Two-fer For Tomorrow

Sorry everyone, but I woke up with a really bad headache that I need to try and get rid of before work so there won't be a post today, so I will do two tomorrow. One a recipe for Loaded Potato Soup and the other is to be a horror movie...but I'm not sure which one...

Tuesday Top 10 - Must See Before You Die

Another weekly topic will be some sort of Top 10 List. Like Top 10 Sci-Fi, Comedies, or maybe even Chick Flicks (though not likely). I'm gonna start with the Top 10 Movies You Need To See Before You Can Die. I left out stuff like Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings, A Christmas Story, and Indiana Jones because almost everyone has seen them including the younger generation. I've kinda tested these out by questioning people at work who are 25 & younger and they've never seen many of these (even the recent ones). Of course these are MY list and yours may be totally different, but I DO insist you try them all. I'm gonna try and keep it short. Comment on what you would add to the list.

 The Princess Bride (1987) - Probably the closest to a "chick flick" you'll see on here, but it has everything: adventure, fantasy, comedy, and romance. It strikes such a perfect balance of all of them that it has always been one of my favorite movies of all time. It is also incredibly quotable. I own several t-shirts relating to this movie...

Amelie (2001) - My favorite foreign film ("Brotherhood Of The Wolf" and "Pan's Labyrinth" are REALLY close behind). I guess this one would also kinda be a "chick flick" too, but not really. The wonder of the movie is the use of color and how Amelie subtly and expertly influences people to do things to improve and enrich their lives.

His Girl Friday (1940) - This movie is just an awesome use of dialogue. It has been said that this has the fastest dialogue ever in a movie (there are more words per minute than any other in history). I have always loved Rosalind Russell and Carey Grant. Here they're at their absolute best. It's funny and full of so much intrigue. I almost put "The Thin Man" in it's place for many of the same reasons. They're working on a remake of "The Thin Man" with Johnny Depp and another young actress to be named...not sure they will be able to capture the chemistry.

Dial M For Murder (1954) - Keeping with the old classics, this one is my favorite Hitchcock film. "Vertigo" recently became the #1 movie of all time over "Citizen Kane", but this is still my top film he did. Another that uses mostly dialogue to drive the movie. In fact, other than probably 3 minutes of total film time, it all takes place in one room. They remade it as "A Perfect Murder" in the late '90s, but this one is so much better. He has the murder of his wife meticulously planned to the point where you're not sure why he's doing certain things until they come into play very naturally. You realize he had to have made a mistake somewhere, but it isn't until the end that you realize what.

Tombstone (1993) - Greatest Western ever made. Period. Next.

Goodfellas (1990) - Greatest Mob movie ever. Period. LOL. This should have been Scorsese's Oscar instead of "The Departed". What makes it so great is that it is a true story (that I'm sure is somewhat embellished by the central character). "The Godfather" is loosely based on a Pope named Borgia (like the show) and tends to overly romanticize the mob instead of showing all the bad with the good in a realistic way.

Blade Runner (1982) - A true cult classic that absolutely changed the Sci-Fi genre forever. It did awful at the box office when it came out, but then grew a following and eventually influenced all sorts of movies concerning AI and even it's film noir style (placed in the future no less) became a staple of Sci-Fi as well. Try and watch "Fifth Element" or "Dark City" and not think of this movie. Not possible. Thank GOD Ridley Scott is returning to this world. He did great things in the "Alien" world with "Prometheus" so I'm excited to see where he goes with it.

The Exorcist (1973) - The Devil is in the celluloid with this one. The only scary movie that continues to give me the willies every time I see it. Jason and Freddy never freaked me out that much because I always would know that it wasn't real and couldn't happen. Say what you want, but I believe in possession whole-heartedly. "Insidious" is a close second to me now. Not as real to me, but still creepy as hell.

Blazing Saddles (1974) - Funniest comedy ever made. I don't want to hear arguments to the contrary either. If you've never seen it, you have no opinion. Watch it, then watch any comedy in the last 10 years and you'll realize they just aren't what they used to be. Written by Richard Pryor, this is the most politically incorrect movie in the world. You think "Clerks" or "The Hangover" are bad, this one is worse (as far as racism). The thing is, it's all really cleverly done and has the wonderful Madeline Khan in it doing a great Marlene Dietrich. "It's twue! It's TWUE!"

Pulp Fiction (1994) - The definitive most important movie of the '90s. It changed filmmaking from a studio run, blockbuster driven Hollywood to something that independent movies could break into. It did phenomenally well at the box office and was up for several Academy Awards and after it, studios took notice of the Independent Filmmaker and that they really didn't have to change them for them to be successful. Suddenly film festivals popped up everywhere and became a focus of Hollywood to find their diamonds in the rough. Besides that, it really is a great movie. Shot well, written insanely good, and catapulted many of it's stars into stardom (or back into stardom).

There are tons more movies I love that could be on here, but those will end up on other Top 10s depending on their genre.

Freaky Friday: Donnie Darko

I thought I'd, once again, try and get a rhythm and structure to the week by having some things done weekly. Thus begins the Freaky Friday segment of our show. This will be every Friday and will be a review of a horror, sci-fi, or foreign (let's face it, they're usually freaky to us) film. Usually it will be an older movie because there isn't much in the way of good horror or sci-fi that has come out in the last 10 years as far as I'm concerned and I'm not going to subject myself to some horrendous trash again just to do a review.

So to start things off, I'm going to review a movie that is a bona fide cult "classic". I use classic loosely because it isn't at least 25 years old which is where I draw the "classic" line. A little arbitrary, but I heard it once somewhere and it stuck. Which means, for anyone out there that is my age this will mean something, Nirvana (and most of the grunge era) is about to hit "classic" status. Ugh. I digress. I'm reviewing "Donnie Darko" which I knew nothing about until we got a crapload of them as a new release when it came out on DVD, so I instantly wanted to know what it was. I watched it and...well read on.

And here's the synopsis from IMDB because I will give something away if I try and do it myself: "A troubled teenager is plagued by visions of a large bunny rabbit that manipulates him to commit a series of crimes, after narrowly escaping a bizarre accident." Large bunny rabbit...lol...this isn't "Harvey" let me tell you.

Donnie Darko (2001)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/

Technical (4.5) - This one is fantastically done and even more impressive is that this was Richard Kelly's full-length feature debut made for a paltry $4.5 million. It never feels like it is either of those things. I guess part of the reason he was able to pull it off is setting it in high school in the '80s. I'm sure most of the budget went to the cast and securing the rights to some of the music (Tears for Fears and Duran, Duran mostly) which is absolutely appropriate for the time period. The song at the end is one of the best covers ever. There are a few special effects scenes which are done very well with the exception of one part that has always seemed unnecessary and a bit silly, hence the .5 deduction (it involves a beckoning hand). Otherwise it is edited in a way that adds to the uneasiness and slow unhinging of the tile character, has fantastic pacing, and doesn't ever shy away from the subject at hand. I feel bad for Kelly, though. His Freshmen effort was so good (and the Director's Cut even better) that everything else he's tried has not done so well, despite good casts and stories that aren't badly written. I think with "Southland Tales" he tried something WAY too conceptual for the general public and "The Box" could have tied better to what I assume was the inspiration: "The Monkey's Paw".

Dialogue/Story (5) - I'm not gonna dwell too much here because I will give something away if I do. It is a tight, well-written script that even though you sometimes think it is meandering, it is always moving the story forward. This is one of those movies that can definitely make your head hurt the first time you see it, but on subsequent viewings, you understand it more and more. The Director's Cut is a little easier to understand, but either way, at the end of it you will invariably go "Whaaaaa?" that first time. You're left with more questions than answers, but, unlike "The Hunger Games" you want to find answers and there are clues to give you answers. Nothing is too spelled out and the whole point of the ending is for you to draw your own conclusions. Immediately after the credits start rolling you want to start it over and call a buddy to talk it out with. I LOVE that kind of movie (the "Inception" effect).

Acting (5) - This is an absolutely AMAZING cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Donnie just embodies the troubled, moody teenager in a way rarely seen. The way he stands, the way he sits, the way he walks, the psychotic smile sometimes, even the way he reaches for the popcorn...all just punctuate the issues he's dealing with. But not to say he outshines all the other cast. I can't imagine how much everyone got paid, but there are lots of people in this movie. Drew Barrymore (who executive produced, so I'm sure some of these were favors she called in), Noah Wyle, Jena Malone, Mary McDonnell ("Battlestar Gallactica"!), Patrick Swayze (awwwww), Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even an appearance by a young Seth Rogan. There are others in the cast that you'll go "Hey! That guy!" or "That lady!". Everyone pulls their own weight here so it never seems out of balance.

Tilt (5) - If you haven't guessed it by now, I LOVE this movie. I've bought at least 4 different versions of it since it's release (VHS, DVD, DVD Director's Cut, & BluRay) and I watch it at least once a year. Every time I watch it, I glean something new which to me is the sign of a great sci-fi movie. If you've never seen it, it's on Netflix (the original theatrical anyway) and if you like it, go out and buy it so you can see the Director's Cut. Don't bother with the sequel "S. Darko" though. It's pure crap. Kelly had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Total Score (4.88)

The Devil's Double

Here's a movie that's been out for a while (it's streaming on Netflix now), but I just got around to seeing it last night. Basically it follows the "true story" of Latif Yahia who was a childhood friend of Uday Hussein (Saddam's eldest son) whom Uday forces to be his body double for dangerous public appearances during the original Gulf War. And let the hilarity commence! No, actually, it's a drama punctuated by some action, a few funny moments, a few gruesome scenes, and several scenes of nudity (both male and female). I think I can get away with this one pretty spoiler free, so feel free to read it before watching.


The Devil's Double (2011)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270262/

Technical (4.5) - Pretty well done for approximately an $18 million budget. It has a little bit of that independent feel, but that's what it is: an independent. The director, Lee Tamahori, is used to bigger budget action movies like "Along Came A Spider", "Die Another Day", and "XXX: State of the Union" which makes it so refreshing that he can do so well here. The sets just show how extravagant the Husseins lived without being too over the top, the music and props are all time appropriate (that's really how you know which war this is during early on), and the doubling of Dominic Cooper (and the man who plays Saddam), who plays both Uday and Latif,  is done almost seemlessly. I have to dock a half point for a little bit of an editing issue concerning a cut to a wedding that leaves you in the "Where did this come from? Who are these people?" mode for a bit. Sure this could have been a screenplay issue, but I think it was edited that way for time. That half a point also is for a scene where the seemless doubling is wrecked for a frame or two. It still is remarkably done in such a low budget film, considering just a few years ago, one of the two would stick out like a sore thumb as "added" or the whole scene was done so the two never touched or crossed paths. Here they do and in a very real and believable way.

Dialogue/Story (3) - Since it is a supposed "real" story (allegedly, since it has been contested) you can't really dock too much for it being fairly formulaic in it's setup, it is still fairly well presented. The dialogue is somewhat predictable for the most part, but does have some bright points where it doesn't go quite as you expect. I mean, this concept has been a subplot of many movies as the villain tries to dupe someone, but rarely does it show it in a realistic sense like here. Everyone behaves in a fairly rational manner (except Uday, who is not just psychotic, as Latif calls him, but a clear sociopath) and speaks in pretty logical terms.

Acting (4) - Here's where the movie shines and also falters a bit. This is clearly Dominic Cooper's movie. He creates such a dichotomy of the two characters. It isn't just the dialogue or script. Their mannerisms, speech patterns, and facial expressions are completely different. They kinda added a hair gimmick to it to help you know who was who, but it really wasn't necessary. They look alike, but they don't act alike. I didn't know Howard Stark had it in him, but he really is a terrific young actor! I had to dock another point for most of the rest of the cast. They're...ok. His adviser is decent, as is Saddam, and the stylist, but other than that they're all just meh. Not so bad that you roll your eyes at the laugh-ability, but not good enough that they're entirely believable all the time.

Tilt (5) - I really enjoyed the movie. I love movies with a really good strong performance by someone I'm not really expecting it from. Also, I like how it shows some of the crap that was going on over there and justifies us disposing of that family, no matter what the reasons we went there for were. It isn't going to cost you a dime to see it, so please do!!!

Total Score (4.13)

The Hunger Games

Right off the bat I'm gonna tell you I haven't read the books, so this is in no way going to influence my views on the movie other than a allusion to what might be in the books.

Based on a book written by a television writer (which explains some things) about a dystopian future where there has been a civil war and, as punishment, a young girl and boy from each of 12 Districts must battle to the death in a heavily controlled woodland environment and it's all broadcast on TV. That's about it from a setup point and I will throw up a SPOILER ALERT from here on in because there is no way I'm gonna be able to discuss this movie without spoilers.

Onward and upward.

The Hunger Games (2011)

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

Technical (3) - Everything here is not too bad considering you're talking what should have been a high budget movie made for only $78 million. It has a distinctively SyFy movie feel to it that I just couldn't shake for most of the movie. It was all pretty passable. Nothing spectacular, nothing too detrimental other than the clothing styles of the people of the Capital which were pretty distracting and just plain odd. I understand it was supposed to accentuate the dichotomy between the rich Capital and the poor Districts, but I don't understand why they had to do all that craziness with the garish makeup and clothing that made me think they should have been doing The Time Warp instead. Not everyone was so crazily dressed. Harrelson, Kravitz, Sutherland, and Bentley all showed their elitism without going way over the top. I can see guys wearing glittered eye shadow and trimming a crazy beard (he claims it was real and he had to wear it in public when not shooting...), but not a woman wearing makeup like a damn clown (I'm looking at you Banks). Otherwise the CGI works but isn't remarkable, the set pieces are pretty sparse, the music is mostly forgettable, and the camera work does it's job (except I will be glad when "Blair Witch" cam finally dies out).

Dialogue/Story (1) - Here's where the whole thing takes a dive. It pains me to see a writer not only allow their work to be butchered, but actively participate in that butchering. I can only see it that way because what I assume was sort of central in the novel is nowhere to be seen here. Bella has Jacob at home, but is out gallivanting around on TV with Edw...oh...wrong names. You get the picture though. I can't imagine that the internal conflict of the boy at home (which is never clearly defined as her love interest in the beginning) and the boy who seems to be just using her as a means to an end isn't a central theme. Another issue is that there seems to not be an over-arching story that goes beyond this one. It's alluded to at the very end, but they really didn't establish the gravity of the situation. That seemed to be a problem with the whole story! They didn't establish much in the way of relationships (we're not given time to "get" the older/younger sister thing with the girl from District 11 before she's dead which takes away from the emotional impact the scene should have had), of the history (Were the Districts there before? How are these Districts divided? Why are some so much poorer than others? Why were the black kids from the poorer district?), and even of the structure of this mythos (Was Harrelson a winner from District 12? Who the hell was Banks in all this? Other than obviously being a stylist, did Kravitz really have a purpose in sending her off?). SO many questions and not in a good way like "Donnie Darko" where you really want to discuss them, more like questions that frustrate and that you're not even given a crumb to go on. I'm absolutely SURE most of this was more detailed in the books (I'm gonna read it, I'll let you know). Dialogue was fairly predictable too.

Oh and I don't feel like looking up their character names in the movie, so deal with it.

Acting (4) - Stellar cast here. Only Hutcherson was a little bit of a let down. Otherwise, everyone was really on their game. Tucci is over the top, but in a good way for what his character requires. Banks is reaching just a little, but it wasn't so bad that it detracted from the movie. It kinda showed how detached emotionally she was from the idea of a bunch of kids trying to kill each other. The rest of the cast perform admirably, with no one really standing out too much which I think in this kind of a movie is good.

Tilt (3) - I didn't hate it. I didn't LOVE it, but I didn't hate it. I enjoyed it as a popcorn movie and nothing else. I'm trying not to dissect it too much, because the more I do, the more it falls apart (did we completely forget about the cannons for all the middle of the movie???). The more I think about it, the more it should have had something to say. Futuristic dystopian movies should all contain a lesson and the only lesson I can glean is "stay out of the way and everyone will pretty much kill each other and then you can pull some sort of bullshit out of  your hat at the end and win...pretty much pissing everyone in power off.

Total Score - 2.75

Overall not a bad movie, per se, but definitely had the potential to be so much more.

How (and Why) I Rate

Ok, first off, if you came here for an objective review of ANYTHING you're fooling yourself. No such thing when it comes to movies and games (heretofore known as media). For one thing, the person reviewing may value one aspect of the media more or less than you. Their mood that day and inclination toward the media in the first place can have a heavy influence. Hell, factors that have nothing to do with the media whatsoever can sway opinions one way or the other. So before you get your panties in a bunch because I say something you love is complete garbage or vice-versa, remember that this is my OPINION. And you're an idiot.

In order to mitigate this being my opinion, I break up my movie reviews into 4 scores followed by a cumulative average score. I do this so you can focus on what you value most in a movie. Here are the explanation of each with examples of the good and bad:

Technical - This is a sum of Directing, Editing, Art Direction, Cinematography, Special Effects, Music, Sound, etc. Basically all the Academy Awards no one gives a tinkus cuss about. I kid, but it's kinda true. I hate to lump all these together, but then again, it makes sense. Either all of these things work together and make the movie better or they fall apart and make it worse. The only instance that this area really doesn't matter much to me is Comedies. If it's funny it's usually because of the next two areas, not this one. Example of good technical making an ok (or in this case "bad") movie better: "A Clockwork Orange". Think about it, it's depravity at its finest and arguably Malcolm McDowell makes it better on his own, but a movie like that teeters on the edge the whole time which takes a deft hand to manage. The opposite is true of something like "Darkness Falls" or most modern horror. The story and acting isn't horrible, but everything else is just so awfully done it drags the whole movie down.

Dialogue/Story - This one is fairly explanatory. Both the overarching story and the actual dialogue between the actors is what is scored here. To me, this is the most important part of a movie. So popcorn crap like "Transformers" loses alot of ground in this area. Predictable stories and dialogue are the biggest anchors when you look at this score. On the other hand, any movie by Tarantino is fantastic because of how he writes. Perfect example: "Jackie Brown" is not his best from a technical aspect, but it is elevated to one of my favs because of the dialogue (especially Ordell's) and story.

Acting - Again, very self explanatory. I have to believe them in the role and not feel like they're overacting or that I'm always aware that they're "acting". A little hard to explain, but take almost every performance by Katherine Hepburn. You can almost see her reciting the other person's lines in her head and counting how long the pause should be before she speaks. Or when they desperately try to make Tom Cruise an "action hero"...I just don't buy it. Back on the other side is "Doubt", a movie that is not particularly well put together or written that well, but the performances of Meryl, Amy, Viola, and Philip (who I normally don't like) brought it up to a high caliber level.

Tilt - This last category is where the intangibles lie. This is where any sense of objectivity that was there in the previous categories goes out the window. Sometimes a movie can be hitting on all the other cylinders, but it will just leave me flat (like "Monster") or a movie can be not particularly good in any of the other areas, but I love it (like "Empire Records"). I really don't have a distinct set of criteria here, just how I really felt about the movie.

So that's about it...and as far as games, it's a little harder to do a review with a score to me. I think that will be more of a pros and cons discussion followed by a recommend or not. This one is even more subjective than movies, especially because I only like certain types of games, but can appreciate almost any movie.

So long for now. I'll probably have an actual review up either tomorrow or Monday. I need to watch "The Hunger Games"...don't know how I feel about that.