Nine (yawn) Lives

Just saw an indie film, Nine Lives, with C at the Harvard Exit. We both wish we'd gone with our original inclinations and seen The Weatherman instead. Nine Lives was fine, if you're into watching actor's workshops. The performances were fine--Robin Wright Penn and Kathy Baker especially stood out. But the nine lives intersect loosely at best, and appear to really be going nowhere. Which is what you'll be doing if you go see this film. Don't spend a precious two hours of your one life to see this puppy. Go hang out with a real puppy instead, or do what C and I did, which was go to my apartment and watch back-to-back episodes of Season Two of The L Word.

Impatiently--because sometimes ponderous moviemakers who expect an audience to join with the characters on the screen because after all, this is an independent film, and you're just downright shallow if you expect a plot--just make me feel that way,
-Lori

Crazy like a Zorro

Someone needs to take the blog away from Lori, or she's going to break it! Wow, lots of great stuff to chew on there. Yes, Capote is high on my list, at least as high as a movie can rank about a guy like Capote.

I've been meaning to blog more, but life has gotten away from me. Since my last (and first?) review, I've seen several films that I've been mulling over. Mostly from Netflix -- and I must say it's nice to be reminded every blue moon how great Netflix can be. Especially since it costs 20 bones a month. Last night I journeyed into Hollywood Video to look for a specific movie, and was greeted by a single employee waiting on a gazillion customers. I walked out with nothing after 25 minutes and noticed there were a couple customers who were in line when I arrived, still waiting. God bless the world wide web.

Each month I head over to AintItCool.com and read Harry Knowles' list of newly released DVD's in order to bolster my Netflix queue. This month Harry pointed out there's a brand spanking new DVD for The Mask of Zorro, the 1940's classic which I've never seen. It was also mentioned that Zorro means 'fox' in Spanish, which is a little disappointing to me -- I always thought it was just a cool made-up word. With that said, it's widely accepted this 1940's version is the coolest version of Zorro ever put on the silver screen. Apparently the sound has been remixed in 5 channels, and they've colorized the thing. If you're a purist who thinks the age of Black and White shouldn't be messed with, I would be inclined to agree for the most part.

In fact, my favorite theatre is now Central Cinema, one of those
restaurant/theatres that project DVD movies, including those from the Black and White era that I'm cluelessly unfamiliar with. Lori and I first saw All About Eve there last month (hey, wasn't I supposed to review that?), and more recently we saw His Girl Friday. I haven't seen many Cary Grant films -- To Catch a Thief and North by Northwest are 2 that come to mind, but those were shot in color and cannot be seen in black and white, unless you're watching it on 20th century technology.

I had not thought I'd seen any Bette Davis movies in any format until I checked with IMDB, and remembered seeing her in The Watcher in the Woods (which would be a great Halloween rental this weekend) and Death on the Nile, one of my favorite movies, if only because I saw it as a kid. I wonder if Bette Davis would have made it in the Hollywood of today where style wins out over substance?

I've been rambling here, and for no apparent reason. Oh, wait -- yes, The Mask of Zorro... in color! Some may not think that's a good idea, but it's been colorized in a completely different fashion than the "Turner Classic Movies" of the 1980's, which would be more accurately described as "pinkterized" with the odd skin tones. No, from what I've heard, the job is much more palatable. I'm excited to see it, but Netflix isn't carrying it at the moment. Maybe Central Cinema will come to the rescue?

OK, I haven't really reviewed much, but I'm finally commenting on All About Eve which I thought was terrific. It's fascinating that it still holds the record (14, with Titanic) for the most Academy Award Nominations. I loved the characters, especially Eve's, because I've met a couple people like her in the office place. The acting was surprisingly captivating, more so than I thought it would be. I was expecting more "over the top" acting, the kind spoofed in Airplane. Melodrama is fairly entertaining, but probably the most irritating aspect of older films like All About Eve is the instrumental music that gets cranked up to deafening levels as the movie begins and draws to a close. But as unnerving as the soundtrack can be, some of the "old school" shots in which crude blue-screen technology is used to add background activity are quite funny, in an unintentional way. It really is worth a look if you're into film history.

In closing, I will add a bit of a rebuttal to Lori's posting on Assault on Precinct 13. Lori likes Ethan Hawke, but I'm really not much of a fan. There's something off-putting about his acting style -- for some reason I just don't "buy" him. I think it's his mouth and lips, as crazy as that sounds. And he sure doesn't have Viggo Mortensen's eyes. However, I'm in agreement that Before Sunset was one of the top 5 movies of last year. I'm happy Lori wanted to see A History of Violence, but I knew that AoP13 is no Film, but more of a 'Die Hard' movie that flaunts killing for purely entertainment purposes. But considering the type of genre, I gave it a passing grade because it worked for me within those parameters. Yeah, I saw some of the "mole" plot twists coming, but the ensemble cast kept me on my toes enough not to get annoyed with the stereotypes. There's really nothing you haven't seen here before.

This is Eric, logging off. I'm eager to see my newest Netflix arrivals: The Thin Blue Line, Inside Deep Throat, and Me and You and Everyone We Know.

Capote. You must see it.

Brilliant in every way possible.

-Lori

Teetering around In Her Shoes while wearing Traveling Pants with the Sisterhood. More fun than you might think.

I’m struggling to recall much about In Her Shoes, the Curtis Hanson-directed film starring Toni Collette, Cameron Diaz, and Shirley McLaine. I saw it less than a week ago, but…I guess that indicates its mediocrity.

Speaking of, years and lifetimes ago, I regularly attended a fundamentalist Christian church filled with a number of college and ex-college students. The three young-ish ministers went on this big tear about not being mediocre Christians. Every sermon, every comment from the pulpit for months, we heard don’t be mediocre, blah, blah, blah. What was disturbing was that none of the three knew how to pronounce ‘mediocrity.’ They would go on and on and on and on about how we as a congregation should refuse to be addicted to 'mediocricy.’

Enough said, and yes, that was a tangent, I guess this is clearly the mark of a film commenter addicted to mediocricy.

What I liked about IHS:

1. Toni Collette. When can one not ever love Toni Collette? She is an incredibly intelligent actor, and she’s not let herself become stereotyped—that’s got to be hard work all on its own. Rent Japanese Story if you’re not sure what I mean, dust off Muriel’s Wedding, and scare yourself up a copy of The Sixth Sense while you’re at it. I must also echo what many reviews have already said, which is that in this film she is supposedly overweight and unattractive. Ha. She was far more appealing than Cameron Diaz. Not too much to say about her role, really, except that it didn’t fit for me that she had this closet full of really expensive shoes that she never/rarely wore. Maybe I just couldn’t relate, since about every other shoe in my closet is made by Dr. Martens (my friend Linda tells me, “Just because they say ‘Doctor’ doesn’t mean they’re good for your feet.”) Of course, the carefree sister (Diaz) was the shoe liver, while Toni was not able to let herself go because she was unattractive. Ha again. By the way, are you wondering what a ‘shoe liver’ is? Or did you think I meant to write shoe ‘lover?’ Nope, I meant liver, as in living life. That’s pretty bad, isn’t it? It’s good that I’m not writing these little reviews for pay, yes?

2. Shirley McLaine: She was restrained and intelligent in her role as well. She didn’t do a full-on Terms of Endearment thing, which I totally expected, and it is always really good to have expectations not met. Well, certainly not true, but in this case it was. I appreciated that Hanson didn’t direct her to be soft and sentimental—she hit the notes just right, as my choir director might say (but not about me).

3. Cameron Diaz: Well, I sort of liked her in the role, but sort of not. She gave a good performance in Any Given Sunday, and really really good in the much maligned (but not by me) Scorsese film Gangs of New York. She was likable in this film. Well, no, she wasn’t, she wasn't supposed to be, so much. She was fine, and clicked well with Shirely McLaine in their scenes together.

What I didn’t like about IHS:

1. Hanson’s obsession with Cameron Diaz’s ass. I hate to put it that crudely, but sheesha-mageesha, let it go, old man! How many close-up shots did we really need of her--ahem--posterior? After the first 17 zooms, it got boring.

2. Cameron was supposed to have some sort of a learning disability, which manifested itself in poor reading skills. I think she did quite a convincing job portraying someone who would just rather skip reading, because it was so difficult. But sometimes she lapsed into semi-childlike talk, and I think it was because she wanted to convey her limitations. However, many people with learning disabilities have excellent verbal skills, possibly due to over-compensation. Maybe she’d been watching Riding the Bus With My Sister in preparation for the role.

I’ve said very little about the plot, or the supporting cast. I don’t really need to, do I? It’s late, I’m tired of this review hanging around uselessly like several thousands of dollars-worth of shoes in my closet. It was an enjoyable film, kept my interest, and was far better than I expected it to be. It won’t change my life: I’m not going to quote lines from it endlessly, or mull over delicious parts and smile while I’m driving to work. But it was respectable.

No stunning line to end this blather. Sorta fits the film. If you’ve read this far, you probably think what I wrote was amusing, but maybe I could have spent the time I wrote this volunteering, even maybe tutoring ministers on pronunciation.

Like how I feel about In Her Shoes.

On another note, I just watched The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Skilled lead actors--four talented women, I liked it. If you have a soft spot for sweet-natured movies about growing up and all that, bonding, falling in love, knowing your friends are there for you (that wasn't my childhood, but What. Ever.), you really can't go wrong with this film.


May your shoeheels never break and your pants always fit,
Lori

Assault on Precinct 13. Sheesh.

Watched Assault on Precinct 13 last night, because frankly, I adore Ethan Hawke. Before Sunset was my favorite film of 2004, and Ethan was utterly charming, endearing, and heart-wrenching in Great Expectations (so, I'm a romantic, what of it?), so I looked forward to it. Plus, it had gotten pretty fair reviews, and while not my type of movie, Ethan was the draw.

How disappointing. Yes, it's suspenseful, but the story is totally improbable. There is a snowstorm on New Year's Eve, and a group of heavily armed people are outside, shooting, throwing explosives, etc. at the people inside, and NOBODY notices? If Precinct 13 was located in the warehouse district, it might make sense, but otherwise, it doesn't. And why would a police precinct be in an out-of-the-way location? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

And the violence IS pornographic--two people get shot in the head, and the camera lingers on their dead, dead faces. One man gets beaten and stabbed to death, and it goes on and on and on until he is quite dead. Someone else gets stabbed in the eye, yada, yada. Those theater doofuses from History of Violence must have loved this film.

One more thing: why does Laurence Fishburne always play the stoic wise man? At one point he had an overcoat on, put on his sunglasses, and I swear I waited for him to swoop up into the air with Keanu.

Ethan was edgy and cute, but not enough to make this film worth my time.

-Bitterly, Lori

Eric Steals My Thunder. Film at Eleven.

He beat me to it, which is, I guess, an appropriate way to begin a review of A History of Violence. Here's what I like about the film:

1. Viggo's eyes: Indeed, Viggo Mortensen tells much of the story with his eyes. He's not a shout-it-from-the rooftops type of actor. In fact, I can rarely even understand his mumbling in most movies. For this role as Tom Stall, Viggo is perfect. He is subtle and introverted, and invites the audience to lean a little bit closer if they want to know what's going on (just don't get too close when he's mad, I'm just sayin').

2. Maria Bello: A rare occasion in film where the 'wife' role matters. She is strong and intelligent and wowza, she's got good balance--those two sex scenes require it.

3. Those two sex scenes: Pivotal, important, and truly illustrative of the connection between Bello and Mortensen's characters. Not gratutious, not pruient, but actually essential to the story.

4. Unpredictability: I saw the trailers too, so I knew the fundamental plot point. Still, I had no idea where the story was going. How refreshing.

5. Allusions: The story made me think of Unforgiven as well, one of my all-time favorite films, in which violence was turned on its bloodied ear.Both films feature heroes who do not want to kill, but circumstances lead them to do so. There's also this very Hitchcockian sequence, when Tom is afraid his family is in danger and runs to save them. I almost expected crop dusters to swoop into the frame, ala' North by Northwest. A really great homage to Alfred in that scene.

6. Thinking: Identity. Can you truly change who you are? Do you ever really know another person, no matter how intimate you are? Can you still love a person, even if you see it all? A truly Jungian meditation on repression of the dark side, and a plea for integration of the shadow and light? I'll expect a 500-word essay by next Friday.

7. Violence: I didn't like the violence, but I'll tell you this--it's not pornographic. It's fast and efficient. Compared to Sin City, for example, which made me sick to my stomach, this is nothing, man.

What I didn't like about the film:

1. Really, nothing about the film itself. I am repulsed by violence on the screen, but it wasn't exactly unexpected, gievn the topic. I just looked away.

2. ...which leads me to what I didn't like about the experience of seeing the film. When I looked away during the faces-getting-blown-off and garroting scenes, my eyes landed on the immature bozos at the end of our row, who were cheering the violence, clearly not the point of the film. Alas, I guess that's the price you pay for going to see films in the theater.

Should you see it? Yes, if you want to be challenged and intrigued and won't be put off by violence and sex. No, if you want to just eat some popcorn in a dark building.

Next on the docket: In Her Shoes. I'll post later tonight.

-Lori

My History With Violence

Alright, as Lori was saying, it's been a whirlwind weekend packed with movies. Lori may not be a Mapquest, but I've certainly had to visit upon Mapquest quiet often to find all these theatres we've been attending.

This is my first attempt at a review since I was in college, but it's more of a comment, really. I prefer commenting as it's less of a commitment. And of course, here's the obligatory warning: Beware of spoilers!

When I initially saw the trailer for A History of Violence, I became a little violent myself.

Increasingly over the years, trailers have spoiled movies for me, even good movies. They introduce all the characters, the villains, the heroes, and then show the entire story arc all the way through act III, even hinting at important plot twists.

And the trailer for A History of Violence was no different. This, however, should not be a reason to avoid this movie. Given, we've seen this story before, as it's quite similar to The Return of Martin Guerre (remade as Richard Gere's Sommersby), but with a few important differences. We find a man living another life, a different life, one suiting him better than his previous incarnation. But as the title alludes to, there is no escaping one's past.

The success of this movie lies in how it's presented. The protagonist and his antagonists propel the story with dialogue and good old fashioned acting, creating a realistic mood and tension. The Director, David Cronenberg, was smart enough to get out of the way of its actors, shooting scenes in an indieflick and minimalist fashion, leaving out the normal editing tools of manipulation and 'movie magic' such as background music, fast cutting, and odd camera angles. Instead, he's created a gritty film, much like Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, involving us emotionally as it unfolds.

Part of the reason the movie works so well it that it moves swiftly, clocking in at an hour and a half in length. Movies can often be too long, but this seemed to be the perfect time for the material involved.

Viggo Mortensen does a marvelous job, and it's hard imagining anyone else who would have been as effective playing two different characters so convincingly. It's been said a person lies with his eyes, and so I suppose that goes for telling the truth as well. Mortensen acts with his eyes, and gives nothing away with his facial expressions in early scenes, believing himself to be who he says he is.

Maria Bello turns in a superb supporting effort, playing an emotionally competent character here, as she often does. She is an intense actress, and that intensity is very believable as a confused and deceived spouse. Ed Harris and William Hurt also turn in exceptional supporting performances, stealing each scene in which they appear. And that's another reason this movie works -- it's not carried by one performer, but rather by an entire cast, each providing the appropriate impact to drive the protagonist further along a path he believed long abandoned.

Some may feel this movie may be a bit too gratuitous, and I did feel a couple scenes were a bit over the top, but I think that this is in part the message of the movie: Isn't violence gratuitous by definition? Society must depict violence as an unnecessary evil to enforce civility, or the illusion of civility. But as we try to bury it, even ignore it, we do so at our own peril as it's often counterproductive to dealing with it appropriately.

This movie got me thinking about two things:

One, our potential for varying degrees of violence is always somewhere within our primordial selves, and it's crucial we recognize that in order to deal with it effectively, or more importantly, forgive ourselves for indulging it.

And two, "as the book says, we might be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

-Eric

Four Days, Three Films. That's more like it.

Three reviews in the hopper they call my brain. Okay, nobody calls my brain a hopper. The point is that three film reviews of varying length and insight are coming soon to a blog near you, more specifically this one. Last Thursday Eric and I saw "His Girl Friday" at the marvelous Central Cinema on 21st and Union. So there's that one, and it gets four out of five croissants (get it--Paris?)

Saturday night Cheryl and I braved the movie crowds in Wenatchee to see "In Her Shoes," which right out of the chute I have to say is one of the worst movie titles I've seen lately. Two croissants and a double espresso for that one (yeah, I'm making this rating system up as I go along, and your point is...?)

Sunday night, back in Seattle with Eric at the Meridian Cinemas on 7th and Pine (what am I, Mapquest?), a theater that has all the atmosphere of purgatory, but what do I know, I'm not even Roman Catholic, to see A History of Violence, starring Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello, and wowza, this one gets five baguettes out of five.

More tomorrow. I'm tired from watching all of these movies.

-Lori

Eric lies. So do I. You're reading a blog of the liars.

I'm lying because the first thing I want to talk about is the HBO series Deadwood, of which I have just completed the first season. I am too cheap to throw my assets into paying for basic cable, much less premium, so I'm light-years behind. Okay, two seasons behind. But I digress. The fact is, Deadwood is not a film or a movie. So sue me. I will tell you this much: it's brilliant.

If you do get the moxie to watch it, don't come crying to me about the language, you...you....(if you watch Deadwood, you know what I just called you). And don't get all panty-waisted about the violence. Yes, murdered folk tend to get thrown to the Chinaman's pigs, but hey, if you are a meat-eater, what you complaining about, you....you...(yes, being called THAT is even more frequent in Deadwood, so please, stop being such a baby). Oh yeah, and women are treated generally pretty badly, most sold into prostitution. All-in-all, Deadwood is not the feel-good series of the year.

So, uh, why watch it? Deadwood is beautifully acted and astonishingly well-written. It not only gives us a glimpse of government forming in a lawless place (Deadwood was a thrown-together mining camp on Indian land, which was illegal at the time, big surprise that THAT was not an issue), but explores the depths of human nature (blah, blah, blah, I know) in a manner worthy of Shakespeare. The language, once you get the rhythm of it, is poetic.

I cain't (yeah, I'm-a-gettin' all period-piece on ya) say anything about Deadwood that is any more insightful than what you can read on the web. But if you miss it, you're missing out. And if you ask me real nice, I can do a mean Calamity Jane impression for you, even dead sober.

-Lori

I lied.

Ahh, Ahhhnold Schwarzenegger movies. It's hard to watch them as an adult, but it's fun to quote them now, which makes me feel like my entire childhood wasn't a total waste.

In a scene in Commando, in what can only be called one of Arnold's most courageous performances on the silver screen, he's holding one of his earlier tormentors upside down by the leg, dangling him over a cliff. He says, "Sully, remember when I said I'd kill you last?"

Sully, screaming: "Yeah! Yeah!"

Arnold, as he lets Sully drop: "I lied."

Well, I've lied to you, too, my friends. When I last left you, I said my second posting would be a review. It just wasn't to be. My brother sent me this fake movie trailer, based on the movie The Shining, and figured it would make a good posting:

See it again for the first time: The Shining!

-Eric

Welcome...

Welcome to The Blog. When I was a kid, it was the Blogs that were eating Paris, not films. But that was then, and this is now.

I know nothing of Paris, but I'm sure my blogging comrade, Lori, would be happy discussing most things regarding the City of Light. I'm more comfortable in the realm of movies, so that is where my focus shall be. Oui.

Lori and I came up with this idea while watching All About Eve exactly one week ago tonight, and so that will be my first Official Review, however, you'll have to wait for my second posting for that indulgence.

You've waited over 55 years for the review already, what's a couple more days?

-Eric