Wedding Crashers

You can now label me officially a Vince Vaughn fan. First, he was the only decent thing about Dodgeball, then he does that comic genius thing again, only in a radical 360-degree kind of way. Usually, these kind of films bore me silly -- two dopey guys only interested in sex find the girl(s) of their dreams. Yawn. Been done thousands and thousands and thousands... Ten minutes in I was sure this would be an eye-roller. But once they finish showing us how Vaughn and Owen Wilson have perfected the dastardly art of wedding crashing, and the film gets down to business, it's pretty freakin' funny. (I'll admit, right off the bat, that the first dinner table scene made me laugh so hard I had to make an effort to keep my eyes open. I don't quite know what it was that made it so funny -- it's the oldest joke in the book. Context, I guess.) Naturally, the plot is ridiculous, but all romance movies have ridiculous plots. Assume this before you go or there'll be no viewing pleasure for you. Still, I can't give it more than a 3.0, if only because of the evil boyfriend (but he looks so nice!) and the homosexual brother (but he's a sensitive artist!). Back to my original point... Wilson is terrific (you just want to pinch his cheeks he's so sweet) and Rachel McAdams as the love interest is as engaging as she was in The Notebook (I'd like to see her do something other than romance now; she clearly has the chops for it), but Vaughn simply sparkles. He's kooky, clever, completely twisted, and loving every second of it. Just what you need in a sidekick. Isn't it time he got a headliner, though?

year: 2005
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396269/combined

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

Liam Aiken is a kid to be watched. His mannerisms seem wise for someone twice his age. I'd guess that's the mark of someone who finds acting as natural as tying his shoes and brushing his teeth. It's interesting to note that he was on the short list for the Harry Potter role, but was turned down because he wasn't British. I don't know -- if Renée Zellweger can play a Brit seamlessly, so (conceivably) could Aiken. In some ways, I can see him as better than Daniel Radcliffe (gasp! sacrilege!). But he's by no means the only good thing in the film -- the tale of three orphans being shuttled among "relatives" after their parents die in a fire. Jim Carrey plays Count Olaf, the worst of the relatives, and he is predictably hysterical (his prehistoric scene was a belly-laugh). He also gets to enact multiple characters -- a pie-in-the-sky kind of acting job for him, I'm sure. The sets are gorgeously rendered, perfectly odd and filled with so much minutiae that you'd have to see it multiple times to catch everything. The animation used at the beginning and during the credits is Tim-Burton-esque (think Nightmare Before Christmas), and the music is Danny-Elfman-esque. But it doesn't necessarily play as darkly as a Burton film. Sure, Count Olaf' s house is über-creepy, dank and nasty, and bad things keep happening to the orphans, but at least this film has a (semi-)happy ending. Speaking of the ending, I'm getting tired of films that assume they will be franchises and so have these ultra-wimpy endings (e.g ., Spiderman I, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) that allow them to pick up right where they left off. This will only get worse as studios sink the majority of their budgets into those flicks that can be franchised. Urg. Fight this insidious takeover! Go see small films like Northfork or Shaun of the Dead or Super Size Me. Now THAT is one we really don't need franchised.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339291/combined

The Fly

Among the list of foods you should NEVER eat while watching this film is cherry pie. I'm not one to get squeamish while watching make-believe (although I may shake my hands or make a face during a particularly grody scene), but David Cronenberg takes the cake. The film only reveals itself as horror halfway through, so there you are enjoying mid-80s costuming and amusing repartee between the leads, Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, when the full effect of Cronenberg's special effects masters splatters across the screen. Blechy. Although I don't recommend eating while watching, I wouldn't avoid it in the video store because it deserves a viewing. Goldblum delivers, well, himself, and there are soulful moments that mesh nicely with his halting speech patterns and spazzy mannerisms, as bizarre as that may sound. Perhaps Cronenberg chose him because the actor is so obviously himself even under pounds of fake-fly makeup. Davis does good counterpoint, although it's not one of her best films, and the writing is often funny and always clever. But the soul of the picture lies in the recognizably human emotions evident in this fly-man even as he becomes something unrecognizable and disgusting to us. For that alone, it's worth peeking between your fingers and relegating the cherry pie back to the kitchen for the time being.

year: 1986
length: 95 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091064/combined

House Calls

Oh, I do love Walter Matthau. Sadly, I was introduced to him during his Grumpy Old Men stage (in which he's, frankly, marvelous, my favorite line being "Putz.") and then had to return in time and rent The Taking of Pelham One Two Three on the strength of him (and some great reviews). Not having failed me yet, I rented this flick because one of my reviews fans (blush) gave it high marks. So far we're three for three. Matthau can take any dialogue and make it belly-laugh-inducing hilarious. I rarely laugh heartily in films anymore -- a line or scene has to be REALLY good to make me guffaw -- and this film had at least a half dozen such instances. The only decent doctor at a hospital crammed with nitwits, Matthau plays a recent widower who wants to play the field for the first time ever (not that he didn't love his wife, don't get me wrong). He goes out with all these young idiots and of course becomes entangled with a woman closer to his age, the magnificent actress-cum-sparring-partner, Glenda Jackson (she's actually now the Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate!). Of course, there's abject silliness along the path towards Matthau giving in and admitting his adoration for Jackson, including cross-dressing, singing along with an Enrico-Caruso-alike, and hysterical interactions with Art Carney as the surgical head of the hospital. If you're in the mood for laughing, don't miss this one.

year: 1978
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077699/combined

The Coca-Cola Kid

I don't remember now why I even had this movie in my queue. I guess it's interesting for three reasons: 1) to see why Greta Scacchi has no shame 2) to see how far Eric Roberts has fallen and 3) to see why Australians are ever so much cooler than Americans. Roberts is some big-shot Coca-Cola marketing genius, sent to Australia to shake up the Aussies and make them sell, sell, sell! Scacchi is his secretary who has never heard the phrase "playing hard to get," culmintaing in them at long last going to bed together...amidst big fluffy pillow feathers. It's ludicrous. Especially since Roberts has made it abundantly clear that he is not in the least interested throughout the film and then all of a sudden they're smooching on a big red bed. We don't even see the "caving in" scene! That's not just bad plotting, that's extraordinarily bad acting. I guess Roberts was still a possibility as a leading man in Hollywood at this time; after this you'll see why he's remained a B-movie actor. (His sister's astronomically better; must be galling.) The rest of the plot is too silly and poorly directed to mention. Ok, one mention: the cross-dressing party and subsequent singing-in-the-rain scene. What the heck was that?! Talk about ludicrous. Anything good about the movie -- yes, the Coca-Cola song (I see at least one IMDB reviewer thinks exactly the same as me) and the cute little girl playing Scacchi's daughter. Not enough for a recommendation, I'm afraid.

year: 1985
length: 98 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088931/combined

National Treasure

Pfflbt. What's the point of renting a Sean Bean film and seeing only what a big waste of time it was for him? It's not really "his" film but he's the main villain, so that smarmy, sultry swagger should be front and center. I'm guessing he was required to hold back, this being a Disney film. In fact, everyone's holding back including the screenwriter and the star, Nicolas Cage. The plot is intriguing, historically patriotic (which is great for the kids watching), and kinda funny, but it moves too fast and glosses over big chunks of history -- such as telling the history of the Freemasons in about 15 seconds. (Also, why would a Freemason give secret data to a non-Mason? Isn't that grounds for something more horrible than dismissal?) As you can guess, the main gist of the tale is finding THE secret of the Freemasons. It's a treasure hunt complete with clues, clever deductions and skeptics. Certainly fun to watch the solution unfold, with or without a consistent plot, but I wouldn't go out of my way to find it. If anything stands out, it's Diane Kruger (her German accent is adeptly explained within seconds of her appearance). Her natural, empathetic acting is a bonus in this sort of girl-tags-along-and-becomes-girlfriend role. One has to wonder why she was so bland in Troy.

year: 2004
length: 131 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368891/combined

Batman Begins

Here's what I wanted: the first act of this film as an Oscar contender, with the last two acts as a follow-up tentpole. Meaning that the first act -- in which Batman works through the pain of his parents' demise, takes on the guise of that which scares him the most, and decides to become a hero -- is completely different from the other acts. Those make up your run- of-the-mill superhero action flick, complete with wilting female, nifty gadgets and an ending so reminiscent of Spiderman that you wonder if DC and Marvel aren't in cahoots behind the scenes. It's not what I wanted to see. And I freely admit that I had high expectations, which always damns me in the end. There's a lot riding on the team of Christopher Nolan (of Memento fame) and Christian Bale (whom you all know is one of my top three fave actors). Nolan tries admirably -- the screenplay's arc is better than most (although I would have jettisoned all the jokes) -- but his method of filming action sequences made my eyes glaze over. Bale gives us his usual, outside the suit. He can morph among the multiple facets of Bruce Wayne's personality seamlessly, and his facial acting gives me chills. Which is maybe why once he got the suit on I was so taken aback. He changes his voice (as he's famous for) to sound more like a bully, and while that may fit the story it threw me out of the movie each time. The requisite love interest is annoying. Even though Katie Holmes is a fine enough actor, there is nothing outside the first act for her to sink her teeth into (and, please, our last glimpse of her should have been when she discovers who's under the cape). Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow, on the other hand, mesmerizes and that's not simply the effect of those inordinately blue eyes. Since there's more than enough set-up at the end for a sequel, and the Joker will be introduced, I'll be glad to return for another dose. I just hope they take my advice.

year: 2005
length: 141 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/combined

The Butterfly Effect

The entire plot of this film revolves around the holes in the plot, and what we learn about each of them as the plot progresses. But it's the plot twists that'll get ya. Especially the one just as Ashton Kutcher's character begins to understand what's going on and goes to see the one person he should have seen at the beginning. Up until then, the film is interesting -- offbeat, structured to keep you guessing, and sparely written. Then, things start unraveling a bit too quickly and the film loses its shape as a consequence. What plot, you say? Kutcher plays a man who suffered from blackouts as a kid, and finds himself unable to retrieve these memories...until...well, you'll need to see the movie. Should you see the movie? The premise is somewhat unique, so it's a pity Kutcher doesn't hold his end up better. He's okay, but he pales in comparison to his younger co- stars who play him at age 7 and 13. Their range far surpasses his. It's a bit disturbing, and also a bit disturbing to hear such foul language from the mouth of babes. Granted, I watched the Director's Cut (because I couldn't get the theatrical version to load), so perhaps filmgoers experienced a more PG version. I hope so; jaded as I am, I was taken aback. Did I mention the flick is creepy, too? Not exactly horror-creepy (although there are some scary, somewhat bloody parts), but psychological-creepy. If you don't like your head messed with, don't watch this. If you do, watch Silence of the Lambs again.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289879/combined

The General

I've seen a few of Buster Keaton's films, and while a couple of them are favorites (especially The Navigator), most of them have such extraordinarily boring parts that I've fallen asleep watching them on DVD. And there lies the crux of the problem. Silent movies are not meant to be watched on DVD -- they're meant to have the full force of a live orchestra or organ scoring the plot for you. And what a difference this can make if you have the right silent movie and the right accompanist. I was lucky enough to see this film in our restored 1920s downtown movie house accompanied by one of our most renowned silent film organists. I'd heard this was one of Keaton's best films, but I'd heard that about most of his films. How happy I am to have been proved wrong. Based on a true story from the Civil War, a hapless, unlucky-in-love train engineer has his engine stolen from him by the Northerners and races across the Southland trying to get it back. Of course, he's using borrowed engines, as well as other conveyances, to do this and if you know anything about Keaton's magic, you can guess what kinds of stunts you'll see. Except that you'll be wrong; they'll be better than what you guess. I've never seen a stunt like Keaton pulls off to remove two logs from across the tracks as his train is approaching them. It has to be seen to be believed. This film cost a fortune in its day, using multiple trains, often filmed together on the same track and/or being destroyed. In that respect, it's similar to the best special effects created today, except that these are all real, there are no stuntmen, and they're unbelievably dangerous. I have to admire every actor Keaton hired, especially the woman playing his sweetheart, who of course is abducted by the bad guys (read: Northerners) and ends up "helping" Keaton. Along with gasps of disbelief and cheers when a stunt is enacted beautifully, you'll be laughing till your sides aches at Keaton and his screen love's interactions. I want very much to own this film on DVD, but I know the small screen and (usually) bogus accompaniment won't do my memory justice. I'll just have to hope the theater runs it again soon. I'll be there, right in the first row.

year: 1927
length: 116 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017925/combined

The Thin Red Line

Terrence Malick did Days of Heaven 20 years ago. Few, except maybe those in studio land, expected him to return. I gather he was waiting for the right kind of script. (I always have to wonder how independent filmmakers survive between flicks -- they're not getting back-end deals!) In his film choices, I'm certain he's less interested in plot than he is in the opportunity for creating cinematographic marvels. The three I've seen (the other is Badlands) are masterpieces of slowly, movingly filmed landscapes and that alone merits 3 stars, if only because it calms you down after a jumpy day. But a war film seems a strange choice. It's not that I don't get the impact of the juxtaposition of bloody war and the peaceful native countryside replete with swaying grasses and soft summer breezes, but in the final analysis that's veneer. The screenplay itself puts us inside the minds of many different soldiers' viewpoints of the WW2 Battle of Guadalcanal, from the contemplative to the rightly scared spitless to the logical military careerist. Of all of these, Dash Mihok's character made the most sense to me. An everyman off the field of war, but terrified and horrified and well-trained when in battle. Second favorite character for me is the "protagonist" of the film, played by Jim Caviezel, who does thoughtful like nobody else. And hey, there's George Clooney at the very end as a platoon captain...and you wonder why Malick couldn't use Clooney and John Cusack and Woody Harrelson and some of the others more often, instead of all those ultra-boring shots of Ben Chaplin and Miranda Otto (although the climax to those scenes is heart-breaking). You are alternately calmed, bored and thrilled throughout the film, but nearly 3 hours of that can put off the most avid filmgoer. I watched it in stages, and if you like Malick, I would recommend that approach.

year: 1998
length: 170 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120863/combined