Easy A

Directed by: Will Gluck

Written by: Burt V. Royal

I must be totally up-front in admitting that this movie exceeded my expectations. That being said, my expectations were exceptionally low. Still, "Easy A" had its charms and moments which lifted it somewhat above the usual junk I had mistaken it for.

The movie begins with Olive (Emma Stone) accidentally telling a little white lie about her own promiscuity. When Marianne (Amanda Bynes) the leader of the campus Christian group hears, she turns it from a lie into a full-blown rumor which goes viral around the school. Olive decides to ride the rumor out, though, by taking on the public persona of an absolute whore. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, she's actually taking gift-card payments from her classmates to merely say that she's sleeping with them. Of course, as the lies begin to pile on top of each other, Olive's public and private lives begin to spiral out of control.

The film prominently features Olive wearing big red "A's" on her outfits in reference to Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter." Unfortunately, that's about as far as the literary and artistic merits of the movie go.

Too much of the movie felt aimless, directionless, and purposeless. This is especially evident via many of the supporting characers. For example, Thomas Hayden Church and Lisa Kudrow play a teacher-counselor pair working at the same school. Yet neither of their roles take on any importance, and they seem more like background furniture than relevant factors in the story. The same goes for Stanley Tucci, who plays Olive's father - I'm not quite sure what purpose his character served other than to deliver a few witty lines. I won't even mention the total waste of Malcom McDowell as the principal. Perhaps the most vibrant character is Marianne (Bynes), although that may have simply been because she is more of a caricature and less of a believable character.

For a straight-forward high-school comedy, though, this movie plays its cards pretty well. It admirably manages to balance a rather risque premise without lowering itself to using raunchy humor. There's a sub-plot about the boy Olive really likes, even though she's afraid to approach him given her reputation, and it comes across effectively - cute without being overly sweet.

I can't say I totally enjoyed this movie, but I can say that I didn't hate it, which is much better than I expected.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Directed by: John Huston

Written by: John Huston (screenplay); B. Traven (novel)

A few weeks ago, I dragged The Wifey to our local theatre's Classic Film Wednesday presentation of "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." When I was growing up, my dad always pointed to this movie as one of his favorites, though I never quite found the time to see it. Going through a VHS buying binge during college - with local stores clearing out used VHS tapes for as low as a dollar - I picked up a copy, watched it, and immediately fell in love with it.

As the movie begins, Fred C. Dobbs (Bogart) and his friend Bob Curtin (Holt) are American tramps living down-and-out in Tampico, Mexico. After being swindled one too many times, they downheartedly start hoping for just enough money to slip through the rest of their lives. One night at a flophouse, they encounter Howard (Huston), an old miner who promises them modest riches of gold for a few months of hard work. Although their ambitions begin small, as the gold piles up, leading to greed and paranoia between the small mining crew...

Humphrey Bogart's performance as Dobbs is masterful without being overpowering, which is especially impressive considering the attention the role calls to itself. But it is the supporting cast - Tim Holt and Walter Huston - which really carry the film. Holt brings an honesty, bordering on naivete, to his character's hard-work ethic. Huston's ability to remain ambiguous and non-committal at key moments in the film help the audience feel the stress that Dobbs is feeling, fueling his paranoia. And no one who has heard Huston's dry cackle, conspicuously used at significant moments of the film, can ever forget it.

There are also some great subtle moments used to hammer home important concepts. For example, early in the movie, Bogart gets a shave, a haircut, and some clean clothes. Yet, out in the wilderness, as his madness grows, he begins to pay less and less attention to his hygiene. His clothes become stained and his beard grows ragged. There's also some early foreshadowing of Dobb's descent into greed, as he repeatedly begs the same man for money for a meal which he then spends somewhat wastefully.

If there is any complaint about the movie, it's simply that it suffers from a distinct lack of modern pacing. Considering the film's length, not much actually happens. What the movie lacks in terms of plot development, though, it makes up for in character study. The audience is hypnotized by Dobb's madness, wondering how far he will go to keep his gold (which, without spoiling anything, is pretty far).

I won't get into this film being a pretty strong moral allegory against the selfish greed that sometimes rises in capitalism, as represented by Dobbs. It's there if you look for it, although I'll admit it would be a bit of a stretch.

"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is a wonderful example of how well were made back during the golden age of film. Without massive special effects or tons of star power (although Bogart brought plenty himself), the overall film is incredibly effective. I highly recommend it, although you do need to make sure you have plenty of time set aside - it's long.

The Thing

Every once in a while - though probably more often than I'd like to admit - I get the urge to see a good horror movie. Nothing to keep me up at night, mind you. Just a good fright. The last time I got that itch, John Carpenter's "The Thing," scratched it perfectly.

The premise of the movie is simple enough: The team at a (dubiously) scientific research outpost in Antarctica finds itself infiltrated by an alien life-form which can replicate itself into nearly any body - human or animal. One by one, the team members - led by helicopter pilot MacReady (Kurt Russell) become survivors, trying to keep the alien from getting leaving Antarctica and decimating the earth's population.

This movie has some pretty amazing moments of suspense. The scene in which the survivors have to submit to a blood test managed to keep the tension incredibly high with relatively little dialogue or action. The climactic attempt to destroy the monster managed to keep me near the edge of my seat (not "on" the edge, though), considering that most of the tropes used were basically cliche.

My favorite moment, though, is right at the end. I love the fact that the conclusion of the movie is left wonderfully ambiguous. Two survivors remain, each suggesting that the other may be the monster in disguise. Yet, without the necessary equipment, they are each powerless to stop the other or prove themselves innocent. They, like the viewer, are left to wonder whether or not humanity is safe. For a brief moment, just before the credits roll, the viewer and the characters have the exact same perspective.

The special-effects in this movie are gruesome and gory, although the stop-motion creature sequences seem a bit waxy and choppy. I think the creature would have been more terrifying if director John Carpenter had taken a cue from Ridley Scott's work in "Alien": a monster is often most terrifying when you have no idea what it looks like or how it kills. Seeing so much of the best so early in the film trivialized it. The Thing became tangible and limited, while much of what makes a creature horrible is that, when left vague and abstract, it can become almost anything capable of limitless terror.

From the primitive premise, clunky dialogue, straight acting, and absurdly huge special effects, this movie has "B film" written all over it. But the synergy of all those parts manages to elevate it to a "B+ film" - or even an "A- film" when watched in just the right mood.

Director: John Carpenter

Written by: John W. Campbell Jr. (story), Bill Lancaster (screenplay)

Rookie of the Year

A few weeks ago, during spring break, the Wifey and decided to take a trip down memory lane and watch a movie that we loved as children. The movie would have to be simple and fun enough to fit our laid-back mood while also befitting of the newly born spring season we were supposedly celebrating (albeit indoors). Scouring the Netflix instant, we came across a movie we could both agree on and we hoped would still hold the same magic we remembered from childhood.

The film shows a summer in the life of Henry Rowengartner (played by Thomas Ian Nicholas in his pre-"American Pie" days). In spring, Henry breaks his arm, only to find out later that the tendons in his arm have healed extremely tight. This twist-of-nature has given him an unnaturally strong arm - the kind that major league pitchers dream of having. In a whirlwind, he is signed by the Chicago Cubs to pitch and is taken under the wing of aging journeyman pitcher Chet Steadman (the ever-gruff Gary Busey). Riding his medical miracle arm, Henry brings the Cubs to the brink of the World Series...

It would be easy to start listing the flaws in this movie. The fact that Major League Baseball prohibits signing players under 18 to a major league contract stands out. As does the fact that Henry's school schedule neatly fits the narrative's need to develop friendships and middle-school romance. This doesn't even begin to touch on things like the laws of physics or the technicalities of how the baseball playoff system works.

Even with all these glaring errors, I must admit that I found the movie almost as charming as I remembered it. It reminded me of how, at age eight, I imagined life could be in a slightly alternate universe (which doesn't necessarily say much about Daniel Stern's direction). The only somewhat well-developed characters are the children, while the adults are broad and over-acted caricatures of humans (see: Daniel Stern, Dan Hedaya, John Candy in this film). Time and reality are flexible and generally irrelevant - but isn't that how childhood is? And how about that David-versus-Goliath, good-versus-evil climax? Pure childhood fantasy, but also pure entertainment.

Not the best film ever made, but definitely entertaining. I'm glad I re-watched it eighteen years after I first saw it in the theatre. I recommend it for some casual fun for a lazy afternoon - the same way I recommend watching baseball.

Director: Daniel Stern

Writer: Sam Harper