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.

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.

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.

Craigslist Joe

Directed by: Joseph Garner












The central question of the documentary "Craigslist Joe" is simple: Can a person survive an entire month using only the kindness of strangers via Craigslist?  Starting from that point, Joseph Garner sets out to discover what "community" means in 21st century America.  Leaving behind his entire life, he hits the road with whoever will drive him and stays where anyone has an extra room available.

"Craigslist Joe" was interesting, though I'm afraid I'm not sure it made a point.  (Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention?)  Ostensibly, the filmmaker is attempting to find "community," but rather than providing an answer, the film meanders around the country, providing brief glimpses into the lives of those who are generous enough to post on Craigslist.

I found the movie interesting, but flawed.  It didn't seem to have a point, and felt more like a video diary than a real documentary.  (So, maybe that's where I'm missing the bigger picture?)  Still, it's a interesting look into modern life and the many paths that are opened through the internet.

Sleepwalk With Me

Directed by: Mike Birbiglia, Seth Barrish

Written by: Mike Birbiglia, Joe Birbiglia, Ira Glass, Seth Barrish












I've heard this story once or twice on "This American Life," and it's a very interesting story. Essentially, a sleepwalking disorder and a quest to become a comedian help Mike learn some important life lessons. Unfortunately, aside from a few funny scenes, it didn't really translate into the film medium as much as I had hoped.  It may be worth watching if the story is new to you, but there isn't much added in the film that isn't already available elsewhere.

The Game

Directed by: David Fincher

Written by: John D. Brancato, Michael Ferris










This film is a plot twist within a plot twist, a reveal within a reveal.  Its a bit clunky at a few points, close to stalling on itself, but picks back up again a few beats later.  The acting isn't terribly remarkable, but the film is carried mostly by its story.  The last twenty minutes of the movie make some of the earlier sluggish scenes worth the slogging.

Following

Written and Directed by: Christopher Nolan












There's not a whole lot that can be said about "Following" without ruining some of the details, so - like the film itself - I will try keep this short and sweet.

An unnamed writer (Theobald) begins following people to help him develop characters for his novel.  But he is caught by a man named Cobb (Haw) who introduces him to the world of burglary.  The writer soon finds himself consumed the the philosophy and thrill of the break-in.  But, as his second career expands, he begins to find himself caught up in machinations of more powerful criminals.

"Following" is Nolan's first film, but in it he experiments with some of the storytelling devices which would become cornerstones of his later films.  The one that stands out the most is revealing the story in a non-linear fashion - showing how certain parts end before showing how they begin.  This is the central trope of "Memento," but it's used with great effect here as well.  The changes in sequence are not as clear in "Following" though, so it's important to use random details (haircuts, clothes, bruises) to help determine which part of the story is being told.  This device demands the viewer's attention, or the story will seem choppy and incoherent.

The movie's final reveal - which I won't tell here - is expertly set up.  By ending the film with such a twist, Nolan practically begs the viewer to watch the film again right away to try to fit the puzzle pieces together.  The "twist-ending" can be a bit cliche when not handled correctly, but Nolan uses it like a pro in his first try.

"Following" isn't a perfect film, but it's surprising how great it is.  Nolan already has his filmmaker's toolbox filled in his rookie effort, and uses those tools to make a great movie.

Punch-Drunk Love

Written and Directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson












It's pretty clear that Adam Sandler's career has taken a long public nose-dive.  (Albeit, a dive into a pile of money - a la Scrooge McDuck.  Or so I imagine.)  But "Punch-Drunk Love" reveals what might have been if Sandler had shunned the easy money and challenged himself with different roles.

The character of Barry Egan is, by far, Sandler's most complex role, even though the character's volatile  background is not much of a stretch from some of his earlier characters.  Egan is basically on the razor's edge of sanity, reading to break at any given moment despite his attempts to control his temper.  This trait is exacerbated by his sisters who refuse to let him forget some of his previous violent outbursts, even as they try to set him up with a romantic entanglement.  He obsesses over small details, and is secretly trying to take advantage of a loophole in a frequent-flyer program.  All of which leads to a breaking point when, in a moment of weakness, he calls the wrong phone-companionship line.  (Billy Madison - eat your heart out!)

The question becomes whether Sandler himself always has the potential he shows in this film, or whether it's Paul Thomas Anderson's masterful direction which forces Sandler to transcend his usual abilities.

Let's face it - Anderson does a great job with everything he does.  He has a magic touch.  The story of "Punch-Drunk Love" is incredibly simple - boy falls in love, makes mistake, tries to earn his love back. These elements often spell trouble - sailing waters littered with cliche and kitsch often appealing mainly to lovelorn teenagers.  But Anderson doesn't let his film stoop to that level.  In fact, the early introduction of the phone-sex storyline makes it very clear that this movie is meant for a more mature audience.  He raises this style of film to an art.  (And how do you know it's art?  Well, it features an appearance by Philip Seymour Hoffman, for one.)

One of the standout elements of the film is the constant tension.  I found my jaw clenching at numerous points and needed to pace around the room.  This is intensified by the pounding score (apparently written, at least in part, by Anderson himself) which relentlessly increases the pulse of every scene.  Every awkward moment is magnified to a potentially life-changing event.

I hadn't seen this movie in several years (and that was long before I took my movie-watching somewhat seriously or even knew what a P.T. Anderson was), but I remembered enjoying it.  Revisiting the film, it was actually better than I remembered it.

It's not a lightweight film.  But it's well worth the heavy-lifting.

They Might Be Giants

Directed by: Anthony Harvey

Written by: James Goldman










"They Might Be Giants" belongs to a special genre of film, in that it is neither terribly good nor terribly bad nor terribly memorable, but is mostly entertaining while being viewed.

I stumbled upon it, mainly by name, floating around my streaming options.  As a fan of George C. Scott (generally speaking), I figured it may be worth a shot.

Justin Playfair (Scott) has lost his marbles and is absolutely convinced that he is the one and only Sherlock Holmes.  When his brother (Gilford) tries to get him committed, he runs across a doctor named Watson (Woodward), and from then on the game is afoot!  But is Playfair crazy?  Or has he actually stumbled across a more sinister conspiracy that only he and his band of misfits can unravel?

This movie doesn't have a lot of heft.  It's cute.  It's charming.  But for the life of me, it's hard to remember.  There was a message, I'm sure, but I'm not totally sure I grasped it.  Still, for the length of the movie, I was totally caught up in it.  I couldn't stop watching.

There are lots of ethereal and ephemeral movies like this - the kind you watch once and never see again even though you kind of enjoyed it, only crossing your mind briefly, vaguely, whenever one of the actors is mentioned.  I'd name them, but if I could remember the names then they wouldn't actually belong to this category.

I wouldn't advise anyone to see this movie, but I wouldn't protest if someone else wanted to put it on.  It carries with it the magic of the movie experience, but so do all movies.

The Conspirator

Directed by: Robert Redford

Written by: James D. Solomon; James D. Solomon, Gregory Bernstein (story)










Most Americans know, at least vaguely, the story of the assassination of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth.  Fewer are familiar with the trial of the conspirators who help hatch the plot.

Frederick Aiken (McAvoy) has been tapped to defend Mary Surratt (Wright), who has been accused of harboring the conspirators in her boarding house.  But Aiken quickly finds out that, in the case of a military tribunal, justice may not be easy.  He is further upset when he finds out the entire trial itself may be an attempt to draw out a Surratt's son from hiding, even if it means that she might be executed.

From the standpoint of story, "The Conspirator" weaves an interesting and emotionally charged tale.  There are some interesting questions of ethnics and justice raised, mixed between plot twists (including a big one right near the end).  The actors are solid, even if it felt that they were limited by the script and story itself.

The biggest issue with "The Conspirator" is that it fails to do anything new or novel.  It tells its story in a generally straight and traditional way.  It makes its point clearly, but does not present any new or challenging ways of thinking about the issues.

For better or for worse, "The Conspirator" felt like what it was: a historical drama.  It's good, but could have done much more.

With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story

Directed by: Terry Dougas, Nikki Frakes, William Lawrence Hess

Written by: Nikki Frakes, William Lawrence Hess










Stan Lee is probably the most well-known name in the modern comic book world.  Name a Marvel comic, and odds are it has his fingerprints on it somewhere.  Yet, although he's lived in the public eye, much of his own personal history has been documented in mostly anecdotal discussions.  "With Great Power: The Stan Lee" attempts to set the story straight about this influential writer.

This documentary strikes an excellent balance between telling Stan Lee's personal story and tracing his creative history.

I wouldn't say that "With Great Power" is for hardcore fans only, but it would definitely help to have a passing knowledge of the Marvel universe.  There are a few points wherein Stan Lee spends a lot of time explaining the process of creating several of his famous characters, which can be tricky to follow if you're unfamiliar with those characters.

This isn't an example of great filmmaking, but it is a project with a lot of heart.  I think the directors did a great job of framing the life and work of one of America's under-appreciated creative minds.

Catching Hell

Directed by: Alex Gibney









On October 14, 2003, Cubs fan Steve Bartman reached for a foul ball and, instead, caught the rage and vitriol of every other Cubs fan around the world.  "Catching Hell" attempts to unravel the events and outcomes of that infamous night.

The "Steve Bartman incident" is well documented around the internet, so I don't feel the need to rehash it all here.

"Catching Hell" covers much more than just the sequence of events that night, though.  Director Alex Gibney discusses multiple aspects of the Bartman incident, including how the media covered it and the way the security team at Wrigley Field tried to defuse the situation.  In a bit of meta-documentary, Gibney places the Bartman incident in historical context, comparing it to the Buckner play of 1986, to discuss how and why some people become "scapegoats."

I have to say that "Catching Hell" was a solid documentary, with enough explanation for those who are not familiar with what happened, while also introducing enough new information and reflection to make it interesting to those who remember exactly when it happened (like me).

Silly Little Game

Directed by: Adam Kurland, Lucas Jansen









With millions of people now playing the game, "Silly Little Game" provides the history of fantasy baseball.

There's not a whole lot else that can be said.  It's an entertaining documentary, especially for those who play in fantasy leagues.

I found it fascinating how small it started - one group of friends who thought they knew more about baseball than each other - and how the first year was essentially a guessing game, as no real strategies had been developed.

It was also interesting how the people who originally developed and played the game eventually lost control of the rights to fantasy baseball, and so are no longer making money on the game they created.

"Silly Little Game" is short enough to watch in a free hour, and is entertaining if not informative.

The Thin Red Line

Directed by: Terrence Malick

Written by: James Jones (novel); Terrence Malick (screenplay)










It's not often that the words "beautiful" and "war film" go together.  But, if ever they were, it would be in regards to "The Thin Red Line."  Malick brings his unique visual style and vision to a genre which is rarely ground-breaking and is more often stale.

Although the movie loosely follows the American invasion of a pacific island during World War II, it's hard to point to any central plot beyond the general invasion.  There are recurring themes and inter-personal conflicts, but characters come and go in an almost arbitrary fashion.

Woody Harrelson's performance is absolutely fantastic and is worth noting here.  His part is small, but powerful.  It's also emblematic of the film as a whole - small and excellent parts which come together in a fantastic whole.

"The Thin Red Line" is not your typical war movie.  But Malick is not your typical director.

There's not a whole lot else I can say.  It's quite an experience to see a film like this, which stakes its own territory in the world of cinema and sets itself apart.

The War Room

Directed by: Chris Hegedus, D. A. Pennebaker












It takes guts to make a documentary with no narration or commentary, but that's what Hegedus and Pennebaker do in "The War Room."  They capture, with as much fly-on-the-wall credibility as they can, the life of two key figures in a presidential campaign, from the early days of the primaries through the November election.

Without trying to sound arrogant, I have to say that this movie isn't for lightweights.  For political junkies like me, though, it's a great film.

It's amazing to see the strategic mind of James Carville (who has had a small role in several movies, including "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford") working in real-time, as he throws out comments and develops ideas to give his candidate (Clinton) the best shot at winning.

Meanwhile, the communications director George Stephanopoulos is doing his best to spin and re-spin everything that gets in the way of the campaign.

There's one scene in which they need to edit a second out of a television spot, and Carville and Stephanopoulos argue about how exactly to change the wording and imagery so that it fits in the alloted time.  On the one hand, it's hard to imagine that minutia being important over the long run of a campaign.  At the same time, it becomes evident that their attention to that type of minutia gave them the ultimate advantage in the election.

There are a lot of political and historical references thrown out with no context or explanation, but which are central to understanding what is going on.  There are references to Clinton's marital indiscretions and the "Whitewater Scandal" which almost de-railed his campaign, but none of these matters are delved into or explained.  Rather, they're just there.  At one point near the end, Stephanopolous is reading states and numbers off of sheets that are being faxed in (no e-mail for the Clinton campaign?), and we are led to conclude that these are the real-time results of the presidential election.

This is a fascinating movie if you're interested in the modern American political machine.  It requires some mental gymnastics to follow exactly what is going on and what people are talking about.  If you want to see a more entertaining cover of basically the same events, you may wish to check out Mike Nichols's "Primary Colors."  But if fast-paced hardcore documentaries are your thing, then "The War Room" is one of the best of the best.

Hot Tub Time Machine

Directed by: Steve Pink

Written by: Josh Heald, Sean Anders, John Morris










"Hot Tub Time Machine" - the title pretty much reveals the central plot point of the film, while also giving away the basic absurdity of the premise.  If you're not intrigued by the title, this movie probably isn't for you.  (And even if you are interested by the title, there's no guarantee you'll like the actual result.)

Essentially, the movie tells the story of four men who accidentally turn their hot tub into a time machine.  They're transported back to 1986 - specifically, to a night that served as a major turning point in all their lives.  As they try to figure out how to return themselves back to their normal time period, they also realize that they have an opportunity to change the course of their lives.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" could have gone in one of two directions: either a straight comedy, or an an absurdist comedy (as the title would suggest).  Unfortunately, it tried to be both at the same time, leading to an unevenness which scuttled the film.  Some of the actors (such as Cusack) played their characters like just about any other comedy, but others (such as Robinson) played their characters with a wink-and-nod style.  One or the other would have been fine, but with both it felt like the film couldn't decide which direction to take.

The 1980s element of the film added a bit of fun, and played off pretty well.  (Those who made "Take Me Home Tonight" should have taken notes.)  It may have only been important to the plot at a few points, but it was consistently used in the background to add to the atmosphere.

A special note should be made about Crispin Glover's performance as Phil, the ornery one-armed bell boy.  It was a small role, but it was played to perfection.  His presence elevated every scene he was in, and at some points I kept watching just in the hope that his character would pop up again (and I was not disappointed).

Overall, "Hot Tub Time Machine" wasn't great, but there were enough funny elements to make it worth seeing if you ever need to waste a couple of hours.

Rounders

Directed by: John Dahl

Written by: David Levein, Brian Koppelman










There was a point - namely, the late 1990s - when Matt Damon could basically do whatever he wanted and still be king of the hill.  "Rounders" comes out of that time period.

Mike (Damon) has traded in his poker chips for a girlfriend (Mol) and law school.  But when his best friend Worm (Norton) gets out of prison, the allure of the high stakes table draws him back in to the game.  But things go suddenly wrong, and the stakes become even higher, until he has to lay it all on the line and go all-in against notorious underground poker champ Teddy KGB (Malkovich).

(If anyone can fit in any more cliches into that summary, I'll be happy to add it in!)

There's not a whole lot wrong with this movie.  I'm not saying it's great, but it definitely wears its flaws well and plays to its strengths.  And its strengths are in its principle actors - Matt Damon and Edward Norton.  Damon gives his standard performance as the lovable sinner-with-the-heart-of-gold.  Norton shines as the aptly named Worm; he exudes his character's sliminess.  Even Malkovich does a fantastic job.  (The less we say about Gretchen Mol in this film, the better.  Her part was so small that it was almost negligible.  I'm not quite sure how she ended up on the poster.)

The movie had a few pacing issues, mostly occurring when the story turned back to Damon's personal life.  Those scenes just didn't have quite the tension or drama of the poker story line, nor did they really add to Damon's character in any meaningful way.  Also, the final poker game was a bit anti-climactic.  If you don't know how that game is going to turn out, you really haven't been watching the movie at all.

"Rounders" is entertaining, and a bit of a time piece.  It shows Matt Damon before he became a caricature of himself, Edward Norton at the top of his game, and poker when it was still a bit of underground novelty outside the Vegas city line.