The Birdcage

This is one of those movies that I've been meaning to to see for... well... um... since 1996. Robyn Williams and Nathan Lane are always great in comedies, and this movie came out during a time when both of those actors were still making good movies. This was also just before Gene Hackman started showing up in every other movie that came out in Hollywood. "Came out" seems to be a good phase to begin the viewing with. (I don't know why the trailer's stretched out all funy, but it's the only one I could find)

Senator Kevin Keeley (Gene Hackman) - "Louise, people in this country aren't interested in details. They don't even TRUST details. The only thing they trust is headlines."

How true are those words in THIS society?! First off, can I just mention how thin Nathan Lane was!? Anyway, the Birdcage is based on French Jean Poiret's stage play "La Cage Aux Folles", and he had a hand in the screenplay as well. In looking at director Mike Nichols' filmography, I haven't seen anything of his besides The Birdcage, so I had no other work to compare it to. It was a very well written script! I don't know why I didn't expect much out of it, but I was pleasantly surprised - Great cast, witty script, awkward humor, fantastic!

This movie felt like the original Meet the Parents. I mean, I'm sure there were prior movies with awkward "engaged couple's families meet each other" plotlines, but this is the first one that I recall, and the character having gay parents put an additional non-conformist spin on it that, looking back, would have probably been more controversial then, than now. I'm not quite sure what else to say, seeing as I have no complaints, other than the fact that Hank Azaria is brilliant, as always!

The fial verdict? Thumbs up fir sure!

Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

BEST line in forever: "Everyone knows that a fairytale starts out, 'once upon a time'. Well a truck driver's fairytale starts out, 'you ain't gonna believe THIS shit!'" - Teri Horton, one classy old broad.


I wasn't sure what to watch today, and my free time is limited since I work BOTH my jobs on Thursday and Fridays, so I picked a short one that's been towards the top of my documentary list for a while now. I like art, but I'm really tough to please - not because I know a lot about it (though I'm pretty familiar with the work of the "big names", I just know not a lot about the artist or the history of the work), but because a lot of "famous paintings" don't look all that skilled to me. I don't really understand the appeal of Jackson Pollock's work, so I figured this would be interesting. (Next art doc? My Kid Could Paint That.)

Since it looks like the trailer doesn't want to load, go here:

Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? trailer

In brief, this documentary shows the 10+ year journey that truck driver Teri Horton went on to prove whether or not a painting that she bought for $5 at a thrift store was a Jackson Pollock original.I found this VERY fascinating! It was interesting to see how "proof" meant different things to the art world vs. the forensics world. It really reiterated the existence of sub-cultures in society.

Working in radio, and having numerous musician friends, I understand the inner-workings of touring bands; business deals, venues taking cuts, pre-selling tickets, opening in larger venues for nationally touring bands as opposed to local touring bands, etc. I have also seen a bit of the film side from being a Broadcasting major in college and having film student friend; shooting permits (or not), working for "copy, credit, food" instead of pay, roles of crew, etc. I also have a friend that rides motocross. That is it's OWN world, and one that I have no understanding of! All little subcultures are so incestuous! The art world is much the same. One person speaking up for the authenticity of a piece can automatically negate the doubt of any industry naysayer! If I were to walk into an art gallery and try to talk to people who are well versed in the world of art, I would stick out like a SORE THUMB! Much in the same way, if you had a person that listens to 102.7 KIIS FM (Top 40) walk into a hardcore/metal show, even if they dressed the part, there would be no way that they would be able to blend in once conversation started with said poser and a kid who's part of that (sub)culture.



***SPOILERS START HERE***

First off, this TOTALLY feed into my pre-conceived stereotype that the art crowd are all stubborn, snooty elitists. Their "proof" is someone who has a big hand or share in the art world to agree that the painting is authentic. I was SHOCKED to see a forensics analyst step into the picture, match a couple fingerprints (one from the back of Teri's "Pollock", and one from a paint can in Pollock's studio) and STILL, that wasn't enough for the art snobs! It'd be good enough to put someone away for life in a MURDER TRIAL, but not good enough to proved that some alcoholic painted some HUGE piece of whatever the surface was?!?! C'mon bro!!!

At one point Teri was offered $2 million, no questions asked, and she turned down the offer. She felt like it was a legit painting, and on principle, wouldn't sell it for less that she thought it was worth. Al the beginning of the documentary she had no idea who Jackson Pollock was, so I saw it strictly as her stubbornness (though not greed) that was preventing her from taking the offer. It's kind of like Deal Or no Deal - you hold out for a higher sum PRAYING that you've got the golden ticket (that may or may not be there).To be quite honest though, I probably would have passed on the $2 million too, while crossing all my fingers and all my toes! I WOULDN'T, however, be too stubborn to take the $9 MILLION that she was said to have been offered at the end of the film! Apparently there was an ADDITIONAL matching fingerprint found ON a proven Jackson Pollock painting! Teri did not. She still felt like it was worth more. *sigh* Stubborn old woman!

Overall, I give this a very enthusiastic thumbs up (minus the TERRIBLE song that some dude sings in a bar about Teri and her painting at the end of the film. THAT is 3 minutes of my life that I will NEVER get back)!

Fast Times At Ridgemont High

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know I'm a bit of a failure at times, and the proof lies within this post. Ladies and gentlemen, I HAVE NEVER SEEN FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH! I know this is supposed to be one of the old classic comedies that EVERYONE'S seen, but if it's not something that I was allowed to watch growing up, chances are I STILL haven't caught up on it! The ONLY things I know about it is that Sean Penn plays a surfer/stoner dude named Spicoli, and that Cameron Crowe wrote it when he was in his mid-twenties. Now THAT makes me feel like more of a failure than not having seen the film. I should have written a screenplay that's in production by now! *sigh*

The trailer hints at NOTHING in the plot. I always watch these "classic" films and hope that they're actually funny and hold up. We'll see. I'm actually thinking that I won't be all that impressed for whatever reason. I'm tough to please when it comes to comedies, and ESPECIALLY older ones.

I come into this review with head to toe body armor on, though I offer no apologies. I guess in short, my reaction to Fast Times would be "...and...?" I wouldn't necessarily say that it was 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back, but it is, like I suspected, a film that hasn't aged well over time. One of the only 15+ year old movies that people STILL talk about that I hadn't seen til recently and STILL holds up is T2. My whole life, everyone talked about Goonies. I finally saw it at 20 years old and it held no weight. I think it's because I didn't grow up with it. Movies that I watched as a kid that just don't have that special spark to those that didn't grow up with them would have to be (in shortlist form) Newsies, The Labyrinth, The Muppet Movie, Drop Dead Fred, Real Genius, Flight of the Navigator. Others that DO hold up would have to be (in my opinion) The Sandlot, Field of Dreams, Groudhog Day, Grease, The Breakfast Club.

I guess I just expected more of a (dare I say) plot (?). I mean, yeah, it chronicled high school kids, but I didn't feel like there was a typical set up, problem, resolution like in most films, but it wasn't "different" or "edgy" enough to veer from the standard patteren of that. Crowe's film Almost Famous could get away with straying from the cookie cutter a bit for some reason, but Fast Times was less successful. I'm almost starting to think (that being from the so-called MTV generation,) people around my age almost NEED either the quick cuts or twisted plot lines in order to keep us even remotely interested! I say this with a great generalization, but I think it holds a bit of truth regardless. We can look back at special effects and laugh at how prehistoric the technology was. The ADR in Fast Times is atrocious - that's probably a completely unnecessary side note though.

It WAS interesting in seeing so many current stars pop up on screen here and there though. I almost had to double-take when I saw Nicolas Cage (who was then Nicolas Coppola) in the crowd at the football game. Crazy, right? I guess I understand the nostalgia of it, but unless there was NOTHING else on and I was simply channel surfing, I probably wouldn't take the time to watch Fast Times again.

In short, I personally, would have to say thumbs down, though I DO understand how others like it. I will stand firm by Bio Dome til the day I die even though I know how terrible others think it is!

Bottle Shock

This one was brought to my attention by my boss. He's a total wine guy who talks about wine ALL THE TIME! I know next to nothing about it other than that I prefer white to red, and 2-buck-chuck hits me a lot quicker than I might imagine. I saw Sideways, and while the performances were good, I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if I were a wino too. It was almost like I didn't have the full appeciation necessary. I saw Last Chance Harvey this year, and felt like I was about 30 years too young to get anything out of it. That's how I feel about wine movies. It's almost like the fact that I'm not a big drinker hinders me from connecting with the content of the film. I'm too young for Last Chance Harvey, and too sober (or maybe just too uninformed) for movies that center around wine. I know there's more to it than that, but I couldn't see past it in Sideways. Maybe it requires a second viewing.

Bottle Shock is co-written and directed by Randall Miller, who also co-wrote and directed Nobel Son - both starring Alan Rickman (whom I love). I didn't care for Nobel Son much (aside from the performances), so despite the good reviews, my hopes are't too high for Bottle Shock. Oh, and Chris Pine's wig is gnarly! (Possible redeeming factor: Miller directed Nickelodeon's Salute Your Shorts! Now THAT'S OG street cred right there!)

Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman) - "Why don't I like you??"
Steven Spurrier (Alan Rickman) - "Because you think I'm an asshole... and I'm not really - I'm just British, and well... you're not."

I'm not sure why I found those line so amusing, but I did. Ya know, there's some times that I'm thankful that I didn't know much about a particular film.

***SPOILERS BEGIN HERE***
Until the film ended, I had no idea Bottle Shock was based on a true story. I just thought it was based on some book. I find that a lot more intriguing in this case. I expected it to focus on Rickman's character rather that Bill Pullman's and Chris Pine's (as Jim Barrett's son, Bo). While the central plot dealt with wine and the vineyard, it wasn't the sole focus, and managed not to lose a wine novice, such as myself, in the shuffle. I liked seeing the father/son relationship throughout, and the resolution of it in the end. Whenever I think of Bill Pullman I automatically think of him as the prez of the good ol' U.S. of A. in Independence Day, or as "our man Denton", the reporter, in Newsies. I don't think I'd seen him age until this. It was kind of like when I saw Carrie Fisher in Fanboys. She still looked pretty good in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, and then aged about 20 years in that timespan. Morrissey is sadly going that same route.

Back to the film at hand, the entire emotional tone of the film was very different from the other Miller film I'd seen. Nobel Son was rather dark and twisted, while Bottle Shock ended up as a feel-good underdog story. The sub-plot with Freddie Rodriguez's character, Bo's friend Gustavo Brambila added to the film, while Rachael Taylor's character, Sam, felt rather unnecessary. I'm not sure how true the quasi-love triangle was to the real-life story, but it seemed thrown in to appeal to a broader audience. I think the film would have still held up just fine without it.

In keeping up with the current "thumbs up vs. thumbs down" final verdict, I'd give Bottle Shock a thumbs up! Now who wants to buy me a bottle of 1973 Chateau Montelena Chardonnay?

Autism: The Musical

Since this one's a documentary, I didn't feel the need to post about the trailer prior to watching the film. I've had this one saved in my DVR since last September! Dang! Every now and then I go on a documentary kick, and Autism: The Musical was one of the casualties when I moved out of that phase. I usually fall asleep to a movie that I've already seen at night, but seeing as it was still pretty early, I decided to give this first-run a shot.

Am I heartless if I say that I didn't like it? *ducks and covers* Maybe I SHOULD have discussed the trailer first. It seemed like it was going to deal with autistic kids in a musical. While that's partially accurate, it dealt a lot with the families and relationships between the parents, and the parents vs. teachers, etc. There WAS a musical involved in it, but it wasn't at the forefront of topics that the film dealt with. That's not necessarily bad, but it wasn't what was expected. I wanted to see more interactions with the kids I guess.

If I were to give it a quick thumbs up or thumbs down, I'd regretfully have to give it a thumbs down. Better luck next time HBO.

30 Days of Night

I'm starting off this with David Slade's 30 Days of Night. It came up on one of the movie channels that I get for free for 3 months since DirecTV moved my dish to my new place, so I decided to DVR it. I LOVED Hard Candy (one of the few standout films for me in the last 5 years or so), and am curious to see how Slade goes from a tiny little film that takes place in, and was shot in the same location, to a graphic novel-based horror type film. Josh Hartnett's easy on the eyes (minus the Bert and Ernie eyebrows), and I've always loved Ben Foster!

TRAILER:
It looks well made, and hits hard from the very beginning. It seems to have the right amount of creep factor and gore. There's a fine line to walk when making a film that incorporates the supernatural into a modern, believable civilization. *fingers crossed for this one*

I must say, overall, well done! The style of this film fits in perfectly with previous works of his, yet Slade takes it to the next step as a director. He had been known before mainly as a music video director, having worked with such musical outfits as Stone Temple Pilots, Muse, System of a Down, Aphex Twin, Stereophonics, etc., so I was curious to see how he would bring a $30M movie to the big screen.

***THIS IS WHERE THE SPOILERS START***
First off, FALSE ADVERTISING throwing Ben Foster in the trailer! He's in maybe less than 20%. *sigh* He was great, as always, but still... Also noteworthy, Danny Huston plays a creepy guy like no one else's business! Josh Hartnett and Melissa George both work well as the male and female leads, respectively. As for a film overall, I liked it! As odd as it sounds, I'm a sucker for the not-quite-so-happily-ever-after endings. I'm not necessarily saying that I enjoy or thrive on misery (but if that were the case, won't you join me?), but I feel like cookie-cutter is so unrealistic and misleading.
The pacing of the film felt right on for the most part, with only a scene or two that could have been a tad shorter. The characters and plot (for what it was) were all totally believable and well played. Now, correct me if I missed something, but the vampires and the humans only had interaction because the vamps were caught feeding, right? Huston's character, Marlow (though no vampire names are ever mentioned outside of the end credits), stated that the vampires had lived however long while keeping up as only a nightmare in the eyes of humans, but since they'd been spotted, all humans have to die to keep their actual existence a secret, right? I'm not quite sure of Ben Foster's character in that sense then.

Slade puts a distinct feel to all of his work (that I've seen thus far), and it lends itself well to the darker themed pieces. Back to Hard Candy, while I really liked it the first time, it was the second time that I was able to take myself out of the plot and appreciate the artistry behind it. If you haven't seen it, watch it. If you have, watch it again and notice the color and lighting changes when Hayley's (Ellen Page) mood changes.  I think Slade surrounds himself with very talented people from makeup to lighting to DP, and has been able to fully show his visions because of it. Even his short film, Do Geese See God? with Blair Underwood had the similar feel. He has a way of making things splendidly creeptastic! It'll be interesting to see how he takes on Eclipse, the 3rd film in the Twilight Saga (June 2010) given his generally darker approach, and older fanbase. Hopefully he gives it the added edge that it needs to reach a broader audience.

I haven't yet decided if, or how, I'm going to actually rate films, but for the time being, if I were to just give 30 Days of Night a thumbs up or a thumbs down, I'd definitely give it a thumbs up.

For more Slade:
Hard Candy trailer (2005)
Do Geese See God? (2004)
Stone Temple Pilots - Sour Girl

So it begins...

All things must start somewhere, right? (That was rhetorical.)

I've always enjoyed music and movies and have wanted to share my opinions with fellow aficionados, but often don't. Why? Laziness? I have no idea, but it just doesn't happen. If something cool comes out of this blog, great! If not, at least it's a way to get out my thoughts and opinion of all the things that I watch, and sometimes things that I listen to.

It's also been brought to my attention how many "classic" movies that I've failed to see. This is mainly because I suck. I'm a failure. I get it! No, but really, if it's not something that came out when I was in the target demographic, chances are that I just haven't caught up on older films. I'm attempting to fix that. I have a lot of free time that I skillfully waste, so I figure that I can watch a film a day, do a little write-up, and hopefully cut back on the insane amounts of crap TV that I watch. (As of this week I can officially cross VH1's Megan Wants a Millionaire off my list.)

The game plan? Pick a film (with no rhyme or reason as of yet), watch the trailer and comment, watch the film and comment, wait for people to tear my opinions to shreds. Bring it on fools!

So in chichéd fashion: Here goes nothin'!

PS - I don't yet know how to make this thing all pretty, so it's a work in progress...