Little Shop of Horrors

Directed by: Frank Oz

Written by: Howard Ashman (screenplay and musical play); Charles B. Griffith (1960 screenplay)








Some movies follow the cookie-cutter model. Some movies break off in new directions and blaze new trails.

Then there are movies like Little Shop of Horrors which subvert and twist the cookie cutter model into something completely different.

Little Shop of Horrors has elements of science fiction, elements of romance, elements of comedy (both dark and slapstick), and elements of horror, all under the disarming guise of a musical with puppets. It's disorienting and confusing, and unlike anything else.

It's brilliant. It doesn't try to be pretentious or over-the-top (except in its own ironic way). The energy is all focused in the same direction. There's a synergy which doesn't often hold up in other movies which try to pull off the same tricks this movie does.

Like the interesting looking plant in the window, this movie will lure you in. Just be prepared for what you'll find inside.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Directed by: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

Written by: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely









Catching-up on a lot of the oft-hyped "Marvel Comics Universe" movies, I'm jumping back into it near the beginning of the films dubbed Phase Two.

Reflecting on Phase One, I feel that Captain America: The First Avenger was the one that kept coming to mind as my favorite. (This may be a direct result of the intentionally nostalgic tone of the movie, but the feeling stands.) The Iron Man movies were impressive the first time through, but I never felt the call to see them again. Thor was a personal favorite as I left the theater, mainly for sentimental reasons, but has become less impressive as the series has moved forward. In the end, Captain America remained at the top of the stack, so I had very high expectations for the second iteration in the series.

I was not disappointed. This movie holds up even though I already knew the big twist about the mysterious villain long before I saw it.

The Winter Soldier has action, suspense, drama, character development. It continues elements which had begun in the other MCU films, but is not bound to them or tied down by them. In fact, with only one or two exceptions (the Agent Carter scene being one of them), the movie stands fairly tall on its own. Any needed exposition is given when required in the script, but without dry cardboard storytelling. A passing familiarity with some of the characters is adequate enough to jump on in to the movie.

As with all of these superhero movies, The Winter Soldier is best when it feels like watching a comic book. A movie like this often falters when it tries to do something more. Where the directors succeeded in making this film is making those "big picture" thematic moments blend well into the comic book vision and tone of the rest of the movie.

Vertigo

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Alec Coppel, Samuel A. Taylor (screenplay); Pierre Boileau, Thomas Narcejac









My third stop on Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" list brings me to Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.

I've written about it here before, but it absolutely bears discussing again.

Vertigo is a dense film - much more dense than it may appear on first or even second viewing. The bait-and-switch-and-bait-and-switch of the story can be very disorienting, focusing thought on the work to mainly the plot.

But there's so much beauty to this film that the analysis must go further. (And it has, much better than I could ever analyze, elsewhere and many times.) The movie keeps calling you back. Look closer. Try again.

The music is perfectly eerie at just the right moments. The notes move in circles up and down the scales, then repeating, which helps enhance the theme and the suspense.

The colors are striking and bold. No holding back here. They are used to draw your attention to (and simultaneously away from) what you are supposed to notice.

I feel weak trying to write about this movie. I've seen it so many times over the last twenty years that it's hard to isolate one part of it here or there, and each of those parts has so many layers that it could be dissected in its own right for an entire post.

(As an example, with spoilers: The first bell tower scene. She begs him not to go up into the church with her. How much of it is Madeline/Judy trying to save him from the trauma she knows is waiting for him if he tries to follow her? How much of it is her trying to manipulate him with reverse psychology? Does she really love him or is she just using him? Where does the acting end and her personality begin? It's worth thinking about.)

Ikiru

Directed by: Akira Kurosawa

Written by: Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto, Hideo Oguni










Making my way down Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" list, I arrive at #2 - Kurosawa's Ikiru.

I can't say this is my introduction to Kurosawa's work, but it's the first one I watched with intention and attention. Ikiru rewarded my efforts.

The plot of the movie is simple: A man learns that he is dying and decides he wants to have an impact of some kind. The next few days he wastes trying different avenues of life, but realizes that he can do one good thing - help build a playground. The story may be a distant cousin of A Christmas Carol.

Ikiru starts off slow, but pays off. The narrative is almost episodic, but ties itself together well.

I get the feeling that this is the type of movie that should be re-visited at different points in life. That my feelings and my approach on it now may be different than they will be ten, twenty, thirty years from now.

(This review is scattered. In all honesty, I watched his movie maybe ten months ago and, normally, I wouldn't bother writing anything about it, but I'm trying to be a completist about this "Great Movies" business, so I wanted to get something official posted.)

The Haunting

Directed by: Jan de Bont

Written by: David Self (screenplay); Shirley Jackson (novel)










Going back down memory lane in my attempt to bring myself back to writing about film regularly, I found The Haunting available for streaming and realized that this would be a great place to continue.

The Haunting stands as one of the first "scary" movies I saw in the theater. Before watching it again, though, I was struggling to remember what exactly the movie was about. I vaguely remembered something about a scientist and a massive house, but nothing stood out about what exactly was at the core of the story. I also recalled the movie not being terribly scary. Still, it was a milestone movie in my personal history.

Watching it again, it was obvious to me why I didn't think it was very scary; it wasn't. But what I missed in my youthful hope for jump-moments and scares was how incredibly creepy the movie feels. The house is physically imposing and menacing. The layout of the rooms is confusing and maze-like, mildly echoing the Overlook hotel of The Shining in this way. The ornate carvings and statues are disquieting, at least in part because some of them don't seem to belong together. In one room there are barbed spikes decorating a bed's headboard and spiderweb-like glass windows,  but also cherubic children's faces around the fireplace. (Also, did the expressions of the children's faces change between shots? Early on, it's hard to tell, which adds to the sense dis-ease.)

Aside from Lili Taylor, most of the acting is screen chewing. (Or, maybe that's just the way Owen Wilson really is?) Liam Neeson is especially guilty of this in this movie, never feeling like he's doing anything beyond reading lines in a corny horror movie. At no point does the audience have any reason to accept him as a scientist of any kind, much less the kind that could pull off setting up an experiment of the type we're supposed to accept as the opening premise. (This accusation may be more indicative of the flaws in the script rather than his acting.)

The story itself works just fine, but drags itself down with a few too many unnecessary twists and turns. Some of these twists work within the confines of the story, but others are awkwardly forced and contrived, merely serving as pretext to the next twist. Although Lili Taylor's character adds to the story significantly (she's the crux of one of the major turns in the story), the other characters fall back into filler material with little or no distinguishing personality. For long stretches of the movie, Catherine Zeta-Jones seems merely there to give Lili Taylor someone to have dialogue with about the creepy house. Usually having too many characters becomes a flaw in a movie like this, as most of them never develop beyond a vague outline of a human being, but in this film a few more distinct personalities could have helped.

What this movie lacks in script and acting and gore (at least, for a horror movie), it makes up for in the outstanding eerie ambiance. The dark beauty of the house gives chills and discomfort. Other haunted house movies should take note of how well this film reaches the goal of making the house feel haunted just by its mere existence.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Directed by: Kevin Reynolds

Written by: Pen Densham and John Watson










When trying to decide where to start again with this blog, I decided that it would be best to start with something "older." This movie is not old in the literal sense, but it is very old in my mind. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is one of the first movies I can recall seeing in the theater, and when it popped up as an option for streaming, I figured it would be worth re-visiting and might prove to be a good film to help me back into the saddle of blogging here.

To start: I can't believe my parents took me as a child to see this movie. It's not at all like the cartoon Robin Hood I would have been familiar with going into it. It's dark. It's violent. (Nowadays we'd probably call it a "gritty re-imagining.")

It's also very long. The word "bloated" comes to mind. I kept checking to see how much more time was left, not because I was bored but because the pacing of the story was so inconsistent.

This movie has all the right pieces, but is so hit-or-miss that it never quite settles in to all the pieces working together. Although there are many great actors in here, there are issues with the acting being very ham. (Would it be cliche here to point out Kevin Costner's Mid-Western accent not quite working? Why have Sean Connery arrive for one scene and about three lines?) Although there are many great action scenes, there are issues with those scenes being reduced to camera tricks. (How many times did the movie jump to a "point of view from the flying arrow"?) Although the story should be compelling, there are issues with some of the drama being forced. (What exactly were we supposed to feel when Will Scarlett reveals his parentage? Why did the Scots come and go so quickly?)

I was caught up in this movie at times. Alan Rickman snivels and sneers like a master. Morgan Freeman awkwardly pulls off his part as Azeem. Moments of tension, such as the hanging at the wedding, were convincingly dramatic.

This movie screams 1991. And, despite its weaknesses, it holds up as a proto-typical big 1991 film.

Casablanca

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

Written by: Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, and Howard Koch (screenplay); Murray Burnett, Joan Allison (play)









Roger Ebert's Great Movies #1

There's not a whole lot I can say about Casablanca that I haven't already said to most of the people who would be reading this.

I love this movie. Everything about it is great. Everything.

I can't remember how many times I've seen this movie, but it's easily one of my favorites

I first saw it and immediately fell in love with it in my Senior year of high school. My dad and I were wandering around the hometown Blockbuster (back when there actually were Blockbuster video stores around), and they had a display up of the most recent "AFI Top 100 Movies" with most of them underneath. Citizen Kane was already out, so we grabbed #2 - Casablanca - and headed home. At that time and at that age, I shouldn't have been interested in this film. But from the introduction after the opening credits, I was hooked. The next day, I watched it again before we returned it.

Not long after, dying to form my own unique identity in a college world filled with "unique identities," I bought my own copy of the film on DVD. I then proceeded to watch it and all the special features included. Whenever people tried to talk about movies to show off their intellectual and artistic personalities, my go-to reference was Casablanca. I knew it backwards and forwards and everything I could about it's history. (Sadly, most of what I once knew is now reduced to a few bits of trivia - I need to watch those special features again.) It was old. It was cool. And, always to my dismay, it was mostly unwatched by people I knew. Of course, to resolve that issue, I forced all my friends (and many people who were not my friends) to watch it.

Now, Casablanca has been a part of my life for longer than it wasn't. I've watched it with my friends. I've watched it with students. I've watched it with my family. I've watched it with my wife (though she might add "too many times"). I'm not afraid to admit, I've watched it by myself.

Each time I watch it, I catch something new. Or I understand a new nuance that I didn't catch before. Or I just have a new insight.

For example, when watching it with my students, it finally came to me exactly how complex Rick's plan at the end had to be. It involved him lying to everyone. It even involved lying and saying that Elsa was lying when she said she was in love with him. At the end, he manages to be a step ahead of everyone else in understanding what was at stake and what needed to be done. He has planned for every possible contingency, and everything he's said and done in the past few scenes - both the casual encounters and the big moments - have been to carefully calculated to make sure his plan is executed flawlessly.

The next time I watched it, I realized the complexity of Rick's plan should have been evident from the start. The moment we first see him, he's playing chess - a notoriously complex game of maneuvering and counter-maneuvering, in which the most successful players are able to see and plan several moves ahead of their opponents. Its a

One Fast Move or I'm Gone: Kerouac's Big Sur

Directed by: Curt Worden











Curt Worden's documentary creatively explores the period of Jack Kerouac's life leading up to and during his writing of Big Sur.

The film has a nice mix of narration (drawn from Kerouac's original novel), first-person accounts from those who knew Kerouac at the time, and commentary from artists and musicians inspired by the novelist.

One thing I appreciated was that, although there is a bit of hero-worship, the film itself didn't feel like it was forcing anything. It felt casual, relaxed. It felt like a bunch of friends chatting about the good ol' days.

I was especially impressed with the use of vintage photos and film from the time period mixed with contemporary footage of the same places (and, in some cases, people). It was neat to see the exact locations visited and described in the novel.

Familiarity with the book is highly recommended before watching this, but it can be enjoyed without a total line-by-line memory of the book. (I haven't read it in nearly fifteen years, so I only had a vague sketch of the text in my mind.)

Interstellar

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Written by: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan









A lot of digital ink has already been spilled over this movie, so I'll keep my review fairly short.

I didn't want to like it, and I'll probably spend most of my time here pulling apart the things I didn't like. That being said, I actually liked this movie despite myself.

Things I didn't like.
-- It was too long. It was too short. Either way, it wasn't the right length. At nearly three hours, it definitely tested my patience. But there was so much in the movie that didn't feel developed enough (such as when Topher Grace's character showed up out of nowhere). Each of the three acts - Earth, Travel, Tesseract - could have been a separate movie in-and-of-itself.
--It took itself so darn seriously. I could feel the science-y pretentiousness oozing out of several scenes. For a science-fiction movie, it didn't have enough fun. (Exception: the robots - see below.) I'm not saying it needed to be "campy," but it might have benefited from someone telling the Nolan brothers to get over themselves.

Things I liked.
--The robots were the most unique and original element of the film. Fascinating design and execution. Just when you think there's no new ideas about robots in science fiction, along comes CASE and TARS.
--The imagery and cinematography were top of the line. Each shot was gorgeous.
--Matt Damon was an genuine surprise to me. I'd managed to avoid all spoilers, so I was shocked when he showed up. I was even more shocked when his character started to develop, but I'll save that for another time.

Jonathan and Christopher Nolan deserve credit for developing an original science fiction movie (aside from a few nods to "2001" here and a wink at "Alien" there). Without trying to sound like a cranky old man, I feel that sci-fi movies tend to be sequels, rip-offs, re-boots, or just plain copy-cats of prior work. In most cases, the prior work was better, and only in rare cases - the recent "Planet of the Apes" films jump to mind - are the newer works anywhere in the same league as the originals. "Interstellar" manages to be new while maintaining the feel of a classic.

Another sign of quality in "Interstellar's" favor is that I keep coming back to it in my thoughts and conversation. I keep wanting to discuss it and dissect it (both the good and the bad) and, who knows - maybe I'll watch it again.

Take Shelter

Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols











This movie has a lot of what I look for in a movie. Strong cast. Strong script. Strong cinematography. It's subtle and beautiful and manages to excel without needing to go over-the-top.

The movie has a beautiful, unclear ending - not necessarily ambiguous, but certainly unresolved. I appreciate that that writer/director Nichols didn't bother to spell it all out. We're left with something to talk about. The ending alone makes the movie worth watching, but the rest of it is so well executed that it doesn't feel like a "twist" or a "gimmick." It's just left there to be considered.

Most of what I've read about "Take Shelter" online focuses on Michael Shannon's performance. And he, indeed, shines. He is haunting and powerful and real at a level rarely achieved in acting. He steals the show, no doubt about it.

But I also believe Jessica Chastain deserves significant credit as well. Her stability serves as a counterpoint to Shannon's instability. Like Shannon, she manages to be "real" without resorting to "gritty." You feel for her.

I'd love to have a discussion on what the movie means, if anything. And I love the fact that the movie allows so much to be discussed. I think that too often writers and directors are afraid to leave anything ambiguous or open ended. Jeff Nichols does not have that problem, and I think him for it.

Much Ado About Nothing

Directed by: Joss Whedon

Written by: William Shakespeare (play); Joss Whedon (screenplay)










It's tough to do a modernized version of Shakespeare. Really tough. Most fall flat (see Ethan Hawke's "Hamlet") while those that don't totally fail are forced to rely on stylistic gimmicks (Baz Lurhrmann). Most don't even try to really modernize, but try exotic time periods and locations (Sir Kenneth Branagh).

Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" succeeds. It's good.

I'm not sure what else to say except that Whedon's adaptation feels natural and organic. It doesn't go over-the-top. The choice to shoot in black-and-white film is a bit of a stretch at first, but quickly is forgotten and helps with the simple, straight-forward feel of the movie.

What surprised me most was the way the actors, especially character actors such as Nathan Fillion, manage to take total control of the Shakespearean language and make it sound totally natural. None of the conversations felt forced or over-wrought.

To be honest, it's been a long time (ten years or more) since I've read the original Shakespeare, so it's tough for me to judge the how much of the source material was scratched and molded to fit Whedon's vision. In any case, it worked.

They Came Together

Directed by: David Wain

Written by: David Wain and Michael Showalter










I tried to enjoy this movie. I really tried. The movie had a lot of things that I, theoretically, should have enjoyed. And yet, it was almost physically painful to watch this movie from beginning to end.

At multiple points, my wife and I simply looked at each other and said some variation of, "This is stupid."

I'll boil it down: the biggest problem is that the film doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries to spoof the cliche romantic comedy genre, but doesn't have enough bite or satire. It seems like it tries (maybe?) to make the characters likable, but they also exist as caricatures and, as such, lack any real humanity. Some jokes are parody, some are slapstick, and some seem like they were ripped from "Family Guy." In any case, none of these features belong together.

It felt, very simply, like a bunch of funny people got together and decided that it would be really funny to make a movie on this topic. And then they did, with complete impunity from editing or criticism. "They Came Together" would have been much better if boiled down to an extended SNL sketch, but didn't have enough substance to fill an entire movie.

His Girl Friday

Directed by: Howard Hawks

Written by: Charles Lederer, Ben Hecht, Charles MacArthur, and Morrie Ryskind









I'll try to keep my review here brief. For years, I'd had this movie on my radar for a long time, mainly due to the presence of Cary Grant, but had never gotten around to sitting and watching it.

As the script was based on a play, most of the film focuses on the dialogue between characters to develop the plot, with few moments of action and few changes of scene. Without this information up front, I struggled with the film's pace while I was watching it. It's a little long, and some scenes felt unnecessarily long.

That being said, the movie is quite enjoyable. The quick dialogue between Grant and Russell is top-of-the-line. The movie possesses an excellent balance of comedy (usually in the form of irony) and simple action/drama to keep things moving forward.

I didn't really know what I was getting into with this film, but I'm glad I finally got around to seeing it.

The Great Race

Directed by: Blake Edwards

Written by: Arthur A. Ross (story, screenplay); Blake Edwards (story)










"The Great Race" is a classic slapstick and absurd comedy about a long-distance car race.  (Basically, the premise of any race film.)

The movie is a bit long for its own good, though it does have some great scenes floating around often enough to keep it interesting enough to watch. Apparently, the pie fight sequence is one of the largest ever in film (though I'm not sure exactly how that would be measured), and it is worth catching at some point.

Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon do their usual comedy thing. I was pleasantly surprised to see Peter Falk in the almost-silent part of the bumbling evil-doer sidekick.

Shadows

Written and Directed by: John Cassavetes












I watched this movie back in the spring, and I've spent a long time mulling over exactly what I thought about it.

It's a good movie, plain and simple.

The improvised style is a little rough at points, demanding a little more attention and focus from the audience.

That's about it. I admit - a few months later, it's hard for me to remember much detail.

My Left Foot

Directed by: Jim Sheridan

Written by: Shane Connaughton, Jim Sheridan (screenplay); Christy Brown (book)








"My Left Foot" tells the story of Christy Brown, a young man from Ireland born with cerebral paulsy. His left foot, from which the title is derived, is the only part of his body which he can control. He is smart and creative, but is often written off because he is trapped within his body's limitations.

Daniel Day-Lewis once again brings his "A game" and brings Christy to life for the film. It's well worth watching the film for his performance.

Beyond him, though, it's a really compelling and interesting story.

Glengarry Glen Ross

Directed by: James Foley

Written by: David Mamet (play and screenplay)










This movie is, ostensibly, about the pressures of real estate sales.

David Mamet's script is fantastic. The screenplay holds a little too closely to the original play format (most of the scenes taking place in one room, lots of talking), but the dialogue is sharp and the story is compelling enough to allow the audience to overlook that limitation.

The acting consists of some of the finest performances ever put in the same film ever. Alec Baldwin's part is small and he only appears in one scene, but he is hard to forget. Jack Lemmon manages to make his character absolutely pathetic. Ed Harris makes his character's desperation real and tangible.

I'd have never thought that the world of real estate sales could be so emotionally powerful. But "Glengarry Glen Ross" changed all that.

Watchmen (Director's Cut)

Directed by: Zach Snyder

Written by: Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons (graphic novel - writer and illustrator, respectively); David Hayter, Alex Tse (screenplay)









To start, I'm a huge fan of the original "Watchmen" graphic novel, and was very excited when I heard a movie was in production. I struggled to wrap my mind how they were going to adapt the complex narrative structure and visual dynamics into a linear film.

The truth was, they didn't. They distilled the story down to the core plot, removing most of the flashbacks and the "Tales of the Black Freighter" story-in-a-story. Still, what was left was still a pretty decent adaptation, though it was a very loose adaptation. Some elements are almost shot-for-shot reproductions, while others were changed significantly.  (The most noticeable item that was removed was the fake giant alien squid invasion at the end, and I was rather bummed that it was changed.)

The acting in "Watchmen" is mostly not great. Most of the characters come off as cardboard. This is a major hinderance to the enjoyment of the film because it drags it down too often. At points, it felt like some of the actors were reading their lines without understanding why they were saying what they were saying. In retrospect, though, they were not given the greatest script to work with, focused too much on visuals and recreating dialogue that was written to be said by characters on a page.

This movie has grown on me more, as I've reflected on it. But the director's cut is far too long to enjoy, and it has too many flaws to ignore without much running in its favor. It is not, by any means, a comic book / superhero movie acceptable for children. And I wouldn't recommend watching it without any familiarity with the original source material.

Superman II (The Richard Donner Cut)

Directed by: Richard Donner, Richard Lester

Written by: Mario Puzo (story and screenplay), David Newman (screenplay), Leslie Newman (screenplay)


There's a lot of history and controversy  regarding the multiple versions of "Superman II." The version I watched for this review is the "Richard Donner Cut," which more closely aligns with the original vision for the film. The original theatrical release had two directors due to some conflict between Donner (who directed the first movie) and the producers.

Overall, it's a pretty straight forward superhero flick. Very enjoyable. I've never seen the "theatrical" cut of the film, so I can't make a direct comparison.

I was surprised by the amount of emotional turmoil that Superman experiences in this film. He's torn between his love for Lois Lane and the powers he was given. This tension gives Superman a much deeper and more complex personality, often missing from most superhero stories.

Guarding Tess

Directed by: Hugh Wilson

Written by: Hugh Wilson, Pj Torokvei










I remember my parents watching this movie, and at some point it made its way on to my DVD lists and crawled its way to the top of the pile.

Nicholas Cage performs well as Agent Chesnic, who has been assigned to protect former first lady Tess Carlisle (MacLaine) because he is one of the few people who can tolerate her. He manages to put up with her fussy, formal manner, while ostensibly keeping her safe. Not everyone is as honorable as Agent Chesnic, though.

The two main stars - Cage and MacLaine - do very well in their parts. Cage is charming and awkward, but genuine and heartfelt. MacLaine is believable in her part, bringing the fictional first lady to life. The supporting cast also does a great job, though they are slightly hindered by a script which limits their roles.

Despite the actors charms, the plot is relatively thin, focusing mainly on character interactions (and the antics that ensue) for the first half of the film, and the dramatic action developing only near the end. That action, though, is quite memorable. In fact, it was a vague recollection of the big twist which stood out in my mind and made me want to watch the movie at all.

Overall, a charming movie, but not necessarily essential viewing.