Friday August 19th movies

This weekend's offerings are:

Red Eye: C3, E3, A3, M-3/+0, TN, Go See It: NO

Wes Craven is a well known director. He made Nightmare on Elm Street. And a whole bunch of other really mediocre horror films. His name makes me shudder at the amount of cliched unoriginality that will appear in his film. He doesn't do anything badly, he just doesn't do anything new or interesting. In a genre that depends so much on surprise, the only thing that surprises me is how often so many movies rely on cliche and do all the things that have come before. Wes Craven is the absolute antithesis of an exception to this rule. So every category gets the average score. Unimpressive.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin: C2, E4, A1, M-3/+0, TY, Go See It: NO

The title gives away all the jokes that were written for this movie, and the idea has been done before - but as a joke within a larger context, never as the whole concept itself. So in a way it's original, but in a way I think it's a bad idea to try and stretch this one joke over the whole movie. Plus it looks like he's magically going to end up with someone by the end of the movie. The difference between giving away all the jokes that were written, and giving away all the funny moments, is Steve Carell. He has an unerring ability to make you laugh. He provides all the talent and entertainment in this movie, unfortunately without redeeming it. Find him in a solid supporting role or a solid cameo, and he's golden. He might even make a great star...just not this time.

Valiant: C3, E4, A2, M-0/+0, TN, Go See It: NO

The word "Disney" is one I generally try to avoid. They have a machine-like ability to crank out the right combination of feel-good underdog success action, humorous characters and situations, and big-budget eye-popping visuals. Still it feels a bit mass-produced. I guess you have to expect that. If your family sees all the Disney movies, definitely don't miss this one. If you're like me and you've hated Disney's recent faire unless it was CG, you'll still like this one. Um but it's a kid's movie that parents will also enjoy. Not one to take a date to, or watch with the guys, or buy to put on your collector's shelf. It really only works in the context of small children. Small children don't read my blog, but maybe people with small children do.

Supercross: C2, E3, A1, M-1/+1, TN, Go See It: NO

What is it about athletics that seems to be such a difficult subject for movies to get right? Is it that they are so intensely real and basic to the nature of humanity that they are impossible to fake convincingly? Is it that they seem so superficially entertaining on their own that Hollywood assumes they can just throw some sports in a pot and a good time will come out? Do they not research the realities of the sport enough to give the recreation any underlying substance? There is just no way that this movie is going to be a good time, because it is a sports movie. Some sports movies have been good, and when they are they are incredible. But this one has all the earmarks of a mediocre, predictable waste of my time.

Slow movie weekend, folks...I was in surgery when Wedding Crashers came out, I'm gonna go find that this weekend. But tonight I'm watching FOOTBALL. Real football.

Two reality checks

The other day, my mother complained that all of our conversational quotations now come from Napoleon Dynamite whereas they used to come from Shakespeare. I tried to come up with some clever Shakespearean retort and I couldn't.

Then last night I watched "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" which is of coursed based on Homer's "The Oddysey" and it made me realize that since I had never read the full Oddysey (although I knew the story quite well), I was missing out on some subtle references - humorous and symbolic.

We should never let the ever-more-modernizing technological presentations of man's great stories overshadow the stories that are closer to the foundation. I watched an interview with George Lucas on the Criterion Collection DVD release of "Hidden Fortress", an Akira Kurosawa movie that noticeably influenced Lucas. In this interview he mentions the theory that there are really only 32 plots in the whole world of literature. And you could make a case for a bigger or smaller number, really, but the point is that so many things, even though they seem original, are just revisions and re-presentations of older material. And this is often not out of any laziness or copycatting on the part of today's movie makers and writers. Sometimes it's blatantly a case of no-talent hacks using someone else's ideas because they can't think of their own. But often, even when one does come up with an original idea, it is still very similar to a previous work. Totally by accident.

There is something to be said for "firsthand sources", or the primacy of the earlier versions of the works - simply because they are less colored by the effects of any earlier work. A remake of an old story will always show the effects of the earlier story, whereas the first instance of said story will be quite foundational and original.

On the other hand, movies reflect our culture, and seeing how Star Wars updates the messages of Hidden Fortress, or how A Fistful of Dollars takes a fresh look at Yojimbo is a great way to see the differences in worldview between the two directors, and between the two time periods and cultures. But we will never recognize these differences without a thorough knowledge of what came before.

I will always endeavour to provide context for the various movies that arise, as much as I can tell. But some things are not always obvious. We'll work on it together.

It's Friday!

Here's my predictions for the movies coming out this weekend:

Four Brothers: C3, E4, A3, M-3/+1, TN, Go See It? YES.

Concept 3 because it looks like a strong remake of "The Sons of Katie Elder" (an old John Wayne flick) - four adopted brothers, two black, two white, come together to investigate and avenge their mother's killing. So partially it's a revenge action flick, which has been done, but it has its unique qualities. Entertainment will be high - I'm guessing a 4. Lots of bullets and one-liners with this crew around. Artistry is likely to be low...but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the dark pathos and emotional interaction of the four men from different walks of life will earn it a 3. Morally it'll get a -3 for all the killing and on the plus side...it depends on what lessons these men learn from their experiences. Talent...I'm really strong on Andre Benjamin, so look for him to surprise you in this movie. But probably not to lift it into the annals of cinematic history. So I guess that's a no. But overall, this is the movie to see this weekend.

The Skeleton Key: C4, E4, A3, M-5/+0, TY, Go See It: Yes*

Concept is higher because though it is a haunted house horror flick, I read spoilers about the ending and it is even better than your usual thriller/twist ending. Also the typical scary stuff is done well here - building the suspense with a unique and interesting story, rather than just cheap scares and screams - so high on entertainment for that reason. Artistry I'm going to give it a mediocre score because I honestly have no idea how to rate the artistry of a horror flick - I don't watch enough of them to know the kinds of themes that are dealt with or how they will be presented in this movie. Morally, there is some pretty disturbing stuff in this movie and without spoiling the ending - well let's just say it's not a happy ending. However some of the acting is quite good, especially given comparison to the horror genre in general, so go see it if you like horror movies. I do not, but plenty of folks do and it looks like this will be a good one.

Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo: C1, E3, A1, M-3/+0, TN, Go See It: No

I shouldn't have to explain why no one should see this movie. Despite the funny sex jokes that may or may not be a rehash of the first movie, there is no way there could ever be anything of value in this film. Sorry.

Pretty Persuasion: C4, E4, A3, M-4/+1, TY, Go See It: No

So...teenagers dealing with the pressures of life and love and sexuality has been done before. So has teenagers manipulating adults by feigning ignorance and innocence while hiding cunning and guile. So this movie isn't terribly original, but it puts the concepts together with a fresh pace and style, and it sets out to tackle several of those kind of hushed-up embarassing topics, which means it will offend you while it makes you laugh. So there's the concept and entertainment scores. Apparently the last chunk of the movie resolves this whole little morality tail without the same sarcastic humor, though, becoming a little obvious in message if not in plot, so artistry falls. Morally you're getting into quite a quagmire here with a teenager accusing a teacher of sexual assault whill fully embracing her own sexuality and ability to manipulate. Some talented acting from the young lady, though, but I'm still not gonna watch this one.

That's all for this weekend, folks - I mean ok there are other movies coming out, but I can't hit 'em all! Learning to love my job...we'll see if any of you agree with me (or if I agree with myself) after seeing these films this weekend!

Pardon the mess

So the blog format is not really suited for what I'm trying to do here - this means I will have to reconstruct some things. I will try to keep adding content while I mess with format, so bear with me. Already I have made the rating system more accessible, but I'm trying to structure other things differently, too, so that this site will be more useful to the typical viewer.

In the meantime, I read a great article in Time Magazine today about the acting work of Andre Benjamin, who calls himself Andre 3000 when he sings with Grammy-winning rap duo OutKast. So many rappers have tried to act, and so few of them have been successful. Will Smith is better known as an actor than a rapper, and personally I like his movies way more than his songs. Mos Def has also played a variety of strong roles - most recently I loved him in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But with few other exceptions, every rapper who has gone into acting (and there have been sooo many of them) has been an absolute waste of space. I don't know why it's such a ubiquitous trend, but it should be clear why it's such a proven waste of time.

So congrats to Andre, who is committed to overturning the stereotypes and the problems rampant with his fellow rapper/actors. Lately he's in Four Brothers. Makes me wanna see it. A little.

Tomorrow we'll take our first preview look at the weekend's movies, and then you can all write in on Monday and tell me if I was wrong!

Calibration, Part 2

Movies "Everyone" has seen, rated:

The Matrix: C5, E5, A5, M-3/+1, TY

Star Wars Episode 4: C4, E4, A3, M-0/+1, TY
Star Wars Episode 5: C4, E5, A4, M-0/+2, TY
Star Wars Episode 6: C4, E5, A4, M-1/+3, TY
Star Wars Episode 1: C3, E3, A2, M-0/+0, TN
Star Wars Episode 2: C3, E2, A2, M-1/+0, TN
Star Wars Episode 3: C4, E4, A2, M-2/+2, TN

Sound of Music: C4, E3, A4, M-0/+3, TY

My rating system doesn't allow much to explain why a movie like Sound of Music is such a good movie. I guess it's a guy-oriented rating system. I should adjust that. Or get a girl to help me. Either way, it's something to think about.


The Godfather: C5, E3, A5, M-4/+0, TY

Men In Black: C4, E5, A2, M-0/+0, TN
Men In Black II: C2, E3, A2, M-0/+0, TN

Spider-Man: C4, E5, A3, M-0/+3, TY
Spider-Man 2: C3, E4, A4, M-0/+3, TY

Calibration Run, Part 1

Hero (Zhang Yimou, 2002):
E: 4 (lots of great kung-fu warriors)
A: 5 (rarely seen a more beautiful movie, or one that so thoroughly develops its themes)
T: Yes (Director Yimou will blow you away, and all the kung fu-ers are top notch but expected)
C: 5 (Most foreign films rate high here, even though they may be old hat in their own country, I'll never know - this one takes an intensely important period in Chinese history and turns it into a stunning legend that reveals important foundations of their national spirit)
M: -2/+2 (A brief but obvious under-the-sheets but vocal sex scene and a few blood drops, in addition to the pervasive kung-fu fighting. However this movie stands out as a moral positive, developing the nobility of sacrificing one's self for a higher good.)

This is my favorite movie of all time, so now you see how that scores. Moving on.

The Princess Bride (Rob Reiner, 1987):
E: 5 (to not be entertained by this movie is "Inconceivable!")
A: 3 (totally literary in every possible way, but not originally)
T: N (it is one of the strengths of this movie that every character shines equally in exactly the way they should)
C: 4 (an original way to treat being unoriginal - this movie makes it so obvious it is taking from the book, but it perfectly accomplishes being a cinematic retelling of the story)
M: -0/+3 (this movie upholds and supports everything that is good and right in the world, and even some that is good and right and not in the world)

I think I'm going to rearrange the system to put Concept first, since that's what you first become aware of in a movie. Then Entertainment and Artistry as representations of how well the concept is executed, then Moral Objection set over and against that, and finally Talent letting us know if this movie is that 'something special' or not.

Only a couple more - this is getting long!

Here's a review of a movie I didn't much care for. This would be a 'no' recommendation, despite my crush on Drew Barrymore:

Ever After:
C: 1 (ok at least you put a twist on it, but you're still remaking Cinderella. Unoriginality at its facebiting, copycatting finest. Groan.)
E: 2 (for the scenes where Drew's character's wit eviscerates everyone from the prince to the wicked step-sisters to Leonardo Da Vinci)
A: 1 (the only pretty things are the masque ball, some of the medieval scenery stands out as not-just-standard. But the movie is kind of blunt with its themes - they are stated plainly and are very weak for this reason.)
M: -1/+0 (just because I'm tired of stressing emotion over logic in romantic relationships and I think it is corrupting America's ideas of how marriage should work, and certainly not helping to bring our divorce rate down. Every romantic comedy will earn a point in this category for that reason, even if the characters don't have premarital sex)
T: No. Not really. yawn.

Ok one last one from the cabinet:

Goodfellas
C: 4 (not five for being another gangster movie, but not three because this gangster movie shows us, more than any other one has, the very bad bad bad things these people and those they are close to have to go through)
E: 3 (not much of a feel-good flick, but gangsters talkin' tough and doin' their thing always excites something in the average viewer)
A: 3 (Tough to be subtle with a film like this, but everything is sharp and good looking, the way that gangsters ought to be. Themes are a bit broad but well-played)
M: -4/+2 (though it clearly shows us that gangsters are bad in the end, it clearly shows us just how bad those gangsters are throughout the whole movie. Can be tough to watch)
T: Y (Ray Liotta plays a new part with a new perspective)

Calibration Part 2 tomorrow: I rate movies that I hope everyone has seen, thus making it even easier to calibrate.

The Pentagon

I wish I could represent this with one of those nifty five-sided charts with the different ratings like deformed starfish arms but I can't. so here are the five categories I will be using to give you an at-a-glance recommendation for or against a given movie:

Concept: Is the story or movie idea epic in scope? Is it unique? Is it based on a true story that needs to be told? Is it formed from a strong conviction and full of social commentary? Or is it a remake of that old movie based on a book no-one read? Or an obvious money-making ploy cobbled together from tired Hollywood standards. 1 is Beauty Shop (Barbershop already had nothing to recommend it but a few new jokes, then they made a sequel, then they said "let's re-do it with women instead!"). 5 is Memento (I dare you to find another movie anything like it). Movie versions of books will rate low here if they merely use the book as a cheap replacement for a new idea, but will rate high if they acheive the kind of bringing-to-life-of-my-favorite-book that the Lord of the Rings trilogy undeniably did (put away the Tom Bombadill picket signs, the movies did everything that they should have). In case you couldn't tell by my verbose treatment, concept is the category that will really get me interested in seeing a movie or totally turn me off to it. I make a strong judgement based on concept, but I will put it side-by-side with the other categories for your benefit.

Entertainment: Does the movie make you laugh? Does it put you on the edge of your seat with suspense? Are there rampant demonstrations of the latest special effects? Will you clap and cheer and come out feeling like you had a darn good time? Rated 1-5, 1 being a mime act and 5 being Men in Black

Artistry: Often directly at odds with the above category, artistry examines the visual beauty of a film, but also the skillful interplay of themes, symbolism, archetypes, and characters - how literary is the film? Soundtrack is included in this, and occasionally will merit separate mention. 1-5, 1 = Pocahontas, 5 = Titan A.E.

Talent: Great acting, especially from a surprising source, like when pretty-boy Tom Cruise turns in such a chilling performance in Collateral. Amazing music that is memorable even apart from the movie, like John Williams themes in Star Wars or Indiana Jones. Directors who bring us great cinematic moments, from the first time Akira Kurosawa pointed a camera at the sun to the Wachowski Brothers' invention of Bullet Time for the Matrix. Incredible talent often adds that "something more" that makes a movie can't-miss. This category will be a yes or a no, and if it's a yes, it will be explained further in the review.


Moral Presentation: The final category works differently from the rest - a negative score means morally objectionable material, whereas a positive score represents sound morals demonstrated by the film. As a Christian, I judge the content that I take in very carefully - no movie is ever purely entertainment - it is impossible for a director to make a movie without bias or message, and it is impossible to watch a movie without being affected in some way. Some movies affect us more than others, and some affect us in more positive or negative ways. Whether or not you believe in the Bible, you need to know what you're taking in, and watching disturbing movies will affect your mind. Think of this as a better-informed version of the MPAA's rating system for movies. There is leeway for balancing a high score in this category with a high score in all other categories, and I've made that call myself several times, but the ideal would be high scores elsewhere and low scores here. Again a high score here will be explained (as circumspectly as appropriate) in the main body.

C(oncept)
E(ntertainment)
A(rtistry)
T(alent)
M(orals)

Now I'm going to go through all the movies in my DVD cabinet, and several popular ones that I hope you've seen, and rate them, to let you calibrate my views against your own. This will just be a run-through of the pentagonal rating system, not a full review. Enjoy!

A Rating System

Ok, in continuation of my efforts to get this blog off the ground, I need to develop a rating system. The typical star system is too condensed, as it can't compare the various facets of a film. It is too one-dimensional. I used to read a webcomic about movies where the author rated films on a scale from 0-3, being how many times he would pay to see the movie in theaters. I've found that unique and interesting, but for me the only ones that would rate more than a 1 would be movies with strong 'nerd appeal' - the Matrix, Star Wars, or LOTR Trilogies, Spider-Man and other comic book movies, etc. At least that's my experience. This webcomic author actually also used to do one-word movie reviews that were quite clever. The only one that I can recall at this point was when he reviewed "Intolerable Cruelty" and said it was "Both."

I want my review system to take into account the various different reasons that a film may be worth watching - either it is thoroughly entertaining, like a good comedy or special-effects smorgasboard; perhaps it is touching, thought-provoking, or emotionally powerful; it may be epic in scope and subject, or so unique and original, that to not see it would be to miss out on something irreplaceable; it may demonstrate such excellence of cinematic artistry that it becomes a shining example of what the medium ought to be. All of these things may recommend a movie, and a movie that excels in one category may be completely devoid of several others. The best movies are ones that fulfill all the categories. So why don't we develop a multiple-score system, then you can get the numbers straight off the top. If you always agree with my assessments, then just look at the numbers, and if they are high enough, drive straight to the theater or the rental store. If you don't always agree with my assessment, the numbers will be followed by an explanation that will lay out my reasonings so that you may examine them at will. I'll work on this system overnight, and tomorrow I will post the rating system as well as my first review.

Other than that, look for Fridays to be the big day for this blog - new movies come out, and I'll take a brief look at what I can predict from the trailers to set up your weekend entertainment. I'll also take a chance then to look at movie news as it strikes me. Then during the week, I'll look back as I get a chance to see the movies myself, or hear from others who watched them, and re-evaluate the original comments. I'll also work on the 'back-log' of movies I've watched, trying to put out reviews during the week that will give you the shape of my opinions and help you compare your own views to mine, thus making my predictions more useful to you. And anytime anyone wants me to review a specific movie, just leave a comment here on the blog - it will hit my e-mail and I will put up the review during the week, too!

Sling Blade

Sling Blade on IMDb.

Billy Bob Thornton writes, directs, and stars. Movie came out in 1996 so it's taken me nine years to get around to it, but now I want to share it with you.

I don't even want to start this review with a plot summary. You can get a plot summary or introduction from IMDb. Let me point out the important elements that make this a movie you should watch.

Despite the fact that Thornton's performance as a mentally retarded man can seem a little affected at first (the pants above the waist, the plastic facial expression, the distorted speech) it becomes natural and even a small plot point (Frank's southern drawl: I lahk the way yew tawlk;
Carl's guttural drone: I like the way you talk. mmhmm).

Notice how Billy Bob uses his character to make statements that you just can't argue with. If you ever wanted an example of a director espousing particular views through his movie, watch for the times that Carl talks about what he learned from the Bible.

A child actor who is believable in a role of a child who is almost unbelievable. Frank has seen so much and understands so much and is the only person who truly accepts Carl right from the beginning, because he has seen too much difficulty in his life not to accept someone else with a difficult life.

AMAZING soundtrack. Eerie, not like anything you are used to hearing, so you don't associate it with anything but the long, sad scenes of this movie. And yet you still know. You know from the music what you are supposed to feel. Those moments where the music foreshadows, clues you in to coming events, builds that tension and emotion - they still work perfectl. Brilliant.

rent it now. blockbuster has it.