#156 - Match Point (2005)

I've been watching a lot of Wimbledon the last few days (shock!) and kind of forgot about catching up on my movies, so the other day, at the end of play, I wanted to put in something, and my thoughts went to the slightly tennis-themed (at least in the title) Match Point, one of my favorite films.  When I first watched it five years ago, the final twenty minutes kept me absolutely glued to the TV. I can even remember getting off the couch to get closer to the TV because the tension was literally sucking me in. Pretty awesome.

It's easily the best movie Woody Allen's done in the last ten years (yes, I'd put it above Midnight in Paris) and what we're treated to is an uncomplicated, yet deceptively complex story about a man who really just has to make a major decision on what he wants his future to look like.  It stars the more familiar Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (love) and Scarlett Johansson (love), but as good as they are, they are outdone by the British pair of Emily Mortimer and Matthew Goode, who play the brother and sister around whose family the story all seems to revolve.  They are best when interacting with each other and at times it's easy to forget they aren't actually related.

I highly recommend this movie anytime you want a good drama.

Score: 9.5/10

#155 - The Searchers (1956)

In a film widely regarded as one of John Wayne's best (as well as one of cinema's finest Westerns), The Duke plays a man who searches for his niece (Natalie Wood) who was kidnapped by Indians several years before.  The film was widely controversial in its time for its portrayal of Native Americans (especially by John Wayne's Ethan Edwards) but overall, I believe (as do many modern critics) that the film actually takes a very even approach to the difficult subject.  The one exception to this is the "marriage" between Edwards' traveling companion Martin Pawley and the Native named Look.

I have to say that as a genre, I don't really think I care much for Westerns.  I've gone into both this and High Noon with high expectations as two of the supposedly finest Westerns ever produced, and I thought High Noon was boring and The Searchers overlong.  The latter, though, had some great performances by Wood, Vera Miles, and especially Jeffrey Hunter as Pawley (Wayne was fine, too) as well as a couple of subplots that, at times, were much more interesting than the main "journey".  (The fight scene that "interrupts" Vera Miles's wedding, for example, was pretty great, as was Martin Pawley's letter to her.)

I'll wrap up by saying that this is a movie that I might watch again, though I'd be in no big rush.  Possibly I need some suggestions from the genre to give myself a greater appreciation. (The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is on my to-watch list.)

Score: 7.5/10

#154 - My Best Friend (2006)

I watched this one with my French class a few weeks ago, but forgot to write about it.  I wanted to do something more cultural with them: expose them to things beyond the vocab and the snippets about daily life in France, so I watched and discussed a couple of my favorite French films with them (the ones acceptable by the school standard) and this was one of their favorites.

I was lucky enough to see this with a few friends at the Traverse City Film Festival a few years ago (the same year we saw "The Valet", another wonderful French comedy) and we all thought that it was wonderful, charming, and a nice story.  The story itself, if done by a crappy American film company, would turn into a steaming pile of schmaltz: a man is basically challenged by his coworker to prove that he has a friend. 

Sounds hokey, right?

Sure! But it's not.  It's sentimental without being sappy, and a lot of that success comes from the leads: Daniel Auteuil (of "Jean de Florette" fame, among a bajillion others) as the rich guy who's got it all, save a real friend; and the remarkable Dany Boon as the trivia junkie taxi driver who gets pulled into Auteuil's web and finds so much more.  This is also my favorite movie that uses "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" as a salient plot point.  Sorry, Slumdog!

Score: 8/10

#153 - Midnight in Paris (2011)

Woody Allen's newest film is the reason why I already had to break my "Never will I ever see an Owen Wilson movie in the theatre voluntarily ever again" pact so quickly.  Because, really, with all the buzz, the fact that it's a Woody Allen film, the title, the setting, the wonderful Marion Cotillard, the lovely Rachel McAdams, the terrific Kathy Bates, etc. I couldn't not.

So I went with Christine to the theatre a few nights ago and was really pleased (and, since I didn't really know what I was exactly getting into, quite surprised) with the direction it took.  The overarching question was one of time.  Are the bygone eras, with all their nostalgia and remembrance, really the better eras in which one could have lived? Owen Wilson (who plays a screenwriter and would-be author - uh huh) searches for the answer to that very question, with the help of some bygone literary figures.  The actor who plays Hemingway is wonderful, as is Bates as Gertrude Stein.  Indeed, the supporting cast outshine Wilson (who is fine, but is really the least convincing part of the film) and McAdams (who does well with a thoroughly unlovable character), as they really evoke the spirit of the story.  I'm glad Allen's back with something so enjoyable, but to declare it Oscar-worthy is a bit premature, though unsurprisingly, I think the script could get some attention.

Score: 8.5/10

#152 - Dial M for Murder (1954)

I watched this movie night before last with my mom and the twins, in an effort to introduce my brothers to Hitchcock, and, more specifically, my favorite Hitchcock film.  It's a one-setting thriller (how weird that I would enjoy a one-room movie!) with an amazing and chilling performance by Ray Milland as an ex-tennis player who plots to have his wife (the lovely Grace Kelly) murdered.  But then, when things don't go as planned, he uses all his guile and conniving to create a back-up plan.

John Williams (not the composer, of course) is at his droll best as the head inspector assigned to the case.  It is interesting to note that this was a 3D movie back in the day, as well, which you can kind of see in scenes where Milland is doing the title activity, and Kelly is reaching toward the screen for the scissors.  I just love this film every time I see it: for its suspense, for the acting (especially Milland), for the terrific story and screenplay, for the amazingness of the camera work and direction, and for the intricacy which weaves all this together.  It's pitch perfect for me always.

Score: 10/10

#151 - What's Up, Doc? (1972)

So, recently, I've been introducing my younger brothers to a lot of movies of different genres that are among some of my personal favorites (especially slightly more aged films, since their knowledge of classics is woful), and thus, I'm not super concerned about keeping to my "90% new films" quota as much, anymore, since isn't my goal to make this as fun and educational (yes, it can be both) as possible?

This brings us to tonight's film, the Peter Bogdanovich screwball comedy What's Up, Doc? starring Ryan O'Neal, Barbra Streisand, and Madeline Kahn that, even though I've seen it many times before, never fails to make me laugh.  It's replete with mistaken identities, dextrous wordplay, clever situations, and gobs of sight gags that enhance, rather than detract from, the "main" points.

Also, since I love the movie so much, I'm going to give a little shout out to Erika, who was the one who introduced me to this film.  Thanks!

Score: 9.5/10

#150 - Sunset Blvd. (1950)

First things first: I've never seen the movie Born Yesterday, but Judy Holliday must have given one hell of a performance in that movie if she beat out not just Bette Davis and Anne Baxter in All About Eve (one of my favorite movies of all time, which includes some of the best acting ever) but also Gloria Swanson as an aging silent film actress, hoping for a last hurrah in the talkies, in Sunset Blvd., a performance that is easily among the greatest of all time.  Call me skeptical, Judy, but methinks you beat vote-sharing between the two AAE cast members, and some stuffy people who mayn't be fond of the backhand Sunset Blvd. gives the motion picture industry.

What I had going into this film were a lot of expectations: it seems that everyone I know who likes good movies loves this film.  And I have to say that once I got past the first two minutes of first-person narrative and figured out that this technique wasn't a distraction, but a great way to present the film, I was hooked

I must admit that when the two main characters meet for the first time, I had a sense of "this is really a stretch", but something in the way this scene is filmed, with the simultaneous admiration and disregard of decay, with Holden sort of dictating the feeling of his surroundings.  It's a bit of "tell, don't show" at first, but with the exquisite look of the surroundings melded with his voice-over narration, it's a terrific effect.  We already know a lot about Swanson's character before we meet her, and she plays it up terrifically.

A pair of smaller, but no less important and influential figures in the movie are Max, Norma Desmond's consummately loyal caretaker/butler, who we find out is the man who "discovered" the young starlet all those many years ago, and Nancy Olson, the erstwhile scriptreader who befriends Joe and wants him to get the one good story in his head out to the masses.  But, really, everything revolves around the relationship (such as it is) between Joe and Norma.  It's strange, eerie at times, and incomprehensible to the audience in the way it plays out, and that is the strength of this film.  Everything works just so, and we are lead on the strange and mystical journey Joe takes through the eyes of Joe himself.

Score: 9.5/10

#149 - House on Haunted Hill (1959)

The great thing about this film is that it's hilarious! (By modern standards, everything is super-cheesy) but I imagine the 3D effect of the skeleton coming toward the screen, or the scary blind caretaker gliding out of the room on a dolly (we laughed) must have been pretty frightening.  The acting is equally as hilarious, complete with DRAMATIC! wipes of two of the main characters at the start of the movie.  Mike and I also loved Vincent Price staring right into the camera to say something ominous.  Classic.

All this being said, there were some genuinely creepy moments (like the second time we see the blind caretaker, or when the young girl is grabbed from behind - the first time) that were spaced in between the hilarity so well that they were always a surprise.  Not to mention that both my brother and I felt very "well I didn't see that coming" when the bigger twist was revealed.  This movie is recommended viewing when you can laugh at it with someone else.  Plus, it's just GOTTA be better than its remake.

Score: 6/10

#148 - How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

From the previews, I was uninterested: the voice of the narrator (Jay Baruchel) grated me at every turn, and, frankly, the previews seemed to be intended for a much younger audience, really focusing on the stupider sight gags and puns as opposed to the strength of the movie: the relationship between the main character (Hiccup) and his dragon (Toothless).  Indeed, this is the most pleasing part of the film.  The Vikings? Not so much.  They supply a plot, a purpose, a raison d'être, but they don't add much to the movie.  The best parts about these minor characters are certainly the other younguns Hiccup attends "Dragon Training" with, but they don't get quite enough screen time (and not varied purposes) to really impact the film.

Good thing that the movie spends a good portion of its time with Toothless, its real star.  He's beautiful (really, the whole film is), charming, loyal, and oftentimes really cute.  He is, certainly, a "pet", once the domestication happens, and he's everything you'd expect from a real pet.  And Baruchel's interaction with him is really grand.  (And his narration was fine, really.  A couple of lines made me cringe, but they were more than counterbalanced by the appropriateness of him for the character.)

As a whole, I wasn't as emotionally attached to the movie as I am to, say, Toy Story or its sequels, but I enjoyed it from start to finish, which is something I can't say for, say, Shrek or A Shark Tale.  There were a few scenes that were somewhat wistful, but the level of the film was pretty even: no major ebbs and tides, emotionally.  This is okay in this type of film, but doesn't quite make as sizable an impact as maybe it could have.  All this being said, my expectations were exceeded.

Score: 7.5/10

#147 - The Green Hornet (2011)

Did people actually like this movie?

I wanted to enjoy it; I really did.  I like Seth Rogen, and I love director Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but this movie here, this....  Words can't adequately express my disappointment at every aspect of the film:

Directing - not great. Not the worst thing about the film, but not great.  BUT THERE WAS 3D!!!1!!
Script - atrocious. Things either made too much sense or not nearly enough.
Acting - Rogen is abysmal; he spends 82% of the movie overacting (mostly in celebratory ways, expressing shock and awe at even the most mundane things.  COFFEE?!) and the rest underacting.  A very uneven and grating "performance".
The Buddy System - I usually like buddy movies (though let's go back a few years, since the current crop has been all over the place) but there was no chemistry between Rogen and the nearly unintelligible Jay Chou (You like Costco music?)
The Hot Chick - Blech.  Though, to her "credit", she was not, by a longshot, the worst part of the film.  I think this is largely due to her lack of screen time.  Though she is following the "Uh-huh.  She can totally pull off playing a ___________ (but really not)" à la Denise Richards as an astrophysicist or Reese Witherspoon as a professional softball player.  (Diaz is a journalist/investigative something-or-other... I couldn't tell you because it took her 10 minutes to finish the sentence.)
The Dialogue - Couldn't. Care. Less.  Couldn't. Follow. A. Damn. Thing.
The Villain - Christoph Waltz is underused, boring, and a transparent caricature of a villain.  He wasn't even really villainous.  Nice job, everybody, making him look all terrible and shit!

And that's about it.  A steaming pile of why I don't watch "superhero" movies.  If I missed something good, please let me know.  It may have been in the minutes I: fell asleep, let the dog out, went to the bathroom, pretended I had something to do in the bathroom just to get away from the television, or concentrated much too carefully on the almonds I was eating to give me some respite from the inanity that was on the TV.

On second thought, if I missed something good, keep it to yourself. I don't wanna know.

Score: 3/10

#146 - Rabbit Hole (2010)

I was surprised at a couple of things in this movie: I was surprised I didn't hate Nicole Kidman in it (in fact, I've refused to watch her in anything since I saw Margot at the Wedding, which could have been good, but was not.  I was also surprised that the movie managed to take a subject that is inherently sad and instead of dissolving it into an overwrought, maudlin mess, it handled the subject delicately, with absolutely the right amount of... sad... and mixed in the positive without it seeming like a screaming, triumphal march.  It is balanced, measured, and attacks with a light touch instead of a frying pan over the head.

And let's be honest, the writing is brilliant, but what is equally amazing is director's John Cameron Mitchell's use of restraint, especially considering that his previous credits are the singularly glam Hedwig and the Angry Inch and the overworked, (OMG!1! Real sex scenes?!) Shortbus.  And while Mitchell does tend to a dwell just a second too long on some of the surroundings (their house, the comic book artwork. etc.) he avoids lingering overlong on metaphors like nouveau directeur Shanley in Doubt.

Of the two main actors, I felt a greater sense of devotion from Aaron Eckhart (who is gorgeous, by the way), but Kidman actually was able to show a range of three different faces in this go-around.  (This is a 33.3% increase in acting ability from Skeletor!) Kidman is best in scenes with her sister (Tammy Blanchard) and mother (Dianne Wiest), but is, frankly, out-acted by Eckhart in their scenes together.  But at least the gap is small.

Score: 9/10

#145 - Hairspray (1988)

I'm glad I finally sat down and watched the original version of this movie from start to finish, though what I realized is that in the hundred times I've seen bits and pieces of it over the years, I'd basically seen everything but the last five minutes (Hair explosion, Turnblad in a tiara, etc.) already.

I know a lot of people who really love this original and who hated the new version, but I really liked both.  I like the fact that the new one is based on the musical based on the movie and that the majority of the actors do a really great job with their roles (I am not talking about John Travolta here).  I like the old one for blazing the way, the nifty cameos, most of the actors (especially Divine) and the originality of the story.

It was fun to watch this version and see where the inspiration for a lot of the songs from the musical came from (since the music in this version was just songs the kids would dance to) and appreciate the charmingness of the camp factor.  I mean, there are things that are truly absurd or over-the-top (Penny's mother, Tracy's "incarceration", the hair) but it all feels necessarily and within the realm of the film.  Bigger isn't always better, but Waters's movie sure makes a good case.

Score: 8/10

#144 - Hereafter (2010)

Matt Damon is hot.

Just thought I'd get that out of the way, because I shan't be quite so kind for the rest of the movie revue.

First off, it really seems like interwoven multiplot movies are really hit (Amores Perros) or miss (Babel) and, frankly, I'm being generous with using the term "interwoven" considering the three vignettes spend 95% of their time completely separate from one another, before accidentally converging on the city of London.  The "common thread" is that the three main characters (Damon, Cécile de France, and a young British boy whose twin brother is killed) all have some experience or interest in "the hereafter". 

The larger problem is that none of the three individual stories are really that interesting, on their own (the British twins one was the one I liked the most, and even that began to lag) so that by the time they are combined, there's no sense of wanting to really see where it leads.  You already know that these characters are going to meet, or be in the same place, or something like that, because how else is the movie going to "work".  God forbid it break away from formula.  And when the inevitable does happen, it's very much a "okay, we're done now" moment.  Yawn.

Score: 3.5/10

#143 - Their Eyes Were Watching God (2005)

My God.

Zora? Where are you? Zora, come back PLEASE! Someone took your amazing, imaginative, BEAUTIFUL (I am not exaggerating: I absolutely love this novel) story and made a shitty movie that takes so many liberties, that basically the only thing that's common is the character names.

What we have is basically a Rescue 911 over-dramatization of every single plot point that the screenwriters thought valid, and invented about eleventy billion of their own.  Then, they made the brilliant choice of casting Halle Berry, who drags down every scene she's in, which is all of them....  But I am going to cut Ms. Berry some slack: she has nothing to work with, script-wise (which is such a travesty considering the source material) and the direction is non-evident.  It was clearly made-for-TV, which doesn't HAVE to mean it's subpar, but this doesn't even achieve that level.  (The problem with the above is that it has obvious spaces where there were commercial breaks that gave an already muddled movie a really disjointed feeling.)

Seriously, I could go on and on, but this movie is so shitty, so I'm going to leave it at that. 

Score: 2/10

#142 - Psycho (1960)

Absolutely one of the best films of all time, not just one of the best Hitchcock films of all time.  I have now seen the movie twice (I saw this last fall/winter with some friends at a Royal Oak Main Art Theatre Midnight Madness screening - see also: Jaws a couple weeks past) and it was just as eerie and droll (oh Hitchcock, you card, you!) as I thought it was the first time around.

Anthony Perkins is absolutely wonderful (in case you want to make your friends back home feel envious) and in both word and gesture he is the perfect duality of charming and tortured.  His manner of speaking during the parlor conversation with Janet Leigh shows us his range: in one second he is smirking, agreeable, conversational, but then, in another moment, he is more abrupt, disjointed, and combative.  I love the dialogue they have about being trapped: it's tense and unexpected, but at this point in the movie, there isn't quite yet a sense of terror.  (Even knowing of the "twist", I was able to appreciate the leadup to the eventual shower scene.

I was really interested in learning some of the history behind the movie when I had a conversation with Jessica.  She told me a couple of things that were pretty awesome about the film: the first was that there used to be signs posted outside the theatre, informing patrons of the exact starting time, and that Hitchcock wanted nobody to be allowed to enter late.  Pretty awesome.  Nothing I hate more than being ready for a movie and having people come in late, since 9 times out of 10, since they can't be counted on to show up on time, they can't be counted on to keep their traps from flappin' all through the movie.  (But I digress...) Secondly, it was a big surprise at the time that it was Janet Leigh who got the, well, you know, considering she was such a star when the movie came out.  It was a big shock to the audiences, and it brought a lot more word-of-mouth publicity to the film as people brought others to see it.  Hitchcock = genius.

Score: 9.5/10