The Usual Suspects (1995)

Lately I've been setting myself up for films that have huge expectations, and in turn, huge expectations about my writing about them. The Usual Suspects is no exception, people were literally shoving me (think Elaine from Seinfeld) with insistence to see this movie. Alongside Breathless and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, I have to carve a hard path through these viewings.

SPOLER ALERT, If you haven't seen this one, don't read from here on down.

I'm sure my friends who claimed that it was the most unpredictable ending ever in a film will think Im being sarcastic when I claim that Verbal was my first guess for Keyser Soze. I thought that it would be a good twist if that were the case, but later into the movie I started to second guess myself. After all, from what I had heard, this film didn't just have a good twist, it had a amazingly unlikely twist. So then I started to focus heavily on the possibility that it could actually be special agent Kujan. Silly me. Another reason for the shift away from Verbal is because I figured it would be a little unbalanced if one of the ensemble were chosen as Soze.

Anyway, I don't know how I figured the movie could rationalize agent Kujan being the villain. I didn't think that far ahead, but by my standards, that would have been the amazing twist. Verbal was a good one, but simply by the fact that he is crippled is enough to make him the most likely candidate for a "good twist," and therefore the most likely one.

One thing that crossed my mind is that when the movie came out there may not have been a thriller so daring. There are plenty of movies that have been made since that have influences from this one. Perhaps I was unknowingly jaded by the movies that have drawn heavily from this one, such as Swordfish.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

I was surprised at how quickly disappointment set in for me with this film. Interestingly, its been almost nine years since release, so I can't chalk it up to the film falling short of the huge buzz that it generated during the record breaking two years that it took to shoot it. Normally it takes much more effort and consideration for me to tear down a movie, especially one directed by someone with the reputation of Kubrick. With the exception of the cult scenes, Eyes Wide Shut looked like a made-for-tv movie, more specifically a soft-core pornographic Cinemax movie. There were too many parts of this film that weren't quite right that soured the experience for me. So strap in for a disjointed nitpicking response to this film!

I'm not as anti-Tom Cruise as many of my friends, but he really seemed miscast in this movie. He simply just does not have the look or sound of an uptown Manhattan doctor. Though he only wields limited authority in comparison to the cult that he crosses paths with, he looks out of place in his apartment, especially when he comes home and takes a nice cold Budweiser out of the fridge. Knowing Kubrick, there are probably reasons for this, but I just don't get them.

Nicole Kidman's delivery was no better. Why is she talking so frustratingly slow? She seemed borderline psychotic, yet if that were true it would simply distract too much from the story. Her inquiries and small doses of honesty with her husband were supposed to kickstart a whirlwind of unforeseen trouble, yet with her psychotic looking delivery it starts to look like she herself will be the whirlwind of trouble. I honestly thought she might murder her husband.

What about the simplistic and transparent way in which Todd Field's character, Nick Nightingale, presents Dr. Harford with his great secret about his blindfolded concerts. I began to wonder if there were some sort of sinister conspiracy involving Nick. Something was too forthcoming and neat about his explanation. Considering that he really was giving away the secret of the cult, this doesn't say much for the cult members' ability to drive the point home about secrecy. On a side note, I thought it was interesting that two other acclaimed directors, Sydney Pollack and Todd Field, were cast as actors in this film.

Now on to the mise en scene. This movie created a New York City that I cannot relate to. Since when is a cab ride from Manhattan to presumably Westchester only 75 bucks? Something seemed totally silly about the way the gang of kids were taunting Dr. Harford. It seemed a little more like suburban tomfoolery than the more hostile New York style confrontations. Only moments later, Dr. Harford meets an unlikely call-girl: she looks like a supermodel, only costs 150 dollars, can afford to live in Manhattan, what universe is this? The fictional NYC locations such as the Sonata Lounge also did not feel like New York. Something was too clean and camera-friendly about these sets.

Another qualm I have as far as plot details, how on earth did Dr. Harford get a costume that seemed to fit so well with the cult's costumes? This is a finer point, but it doesn't look as if he gets more of a description of the party other than "There are beautiful women and people wear cloaks and masks." Somehow he gets the right type of mask and the right color cloak, this doesn't say much for the supposedly exotic rituals of the cult. What if Dr. Harford accidentally showed up in a red cloak and suit? Boy, that would have been embarrassing!

Nitpicking all of these details seems beside the point, but they add up to make an unconvincing story that doesn't have me feeling the gravity of the situation. I wasn't expecting this from a director that has been known to obsess over these types of details. If we use 2001, A Space Odyssey as the benchmark, this movie fails in comparison.

Now for the redeeming qualities, the cult scenes are haunting and magnificent. Kubrick is amazing at creating surreal scenes on film. The steadicam shots and the sound are two technical aspects that stand out in these scenes that make a very eerily smooth environment. The lighting is also reminiscent of Barry Lyndon, which to say it is very low amber lighting. Given that it's a Kubrick film, I was not surprised to see 3:4 aspect ratio. Kubrick used a film stock that Kodak no longer manufacturers, presumably in order to capture low-light situations, and facilitate the unique processing they did to the film in order to get a higher color contrast. The film is also quite grainy in comparison to modern films. Considering this, it's hard to imagine that this is a 1999 film that opened number one at the box office. It also makes for yet another Kubrick movie that doesn't look clear on DVD!

Sydney Pollack was an excellent casting choice for Victor Ziegler, and plays a very important role in interpreting the film. Everything about Ziegler's character is perfectly balanced between having a down to earth realism mixed with larger than life status. This is apparent in the billiard room scene, where Ziegler gives a human face to the literally faceless cult. Pollack's delivery entices the idea that the cult's threats could have been idle. Maybe the cult is all smoke and mirrors. Perhaps Mandy overdosed on drugs and wasn't killed. He also serves as a great contrast from the cult's illusive image, that really under the masks these are normal people. Zeigler is comically at odds with the type of women that he meets through the cult. When Mandy is strung out drugs, he tries to explain to Dr. Harford what she took: "Speedball or snowball or whatever the hell they call it." I half expected him to go on a rant about "kids these days..." Interestingly Woody Allen was considered for this part, could you imagine?

An odd slice of reality in the otherwise surreal scene. Does that synth have an auto-chant effect too?

Similarly, there is a single shot of Nick Nightingale playing the organ during the cult rituals. This is subtly comical because it abruptly grounds the music into reality. At first the nebulous soundtrack seems non-diegetic, but then it briefly cuts to Nick with a large effects rack, mixer, and synth keyboard. Suddenly this mysterious music has a source, and it looks like a Casio.

More than one person has told me that Kubrick films are the type to continually offer more with each viewing. On this relatively featureless DVD, Steven Speilberg recounts in an interview how he hated The Shining at first viewing, but eventually grew to love it. I am hoping that such is the case for Eyes Wide Shut, and I will certainly watch this movie again sometime in the future.

Breathless (1960)

What can I say about this movie? It changed the way film makers and appreciators saw film, and changed attitudes towards editing. I take this on faith from what I have read, but I think that to truly understand what this movie stood for (or more accurately stood against), I need to take a look at some films of the 50's. I also have The 400 Blows(1959) on the shortlist, because I'm interested in the ways that Truffaut and Goddard are different even more than how they are alike.

In the meantime I will point out a few things that I noted:

-When Michel pretends to fire his gun while driving, we hear a non-faithful blast of a real gun: a sound representing something that does not happen in the environment of the movie. In the six months that I've been studying movies, this has happened twice on screen. In Malcolm X (1992) Malcolm and Shorty are playing cops and robbers using their hands to gesture gun blasts. However, we hear the non-faithful sound of a real gun blast, as if to foreshadow violence to come. In Mean Streets (1973), Harvey Keitel's character Charlie gestures with his hand and pretends to shoot his girlfriend. We also hear a real gun blast, which was even more jarring because it was an abrupt cut, and there was no change of scene.


So what's with this, is this some sort of film cliche that I'm unaware of? I wonder if it started with Breathless. In the commentary for Malcolm X, Spike Lee makes no mention of it appearing in any other movies, but talks about it as if it were an original idea that evolved from the scene on its own.

-The movie has a pushing and pulling effect with its unique editing. It feels as if the viewer is following the plot through an intense magnifying glass that scans over the course of events, pinching some, and expanding others with a focus that has little priority for the major turning points. When Michel shoots and kills a policeman, or when he sees a deadly car accident, the events are brief and abruptly cut away from. Yet the "in-between" ordinary moments of Michel's getaway are expanded, we see several minutes of essentially pillow talk between Michel and Patricia.

The editing might draw attention to itself, and on the surface has little concern for realism, yet what it ends up depicting are the most natural parts of daily life put to screen. All the while, the typical Hollywood intrigue that Goddard has been known to admire, is reduced to the backdrop.

-Michel's death is rather unusual from what I've seen on film. He receives one shot to the lower back, and rather than keeling over in finality, it is unclear if he has been fatally hit as he tries to make an escape. It always interests me when physical movements of characters happen in odd ways, it makes it seem so much more real. This reminds me of the line "She Fell Funny" from The Departed, except that was more about the character's dialogue than the action.

-I like the music, but I didn't like the way it was used in this film. I can assume that Goddard would rather not manipulate the viewer by changing the music to fit the mood, but still why the constant film noir music that doesn't seem to fit?

I came into this movie expecting not to understand any of it. While the film is enigmatic, after viewing a few modern movies after this viewing, I've began to understand its appeal in hindsight. It's definitely a neat movie, and one I will inevitably return to.

What's around the bend

So I've been watching movies at a good pace lately, so I have some grandiose plans as far as upcoming posts:

-I promised myself that I would watch Breathless (1960) before watching the controversial Lumet film Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007). Well, last night I completed the first leg of journey, so now onto some much anticipated Lumet. Then I will finally be able to weigh in on the previous posts about Lumet's movie on this blog.

*UPDATE*

I've watched Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and now I've realized that only about 20 seconds of the movie can relate to Breathless. Oh well!

-This one will probably never happen, and also it would be foolhardy to do, but I'm interested in doing a 10 block movie comparison of movies with the titles of one through ten. So for instance the first three could be:

One (2001)
Two (1974)
Three (2005)
ect...

After searching on IMDB, it appears that my options are not limited to one movie per number, and in fact I have a choice of up to 5 or 6 movies on certain numbers. This is a huge undertaking, but I would feel alright with glossing over each of these movies in a paragraph, simply because they just don't look that great. I'm most interested in trying to guess which number I'll like the best. I wonder if we could all place bets on this?

Helvetica (2007) and Wordplay (2006)

I have been talking up a storm about Helvetica, so it donned on me while watching Wordplay recently that these movies might make a good pair to write about. Both films incite those two bugging questions: "How can someone make a full-length movie on something so minuscule?" and "Who would watch such a movie?"

Helvetica (2007)

When my mother recommended a movie called Helvetica, my response was "You can't possibly mean the font, could you?" She handed me the Netflix disc and in the familiar courier font there was the title "Helvetica (2007)" I laughed instantly and pictured a docu-drama conspiracy around a printing press. "Helvetica: It Must be Stopped."

Firstly, yes the movie is about the font, but it serves as a platform for a larger debate. At the heart of this film is the battle between the formalist tenets of design versus more expressionist design.

I found a wonderful connection between this movie and Madmen, AMC's series about late 50's era Madison Avenue ad execs. In Helvetica one designer describes the shift in ad designs to a more bold and minimalist approach using Helvetica. When ads like these start showing up in magazines in Madmen, the ad execs are perplexed and disturbed at this new style. (Where's the content? Is this a joke?). I wonder if they will adopt Helvetica in the new season!

Above: The Coke ad that designer Michael Bierut loves. Below: The VW ad that stirs controversy in Madmen

Wordplay (2006)

I'm always appreciative of people who devote their lives to such arcane interests like puzzles. More than one puzzle solver said in the movie is even in poverty they will still devote themselves to puzzles. The idea that being dedicated to something so arcane that can bring someone such joy is why I know I'll never be bored or unhappy with life. There are so many things to become obsessed with!

I never liked puzzles all that much for a very superficial reason. Strictly for the concept that technically nothing new has been created. The answers are somewhere, and you can get them, but solvers really want to make it difficult for themselves. When they're finished, all they did was complete the puzzle like everyone else that finished. The end product of what these solvers are trying to attain all looks exactly the same; a finished puzzle that can only look one way. Of course this is short sighted, because it's easy to debate that what is created happens not in the puzzle, but in the solver's brain. Also, the creativity is not in the end product, but how they got there. Nonetheless, I still have an aversion, especially to jigsaw puzzles.

I am an ideal sample viewer for this film. I have no interest in puzzles, and I don't know anything about crossword puzzles. If movie's goal was to get me prepared and excited for the climax of the movie, then it was a success.

I would also like to paraphrase Josh, because I loved his comment about this film. He basically said that the film felt as if it were directed by the font itself. I suppose he means that everything in the film is modern and crisp, like the font. One thing I noted was a lot of the movie was shot on grey, overcast days.

I still haven't seen a documentary that I haven't liked. It is very hard for me to critique these movies because I like learning about new things and documentaries all expose me to these things. I get too lost in learning to analyze the movie.

I particularly liked the use of CGI to organize and display all of the raw data behind the puzzles and the competition. However I can imagine some people would still argue that it is too much visual information to interpret and it's distracting. Especially for those who saw it in the theater.

I wonder if the regulars of the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament now resent this movie. Many of them were sentimental on screen about coming back to the Stamford Marriott where it was hosted for almost 30 years (and during the time that this movie came out). As soon as the movie came out the previously niche competition exploded in popularity, and was moved to a much larger venue here in Brooklyn. (closer to me, woo!) Ironically the movie itself most likely took away the more intimate communal experience that it shows.

This is also the second movie that has had funny clips of John Stewart in his office, the first one being The Aristocrats (2005).

So overall I enjoyed myself, was inspired, and now people think I'm completely boring when I tell them that the last two movies I saw were about a font and a crossword. With all these heroes, villains, gangsters, robots, zombies, and aliens that I write about it was nice to deal in the ordinary for a change. I reminded once again that there is an art to everything!

The burning question

I'm at work now, and judging this first day of heat, I am starting to wonder if I have to take some of those hard drives holding all of my movie images out of the computer and to someplace cooler. Just to recap, I have about 500 movies stored at full disc size (about 8gb per DVD) over 5tb of hard drive space. The summer heat should make it even hotter inside that computer tower, so I may have to organize the images so that I can use only one hard drive at a time, instead of 7 or 8. Maybe I should make a drive with 50 or must-see summer films and store the rest. The burning question is, what goes to storage and what stays in the computer?

UPDATE

The hard drives have now been removed from my tower, and I've been swapping them in and out of a dual enclosure. I also added another terrabyte into the mix, craziness! I now have to go back into each drive and add to my catalog the location of each DVD. I have my work cut out for me.

THX 1138

The only other George Lucas movies I had seen prior to THX 1138 were the Star Wars movies and American Graffiti. I was much younger when I saw AG, so I hardly remember anything about it, but I do remember liking it for one reason or another. (Sometimes when I've gotten a ticket I still want to stuff it in the glove compartment labeled "CS") As for the Star Wars movies, I loved them as a kid, but their novelty soon wore off, never to redeem themselves again. I never really considered the prequels serious films since they were released in such a consumer franchise driven environment. The first thing I noticed about George Lucas when I looked him up on IMDB is that he hasn't made nearly as many films as I had thought. It's almost as if Star Wars crippled his career, because since 1977 the only thing he has directed has been Star Wars movies.

As usual, I have seen some references or influences from THX1138 before actually seeing the film itself. In the first level of Hitman Contracts, you play as Agent 47 (who looks a bit like Robert Duvall as THX 1138). You awake in a room that is very similar to the wall-less jail, white and seemingly endless, until you reach a doorway.



Also, many elements of Star Wars have recognizable roots in this film, including many of the sounds. Light Saber sounds are used for the batons that the robots use, and the distorted harmonic voices that are used to communicate from ship to ship in Return of the Jedi are also in THX 1138.

I'm always surprised to see when movies are set so far into the future. The 25th century is a little ambitious considering what we see on screen (the cars for instance all dressed up 60's Lolas), but maybe that's 21st century hindsight talking.

SPOILER ALERT, don't read after this point if you haven't seen this film...really! It's not the Sixth Sense, there's still a chance that you could be surprised!

The film's ending is so straightforward and final. It wasn't exactly what I expected. The last moments of the movie show a little bit of inner conflict with THX1138 as he is climbing his way out to the forbidden outer shell. (a.k.a nature), but it rests solely on a few glances that Robert Duvall makes, and his body language. This is one of those delightful situations in film where a character is left without any companions to whom he can communicate what he is thinking verbally. It really isn't developed any further than slight suggestions, and there is no fanfare. At first I hated this, I felt that the ending should have been developed more. For that matter, THX should have returned to the custody of the robots, so he could at least see LUH again, if this is a story about the persistence of love. However leaving this last minute struggle as such a minuscule detail, it makes me wonder if perhaps if it was my imagination. It's much more ambiguous this way. One clue that suggests that THX really almost went back underground is the timing of the budget for his capture running out. He was so close to making a clean break, that even if the robots didn't have to turn around because of budget constraints and continued to pursue him, he was far enough ahead of them to still be able to leave. But with the budget running out at that moment, it offers up the moment when the robots stop chasing him and ask him politely for the last time if he would come back with them. This really gives THX a moment to react and contemplate over that, if he does at all.

Brazil

Hi everybody,

I'm back from Austria, unfortunately I didn't have any time to write about movies for the last week and a half. I was so busy that I didn't even have time to watch any of the great movie suggestions that were given to me via comments from my last post. I do promise to watch a few of the suggested movies though, I am still curious as to why some of them were chosen.

Anyway, getting back into the swing of things, I am writing a mid-term paper about Brazil for my film class, so I might as well write on the blog about it too. It was only a matter of time before I wrote about this movie in some form, seeing as it was an instant top ten on my list.

The most striking thing about Brazil is its odd mix of intent. It is chilling, funny, sad, intellectual, and suspenseful all at once. Shots composed right next to each other evoke these very different feelings. For instance early in the film, we see the stormtroopers raid the Buttle home in a terrifying blitz. Yet once the dust clears, an officer in a silly hat brings Mrs. Buttle a receipt for the raid which she must sign for, and the comedic "Department of Works" (reminiscent of Monty Python) arrive on the scene with their oddly ineffective ceiling plug.

Terry Gilliam is a very unique director to say the least. If the director acts as the mediator between the films message and its audience, then Terry Gilliam is like a mad professor. The choices he makes don't always help the overall design of the movie, but I like them anyway.

The dialog in this movie helps to develop the characters, but doesn't have the structure (or what some people would call formulaic) that is in many studio flicks. It's unbalanced, sometimes we peer into the life of Mr. Helpman, Mrs. Lowry, or Jack Lint. One of the major criticisms of the movie is not developing one of the film's few female characters, Jill. Even though this is a love story between Sam and Jill, more screen time is given to interactions between Sam and Kurtzmann. According to Gillaim, the script originally had a more developed relationship between Sam and Jill but had to be cut in editing. It seems as if the development of characters in Brazil is incidental to one thing only, developing the idealogical message of the movie. Even a "bad guy" henchman gets a precious moment in the chase scene when Sam and Jill are fleeing. After the troopers crash and their vehicle burns up, we see one burning up while running from the wreck. In a two hour film, every edit counts and in Brazil, nothing is done purely for the sake of character development.

Another interesting feel of the movie are the props. Many of the machines or devices we see in this movie don't even make sense. Many of the devices, such as in Sam's apartment do not work as they should (a point unto itself), but then later we see industrial design that is totally outrageous. They indicate a sense of invasiveness, isolation, or technological decay, but yet they are too silly looking too really pose a threat. Quite contrary to any other dystopian film. In a movie that is trying to make a serious point, it has an interesting sense of humor about props. Not surprising, however, for a Gilliam film.

While these choices don't have as much structure or design, it makes the movie a more personal piece. I've heard more often of directors' choices being guided by the movie as a greater whole, as if it is an organism beyond anyone's control, rather than to directly serve the idealogical perspective of a director. Here Gilliam seems to make choices on intuition. In the commentary he has said two things that ever since have resonated with me:

1. "I dont want to do 'Committee Films' I dont want to do it that way, I dont want democracy to rear its ugly head when it comes to film making...That's why I dont have preview screenings, because I feel like a lot of the principal is that democracy is part of the process"

2. "When I make a film, I don't do it very intellectually, I don't approach it in an intellectual way or analytical way I'm doing it as an emotional expression of something, it's only afterwards...that I've realized what I've done...I want to keep doing that, I don't want to be too self aware...when you do, you start getting clever...you start worrying about the wrong things."

I think as an artist I am definitely guilty of "over thinking it." And as someone who really values other people's opinions, (sometimes too much) I fall prey to the democratic process of art. This commentary really changed the way I look at the creation process.

You Can't Take Them with You

Some of you may already know that I'll be traveling to Austria for ten days starting on Friday. I will be able to write posts while abroad, but of course if I do find the time to watch a film, my options will be limited to what I can fit on my PSP.

So I'm making this a democratic process, I'm less interested in picking the movies to take with me to Austria myself, and more interested to see what suggestions people with come up with. If you had to leave somewhere and could only take five movies with you, what would they be? Be creative! There's the obvious route of choosing your favorite movies, but I'd really like to see some themes here, whether it be traveling, movies related to Austria, or movies about the type of global issues that I might be discussing at the Salzburg Global Seminar.

So let's assume I can take five movies with me, and write the list as a comment! I read them all, and no suggestion will be glossed over, I promise!

Perhaps I will offer a special yet-to-be-decided prize (maybe a bronze Austrian owl statuette?) to each person who I take a movie suggestion from!

Before the Devil Knows Your Dead

Sidney Lumet is a living legend. He has made some great films and my favorite will always be Prince of the City. Dog Day Afternoon is a close second. His latest film, Before the Devil Knows Your Dead is another soon to be classic. Lumet knows how to get a great performance out of every actor he works with. He was a theatre director and he brings that aspect to each and every film he directs. The film's plot has been done before but the way Lumet presents it brings something new to the concept. Two brothers try to rob their parents jewerly store, but are confronted with too many problems. Ethan Hawke gives a tour de force performance as Hank the nervous brother. This may be Ethan Hawke's best performance on screen. Philip Seymour Hoffman is incapable of giving a bad performance I believe. The plot is told from the seperate perspective of each character. It puts you in the mind set of these characters which also includes Charlie, (Albert Finney) their father. The film is set in New York, which Lumet loves to use and I personally love to see New York on film. The characters are so realistic that you feel their pain. This reminded me why I love films. It reminded me of the gritty films of the 70's which were character driven. And finally it reminded me why I hope to be a filmmaker someday. On April 15th make sure to see this film when it is released on DVD.

Waitress (2007) and Genre

A friend of mine asked me if I have any romantic comedies in my collection, and I immediately said no. But I realized once I reconsidered my definition of the genre that I have a handful.

"Romantic Comedy" like most genres, is one that links movies only by their most superficial and conventional qualities. If you really believe in the power of genres, you're watching the wrong movies. Genre is the work of marketing. In fact, here on Cereal and a Movie, you will rarely ever see me come up with conventional genre lists of movies. Like a true and totally unlicensed film snob, I say such a thing would be a waste of time. Yes, I focus on the important things like, say, movies where people actually say "Bye" before hanging up a phone. Even one minuscule detail has more meaning than a crock-genre like "Action." How many movies have a lot of action? Maybe a movie is "action" if we went to the movie just for the explosions? But wait, Casino had a good explosion in it...

Waitress (2007)
This movie has romantic sub-plots, but like many of my favorite movies its just another canvas to tell a story of people. Overall, it has a skeptical view of romantic love. It has also been called a feminist movie, but like reality, this movie isn't so cut-and-dry. For instance, the main character Jenna has two destructive relationships with men, and an unscrupulous viewer would assume this movie is pessimistic about men. Yet a male character ultimately helps Jenna in the end. My favorite part of this movie is that there is a lot of old stuff in it, the time period is ambiguous. It is only confirmed as present day by one character who has the only new car in the movie and the technology in his office. In fact, no one in the movie uses a cell phone either, instead tethered by those old-timey land lines.

Charlton Heston, 1924-2008

Charleton Heston, 1924-2008

This comes at odd timing considering I started on my Charlton Heston kick very recently. So to sum up my Heston experience, he wore silly hats, and still kicked ass. If anyone has anything to add about his more celebrated films that I still haven't seen yet, feel free.

Here some more words from our friend at Film For the Soul:

Ibetolis said:

Two films sum the man up for me.

There's the pure unadulterated joy of 'The Planet of the Apes', which as a kid, I couldn't get enough of and even now I watch it whenever it's on the telly.

Then there's the sheer brilliance which is Orson Welles 'Touch of Evil. Heston is flawless in the sense that he is flawed as an actor but some how makes you care and believe in him and his characters.

Heston was the American man's man and they don't make them like him anymore. R.I.P Heston, thanks for the memories.

Movies that made me BLIND

Continuing my list-making obsession, let us celebrate...

Yellow submarine

The trippy seizure-inducing animation sequences may not have deterred hippies. In fact some might argue that the only right way to see the movie is through a haze of bong smoke. (Josh, remember my theory about the Wanee festival poster?) Anyway, us younguns are a little more "square", yet hip to the reports of kids getting seizures from similar effects in Japanese anime. Awareness! Kind of a buzzkill.

13 Ghosts

Ok, this one tops my list, I have yet to encounter a recommendation to best it. Being a cliche horror movie, most of this movie is dark and cool colored, emphasis on the dark. Additionally I actually saw this bomb in the theater. The trouble is groups of three or so pure white frames have been laced into this trashy movie, representing lighting strike style flashes, forcing your pupils to contract and expand until they explode. Roger Ebert said in his review of this film, "The experience of watching this film is literally painful...flash frames attack the eyeballs..."

Armageddon

The average cut in this movie is 1.3 seconds. Which means if you take out the sappy scenes where we actually wish the cuts were shorter, what we have left is a mashing together of action filled cuts, all competing for a precious one half to one full second of your time, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing! What this means for your eyes, is that they were surely dry out and get exhausted trying to keep up with blitz of visual information.

Monty Python and The Holy Grail

As much as I love this movie, and the opening credits, those responsible for the yellow and red flashing colors, should be sacked. And if they aren't, then those responsible for sacking those responsible will also be sacked.

The blinding contrast between yellow and red hides a dirty little secret.

Conspiracy Theory

The interrogation scene of this movie was a little much to look at, not to mention creepy. At least here, the flashing dark and light frames are unevenly spaced giving an organic effect similar to when a subway goes over a weak spot on the rail and the lights flicker. As for Patrick Stewart inter-cut with a cartoon dog...like I said, creepy.

Soylent Green

Charlton Heston's police uniform, and no it's not the fashion police just the regular police. The cop from the Village People was TOTALLY jealous. Keep in mind, the environment in Soylent green is constantly hot, so he is really dedicated to that scarf.

Since watching the Omega Man, I had been thinking about this movie, so I figured I might as well make a Charlton Heston comparison out of Omega Man in addition to my I am Legend Triple feature. I had never even seen a single frame of this movie, yet I knew the notorious ending because people insisted on saying the last line that gives it away.

This movie has the most currently relevant plot setup that I've seen for any movie that made before the last five years. The planet is overpopulated and heating up, they no longer have winters, most people are eating insta-junk made by the people at Soylent (get it?) instead of real food, which is now a rare luxury, and water is pumped out of the ground by hand. Buildings are guarded with heavy weapons. Video games serve as the latest and greatest distraction from it all. So people are destroying the environment and eating fast food, subsidized by the government? Yep, sounds about right. Not to mention every time I'm in Chinatown, Times Square, or a crowded 6 train, I'll think of this movie.

At least here in New York, the movie isn't exaggerating much from reality by having visible machine guns everywhere.

Everything in this movie is filthy. The color pallet offers a mix of drab green and brown so bland and ugly that is evocative of something left in the fridge...since the Reagan administration. This of course leads you up to the great colors we see Sol Roth experience during euthanasia.

This is what the majority of the movie looks like in terms of color (actual frame blurred for effect). Reminds me of my old hometown of Dirtwater.

I have a theory that every political poster in a sci-fi will be for re-election. It's presumptuous, but I like to think that Santini has been elected continuously with no term limitations.

I feel like this movie is underrated, possibly because there have been so many great dystopian flicks. But this one is one is worthwhile and memorable to me. There are a couple sequences that are really well done. Particularly the opening sequence of industry taking over the world, and the euthanasia sequence. And of course that damned famous line that gives the ending away.

Disaster Movies: Hollywood's Bread and Butter

It's next to impossible to avoid a conversation about the latest consumer obsessions, rejections, and misconceptions. How many times have you talked about i-pods, reality TV, and drugged up starlets? Of these, how many conversations were concerned with being screwed over by this person or that company? Now ask yourself how many (civil) conversations you have had about Darfur, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, ET AL? Unless you have lucked out and have a few people able to deal with these heady topics then I know your answer.
Which is to say, we are a culture avoiding the issues so that we can remain sane enough to continue with our comfortable life-styles. Escapist America doesn't stop at the silver screen or prime time viewing. Its on the streets around the corner in your office and singing you to sleep. This is a 24 hour gossip nation and how could it be any other way? Mindless entertainment, though a strain for high-minded movie watchers, serves a clear and honest purpose.

We call it the film industry for a reason. This isn't an excuse but it surely is a reason why we have movies like Plan 9, Ishtar, North, and I Know Who Killed Me.

These being commercial and critical flops doesn't explain more successful crap fests like Saw or Alien vs. Predator. These are dumb ass movies but audiences keep coming back for more. Why?
I'm not immune, I've simply rationalized that my sources of entertainment are of a more intellectual fare than say, The Amazing So You Think You Want to be an American Dance Idol Race (hosted by Donald Trump). I'd rather watch Space Opera 47 or Edgy Cartoon Comedy Drama because they are relevant and well written.

Hypocrisy aside, this is the truth. Our need for escapism, if not an important one, is at least an old one. America is in a dark place these days. Ignorance is rampant. Its gloom and doom on the streets. Babies and puppies are exploding. "Mass hysteria!" If brainy nerds had the time to think about something other than paying the bill, saving up for the next hot video game, and tearing into tanking Sci-Fi franchises we'd have a civil war on our hands. There is nothing more horrifying than an angry nerd. Except maybe the prospect of a mob of angry nerds is more reason for concern.

I'm not here to offer answers. The thing to do is learn to appreciate the question for what it is. Proof that someone is home to ask "why do they keep making shit movies?"

I can't help but wonder what would happen tomorrow if suddenly your Internet connection stopped working forever. What would you do to pass the time if TV wasn't an option? And if you're able to keep cool during a media blackout what of your neighbor? If entertainment is the bulwark holding back the furor what then would you do?

Troma!

Llyod Kaufman and his partners have created some truly lousy movies during their years and some really cool flicks. One has to admire the fact the Indy company has stayed in business for so many years and have been breaking the rules. I hope someday to work with them. In the meantime I thought I would make a top 5 list for people who haven't seen too many Troma films. Some of their films stink, some are great and others are so bad they are entertaining, but these 5 films are safe bets for most film buffs who enjoy a silly movie every once in awhile.

5. Class of Nuke'em High: Bad weed from a nuclear power plant leads Chrissy and Warren down a dangerous path. Chrissy throws up a mutant monster. Warren tries to clean up the school. If your strange this is loads of fun.

4. Tromeo and Juliet: This is Troma's take on the classic Shakesphere story and they added a penis monster, Body Piercing, Kinky Sex, Dismemberment, and Lemmy from Motorhead.

3. Def by Temptation: Actually one of the first serious black horror films. Well made and really doesn't seem like a Troma film. It stars Kadeem Hardison from a "Diffrent World" in a really funny performance. Also Bill Nunn is extremely funny as a Vampire Hunter.

2. The Toxic Avenger: The film that started it all for Troma. Melvin the Mop Boy falls into Toxic Waste and becomes the first Superhero from New Jersey.


1. Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D: A New York cop eats some worms and turns Japanese. This movie is so crazy its great.

Honorable Mention: Combat Shock: If you like Mutant Babies, sour milk, and Junkies this is the film for you.

Shreaded Wheat and Fine Cinema

Since I was very small I've been having an on/off love affair with shredded wheat. Much to the dismay of my family and friends. It turns out, in shear tonnage consumed, most of Nabisco's revenue came straight from my too-eager-to-please Amuelita (may she rest in peace).

Cold milk, warm, it didn't matter. There is something about texture that appeals to me on a level beyond pedestrian taste buds clawing for simple sugars. Interpreting the subtleties and intricacies of plain wheat is a test of endurance and imagination. It's all about what you, the chewer, can bring to the shredded wheat experience. A good challenge for any palette.

Don't get me wrong, I've got shallower tastes as well. I love colorful marshmallows and chocotastic bits of carbohydrates swirling about in my discolored milk. The chaotic swirls and explosive clouds of food coloring, boy howdy, it's a visual feast. Fun for the whole family.

So call me pretentious, call me elitist but I have found a world of joy where others see a dreary wasteland. This is pure zen from a bowl of wheat.

The Last Man on Earth, The Omega Man, I am Legend - Triple Feature!

That's right folks, triple feature. These movies aren't exactly masterpieces, but boy did I have fun with this bunch.

The Last Man on Earth (1964)

Fig 1: The first Neville chooses to steal a Ford wagon over a sports car, the other Nevilles cannot resist the temptation of the Ford Mustang.

The vampires taunt him, "MOR-gan…we’re going to kill you MOR-gan…" I wonder if the extras who played vampires decided on this awkward enunciation, sort of like Kramer and George practicing "these PRETZELS are MAKING me thirsty!" on Seinfeld.

This movie looked so bad, that it easily could have been made the year the novel came out, ten years earlier and still would look sub-par for its time. The edits are terrible, the B&W color balance is muddy, sound and visual effects awful. It's interesting to note that it was filmed by an Italian production company and filmed in Italy, even though the setting is LA. The film has only a couple American cars in it the rest are typical 60's Italian/European cars. When Neville pulls up to the lab in his Chevy, we see the only other American car, the Ford wagon that we later see in the dealership. In that shot what looks like a Fiat 500 passes by, these cars are shown again in a later shot at the fire pit.

Not that I know anything about this actor's other performances, but Vincent Price really hammed it up in this one. To make things worse, the vampires barely pose a threat. We learn that Dr. Morgan is immune to them, but also they are simply ineffective, the most passively lurking foes I've seen on screen. Morgan extinguishes these vampires by driving wooden steaks into them with the conviction and savagery that I might exhibit whilst trying to hang a picture frame without hammering my own thumb.

However even with the obvious faults of this movie, the plot is just too irresistible for me to simply dismiss the flick for entertainment purposes. I have an affinity towards any doomsday survivor plots, going back to when I used to watch the original Twilight Zone (1959) episodes. Similar to TZ, the movie addressed the theme of alienation and the "us and them" societal views from the both point of view of humans and the zombies. Even the most heavy handed acting and writing had me captivated simply because they deal in fantasy.

Another notable part of this film is that its the only retelling of I am Legend that remains true to the idea that being the survivor just isn't fun. As in the book, Morgan doesn't have time in the day to do anything but carve wooden steaks to kill off zombies or maintain his food supply. Between that and hauling the dead off in a station wagon to be burned, it's constant backbreaking labor. Meanwhile in the other two films, the survivor is able to indulge the audience's expectation of all the fun things you might be able to do after the apocalypse.

If the movie achieves anything, it serves as a great timepiece in the three part history of screen adaptations on I am Legend. Which brings us to our next film...

The Omega Man (1971)

Fig. 2: The last man to wear a hat that silly, at that angle, got everyone stranded on a three hour tour. This does not help Neville's image as a vampire vanquisher.

This movie opens with a similar sequence of shots as its predecessor, only with a stark contrast...and no I don't mean the quality-it's Charlton Heston, abruptly stopping his sweet ride du jour (a '68 Pontiac Catalina ) to abruptly whip out a machine gun and obliterate a foe through a window. Right from the onset the film establishes that Heston is not here to #$*! around and play handyman with some wooden stakes, and drive around in a jalopy station wagon.

Here are my notes:

-The vampires are back! Only they are funky zombies with sunglasses and big hair this time! And they are organized into a multi-cultural organization called "The Family". They are the victims of biochemical warfare between Russia, China and the US, instead of plague.

-The theater scene hints at this theme of war when it shows the Woodstock concert with the hippie who says"...if we can't all live together and be happy, if you have to be afraid to walk out in the street...what kind of a way is that to go through this life?" Nice touch.

-Why does Charlton Heston have silly looking costumes? I've only seen two of his sci-fi movies so far, this and Soylent Green, and in both he has had really silly costumes. In this movie, I'm referring to his ridiculous hat, which makes him look like Skipper's (from Gilligan's Island) long lost alcoholic brother. (see Fig. 1)

-(SPOILER ALERT) The way Neville dies is so unlikely, all he would have to do to avoid a harpoon thrown from a balcony is step to the side.

-The head zombie Matthias says "Neville can't see in the dark, anymore than we can see in the light." I beg to differ, the zombies aren't just blind but repelled entirely by light, wheras Neville can get by in the darkness.

-Why does the assistant head zombie use a gun to try and kill Neville? Isn't their whole organization against any technology?

-The Simpsons Halloween Special VIII had a short called "The Homega Man" which spoofed the movie. This is where I first learned of the movie, and what got me watching all three.

This movie was clearly more put together, the quality of the production is much greater than the first. It still has really dated corny elements, such as when one black zombie calls Neville a "honky."

I am Legend (2007)

Fig 3: Filming on location at Union Square was the least challenging, because hippies aren't awake to start the drum circle until the afternoon.

Unlike many movies filmed in famous cities, this movie separates itself from the others by offering an unsparing look at New York City. The shots of the city were so comprehensive and realistic, it was eerie. The film did not work around any of the more challenging locations (Times Square, the Flatiron district, the Brooklyn Bridge, Union Square, see: Fig 3), instead offering very convincing post-apocalyptic scenery. Its no surprise that I had seen the filming location before I had even heard of the movie when I was on the Manhattan Bridge on a Q train, and saw the lights and set at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge. (Apparently it cost $5 million to shoot there). Considering all of the overgrown flora, non-native fauna (deer, lions), and all the wrecked cars that were strewn all around, I'm not even sure how it was done, or what was real and what was CG. As for Will Smith, he was great in it, though the flashback scenes with his family felt a little too much like Independence Day or I, Robot all over again. I'm starting to get used to the idea that when the world ends, Will Smith will be the one to save me. Thankfully, the script did not have him spouting off impeccably timed corny one-liners. One major disadvantage of this movie that will retain fans of the old over the new, is it did not have the interesting rivalry of the different societies that is at the heart of the novel and the Last Man on Earth. We do not at any point see things from the zombie's point of view, they are simply mad writhing and screeching monsters. In the other two movies Neville is regarded as a powerful and threatening monster to the zombies/vampires, a legend among them. In this movie, the "legend" refers to the sacrifice Neville gave for uninfected survivors. Quite a contrast to the Omega man, where the zombies actually hold court on a tribune.

Here are some things that are consistent between movies:

-(I am Legend and Omega Man) Neville decorates his apartment with famous works of art that he's presumably stolen from local museums. In I am Legend we see artwork from the Modern Museum of Art. I love the implication that Neville would risk the outside and make it a priority to have these works.

- (All three) Neville uses a map of the city sectioned off to mark and make sure he's obliterated every last vampire/zombie.

- (All three) Vampires/zombies cannot handle the light, and Neville is immune to them (for different reasons in each)

-(All three, SPOILER ALERT) Neville dies in all three (though I am Legend has an alternate ending where he doesn't)

Watching these movies was a great opportunity to see how film has evolved over the years. Not only is the technology better, but the movies expect more of audiences in their ability to understand and draw conclusions from visual information, editing, and plot lines, and it works. I feel having sat through the first two adaptations, that I was able to enjoy I Am Legend much more had I not. The movie stands alone as a good film, but the context was the most enjoyable part of this experience.

Top Ten Films of 2007 by: Anthony Benedetto

10. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
9. Lars and the Real Girl
8. I'm Not There
7. Gone Baby Gone
6. Grace is Gone
5. Into the Wild
4. Michael Clayton
3. Before the Devil Knows Your Dead
2. Juno
1. No Country for Old Men

Honorable Mentions: The Amateurs (Which sat on the self for a couple years, and focuses on a bunch of would be film makers that venture into porn.) and 1408. (Which was a really solid horror film.) American Gangster is a solid film with great performances. Grindhouse Double Feature was a Highlight to this year, and a joy to see in theatres. The fake movie ads were the best part, but when the films were split for DVD it lost some of its thrill.

Worst Film of 2008:
In The Valley of Elah: There is a cancer on American Cinema and its name is Paul Haggis. Never in my life have I seen so many good actors who were wasted. (Wait maybe in the 2005 winner for Best Picture, Crash.) Also the film has so many pointless scenes they could have all ended up on the cutting room floor.


Congrats to Josh Brolin:
I haven't heard much about him since watching The Goonies as a kid. It was made offical this year that he was a pretty good actor. Appearing in the Oscar winner for Best Picture, No Country for Old Men. He managed to be the star of that film. Then good supporting roles in American Gangster and Planet Terror. I can forgive him for appearing in In the Valley of Elah which he is one of the several good actors wasted.

The Best Heath Ledger Film You've Never Seen

Heath Ledger's biggest box-office hit is only a few months but his best performance was rarely seen. He looks amazing as the Joker in The Dark Knight. A little foregin film shot shot a few years ago exposes the amazing talent the actor had. The film is called "Candy". The actor plays a heroin addict who goes through three stages. (Heaven, Earth and Hell.) The actor shows such raw intense emotions as the main character of the film. If you haven't seen this film run out and find a copy. It is sad that we will never get to see more from this talented young actor, who died way too soon.

Anthony Benedetto

2001, A Space Odyssey

Writing about this movie, I hope not to cover some well-trodden ground with it. It is obviously a classic, and I do believe in the contributions it has made to film history. That being said, I'll offer some more personal notes, starting with a quote that pretty much sums up my relationship with this film:

"To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art."

Leo Tolstoy penned this in his essay "What is Art?" and this model of ideal art is exactly how this movie grabs me. (which is amazing because it also is a formalist achievement, which is contradictory to Tolstoy's theory on art)

This movie really chills me to the bone, much like a horror movie should, but usually doesn't. The world of this movie is so eerie and convincing that the loneliness of the movie transmits directly to me, a powerful example of the phenomenon Tolstoy writes of. I'm embarrassed by how much anxiety this movie causes me, in fact I long delayed my second viewing of this movie because I'm really just too affected by it to go at it alone. Watching it during the week that all other occupants of this house are away on vacation was really a mistake, I've really been more nervous at night. Somehow I get to sleep though, but not before watching a little Dr. Katz before bed!

Here are my notes:

-It's interesting how the interiors in the movie have seating for several people, yet the spaces are only occupied by a few people at a time. Discovery 1 (the ship used for the Jupiter mission) has much more seating than seemingly necessary, even taking into account the other three astronauts whom never leave their hibernation pods. The civilian space-liners also are oddly empty, with the exception of Dr. Floyd, who is outnumbered by the surrounding flight attendants.

-I didn't realize it until now, but this movie can really be characterized as having two distinct parts (eventhough it techinically has several chapters and an intermission), very similar to what Full Metal Jacket is notorious for. I'm referring mostly to the change in protagonist from Dr. Floyd to David Bowman.

-It never occurred to me until I read the synopsis of the novel, that Bowman actually turns into the energy that we see on screen. (though Kubrick encouraged any interpretation to the film, and doesn't weigh in on it himself). I always assumed we were seeing in Bowman's point of view. Which I suppose puts a great importance on the shots we see of his eyes blinking, maybe to re-enforce that we aren't seeing his point of view. The novel also describes Dave as morphing into an immortal energy form and master of the universe, who doesn't know what to do with his immortality.

-Oddly, I had no idea when viewing this movie on the 21st, that Arthur C. Clarke had died on the 19th. So, let this post be a tribute to Mr. Clarke, may he rest in peace.

Bee Movie

Something has always been oddly stiff about Dreamworks animations. Not that I wouldn't love to be a part of creating them, they are magnificent by any standard, and the modeling and effects are top notch. (just to differentiate, all the characters, scenery, textures, and effects are done in separate teams, and animation teams bring life to them). However in comparison to the powerhouse animation teams at Pixar, the actual animation that takes place in these worlds is really some how, well, less animated. Leave it to a blue fuzzy monster and a fish to change the way I look at animation.

Anyway that BEE-ing said, I liked this movie. I subscribe to the obvious Seinfeld bias. I love his humor, and it doesn't tire on me, bee or not. It may not have (as Josh noted) the clear moral compass and narrative of a Pixar film, but it excels in other ways.

Here are my notes:

-One odd thing is the extent to which the bees have human things within their hive. Why should they drive around in cars? Why can't they just fly, like bees? Some humanisms work better on bees than others apparently.

-I've seen enough of the Discovery Channel's How its Made to recognize the influences taken from a real candy manufacturing line on the fictional honey making process. Yeah, I know a lot of useless crap!

-The bee job seeking desk is surprisingly like signing up for classes on our school's online system, eSims.

-Why the hell does Barry know what box kite is the instant he sees one after leaving the hive? Most humans wouldn't know a box kite from any other.

-Patrick Warburton (The Tick, David Putty) does a lot of yelling! It's a little much. His voice must be so hoarse between voicing for this and Family Guy.

-Renee Zellweger is much more pleasant when we don't have to see her in the flesh. Oooh burn.

-I love the allusion to The Graduate, but they for got the most fun part, the match cut! In the case of the graduate, the match cut was Ben on floaty raft, to Ben on Mrs. Robinson.

-Ray Liotta also does mostly yelling. He didn't even break out his angry voice that much for Goodfellas.

-Chris Rock's role was terrible. And Roger Ebert says its the only redeeming thing about the movie. Interesting.

-Remember Jerry Seinfeld's real Larry King appearance? It was really awkward and uncomfortable, in contrast to Barry's appearance. (now that I watch it again, I think it would seem different with the aid of a laughing studio audience)

-"Honeyburton and Hunron!" made me giggle.

So those are my notes, for all those who liked Ratatouille much better, I will taking a look at that movie soon.

The Project

Being a media junkie, and being a former collector/pack rat, I'm familiar with taking things to absurd levels. Enter: DVD Backup software. It took me a few years, but I finally found the right software, and I'm archiving DVDs at full quality (an average of 7 gb for each disc) like a madman.

WHY? Well, the first reason is, because I can, now that I've got the tools! But also, I have not seen any movies. If you mention it, odds are I haven't seen it. So part II of this project is to see all these movies that I've missed throughout the years. I'm very much like The Janitor in Scrubs, watching movies like The Sixth Sense years after they've come out, and everyone has spoiled the ending the next day at work. So, an important thing to note is I am writing this movie blog with no authority on movies.

I'll let you use your imagination as to where the source DVDs come from, perhaps my collection of discs that I bought from Costco way back when ;-).
Anyway, 5 terrabytes of HD space later, I have a massive list of DVDs to watch, which I am attacking in no particular order, though I do occasionally group related movies together.

One thing that I have realized from this experience is that its hard to avoid an accidental relation between all the movies I've seemingly been picking at random. For instance, I have watched five Robert Altman movies and five Ridley Scott movies within only a couple months. That's a lot of unscripted dialog and fireball explosions.

Incidentally, I do not have a memory for numbers, I have a great database called DVD Profiler
(think iTunes for DVDs) that keeps track of everything. So I will throw out some other quick numbers:

873 Total number of DVD discs that I know I want to archive. (includes box sets)
441 DVD discs in my collection so far.
UPDATE 7/22 - 607 DVDs have been archived.

432 discs left on the wanted list. (every movie I could think of and some TV eps)

54 movies I have watched so far.
10 hard drives storing the discs (boy it gets hot in here!)
4 months ago I started this project.
0 discs are backed up on an alternate hard drive.

So there you have it, the absurdity of the project in numbers. As for 10 hard drives, I'm really not sure what I will do in the summer. 6 of those hard drives are in one PC case which I have not taken steps to cool at all. This may soon turn into a tragic cautionary blog, who knows!

Cereal

I eat a lot of cereal. A lot a lot. I also watch a lot of movies. So naturally I associate the two. In fact often when I see movies, especially old ones with that crackling and popping sound, I'm reminded of the food I like to eat when I watch a movie. This is very inconvenient when I'm at the mercy of concessions at the theater. This blog would be called dinner and a movie, except I don't know how to cook, and sure can't offer you any recipes in between breaks, such as the case is for the TBS Show.

So, I am finally starting up a place to store all of my thoughts on movies. This is in conjunction with my DVD archiving and viewing project, which I will explain in post II. I hope to incorporate other regular posters into this blog, and I already have a few invites in mind.