How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 8: The Passion of Joan of Arc

The Passion of Joan of Arc

The Passion of Joan of Arc is an intense movie. Released in 1928, it tells the condensed story of the heresy trial of Joan of Arc from 1431, which ultimately led to her being burned at the stake. The film does not give any backstory though regarding what led to her trial. Instead, it focuses only on the trial itself, using the actual transcripts that were saved to supply the dialog shown on the screen. This movie, which consists mainly of extreme close-ups, is a testament to the power of the human face, as it proves you don't need sound (or even words) to fully express the emotions that Joan of Arc must have gone through during the course of her trial.

I'll admit that the movie posed a bit of a challenge at first. I've still only seen a couple silent movies, but even the ones I've seen (Metropolis and Modern Times) were much more geared towards an entertaining experience. Watching The Passion of Joan of Arc feels like watching performance art mixed with a history lesson. This isn't to say watching the movie is hard to watch, it just takes a certain focus that is no longer needed with 99% of the movies that are released nowadays. 

The enduring legacy of The Passion of Joan of Arc is mostly attributed to the title performance by Maria Falconetti. Much has been said about how she endured a trial of her own during the filming of this movie, being made to perform take after take while her knees slowly ground into the stone floor beneath her. It's hard to justify personal pain for a great performance but it's simply amazing what Director Carl Dreyer was able to capture. The title cards shown on the screen become almost superfluous due to how precisely accurate Falconetti's performance matches what she is supposed to be saying. It's unfortunate that Falconetti never made another film after this (she passed away in 1946) but the one performance she did leave us is enough to have her considered one of the best actresses of the silent era.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Valuable Life Lesson Learned: Only the devil could make a woman dress like a man.

Upcoming Titles:

- The Untouchables

- Kiss Me Deadly

- After Hours

- Serpico

How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 7: The Magnificent Ambersons

The Magnificent Ambersons

*Spoiler Alert* I try to review these movies without spoilers but a movie like The Magnificent Ambersons makes that almost impossible. So fair warning... *Spoiler Alert*

One thing that's easy to see when watching The Magnificent Ambersons is that a lot is missing. Directed by Orson Welles, The Magnificent Ambersons is famously known as the film that RKO took control of while Welles was in Brazil working on his next movie. They had 40 minutes cut and also tacked on a "happier" ending that would meet America's tastes (currently still shocked from the Pearl Harbor attacks). Knowing this makes it hard to "review" The Magnificent Ambersons though because I'm not sure whether my disinterest with the movie lies with the missing scenes or if I simply don't go for the "Family Drama" aspect of the story. Perhaps no amount of extra footage could have made me care for these characters enough to enjoy the film on its own terms. 

That's not to say the movie is without any positives. I will admit that Welles does a fantastic job behind the camera, setting up some wonderful shots that seem just as inventive now as they did back then. The sets are also something to marvel at, especially knowing that they were sound stages and not an actual old mansion (something I didn't realize until afterwards). But technical aspects aside, I found little to rave about. The Magnificent Ambersons is all about the downfall of George Amberson, a spoiled boy whose entire town has been waiting for him to finally get his comeuppance. However, once his downfall finally occurs, it's said that he had become so insignificant no one was there to even enjoy it. Unfortunately, that went for me as well since by the time this film was over, I cared less about the outcome and more about the fact that I didn't have to watch the movie anymore.

I guess it could be argued though that the real "main character" of the film is the Amberson family as a whole. It's almost odd to paint George as the main character when so much of the main plot simply happens around him and not to him. The true driving force of the film is the forbidden love shared between George's mother Isabel (Dolores Costello) and her old friend Eugene (Joseph Cotton). Eugene and Isabel had a falling out when they were younger and since Isabel refused to forgive Eugene, she was forced to marry someone who wasn't her true love. As it's stated in the opening monologue, this then led to her spoiling George since she needed to fill the void of not having a husband she loved with giving far too much attention to her one son. It's only when Eugene returns to town (having just been made a widower) that Isabel's true feelings for him start to arise again. It doesn't help much that shortly after Eugene returns, Isabel's husband also dies, leaving these two alone but unable to finally embrace each other for fear of how the town will react. Further complicating things is the inclusion of Eugene's daughter Lucy, who George himself becomes quite smitten with. 

Let me elaborate here on my strong disinterest in any film that falls within the "Family Drama" genre that I mentioned earlier. My dislike is not related to there simply being family drama within the story. My problem is when the whole aspect of that story seems bland and/or dour. I need a hook to get me invested and to care about the characters. That hook is typically a mixing of genres to include this type with something more exciting (sci-fi, action, horror, gangster, etc...). It can also be something like a powerhouse performance or simply the ability to take on that type of story with a sense of humor. Maybe it's because I lack basic human emotions so when a story is simply about "forbidden love" or some other nonsense like that, I just roll my eyes at the screen. I just can't empathize with their struggles and so without any other added benefit to follow along, I quickly lose interest. 

This isn't to say that the movie is objectively bad, it's just that it's not for me. It took me a while to accept this feeling but it really is the only way to discuss movies. There was a time when I would have made up some praise for this movie due to its legacy but to me, that would be a disservice to the film. It's better to just admit something doesn't work for you and move on. What makes it a little harder for this movie though is the uncertainty of what could have been, had the studio not messed with Welle's original idea. But getting bogged down in "what if" scenarios is also the wrong way to judge a movie. Still, I'm glad I finally got around to seeing The Magnificent Ambersons, if only to further prove (along with Citizen Kane) how great of a director Orson Welles was when he was only in his mid-20s.*

Valuable Life Lesson Learned: Don't ever get too drunk while trying to court a girl at a serenade.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Upcoming Titles:

- The Untouchables

- Battle Royale

- Touch of Evil

- Serpico

*Welles was the same age that I am right now when he made this movie. Cue panic attack about what I'm doing with my life...

How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 6: Dog Day Afternoon

Dog Day Afternoon

Dog Day Afternoon is a perfect film. Based on true events, it follows the day long ordeal of two men, Sonny and Sal (Al Pacino and John Cazale) whose botched bank robbery forces them to take workers hostage. The cops quickly swarm the bank outside and attempt to reason with Sonny to let the hostages go safely, but Sonny begins to devise a plan that would get both him and Sal safely away without going to jail (or getting killed). In what would now be considered a cliche development, the public outside begins to slowly turn in Sonny's favor, mainly due to Sonny's rallying cry of "Attica! Attica!", referencing the prison riot in 1971 where inmates took hostages in order to demand better living conditions, leading to the discovery that police killed several innocent hostages while storming the prison to take back control. With the media joining the police and the public citizens outside the bank, tensions rise on both sides as the police and Sonny attempt to resolve the situation as quickly as possible without any bloodshed.

Everything about this movie is stunning and comes together to make one of the best American movies from that mythical era of the 1970s. Dog Day Afternoon was rightfully nominated for 6 Academy Awards in 1976, with the one win going to Frank Pierson for Best Original Screenplay. It's not hard to see why he won, considering how perfectly the script allows the situation to escalate naturally. It's been said that some of the more memorable moments were in fact due to improvisation, but dialog is only a small aspect of a script. Pierson laid all the pieces in order, making it so not one scene feels wasted in this two hour film. Director Sidney Lumet also deserves high praise. Lumet had already proven himself as a great director 18 years prior with 12 Angry Men, but in Dog Day Afternoon he really shows just how much of a handle he has on a storytelling, especially within such a static location.

The one other thing worth mentioning though is Al Pacino. It can be debated whether his work here or in the Godfather films is superior, but doing so would be splitting hairs. Pacino continues his amazing run of performances from the 70s with his portrayal of Sonny. It's one of the rare instances of a great performance where you actually forget you are watching an actor and simply get lost in the role. While watching Dog Day Afternoon, I wasn't watching Al Pacino play Sonny, I was simply watching a real character on the screen. It's a subtle difference and very hard to pull off but Pacino nails it. He's never too over-the-top and when he does raise his voice, (such as the phone conversation with his wife) it's such a raw and powerful moment that it left me momentarily stunned. It also a very bold choice for Pacino to take this role at this stage in his career, and luckily it paid off.

There is so much more I could go into but for anyone who stumbles upon this* without seeing the movie, I don't want to spoil all the wonderful moments this movie has to offer. From the fast-paced opening (we don't waste anytime seeing them setup for the robbery) to the stunning conclusion, Dog Day Afternoon is a great film. Movies are at their best when you want to go out and talk to everyone about that movie the second it fades to black, and this is one of those films. It's unfortunate I'm finally seeing it now whereas to most people the movie will be a distant (but bright) memory, but I'm still glad to have finally watched it.

Valuable Life Lesson Learned: Wyoming is not a country.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Upcoming Titles:

- The Magnificent Ambersons 

- The Untouchables

- Battle Royale

- Serpico

*I'm sorry to have wasted your time.

How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 5: The Thin Man

The Thin Man

The Thin Man follows retired detective Nick Charles (William Powell) and his amusing wife Nora (Myrna Loy) as they stumble through a loosely threaded plot about a missing man. This is really all you need to know about the main plot of The Thin Man because it's simply a driving force to help the witty banter between Nick and Nora occur. In fact, as I write this, I can barely remember the logistics of the case that Nick eventually takes. All that matters is that I got to spend about 90 minutes with a boozy, bickering couple from the 1930s. For a movie that is bordering 80 years in age, I found it remarkable just how witty the movie is. The Thin Man is filled with double entendres, slapstick, and dry one-liners that are just as funny (if not more so) than most modern mainstream comedies. While I didn't find the movie as charming as later comedies of that decade (such as Trouble in Paradise, Bringing Up Baby, and Powell's My Man Godfrey) I certainly found it entertaining and something I'd recommend to fans looking for a different style of comedy that simple isn't made anymore. How had I not seen this yet?

Valuable Life Lesson Learned: If you have four children, one of them will be a murderer.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Upcoming Titles:

- Dog Day Afternoon

- The Untouchables

- Battle Royale

- The Magnificent Ambersons

How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 4: Chinatown

Chinatown

Chinatown is the story of private eye J.J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson) and his descent into a dark world filled with double crosses, deceit, and murder. It's a Film Noir straight out of the 1940s that just so happens to be filmed in the early 1970s. Roger Ebert, in his Great Movies review, says that when Chinatown was released it was seen as a "neonoir," yet due to Director Roman Polanski and Writer Robert Towne's (who won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay) successful grasp of the genre, it has rightfully been grouped together overtime with some of the best from the original batch. 

One of the things I admired most about Chinatown was just how dark the movie eventually becomes. Like some of the best Noirs, not every ending is tied up nicely. The worst outcomes are saved for the most innocent (who in a noir is never actually completely innocent). These movies always teach their lessons with bullets instead of words and Chinatown is no exception. The timing of the movie is perfect as it seems to have come out in what is now the mythical era of the early-to-mid 1970s, where some of the best American movies were able to be made, far away from the hands of studios looking to make a quick buck.  Maybe if we all click out heals together and wish hard enough, we will eventually go back to that system.

It's hard not to compare Chinatown with this year's "throwback" The Artist. While Chinatown chose the cool, dark world of Film Noir to dive into, The Artist instead hearkens back even further to the era where sound was still considered an experiment in film. While Chinatown uses the backdrop of Film Noir to create a new story that pushes the genre forward, The Artist is a gimmick film. No one will ever consider The Artist a great silent film, because it isn't. It's certainly a fun movie, but it's like praising an amazing impersonator. They may have talent, but unlike Chinatown, there is nothing to really chew on. 

It can be hard watching a movie like Chinatown and trying to view them through the eyes of a film viewer in the 1970s. Having the knowledge of where film went from that point on can make it harder to appreciate the new boundaries that the film pushed. Still, it's hard to deny just how fresh Chinatown feels, even to this day. It's one of the rare films that is both a throwback to a previous era and also a member of a new breed that helped define a new generation of film. How had I not seen this yet?

Valuable Life Lesson Learned: Salt water is bad for the grass.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Upcoming Titles:

- The Thin Man

- Dog Day Afternoon

- The Untouchables

- Battle Royale

How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 3: The Godfather: Part II

The Godfather: Part II

There is little I could say negative about The Godfather: Part II. There is also little I could say positive about The Godfather: Part II that hasn't already been said in a much cleaner way than I could ever express. It simply lives up to the hype as a great film. It's not just an American classic, but a classic piece of art. It takes everything that was great (and there are many great things) about The Godfather, and builds upon them, bit by bit over it's epic three and a half hour running time, until the final hour is scene after scene of fantastic payoff. 

The cast of The Godfather: Part II is almost frighteningly good. Robert De Niro picks up where Marlon Brando left off and continues to make Vito Corleone into one of the best characters ever seen on film. I may not fully agree with the necessity of the flashback scenes, but he made them worth every second. It really is amazing to see the things De Niro used to be capable of. Same of course goes to Pacino, who is incredible at turning Michael Corleone into a character I hate. I could go on and on mentioning every other actor but special attention should go to John Cazale as Fredo. We simply didn't get enough movies starring him before he died (he "only" made 5 films: The Godfather, The Conversation, The Godfather: Part II, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Deer Hunter). I don't mean to be "punny" here, but his character broke my heart. The scenes with him and Michael alone were easily my favorite of the entire series so far.

One last thing I want to discuss is the notion that The Godfather: Part II is considered a "superior sequel." Sequels are an odd thing in film. It seems most successful movies that come out now are sequels/remakes/reboots or something with a built in audience such as a film based on a TV show, comic book, or even a line of popular toys for children. Sequels like The Godfather: Part II however are a rare breed in that they feel like an organic continuation of the original. I think of the first two Godfather movies the same way I look at two seasons of a great TV show, like Seasons 3 and 4 of The Wire. Both are amazing on their own but also continue the story forward without rehashing things we've seen before. They transcend the argument of "which is better" and are simply different sections of an amazing story*. That's what real sequels should do. How had I not seen this yet?

Valuable Life Lesson Learned: If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. If you try to teach a boy to fish, you will be killed (and the boy will get no fish).

You're Welcome,

Dave

* I understand The Godfather: Part III doesn't have the same reputation as serving the story but I haven't seen it yet so I'll wait until I do to pass judgement.

Upcoming Titles:

- Dog Day Afternoon

- The Thin Man

- Battle Royale

How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 2: The King of Comedy

The King of Comedy

The King of Comedy is the exact reason why I started doing this series. I had heard little regarding this movie except that it was about a stalker relationship between Robert De Niro and Jerry Lewis. I also knew that the few people who did mention it to me, told me I would love it. Unfortunately, it took so long to finally see because when someone repeatedly tells me I need to watch a movie because I'd love it, I gradually decide I never wanted to see that movie. I'd convinced myself that I liked the joy of discovering movies on my own and almost began to resent certain movies based on other people's recommendations. I have no defense for this and have since realized how stupid it is. Moving forward, I clearly have to listen to people's recommendations, especially when they are telling me I need to watch something as perfect as this movie.

The film centers on sad sack Rupert Pupkin (Robert De Niro), who is obsessed with getting a stand-up gig on Jerry Langford's (Jerry Lewis, playing a NYC version of Johnny Carson) variety talk show. We first meet Pupkin as he saves Langford from a deranged fan who somehow gained access to Langford's car as he tries to leave the studio after a show taping. Pupkin then weasels himself into Langford's car, at which point he begins selling his act to Langford, hoping for a chance to have his breakout moment. At first it's unclear just how much of a chump Pupkin is, but it doesn't take long for the film to paint him as an imbalanced man who spends his time in his room (decorated as Langford's set, complete with cardboard cut-outs of Langford and Liza Minnelli) having pretend conversations with Langford. These conversations are shot perfectly, bouncing back and forth between the fantasy world in his head and the real world of Pupkin alone in his room, where the only occasional human contact he has is his faceless mother yelling through the walls for him to quiet down.

While it's a given that De Niro is incredible in this movie, everyone else is surprisingly great as well, including Lewis and also Sandra Bernhardt as fellow obsessed fan (and eventual accomplice) Masha. Jerry Lewis actually surprised me the most in this movie at how well he played Langford. This was the first movie I had ever seen Lewis in and I was impressed at how well he handled his scenes with De Niro. I doubt I'll go and check out his earlier comedies (unless The Day The Clown Cried finally gets unearthed) but it was cool seeing him in this role, especially after only seeing him in my lifetime as the guy who does the telethon, makes gay slurs, and doesn't think women are funny. Speaking of (un)funny women, Bernhardt deserves special credit for playing a delightful psychopath. It was good to see her actually be funny, which is something I've never seen her do on her current gig doing "Sandrology" every Wednesday night on Bravo's Watch What Happens Live.

The comedy in The King of Comedy is pitch black, which is exactly why I loved it so much. Much of the humor stems from the complete sadness that is Pupkin's life. At certain times, it's almost cringeworthy what we are forced to watch him go through, but De Niro is so good in this movie that he is able to ride the line between black comedy and unwatchable torture. In fact, I'm amazed that De Niro isn't given more credit for this role. Sure he's had so many iconic characters, but I truly believe this belongs in his pantheon of greats, right up there with Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta. The scene alone where we finally see Pupkin's actual stand-up routine makes De Niro deserve an multiple awards for this role. The reveal of his routine (and the reaction it gets) had me simply staring at my TV with a giant smile on my face, enjoying what De Niro and Scorsese had just accomplished. How had I not seen this yet?

Valuable Life Lesson Learned: A lot of people may misspell and mispronounce it, but I now know that it's spelled "P-U-P-K-I-N".

You're Welcome,

Dave

Upcoming February Titles:

- The Godfather Part 2

- The Thin Man

How Had I Not Seen This Movie!? Part 1: The Godfather

Welcome to my latest attempt at restarting Dave's Constant. I'm going to try something different going forward as I've decided on a new plan for catching up on all of the "Classic" movies I've missed. I'm going to pick 4 movies a month that I feel are glaring omissions in the list of films I've seen and post my thoughts as I watch each one. The end goal is that I will no longer have to hear the phrase "How have you not seen that yet?" Oh, and "Spoiler Warning" ahead. Although really, it's your own fault for not seeing this movie yet... 

The Godfather

What better way to start this new feature than with the movie that seems to elicit the biggest shock when I tell people I hadn't seen it. There are many reasons why I never got around to seeing The Godfather. At first, it was hard for me to drum up interest in watching a three hour movie whose major plot points had been ingrained in our everyday Pop Culture lexicon for so long. It almost seemed pointless to even bother watching it when there were so many other films for me to discover/enjoy that I knew little to nothing about. After a while though, it basically became a weird in-joke for myself. I liked that I hadn't seen The Godfather mainly due to the reaction I got when letting people know I never saw it. But I slowly realized that I can't really consider myself a Film Fan without seeing this movie, so I set out to finally change that. 

I now completely understand why The Godfather is held in such high regard. Everything about this movie just works. It's a Master class on everything: Acting, Directing, Writing, all the way down to Costume Design. One thing I realized right off the bat is that I had really been missing the boat on Al Pacino and Marlon Brando. I've mainly been familiar with their work from the past 15-20 years, which gradually became them playing a bad impersonator doing an impression of them. Just look at the tail end of Brando's career, beginning with The Freshman, which ironically has him parodying his role in The Godfather. Everything after (and including) that point shows not one speck of the amazing talent that Brando showcased in this film. The same goes for Pacino. Nowadays he shows up in movies to yell every other line with a general look of confusion on his face. He was in Jack and Jill for Christ's sake! Is it that he just gave up or is nobody offering him real roles anymore? Either way, all that mattered to me while watching this movie was that I was seeing two actors at the top of their game going toe-to-toe in every scene they shared.

The only real bit of criticism I had when watching The Godfather was that at certain points in the first 2/3 of the film's almost 3 hour running time, I was left feeling like certain things could have been cut in order to make for a more concise (and shorter) film. But the real magic of this movie comes from the payoff in the final hour. Literally every scene I felt should have been cut ended up being crucial to the final puzzle. The best example to me was that we spend so much time at the happy wedding of Connie and Carlo in the beginning of the film. I kept rolling my eyes waiting for them to get to the real story. (Did I mention I am bad at long movies?) However, as we slowly start to see the marriage fall apart over the rest of the movie, it allows the pieces to fall into place for when Michael decides to coldly have Carlo killed, completing Connie's transition from bride to widow. We then end with the fallout of Carlo's death, where Michael is in the same room his Dad was meeting people on Connie's wedding day. The full transition has been complete (right down to Michael's wardrobe change). How had I not seen this yet?

Valuable Life Lesson Learned:  If an Italian woman attempts to drive a car, the car will explode.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Upcoming February Titles:

- The Godfather Part 2

- The King of Comedy

- The Thin Man

Movie Review: Contagion (by Dave Machado)

I have an obsession when it comes to using Purell. I tend to use it multiple times a day and really freak out when the bottle empties before I've had a chance to buy a refill. I'm by no means a "germaphobe" but I tend to go the extra length to make sure I don't get sick. So going into Contagion, I was anticipating a movie that would make me squirm in my seat and run home to shower in a mixture of Purell and bleach. Yet in the end I was filled with an odd sadness when leaving the theater based on how little the movie actually freaked me out. While I enjoyed the film overall, I couldn't help but feel slightly underwhelmed. Contagion, while still a fantastically well made movie with lots of memorable scenes and characters, ended up being another example of a film that tries to do too much with far too little time.

The basic setup of Contagion is that a woman traveling for business (Gwyneth Paltrow) gets sick and quickly dies after returning home. The race is on to determine where the disease came from and how many people did she spread it to before her death (and how many people did they spread it to, and so on and so on). From there, Contagion kicks into gear as a multi-threaded story that tries to cover every aspect of the outbreak. This is where my main problem with the movie stems from. In trying to cover so much ground in less than 120 minutes, every section felt too thin. 

Aside from the abovementioned Paltrow, the movie also focuses on her widow (played by Matt Damon) as he tries to adjust to his new life while also making sure his daughter stays healthy as society starts to break down around him. Then there is Jude Law playing a political blogger who uses the outbreak as an excuse to make some extra money and build up his readership. There's also Kate Winslet playing a scientist for the CDC who is trying to track down possible victims and help design a plan to quarantine the sick and stop the disease from spreading. Also, Lawrence Fishbourne plays another CDC worker who is tasked with overseeing the plan to contain and kill this disease, but begins having a personal conflict with how info is being handed out to concerned citizens. Those are just half of the plots running throughout Contagion. While I enjoyed every story going on within the movie, I was always left wanting more. I understand the movie was supposed to be a broad look at a real world reaction to such an outbreak, but I couldn't help thinking how much better it could have been as a miniseries or even as a TV show. 

Having said that, I was amazed at how well Contagion was made in order to juggle so many stories yet always feel like the movie was pushing forward. I never felt like a jump to another story was a lateral jump, but always something that helped pushed the overall story a little further. One such reason for this was the incredible score that was used for the film. It's a minimal score that calls to mind some of the great Carpenter scores of the 1980s. It's slightly creepy while also slowly building to match the current tension on screen. 

It can be really toxic for a film with multiple plotlines to have even one small story drag the film down even the slightest. Luckily, Contagion does not have this problem as every section was equally engaging. While I may have favored Damon's story the most, I was never bored or annoyed when it switched to another perspective. I also have to give the movie credit for not bending over backwards in order to make every thread tie together too closely. Sure, they are all connected under the umbrella of this disease, but I was happy to see no third act revelations that two characters from separate stories were related or some other nonsense typically seen in this type of narrative.

While I may have hyped up the potential of me getting freaked out over the disease aspect of the movie, it was actually a much more visible threat that shook me the most. I mentioned earlier that my favorite part of the movie was the story that focused on Damon's character as he tries to keep his daughter safe. We begin to see mobs of people fighting over the small amount of vaccine and food left and even see Damon's character witness a robbery across the street where men force their way into a house and kill (or wound) the people inside as they look for supplies. This was the most chilling scene of the movie for me and if any story could have been excised and made into it's own movie, it would have been this. It may be because I am a naive optimist but I like to think that big disasters such as the epidemic seen in the movie, people would bond together as they try to find a way to survive. It is the quick emerging of the mob mentality seen in this movie that really chilled me and gave me large amounts of anxiety even after I left the theater.

So while Contagion didn't make me run home and cover myself in cleaning products, it did leave a lasting impression as far as how vulnerable we are as a society to just a disease. Kudos goes to director Steven Soderbergh and writer Scott Burns for keeping so many stories in check and never making me wish the focus would switch back to something else. It's not an awards caliber movie but it was smart enough to really pull me into the world that was setup. I highly recommend checking it out and look forward to hearing what other people thought. At the very least, it will make you touch your own face a whole lot less.

You're Welcome,

Dave

Summer Movie Preview: May 2011 (by Dave Machado)

With May right around the corner, I thought now would be a good time to take a look at some of the movies that will be coming out at the start of the 2011 Summer Movie Season. At first look, May seems to be the home for many of the "lesser quality" summer movies this season but I think there might be a few gems in the mix (with one guaranteed classic I was already able to see). Expect a new entry near the end of each month this summer. If all goes well, it may just become a monthly series.

May 6th

THE BEAVER (limited release)

The Beaver is actually the movie I'm looking forward to seeing most this month. Shelved for the past year due to Mel Gibson's "issues", The Beaver has finally started seeing the light of day within the last couple months as it rounds the festival circuit. For those who don't know, the movie centers on a man (Gibson) who has a mental breakdown but discovers that he is able to slowly get out of his rut by interacting with the world using a beaver hand puppet. I've read reviews saying the tone of the movie tends to go all over the place (broad humor, dark humor, sad family drama, etc.) but a movie this original deserves to be seen. Jodie Foster stars as Gibson's ex-wife (Foster also directs the film, her first time behind the lens since Home for the Holidays in 1995) and Anton Yelchin & Jennifer Lawrence round out the rest of this impressive cast.

THOR

I'm having a hard time getting excited for this film. Nothing in the previews I've seen really excites me. The cast and crew seem great but I'm not sure the sum will be as good as the parts. Still, it will be interesting to see a new level of fantasy be introduced in the current Marvel Movie Canon. So far (Iron Man I/II and Incredible Hulk), their films have always (though not 100% successfully) tried to keep everything grounded in some pseudoscience/technological reality. But on May 6th, we start to get into the fun realm of different dimensions and God-like men. So while I don't have high hopes, I won't completely dismiss Thor. I look forward to seeing how it all comes together. I can't help thinking though that this film deserves a terrible theme song performed by Nickelback.

SOMETHING BORROWED

Nope.

May 13th

BRIDESMAIDS

I saw a screening of this film last week and it was fantastic. In an ideal work, Bridesmaid will make at least 3 times what The Hangover Part II will make. I'll be writing up a full review closer to opening weekend, but just know that I haven't laughed that hard in the theaters in a long time. Original, witty, and raunchy. Everything I want in a big summer comedy. 

EVERYTHING MUST GO (limited release)

I know very little about this film but it looks worth checking out. Will Ferrell stars as a man whose life falls apart while losing his job and wife. As a way to cope, he holds a yard sale, hoping it will allow him to get a fresh start. Also, the boy next door is played by Christopher Jordan Wallace (Notorious B.I.G.'s son). I've enjoyed "Serious Will Ferrell" before in Stranger Than Fiction so I don't doubt he'll be great here as well.

HESHER (limited release)

Another film I know very little about but based on the cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Natalie Portman, Rainn Wilson) and crew (directed by Spencer Susser, who made the amazing Animal Kingdom) it's worth seeing. It will be fun to see Gordon-Levitt play a dirty outcast/druggie/pyro (a nice change of pace for his usual dapper roles) and to see what kind of chemistry he has with Portman. They're two of the best younger actors working today, and that alone will get me in the theater. Also, that poster is pretty amazing.

PRIEST

I typically support any type of genre film but this just looks too bland. Throw in the stupid 3D conversion and I'll take a pass on this one.

May 20th

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

I never saw the third one but something tells me that won't be a problem. I've seen the previews and will admit this seems fun, but I also thought that before seeing the bad 2nd entry. The additions of Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane can't hurt though and I'm hoping the new cast injects some energy into the aging franchise. Semi-related story: I saw the original Pirates of the Caribbean in theaters during the summer I had back surgery in 2003. It was the first time I was able to leave the house by myself after finally getting clearance to drive again (only about 3 weeks of no driving but to a just graduated 18 year old, it was a long damn time). This makes Pirates of the Caribbean the only movie I ever saw while also wearing a small back brace under my shirt. I'm pretty sure that's why I liked the first one as much as I did. Why did I share that story? Because it's more interesting than this movie will probably end up being.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (limited release)

A new European Woody Allen movie. This time Owen Wilson is in it. Sure, why not?

May 27th

THE TREE OF LIFE (limited release)

I'm genuinely excited about this film. An intimately epic film spanning millions of years (at one point it involves dinosaurs). The central plot seems to revolve around Sean Penn's character, as we go back and forth between his current life and his childhood in the 1950s (featuring Brad Pitt, as his father). Penn's character appears to be having some sort of mid-life crisis, pondering such topics as the meaning of life and where we all came from. For anyone who complains that summer movies are all flash and no substance, consider this film your saving grace. The poster above will make for a great Criterion cover in the fall.

KUNG FU PANDA 2

Enjoyed the first and will most likely enjoy the second. Not much else to say other than I'm still not sure why this had to be made. But who knows, it could end up being Dreamworks' version of Toy Story 2. Spoiler alert, it will not be Dreamworks' version of Toy Story 2.

THE HANGOVER PART II

"Oh my god, I can't believe this is happening...again!" -  What I assume will both be a quote from the movie itself and from me when I sit down to watch it. Maybe it will surprise me and be more than The Hangover 1: Bangkok Edition but something tells me that's exactly what it will be. Instead, go see Bridesmaids again the weekend this comes out.

That does it for May. Now shut up and go to the movies.

You're Welcome,

Dave