impressive. Speaking of Michael Cera, an actor young enough to be my son, he plays the same character he always plays but with bushier hair. I still like that character, but I wonder what's going to happen to this kid's career when he hits puberty. Creative, energetic and, if not especially meaningful, lots and lots of fun. I would definitely see it again.

Beck (the American Cornelius) and Cornelius (the Japanese Beck) did songs for this.

Teenagers from Outer Space

1959 alien movie

Rating: 2/20

Plot: Some aliens, who don't really look like teenagers if we're being completely honest here, are scouting the galaxy to find a planet where their giant lobsters can thrive. They use the lobsters for food. Unfortunately, their food can kill them, and they decide our planet (earth) would be a good giant lobster farm. One of the aliens named Derek, a teenager who also coincidentally happens to be the son of their leader, has second thoughts after they disintegrate a dog. He runs off to find the dog's owners and falls for young Betty. Meanwhile, fellow alien Thor causes wreaks havoc as he searches for Derek.

I lost the notes I took for this one. Suffice it to say that this is a bad movie, but it's definitely more in the "good bad" category than it is the Wild Women of Wongo category. The acting is uniformly bad, especially Harvey B. Dunn as Gramps. Mr. Dunn's resume includes work in a couple Ed Wood Jr. movies--Bride of the Monster and Night of the Ghouls. Their acting seems even worse with this ineffectual dubbing, but aside from that, there aren't a lot of movies where the actors stand this stiffly. David Love, the guy who plays the lead, probably does the best job, but this is the only movie role he had. The dialogue's laughable, and the alien costumes (bulky white spaceman boots and jumpsuits with what appears to be masking tape on them) are very nice. But the biggest thrills from Teenagers from Outer Space come from the brilliant special effects. Seeing what I assume is the same skeleton used over and over again when Thor is on his rampage is bad enough, but when you finally get to see the giant lobsters, this reaches a new level of bad. This is the type of movie that is made so cheaply that you don't get an actual giant lobster. Nope. You get to see a shadow of a lobster! They couldn't even hold a normal-sized lobster close the camera for this one? I'm so happy that movies like this exist, and I'm proud to say that I own a copy of this bad boy.

Mr. Sardonicus

1961 Castle drama

Rating: 15/20

Plot: An ex-fling summons Dr. Cargrave to Gorstava, and he makes the trip because it sounds like she's in trouble. He encounters one-eyed butlers, leech-covered maids, mysterious masked hosts, tales of ghouls, pudding slurping, and torture chambers before being forced to perform an experimental operation on a disfigured grave robber. With any luck, he'll at least get laid in the end.

Pretty cool flick from the twisted mind of master showman William Castle. He starts the proceedings with a look at moody, fog-drenched London where he defines ghoul for his "homicidal friends" before launching into the narrative. Of course, it wouldn't be a William Castle joint if there wasn't some sort of gimmick, and this one involves a "Punishment Poll" in which the audience got to vote on whether or not the titular bad guy got a happy or unhappy ending. I'm pretty sure only one ending was filmed though, making Castle a big ol' liar. I'll forgive him though because the movie world is a better place with his movies. This would be your typical B-horror movie if not for a lot of really strange goings-on, including a scene where the one-eyed man talks to leeches. And watching the guy who played Baron Sardonicus deliver the majority of his lines behind an expressionless mask was off-putting. But Castle's films aren't just about strangeness and off-puttingness; it's the underlying dark, dark humor that really makes these worth watching. I really wish this guy's movies were easier to get my hands on.

The Taming of the Shrew

1967 Shakespeare comedy

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Katharina is a shrew, and she needs tamed. Enter brazen Petruchio, money hungry and chauvinistic. He's also a snazzy dresser. He essentially bullies her into a marriage and a life as a homemaker in a shabby castle. Then, he's real mean to her and unfortunately, as far as I could tell, never gets to see her naked.

My only issue with this comedy is that I didn't buy or maybe even understand the transition from shrew to obedient wife, but I blame Shakespeare, universally known as a lousy playwright. The dialogue's juicy and randy, and both Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton know how to bounce lines off each other. I really liked the ever-changing settings and their abundance of colors. More than likely this has essentially ruined any future stage production of this that I might accidentally see, and I can't imagine these characters confined to a stage . There's some nifty period details, too, like the guy in a cage with the drunkard sign. This is lighthearted, as fluffy as one of Kate's dresses. I don't recall whether this is one of the bard's most acclaimed comedies, but I enjoyed its characters, its outdated and politically correct ideals, and all the dirty puns. A lively and delightful way to pass an afternoon.

Cory, obsessed with all things delightful, recommended this one. He's got a thing for Elizabeth Taylor, presently.

Archangel

1990 romantically-comedic fever dream of a war movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: It's World War I, and Lt. John Boles finds himself in the arctic Russian town of Archangel where he meets a woman named Veronkha who he mistakes for his dead former lover Iris. Veronkha's married to cowardly Philbin who can't seem to remember that he has a wife. Meanwhile, Veronkha starts to believe that John is her husband. All this while a war is going on! Maybe. I think the narrator said at one point that the war was over. I'm not sure because I was almost almost as confused as the characters in the movie.

And the likable thing about shane-movies favorite Guy Maddin movies, to me anyway, is that it all doesn't matter a whole lot. His characters follow their own logic, a fuzzy dream logic that I suppose would make perfect sense if you were able to use a different part of your brain to watch it. Idiosyncratic (read: downright weird) to say the least. At the same, Maddin's got a message very similar to Tarantino's in Basterds about how film or, more specifically, propaganda film can shape people's opinions on war. Archangel features some nifty photography and creative expressionistic set design, and like most of Maddin's movies, offers a generous helping of dry, ultra-askew humor. If you're into old-timey melodramatic and surreal oddballery, I can't recommend this guy's (pun intended) movies enough. And if all that isn't enough to sell this to you, I'll add two more words: intestine strangulation! Hooyah!

The Importance of Being Earnest

1952 movie

Rating: 17/20 (Jen: dozed off)

Plot: Two rakish pals, Jack and Algernon, decide to both be Earnest instead in attempts to win the hearts of their beloved. Things get wild, and that pun, ladies and gentlemen, is intended.

When folks discuss using CGI to adapt or update older films or make brand new films with computer-generated John Waynes and Humphrey Bogarts, I always get really excited. I think that sounds like a terrific idea! I mean, they inserted John Wayne into a Coors beer commercial years ago. That was a turning point in my life actually, the exact moment when I decided I was going to start drinking. And I've never looked back. Technology could do wonders with this movie. For example, there are characters I'd really enjoy seeing naked in this movie, most obviously Edith Evans, and I think we're at a technologically-enlightened time when computer graphics geniuses should be able to handle something like that. And speaking of Edith Evans, her delivery of the line "A handbag?" is probably the most perfectly-delivered line I've ever heard, and all 17 rating points (I debated giving it a 17 1/2, but we don't do fractions here at shane-movies) are because of that line. No, that's not true. I liked the performances, almost universally, even though they reminded me of the staginess of movies from the 1930s. I was surprised at how funny this movie actually was, mostly that sophisticated kind of comedy where you don't want to laugh as much as you want to golf clap or chuckle inwardly or say, "I say, that certainly was witty," and then cough delicately into a napkin but not delicately enough to keep your monocle from falling off. The writing is clever and randy. I find it impossible to believe anybody ever talked like these characters do which really makes this, in my mind, the 1950s equivalent of the second Matrix movie except with much less kicking and punching. Maybe the CGI gurus could add some kicking and punching when they update this. This movie benefits from its simplicity. The Victorian setting is a colorful one, and my television screen was stuffed with lots of pretty things to look at, but theres' nothing really flashy or frilly with the direction so that we're focused on what we should be focused upon--these pretty ridiculous characters and their ridiculous dialogue. Satirical , still fresh, shaded with irony, and as expected with something that Oscar Wilde penned, intelligently funny, like verbal slapstick for stuffy squares.

Reportedly, this is Ass Masterson's third favorite movie. I wonder if this really is a link between the dastardly villain and Cory, who recommended it to me, or if I'm just being paranoid again.