The Crash of 1929

Written by: Ronald Blumer

Narrated by: Philip Bosco

The "American Experience" series is essential public television viewing. This episode, "The Crash of 1929" documents the time just before and just after the stock market crash of 1929, which devastated the economy and marked the beginning of the Great Depression.

This documentary is not narrative heavy. Rather, some prior knowledge of the historical significance of the event is helpful, because it does not drag on and on about the details of the events. Nor does it have long lists of historians explaining each and every facet of the crash.

What this documentary does, which I did not anticipate, is to tell the story from the perspective of those most affected by the stock market crash. That is, to say, those who were working on the stock market. Most of the interviews are with the children of bankers and investors whose lives took a dramatic turn on that fateful day. Typically, these are not the most sympathetic figures in history (given that it was their actions which precipitated the crash), but their voices are important in documenting the "American Experience." They were the closest to the epicenter of the economic quake that shook our nation.

So, from a philosophical perspective, it's a great documentary. From a viewing perspective, it's not a thriller. It's a pretty straight-forward interview-style documentary.

I enjoyed it, but I enjoy "American Experience" anyway. If you're of a like mind, I'd recommend it to you.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Directed by: Andrew Dominik

Written by: Andrew Dominik (screenplay), Ron Hansen (novel)

There exists a large division between art films and star-powered features. "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" manages to exist in the small area where the two can overlap. It's also amazing that the film is thoroughly entertaining despite the fact that the title gives away the outcome of the film.

Facing the end of his career, Jesse James (Pitt) takes in Robert Ford (Affleck) as part of his gang for his last few robberies, though it turns out that Ford has an unhealthy obsession with James's mythology. Later, as James's cautiousness deteriorates into paranoia, Ford is presented with an opportunity to collect a large reward to assassinate his hero.

This movie is big and grand, both in terms of its scope and in terms of its story. The movie may have bitten off more than it could chew - but most importantly, it feels that way.

Stylistically, the film is impressive. It's beautiful. The story is beautiful, the acting is beautiful, the cinematography is beautiful. It's all beautiful. But, even with all that beauty, it manages to maintain the grit and grime of the time period. It feels like the 1800s.

The performances of both Pitt and Affleck are fantastic, as has been discussed elsewhere. Pitt is especially powerful, given the limited amount of screen time he is given. He manages to evoke the overpowering presence of Jesse James, which is no easy feat.

The length of the film does become a bit of an issue. In the attempt to make a deep, full story with a trove of great characters, the story stretches on a bit. There are a few subplots and stories which, although great, could have been pared down. (But who am I to play editor, eh?)

I wanted to like this movie, but the actual experience was less than I had hoped. But on reflection, I can say that I enjoyed it more than I originally wanted to give it credit for. It's a decent western, but a much better character study.

I recommend it, if you like it. If you don't like it, don't say I didn't warn you.

Hoosiers

Directed by: David Anspaugh

Written by: Angelo Pizzo

There aren't too many great basketball movies out there (sorry, Space Jam), but "Hoosiers" is by far the best. In fact, it's easily one of the most inspirational sports movies, regardless of the sport. (As a brief aside, "Hoop Dreams" takes a close and very honorable second place.)

A former college coach (Hackman) with a violent past takes over the basketball program at a high school in small-town Indiana. Not everyone in town takes to his less-than-traditional style of coaching, but with the help of another teacher (Hershey), he manages to earn the loyalty of the best player in town. The long road to the championship isn't easy, though.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what this movie does right, and trying to narrow it beyond "just about everything." What stands out most is just how real everything in the movie feels - especially the characters. Aside from a few moments of dialogue, nothing feels forced or contrived. It seemed like real people would make these real comments when faced with these real situations. Even the romance subplot, usually the downfall of most movies, plays out in a very natural and unforced fashion. Dennis Hopper, playing the alcoholic assistant coach, even earned an Academy Award nomination for his performance.

The movie is a bit slow at first. It takes a long time to meet the final cast of characters. But it is totally worth the wait. The slow development is an element of the style of the film, not a flaw in the pacing. The film gives us enough time to reflect on the characters and events, which is key in a film where reflection on life is such an important theme.

I won't spend time here describing how Hackman's character is an unlikely amalgam of the great John Wooden and the infamous Bobby Knight. Suffice to say that Hackman balances the virtues of Wooden's coaching with the intensity (borderline fury) of Knight's style. It makes him a rich, full character, who you find yourself rooting for even after you know about why he was dismissed from the college position.

This is a film worth seeing. I highly recommend it, especially now as the shadows of "March Madness" begin to creep in on the edges of our national consciousness.

Pearl Jam Twenty

Written and Directed by: Cameron Crowe

For twenty years, Pearl Jam has been a major force in rock music. From their rise during the early 1990s "grunge" movement to their current status as modern rock statesmen, their story has been one of triumphs and tragedies. In "Pearl Jam Twenty," Cameron Crowe attempts to weave together how the band got from here to there.

I loved this film, but much of that affection was predetermined by my relationship with the subject. My parents had The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. My sister had Depeche Mode and Metallica. I had Pearl Jam.

Although this documentary effectively summarizes the band's history, including major turning points (the battle with Ticketmaster, the Roskilde tragedy), I would not recommend it as a starting point for people. Some familiarity with the band and their music is necessary for some scenes, such as the footage of Stone Gossard and Eddie Vedder performing an incredibly rough cut of their song "Daughter." Even the title of the film is a reference for fans, but is lost on those completely unfamiliar.

"Pearl Jam Twenty" is pretty good, and as a Pearl Jam fan I highly recommend it. But, as a Pearl Jam fan, I also recommend you go out right now and buy all their records first. And then watch this movie. Rock on.

Bridesmaids

Directed by: Paul Feig

Written by: Kristin Wiig, Annie Mumolo

For a movie which came with such high acclaim from several of my friends and relatives, I was sorely disappointed with this movie.

When her best friend Lillian (Rudolph) asks her to be maid-of-honor at her wedding, Annie (Wiig) sets out to help Lillian have the wedding of her dreams. Unfortunately, Lillian's new friends is proving quite a rival for Annie, leading to multiple confrontations as the wedding approaches, putting a strain on the already-teetering relationships between all the bridesmaids. Meanwhile, as a subplot, Annie's love-life is falling apart as she's torn between two very different men.

Melissa McCarthy is outstanding in this film. At no point does she disappoint. I expect to see her at the top of many ballots during the upcoming awards season. She is the high point in this film.

There are a couple of memorable scenes, and the dress-shopping sequence is unforgettable in its grossness (which, to its credit, will be hard to top in terms of nastiness).

Generally, I was let down by this movie. When so many people tell me something is so great, I expect it to be pretty decent. Even if it's not great, I figure it'll be pretty good. I can't even give this movie that much credit.

I just did not see the point. There were too many missed opportunities. For example, the characters of Rita and Becca (McLendon-Covey and Kemper, respectively) had tons of potential, but after their humorous introductions they are basically background decorations. The love-story subplot is stereotypical and thin and really wasted a lot of time considering that it really did not fit with the rest of the movie at all.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I just can't recommend this movie. Sorry folks.

The Garden

Written and Directed by: Scott Hamilton Kennedy

There existed in downtown Los Angeles a large community farm. The food was simply grown by people for people. It began as an attempt to heal the city after the riots in 1994. For years it it existed peacefully, until one day the owner of the land, who had acquired the property under dubious circumstances, decided to kick everyone off. This documentary tells of the battle to control the farm.

Although I agreed with the sentiment of the film, it must be stated clearly that this documentary is clearly skewed to the side of the farmers. It's not clear how much effort was made to reach out to the other side of the story - and there's a real possibility that a genuine effort was made and declined - but the final product casts one side as the underdogs and the other as the millionaire, politically-connected villain. Not that this excuses the villain's behavior.

Regardless of the "sides" of the story, Kennedy does a great job of showing the personal, legal, and political struggles of the typically disenfranchised group of farmers. Just as they are literally trying to hold on to the land, they also have to work to hold on to hope and to keep their fledgling group together.

The movie definitely has a tear-jerker climax with some devastating imagery. (History spoiler: The farmers lose and the garden gets bulldozed. Seriously.) Even if the outcome is obvious from the start, it's hard not to root for the farmers along the way, which makes the ending even more upsetting.

Masterpiece? This film is not. It does show an allegorical tale of The Haves against The Have Nots and the powerful influence The Haves hold over our world.

I generally recommend this film because of the essence of the story it tells, not because it is a great piece of documentary work.

Young Frankenstein

Directed by: Mel Brooks

Written by: Mel Brooks, Gene Wilder (screen story and screen play); Mary Shelley (original novel)

"Young Frankenstein" is one of the highlights of writer-director Mel Brooks's career, showcasing his relationship with actor Gene Wilder. (This relationship, according to the man who runs my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series, thrived on improvisation and off-the-cuff acting, leading to an original cut of nearly six hours!)

Dr. Frankenstein (Wilder) is a biologist who is trying to distance himself from his family's name due to an incident with a mad scientist of a distant uncle. But, when given to opportunity to explore his uncle's castle, he manages to uncover his uncle's greatest discovery - the reanimation of dead tissue. Hilarity ensues.

Although I love this movie, I will say that it has not quite held up over the years. It suffers from odd pacing and uneven levels of humor.

Luckily, Peter Boyle (credited as The Monster) and Marty Feldman (Igor) steal the show! The "Puttin' on the Ritz" sequence is still one of the best scenes in any comedy. Although Feldman's scenes are limited, his mere presence elevates the film. The Gene Hackman cameo itself is worth the price of admission!

"Young Frankenstein" may have lost some of its shine over the years, but it's influence is clear and far reaching, including allegedly inspiring Aerosmith's song "Walk This Way." (That's a schoolyard rumor, so I'm not sure if or how to cite it - just take my word for it because I heard it in eighth grade.) (And, as a philosophical aside, is it that the film has not aged well, or has the world of comedy film changed so drastically that "Young Frankenstein" no longer easily fits into the mold? Must discuss.)

If you've never seen it, you're definitely missing out. I'm very glad that I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen.

Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto

Written by: Chuck Klosterman

So, I admit, I'm a little late to the Chuck Klosterman parade - especially this, his most "famous" book (if it can be described as such). In my defense, I was in the midst of my undergraduate career when this book and its author rose in popularity. This was a point in my life in which my attempt to identify myself as "hip" included a necessary aversion to things that others offered as "hip," whether or not I would have actually enjoyed those things myself. Long story short, I'm just getting around to this now.

This book is mainly a collection of essays reflecting on and critiquing the nature of "popular culture." (And some of you are probably saying, "Aren't all of Klosterman's books like that?" My answer: Yes, they probably are. Oh well.)

Although I enjoyed the book, I do feel that all of the essays suffer from a cookie-cutter feel. Each one describes a feature of popular culture with witty observations, occasionally with a cynical venture into participation with that cultural feature to then return with more witty and cynical observations. I never felt like essays delved any deeper than a smirking know-it-all observation. Nothing seems to shake him from his tower of smug superiority. The best essayists (such as Joan Didion) are able to make the same type observations, but also reflect on how the experience has affected themselves. Klosterman never quite reaches that point, and after a while it became disappointing.

A few of the standout essays include:

1. "George Will vs. Nick Hornby" basically blasts youth soccer leagues as undercutting social development.

2. "What Happens When People Stop Being Polite" discusses the character archetypes used on reality TV shows like "The Real World."

3. "Billy Sim" discusses the nature of desire in relation to how the video game "The Sims" is played.

You get what you pay for with Klosterman - no more, no less. I enjoyed the book with the same sense of detachment which he imparted with his writing. It's enjoyable, just don't expect anything deeper than what the title implies.

Carriers

Written and Directed by: Alex Pastor, David Pastor

What if, in the future, a disease wiped out most of the population? What would you to survive? What if Hollywood produced a low-budget horror movie with that exact premise?

This movie takes place after a biological apocalypse, where we meet up with the Green brothers Danny (Pucci) and Brian (Pine), who have developed rules to help themselves and their girlfriends survive on the road to an elusive beach paradise.. The rules are constantly bent and broken, though, as they encounter other survivors, such as Frank (Meloni) and his infected daughter (Shipka). The pressure to survive weighs heavily on Brian, who slowly begins to lose his sanity and his humanity.

It's regrettable that the film took such an open-ended (though recently overused) premise and failed to take it anywhere. This movie didn't do anything that hadn't already been done by other films to more effect. The filmmakers' message was hard to pull out, and even then it was rather vague.

One scene in the movie stands out as being a cut above the rest of the movie: the scene at the "emergency hospital" set up at the abandoned high school with the doctor. That single scene managed to be unsettling, disturbing, and filled with tension without the need for graphic gore. The character's interaction with the doctor - and the terrible choice he and the group are forced to make - is fantastic, while there's also great tension with what's going on in the car outside. I can't say enough about how that one scene showed how great the rest of the film could have been.

Overall this movie had too much going on. There were too many settings left unexplored, too many characters left undeveloped, and too many stories that were left untold.

I simply can't recommend this movie. If you do watch it, simply watch it through the scene with the doctor at the high school (you'll know the part), because it's all downhill after that. (And, in my own defense, the only reason I watched the entire movie was because I was over halfway through by the time I realized how bad it was.)

Harvard Beats Yale 29-29

Directed by: Kevin Rafferty

Harvard and Yale are known for their football programs. But in 1968, both schools faced off in their rivalry game with perfect records. Although Yale's team was heavily favored to win, Harvard manages to stay within striking distance for the last few minutes.

This documentary had a lot of potential. The game itself held plenty of action and drama, with participants and spectators including Tommy Lee Jones (who appears briefly in an unremarkable interview), Al Gore, and George W. Bush (who don't).

Unfortunately the film did not do justice to the story it told. Rafferty decided to forgo the typical narration of a documentary and instead used simple interviews tied together and interspersed with footage from the game.

I wanted to enjoy this movie. But I didn't. Although the interviews and clips were interesting, it needed narration to tie everything together. Without it, everything feels forced and disjointed.

This film may be worth watching if you're an alum of either university (or are related to one). The story of the game is worth knowing, but this documentary may not be the best way of hearing about it.

The Birds

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Daphne Du Maurier (story), Evan Hunter (screenplay)

Most people are at least passingly familiar with "The Birds" and some of its more famous sequences. Few people have actually seen the film from beginning to end, and I now count myself among those lucky few.

Intrigued by the mysterious Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) after he hits on her at a bird store (really!), Melanie Daniels follows him to his home in Bodega Bay under the auspices of delivering a pair of love birds for his younger sister's birthday. Chaos ensues as the local birds begin coordinating violent attacks on the people of the town, leaving several dead and the rest to wonder if they will survive the night.

What surprised me most was how long it took for the action of the film to develop. For the first half of the film (give or take), the story is merely merely one of cat-and-mouse romance between Brenner and Daniels. Of course, this adds to the tension - knowing that at some point, somehow, the birds are going to start attacking. (Although, this raises the question - if one didn't know that the birds were going to attack, would that tension exist at all? Or is that prior knowledge essential to the film?)

The effects are cheesy. Hitchcock, although a master of suspense and horror, worked best when relying on his actors to pull off the drama. It was hard to be afraid of a bird that either didn't look real, or seemed to be spliced in from stock footage.

The climax is a masterpiece, though. Considering that almost everything that makes the scene scary is happening completely off camera, it's amazing how terrified the film made me feel. The sounds effects, and small but important visual effects, make this scene. Knowing that all the birds are outside the house trying to get in (and that they occasionally find a weakness in the home's exterior) was absolutely frightful without needing any blood and guts. (OK, so there's a little blood and guts - but nothing like a slasher film).

The other great scene in the film occurs in the local diner, when the birds begin their first major attack on the town. The way the different personalities in the diner interact with each other and react to the situation is priceless. Although the dialogue isn't the strongest, the scene feels very real - as though that what normal people would do given some kind of avian apocalypse. That scene alone makes the film worth seeing at least once.

Although I'm often a fan of the "No explanation given; no explanation needed" philosophy, I'm afraid "The Birds" relied too heavily on that concept. We have no idea why the birds are doing what they're doing, how they're communicating with each other, or, well, anything. It's basically senseless violence. (Although, as I type this, now I'm wondering if there may have been a message about senseless violence in our society sewn into the film? I will ponder further.) The lack of explanation and the slow pacing of the first half of the film are definitely the major flaws and hinder the film from really taking off (pun intended).

Although I enjoyed the movie, I wouldn't recommend it as a starting point for Hitchcock. It's not one of his strongest films, nor even emblematic of his work in general. It's worth seeing at some point because of the two scenes I mentioned, and because of it's place within the canon of American horror, but that's as much as I'll say for it here.

Unforgiven

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Written by: David Webb Peoples

Hands down, one of the best westerns of all time. No further comment.

Moneyball

Directed by: Bennett Miller

Written by: Steven Zaillian (screenplay), Aaron Sorkin (screenplay), Stan Chervin (story), Michael Lewis (book)

Michael Lewis's book "Moneyball" shook up the traditional understanding of baseball by introducing the general population to the hard statistical analysis of the game known as "sabermetrics." The narrative focuses on the Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane and his attempt to build a winning team on a limited budget using sabermetrics to identify undervalued players.

The movie "Moneyball" takes the Billy Beane narrative from the book, but abandons essentially all of the history and evolution of baseball statistics. Unfortunately, this leaves "inside references" in the film that only those who have read the book will understand, leaving anyone else to scratch their head and wonder what the characters were talking about. (The most notable example are numerous references to Bill James - the father of sabermetrics - who received significant attention in the book, but is only occasionally referenced.)

This movie came with a lot of baggage, including the epic timeline it took to get produced. From when it was originally announced, directors and actors came and went on a carousel. At one point, Paul DePodesta - a major figure in the book - asked that his name be removed from the film, so the character's name was changed to Peter Brand.

Much of the buzz surrounding the film originally was about Brad Pitt's performance. I have to say he's good, but hard to tell whether Brad Pitt's acting was actually good, or whether he's just playing the same character over and over again. I'm not willing to jump on the Oscar bandwagon for this one, though it's definitely worth an honorable mention. The trade deadline scene is fantastic, though, and may be the key in getting him nominated.

What made the book great was the balance of Billy Beane's personal story and the rise of sabermetric analysis in baseball. Although the film is good, the limited scope removed much of the context. I found myself having to explain several concepts to my wife after the movie - not because she is clueless, but because the movie left them unexplained.

This movie is good, but unless you're a hardcore baseball stat geek, you may need to just roll with the punches at a few points.

Night of the Living Dead

Directed by: George Romero

Written by: George Romero, John Russo

This is it. The film that spawned a million spin-offs and imitations, and began an obsession with the undead.

When the recently deceased begin to return as cannibals, chaos ensues and people enter survival mode. The government's top scientists struggle to solve and explain the problem of the roving bands of flesh-eaters, while most people are in a fight to stay alive. The film follows one motley group of people who hole-up together in a country home and try to survive the night. Tensions rise immediately among the survivors, though, as they debate which strategy will give them the best chance to make it to dawn - barricade and wait, or make a run for it. Each person's personalities and motives are pushed to the breaking point, leading to the dramatic and surprising conclusion. (And yes, I realize that this description is vague and could even be loosely misleading, but if you've seen the movie, you know what I'm working with.)

Everyone should see this movie at some point. And when they see it, they need to see it in the original black-and-white style. Although the colorized version adds to the blood and gore, the black-and-white is thematically important. (Again, I can't say much more without ruining things).

Even without color, this movie is gritty and graphic. I refuse to see it at night, even though I've seen it several times.

In the canon of the history of film, "Night of the Living Dead" should stand as the representative of the horror genre.

Waiting for "Superman"

Directed by: Davis Guggenheim

Written by: Davis Guggenheim, Billy Kimball

Few movies arrive with more controversy than this one. In the education world, it created quite a stir both in favor of and against the charter school movement.

The film itself discusses the seeming failures of the public school system. From there, it follows the lives of several families as they try to break into the charter school system, seeking an opportunity to achieve more than they might within the typical confines of public education.

Although I appreciate the charter school movement and do see it as a viable alternative worth investigation, I dispute the black-and-white contrast that film presents. (Well, frankly, I argue with the basic premise that the American public school system is a total failure - but that's a debate for another time and place.) Not all public schools are terrible, and not all charter schools are successful. It's not possible to make such broad generalizations with any accuracy, but this film does so and presents it as fact.

My ultimate problem with this film is it's "documentary" status. Although all documentaries have an agenda, few cloud them as "fact" the way this film does.

Still, there's something to be said that it did - even through dubious means - bring public education alternatives to the forefront of the national discussion, if only briefly.

Although I recommend this film, I also ask that you view it with a skeptic's eyes and do your own research before jumping to one conclusion or another. The future of America's youth should not be unduly influenced by a single film. (Unless, of course, that film were "Star Wars.")

The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter

Carson McCullers's novel falls under the "southern gothic" genre, but in its own special way. Whereas Faulkner's prose intimidates you and beats you over the head with its brute strength, McCullers's text hums like a lullaby with a soft melody.

"The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter" is set in small-town Georgia during the great depression. It's the type of town where you know everyone else by name, and you're related to half of them by blood or marriage. Most of the story surrounds the deaf-mute John Singer and the fingerprints he leaves on the lives he touches.

This novel is beautiful and soft, but also powerful. I have a hard time describing it, but I highly recommend you experience it for yourself.

Rubber

Written and Directed by: Quentin Dupieux

Every once in a while, a movie comes along that defies all genres and formulas. "Rubber" is that kind of movie.

It's a challenge to explain exactly what is going on in the film. The central story (at least, the most linear) is about a possessed tire who is able to make things explode, and so goes on a murderous rampage. The police officer who sets out to destroy the tire, though, realizes that he is merely a player in a film, and tries to enlighten the other actors to no avail. Simultaneously, a group of people has been brought to a desert location to watch the events of the film unfold through binoculars. Confused yet?

I loved "Rubber." It was ridiculous and absurd while also taking itself painfully seriously as art. The film manages to exist in several contradictory fields at once. I've never seen anything like it before, and I doubt I'll see anything like it again. See it. Now. And prepare to have your head explode (thought hopefully not by the murderous tire).

Mayor of the Sunset Strip

Written and Directed by: George Hickenlooper

If you met Rodney Bingenheimer at the supermarket, you'd hardly find him remarkable. He's rather small, has a nerdy voice, and his haircut is always terrible. But, as Hickenlooper's documentary "Mayor of the Sunset Strip," reveals, he has been at the forefront of the music scene in Los Angeles and for decades has hosted the influential "Rodney on the ROQ" program on KROQ.

The film is mostly entertaining, showing how this seemingly small man came to be one of the most influential and well-connected men in the business. He name drops powerhouse players from Gwyneth Paltrow and The Ramones as though they were neighbors.

Unfortunately, that's just about as far as the film goes. In the end, it's not quite clear what the message or purpose of the film is (beyond "Hey! Look at this guy!") Not that it is necessarily a bad thing that the moral isn't handed to us or jammed in, but it definitely feels like something deeper is missing.

The movie is definitely enjoyable and worth watching. I recommend keeping a tally of how many celebrities he knows, and a separate tally of how many celebrities he discovered.

A Visit from the Goon Squad

This book arrived with a lot of critical acclaim - including the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award - so, naturally, I ignored it for a year. Later, I found it for sale in the book piles at Costco and realized that it might be worth checking out.

The plot of the novel is hard to describe, as it is not necessarily linear. Rather, it is a series of segments tied together by overlapping characters and settings.

To be honest, I wasn't as impressed with this book as the critics apparently were. I found it to be rather flat and desperate to be "hip" in its comments on contemporary culture. (Perhaps "contemporary isn't the right word, considering it doesn't take place in the current time period - but you know what I mean.)

The book is neat, but beyond its general "neatness," I did not find it to be anything really significant. Oh well. Lesson learned.

The Help

Directed by: Tate Taylor

Written by: Tate Taylor (screenplay), Kathryn Stockett (novel)

Before you judge me too harshly, please keep in mind that I went to see this movie earlier this summer because my mother requested it as her birthday event. That being said, it wasn't too bad.

Skeeter (Stone) is a feisty young journalist who returns to her roots in Mississippi only to find things not quite as rosy as she remembers there. Specifically, her white friends have instituted rather draconian measures against their African-American housekeepers. Skeeter decides to secretly write a book about the experiences of the housekeepers which, when released, rocks her hometown.

The movie is better than you'd expect. The acting, in case you haven't already heard, is superb. Oscar worthy? Possibly - hard to tell. It also has a good balance of comedy mixed in to the drama to keep things from getting too heavy.

My only complaint - albeit a significant one, philosophically - is the watering down of the violence in the history. Although it is repeatedly said that the characters are in danger, no danger is actually ever shown. Violence and harm are implied. Actual historical events, such as the assassination of Medgar Evers, are referenced without any discussion of their significance beyond what is needed to get through that scene. I call it Disneyfication of history, and I don't like it.

Still, it's a recommendable movie, and worth checking out.

Ask the Dust

A while back, while discussing my affection for the writings of Charles Bukowski, a friend of mine, and I forget exactly who, mentioned that I should check out John Fante's "Ask the Dust." Back in the spring time, this conversation crossed my mind while I wandered the shops at the LA Times Festival of Books, where, lo and behold, I found a copy - complete with an introduction and ringing endorsement written by Charles Bukowski.

The novel itself is filled with tales of Arturo Bandini, a struggling writer in Los Angeles. He lives off a few meager dollars, stolen milk, and the hope that a few more stories will lead him to fame and fortune. Alas, even in his meager state, he falls madly in love (emphasize the madly) with the Mexican waitress at the local bar. Their love-hate relationship goes on-again-off-again through most of the book while Bandini desperately tries to put together his next great story and scrounge up his next meal. The emotional climax of the story takes place during the Long Beach earthquake of 1933.

Overall, I don't have that much to say about this book. It was good, mainly because it reminded me of Bukowski's work. It was clear, after merely a chapter or two, how much of an influence Fante was on Bukowski. Although Fante lacks Bukowski's brutal and stark prose, he definitely led the way on telling crisp true stories. I might pick up another Fante book, if I ever get tired of re-reading the Bukowski books.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Directed by: Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones

Written by: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Michael Palin

To say that "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is a classic would be an understatement. The film is a cultural asteroid which destroyed the world of comedy that came before it and reshaped the landscape of cinematic humor forever. (Alright, maybe I exaggerate a bit. But only slightly, in this case.)

For weeks, I anticipated seeing this movie as part of the Classic Film Wednesday series at my local theater. I originally saw it when I was far to young to understand most of the cruder jokes, but could repeat many of the slapstick gags and scenes ad nauseam. It remained a staple of semi-annual viewing all the way through high school, but I hadn't seen it since I went to college and realize that just about everyone I knew had already seen it and could also repeat just about the entire movie. At that point, my special edition DVD (with all the deleted scenes and extras) became a bookshelf decoration and I moved on to experiencing different pop cultural mainstays.

All this to say - the time had come to re-see the film I had memorized by heart, rehearsed a million times, and filed away in the back of my brain.

The good news is that my memory is pretty darn good. I managed to remember just about every line in the film, perhaps fumbling a bit with a few of the words and phrasings.

It was nice to appreciate the film on the big screen for once, having seen it hundreds of times on my parents' postage-stamp television.

For the first time, I was able to appreciate some of the technical aspects of the film, such as the ability of the Monty Python actors to play multiple roles - sometimes even within the same scene. Some of the meta-film features made more sense than before, too. ("Look! It's the old man from Scene 24!") I won't even get into all dirty jokes which went over my head as a kid (and even a few that I missed as a teenager).

I was afraid that I wasn't going to enjoy this film, having never actually seen it in years. I was not disappointed, though.

Skippy Dies

Occasionally, but not frequently, a book comes along that blows me out of the water. Even more rarely, this book is a contemporary novel. But when the stars align just right, a book like "Skippy Dies" appears, and I briefly feel that literature has a future.

The death of Daniel 'Skippy' Juster via donut, and the events preceding and proceeding the event, make up the narrative of the novel. More importantly, though are the characters and circumstances that lead to his final words - written in jelly on the floor of the donut shop - and the impact his death has on the world around him, from his friends to his enemies, and even his history teacher.

I can honestly say that the author - Paul Murray - captures life at an Irish boarding school perfectly (at least as far as I'm concerned, based on my experiences as an American middle school teacher). The drama and conflict between the characters is perfectly portrayed as both mundane (in the big picture) and life-changing (in their small world).

It is hard to put into words how amazing I find this novel, even (now) months after I finished reading it.

The key to this novel is its balance. It is at times laugh-out-loud-funny, but edge-of-your-seat-thrilling at others, and even kinda-makes-you-think-deep at others. None of these features diminishes the others in this book, which is often a flaw in other novels. Instead, they all build upon each other to a fantastic piece of literary artwork.

Murray effectively shows the teenage angst of trying to find meaning, purpose, and connection in life through the character of Ruprecht, whose obsession with an obscure physics concept known as M-Theory leads him to believe that he might be able to communicate with his dead roommate. Meanwhile, Murray also shows how those same struggles play out in adult life through the history teacher Howard Fallon. Though Ruprecht and Fallon - whose lives are connected, though they don't realize it - may have different symbols for their dreams, their ultimate desire remains the same.

The plot and characters and themes of this novel are powerful, in and of themselves. Topped off with Murray's prose - which can only be described as masterful and elegant - this book is as near to perfect as any contemporary novel can be, in my opinion.

Go read it. Now.

Stand and Deliver

Directed by: Ramon Menendez

Written by: Ramon Menendez, Tom Musca

Every teacher has seen this movie at some point. That's a proven fact. (Citation needed.)

The film, quite simply, tells the story of Jaime Escalante (Olmos), who takes a teaching position at one of the worst high schools in the Los Angeles area. Despite just about every obstacle, Escalante manages to turn some of the lowest and toughest students into true mathematicians and college-bound scholars. Escalante's efforts don't go over very well with the academic establishment (Garcia and Hutton), though, leading to an emotional and powerful climax.

It's hard to argue with the feel-good message of the story - made all the more powerful by the fact that it's true. (Some of the events were compressed in terms of chronology, though, but that can be forgiven.) Time has aged this movie significantly, though that doesn't necessarily distract from it's inspirational accomplishments.

Edward James Olmos gives the performance of a lifetime in the lead role. The film is worth watching merely for his work. Notably, the students (such as Lou Diamond Phillips) were also completely believable. Most films botch the casting of teenage roles, but this one totally hits it out of the park.

The film itself is surprisingly understated. Much of the drama and conflict is implied and understood, rather than overt. There are only a handful of moments of action across the film. The narrative follows a different arc than most: it tells a story of progress rather than of conflict. (There are conflicts along the way to be sure, but the progress drives the story more than the conflict.)

Is it a little corny? Sure. Is it somewhat dated? Yes. (But, I would argue that now it's a "time piece.") Should you see it at some point in your life? Absolutely. It's hard to walk away from this film without feeling good about something.

Top Gun

Directed by: Tony Scott

Written by: Jim Cash, Jack Epps Jr.

In the U.S. Navy, the best fighter pilots are sent to a special school in Mirimar, California - Top Gun - to hone their skills. Seriously. This movie, though, has both everything and nothing to do with that premise.

Maverick (Cruise) is a navy fighter pilot with an attitude and a bad reputation as being reckless. Fate intervenes, and he and his co-pilot Goose (Edwards) are given a chance to prove themselves as the best pilots in the country. To succeed, Maverick must both overcome the ghost of his father and control his feelings for his flight instructor Charlie (McGillis).

(Even that plot description is a stretch and gives a lot of credit to the film. But more on that later.)

"Top Gun," when taken piece by piece, is awful. But somehow, as a whole, it overcomes its inadequacies to become one of the definitive films of the 1980's. Tom Cruise's acting is a perfect example of the film's contradictory nature. Cruise is campy and hammy, but he's also charming (in a 1980's kind of way). The film is both action packed, but, considering that most of the missions are training, devoid of any real danger.

The songs on the soundtrack are awesome - until you realize that almost all of the music in the film is made up of variations on just three songs. (But then again, those three songs rock, so...)

Elements of the story come and go at the convenience of, well, the story itself. For example, Maverick is supposed to be haunted by the ghost of his father - who was, himself, one of the best fighter pilots of his time, and who disappeared mysteriously on a mission. But, this fact only comes up at random times to explain his behavior within a certain scene, and is abandoned the moment his behavior is different. It's even easy to argue that he is more haunted by his former co-pilot than his father. At times, Maverick's romance with Charlie must be kept a secret from everyone (lest a conflict of interest arise), but at other times they are completely out in the open with their relationship. Baffling, yes; problematic, not really.

Just as Maverick is all torn up inside, so am I in how I feel about this film. I both laugh at and fall in love with "Top Gun." And you should too!

(Please note: I've avoided any interpretations that delve into any depth on the film. But there is potential. It could be a propaganda piece for the military strength of the US in the face of the eminent collapse of the Soviet Union. It could be an examination of the modern American military conscience, needing to overcome its failures in the Vietnam conflict. It could be an examination of masculinity in a hyper-masculinized world. Those are all there. But yeah, I'm not getting into any of those here.)

Cowboys and Aliens

Directed by: Jon Favreau

Written by:

- Screenplay: Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby

- Screen story: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Steve Oedekerk

- Comic book: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

There are few things that capture the pre-adolescent male mind more than cowboys. One of those things, though, may be aliens. Jon Favreau asks: why not both?

Jake Lonergan (Craig) awakens in the New Mexico desert with no memory of his past and a strange metal bracelet attached to his wrist. He wanders into the nearest town to try to put the pieces together, only to see aliens abduct several people of the city. With the help of Doc (Rockwell), the lovely but mysterious Ella Swenson (Wilde), and Woodrow "biggest cattle rancher in town" Dolarhyde (Ford), Lonergan chases after the aliens to rescue the missing people.

Favreau's film attempts to balance the tropes of both the western ("Cowboys") and science fiction ("Aliens") genres. The exposition draws on western film tradition - a lone gunman wanders into town and upsets the status quo - while also remaining fresh and original. The resolution is also gleaned from past westerns, although it slips slightly into the cliché. In fact, the whole plot culls from the annuls of the great American western film tradition. But, the action and effects - which make up a significant chunk of the screen time - are totally science fiction. It's amazing how the two styles were sewn together almost seamlessly.

The actors were, generally speaking, great for their roles. Sam Rockwell felt out of place for the first half of the film, although that may have had more to do with his character than with his performance. Olivia Wilde's character - and the fact that no one in town noticed her presence - also struck a false chord, although (without spoiling anything) it does get explained away later in the film. Craig and Ford were both top-notch and it was good to see Ford back in the action genre.

The special effects were good, but they were not outstanding. I was not blown away by any sequences in the film, which I had been expecting. On that end, I was disappointed. I was hoping for at least one earth-shattering effect, but, alas.

In general, kudos to Jon Favreau for making a pretty wonderful film. It gave exactly what it advertised - "Cowboys and Aliens" - and even a little more than I expected.

Win Win

Directed by: Thomas McCarthy

Written by: Thomas McCarthy (Screenplay, story), Joe Tiboni (story)

There aren't too many movies that tell stories that truly capture real life, even if the story isn't real. Many movies attempt to, but they usually become overly dramatic or become unbelievable or rely on deus ex machina tricks to help wrap up the story. "Win Win," though, effectively captures the complexities of the struggling middle class in this early 21st century recession.

Mike Flaherty (Giamatti) runs a small and struggling law firm. When an opportunity to earn some extra cash arrives, he becomes the guardian for the elderly Leo (Young), takes the monthly guardian check, and then dumps Leo in a retirement home. But when Leo's estranged teenage grandson Kyle (Shaffer) arrives suddenly and alone, Flaherty takes Kyle into his home without explaining the shady financial dealings. With Flaherty, though, Kyle begins to come out of his shell, and Flaherty falls deeper into deception.

"Win Win" manages to tell and sell a story that is "realisitic" without falling into the trap of making it "gritty." All of the characters - especially Amy Ryan who plays Flaherty's devoted wife - are archetypes easily recognized from everyday life. No one is idealized; everyone has their faults.

Part of what makes the film great is that it asks us to make a moral judgement about the Flaherty character. But this judgement is complicated. Although he starts the film by making a terribly ethical decision - one which will affect the course of the movie at several points - we're also shown the realities of the financial dilemma which led to his decision. Over the rest of the film, the audience also sees his generous and loving side in his dealings with his family and Kyle. He is neither purely good, nor purely bad. He is in the middle. He is an everyman.

Someone (and I forget who - you can google it, if you want) described "Win Win" as "a wrestling version of 'The Blind Side.'" And, in a sense, it's true. "Win Win" strips down the glossy veneer of the "The Blind Side" and made it a more personal story. With "The Blind Side," there were issues of class, race, and financial status at play, but with "Win Win" the story is much more down to earth and a more realistic and contemporary story (even though "The Blind Side" was technically a true story). (And don't get me wrong - I loved "The Blind Side" and I think it's a great movie. But I feel that "Win Win" is a much better examination of the American conscience in these troubled times, and better reflects life for the average person.)

Radio Days

Written and Directed by: Woody Allen

Woody Allen is easily one of the most nostalgic filmmakers in American cinema, and Radio Days could easily be classified as his most nostalgic film.

The film sets out telling the story of young Joe (Green), the usual Woody Allen character as a child in the 1940s. He quickly introduces his family, focusing on their favorite radio shows. The movie then jumps around between the actors on the radio programs and the family members. Individual stories are told, such as Aunt Bea's (Wiest) love life and the saga of actress Sally White's (Farrow) attempts to make it big. Interspersed are also scenes of Joe's family life with his mother (Kavner) and get-rich-quick planning father (Tucker) in World War II New York.

This film is hard to summarize because it doesn't have a direct narrative. Rather, it's a series of vignettes all tied together. Of course, once I realized this (about thirty minutes into it), the movie became much more digestible because I stopped trying to pick out the plot.

Each story, on its own, feels like the premise of a separate Woody Allen film, without the necessary meat to turn it into an entire separate film. So, taken on their own, they are quite enjoyable. It's a little hard to keep track of who's who, and where the stories are when the film's focus jumps around, but it once you get the hang of it, it's not so bad.

"Radio Days" manages - without a linear, cohesive narrative - to evoke the very specific emotion of nostalgia. In that, it is incredibly successful - possibly a masterpiece of sorts. But it's definitely not a traditional movie, and a viewer needs to be prepared for a different experience. But that experience can only be described as unique, and good.

The Fighter

Directed by: David O. Russell

Written by: Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson (screenplay)

Written by: Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington (story)

In the world of boxing movies, eventually they must all be compared to "Rocky." Against "Rocky," though, most other boxing films are bruised and battered before being knocked out. "The Fighter," though, manages to match up with "Rocky" - pound for pound - and might be a true contender for the crown of Best Boxing Film.

"The Fighter" tells the true story of boxer Mickey Ward (Wahlberg) and his contentious relationship with his family, especially his junkie brother Dick Eckland (Bale). Ward's mother (Leo) seems to only care about reviving Eckland's boxing career, and uses Ward's talents to mainly promote Eckland. But as Ward's career starts taking off, his girlfriend (Adams) warns him that his family is only holding him back.

Obviously - based on critical reception - the film's cast was amazing. Everyone - including Amy Adams (about whom I'd had my doubts) - was completely believable as the real person. Bale, shedding weight to match his character's lifestyle, is superb. Leo perfectly nailed the nasty, manipulative mother role. Even Wahlberg managed to play a strong but passive character, showing how torn he was between his loyalty to his family and his opportunity to live his dream.

What makes the movie great is that the it portrays not just a boxing drama but a family drama. Everyone has a junkie brother - some literally, most figuratively. Everyone struggles to win their mother's affection. Everyone sets out to carve their own path. Everyone must choose between their family and their spouse. These struggles are not merely struggles of contemporary society, but struggles that all humans face. These problems can be traced back to the early biblical stories in Genesis. (Cain and Abel competing for God's favor nicely parallels Ward and Eckland competing for their mother's affection.) Mickey Ward's story is only a medium - a vessel - for the battles we all face within ourselves and with our families.

And, to boot, it's got some great boxing scenes.

The 400 Blows

Directed by: Francois Truffaut

Written by: Francois Truffaut, Marcel Moussy

I hold the people who put the Criterion Collection together in very high esteem. The work they do is pretty remarkable. So, when they release a film, I take it as a recommendation of some cinematic achievement. (That doesn't mean that the movie is necessarily great - they once released an edition of "Armageddon.")

Antoine Dionel (Leaud) is a little hellraiser of a boy. The film opens with him getting in trouble at school, and getting the classic school punishment - sitting in the corner and missing recess. His overbearing though emotionally detached mother (Maurier) and happy-go-lucky father (Remy) seem to have little interest in him. Dionel's problems escalate when he decides to ditch class one day and accidentally comes across his mother having an affair. He even decides to steal and try to pawn a typewriter from his father's business, though he is unsuccessful. Ultimately, his parents hand him over to the police and he is sent to a reform facility, realizing too late how serious his situation had become.

This movie is entertaining, to say the least. A lot of things happen over the course of the film. From beginning to end, this is a plot-rich film, which keeps things moving along smoothly. Despite all the action, the film felt long, though, and dragged on at a few points.

One of the struggles with the film was that it failed to make any of the characters sympathetic. The mother, father, and schoolteacher are all authorities acting seemingly arbitrarily. Even the boy is a bit of a brat - although we're supposed to feel bad regarding his background circumstances. Still, after stealing from his father's business, it's hard to feel much pity.

The final scene of the film does draw forth a strong emotion, despite the general lack of sympathy for Dionel. Without spoiling it, the last scene embodies one of the key struggles of adolescence - structure versus freedom - and it's hard not to feel something while watching it. (Though whether that "something" is exactly what the audience is supposed to feel is up for debate elsewhere.)

Last, but not least, this movie represents Francois Truffaut's rookie effort in film making. You can see that, even early on, he had the talent that would eventually develop and make him one of French cinema's great directors - if not one of the great directors of all time.

Harold and Maude

Directed by: Hal Ashby

Written by: Colin Higgins

Simply put, "Harold and Maude" is one of my all-time favorite movies. No matter how many times I've seen it - on DVD, in the theater, or, most recently, projected against the side of a building - I always feel I'm getting to enjoy it for the first time.

Harold (Cort) is a wealthy young man with an unhealthy obsession with death, and he gets his kicks by shocking his mother (Pickles) with increasingly elaborate fake suicides. While visiting a funeral, he meets Maude (Gordon), an old woman with a lust for life. Harold becomes inseparable from Maude and begins learning to appreciate the many things that life offers.

I love this movie, and I could easily go on and on about it. But I'll try to limit myself to a few things I noticed on my most recent viewing.

Part of what makes this movie so great is the use of subtleties. Harold's appearance rarely changes, except at key moments (and a few times for humor, in the scenes with the therapist). A few quick lines and a brief shot of her arm - it can't be more than two seconds - allows the audience to absorb that Maude may have been a Holocaust survivor. These things are small and seemingly insignificant, but all the small things build up to make the whole film greater.

At this most recent screening, I gained a new appreciation for the character of Harold's mother. She only has a few scenes, but she literally steals each and every one.

I can't write - or even think - about this movie without mentioning the montage used at the emotional climax. Usually, I'm an anti-montage person. My position is based on my feeling that no montage can ever be more effective than the montage in "Harold and Maude." It is an emotionally wrenching scene, and no matter how many times I see it is nearly brings me to tears. Every clip and cut is perfectly balanced by Cat Stevens's "Trouble."

You must see this movie, if you haven't seen it yet. And even if you have, it's probably time to see it again.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

Directed by: George Clooney

Written by: Charlie Kaufman (screenplay), Chuck Barris (book)

There are movies that are true. There are movies that are fiction. And then there are movies like "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" in which the truth and fiction bleed together.

The movie is an "unauthorized biography" of TV producer Chuck Barris (Rockwell) known for creating and developing shows such as "The Dating Game," "The Newlywed Game," and "The Gong Show." As he rises to the top - or, to some, bottom - of television celebrity, he is simultaneously dragged into working for the CIA as an international assassin. All the while, he strings along long-time girlfriend Penny (Barrymore). The question is, how long can he keep up the juggling act? And which will destroy him first - his secret agent work, his television career, or his hollow love life?

(Side note: In this post, any reference to "Chuck Barris" will be a reference to the character in the film, not necessarily the real person. Although I realize that Barris is a real person and that the film purports to tell his life story, it is obvious that much embellishment and dramatization occurred. So, to prevent confusion, and to make the text clearer, Barris will simply be described as a fictional character.)

George Clooney's rookie effort as a director was strong, but ultimately evident as a rookie effort. The film's strengths lie in its actors and its stories.

All of the actors, from Rockwell and Barrymore on down - including Clooney himself, Rutger Hauer, and a brief appearance by Maggie Gyllenhaal - are absolutely fantastic. The characters are rich and consuming, and at no point does the audience slip into thinking of the actors as actors. Each performance is compelling and believable, although the plot of the film pushes the extent of belief.

The film follows three different story threads out of Barris's life: his TV production work, his romantic affair with Penny, and his involvement with the CIA. Each of these angles could have been a separate movie, but are combined and balanced in this film. In this way, we see Barris as a much more complex and deep character than if we'd only been exposed to one side of his life. The three different stories are juggled around well, always leaving you wanting more of one before moving on to the next.

One problem with the film was that it could have been edited down a bit. A few scenes run longer than necessary, and a couple scenes were harder to place within the larger narrative arcs. (Admittedly, these parts had significant symbolic value - but a symbol is most effective when grounded within the story itself and not used tangentially.)

The visual style was artistic and jarring. Unfortunately, it felt like some of the shots and design was used simply to use those specific shots and design. Again, like the symbolic scenes, these features could have been more effective if they'd been used as an element to advance the story. Instead, by the end, they'd lost their value.

The movie was impressive and is well worth watching, if only to see Sam Rockwell dominate his role in a way few actors could have accomplished. Don't be discouraged by the challenges presented in the first few scenes - it pays off later. Although Barris's life may have collapsed like a house of cards, this movie does not.

Surrogates

Directed by: Jonathan Mostow

Written by: Michael Ferris, John Brancato (screenplay)

Written by: Robert Venditti, Brett Weldele (graphic novel)

There's been a rash of graphic-novel-to-film adaptations lately. Some are good, some are poor, and some fall right into the middle of mediocrity. "Surrogates" falls squarely into that final category.

In the future, people rarely go outside of their homes. Instead, they send robots - the titular "surrogates" - to do their dirty work with no risk of physical harm or death. But when the son of the inventor of the surrogates is somehow killed via his surrogate, detective Tom Greer (Willis) is assigned to investigate. What he unravels, though, is a scheme that goes far beyond a murder scheme to the battle between authenticity and artificiality.

This film had a lot of potential. And the opening sequence - a montage explaining the history of the robotic surrogates - lives up to that potential. Things fall apart after that.

There are a few interesting twists - such as who is behind this plot to destroy the surrogate network. But, given the limited cast of characters, it's not too hard to figure out that it's got to be one of them. The moment when the audience realizes that the first murder is only a small part of a much larger conspiracy adds a bit of excitement at a crucial moment, even if that plot point is revealed in the trailer.

Once again, the one and only Bruce Willis falls short of a great performance. His character falls flat, considering that his purpose is to show the dynamism inherent in humanity. He only shows moments of life, and most of those are action sequences. Moments in this film that require any form of emotion are lost with Willis.

Most importantly - for a movie that is supposed to call to mind the need for true human contact - the film failed to make the audience care about any of the characters. This prevents the theme of movie to become fully realized.

Ultimately, the film "Surrogates" felt itself like a surrogate for a better film.

The Parallax View

Directed by: Alan J. Pakula

Written by: David Giler, Lorenzo Semple Jr.

Novel by: Loren Singer

I'm not sure what inspired me to put this film on my list of movies to watch, but eventually it made its way to the top of the list. Though I was reluctant at first, I figured that I couldn't go wrong if Warren Beatty were in it. Plus, I need to beef up my knowledge of movies from the 1970's.

The movie begins with a political assassination at a campaign fundraiser (eerily reminiscent of RFK's death). As the opening credits roll, a bureaucratic committee concludes that the murder was the work of a lone shooter (eerily reminiscent of JFK's murder and the Warren Commission). But when everyone at the event starts turning up dead, dubious journalist Joseph Frady (Beatty) begins investigating. What he uncovers is the Parallax Corporation, which may or may not be behind basically all the world's major events. Frady tries to infiltrate the organization. But the question is: is he setting them up, or is he setting them up?

For a movie called "The Parallax View," I find it ironic to admit that I have a parallax view of the movie myself. In some moods, I feel like the movie is great - unhindered by the typical styles of film storytelling. In other moods, I feel like the movie failed to live up to its potential.

In the "the movie was great" corner, I contend: the political thriller plot was amazing.

In the "the movie was poor" corner, I contend that the movie took too long to move forward and that the plot was basically strung together from point-to-point.

The climax is the perfect example of my parallax interpretation of the film. On the one hand, it is an incredibly intense sequence with a surprising twist! On the other hand, it plays so incredibly slowly that it tested my patience - even after the twist was revealed.

I'd recommend this movie to those who enjoy political thrillers, but only those who have some time on their hands that can't be used in any other productive way.

The Dark Crystal

Directed by: Jim Henson, Frank Oz

Written by: Jim Henson (story), David Odell (screenplay)

Every once in a while, a movie comes along that takes a different direction than any other film that came before it. The film, then, is revolutionary not because it changes the way movies are made, but because it shows that a different way of making movies is possible. "The Dark Crystal" is that kind of film.

As the film begins, the evil Skeksis have ruled for a thousand years, having exiled the gentle Mystics and nearly wiped out the race of Gelflings. But Jen, the last surviving Gelfling, is on a mission to fulfill the prophecy that will end the reign of the Skeksis. Along the way, he encounters various creatures, including the mysterious Aughra and Kira (another Gelfling). But will Jen be able to replace the crystal shard and restore the Dark Crystal before it's too late?

What sets apart "The Dark Crystal" from any other film is that it contains no actors despite the fact that it is a live-action film. Puppets designed by Jim Henson - and not his floppy, if fun, Muppets - populate the world of this film. This has the effect of heightening the fantasy element of the film without drawing from cartoonish effects.

"The Dark Crystal" has its flaws. It's plot is slow in unwinding itself, and a large chunk of the film is spent in necessary exposition. Many of the scenes feel episodic and disconnected. The puppets are also limited in their movements and expressions - although this is made in comparison to modern CGI effects.

Of course, it's hard to compare "The Dark Crystal" to anything else because there is nothing else quite like it. It can only be seen and appreciated on its own.

I like to think of "The Dark Crystal" like an experimental album. Beyond rating it as good and bad, it is simply different. And that difference makes it meaningful.

Horrible Bosses

Directed by: Seth Gordon

Written by: Michael Markowitz, John Frances Daley, Jonathan M. Goldstein

"Horrible Bosses" isn't horribly funny. It isn't horrible, but it isn't horribly good either. (Enough with the horrible gag now.)

Three friends (Bateman, Day, Sudeikis) commiserate on their crazy bosses. One boss (Aniston) is sexually aggressive, one boss (Farrell) is a cocaine addict, and one (Spacey) is just plain rotten. With a little help from Jamie Foxx's character, the buddies conspire to kill each others' bosses. Things quickly fall apart, though, and things go awry, leaving the friends running for the lives.

This movie was weak, all around. It felt like everyone - from the director on down - just decided to go through the motions. Even Jason Bateman - usually very funny - never broke from his typical character.

This is unfortunate, considering the material could have been molded into something great. The premise itself was funny in an absurd way, and it just needed to be fleshed out accordingly.

As with most comedies, the plot was a problem. In this case, frankly, there was too much of it. Too much time was spent getting to know the characters and establishing their backgrounds. It takes the story too long to get to the point where they decide to kill their bosses, considering that it's the basis of the action and was revealed in the trailer.

There were a few good points, though. Jennifer Aniston played her role well - which is to say she didn't play the usual Jennifer Aniston role. Although his role wasn't necessarily demanding from a technical aspect, Kevin Spacey really played his nasty, smarmy character well. Jamie Foxx stole the few scenes he was in, though I'm glad that his scenes were limited - he could have easily been overexposed.

"Horrible Bosses" earns a "not very good" review. I can't say that it's awful (unlike "Bad Teacher), but it definitely failed to reach its potential.

Iron Man 2

Directed by: Jon Favreau

Written by: Justin Theroux

To say that the original "Iron Man" knocked me off my socks off would be an understatement. It was as near to a perfect comic book movie as has ever been made. For the sequel, director Jon Favreau returned and brought most of the stellar cast back with him. (Except for the strange case of replacing Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle, which has been well documented and debated elsewhere.)

This film picks up a little while after the original left off. Tony Stark's Iron Man (Downy) persona is causing a bit of consternation in Congress by avoiding government regulation. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Ivan Vanko (Rourke) finds out that some of his father's inventions may have been stolen by Stark's father - and so, of course, he vows revenge. Taking the form of the villain Whiplash, Vanko reveals to the world the dangers of relying on Iron Man alone to protect them. Stark's rival Justin Hammer (Rockwell) attempts to take advantage of Stark's weakened business position by hiring Vanko to develop technology to rival the Iron Man suit. As all these rivalries, vendettas, and machinery collide, danger and explosions ensue.

Similar to the first film, the strengths of "Iron Man 2" lie in amazing visual effects and action sequences and the powerful ensemble cast. The action in this film is basically non-stop from beginning to end. There are only a handful of moments in which the audience can catch their breath. The action is incredibly gripping, though, and manages to push the plot forward without becoming tedious. The action is also pretty well mixed - the scenes of CGI machines fighting it out are balanced well with a some sequences involving live actors (if still digitally enhanced).

The supporting cast is another strong point for the film, including Paltrow and Favreau. A few new characters - such as Justin Hammer and Black Widow (Johansson) - also add to the mix. If anything, the supporting cast could have used a little more screen time. I've never seen a comic book movie in which the secondary characters are so successful at being simultaneously believable (without being overly dramatic) and light (without hamming it up).

This film falls short of the original, though. Mainly, it was missing the heart that fueled the original. The first film had a sense of wonder and awe while remaining fun. The sequel, though, had a darker tone and the fun was replaced by much more destructive action sequences. Pound for pound, the original was better - though what makes it superior is completely intangible.

Still, I enjoyed this movie, and recommend it if you enjoyed the first.

Bad Teacher

Directed by: Jake Kasdan

Written by: Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg

Put simply, "Bad Teacher" is bad. Awful. But more on that later.

Basically, the movie follows a school year (or so) in the life (or low-life) of teacher Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz), as she slogs through teaching until she can find a way to make more money. When she finds out that one of the substitute teachers (Timberlake) is heir to a massive fortune, she sets her sights on him only to be foiled by another young teacher (Punch). When Halsey finds out that there is a bonus paid to the teacher with the highest scores in the district, she sets a plan in motion both to get the bonus and win back the wealthy heir. And everything seems to be going along fine, except for her nagging conscience in the voice of the PE teacher (Segel).

This movie was terrible. The plot was paper thin, which is fine for a comedy - comedies don't need to have complex story lines. But comedies do need to be funny. And when it doesn't have a plot and it isn't funny, it's hard to classify it as anything but bad.

Beyond being bad, the film failed to capitalize on the good features that it did have. Namely, the supporting cast. Justin Timberlake's character was basically a one-gag player, but he received a massive amount of screen time to continue repeating the same ditzy antics. Meanwhile, Jason Segel, probably the funniest actor cast in the film, was wasted by being relegated to a largely unfunny background role. The same goes for Phyllis Smith - who has shown her humor chops on "The Office - and John Michael Higgins. Both were very funny, but only given a few lines in scattered scenes. Meanwhile, Cameron Diaz, who has known to be funny from time to time, basically phoned this role in.

Of course, the real flaw in the film starts with the title. For a movie called "Bad Teacher," there is surprisingly little material having to do with teachers, teaching, or schools in general. The word "teacher" could have been replaced by just about any other profession, and the film would have been exactly the same. This is unfortunate because as "The Simpsons" and "South Park" have shown, year after year, schools can be great sources of incredibly funny material. But the number of scenes that actually relied on the school setting or the characters being teachers were so small as to be insignificant.

Now, I'm not the type of person to demand money back after seeing a movie. I go in to the theater fully aware of what I'm getting into, for better or for worse, and commit myself to watching.

But I pretty much want my money back.