Filler Movie Reviews

So I'm unemployed. Unemployed people have lots of time on their hands. And lots of time and a Netflix account means I watch a lot of movies. We're slowly making our way through the AFI list, but that only accounts for a few of the movies Nitsy sees, partly because there is only so much Betsy can take of silent and "classic" films, and she actually has a job, meaning less time.
I figured I have a degree in Cinema and opinions, I could spend a little time reviewing some of the movies we've and only I've been seeing. Some old, some new.

Bandslam!!! We originally saw this at the dollar theatre in Provo with Karl and Allie and loved it. In the summer of blockbusters this was majorly overlooked. Betsy put this at the top of the queue, despite already seeing it, and we ended up watching it again tonight. It's interesting, because it is almost a dumb Disney movie, (It's produced by Walden Media, a Disney entity), but it's not. It's better. There's story and character and really good music. So many times the story gets so close to being cliche, but then it pulls back and does its own thing. In fact, I would say at any point it was veering toward Disney Channel, the director turned it back toward indie film. With that route, it runs parallel to a Disney movie, never quite being it, but always in your mind you're expecting the movie to merge with it at some point. What keeps it so far away, I think, is the authenticity of the music. There is a real soundtrack, not watered down kid friendly music. The bands playing the concert are real indie bands, and they visit a real venue. (CBGB) Although, they had to make a mock stage for it, since it isn't there anymore. I'd like to think that this movie stands alone as great on its own merit, and not just a pleasant surprise.
A side note, I don't know who picked the photos for the movie poster, but the guy in the middle looks super weird. He's a little weird in the movie, but that's not a selling point. At least choose a picture where he doesn't look like he secretly has his hands down his pants behind these two girls.


The Omega Man - Charlton Heston, yeah! This was the second of 3 movies based on the book "I am Legend." The most recent starred Will Smith. The first one stars Vincent Price(and it's on the queue). This movie was so bad. But first I'll compare it to the Smith version. The Omega Man was made in the seventies and you can feel it, from the 8 Track Heston pushes into his stereo to the funky threads the black fro mama wears, this was a seventies movie. The most recent one wasn't so overtly hip to the time period it was made in, 2007. Cinematically it fits in. It's like an epic. But it's a thriller. It has Will Smith! Will Smith in an epic thriller! That could describe all of his films. It could even describe every Summer movie if you replace the actor's name. The Omega Man was not epic, nor was it a thriller. It started out that way, when it shows wide shots of Heston walking empty streets and driving crazily on the streets of LA. I didn't think the new one was that good, until I saw The Omega Man. I am Legend is almost genius filmmaking when compared.
Enough about Will Smith and his last man on Earth antics, back to Charlton Heston and his almost the last man on Earth antics, or lack thereof. In fact, there are indeed no Charlton Heston antics, except that he bangs a funky fro-wearing black mama. He's a smoothie, he takes her back to his last man on Earth bachelor pad and shows her what the last man on Earth feels like. And that's it, Heston has no awesome larger than life dialogue like, "Let my people go!" or "It's people. Soylent Green is people!" Nothing. He doesn't ever really tell the...I don't know what to call them, they aren't zombies, or vampires, they can kind of come out in light sometimes, but they wear sunglasses and robes....anyway, he kind of tells their leader off, saying they're barbarians, but he doesn't do it in the awesome Heston way. I think this was the kind of movie Charlton Heston wanted to get behind, imagine the scene where they pitched it to him, which was a perfect Heston vehicle.
"Charlton Heston....as the last man on Earth."
"I love it, when do we start?" he would have said.
"But Mr. Heston, don't you want to read the script?"
"No, I don't need to. But can we film it in LA? I'm sick of shooting on location."
"Sure thing, Mr Heston, we'll change the setting to LA."
Actually the book takes place in LA(so I'm told from Wikipedia), and most movies take place in either LA or NY anyway.
The ending is the same in this one as the new one. He gets the serum and passes it on then dies. But it's curious in this one. He doesn't actually sacrifice himself to save the others, but yet the last shot is of him sprayed out in a savior pose. While the new one, he does sacrifice himself, but there isn't that sacrificial pose. Heston really liked these dark sci-fi movies. He's always playing the broken sacrificial hero that either dies or the world kind of does. Will Smith could learn a thing or two from him about that.
I'll let you know how Vincent Price holds up in his version.

The Hangover - We waited two months for this! It was a "Long Wait," sitting atop our queue. I guess everyone in Orange County wanted to see this. I like to go into movies with a blank slate. I don't want low or high expectations to alter my thought process, I want to see only what's on the screen and not other's opinions or how long a wait must mean. And so with this....it was kinda funny. And these days kinda funny is a good thing in my book. It was better than "it was alright, I guess," but not quite as good as "it was pretty good." I think they took a simple movie with a simple plot and made it as good as they could. Zach what's his name is really funny. He plays a super weirdo, and that beard is awesome. I love Ed Helms, and he even sang a song. I was so happy that he did. Oh and the lady that plays his wife. She is hilarious. I don't really have a solid review for this, though. I think it road a fine line where it could have been just a stupid movie, and yet even though it was kind of a stupid movie, it was good. And the only reason it was good was because it was funny. So bravo, you did your thing. Your genre was comedy and you made a comedy. This wasn't high art, or any kind of art, except the basic meaning of what art is, so good job. A side note, one of the things I loath in this world is when people put sunglasses on babies, and despite them doing that with the movie poster, I still wasn't affected going into the viewing of this. Maybe it's because it isn't parents doing it to be cute, it's Zach what's his name doing it. It's funny if a weirdo puts sunglasses on a baby.
BTW, Betsy hated it.

Doubt!!!!! - I loved it. Betsy was upset that I saw it because she wanted to see it, too, but oh well, what am I supposed to do while she's at work?
I'll say it again, I loved it. For two big reasons; the acting and because it's set up like a stage play, maybe because it's based on a play. I didn't know too much about the premise of the film, except that it took place at a Catholic school and the main characters were Priests and Nuns. There was a lot of drama in the previews and trailers but they never said anything substantial, it was all just dramatic talking. It revolves around a suspected act of molestation, though, that term and the details are never spoken or laid out, they're just aluded to. I think barely getting into it made this film better. It took place in the 1960's decades before the church wide problem became a worldwide problem that seemed like an epidemic. It's like this was telling the first case, or the beginnings of it. So like with any beginning, you don't know what to call it or even how to completely identify it. This film had great layers, though, and because of that I may go back and watch it again(with Betsy). All three main characters are dealing with inner turmoil that barely seeps up, until the end when for just a minute Meryl Streep lets it out. A lot of that turmoil comes from these religious themes that sift through every scene. Questions arise and questions bring up doubts. But what are these doubts of? Even Streep's reveals her turmoil she doesn't go into detail, you're still left wondering what it actually is she's doubting.
I think because of that, you could walk away thinking this was an anti-religion film. I don't know what the writer's or director's motives were, but I don't think it is. Religion is a whole topic by itself, but I will say, doubt does play a role in faith, even in strong faith. Even when faith turns to knowing doubt is still around. This film is really just showing the roots of doubt. It's in turmoil and conflict and as good as it is sometimes, in questioning faith. Faith is meant to be tried, it's like a muscle. Doubt comes along when you're trudging up that mountain and for a second you like down and see how high up you are. It's how you react to doubt that matters. So, if this was an anti-religion movie, so be it, it made me a little wiser.

Kramer vs. Kramer - The best picture winner of 1979! Beating out the legendary Apocalypse Now. I love Netflix's watch instant and it's because they put on there these kinds of films. I would have been a while for me to get around to this otherwise. Probably when Betsy and I are watching all the Best Picture winners. It's interesting to think about movies that win Best Picture versus movies that AFI and other lists put as their top films. This year(1979) is a perfect example of this predicament. Apocalypse Now is pretty high on the AFI list. Kramer vs Kramer is not on the list. Why? Well, I think there are a few reasons. First, the AFI list is based partially on the notion that many of the classic films were landmark films, groundbreaking or influential. (i.e. The Jazz Singer(first talkie) The Birth of a Nation(influential war epic) Snow White (the first animated feature)) Second, many of the AFI films transcend their time period to be "cinematically epic." Citizen Kane is a cinematic epic. It's everything that "How Green Was My Valley" isn't. (How Green was My Valley was the Best Picture in 1941.)
Back to 1979. We live in a world where Kramer vs Kramer can indeed be the best picture for 1979, and still rank lower on the grand scheme of things than Apocalypse Now. I don't think there is anything wrong with this scenario. It's happened so much that it's almost just how it works. It's as if films are like so many other great art forms, they just aren't understood in their own time. Kramer vs Kramer had superb acting. That's it's main strong suit. It also was a great story for the time. It was "timely." The divorce rate was growing every year in this country and the problem of child rights was a big issue. But acting and timeliness don't always play a big part in a film being cinematically epic. Even if film is timely, like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," it still has to say something on an epic level. Rascism! Epic rascism!
Visitation rights. Decent child acting. Another great Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman performance.
Good things, but they don't deserve an exclamation point after them. Apocalypse Now just screams for an exclamation point.
Apocalypse Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

List of the films on the AFI Top 100 that did not win Best Picture. (Besides films made before the Academy, or during a year when another AFI film won)
Citizen Kane, The Jazz Singer, City Lights, The Grapes of Wrath, King Kong, The Third Man, Fantasia, The Philadelphia Story, The Maltese Falcon, Bringing Up Baby, Yankee Doodle Dandy(it pains me to put this here), Double Indemnity, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, Rebel Without a Cause, The Searchers, Vertigo, High Noon, Giant, 1967 - In the Heat of the Night won but isn't on the original AFI list, here are the other films that year higher on the AFI list; The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie & Clyde, Singin' in the Rain, 2001: A Space Odyssey, American Graffiti, Raging Bull, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Tootsie, ET(it pains me to put this on here, too, but more on that when we get further up the AFI list), Fargo
And from the revised list:
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The General, Sunrise, Sullivan's Travels, Swing Time, Sophie's Choice, Do The Right Thing, Blade Runner, Toy Story


The Princess and the Frog - Why isn't this called the Frog Princess? Because Disney didn't want to seem rascist. That's right, Disney unveiled their first African-American princess. That's right, a BAP. Have black women ever been associated with frogs? I can't recall, but since companies these days like to be as PC as possible, they didn't want to take any chances. But the thing about this movie, and a lot of Disney cartoons is that they tread that line between stereotype and fact. Anytime a Disney cartoon has a setting or a time period it is going to be stereotypical. Beauty and the Beast was in France, so of course there are lots of French-isms. Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella were in Medieval Europe, but there weren't any peasants or diseases in those movies, just princes in shining armor, dragons and witches....exactly what the middle ages was really like.
This movie takes place in New Orleans, so of course everything is jazz this and gumbo that. The white folk are super polite and friendly and the black folk are super polite and friendly. And then there's voodoo magic. Gotta love Disney, there is always magic around, good and bad, and it is real. No wonder the Southern Baptists boycotted Disney. Every film has some kind of hokus pokus!
They really tried hard on this film. Really hard. They wanted it to be like all the Disney classics, and they actually did a pretty good job. I think the one thing that separates a good Disney film from a bad one is anachronisms. That's when something is chronologically out of place. I would also say culturally out of place. When there are anachronisms the film is bad...i.e. How the Emperor Got His Groove Back. Compared to a good film with no anachronisms...i.e. Bambi. Everything in Bambi fits into the world they created. The animals don't mention things outside of their forest world, they don't know about future cultural references and there is nothing out of place in the world around them. The Emperor's Groove on the other hand is nothing but cultural misplacings. Nothing in the movie fits with ancient Chilean culture. They make references to our day, the characters speak with nuisances not of their culture. "But the Emperor's Groove Thing was funny," you might say. And I would say, "No. No it wasn't." When Disney or any other cartoon maker uses anachronism it is cheating. They are bending the rules for a cheap laugh. Another case in point....Shark Tale. A DreamWorks film. Filled with anachronisms. They created a whole underwater world that errily seems like our world. For instance on the sidewalk of this underwater city there are fire hydrants. Why are there fire hydrants on the sidewalk underwater, let alone sidewalks when fish don't walk, they swim? To make us giggle. "Ha, ha, fire hydrants, what were they thinking?" Cheating! There is no logic in there being fire hydrants or even sidewalks. If, in fact, fish built an underwater city wouldn't it benefit them to build it to their own specifications? Films that can't even build on basic logic don't have the capacity to build a story worth watching. Compare it to another underwater film.....Finding Nemo. There are a few close calls here, but nothing of the magnitude like Shark Tale or another atrocity of animation "Cars." In Finding Nemo there is a whole underwater culture that almost mirrors our culture, but makes it their own. There is a school, but not some schoolhouse that looks like ours. They have families, and surfer turtles, but the turtles are still turtles and they ride currents like they're waves. It fits! So from the basic logic of the world, which they stick to, comes a great story and thus a great movie. They built on the logic and kept true to it. Finding Nemo doesn't need to bend the rules to make a joke, they write good jokes and build them into the story. Like when the bomb explodes underwater and on the surface it appears like a fart. Hilarious! The one exception to the rule is Aladdin. The genie spouts off dozens upon dozens of anachronisms, but we let it pass because he's the genie and he's probably been to the future. And his anachronisms don't effect the world in any way or any other characters.
Now back to The Princess and the Frog. It was alright, I guess.

Up - I've been ranting so much I hardly feel the energy to dive into this movie. But I'm pretty passionate about it, so I'll muster the energy and go for it. The movie was stupid. And whoever was involved in the making of it are thieves and scoundrels. They stole our tears and forced the world to believe this was good. I even kind of cried a little. And I didn't even like it! These bastards, how could they do that? I'll tell you how, by making us(and the critics of America) believe that sentimentality makes a movie good. Can I remind everyone what happened in the first half hour of this film. It's a re-hash of this old man's life with his wife. And it's so sad. So, so, so sad. And then he gets this wild idea to fly away to some made up magical land that he gets to in one night. And how does he get there? Tying a thousand balloons to his house!
Let's dissect the film and see if it's still up to snuff. Let's take away the first weepy half hour and look at the plot all by itself. An elderly man flies his house to a magical land and once there finds a mythical bird that is hunted by dogs who can talk. Then his childhood hero, who controls the dogs chases after him. Basically, the whole movie is the old man and his kid friend running here and there and everywhere avoiding danger. Does that sound like a good movie? The Indiana Jones sequels had better plots and are completely overlooked. In fact, this movie kind of fits into the Indiana Jones story arc. The first half hour Indiana is at home or some random location. He stumbles upon something, then for the rest of the movie he's running around. So the plot itself of "Up" is not complex or even that interesting, try and argue that point at all. Just try. So that leaves us with the other part of the movie to stand on. The sentimentality.
Now, I'm not a complete robot, I can cry at movies. I love "It's a Wonderful Life." The last time I saw it this last Christmas I was bawling like a girl. "Rocky," another good example, I didn't cry, but I was so choked up at the end when all he wants is Adrianne. I even had to hold back tears for "Miracle" the Olympic hockey movie, and I only saw the last half hour. And what is the same with these movies? The sentimentality is built into the movie. I'll repeat the important word in that sentence....into. The American's don't win the gold medal at the beginning! They win it at the end AFTER all the hard work. You want to cry at the END of Rocky because he got his shot and now he's in the spotlight and everybody is all around him, but all he ever wanted was Adrianne, and they love each other. You get that from watching the whole movie!
Up screwed with us. Pixar reached into our little hearts and forced us to cry. That's right, but putting the sentimentality up front, they tricked us into thinking the whole movie was good, when in fact the plot was absent, their imagination took a break and the movie was utter crap.
I will never watch this movie again. I don't like being forced to feel a certain way. Yeah, I am a little bit of a robot. I didn't cry during Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire. Does that make me a monster like Monique? No, it just means I don't cry easily. So when a film makes me teary eyed from the opening credits I open my eyes a little bit and really see what's being presented before me. My eyes were open during "Up." I saw what was going on. Everyone else is just crying sheep and Pixar pulled the wool over your eyes.

Whew! I got through that one. My blood is boiling now. I could almost go ahead and do a review of Cars, the other Pixar film I'll never watch again. But I'll save that for later.