For anyone who's visited this site here at Livejournal, I've packed my bags and moved over to

brianrowe.net

There you will find all my recent reviews! Hope to see you there!

Here's an example of a famous horror film, one that features great atmosphere, a handful of memorable scenes, and one of the most iconic performances in the history of film, that really isn't all that good of a movie. The film works as more of a classic piece of history that influenced a lot that came out after it, especially work in the horror genre, and especially anything involving vampires. Bela Lugosi became stuck to this part for the rest of his life, and the director Tod Browning would never again make anything as famous (although Freaks has gained a cult status). But looking at it as a movie, just a single solitary movie, it must be pointed out that, especially considering how well James Whale's Frankentstein holds up, Dracula is a bit of a disappointment, with its share of mis-steps.

I had seen this movie once before when I was a lot younger, and all I remembered was the tremendous scene where Renfield (Dwight Frye) goes up to Transylvania to spend the night with Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), who's looking to buy some property in England. Their initial meeting and following discussion, still the best thing in the movie, reeks of atmosphere, suspense, gothic horror at its best. The sets are huge and fantastic, and Lugosi is really odd and scary. These two scenes are what most people probably remember since they're at the beginning of the movie. But sorry, folks, there's another hour of the movie after that. And it's not pretty.



Dracula lacks a little thing called energy. The movie moves at a pace of a glacier. And that wouldn't be all that bad if there were a good story and good performances to go along with it. Bela Lugosi is great, and Dwight Frye is fantastic playing a man who slowly starts to go mad. But everyone else in the movie, especially the guy playing Jonathan Harker, is a complete dead zone, lacking personality in every facet. And most of the dialogue scenes are awkwardly staged and performed, as if director Browning was terrified of the new addition of sound in movies. He doesn't seem to really put a lot of effort into the dialogue scenes, and the movie falters very much due to this carelessness. Visually the movie isn't all that interesting, apart from a couple of tracking and crane shots. The Spanish version of the film, also on the DVD, despite having a lackluster actor playing Dracula, is much more visually stimulating and inventive.

Other things... the complete lack of music. I don't need music filling up every frame, but there is essentially nothing from beginning to end in terms of music. How about racketing up some tension? Some mood? Nothing here. However, Philip Glass created an entirely new score for the film in 1999, and that material is featured on the DVD as an alternate audio track and it completely ruins most of the movie (I listened to a few scenes with the music). His music doesn't work, but some creepy 1931 music could've done the trick. The special effects are kind of tacky, which is a given for the year this was made, but nothing really special or unique is really even done. A small fake bat flapping up and down on a string gets a little old after five appearances. Not scary, not particularly inventive. And what's with the end? Dracula is murdered off-screen! We don't even get any kind of satisfying resolution! Van Helsing sticks a stake through Dracula's heart off-screen, and we hear this awkward whimper... fade out. What?!? Terrible!

Frankenstein and its sequel Bride of Frankenstein are horror classics of the 30's... movies with great production value, tremendous performances, and, most notably, a lot of heart. The end of Bride of Frankenstein is absolutely devestating. Dracula, on the other hand, really is remembered mostly for Bela Lugosi's classic performance, which still holds up. But that's basically it! The movie is not only anti-climactic, but it leaves you feeling... nothing. The film definitely has influenced a lot of work since, but as a vampire picture, as a horror film, as a movie, it's not a very good one. And it should've been great.

There is about a third of a brilliant classic comedy in the outrageously funny Superbad, most of which is in the first 30 minutes. Starring Jonah Hill and Michael Cera as two high school loners who are on the verge of college and distancing themselves from each other after a lifetime of friendship, Superbad gets a lot right, with a few truly funny moments, hilarious dialogue, and a handful of terrific performances. I just wish the comedic energy of the first act had kept up for the remainder of the movie.

The first six or seven scenes are some of the funniest in a movie in recent years. Before there is anything remotely resembling a plot, writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg and director Greg Mottola allow Hill and Cera to walk around and banter about girls, sex, alcohol, dicks. There's nowhere this movie's dialogue doesn't go. It's absolutely refreshing to hear high school kids actually talk to each other, and in an honest, uncensored manner. There's a scene where Hill and Cera just roam around a supermarket and talk, and it may be the most entertaining scene of most any film this summer. When talk of blowing your load a la Orson Welles was mentioned, I practically lost it. And that's followed by the amazing scene where Hill mouths off on his teacher, followed thereafter by telling Cera a story about what he did as a kid that made him "unusual." All of this stuff is absolute comedy gold, and I felt like this would be one of the ten best movies of the year.

Unfortunately, once an actual plot comes into play, especially when Hill and Cera become separated, the movie goes from being great to merely good. There are some bits that drag, that aren't especially funny, that don't really go anywhere. While the corrupt cop characters (Bill Hader and writer Seth Rogen) are really funny in the beginning, their schtick eventually gets so over-the-top that it stops being all that funny but more shocking instead. Whenever Hill and Cera are split, the movie kind of loses its magic. And I may get shit for this, but I wasn't all that impressed with "McLovin." His character was alright but didn't compare to the main pair. He shouldn't have been given as much screen time. There's also a more dramatic "friendship" angle that comes into play in the final act, and while it kind of worked, it could've been more effective. The last scene in the mall particularly doesn't work nearly as well as it should.

But it's not to say I didn't like Superbad. I liked it a lot! I'm being a little hard on the movie mostly because the word of mouth has been absolutely sensational, when it's just a strong comedy in a summer that produced a better comedy entitled Knocked Up. Producer Judd Apatow has to take a lot of credit for being responsible for the return of the R-rated comedy, in all its glory. After Knocked Up, and 2005's The 40-Year-Old Virgin, probably my favorite comedy of the last five years, Apatow has proven to attach his name to quality projects, and I'm already looking forward to his next. While Superbad isn't quite in the same league as those other two films, it's still a great movie that I will get a kick out of seeing again.

The most original ride of the summer! This one reminded me of classic 80's fantasies like The Neverending Story, the kind of unpredictable adventure tale isn't made much anymore. I never knew exactly where this movie was going, and that made it really unique in this final stretch of a fairly strong summer movie season.

Tristan (Charlie Cox) is in love with Victoria (Sienna Miller) and makes a promise to her to journey to the end of the Earth to retrieve a fallen star that fell from the sky that took Victoria's breath away. On his unusual odyssey, Tristan finds the star, which has turned into Yvaine (Claire Danes). He's not the only one on the search, however, as a group of young sons to the recently deceased King must search out the star to take the throne, and an evil witch (Michelle Pfeiffer) must search out the star for eternal youth.

This film's a hard one to describe because it doesn't follow a completely typical structure. There are upward of four storylines battling it out at once, with all coming together in the end to create a really intense and enjoyable finale. My favorite part of the journey occurs when a pirate named Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro) picks up the two leads up in the clouds and makes them board his ship. He is as intimidating as Travis Bickle at first, but then, his true nature comes forth, displaying a different kind of De Niro performance.

All the actors - the veterans and the newbies - are welcome faces. I said it before about Hairspray and I'll say it again... Michelle Pfeiffer, it's great to have you back. She plays a villain very well, and she just relishes this role. Claire Danes and Charlie Cox have a great chemistry together, and they have some special moments together. I especially liked Sienna Miller's performance, that could be overlooked by some, but is really worth noting. She plays the character with just the right amount of indifference to make us dislike her, but enough amount of joy to make us understand why Tristan fancies her. And... Ben Barnes... all I can say is... I can't wait for Prince Caspian!!

As this final stretch of summer comes to a close, I can honestly say I've been pretty happy with most of the movies this summer. And here's another great one. It seems to be falling between the cracks, as the trailers didn't do a whole lot for me or most anyone I know. The word of mouth got me out to this one, and I was pleasantly surprised. There's a lot of original stuff in this movie, and it's worth seeing in a theatre. It's no Harry Potter, mind you, but it's great entertainment.

1931... ahhh, the first year of the Universal monsters. One of my favorite "genres" of the 30's, 40's, and 50's is the monster movie, specifically all the Universal monster movies. Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Invisible Man, The Mummy, The Creature From The Black Lagoon. And all the sequels. These are classics through and through, marvelously entertaining. I haven't seen some of them, and those I have seen I have little to zero memory of. There are three films, however, that I have a pretty good memory of, and they are Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, and Dracula. I've often called The Bride of Frankenstein one of my favorite films, and I'm excited to watch it again in coming weeks. Dracula I remember being a sumptuous gothic feast... I will be looking at it soon.

Taking a look at Frankenstein again after all these years was an interesting experience. There are some movies that are so iconic it's hard at times to just forget everything you know about it and just watch it as a movie. When I thought back on Frankenstein, I thought of the classic scenes... the creation, the monster's entrance, the little girl by the lake, the destruction of the wind mill. And they all still work very well. What surprised me in watching the movie again is how caught up I got into the story. The completely straightforward narrative is still chilling after all these years, and the theme is forever haunting. What happens when an overambitious scientist tries to play God but giving a dead "creation" life?

The memorable moments here are endless. Even the strange opening monologue, not really part of the movie per say, is creepy and weird. A man walks out from behind a curtain to warn the audience that the preceding film "may horrify you," and yet his telling me this actually is a little scary. The laboratory is the best set piece in the movie... it's huge and fantastic. My favorite scene in the film remains the scene with the little girl. It's something that could've been played for laughs by another director, but the genius James Whale keeps the tone at just the right level. You feel sad for what happens to the girl but also sympathetic for the monster, because he doesn't really know any better. That kind of sympathy is brought out even more in different scenes of Bride of Frankenstein, but the idea is still used a great deal here. It's a special scene because it's basically the only time that the monster is allowed to befriend a human, until he meets a blind character in the sequel. She can see him, but she is unafraid of him, and that kind of human contact brings joy out in the monster. When he kills the little girl, he is just having fun. It takes no more than two seconds to realize that the fun is over, and he runs screaming away from the lake. Just this scene would make the movie a memorable one. The big finale on the wind mill is probably the sequence that holds up the least, mostly because the fate of the monster is slightly ambiguous, and I disagree with the fate of the Frankenstein character. It appears as if Frankenstein is killed when the monster throws him over the edge, getting flung onto the wind mill like a rag doll. But he's fine... he's just sent home to rest up. While I'm happy he lives in a sense so that he can be part of the sequel and the big, important finale of the sequel, it feels as though this would be a more complete story if Frankenstein died by the wind mill, the monster killing his creator. Again, this material will be realized in the sequel, but there should've at least been the presumption that Frankenstein died in this one.



In looking at Frankenstein again after all these years, I discovered there isn't one iconic performance in this movie... there are two. Boris Karloff is the image everyone knows. He makes the character far more than just a stick of a monster, giving him real humanity and more personality than some of the human characters in the movie. His sense of frustration at the end of the movie is truly sad... This may be one of the most famous performances in the history of film, and he really does deliver nearly over seventy-five years later. The other great performance, the one I remember being a little overdone, is that of Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein, the completely crazed scientist who will stop at nothing to make his creation. The moment when he responds to the notion that he's crazy is a beautiful one. He also plays the arc of his character really well, believable as both an obsessed scientist and a caring fiancee. He also shares a special moment with the monster in the finale, one that is pretty hard to miss for all those who watch the film.

Frankenstein isn't a perfect movie, and there are some flaws to discuss. The biggest problem I have with the movie is that it's so damn short. There's a famous phrase that says that no good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short. This is a great film that works both as a horror film and as a morality tale, but I feel like it would have more punch if it were a good thirty minutes longer. There is a lot more that could've been done with this material. Thankfully, the wish for more came true four years later with The Bride of Frankenstein, which in some ways can work as a continuation of this story, making one two-and-a-half hour movie. How come we live in a world where Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is three hours long, yet the original Frankenstein is barely over an hour? Even so, there are a handful of scenes that drag in this movie, basically anything with characters outside of Henry Frankenstein and the Monster. The fiancee character is fine, but the lug who plays her friend is kind of a pointless character. And there is an awkward editing technique that exists throughout the entire movie that is amusing, not really in a good way. The editor will at times cut from a giant wide to a close-up, and the cut will be awkward for two reasons. One, the continuity doesn't match. And two, the close-up isn't really warranted in any way. There will be a wide, then a quick close-up, then back to the wide. Why? Sometimes it works fine but other times it's clearly for no other reason than to just give the scene a little bit more variety of shots. There is one scene where Henry Frankenstein and Elizabeth embrace, and their faces are practically touching. Then the wide cuts to close-ups of both characters, and they are completely alone in their frames. Cut back to the wide to see that their faces are close together again. Today, something like this would completely take me out of the movie. Seeing it in a 1931 movie, however, makes it kind of amusing. Almost, anyway.

I've often thought of Frankenstein as just the prelude to the more daring and moving Bride of Frankenstein, but in looking at the original again, I see that this film is terrific in its own way. Watching movies like this really take me back to when I was a kid, when my dad would show me new and old horror movies on VHS on 80's television sets. I was fascinated then, and I'm fascinated now. All hail James Whale and Boris Karloff for their masterful work!

Paul Greengrass, the brilliant director of The Bourne Ultimatum, is such a breath of fresh air. He should be able to make any movie he wants. I can't even imagine what he could do with a daring, original screenplay. He takes a movie like this, which could've been a rather uninteresting chase movie in the hands of a different director, and turns it into pure gold, delivering some of the best rough and tough action scenes I've seen in a long time. This movie almost seems like an after thought compared to his last movie, the absolutely enthralling masterpiece United 93, which rightfully got Greengrass his first Oscar nomination and was my pick for the best film of 2006. Even so, The Bourne Ultimatum is a lot of fun and probably the best action movie so far this year.

This final (?) chapter of the Bourne series wraps up questions we've had since the first movie, and it features plenty of dual personalities, the good and bad and morally corrupt of the CIA. Jason Bourne has always wanted nothing more than to go about his life not being pursued by the CIA, but he's back in the limelight this time when he wants to find out exactly how and why he became a killer and who he was before this tortured life.



This may be the first time Matt Damon has actually scared me on screen. Well, the first time since Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back anyway ("Don't you look at me, don't you fucking look at me!"). He's a mean physical force to be reckoned with in this thing. There's a fight with an equally tough opponent that is one of the most startling and breathless fights I've seen on screen, and what's more, you actually buy that it's him on screen. His focus here, the complete black hole of pain and sorrow regarding his love's death and his life's forgotten past, is all performed at the right level. Joan Allen is always a joy to see (if you haven't seen Upside of Anger, go rent it for her ingenious performance), and she gets even more to do here than she did in the last film. Her allegiance to Jason Bourne makes for a really compelling watch. Julia Stiles, who seems to only do good work in these movies, may do her best work yet in this installment, even getting involved in the film's main chase and delivering a sweet moment of serenity in the film's closing moments. A new face in the series, David Straithairn, also chews the scenery as a really despicable guy who wants Bourne dead at any cost.

The Bourne trilogy has been of the best trilogies in recent memory, really high in quality, never faltering in its story-telling, delivering brilliant action scenes every step of the way. At the same time, I really hope the filmmakers stop while they're ahead and leave the series behind as of now. The Bourne Ultimatum marks a fitting end to the main thread of questions we've had since the first movie, and now there's really nowhere else for the story to go. I feel like there's nowhere else to go but down if the series were to continue. Even though the new installment is doing very well at the box office (was there any doubt?), it's time to put the series to rest. Paul Greengrass, Matt Damon, and the original's director Doug Liman have done commendable work, giving us three summers of refreshing, thrilling films that don't rely on big bloated special effects or mindless chases (well, I guess the chases are a little bit mindless, but of the better mindless kind). This one caps off the summer with great style and flash, and it will go down as one of the few truly great films of the summer.

Toward the end of All Quiet on the Western Front, one of the young soldiers rests in the trenches, cold, tired, melancholic from all the death and violence. He has a moment of catharsis when he sees nothing other than a butterfly up on the dirt in front of him. He reaches out his hand to touch it in a moment of sheer joy. This beautiful moment, one of many in this movie, proves that All Quiet on the Western Front, which won Academy Awards for Best Director and Best Picture, was way ahead of its time and still works as a commentary of the absurdities of war.

Based on the novel by Erich Maria Remarque, the film tells of a group of German schoolboys who are essentially mindwarped into going off to war by one of their jubilant teachers. Thinking that they are going to be heroes for their country, disillusionment begins to set in when they begin to witness the mutilation and killing, and they begin to question the very nature of the war in which they're fighting in.

All Quiet on the Western Front is not some naive cheerful war movie of the 1930's. The themes in this film are still resonant in the world today. I was surprised how well this holds up despite it being nearly 80 years old. Roger Ebert once asked director Howard Hawks what makes a great movie, and he responded, "Three great scenes. No bad scenes." There are at least three great, memorable scenes in this movie, in addition to the scene discussed earlier. The first scene in the classroom, in which an elderly teacher gets all his students riled up to enlist in the war, is almost painful to watch, seeing the excitement on all these kids' faces, knowing that they're not receiving the whole truth about the terror they're going to face. This scene is re-called toward the end of the film in another scene, where one of the soldiers returns to the classroom, witnessing the very same teacher tell the very same recruitment speech to an ensemble of young faces. The soldier rightly calls out the teacher on how wrong he was, and he makes a point to the students to think critically before signing up for the war. Maybe the best scene of the movie, however, involves one of the soliders mortally wounding an enemy soldier, and then, crying hysterically, doing everything he can to save the soldier's life. He didn't know this man, and he didn't have any reason to kill him, and instead of mindly moving on to the next kill, he weeps for the life he took. It's startling and over-whelming.

This is as good as any war movie I've ever seen. There are sections that are dated, and the movie goes on maybe twenty minutes too long, but there are moments of true horror and and pain, and the battle sequences are astonishingly well realized. Director Lewis Milestone approached this material like a seasoned veteran, even though he was only 34 when he made it and the all-talking motion picture was still in its infancy. This is a moving and powerful piece of work.

I'm sitting here, drinking my organic black tea, blasting yet another great song off of the magnificent Once soundtrack through my computer speakers, thinking, why didn't I love this movie more? Don't get me wrong... it's a decent film. I just expected something special. In that respect, the movie didn't deliver for me.

I started hearing great things about Once all the way back in January, when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and won the Audience Award for World Cinema. Since the winner of that very same award two years, a terrific film named Brothers, made my top ten list of 2005, I became instantly excited for this film. When I found out it was a musical, I knew that I was going to love it. I love love love musicals, and with the lack of them lately (despite a resurgence a few years ago with Moulin Rouge and Chicago), it's exhilarating to be awaiting a new one. It's been out in LA for most of the summer, and there have been a few close calls in going to see it, but these excursions never panned out. Finally, after two months, the movie opened at the local independent cinema in Encino, and I finally had no more excuses. I paid for my ticket, sat down in the theatre, and I became ready for what would surely be a memorable experience. A worthwhile experience? Sure. A memorable one? Not so much.

The film is a love story about two people who meet on the streets in Dublin, where a man plays his guitar for passers-by. A female flower seller befriends him and has him fix her vacuum when he claims he has more skills than just guitar playing. She tells him she is a musician as well, and they go to a piano at the back of a store. He's looking to record a professional demo, and he asks her to help him with it. Their friendship turns more flirtatious as they go along with their music, constantly playing it back and forth to each other.



First, things I liked about the film. It's for sure the most unusual musical I've ever seen. The music is, for the most part, sensational. Really, really great stuff. I bought the soundtrack when I got home. The main song "Falling Slowly" is one of the best songs I've heard in a long time. The look and feel is that of a true indie film without a big budget. It was also kind of interesting to see a musical where the characters sing with musical instruments, as opposed to just breaking into song a la Hairspray. The movie doesn't feel as silly as other musicals because the music is really being performed as opposed to just sung. Even when the girl goes for a walk with her music player and sings down sidewalks, there is a basis for why she is singing. There's no random bursts of crooning here. And that's kind of interesting.

But I have to be honest. The camera-work and look constantly took me out of the film. I really think I would've liked this more if the film had been shot on 35mm and the camera was on tripods, not shaking in every single shot. Even when the director goes for crane shots, they are a little unsteady and wobbly. 99% of the time, I never really notice the look and camera-work in a movie because I'm involved with the story. Usually the director will pick a look for his film that fits the story. The Blair Witch Project and 28 Days Later have really ugly looks, but they fit the tone of the movie. The music in Once is beautiful and mesmerizing; it deserved a more polished film look.

I also really wanted more out of the relationship between the two leads. After awhile I started to feel like the movie was more interesting in the songs than the relationship. While I enjoyed all of the songs of the movie, I wasn't emotionally invested enough with the two characters and their relationship to care about the place they're left in with the movie ends. When the film cut to black and credits rolled, I felt nothing. I was impressed with the songs and some aspects to the movie, I was never truly moved at any point near the end. I was more invested in the main characters in the flashy Hairspray than I was with the two leads in this.

There's just about two sips left in my organic black tea, which is starting to get a little too cold for my liking, and I'm replaying the song "If You Want Me" my other favorite song on the Once soundtrack. It's atmospheric and chilling, and not in a horror movie kind of way. The female's vocals are fantastic and give the song a really pretty quality. I'm listening to this song again and wishing I had liked the movie more. Every year there are a handful of movies released that are beloved by the general public and that go straight through me. Once is just such a film.

Alfred Hitchcock is my all-time favorite director. Whenever I need some inspiration, all I have to do is re-visit some of his classics, and my imagination and excitement for filmmaking gets brimming. My favorites for the master aren't unusual by any means--I like Psycho, Rear Window, The Birds, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest. I also have strong affection for his more melodramatic Rebecca, and an absolute gem of his, which until yesterday remained the oldest of his films that I had seen, is the funny and entertaining The Lady Vanishes.

As much of a fan I am of Hitchcock, there are still at least a dozen of his films that I've never seen, most of which he made in Britain before he came out to America in 1940. I've seen The Lady Vanishes, and I've heard of a couple other ones like The 39 Steps and Sabotage, but for the most part, I wasn't really aware of his films made between 1925-1939. Many of these films are not available on home video, but I thought it would be time to go back and watch his films in order... films of his I've seen... films of his I haven't seen. and watch, for the first time, his progress over five decades of filmmaking.

Hitchcock's first film was The Pleasure Garden, considered a strong debut on most parts, but unavailable on DVD. His second film, The Mountain Eagle, is the only Hitchcock movie to be 100% completely lost, without a single copy anywhere to be found (Hitchcock later told Francois Truffaut that he was happy about the film's disappearance). I took a look at Hitchcock's third feature, The Lodger, often considered his first "Hitchcockian" movie, but it didn't leave me with much to get excited about. I found it rather slow and hard to watch, especially considering the crappy DVD transfer I watched of it. In the next three years, Hitchcock would make seven, count them, seven features, the remaining of his silent films. Many of these are unavailable, but Easy Virtue I took a look at, and The Ring I will be looking at in the coming weeks. Easy Virtue is a rather blase Hitchcock movie, aside from a visually stunning opening courtroom scene, in which Hitchcock uses some cute visual gags and tricks. In 1929, Hitchcock would set out to make another silent, but, well into production, the producers decided that this new feature would be one of Britain's first talkies, and Hitchcock had to re-strategize the production of the film. 1929 was essentially the awkward transition year from silent to sound films, and this would be Hitchcock's first chance to tell a story through dialogue.

After looking at some of Hitchcock's films of the 1920's, I have to say that Blackmail is the first of his films that I truly enjoyed, and the first one that seemed to really show off some Hitchcock flair. The best part of the movie is the first third, in which a woman named Alice ditches her detective husband to spend some time with an interesting artist, who in return brings her back to his flat. They spit a lot of small talk back and forth, he plays the piano for her, and then he takes her to a back room... to have his way with her. She ends up killing him to defend herself, and later, her detecetive husband is assigned to the case to the solve the murder.

After the murder, the movie plays out like a fairly conventional thriller that could've been made by many other directors of the time. It's the first thirty minutes that stand out the most and show Hitchcock at his very best. The pacing and structure leading up the murder is really well done and still works eighty years later as a suspenseful scene. Alice and the artist spend some time together, go up to his apartment, play the piano. If somebody was just flipping through the channels and came to this scene, he or she might think this could be a happy-go-lucky classic Warner Bros musical. This scene may be the first example of Hitchcock really playing the audience like a piano, making them think everything is just with these two characters, and then leading them into some true horror. And brilliantly, the attempted rape is done off-screen behind some curtains. The end of this scene is twisted because Alice, who up until now has been a cute, perky, happy person, walks out from behind a curtain, knife in hand, with a look of menace and madness on her face. Fantastic!

I am going to be looking at more early Hitchcock movies over the next few weeks, including Murder, Number Seventeen, and the 39 Steps, and I'm excited to see more of what he could come up with in his first decade of making movies at such a young age. As someone who looks up to this man in every way, I'm pleased to finally take a look at those remaining films of his I haven't yet seen and revisit other classics that I haven't seen in a long, long time. And it's going to be especially fun to look for all the Hitchcock cameos. Blackmail features what may be his longest.

Nobody has had a most disappointing second chapter of his career than director John Carpenter. Don't get me wrong--he's a God and still one of my horror director idols. His third feature Halloween remains my all-time favorite horror movie and one that I study and watch to this day to get ideas and inspiration. That lone film proves he is absolutely brilliant at racketing up tension and delivering genuine chills and scares. But look at the rest of his career and you see a huge array of hits and, well, mostly misses. His original Assault on Precinct 13 is pretty good, as well as his original The Fog (is every fucking Carpenter movie gonna get remade?? As long as they keep their hands off Halloween... oh wait... FUCK!!) And there are some other films of his I haven't seen (Escape from New York and Big Trouble in Little China). It's not so much that the quality of his films began to suffer by the 90's; it's more so that his work became so... insignificant. At least Wes Craven had a resurgence with the Scream series. One of the great horror filmmakers of the late 70's and early 80's, Carpenter basically petered out by the late 90's and hasn't made a single movie in six years (don't let me remind you what the last one was).



So let's just say I didn't really expect much when I put in The Thing. I'd heard some good things about it, but I was in for a great surprise. This is a great monster movie, claustrophobic, eerie, with a strangely all-male cast. Kurt Russell heads a terrific cast of mostly character actors (I recognized Richard Masur from My Girl 2, plus actors from Dante's Peak and House Sitter, respectively), and he kind of plays against type here, big bushy beard in tact. Dean Cundey's exquisite cinematography really builds up the dread as the movie goes on, and the production designs and make-up effects are really cool. The movie gets pretty gross by the end, but for a good reason. The idea of having a villain that takes more than just one form is a pretty great idea, and it's executed well. I've missed as of late the classic kind of visual effects that aren't made from a computer but from rubber, glue, and dozens of hard-working crew members. Here there are some truly disgusting creature designs, including one in which a man gets his head eaten away, and one in which a man loses his arms in the belly of a creature. The film gets pretty exciting toward the end, leading to an ambiguous ending that leaves you guessing if the living characters are going to make it out of the camp alive. And that must have been a pretty ballsy decision on Carpenter's part to leave the audience hanging. I'm sorry I doubted you, John. You're more than the one-hit wonder of Halloween. Now get back to work... I want to see a new John Carpenter movie before you get too old to work!!

And one last thing. Before I rip apart various directors for remaking Carpenter's films like The Fog, Assault on Precinct, Halloween, and the upcoming Escape From New York. I have to admit, though, that John Carpenter's The Thing is a pretty damn fine film. And it's a remake. So, yes, it is possible to make good remakes. Rare, but possible. Rob Zombie, are you listening?

Sooooo much fun!! I am a huge fan of the movie musical genre, and there hasn't really been a good one since Rob Marshall's Chicago. Last year's Dreamgirls was OK but lacked energy, and the new version of The Producers was stagy and flat. I was a little worried about this movie for two major reasons... One, it's a movie based on a Broadway musical based on a movie (a John Waters movie, at that!). Two, John Travolta plays an overweight mom. All of these worries came to pass, however, when I saw the finished product. And, oh man, is this a great movie!

In 60's Baltimore, Maryland, High school student Tracy rushes home every day after school to watch the Corny Collons Show, a program that allows kids her age to dance their hearts out. She's in love with one of the young crooners on the show, Link, and when one of the stars leave, she goes to auditions being held to find the replacement. Tracy makes it on the show, and she uses the little power she has to integrate black people with white people on the show, and she also makes an effort to get her mom Edna out of the house and find herself in this new 60's world!

A film like this makes it or breaks it based off the actual songs themselves, and there really isn't a stinker in the bunch. All serve their purpose in the storyline of the movie, and none acts as filler. All the major characters gets his or her own number or more, and there's truly never a dull moment. My favorites are the big opening Good Morning Baltimore, the fast-moving Ladies Choice, and the absolutely delightful Welcome to the 60's. As corny as it sounds, I really wanted to get up and dance to some of these songs in the theatre... I can't wait for the DVD so I can embarrass others around me at home!



The amount of star power in this movie is truly staggering, and all the actors have a lot of fun with this material. John Travolta may have the most fun of all, shedding everything we knew of him in this fearless performance as Edna, who goes through a tremendous arc in the movie. While he doesn't really change his voice much (probably intentional), he immerses himself into the role, and after awhile, one starts to forget it's really him. He looks rather unusual, not really a woman, but truly nothing like a man. His dancing is sensational, and his silly facial guesstures ellicits dozens of smiles. Newcomer Nikki Blonsky is infectious, dancing her way into one of the best film acting debuts I've seen in awhile. I loved her in this. Michelle Pfeiffer, who hasn't been in a movie in five years, makes a fine return to form as the villain Velma, icy and seductive. Christopher Walken, who re-unites with Pfeiffer in a scene that reverses a memorable scene in Batman Returns, is a joy to watch sing and dance in a handful of fun sequences. And Zac Efron, the cutest new thang I've seen in a movie as of late, makes a big impression. The actors are all terrific!

Hairspray was directed by Adam Shankman, who before this has done mediocre work like Bringing Down the House, The Pacifier, and Cheaper by the Dozen 2. His talent is not in directing but in choreography, as he choreographed all the dance numbers in my favorite episode of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer... the musical episode. Scenes with dialogue in this film are mostly mundane... it's the dance numbers that make the movie work so well. And don't worry, I'd say at least 80% of this movie is dance numbers. Shankman knows his weaknesses and keeps the best of his talents at the frontmost and center here. Most of the dance numbers work spectacularly well, and there's no denying his work as a choreographer has paid off here. The dance scene on the streets as Edna and Tracy dance to Welcome to the 60's is wonderful!

In a time when summer movies are mostly thoughtless action extravangas, it's refreshing to be able to have the option to go see a movie like Hairspray. Here's a movie that's not trying to do anything but give the audience a fun time. And there's nothing wrong with that. This movie excited me to the point of ending each paragraph in exclamation points. It's that much fun!

It's amazing how far this series has come. What began as sort of a bouncy, special-effects-laden kids movie with the first one six years ago has culminated into one of the darkest blockbuster mainstream movies in recent memory. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a horror film, drenched in menace, filled with dread. There is very little action in the movie until the big finale. The set-up is slow, the movie takes awhile to pick up the pace, and some familiar characters, like Snape and Hagrid, aren't even seen until the second half. These are all compliments--Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a brilliant movie, maybe the best one yet, and it's a promise of more great things to come with this series with the final two installments.

Most of you probably know the story, but here's the gist. Harry is having a rough summer back at home with the Dursleys. He is having nightmares and is clearly disturbed by the recent death of Cedric Diggory and the return of Voldemort. Of course, no one back at Hogwarts truly believes that Voldemort has returned except for Dumbledore and Harry's close friends Ron and Hermione. The ministry has appointed a new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Dolores Umbridge, who's the nastiest teacher on the planet--her appearance is jovial but her implications are devilish. Harry takes it upon himself to teach his fellow students how to defend themselves with the possibility of attacks looming, and he has to prepare himself for the big fight that is to come. But this time, his friends are there to help him.

One of the great film series of our time, the Harry Potter films truly just keep getting better. The care that Warner Bros has allowed to be put into these films has been astounding. Harry Potter is a cash cow, and any studio could easily hack out mediocre, flawed films that don't serve the books justice. Instead, they take gambles by hiring new visionary directors like Alfonso Cuaron and let the movies breathe by allowing different takes on the films. If every single movie had been made by Chris Columbus, we wouldn't have come very far. If Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had been made by Chris Columbus, the experience would be a whole lot different. The series is also commendable because the actors always remain the same. Except for the required change of Dumbledore's actor due to the death of great actor Richard Harris, the actors have remained completely the same, with the main three actors particularly growing from novice child actors to strong young adult actors. It's a delight every time in watching the new Harry Potter movie to wait in suspense for the next familiar face. When is Hagrid coming? When is Snape coming? Much of the adult actors have very little time on screen, so it has to be appreciated when their respective characters get chances to shine.



The acting in this film is never better. Daniel Radcliffe, who has been almost annoyingly lately trying to prove he's more than just Harry Potter by appearing nude on stage in Equus in London, does a great job in this playing the role much darker. He's not all that likable for large portions of the movie, and he and the director took a huge risk in having Radcliffe play the role so subdued--it pays off beautifully. Emma Watson gives what may be her first genuinely solid performance in the series. She's always been just OK in the other movies, but here, she seems a lot more natural. Rupert Grint, given fairly little to do here, is as good as he's ever been. The adult actors all range from good to great, with Michael Gambon clearly coming into his own as Dumbledore. The major new face Imelda Staunton was born to play Dolores Umbridge. It's as if the character just fell off the page and rammed its way against the movie screen. She's deplorable and nasty, and she's absolutely riveting to watch. Every slight turn of the head and subtle guessture and smirk are clearly thought out and rehearsed. She's a fantastic addition to the series. But ultimate props have to go to Alan Rickman, who has been my favorite part of the entire series, playing Snape. Much like the last film, he is given very little to do here, but his small handful of scenes with Harry, including one where we get to see Snape as a young Hogwarts student, are some of the best in the movie. His character has always been darkly funny, but he takes a slightly more serious turn here, and it bodes well for what's in store for the character in the next film.

Technically the movie is nearly flawless. The special effects work has come maybe the furthest way of everything, with particularly the flying sequences looking amazing. Sound work is genius, and the score paves way for suspenseful scenes of eerie circumstances. The production design is worthy of an Oscar nomination, what with Umbridge's scary office dungeon of cats and the epic sights of the final battle. The sets are absolutely beautiful from beginning to end in this movie, and they already put the movie on a high-quality scale.

On the negative side, there is very little I didn't like about the movie. One negative aspect I guess could be seen is that the movie is much slower than any of the other films. While the last film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was a bouyant action adventure with scene after scene of battles and physical challenges, this newest installment is a lugubrious journey into Harry's nightmares. The last one was an adventure, this one is a horror movie. Neither one is necessarily better; what's fascinating is the different tone each movie takes on. Luna Lovegood I found to be kind of a blah character, and... SPOILER!!!... the manner in which Sirius Black dies didn't work for me in the book and it certainly didn't really work for me in the movie, either. I wanted to cry for him. Instead, I just felt like he disappeared and could maybe come back by the time the credits rolled. Overall, though, these are minor problems.



One other terrific manner in which the series has evolved is that this installment is not for little kids. While there were some scary moments in the last two, this film is on a whole different level. Not only is it much slower than the other ones, but there are scenes of true terror, particularly in the last thirty minutes. The series has evolved along with the audience that has been following each book and film. The fans of the first book are much older now and can appreciate the subtleties of the later installments better. The fans of the first movie are older to the point now where we can appreciate the dark aspects and the more sorrowful tone of the newer installments. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix seemingly takes place in Hell, with most of the magic now having to do with staying alive and defeating evil, not playing quidditch and playing tricks on the opposite sex. The need for change was practically mandatory, and newbie director David Yates has brought his style to what is an absolutely extraordinary vision.

The movie treats its audience with respect. I can't even imagine the different kinds of roads other, more successful directors might have taken. They would've played up the comedy more, or cut out the quiet character moments in lieu of big action scenes. There is scene after scene after scene of characters just talking, and it's all fascinating stuff, but it's surprising that the filmmakers got away with subject matter and characters that appear so somber. It's for fans of the books and the series, who care about these characters. It's a joy every year and a half to spend time with these people, if even for a short while. And it's emotional to consider that the end is near... There are just two more movies to go, and the last book comes out in a week. After the last page is turned on the book, it will be good to know there are still two more movies to look forward to, but it will definitely be hard as the final film particularly draws near. This is a rich series of both books and films, and it will be hard to see the day when it's all over. Don't miss Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It's the anti summer movie. It's everything that a lot of the other big summer movies don't have. A lot of heart. A rich story. A reason to get up and go to the movies again.

Dear Helen Mirren,

I apoligize for taking up your time on what is surely a busy day for you. What with your Oscar and all, and your upcoming appereance in the sure-to-be-blockbuster National Treasure 2, I assume that your taking the time to read this letter means that you have a few moments to take time to read a letter from one of your biggest fans (well actually, I'm just kind of a fan). I hope all is well with you and that you're not taking time to read this letter because of some kind of loathing going on toward your husband Taylor Hackford. I for one would be a little upset if I had to wake up to your husband every day, but, then again, I'm only 22, and maybe when I'm 62 I'll be attracted to more men like him. Yes, Ms Mirren, you read that right, I am gay. Not by choice, or because Brad Pitt turned me on in the later scenes of Fight Club, or because cutie-pie-soon-to-be-18-femme-says-he-is-straight-but-just-trying-to-deny-his-inner-feelings-and-intense-love-and-sexual-feelings-toward-brian-rowe-of-encino Sanjaya Malakar actually answered one of my myspace messages. I am gay and this interests you why? Just hear me out. The other night my friends and I watched this terrible movie called Excalibur. There, see, I bet that fat free vanilla yogurt just shot right out your nose... you remember Excalibur. Remember, the one where you give birth and scream as you pull your child high over your face? Yep, that one! It's been twenty-six years for you, so I assume you're having a little trouble remembering it. I mean, since your appearance in this film, you've gone on to make the King very upset at you in the Madness of King George, and dispel rumours of the word 'irony' to Tom Cruise's young mistress in Teaching Mrs Tingle, and, of course, win the Oscar for a role that could've been played, by, well, nobody (except for Dame Judi Dench, but I won't go there)! Yes, you've had more exciting roles over the years, but it's your role in Excalibur that really grabs my attention, and, oh, yeah, that's where the my being gay comes back into the equation. See, there's this scene where you straddle Arthur and put your hands over his neck and tell him, "I want you to live to see our son, brother." Incest! But, wait, incest is besides the point. There is a part during this scene where I admired your looks and thought, gee, you know, Helen Mirren, you still look hot today, but you looked even hotter back then, with your rosy cheeks, and your devil stares, and your long flowing blonde hair looking to wrap itself around a young knight's neck and strangle him. It's a good look for you. And you know what, during this crazy scene, and, before I realized there was an incest involved (I'm not some sick pervert, ya know), I actually got a boner. So thank you, Ms Mirren, your early 80's self managed to transform me to a hetero for ten seconds of pure joy. It's a rare occurence, one that only happens with Scarlett Johannsen, Keri Russell, and Demi Moore (with the sound off), but you managed the ultimate feat. I congratulate you. But don't for one second think that I've changed for good... now that would take a lot of time and effort, time that I don't think you have. When I think about if I would want you or, say, Larry David, I think, ya know, that's a toss-up. But if I had to choose between you and that new artist Mika (check out his stuff, it's great), I would rather be in a long midnight embrace with Mika, rubbing his shoulders, licking his nipples, caressing the bottom of his pretty feet, than doing any sort of nasty things with you, either the new you or that hot little '81 version of you. Not to say you're not hot now, but you know, you're older than my dad. It puts things in perspective, you know what I mean? And by the way, Mika is from the UK, so if you know him, please tell him to give me a ring. I'll give you my personal contact information at a later date, if that would be all right with you. I now leave you so that you can get back to the busy day ahead of you, and I thank you very much for your time.

Respectfully yours,

Brian Rowe

It has to happen every once in awhile.

There are special films that you grow up, ones that remain in your memory years after you've seen them. A lot of us have fond memories of all the Disney movies we grew with, both animated and live-action. Mary Poppins, which I watched for the first time in awhile rather recently, still holds up really well, despite being about thirty minutes too long. Most of the animated classics, including Cinderella and Peter Pan, are still terrific films for any age group. But then there are some that I loved, that I watched at least five or six times as a kid, that haven't held up nearly as well. Bedknobs and Broomsticks not only disappointed after all these years, but I actually found myself pretty bored through the majoritity of it.

The best part of the movie remains its first hour or so. Angela Lansbury is maybe the best thing about the movie, playing the apprentice witch Eglantine Price, who allows three children to stay with her at her home during World War II. When young Charlie discovers Miss Price's secret, Miss Price decides to give the children a magical journey on a bed, as she needs to meet up with the head of the defunct school Miss Price was just admitted to. This first hour, as we get to know the kids and we discover Miss Price's love for witchcraft and inexperience of riding brooms, is still entertaining. It's when we arrive in London where all the fun drains away.

The plot is beyond ridiculous, but this movie isn't really concerned with its plot. Whenever director Robert Stevenson gets a chance, it's time for a song and dance number. While the episodic pace fit well in his very own Mary Poppins, it just bogs the events down here. One of the problems may be that this 30th Anniversary DVD incorporates twenty minutes of new footage not seen since the original release in 1971, and a lot of this new footage means, yes, more song and dance! This movie is long, and it feels long, because there is very little conflict at the center of the movie, and there doesn't exist enough forward motion for the storyline. I'm not saying this movie needs a lot of depth, certainly not, but there needs to be something that pushes us along to the end of the movie. There's very little of that here.

David Tomlinson, wonderful in Mary Poppins, seems out of place here, miscast as a bumbling sidekick to Miss Price. His look perfectly suits the role of a pretentious father, but his more down-to-earth clumsy kind of character here doesn't work as well. He's OK but there's little chemistry between the two characters, and he doesn't come off all that great. The kids, who I remembered as being fantastic, are mostly annoying throughout the movie, with only young Paul (Roy Snart, in his only film apperance) coming away unscathed. There is little presence to the other two.

The animated sequence, which I for some reason remembered as being two separate parts of the movie, not one extended one, lacks energy. The underwater bit is kind of fun, with the cheesy mix of animation and live action, and all the cute ocean creatures. But what are we doing here? Where are we trying to get? It just feels like a retread of areas we touched on in Mary Poppins. But is it fun? That's what important. The second half of the animated sequence, which takes place on a soccer field, is a complete bore. We watch all but one of the main characters sitting watching a soccer game, and the other main character is merely a referee! So what we watch for minutes on end is animated characters playing soccer, and there is absolutely no reason for it. And it's done hapharzardly, with nothing really gained from the experience. I remembered the animated sequence in this movie being magical; instead, it's mostly blase.

I don't know what it is. I think in this age of such rich fantasy tales of Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and, to some extent, the Chronicles of Narnia, and given that Mary Poppins held up so well, I was ultimately disappointed in this viewing of Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Lansbury's great, the special effects still hold up really well (especially in the closing battle), and the first hour is still reasonably entertaining. Maybe it would play better as a kid, or watching it with a kid, but so much of the movie is sort of sluggish and stuck in the mud that it would be difficult to watch it again anytime soon. I'll stick with Mary Poppins, thank you very much.

Even though Mary Poppins is a bitch. And kinda scary. But that's another review.

This year I attended the LA Film Festival in Westwood and had an absolute blast! I attended the festival seven days in all and saw a whopping 22 feature films! The following are mini-reviews of everything I saw, in alphabetical order...

2 Days in Paris

Julie Delpy's feature directorial debut is a dazzling one, hilarious and true. In a format not too dissimilar from Before Sunset, the film tells of Jack (Adam Goldberg) and Marion (Delpy), a couple who struggle to stay together over a tumultuous two days in Paris. Jack loves Marion, but he can't stand her eccentric parents nor her increasingly growing number of ex-boyfriends that keep running into.

Delpy wrote, directed, edited, acted, scored the music. This could've been a complete miss from the actor turned director, but it's instead one of the best movies of the festival and a pure joy to watch. Goldberg, finally, after so many small roles in various movies, gets to shine front and center here, as a pessimistic, wise-cracking hypochondriac. The movie succeeds based on his casting, and he is fantastic here. Delpy is wonderful as well and has plenty of memorable moments. The movie itself is just really, honestly funny, without pandering to formula or "jokes," and it's one that I look forward to seeing again.

Baja Juarez, the city devouring its daughters

Between 1993 and 2005, 432 women were murdered in Juarez, Mexico, and filmmakers Alejandra Sanchez and Jose Antonio Cordero set about to find out how and why. While there are strong aspects to the film, it ultimately starts to run around in circles after awhile and becomes repetitive. However, there are many powerful moments in the film. A storyline involving an outraged mother, whose young daughter was murdered years ago and whose nephew is left rotting away in jail for the crime he didn’t commit, is one of the most compelling aspects to the film. She won’t stop going up against the corrupt figures of the law, and she finally comes face-to-face with the President of Mexico, who calmly silences her and says demeaning things like, “We are doing everything we can… Keep us posted.”

The first half-hour of the film works pretty well, but it all becomes a little much once the film reaches the third act (or, since the film is broken into four chapters, is it the fourth act?). It’s important to showcase all the various mothers and sisters, and also feature material based on criminology experts who take the viewer through all the unjust investigation methods, but all this material would be more effective with a leaner running time.

The Beautiful Ordinary

This film starts as a complete dead zone, with apparently nowhere to go in terms of story, but after awhile, you realize that’s kind of the point. Featuring a strong ensemble of younger actors, this film takes place over the course of 24 hours on the last day of school, summer 1999. The film features fairly stereotypical characters, rather typical storylines, but the unique point of the film is that 24-year-old director Jess Manafort doesn’t have any tricks up her sleeve to throw at us in the climax. The whole movie sort of feels like the last scene of the Sopranos, as we constantly are asking ourselves if something drastic is going to happen. There is a photographer character always looming in the background, taking pictures of each and every character, and his sullen face starts off the movie. I kept thinking he was going to go crazy and gun everyone down in the end. But he doesn’t. There is no real beginning, middle, and end to the movie.

The movie, apparently for Manafort, is a nostalgic, autobiographical journey back to her high school years, leaving not one single cliché un-turned. What makes work at all is the clear joy Manafort has for writing these characters, and the actors make it way better than it has any right to be.

Billy the Kid

My favorite film of the festival, Billy the Kid is an absolute joy. It’s not the best-made film—not by a long shot—and it doesn’t deal with big issues like most of the other documentaries I’ve seen. It merely focuses on a 15-year-old outcast named Billy, who lives with his mother and younger brother in a small little place in Maine. He attends high school and has very few friends. There is nothing truly dramatic to his situation, and there’s very little arc in the story from beginning to end. And yet, this one’s my favorite so far.

It’s my favorite, basically, because of Billy. He’s one of the greatest characters I’ve encountered in a movie in a long time, and the whole experience of watching Billy the Kid is made all the better knowing that he’s a real person living out his life exactly how we see it on-screen. He has opinions on everything, tries his best to fit in, loves his mother, and is starting to get interested in girls. He is one-hundred-percent open to the camera with his feelings about all these issues, and he is deliriously lovable.

The movie is funny, sad, maddening, enthralling. It’s funny to hear what Billy will say next but sad when he feels hurt by what he said. It’s maddening when he can’t seem to make an impression on anyone or find anyone to take him in as a friend, but enthralling to see him when he does succeed and does get a friend, when he does get a girl to like him. This is a special movie about a unique individual that I won’t be able to get out of my head for a long time.

The Buffy Musical: Once More With Singing! A Big-Screen Interactive Extravaganza

Okay, Buffy fans, this is a little something called Heaven on Earth. We have waited for an event like this for years, in which fans of the show could finally come together and unite as one! The Buffy Musical Extravaganza, which is touring the country and not just playing this once in Los Angeles, is a lot of fun and a real delight for any fans of the show.

The festivities begin with the receiving of a goodie bag, which has such treats as poppers, kazoos, and monster finger puppets. When everyone was seated, the master of ceremonies, Mr. Clinton McClung, introduced the pre-show. Comprised of two music videos, a trivia section, and a clip that comprises seven seasons of Buffy down into about a minute, the pre-show flew by in a jiffy. McClung then went step by step outlining the rules of the Buffy Sing-a-Long. For Example, when Tara reaches her climax of her song, “I’m Under Your Spell,” use the popper. During Dawn’s ballet, fill the air with bubbles. Holds hands with a neighbor during “Where Do We Go From Here.” This audience interaction during the episode, my favorite of the series, was a blast, and it completely lent itself to making the episode all the more entertaining. I’ve never taken part in any sort of Buffy communal activity, so it was a real kick to finally sit in a room filled with rabid fans of the show, all there completely out of love.

After the show, McClung announced that a special guest was in the audience, and he brought writer Marti Noxon to the front of the stage. One of the better writers of Buffy, she also appears in Once More With Feeling, as the parking ticket lady. As much as I love Noxon, I was a little disappointed nobody else could be there. I was hoping for at least a cast member to show up. What about Amber Benson? What’s Emma Caulfield up to? It was then with great shock when Noxon announced, “ladies and gentlemen, Joss Whedon.” I jumped up out of my seat along with everyone in theatre and broke out into loud screams and applause. It was truly touching to see Mr. Whedon look clearly emotional (and baffled) at the rabid fan support for not just the Buffy sing-a-long but for him and the show in general. He made the night a truly memorable one. The Buffy Sing-A-Long was a blast!!

The Cool School

The most bland documentary of the festival, The Cool School is mostly a showcase for old artists to talk about their past work and their frustration at the lack of art in the Los Angeles area. I really didn't find much of interest in this movie, and I found myself drifting off from time to time. The most pleasure I got from the film was seeing a Blue Velvet re-union, in which Dennis Hopper and Dean Stockwell are interviewed together to talk about the art movement of yesteryear. There really isn't much to like or recommend about the film, and it's really only worth seeing if you have a strong interest in the subject matter. If you enjoy hearing old men talk about art, go right ahead and seek out this movie. If you'd rather look for more daring, unique documentary subject matter, may I suggest any other documentary I saw at the festival.

Does Your Soul Have a Cold

This film takes an intimate look at a group of people in Japan suffering depression, so intimate in fact that I fell asleep about ten minutes into the movie and didn't wake up until the credits rolled. From what I saw, this was a decent, quiet look at people dealing with a disease that they can't shake in their every-day life. I can't give a proper critique of this film, however, given that I slept through the most of it. The director seemed nice. The opening credits were stellar. Japan looked pretty. The seats in the Majestic Crest theatre are soooo damn comfy.

The Great World of Sound

This well-acted but rather mundane and visually blasé movie doesn’t really leave much of impression. Pat Healy plays Martin, who answers an ad about training to become a record producer and sign musicians who come off the street to audition for him and his partner. Even though he does fairly well at the job, it starts to become a little too much, and he soon realizes that the enterprise for the most part is a complete scam. Great World of Sound would’ve worked better as a short film or in written form, because as a full-length movie, the whole thing just gets monotonous after awhile. Healy does a pretty solid job, and Kene Holliday, who plays his partner Clarence, is by far the best thing about the movie. When the movie ends, however, you’re left with next to nothing, and overall, the journey is not worth taking.

The Hottest State

I won’t lie, I expected very little from this movie. I always get worried when actors become directors, especially one who is tackling material based on his very own novel. Thus, it is with great surprise to say that Ethan Hawke’s new film The Hottest State is a terrific movie.

It doesn’t hurt that Hawke got Catalina Sandino Moreno, one of the most beautiful and talented up-and-coming actress, to play the lead female of the role. The film is about an actor named William (Mark Webber) who meets a local singer (Moreno), and the two begin a tumultuous relationship that will put them both through a variety of emotions. She goes to him with Mexico on a film shoot and has an amazing time, but she starts to pull away after she gets back, fearing his ultra-fast and intense commitment to her.

The beauty of the film is in its rich dialogue and attention to detail. The film is clearly semi-autobiographical to director Hawke, and he allows the story to unravel slowly and take its time. The performances are all solid, with Webber and Moreno believable romance that becomes more and more tortured as the film goes along. Laura Linney pops up later in the movie in a glorified cameo that marks another great turn from her, especially in a dinner scene that feels reminiscent to many other dinners we all have experienced with our mothers. Hawke appears in the movie, too, and he gladly dials down his performance to suit the apathetic nature of the father character. Visually Hawke doesn’t go overboard a la Kevin Bacon in Loverboy, and he smartly allows for an ambiguous ending that doesn’t make any promises for either of the two main characters. The Hottest State is being released by ThinkFilm later this summer, and it’s definitely worth checking out.

How to Rob a Bank

Fast-moving but instantly forgettable, How to Rob a Bank nonetheless offers two solid performances from stars Nick Stahl and Erika Christenson. Almost the entire movie takes place inside a bank vault, in which Jinx (Stahl) and Jessica (Christenson) have been thrown into a situation out of their control and locked themselves in the vault. A bank heist has commenced, and they have to talk it out between each other what they need to do to get out.

There’s nothing in this movie we haven’t seen before, and there is nothing to really stick around for. The pay-off isn’t all that satisfying, and the characters outside of the vault are fairly one-dimensional. The joy of the movie, which isn’t quite enough to recommend it but enough to not come down too hard on it, is watching Stahl and Christenson chew the scenery, and each other. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Christenson this good or this sexy, and Stahl, who looks happy to take a break from more action-oriented films like Sin City and Terminator 3, is immensely watchable. Together they make a pedestrian movie far more entertaining than it would’ve been with lesser actors not up to the challenge.

Interview

Steve Buscemi directed this fine film that stars himself as a political journalist named Pierre who is forced to interview a B-grade movie actress Katya (Sienna Miller). What starts as an awkward sit-down interview in a restauarant culiminates in an evening spent together in her apartment. He discovers a need to actually get to know her outside of the work he has to do for the interview, and she has skeletons in her closet that she feels comfortable enough to reveal to Pierre.

The movie is worth seeing for the two electrifiying performances by the lead. It’s especially rare to see Buscemi in such a commanding leading role, and he never falters for a moment, always keeping us guessing if he truly is a caring guy or a sleezy journalist. Sienna Miller is just as good and keeps up with the main man as a Lindsey Lohan-type who is clearly lonely and unhappy. This could’ve been a clichéd role from beginning to end—a spoiled brat of a movie star who actually has a heart of gold and is just looking for a friend—but Miller keeps us guessing and never allows the character to get one-dimensional. At first it’s hard to believe that this kind of person would allow a journalist—even a seemingly good guy journalist—so close to her within just minutes after meeting her, but we soon discover her insecurities and realize that she really just needs someone relatable in her life.

Visually the movie is very simplistic, with the camera usually just hovering around the characters like a voyeur. Buscemi smartly doesn’t make the movie too cinematic and instead just allows the performances to unravel on-screen. There is a shocking amount of material in Katya’s giant apartment—at least seventy-five-percent of the movie—but the strong material and excellent blocking by the director keeps the events moving. Interview is well-worth seeing, particularly for the solid acting and both funny and poignant writing.

Join Us

This creepy little documentary, in the same vein as last year’s masterpiece Deliver Us From Evil, takes us to an evil place where parents are brainwashed into thinking the only way their children are going to get into Heaven is if they do horrible things deemed right by their minister. Filmmaker Ondi Timoner is given instant access to the parents after the fact, as well as the minister himself, who doubts that he’s ever done anything wrong. He took advantage of these innocent people and their children out of his own bizarre satisfaction, but in every capacity he tries to make himself look like the good guy. It seems bizarre from the get-go when specialists refer to the minister’s practice as a cult, since the parents all seem to be reasonably sane and look perfectly normal. However, that’s exactly what it is, because the man took these people and slowly morphed them into his children, so to speak, to let him do whatever he wanted with them. The only thing the film lacks is a focus on just how these people managed to be manipulated in such a drastic way, but other than that, this is an interesting, eerie film.

Jump!

"

Going against what I said before, there’s nothing wrong with the competitive documentary genre. I was merely happy that Resolved didn’t just become that, because there was a lot more to explore in that film. Jump, however, is a purely competitive kind of movie, and it’s all the better because of it. This is a surprisingly exciting look into the sport of jump roping. Coming from a first-time director, this was clearly a film made mostly in the editing room. It never stops to take a breath—we move fast from team to team around the country as they prepare for national competition, and we get swept up in the stakes for each participant. We’re taken through nationals, all the way to the world championship, where even more is up for grabs. Especially moving is the story behind a little girl who suffers from a mild form of asthma, who nonetheless dedicates herself every day to jump roping. The arc of her story is really special and the heart of the movie. I see Jump having a pretty bright future with audiences down the line.

Kabluey

Here is one of the strangest, funniest surprises of the festival. Salmon, played by the film’s writer-director Scott Prendergast, has it rough—he’s homeless and broke. To make ends’ meet he has to stay with his brother’s sister Leslie (Lisa Kudrow) and baby-sit her kids, which sounds far easier than what occurs on-screen. They are the biggest brats on the planet, and they’re bound and determined to kill him any chance they get. To make matters worked, he finds and takes a part-time job that is just about the most ridiculous, pointless position on the planet.

I had trouble at first trying to accept a movie that had serious undertones about the Iraq war but also tried to make us laugh from beginning to end with other subject matter, but the combination works surprisingly well. The comedic aspect of the movie definitely works better than the serious aspect, because the tone of the movie is just so absurd. There is a fairly powerful moment when Leslie takes a long walk and starts breaking down crying over her current stressful situation. This moment, while fairly powerful in this movie, would’ve worked a lot better in a more serious movie. However, it’s commendable for Prendergast to even attempt the kind of comedy-drama dance he does here, for the most part, effectively.

It’s also just a treat to see Kudrow again. Since Friends ended, she’s only appeared in one film—Don Roos’s Happy Endings. She is a welcome addition to any movie, and it’s a delight to see her again here.

The Last Winter

Never before have I seen such a great movie falter so much in the final ten minutes that everything that came before seems almost not worth congratulating. Directed by Larry Fessenden, the film has a lot of tension and atmosphere throughout its running time, and the majority doesn’t rely on any sort of computer-generated effects.

Set in the Arctic region of Alaska, the film tells of an oil company’s advance team who are sent to a small camp to establish a drilling base. The group of six or seven begin to hear strange noises from outside, and, when one of the team ends up frozen to death outside, they all begin to become suspicious of each other and dread the possibility of what may lie outside their camp.

Fessenden does a terrific job racketing up the tension. What begins as a glorified Sci-Fi Channel movie becomes better and better as it progresses, with a handful of brilliant scary moments. The actors are all pretty good, and the sense of dread is almost unbearable by the time the third act rears the corner. In the final few minutes, however, we finally see the creature that lurks outside, and the outcome of the two main characters is finally determined, and it’s about as effective and scary as an episode from the fourth season of the Goosebumps television show. It undermines what otherwise is a pretty stellar horror film.

Prison Town, USA

This quiet and affecting documentary is set in Susanville, California. The town used to be filled with possibilities, with jobs in the lumber mills and dairy farms, but now, people have just one major job prospect---employment at one of the four prison facilities in the nearby area. Prison Town, USA, not only explores the problematic economic issues but also gives us glimpses into the lives of various families who are faced with the town’s limited possibilities. The most moving story involves a family of five, whose father stole twenty-eight dollars worth of groceries and was sent to prison for 16 months. His wife barely manages to feed her kids while he’s gone, and when he is released, he struggles to find work in Susanville outside of the prison system. The filmmakers also got access to the prisons themselves, where we see up close the relationship between the prisoners and prison guards. It’s obvious not many of the guards want to be there—they simply have no choice but to work at this job and be able to feed their families. It’s an eye-opening, heart-breaking film.

Resolved

An exhausting but fascinating look at high school debate, Resolved moves faster than most action-adventure movies. The film looks at different groups of debaters, starting with prominently white schools, but the film changes focus and becomes all the better for it when Richard and Louis, two African-American debaters, become the forefront in the material. Knowledgeable and intelligent, but also filled with far more experience than any of the other debaters, they come to the stand with courage and passion, outlining their points not based off of a piece of paper but from memory and heart. It’s no wonder they keep winning debate after debate and ultimately become the #1 debaters of their state—they’re about more than just the strategy.

Director Greg Whiteley, who directed the similarly excellent New York Doll, doesn’t fall into the clichés of making one of those competitive documentary films, a la Spellbound and Wordplay, but instead focuses on the characters and issues at hand. He’s not interested in who wins or loses the debates, and neither should we. While the actual debates themselves get a little tiring after awhile, this film has a lot to offer and is well-worth checking out.

Rocket Science

Succeeding about half as much as the documentary on the exact-same subject matter, the previously mentioned Resolved, Rocket Science is a nonetheless entertaining look at a shy boy who joins his high school debate team. The performances are universally great here, particularly lead Reece Daniel Thompson, who is immensely likable and vulnerable. Nicholas D'Agosto, the cutie from Election, shows up here in the beginning and end of the film and leaves an impact, playing a master debater who suddenly quit and disappeared. This film is definitely trying to be Napoleon Dynamite and it works much better when it just tries to be honest. Having premiered at Sundance, the film definitely has that Sundance mentality, that quirky independent feel. But unlike Little Miss Sunshine, this one doesn't stay with you for very long. It's a good film, just not a great one.

Shorts Program #3

This shorts program featured an eclectic group of six films, with one masterwork, one disaster, and four decent others. The film to seek out from this group is an animated short called Love and War, a dazzling little stop-motion animated short that features animals singing opera while a tragic love story unfolds. It’s absolutely gorgeous and features a haunting musical score. I don’t know if this one’s on the Internet anywhere, but definitely try to find it.

The rest of the shorts aren’t really worth writing home about. The best one next to Love and War is Dear Lemons, which doesn’t really go anywhere but features terrific performances from its child actors. The director clearly has a knack for interesting characters, and I was delighted to hear in the Q&A afterward that she was expanding this short into a feature. Mariel Hemingway appears in a short that has a neat concept but goes on far too long, and a film entitled Happiness left me with none of that by the time the credits rolled. The only real dog in the bunch, however, is a pretentious short called English Language (with English Subtitles). I felt its intentions were noble, but the one-joke scenario doesn’t support the flat story. Without the gimmick of having subtitles tell us what all the characters are thinking, there wouldn’t be much to sustain our interest in the actual story. And it’s LOOONG.

Trigger Man

The big giant turd of the festival, Trigger Man gives horror a bad name. The film tells of a group of three friends who go out to the woods to hunt for deer, when, suddenly, they become the hunted, with a sniper taking shots at them. Okay, I know what director Ti West is trying to do with the movie, trying to capture the reality of the situation through long takes and moments where people don’t talk and nothing seems to be happening. And I’ll even give West a little credit for succeeding as much as he does with the limited resources.

But this is a bad film. It’s a 10-minute movie stretched to 80 minutes. You don’t care about any of the three main characters, so it’s hard to get worked up when they started getting whacked. West seems more interested in having the audience member put himself in the position of the characters’ struggle for survival, but that noble idea can only go so far. There is a moment toward the end where we follow a character walk with his gun at his side, in one very long take, where nothing happens except for noises behind heard here and there. This is an effective visual and auditory idea for the scene in question, but it goes on FOREVER, and after awhile, the suspense starts to dissipate and all we’re left with is boredom. This can’t possibly be the strongest horror film that the Los Angeles Film Festival has to offer. There’s no fucking way.

What We Do is Secret

This loud, annoying biopic thinks it’s far more important than it actually is. The film tells the story of Darby Crash, lead singer of the punk bad The Germs in the late 70’s, who lives his life fast and dangerous, never looking back. The majority of the movie is comprised of concert footage that doesn’t really add a lot to the proceedings, and, for those who don’t really care for the music on display, the film becomes a hard sit after awhile. There are solid moments here and there filled with energy and spark, but they never amount to much. The supporting cast, including Bijou Phillips and Tina Majorino, is mostly forgettable, and the faux-documentary format, which has become tiresome as of late, just makes the movie feel extra pretentious.

The only real redeemable quality to the movie is the electrifying performance by Shane West, who sheds everything we knew about him from previous movies like Whatever It Takes and A Walk to Remember and delivers a raw, tortured portrayal. He deserved a better movie.

Wizard of Gore

Oops, I spoke too soon. Trigger Man isn’t the worst movie of the festival.

Wizard of Gore is one of the most unpleasant movies… scratch that… experiences I’ve had in a long time. This is an ugly, repulsive movie with absolutely no redeemable value. How director Jeremy Kasten attracted such actors as Kip Pardue, Bijou Phillips, and Crispin Glover is beyond me, and whoever thought this would be any good?

The script is TERRIBLE. There is nothing to keep you interested on a story level, and there isn’t one interesting thing about any character. Glover is entertaining for about thirty seconds, and then his schtick gets old real fast. I still can’t discern Phillips from other actresses. And Pardue, more bland here than ever, tries to make his character three-dimensional by dressing up as Clark Kent the entire movie.

The plot of the movie, involving a gory magic show that seems to culminate in the “fake” victims actually getting killed later on, could’ve lent itself to a fun guilty late-night pleasure. Instead, we get a disgusting, sexist, boring movie that pushes Trigger Man out of the way to become the bad seed of the LA Film Festival. Wizard of Gore is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and you can be so lucky to never see it in a theatre near you.

So I didn't realize until too late that it was a mistake to walk into Waitress hungry. I mean, I knew that the film centered around a pie shop, but I had no idea just how much focus would be put on close-up shots of mouth-watering pies. Wow. There should be restaurant screenings of this film.

Waitress is a joyous movie, told simply, executed beautifully. It's the kind of heart-warming movie that doesn't feel sappy or sentimental, with an ending that's earned, not tacked on.

Jenna is stuck in a joyless marriage and trapped in a job at a small pie diner where making pies provides most of the happiness in her life. When she finds out she's pregnant, she's not ecstatic or upset or relieved, just indifferent. All she cares about is that nobody congratulate her on the pregnancy, because it's nothing to get excited about. Things get complicated in her life when she starts an affair with her new doctor. She doesn't really understand her attraction toward him, but what she does know is that he is definitely good for her. Back at the diner, Jenna has two friends who have equally pitiful lives, and she also has a close friend, an older man who owns the diner and enjoys making small talk with her.



That the film puts Keri Russell front row and center as a commanding new screen presence is an understatement. I've loved Ms. Russell ever since her days on Felicity, where I always felt she had what it took to become a major film actor. Since the Felicity days, she's only popped up in small parts in films here and there, like We Were Soldiers, Mission Impossible III, and The Upside of Anger. It is with great satisfaction to report that after her wonderful performance in this film, she will be appearing in major roles in two more films coming out later this year--August Rush and The Girl in the Park. It looks like someone is finally waking up. Here Russell infuses her infectious charm into a deliriously quirky role that could've been played over-the-top by other younger actresses, but Russell always keeps the character of Jenna real. Even though Russell has been around for a good decade or so now, her performance in Waitress feels like the work of a break-out performer, someone who has hid in the shadows for awhile and who is finally blossoming and making herself known. Here's hope for further great work from Ms. Russell.

While there are plenty of terrific performances in this movie, particularly from Nathan Fillion and Cheryl Hines, it is the moving performance from the legendary Andy Griffith who tries and succeeds in stealing the show. At 80 years old, he can still play comedy and drama with ease. The friendship his character Old Joe shares with Jenna is quiet but noteworthy, and it has a tremendous payoff. Nothing hit me more than anything in the movie like his speech about the delectable taste of chocolate strawberry pie. While I'm not that familiar with either of his major shows--The Andy Griffith Show and Matlock--I fell in love with Mr. Griffith in this movie and am happy to see he's still a working actor.




The tragedy of the film is that its talented writer/director Adrienne Shelly was murdered last November in her apartment. She would sadly never live to see her last movie with an audience or see the huge success and love people have with the movie. That Waitress is by far her biggest success as a filmmaker must be truly gratifying to people closest to Shelly. It's a major loss, as she would've gone on to do more great work with both writing and directing. At least we have this movie to delight in her imagination.

I loved this movie. It's not that original or different, and there's nothing truly striking in the cinematography or editing. It's just a lot of fun, it has a nice pace, and Keri Russell is absolutely glowing. In the midst of all these numbing threequels, Waitress is a breath of fresh air. It sure makes me want to get baking... Chocolate Marshmallow Pie, anyone?

Late producer Debra Hill, who passed away a couple years ago at the age of 54, left a legacy of such notable classics as The Fisher King, The Fog, and the original Halloween. The one film, however, that should deservedly appear toward the top of her film credits is a movie that was a box office bomb in late 1985 but has since gained a strong cult status over the last two decades. Clue, written and directed by Jonathan Lynn, and based on the Parker Brothers board game, is one of the most whimsically hilarious and charmingly over-the-top comedies of the 1980’s.

Six strangers who all incidentally work for the government in 1954 New England receive letters that tell them to meet at a mansion one stormy night. Given aliases by the butler Wadsworth (Tim Curry), the six individuals—Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), Colonel Mustard (Martin Mull), Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), and Miss Scarlett (Lesley Ann Warren—spend a night attempting to solve mysteries as more and more people in the mansion start getting killed.

Clue has several delights, but the most surprising one is the clever screenplay by Lynn. One wouldn’t expect such incredibly smart writing in a film based on a board game, but what Lynn does so wonderfully in this movie is take a simple premise and provide non-stop plot twists, along with the funniest of one-liners, banter, and monologues. The twists escalate as the movie goes on and really tops out in the final three endings, which reveal so much about the various characters that paying close attention becomes a must. What really makes the movie come along is the sheer lunacy in its dialogue. There is not a single line in the entire movie that lacks flavor or wit, and all the dialogue serves not to just humor up the situation but further along the plot as well.

As great as the screenplay is, however, it’s really the tremendous ensemble cast that makes this movie such a hoot. If one of the seven main performers had been cast differently, this movie probably wouldn’t work nearly as well. The non-stop laughs and entertainment comes out of the unpredictable interaction between the characters, with the audience never knowing what one of them will do and say next. There are moments of pure unabashed joy just watching the actors converse with one another, such as scenes in which Colonel Mustard asks Mrs. White how many husbands she’s had, Colonel Mustard attempts to ask Wadsworth if there are any other people in the house, and Wadsworth explains to Miss Scarlett why there are no more bullets left in her gun.

All the actors do a splendid job, but there are a select few that really should be singled out. Warren, who injects the role of Miss Scarlett with sexiness as well as intelligence, has never gotten a role to showcase her comedic talents since. She, like all of the actors, but probably most so with her, clearly appears to be having fun making the movie, and her energy and excitement leaps off the screen. Curry, so frenetically dynamite in another cult classic entitled The Rocky Horror Picture Show, plays the role of Wadsworth with the same kind of delicious wit and fast-moving physical presence as Dr. Frank-N-Furter; however, in this, he is grounded enough to connect more on an emotional level. He is essentially the narrator of the film, even taking the characters toward the end through a long rant talking about who the murderer is and why.

The award for MVP of Clue, though, has to go to the late, great Madeline Kahn. At first she appears to be in the wrong movie—her pale, rather drab version of Mrs. White seems out of place, especially considering the more over-the-top maid character in the game. Soon, however, one understands Kahn has chosen a way to portray the character that far surpasses any other interpretation that could have been made. Bitingly sardonic and contemptuous, she delivers one hilarious line after another without flinching nor breaking character in the least bit. She’s immensely entertaining to watch when she’s delivering giant monologues, and equally so when she does little expressions and makes subtle noises that one might not even pick up on during the first viewing. Kahn is absolutely brilliant in this film, and she is an actress that will be missed.

In terms of directing, Lynn makes the right decision in keeping the visual style as simple as possible. This being Lynn’s first feature film as a director, one might expect him to be experimental, using fancy camera movements and weird lighting techniques. Instead, Lynn lets his actors breathe in many wide shots, with the camera completely still most of the time. When the camera moves, it simply does so to follow a character who is talking, instead of going for an artsy visual shot. The simple style actually helps, not distract from, the humor of the film, as it feels more like a funny stage-play than an over-dramatized motion picture.

While not a huge success when first released, and unfortunately not mentioned high up on the recent articles about producer Hill’s unfortunate passing, Clue is a film that has been gaining momentum over the last twenty years as a bonafide cult classic, and it is a movie that just gets better with age. While most films get tiresome after seeing them a couple times, Clue actually gets funnier on each viewing. There is always something new to discover, whether it be as subtle as an actor’s gesture lingering in the background, or as groundbreaking as a plot thread that can finally be pieced together. This film is an unforgettable comedy gem worth watching over and over again for many decades to come.

As a huge fan of the horror genre, I thought it was about time to check out what is widely regarded as the first true horror movie ever made. Made before other famous horror silents like Nosferatu and The Phantom of the Opera, this film, made in Germany, was incredibly influential and still has an impact 87 years after its original debut. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is an amazing piece of art and a really fascinating film.

My reservation with silent films came into fruition with D.W. Griffith's early work of Birth of a Nation and Intolerance. These two films are mind-numbingly boring. I don't follow the stories and I don't care about what is happening on screen. Intolerance is the much better film, with more to sustain your interest. Both films are very important, particularly in the early development of film narrative, editing, production design, etc. But as a viewing experience, the movies don't really hold up all these years later. The only silent movie that I saw outside of a class and enjoyed very much was Nosferatu, which I'd actually like to check out again. It's scary and simple, with a chilling performance by Max Schreck.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is short and sensational, beautiful and tragic. It also has a story that doesn't feel dated in the least. A man named Francis tells an elderly man a terrifying story about what happened to his friend Alan and fiancee Jane. Francis and Alan go to a fair where they meet the weird old man Dr. Caligari, who shows them to his somnambulist Cesare, who can predict the future. Alan asks how long he has to live, and Cesare says he has until dawn. When Alan is murdered, Cesare becomes the suspect, and Francis goes about trying to solve the mystery of Cesare and Dr. Caligari.

The whole film plays out like a beautiful short story done by a pro of a filmmaker, one who had been making films for a long, long time. These kind of weird, surrealistic films were brand new at the time and surely shocking and wholly bizarre for the viewers of 1920. The whole movie, from the performances to the unpredictable storyline to the powerful directing, works better today than most all movies made in the 20's and 30's. It works so well today because it's timeless, existing in a weird world of the macabre.

There is a lot to commend in this influential movie, but there's nothing worth noting more than the incredible production design. I have no idea what the backstory is of this movie, and what the art department people were thinking while putting everything together, but it's all just genius. Tim Burton clearly must've gotten a little bit of influence from this movie. Every street corner, hallway, and front door have subtle off-beat touches, with nothing being as it seems. This isn't a straightforward D.W. Griffith kind of silent film, in which the camera very rarely leaves front and center of the action. Director Robert Wiene experiments endlessly with different camera angles and filters, not to ever show off but always to serve the story.

I'm really glad I finally made the effort to see this film. It reminds me a lot of Burton and David Lynch, but then I had to remind myself that this movie was made decades before those men were even born. The movie is great no matter what the year it was made, but having been made at such an early age of cinema makes it all the more spectacular. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is essential viewing for all film lovers.

I've always had a strong dislike for Kevin Costner. I don't know what it is--the quality of many of his films, his rather blase screen presence--but if Costner has a new movie coming out, don't bet on me rushing out to see it. Look at the list of some of the movies he has done in the last decade--Wyatt Earp, Waterworld, Tin Cup, The Postman, Message in a Bottle, For Love of the Game, 300 Miles to Graceland, Rumor Has It. There have been rare occasions of strong films and performances, particularly the underrated The Upside of Anger with Joan Allen and the slow but effective Open Range (and I still have yet to see Dances with Wolves and Field of Dreams). But for the most part, I try to avoid his work as much as possible. That's why Mr. Brooks was such an odd experience for me. This is my favorite performance Kevin Costner has ever given, and the film stands up with Zodiac and Grind House as one of the best films I've seen so far this year.

Mr. Earl Brooks (Costner) seems like your everyday normal rich guy... beautiful wife, college-bound daughter, successful. The only scenario out of whack in his life is that he's an addict, not with drugs, but with killing people. He has an imaginary friend Marshall (William Hurt) who likes to taunt him and remind him who he really is inside. Earl, on the other hand, wants to quit the lifestyle and go the straight and narrow. Up until a night in which he shoots in cold blood two people having sex, he hadn't killed anyone in two years. He's been called the Thumbprint Killer but assumed dead or booked in jail for not having assumed any activity for so long. Hot on his trail is Detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore), who has problems of her own, including owing her soon-to-be ex-husband millions of dollars and being hunted down a duo of killers who have a vendetta toward her. Thrown into the mix is a photographer (Dane Cook), who discovers Mr. Brooks' dual identity and wants something oddly disconcerting in return.



The joy in watching the movie is putting all the pieces together as you watch it. Just when you think you know exactly where it's going, the movie surprises you. The movie goes back and forth between Brooks and Atwood, and there is never a dull moment. By the third act, I had a feeling I knew what was coming in the finale, but I was taken aback by the end and how everything is resolved. And there is a beautiful moment in the end that many may feel is a cop-out of sorts, but that I loved.

William Hurt is the only great actor in the bunch, so it's a surprise just how good all the performances are. Costner, as I said before, is really terrific in this. His personality that drags other movies down complements this movie. He is believable in the role and never over-plays any moments of intensity. He can be scary at times, particularly in his first murder scene, and there is even a scene in which he cries, one in which he completely pulls off. Demi Moore, never one for Actress of the Year, commands the screen with her biggest role in a major theatrical movie in a decade. Demi, where have you been? Looking better than she's ever looked at 44, she delivers a solid performance in what makes for a good half of the movie. Being a fan of her work in the underrated thriller Disclosure, it was fun to see her return to a character that chews the scenery and takes command in every scene. William Hurt gets the thankless role, one that could've been a complete mess and a horrific part of the movie. He makes it really work though, and the manner in which the director and editor have alligned his screen-time with Costner's is excellent. The character is ultimately necessary, and Hurt has fun with it. Dane Cook is another big surprise in this. All I knew about this guy before seeing this movie was that he was in some supposedly shitty flick with Jessica Simpson and that he had a background mostly in comedy television and movies. I wanted nothing to do with this guy, and when I saw him featured in the trailer, I was thinking, "huh??" He's great in this! Similar to Costner, his personality just suits the character. He's a little off-balance, kind of a dick, definitely egotistical. The last scene with him in the film is also one to remember--classic! I've never seen Cook in a film before, but he should definitely do more dramatic work. One other stand-out in the movie is Danielle Panabaker, who plays Earl's daughter Jane. As more and more unfolds about her character, the more the audience understands that something isn't quite right about her. Panabaker plays her as that perfect little daughter who has some quirks about her but who will do anything to get her way. The last scene with her character is absolutely priceless and makes for a thought-provoking ending for the film.




The storyline involving Earl is pretty much flawless in my book, consistently entertaining, always filled with twists and turns. The Tracy storyline, however, has some problems. While the time taken to develop her relationship with her husband seems appropriate considering the outcome of the movie, I don't understand why there is such an emphasis on the two twisted jail breakers who are trying to take revenge on her. It ultimately doesn't have a lot to do with the other storyline, and the outcome of it doesn't really make an impact on the rest of the movie. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see what all of that material was for except for providing a pretty cool car crash scene and an intense shoot-out. In fact these two scenes are the only ones with any real action in them. The majority of the movie is fairly slow but creepy and nail-biting. I know a lot of critics use that word "nail-biting" for effect (and possibly to be featured in certain TV ads) but I definitely was actually biting my nails in a couple scenes (and I even forgot to wash my hands before the movie). Going back to the last scene of the movie, I bet a lot of people will not be completely satisfied with the end.

Usually this kind of ending doesn't work. It worked for me in this movie, however, because it leaves you with uncertainty. Earl Brooks is a crazed serial killer who we care for and root for. We don't want him to die, and we don't want him to lose everyhing in his life. But, at the same time, his sins can't go unnoticed. The end works in delivering what seems like a happy ending, when really it's a major downer. As it should be.

I really really enjoyed this movie. It's not the most original take on the serial killer genre in the world (not even this year, see Zodiac), and there's nothing extraordinary about it. It's just a really engrossing story told well, performed well, paced well. It took me back to the kind of entertaining Michael Douglas thrillers of the 90's (The Game, A Perfect Murder, and, yes, Disclosure) that don't seem to be made a lot lately. Thankfully Mr. Brooks doesn't feature Douglas in the main role, but instead, Mr. Costner, who finally after many years delivers a great accomplished performance. Congratulations, Kevin, I no longer hate you. And Demi, don't you disappear. You still have a lot of great work in you. With a great director and script, you could have a major comeback! Why I am I talking to the stars of the film? They're not reading this. The blog, mind you, is only a week old. But in the off-chance that they are reading this, they will be much, much better off. Especially Demi.

Definitely check out Mr. Brooks if you're in the mood for an entertaining summer night at the movies. It will surprise you and give you more than a couple jolts throughout its running time. And it leaves you with one memorable piece of advice. When you have sex, sometimes, it's best to leave the curtains open.

"Since I was a child, I’ve always loved The Sword in the Stone. Although most critics think that this film is one of Disney’s weakest animated features, I find it one of the best. The film is very entertaining with sequences that are very fun to watch, even now. The best sequence in the film is the duel between Merlin and Mad Madame Mim in which they turn in to numerous different animals. Other good scenes are when Arthur turns into different animals by Merlin. The best character turns out to be the owl who has one of the funniest laughs I’ve ever heard. The film proves that not all movies have to have guns and missiles for entertainment."

--my review of Sword in the Stone for a medieval school project in sixth grade, circa 1996

It's been a joy to re-visit a lot of the older Disney films, as I finally have friends who appreciate them as much as I do. These movies really bring me back to being a kid and falling in love with the dreams that are movies. Walt Disney put emphasis on making truly quality films, and he never condescended to children when it came to storytelling. That's what makes The Sword in the Stone baffling from a story stand-point. It's surprisingly childish in many respects, and it's one of the lesser stories of the Golden Age Disney era.

The majority of the film centers on the teachings of magic to young picked-on Wart by the magician Merlin. Wart gets changed into a fish, a squirrel, and a bird, and then there are crazy adventures where Wart must use his newfound abilities to get himself out of nasty situations. It all culiminates in a rousing battle of wits between the calm Merlin and the eccentric Madame Mim, and a revealing of the true King of the land... in a rather anticlimax....

The movie overall is still a joy to watch from a purely eye-candy point-of-view. It's never boring, and there are a lot of fun scenes. The song-and-dance number in which Merlin packs up all of his things so that they can go about their first adventure is particularly fun, and all the characters, including a clumsy wolf that brings to mind Wile E. Coyote, keep things moving along. The villain Madame Mim, who astonishingly doesn't even appear until the last twenty minutes of the movie, still resonates to this day as a memorable Disney character, despite her small amount of screentime. The main pair are a very likable twosome, with Merlin having some particularly funny moments.



There is also a scene that still works as one of the saddest scenes of any Disney animated movie. A female squirrel finds Wart as a male squirrel and instantly falls in love. They share time together as Wart just tries to get away from her. After an extended scene involving chases and animal attacks, Wart finally gets turned into a human, The scene ends with the squirrel watching Wort and Merlin leave, and she sits up on top of a tree, crying, sad, and alone. Ever since I was a kid, this scene has stuck out for me as a particularly heartwrenching Disney animated movie scene. It doesn't come close to the deaths of Mufasa and Bambi's mom, as it shouldn't, but it has resonated after all these years for inexplicable reasons. Is it the fear of being abandoned by a loved one? Is it the confusion that we all experience when somebody decides to pack up and move on? Or is it just the sight of a squirrel being left to fend for herself? There are many possibilities.

On a story level, however, the movie is kind of a mess, and well into the second half of the movie, I became a little bored. This film, compared to most of the other early Disney animated movies, doesn't rely so much on plot but on fun-filled comedic antics, aimed mostly at kids. These made the movie a lot of fun to watch as a kid, but not so much now. There's not enough conflict and just not enough happening to warrant full participation from the audience. Also, the end, in which Wort pulls the sword from the stone and becomes king of the land, works almost like an afterthought, as if it should be a part of a different movie.

The Sword in the Stone is a good movie, just not great like most other Disney animated films of the time. Pinocchio, Peter Pan, and Sleeping Beauty are classics; The Sword in the Stone is a forgettable entertaining romp. Aside from the big battle with Madame Mim, and the oddly memorable scene with the female squirrel, there is little to take away from the movie as an older adult today. It's worth checking out for fans of Disney but it's definitely a lesser effort of the time.