Little Shop of Horrors: creepy without trying to be.

Little Shop of Horrors is a delightfully eccentric, well-written movie. Famously low-budget, it was filmed in two days, or so the story goes. The star of the film, a man-eating venus fly-trap, is more hilarious than freaky thanks to "special effects" I could have simulated using random crap from around the house. The spookiness of the film comes from the casting and offbeat dialogue. The characters do and say the strangest things and it just doesn't feel like they're acting. Seriously, the "actors" in this movie seem to be genuinely weird people. Further, a tone of morbidity runs throughout, with constant jokes about and illusions to death, illness, and funerals. The movie even has a mad dentist. (What could be creepier than a madman with a hand drill up your mouth?) This is a good one for watching at 4:00am Halloween night . . .

Cadillac Records: tacky, but better than nothing.

I would recommend this movie for music fans only. It helped me put a face to legendary names like Leonard Chess, Muddy Waters, Etta James, Chuck Berry, Little Walter, and Howlin' Wolf. Otherwise, I think this movie was a flop . . . okay at best. I'm being quite picky, it's just that that, well, Beyonce is way too gorgeous and sweet to play Etta James. She's super talented so she pulls it off as well as she possibly could, but every time I saw her pretty face saying foul things or screaming for gin or smack, I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. All in all, the script failed to create complex characters. The characters talked and acted in ways that felt too predictable, shallow, and over-the-top. The screenplay just wasn't well written. When the bad-boy Little Walter died, bloody and broken-toothed in Geneva's arm, I couldn't help it . . . I burst out laughing. Tackiness always cracks me up.

Bye Bye Birdie: I am deeply disturbed!!!

I'm not joking! Some people refer to this 1963 film as a "satire." I think there is a hidden agenda, but that doesn't make the film's excesses tongue-in-cheek. The fact that so many people who review this film enjoy it as something that "takes them back" to the "good old times" proves that if the filmmakers were attempting to seriously question or subvert 1950s pop culture, they widely missed their mark. "Parody" would be the better term. This film exaggerates and thereby gently pokes fun at numerous aspects of 1950s suburban culture: Elvis, the nuclear family, the Ed Sullivan Show, teen consumer culture, teen "rebellion" (as in kissing your boyfriend/girlfriend).

I couldn't even get through more than 15 min. of the movie, truth be told, it was so grating. I'd like to finish it now though, just to understand it better. I guess what I'm interested in figuring out is what kind of a society would create such a thing and enjoy it as somehow being wholesome, uplifting, and entertaining. I know it seems like I'm over reacting, but this film creeped me out. I get a dark feeling in my gut when I embrace their premise that naivete is a thing to be praised, particularly when that message is targeted at women. The women were especially dumb, but the men were half-brained too. This movie is all about never wanting to grow up, get older, and engage with the world. It, and other entertainment like it, functions like a giant megaphone shouting: "Happiness is being dumb, in love, and 16. Or remembering when your were dumb, in love, and 16. That is the great climax of life." I've enjoyed a lot of chick flicks and silly movies in my day so I promise I don't always take things so seriously, but there was something about this movie that was very sinister.

Many people are reviewing this film as capturing an era that we have lost that was somehow more mature? Somehow more about "family values"? What in the hell do they mean by that? Is it a good thing if people's worlds revolve around a rock star coming to town, getting "pinned" by their boyfriend, or, um . . . what's for dinner? Is it just me, or is the whole Shriner's men's club association thing downright weird? Did anyone else feel antsy after seeing female after female after female wearing what looked to be very uncomfortable dresses and bras? I guess Stepford Wives sums up the vibe of that movie for me. I've never seen so many vapid women. Honestly, the mother goes ga ga over the rock star, too? And we're supposed to chuckle at that? It's disgusting.

Yes, the movie does have an adult edge to it . . . but not the right kind. Sure, they lampoon the Soviets in what could pass as very light political satire. But the adult edge comes in the Britney Spears for middle-aged men effect. One reviewer at imdb.com pointed at the film's under-handed glorification of Anne Margaret's burgeoning sexuality. Several, in fact, have discussed feeling rather, um, "aroused" by her performance. It's true, the opening and closing credits where she sings her little guts outs like a true vixen in front of the blue screen are provocative. And whoever dressed her seemed to favor outfits that tended toward . . . tight. So they snuck in a little sex for the adults. Gross.

I'm glad that whole 50's thing got shattered because it wasn't real anyway. And if it was . . . then what a nightmare . . . to live in an all-white community where everyone is in harmony because they have the exact same lifestyles and values. Sounds racist, classist, sexist, everything bad. Why do people feel so threatened by growing up? Why shy away from complexity and waste adult minds on wanting to be 16 forever? Talk about a mental trap. I hated being 16, I didn't know who I was, I didn't have an adult perspective on things. Wisdom and experience are to be prized, not regretted.

Grosse Point Blank: a romantic comedy in disguise, and thoughts on dry humor

This movie wasn't a romantic comedy, but it was romantic and it was funny. So I guess it is a romantic comedy, after all. A romantic comedy minus those ooey-gooey moments that make you squirm in your seat and feel just a little embarrassed that your watching :)

First off, John Cusack's presence made the film work. What can I say, the man is enigmatic. His expressions are fun to watch and his diffident charm makes him the ideal leading man for a movie of this kind. After watching Scarface (1932) which didn't have any great actors, I appreciated John for his sheer charisma. A few actors have it, the vast majority don't. It's an indescribable something that draws the viewer into the film and captures the imagination.

Also, the script was very good. It didn't quite play to my particular sense of humor, so I didn't laugh very often. But I could sense the script was well-written. The tongue-in-cheek humor gave the movie a smart, off-beat feel. Funny how when humor is tongue-in-cheek or dry or whatever you want to call it, (basically when the jokes aren't set-up with ridiculous facial expressions or slap-stick misshaps), then humor is elevated to the level of an art form and commands respect from all who encounter it.

Tongue in cheek humor almost always elevates the comic to a superior status by putting their audience on the defensive: if the audience fails to "get" it, the joke's on them. Actually, it even goes beyond "getting" the joke. A proper response to tongue in cheek humor is tongue in cheek humor . . . otherwise the receiver of the joke drops the ball, so to speak. Which is quite an easy mistake to make. This helps to explain why, with tongue in cheek humor, it often feels like the comic is laughing at you and not with you. As a decidedly not funny person, I'm often on the outside of jokes and I often feel awkward around people with dry senses of humor.

Tongue in cheek humor is very powerful and, in social situations, can be applied to a dazzling or disastrous effect. It can be very tasteful and delightful if the comic knows when to stop and is willing to laugh with you if you fail to catch on or do not know what to say. Otherwise, it will feel like the dry-witted humorist is abusing their powers by refusing to throw you a life-saver. People like that are downright annoying . . . I hate the types who seem to enjoy putting others on the outside of jokes and watching them squirm . . .

Which leads me to a final point about humor. Interestingly, the most people-centered and friendly folks I know are often funny. They enjoy making light of life and laughing with you. On the flip side, the most arrogant people I know (certainly the most arrogant person I know), are also very funny . . . but they do it in the smart-alecky, refuse-to-throw-you-a-life-saver kind of way.

I guess humor is like most everything else in life. It isn't inherently good or bad, but what counts is the spirit you do it in.

Scarface (1932) and what makes art timeless

From the title of this post, you're probably expecting me to herald Scarface as a classic. But it's just the opposite. This seminal gangster flick is, in my opinion, now only relevant to film connoisseurs and history buffs. Why is it, then, that Alfred Hitchcock movies from the same era have aged so much better?

If a work of art is valuable only for its technical innovations, then that work of art will captivate the public imagination so long as its technical achievements go unsurpassed. For artists with the technique of Beethoven or Shakespeare, their art will have extraordinary staying power . . . but few are in their league. Scarface was in the category of only being exciting to viewers in 1930. Cinematography has come such a long way that it really doesn't have a fighting chance on technique alone.

Timelessness comes down to content and ideas. The more mind-bending and revolutionary the ideas involved, the longer it will last. Scarface fails yet again. Heck, it was a gangster movie. I know I'm expecting way too much from it. But the truth is that the simplistically good and bad characters in this movie bored me to tears. And sentimentality will doom any work of art to the trash bin.

Up until this point, I've just been stating the obvious. But what makes this line of questioning fascinating is when you compare Scarface to an Alfred Hitchcock move from the same era. And Hitchcock's movies, at a surface level at least, were often no "deeper" then the next who-done-it.

Where do the charisma of Hitchcock movies come from? They give me a lot to think about at a subconscious level; they stick with me and unsettle me long after I click the TV off. This many years later, their power is extraordinary. Vertigo may be my favorite movie of all time. I can watch that movie over and over and never get tired of it. Why? If timelessness is all about ideas, then why is that that most powerful works of art are the ones you walk away from understanding the least?

Swingers: it was fun to see it from a guy's perspective . . .

The whole single, dating, romance thing . . . sucks, doesn't it? If you're in a great relationship, well, good for you. But for the rest of us, whether you're trying to meet someone, trying to avoid having someone meet you, trying to forget someone . . . it just sucks from every angle. The great thing about Swingers is that it attests to that in a very honest way but wraps up with a happy ending. It's like a chick flick without the sappiness along the way. Oh yeah, did I mention that it examines the whole dating thing from a guy's perspective? That was really fun. Because what I learned is that we're all in the same boat, guys are girls: it's awkward and painful for all of us, in the same ways, and for the same reasons.

The message of the movie, "be yourself," was time-worn, but it was given a refreshingly complex treatment. Mike is hurting over the break-up of a six year relationship and struggles to meet someone new. His friend Trent, a ladies man, tries to teach Mike a thing or two about meeting women. When Mike follows Trent's script, things don't work out, of course. However, the movie isn't so simplistic that Mike hits it off with someone as soon as he lets his guard down. He has to fumble around. And Trent's influence isn't completely bad: thanks to Trent, who drags Mike out of his lonely apartment, Mike meets the Heather Graham character.

The point of it all? You have to be yourself, but being who you are won't work with everyone and a combination of approaches--Mike's down-home honesty and Trent's go get 'em energy--work best. You have to be patient and stick it out. Things will eventually click if you hang in there. And never forget that everyone's in the same, sinking boat. At the end of the day, cocky Trent and shy Mike were haunting the same bars and parties with the same results. (Just because Trent got girls to sleep with him didn't mean he found true love. It is fair to say, however, that Trent minded his loneliness less, free spirit that he was.) It doesn't matter who you are: true love is a matter of luck, timing, and patience.

And, by the way, perhaps the truest part of the movie was this: you won't forget that special someone from your past until you meet someone new. So get to it, don't sit around, and dramatically lower your expectations until finally, to your utter disbelief, Mr. or Mrs. Right appears.

"Can't Hardly Wait": just not that good . . .

Can't Hardly Wait . . . I couldn't hardly wait for it to end . . . 'cause it was about as funny as what I just said. So, not funny . . . except for the movie's best line, delivered by a stoned nerd who sagely observed:

"You know what? My retainer kinda looks like a Klingon warship."

Haha! I know exactly what he means. (Except mine was pink).

The romance between Jennifer Love Hewitt and Ethan Embry was heartwarming, though. They were the only intelligent beings depicted in the film. You know, I didn't think Melissa Joan Heart could ever come off as, well, dumb. But if I ever see Vicki the Yearbook Girl hop around on one leg and whip her pig tails 'round in loop-di-loops again to get attention, I will solemnly swear to never ever watch Sabrina the Teenage Witch . . . not even once, for nostalgia's sake!

I will say, however, that this film had a good soundtrack. I forgot how big Smashmouth was back in the day. And there's a pleasing sunniness to '90s pop rock. Whatever happened to pop rock? Those indie people stripped it of the "pop" part and replaced it with indie weirdness. I'm so sick of "quality," "original" music. But that's a topic for another post. There were moments when the lyrics of the song were perfectly timed to whatever was happening the movie . . . there are parallels, I think, between the role of soundtracks in film and the role of songs in musical theater. Sometimes music gets the point across best.

But, like the mindless characters in Can't Hardly Wait, I'm too lazy to flesh things out in any greater detail.

The Wackness: A beautiful movie . . .

I'm really glad I stuck this one out. 99% of this movie is very depressing; you really don't get to the golden 1% unless you tough it out through the forced evictions, the divorces, the attempted suicides, the exploitative sex, the loneliness, the drug abuse, the disillusionment . . . but, if you do, you learn that the dirt of the film was there to provide a foil for the spiritual beauty of Josh Peck's character. And, oh yea, you get the bonus of seeing Mary Kate Olsen playing a stoned hippie in Central Park.

Poor Josh Peck's character, Lucas Shapiro, weathers the vagaries of life and comes out of the refiner's fire wearing his depression as a badge of honor. What I mean is that the thing that makes Josh (and his good friend, Dr. Squires), stand out from the rest, is their sensitivity. They feel things poignantly, they care about life, they both are looking for something beautiful and sacred that the other characters could care less about. The most obvious example of this is their failed love affairs . . . they get burned easily by bad women . . . they want to go "deeper" than said women can go.

While the characters never verbalize this, of course, what they come to value in themselves is their vulnerability and honesty. While other characters seem to selfishly bulldoze their way through life or mask their problems by popping meds, these two characters find their humanity in fully experiencing life's highs and lows and just talking things out. They develop an inner confidence that while they may be imperfect, they are essentially good: so when life hurts, they no longer blame themselves for feeling down. Instead, they know their pain is a result of their inner goodness bumping up against a cold, decadent world.

This movie is a bonus for hip-hop lovers. It had an excellent sound track of hip-hop tracks from hip-hop's golden age, 90's east coast stuff. Music was important metaphorically in this movie. When characters wanted to bond with each other, they exchanged mix tapes. Music set an example of honesty and self-expression that Lucas and Dr. Squires aspired to. Makes you wonder how many lives have been saved by music.

I really enjoyed the intimacy of this film. I found Lucas Shapiro to be a very sympathetic character and the movie brought me right into his mind.

I also loved the cinematography. There were quite a few moments when I wanted to freeze the film and take a screen shot.

This movie is a favorite!

P.S. it's not for the kids :)

And a useful moral-of-the-story is to be very, very careful to only fall in love with nice people.

Empire Records . . . a fun flick

I'm working my way through EWU's course on "Coming-of-Age Movies with Killer Soundtracks." Empire Records was the most frivolous pick so far, but it's very entertaining to watch for two reasons. For one, the casting was excellent. For another, you can never go wrong with teenage antics set against a backdrop of feel-good monster hits. It's amazing how one never tires of certain things, like the "be yourself" theme or watching people fall in love or witty repartee. Funny how this movie made me nostalgic about being a teenager even though being a teenager is so not fun . . . at least it wasn't for me, anyway. Anyhoo, the movie let me relive what for me never was; and I enjoyed the music quite a lot.

A few favorite lines:

"This music is the glue of the world, Mark. It holds it all together. Without this, life would be meaningless."

"Always play with their minds."

Best and worst sex scenes in a movie . . .

So, based on my previous posts, we all know what the worst sex scene in movie history is (based on what I've seen so far.) I repeat: Beth and Harold getting it on . . . no love involved, just Sarah sharing her husband with Beth, who wants to get pregnant. Truly beyond weird. I swear, I'm scarred for life. There are certain images I will never get of my head: damn you Harold and Beth! (Who's named Harold, anyway?! . . . Oops! Almost forgot. My grandpa is.)

Best sex scene?

Lucy and George in A Room With a View. It happens at the very end on their honeymoon and it just worked. It was sweet. I'm not one who typically advocates for showing these things on film, but I thought it was tasteful.

I'm watching so many movies now and most do have the characters taking a roll in the hay or two. I used to always look away but I don't anymore (I'm taking notes, if you know what I mean, lol). It's been interesting to compare them and I've discovered that not all sex scenes are made equal. In the English Patient, the lovers were practically mauling each other. It wasn't too good for Brittney Murphy in 8 Mile, either. She was slammed against a wall both times and had some guy's hand's all over her in both cases, no romance, just a good, violent up-and-down tossing. As if she were some worthless rag doll.

I think it all goes to show that sex has a spiritual dimension to it we sometimes overlook. People invest their emotions and personality into it and, when the chemistry is right, it comes out the way it did for Lucy and George. And when it's bad, it comes out like it did for Beth and Harold, or maybe Eminem and Brittany Murphy. Funny how sex can be the best or worst thing in the world, depending on the people involved and the context.

The Big Chill Reconsidered: why it may now be a favorite

The Big Chill has been stuck in my head, for better or for worse. It is a strange, somewhat unsettling film. Here are a few points about it that make it quite excellent in spite of all that.

In a previous post, I criticized the screenplay and thought that the dialogue did not do enough to explain why the characters mattered to each other so much. And then I realized . . . that is the beauty of it. Sometimes you really can't put into words why you love someone, why you have to have certain people in your life. You just do. It's spiritual. You feel comfortable around them. And that's what I noticed about these characters. They felt very comfortable just talking, shooting the crap with each other, being themselves around each other. On a certain level the connection was mundane, but at the same time it was profound.

Second, and I can't take credit for this observation, that last disturbing sex scene between Harold and Beth showed how perverted sex becomes when it's used exclusively for procreation. My family's church is always harping on them about sexuality and this church, along with most others, laments how sex is abused for pleasure and how it's ultimate purpose is procreation. But Harold and Beth's tryst shows how, without passion and love, sex is just a bodily function again. In my mind, there's no difference between a prostitute and her client and Harold and Beth. Know what I mean? Next time I see a steamy sex scene between two characters who are really crazy about each other, I'm gonna holler for joy. That's how it should be.

The Big Chill: I need therapy!

The more I think about that movie, the more depressing I find its characters to be. Their problem was that they got bored with life. Glad I don't have a problem. Someone needed to come along in that film and give them all a good kick in the pants. Go! Do! Have fun! These people need hobbies. That would have been the answer to their problems. No amount of fancy philosophizing or whatever can define happiness or spread it better than a good hobby. So, to lift my spirits, I'm going to remind myself of everything I love to do. Please dear God, may I never turn into one of those depressing characters from The Big Chill.

Okay, here we go. This is the stuff that gets me up in the morning.

Hip-hop, rock, pop, classical, jazz, playing guitar, playing piano, singing, ear-training, writing songs, going to the library, reading Beowulf, watching Rick Steves, making pancakes, walking my dog, ballet, M&Ms, San Francisco, LA, my beautiful white Apple computer, my jewelery (I wearing a gorgeous garnet ring and crystal, white-gold bracelet right now), picnics, going to concerts, BBQs (vegetables only, of course), graffiti (I don't do it, just like lookin' at it!), my autographed Eminem poster, hiking in the Santa Cruz mountains, road trips, laughing at mindless Youtube videos, the four seasons, my doll collection, my guitar collection, late gothic Italian art, illuminated manuscripts, Tchaikovsky, Corot, my daydreams . . .

It isn't that hard to be happy about life if you value having fun and you fill your life with fun stuff. I mean, that's what kids do. They play, they have as much fun as they can get away with. Why is that adults completely forget how to have fun?

Not me. I'm a be a kid forever.

Do coming of age movies abuse their soundtracks?

While watching The Big Chill I noticed that the filmmakers relied heavily on their soundtrack to create a sense of chemistry between the characters. The premise of the film is that all these friends from way back are reuniting, seeking the fun and good times of yore. The scenes were punctuated by one big hit after the next. The characters would say something inane to each other and then a monster, feel-good hit would start blasting. It's like they couldn't communicate the magical feel-good vibe of best-friendship to the audience with dialogue or acting alone. So they turned to music to get the job done.

Sometimes the music felt a bit tacked on. Must one conclude that the dialogue or acting was lacking, or is it just that, in certain cases, only music will do?

Tough call.

The acting was excellent in this movie, but the screenplay could have been better. It could have shown how these characters find love and friendship again without turning things into an orgy. And sometimes the dialogue left me scratching my head. I wondered how the characters could stand each other . . . or why they didn't get bored out of their minds.

That said, as my musical theater instructor once explained: "Sometimes emotions get so big, that all you can do is burst out into song."

The Big Chill: great premise, fails to deliver.

I think I get the point The Big Chill was trying to make: without love and friendship, life feels empty. The premise of the movie is a good one. Several friends reunite 15 years out of college after one of their own commits suicide. Having gone their separate ways, they rekindle some of the fabric and magic of earlier days and learn that what they were "missing" in their lives is each other.

. . . missing certain aspects of each other, that is, they they should not have "rediscovered." My problem with the film is that it honestly portrayed the complexity of adult life and pointed to the right answer: love. But not that kind of love, please. The climax of the film was when Glen Close shares her husband with her close friend who desperately wants to get pregnant. (The husband and this desperate woman are long time, strictly platonic friends.)

I'm quite sure that will be the worst, most unsettling sex scene I will ever see depicted on film. It started out with the two looking at each other in the most awkward way possible and the guy fumbles: "I think I forgot how to do it." Whilst they were 'rounding fourth base, they stared at each other with these calm, completely lucid expressions. So bizarre. I used to feel scandalized by super steamy sex scenes, but now it's like, bring back the steam . . . and please, please, please, make the two lovers. The chumminess of it all and the "It's 4:00pm in the afternoon! Time to make a baby!" pragmatism was so bizarre. No, actually it was the way he started kissing her that made me feel real weirded out in a very deep place in my tummy. I'm scarred.

I'm happy to say that I will never ever watch this movie again. Too odd. However, I'm glad I saw it because, until the last 10 minutes of the movie when everyone started having sex en masse, I found the film thought provoking. It makes you ask yourself questions like, "What really matters in life? What is happiness and how does one find it?" The film's answer: love people. (Hehe.)

Diner: if you don't know where you're going, you'll end up some place else . . .

. . . as the old saying goes . . . the characters in Diner exemplify this.

The first problem faced by the leading men in this film is that what "works" in adolescence doesn't work so well in adulthood. The best example of this is Shrevie's marriage. He half-heartedly jokes about how, before he was married, his relationship with his bride-to-be was all about the sex. The thrill of the taboo of it, the thrill of fitting it in behind the parents' backs, etc. Now that she's always available and sex gets a green light and there's no more wedding to plan . . . why, there's nothing to talk about and nothing exciting to do.

Shrevie's marriage is just one example of how the characters in this movie find themselves taking on new responsibilities and commitments before they are prepared to make wise choices. As the result, they find themselves "trapped" in commitments that leave them without room to grow.

The question is: are responsibilities the problem, or is it more that you have to choose your responsibilities wisely and be careful of what you take on? Pertaining to that question, the movie sent mixed messages . . . my own opinion is that responsibilities are not the problem, it's just that if you, as the saying goes: if you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else.

The characters in this movie feel trapped because they 1) do not have a vision for a career, or any "passion" they are pursuing 2) they have a base understanding of relationships. They don't know how to connect emotionally with women, everything is just sexual and on the surface so they are doomed to live with superficial marriages.

Is it any wonder that life is failing to "deliver" for this cast?

When you read the movie this way, it seems kinda depressing. But actually, it was a very enjoyable film to watch because it was easy to sympathize with the characters and, sadly, the problems they face are ones that a lot of people go through. This movie felt honest.

Last point would be that the action of the movie revolves around a diner where the boys like to meet up to chit chat about their growing pains. The diner symbolizes fun, relaxation, "good times." When the boys go there, they are trying to reconnect with a freedom they feel they've lost. In a sense, the diner is therapeutic and helps the characters in this film unwind and vent. But the diner is damaging, too, in the sense that it ties the characters back to their old selves. If these characters are going to move forward with their lives, they need to, well, do just that. They need to leave their teenage antics behind . . . it's time for them to grow up big time in terms of how they see women and they need to find their passion/purpose in life.

But the problem of course is that the characters can never ditch the diner because unless they revert to their old selves, they stop having fun. They don't know how to be adults and have fun because they don't know how to take on the right kind of challenges. Challenges and responsibilities make life rewarding: but you have to pick the right ones, otherwise you'll feel "saddled."

My solution? You've got to be really passionate and bursting with love if you're going to take on the right kinds of challenges and responsibilities that will enable you to grow. I'm a musician and even though I don't make a lot of money teaching lessons and recording my own music, I'm so crazy in love with what I do that I know I will always be happy. The responsibilities of my career will only make me happier because I love being challenged musically. While I have next to no experience with relationships, I already know how important it's gonna be that I find someone that I'm best friends with, that I have a lot in common with so that I can enjoy everyday life with that person. What got Shrevie into trouble was that he thought his wife was hot and nice, and that was about it. Remember how he started yelling at her because she didn't know who Charlie Parker was? He just couldn't stand being married to someone who didn't "get" his passion for music. I totally feel him. I have to marry a musician!!!

The closing shot of this movie was excellent. Elyse throws her bridal bouquet out into the crowd and it ultimately lands on a table around which all the leading men in the film are situated. Who will pick up the bouquet? Will they take on the "responsibilities" of life, or shirk away? The ambiguous ending allows the viewer to form their own opinion about what the characters "should do." Like I said earlier, this film is more about depicting a problem (ennui) then proscribing a solution.

Makes you wonder how many adult problems are rooted in people's inability to mature and grow up. I mean, if you're immature, you'll likely marry for the wrong reasons and have a divorce to look forward to. If you're immature, you won't have the vision and guts necessary to follow your passion and do what you love for a career. Life is gonna suck if you don't have a heart and depth.

The English Patient killed me.

Let's put it this way. If, after three hours of watching a movie, you find yourself laughing hysterically while a lover holds his paramour in her death throws, then something went terribly wrong in said movie. Terribly wrong. Yeah, well, this was a terrible movie.

The whole, "I'm randomly attracted to a married person and I have to have them even though it will destroy my life, her life, and her husband's life" thing just doesn't tug at my heart strings. And Juliette Binoch's out-of-nowhere fling with the bomb detonator didn't really work for me, either. One moment, she doesn't give two straws about that guy, and the next thing you know she claims it's her destiny to marry him.

? (blink)

The "thesis" of the movie is a line from a poem, (oh please, let's not abuse poetry!), read by Juliette Binoche with particular relish: "the heart is a fiery organ."

Now, according to the producers of The English Patient, that means that people:

1) have no control over who they marry and thus are stuck in relationships they can never be happy in and therefore they must . . .

2) carry on affairs with others and claim to be perfectly happy with the dual arrangement, there are no complications at all until their spouse finds out, at which point they . . .

3) drive their spouse so insane that he foists them into a plane and they go flying across the desert in the attempt to smash into the offending Romeo so that they can all be dead together, but they . . .

4) fail miserably at this because they fail to smash into Romeo and only the angry husband dies, so the offending Juliette gets left in a cave, her lover runs to get help and fails miserably at this (incompetent moron) so she . . .

5) dies and then the offending Romeo hauls her into a plane and they crash. Ouch.

6) He dies from burn wounds and somehow this is all profoundly moving.

7) The end.

8) The wild eyed look in Colin Firth's eyes before he (almost) smashed into the offending Romeo was actually pretty good.

9) I burst out loud laughing when the offending Romeo finally died from his burn wounds. Looking at his face was like looking at a crazy-eyed, rotting peach.

Hilarious.

Okay, fans of The English Patient, defend this piece of sh*t.

And Mike Clark of USA Today steps up to the plate with his one line review:

"An aerobic workout for the tear ducts."

Poor, Mike. Poor, sorry, retarded Mike. Something tells me he wasn't being sarcastic :(

But he made me crack up again!

The English Patient, reviews, et al: so bad it's good.

Pretty Woman: the consummate chick flick

I'm a Julia Roberts fan and I decided to give her breakthrough hit a go (er, that's my excuse, anyway). So here's why I am convinced this movie was written for women, by women. And I promise. My next post will not be about romantic comedy or anything romantic-ish. (But maybe the post after that will be.)

1. Women want to be loved for who they "really" are. A woman sees herself as a "diamond in the rough" and dreams about some guy coming along and appreciating all of her inner beauty and extraordinary qualities, the existence of which she is sure of, though said qualities have yet to make themselves manifest. Mr. Right will help her transform herself into the woman she believes she is, deep down. e.g. Julia Roberts is a crass, unrefined hooker, but Richard Gere believes there is an elegant lady underneath that street smart facade. Of course, he's right.
2. Women want a guy who is just as interested in conversation as he is in sex. e.g. Julia Roberts is in langerie and climbing all over Richard Gere, who, unresponsive, asks if they can "just talk." Wow.
3. At the same time, woman want a guy who is crazy about their body. I think Richard Gere and Julia found odd enough places to, um, be overcome by passion, so I think it's fair to conclude that, yes, Richard Gere is very crazy about Julia Robert's body. I might add that women want a guy who is crazy about their body as is. This is represented by Richard complimenting Julia on her red hair (she ditches the blond wig) and her height.
4. Woman love it when men lavish money on them. For many men, money is the most important thing in their lives since they go to work all day for it. (You are how you spend your time.) Traditionally speaking, and particularly in a conservative social milieu, when a guy spends money on a girl, it's his way of saying, "I value you because I gave up what I prize the most just to please you." Richard Gere giving Julia his credit card and instructing her and the Versace sales clerk to ring up a storm fits the bill nicely.
5. For some odd reason, women fantasize about influencing the men in their lives and bringing out the softer, kinder side in their men. Thanks to Julia, Richard Gere learns that money isn't always what matters most and he turns his back on a ruthless business deal in favor of a kinder solution. He has a change of heart just for her. Aw, shucks.
6. Respect and power. Not more power, but equal power. Woman really want it, bad. Julia's know-how, as exhibited by her skill with the stick-shift (Richard could barely drive it) symbolized this. It was also quite nice how Richard would say things like, "Julia, what are you feeling? What do you want out of this relationship?" Oh my gosh.
   
7. The test. Every romantic comedy has to have a test. It's where the guy is put through sleet, snow, and fire to prove that, yes, he really, really, really loves and deserves the leading lady. In this case, Richard has to chose between going back to New York and nursing his fears and phobias vis-a-vis relationships and women, or getting hitched to Julia. Can you guess what he chooses? And, oh yeah, there were lots of little "tests" along the way. Times when Richard would goof up and invariably apologize or do whatever it took to get Julia to stay with him.
   
8. The fairytale, (the whole my prince is going to marry me thing and rescue me from the tower where I am held captive by the dragon, etc. etc.) I practically died of laughter when Richard asked another one of his "Julia, how are you feeling? What do you want out of this relationship?" questions and Julia recited her "childhood dream" of yes, being a princess trapped in a tower by her "evil step-mother," (when she was grounded by her mom, apparently), and how Mr. Knight rescued her from the tower, and so on and so forth. Verbatim! Julia! Don't you know this is the secret desire of every woman's heart and therefore it is sacred and only to be recited between the covers of a little pink journal clasped and locked closed with a little golden key? Julia!!!!! Wasn't it enough for you to have Richard climb up the fire-escapes of your lousy apartment building to bring you red roses and sweep you up into a glorious, cinematic kiss? What about when Richard came to your rescue and punched out that creepy rapist attorney friend of his? For shame, Julia. Keep it under wraps.

I really could go on and on . . .

So, what can we conclude about women from this? If this truly is the female fantasy, (and I think it is more or less), then I would pose two points. One is that women have serious issues when it comes to self-actualization and self-respect. I think too many women are waiting for some guy to "complete" them and they are also a little too excited about being needed by someone and "loved." It's the whole fairytale thing. The result is that they 1) may procrastinate becoming their best selves by their own independent efforts and 2) they may settle for some guy who isn't really worth them just because they are so darn delighted to be "needed" and "loved."

What can we conclude about men? A woman's desperation for romance and commitment as symbolized by "the fairytale" and "the test," suggest that men are perhaps a bit too stingy when it comes to bonding emotionally with the women in their lives. So guys: if you want to see an end to sappy chick-flicks and ooey-gooey Harlequin romance novels, step up the romance a bit. That way girls won't have to turn to entertainment to find sweethearts who are really sweethearts.

Which begs the question . . .

What would really happen to romantic comedies if girls and guys changed? Would the content and vibe of romantic comedies change or would romantic comedies vanish altogether?

Something tells me romantic comedies will always be with us. Whether we like to admit it or not, I think we all (guys and girls a like), adore watching people fall in love.

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly delivers . . .

I'm glad I sucked it up and toughed it out through this three-hour-long classic. It started to pick up towards the middle and there were some moments of true movie magic towards the end.

The reason this movie didn't grab me at first had everything to do with script. I learned an important principle: the most captivating plots have (ideally) a single, main climax towards which all the action tends. The problem with this movie is that it felt too episodic and, after one particularly climactic scene which felt like an ending, the action wandered around some more towards another climax.

The climaxes, however, were flawless. The scene where Angel Eyes & gang, Tuco, and Blondie, shoot it out in the ghost town gave me goosebumps. Who could forget the fateful duel between the three protagonists? Whoever shot the others down would get the gold . . . What about the scene where Tuco is left to die, his head stuck in a noose, his feet barely balancing on the gravestone? With no one there to save him, he chooses when (and if) he steps off the stone to his death. The wildness and violence of it. My review can't even begin to put into words the tension present at certain moments in the film. Or Clint Eastwood's charisma as uttered his enigmatic one-liners . . .

Quentin Tarantino has referred to this move as "The best directed movie of all time." Perhaps that because it leaves the viewer with scenes that, for whatever reason, will always stick in the brain . . .

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly . . . has gotten worse.

To finish or not to finish? Not being one for westerns, I knew I was in for a doozy when this thing loaded up on netflix, 3 hours long. I'm half way through this movie and I can barely . . . get . . . through . . . it. Beyond boring. Clint Eastwood has gone from being a charismatic man of few words to being a man with nothing to say. But this flick's a classic, so, in the name of education I will slog my way through it. Anyone out there actually like this movie?

10 Things I Hate About . . . romantic comedies!

So, it's ten years later and I finally get around to the classic romantic comedy 10 Things I Hate About You. Interestingly, all romantic comedies have this one thing in common: they all revolve around a girl skewering some guy (one way or another) and her watching him twist, turn, and writhe over the refiner's spit of ludicrous chivalric deeds until he is done to her perfection. Blue, black, and broken all over, he has finally proven his love to her (and his total lack of self-respect to us). When she deigns to bat an eyelash or flash him smile, (maybe even kiss him!), we supposedly have a happy ending as the dysfunctional couple unite and consummate their abusive relationship.

Ouch!

Maybe it's just because I have brothers and I'm upset about how their girlfriends treat them. But really. The antics women expect. It's sadistic. It has nothing to do with true love and everything to with a woman satisfying her prima-donna fantasies. Don't get me wrong, guys are not blameless when it comes to relationships and I think, to a degree, the romantic comedy as we know it is fundamentally a feminine plea for respect, attention, "true love." The kind of stuff some men are stingy about (when they're staring at those 'ahem beneath your tight sweater.) But honestly, ladies, romantic comedies are not the way to start a cultural dialogue about male-female relations. At best they are a lame, passive-aggressive response to real, deep seated issues. They make any self-respecting man . . . wince.

Okay, now that I've proven myself to be as onry as Kat, now might not be the best time to reprimand her. But I can't help it:

Kat, when Heath Ledger kisses you, you are supposed to enjoy it! Every last single delicious moment of it! Or else move over byotch cuz I wanna take your place.

One good thing I will say for this movie, (apart from it having a good soundtrack), is that it was a lesson in not judging people unfairly. I went through much of the movie hating the Julia Stiles character for being such an annoying feminazi. At the end of the movie, however, we learn about what a certain Joey did to her and I had some compassion. I guess we all have our "issues." And sometimes porcupine-prickliness is just a defense mechanism, a front to help a person cope with internal pain and protect themselves from future exploitation. Poor Kat/Julia. She still should have enjoyed kissing the adorable Heath Ledger, though.