Clip Art: Catch-22

Catch-22 (1970)
dir. Mike Nichols


I couldn't find a scene in this film that I didn't want to show. This is just a fabulous movie. Visually stunning, well acted and a beautiful example of surrealistic nonlinear story telling, this is one of Nichol's most underrated movies.

I settled an showing you this scene because it shows a very perverse and homicidal side of Charles Grodin while displaying the absurdity of war with the MP's reaction to the situation.


If you haven't taken the time to check out this gem, you should. It boasts a cast of thousands and a great script by Buck Henry. It was maligned on initial release because Robert Altman's MASH (1970) was released around the same time and unfair comparisons were drawn between the two. There has also been the age old argument, "It's not the book." It's actually quite faithful in certain regards and more than faithful when it comes to tone and ideas.

We can be thankful for DVD and a nice widescreen transfer so this film can be watched in all its magical glory.

Not On DVD: Ishtar

ISHTAR (1987)
starring: Dustin Hoffman, Warren Beatty, Isabelle Adjani, Charles Grodin
dir. Elaine May


Ishtar is a very cultish yet much maligned movie from a group of very talented people who were not very thrifty with a checkbook. Much like Heaven's Gate (1980) (but for very different reasons), the budget ran out of control, dooming this movie to be reviewed on a monetary basis, not a cinematic one. Did they spend a lot of money to make this movie? Yes. Was every penny up on screen? No. Is it still an enjoyable and funny movie with lively characters, songs so bad they are sublime and a quick flash of Issabella Adjani's breasts? Damn tootin' right it is!

Hoffman and Beatty play Chuck and Lyle, a couple of not to bright and not at all talented singer/songwriters. They have singing voices that make your skin crawl, but a drive and ambition that you have to admire. Two guys in a ton of denial that lead to both of their girlfriends leaving them and nothing left to pursue but the dream of stardom. So off they go to Ishtar, a fictional middle eastern country where they will perform such classics as, "Hot Fudge Love" and "Telling The Truth" to middle aged tourists in a hotel bar. They accidentally get mixed up in a crazy political plot that centers around the smoking hot Isabella Adjani and the CIA, led by the always offbeat and very funny Charles Grodin.

Due to problems with shooting in the desert, the initial movies budget ballooned to around 30 million dollars. This was quite a sum for a rather small comedy in 1987. This generated all sorts of bad press and pretty much soiled it's reputation before it was even released. The critics tore it a new one and the movie laid a box office egg. It was nominated for wost picture by the Razzies. It lost to Leonard Part 6 (1987), which is no shock if you've seen it. The movie quickly disappeared and resurfaced in the dark recesses of video shelves back when VHS ruled the roost.

Written and directed by Elaine May, this is a movie that feels and acts more like a film of the 70's then the 80's, and I mean that as a very high compliment. The humor is very character based and Hoffman and Beatty hit it out of the park as two guys who are clueless in a very modern way. They are genuinely oblivious to everything around them and totally delusional about their skills as performers.

The songs are a blast and were written by the diminutive Paul Williams and are just as hysterical as the performances. They are sung with a gusto and conviction that make you smile because they are just horrifically bad. A soundtrack was originally going to be released, but was canceled after the initial reaction to the film. Too bad, I'd buy a copy and play it full blast every time some dipshit rolls up next to me at a stoplight with his base thumping.


This is not a perfect film in any way. The second half is not as strong as the first and the laughs seem to diminish towards the end, with the exception of Grodin denying the CIA has any goings-on in Ishtar. His childlike deadpan makes me giggle thinking about it.

According to Wikipedia (oh-so trustworthy), Gary Larson even had something to say about the film:

In The Far Side comic strips, captioned "Hell's Video Store", the entire store is stocked with nothing but copies of the movie Ishtar. Larson has apologized, saying 'When I drew the above cartoon, I had not actually seen Ishtar. ... Years later, I saw it on an airplane, and was stunned at what was happening to me: I was actually being entertained. Sure, maybe it's not the greatest film ever made, but my cartoon was way off the mark. There are so many cartoons for which I should probably write an apology, but this is the only one which compels me to do so."

With no plans to be released in America on DVD (yet Howard The Duck is coming out?), Ishtar is a movie that needs to be seen by more people and deserves a proper release. If they could get May, Williams, Hoffman and Beatty together to do a commentary track, I'd be in heaven. Oh and a second disc with the soundtrack! I'll settle for a bear bones edition though just to have a chance to revisit an overlooked comedy that is a real missing gem from the DVD catalog.

Ishtar is available as a region 2 DVD for those of you out there who really want to see it.

You can also learn more and hear samples of the songs at ishtarthemovie.com

Profile: Olmos Famous

I was watching Battlestar Gallactica the other night and marveling at Edward James Olmos. So here is a quick look at some of his career choices told in photos.

Zoot Suit 1981

Blade Runner 1982

Miami Vice 1984-1989

American Me 1992

The Road

To El Dorado 2000

BSG 2004-2009

Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2008

It's a pretty eclectic body of work. This doesn't even include Stand And Deliver (1988) which garnered him an Oscar nomination for best actor, Triumph Of The Spirit (1989), Wolfen (1981), My Family (1995), Selena (1997) or a ton of stage work as well as directing.

If there is one regret I have, it's I wished just once he'd have punched Don Johnson during the Vice years. Look at Olmos on that show. Every glance at Johnson is seething with hatred, or maybe that's just me projecting.

The Eclectic Choice: Matando Cabos

Matando Cabos (2004)
dir. Alejandro Lozano


Not a great movie, but it has it's moments. Inspired by independent American films from people like Tarantino and Jarmusch, Matando Cabos (Killing Cabos) weaves together several storylines about love, kidnapping, revenge, an extasy popping Lucha Libre and a cannibal midget into what should be a high octane roller coaster ride through two days in Mexico City. Instead it's more like one of those roller coaster simulators you ride on the Santa Monica pier, but like I said, that's not exactly a bad thing.

The entire story is rooted around Oscar Cabos, a real scumbag executive who spends most of the movie knocked out and tied up. He passes from trunk to trunk and identities are mistaken as his old friend/enemy is also kidnapped and abused more than Cabos. The character palate continues to expand until it's all around chaos that finds a way to wrap itself up by the end.

Most of the time you get the feeling it's a poorly made Guy Ritchie movie, but lacks any of the kinetic style, so several of the moments that should be gripping or feel like a fever dream just lay flat on the floor. Over all though, it is an interesting exercise and has enough imagination to keep you watching. It's a good example of why these types of films work in some hands and don't in others.

Give it a rent, but probably not worth owning, Matando Cabos shows there is a lot more going on in Mexican cinema than we might perceive and it's worth keeping an eye on.

Crystal Ball: Superpower Prediction

So here is an trend that seems to be forming. It is widely known that January and February are the dumping grounds for studio write-offs. These are the movies that would disappear if they were released any other time of the year. Two films in this junk pile have caught my attention.

Last year Jumper (2008) was released on Valentines day. This totally forgettable piece of garbage was directed by the usually talented Doug Liman and starred the always talentless Hayden Christensen. The story was about people with powers who could transport or "Jump" through space. They are being chased by some government agency and need to escape. It had some conceptually nice ideas, but was built like a prologue for a franchise that will never come into being. We can all be happy for that.


This year, Push (2009) was released on February 6th. This is a totally forgettable piece of junk featuring some acting talent like Cliff Curtis, Dakota Fanning and Chris Evans and very little talent behind the camera. It is about people with powers who are being chased by some government agency and need to escape. This has a slightly better through line than Jumper had, but still feels like a set up for a franchise that will never come into being.

It makes me think that February could easily become the month of the superpower-verb movie. If this trend continues then here is a crystal ball look at some movies to look forward to.

GRAB (2010): Good looking twenty-somethings have powers to make things disappear and reappear in their hands. The government has defined this power as "Grabbing and are trying to catch these hipsters so they can use them as spies and steal other countries technology. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal and the triumphant return of Haley Joel Osment. Denzel Washington plays the leader of the government agency who seems bad, but has a change of heart because we know that Denzel could never be truly evil.

CATCH (2011): Good looking twenty-somethings have powers to stop things in mid air. They are chased by evil foreign agents because a meteor is hurling towards the USA and want to see this democratic nation destroyed. They know they can't have the "Catchers" thwart that which God deems necessary against the American infidels. It stars Mary-Kate Olsen and Shia LeBeouf as the power wielders who are being chased by Magic Johnson because he is the only person on the planet who demonstrates less screen presence and stiff line readings then Mary-Kate.

KISS (2012): Good looking twenty-somethings have powers to destroy or bring things to life by using there lips. The Government has deemed this special power, "Kissing". A female "Kisser" is going to assassinate a presidential candidate and must be stopped by a male "Kisser" because they can sense where each other are. (It's a special benefit for having such sexy powers.) It stars Elijah Wood and Scarlett Johansson who make out for twenty minutes in the climactic battle in which they end up "lipping" each other to death. In attempting to change his image, Carlos Mencia will play a dramatic role as the presidential candidate. Monica Bellucci shows up for a one scene cameo to be hot and give out the plot twist. Sean Astin is set to make his directorial feature film debut.


This will lead to a several more films titled, SHUFFLE, TWIST, SHOVE and the film that brings this impressive movement to a close LICK in 2016. in 2020 this pattern will have been discovered by french film critic and elitist Jean-Luc Pissoir who will deem this brief yet historical film finding, "Nouvelle Verbe". He dies three years later after he refuses to acknowledge he has syphilis, but his cinematic findings will last forever.

Clip Art: Judgement At Nuremberg

Judgement At Nuremberg (1961)

dir. Stanley Kramer

After a scene in which the audience is shown real and very disturbing footage of atrocities that took place in the concentration camps, Nazi prisoners on trial discuss what they have just seen. Yes, that is Werner Klemperer (Colonel Klink) as one of the Nazi's, so a person's first reaction is to chuckle. Try to let it go, because the performance to watch is Pohl, played by Otto Waldis. It is his only scene in the movie and his nonchalant attitude about the executions in the camps is just stunning.

There are several other memorable performances in it including a haunting Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland is surprisingly powerful. But for my money this moment by Waldis speaks volumes.


If you haven't seen the film in its entirety, you own it to yourself. Rent it or buy it here.

On The Boulevard: P.R.C.

Not a real star on walk of fame

We're moving a few blocks south of Hollywood Boulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard. What you see below is what was once one of the more famous studios of Poverty Row. See, in days of yore, Hollywood wasn't just the dream factory for big budget musicals or epic landscapes. It was also where tons of smaller production companies pumped out low budget fare that was looked at as disposable money makers.

PRC Productions (Producers Releasing Corp) was one of these studios. It may have been small, but in the 30's and 40's it held enough dough to produce, distribute and even import movies from England for U.S. distribution. They specialized in westerns, noir and horror films. Back then, much like now, genre films were an easy way to make a quick buck. Emphasis on the word "quick" since most of their movies were shot in about a week.

PRC Studios 1941

But it was these small budgets and a lack of supervision that allowed filmmakers like Edgar G. Ulmer to experiment and make movies with themes and stories that the big guys at Warners or MGM wouldn't touch. Ulmer would make three of his better known films for PRC. Bluebeard (1944), Strange Illusion (1945) and the noir geeks totem Detour (1945). Other fun titles produced by the company were Crime Inc. (1945), Thunder Town (1946), Nabonga (1944), and The Devil Bat (1940) starring Bela Lugosi. Overall they'd make 280 films in 13 years. Just under 22 movies a year, not too shabby.

PRC Studios 2009

In 1947, PRC would be bought up by Eagle-Lion Films Inc. and fade away into the larger myth of Poverty Row. It may not be as well known today to film geeks like Monogram or Republic Pictures, but PRC has left an indelible mark on B-movie history and has earned star (from me) on the boulevard.

Review: The International

The International (2009)
starring: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts, Armin Muller-Stahl, Ulrich Thomsen
dir. Tom Tykwer

Considering the pedigree in this film, it's kind of underwhelming. I'm not saying it's bad, it has some interesting ideas and solid directing, but it just seems rather plain. I keep going over in my head the order of events and scenes are already slipping from my mind. It really is too bad, I wanted this to be a great movie even if it fails at the box office. Instead it's a mediocre movie, that failed at the box office.

As for the interesting ideas, I was impressed they didn't have a love story. You've got two good looking people like Owen and Watts and it is kept professional the entire time. There is a nice moment of compassion, but it's all about these two people going after a global banking conspiracy and not stopping until they expose it. It's kind of refreshing that a romance wasn't forced and then exploited as a late plot point.

The other is an assassination that becomes quite important to the concluding actions of the film. It's not the results that are good, they seem like a bit of a cop out, but the assassination itself has a fascinating execution (pun intended). The audience is given only glimpses of information and are taught to put it together as later scenes take place. The set up and pay off are rather fascinating even though it relies on a coincidence that sort of screws the entire concept.

Everyone in it is solid, Owen delivers a few clunkers but the script as a whole is pretty clunky. It could have been a total disaster but Tykwer directs with an assured hand and has a grasp of sound that borders on genius at moments. His choreography of the shootout at the Guggenheim is outstanding. He moves away from the typical shaky-cam and gives a fluid and tense gun fight that is fun to watch as a museum get blasted to pieces.

The ending does leave a little to be desired, it's the cop-out I mentioned above. In an attempt to keep our lead characters morally upstanding, the ideas behind how far would a person go to expose world corruption flitters away. All I ended up walking away with is something I've known from watching gangster films. Don't mess with the Italians, they're a vindictive bunch.

6.8 out of 10

The Eclectic Choice: Edgar Wallace Collection Vol.2

Edgar Wallace Collection Vol. 1 (1959/1963)
dir. Harald Reinl/Edwin Zbonek


Edgar Wallace was one of the more prominent mystery/thriller writers in the early 20th century and is best known to film geeks today as one of the original writers on King Kong. But in post war Germany, there was a resurgence of his fiction being turned into film. Most of these were championed by producer Artur Brauner who worked effortlessly to reestablish the German film industry in the 1950's. He succeeded mostly in creating a treasure trove of genre pulp ranging from the disposable to the lost classic. In the first volume of these Edgar Wallace based films, we get to see two of the better offerings.

The first is The Mad Executioners (1963) about a hooded group of gents who put London's criminals on trial and then execute them with a certain level of pomp and circumstance. It's moody and atmospheric and has a bizarre subplot that ties into the cavorting hangmen, but feels slightly out of place. If I say it concerns mad doctor cutting the heads off of women to keep them alive on an artificial body, it sounds like a different movie entirely, but it's not. It does become a bit of a brow scratcher, but still fun with some production design that hearkens back to the good old days of expressionism.

The second was not produced by Brauner, but directed by a director he used often, Harald Reinl. Reinl would direct many of the Brauner produced Dr. Mabuse films as well as the cult documentary Chariots Of The Gods (1972). Here, Reinl gives us Fellowship Of The Frog (1959). This one concerns a group of thieves lead by "The Frog" who runs around in a covered face mask with bulbous eyes and brands members of his syndicate with a frog tattoo. This one is a little more corny and has some plotting issues, but one of the oddest character cameos in movie history. It comes to light that The Frog is none other than Harry Lime from The Third Man (1949)! Really? Interesting. Wallace's story was written years before Reed's film and the character was created by Graham Green in 1948. So it seems like one of those gimmicks to bring in some ticket sales. The actor who plays Lime looks nothing like Orson Welles accept for bulk weight and may not have been named Lime in the original German version. Both of these films are dubbed, so who knows if the original character was Lime or not. It' s a good gimmick though, I perked right up when I heard the name and it earned a few more points for having the balls to say it was a Harry Lime crime scheme.

The prints are not the best quality, sometimes downright awful, but it adds a little something. It's like finding a lost relic covered in dust, but seeing the beauty underneath. Overall they are an easy view and quite enjoyable as camp or even a studious look at the German film industry when they were stumbling around trying to find a voice again. With the exception of the dubbing, you'd never know they were foreign at all. They maintain the same level of quality, if not better, than some of the Hollywood B-movies of the era.

Well worth renting or a purchase to revisit an era that has been long brushed aside for artier fare.

Review: Friday The 13th

Friday The 13th (2009)
starring: Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, Amanda Righetti, Derek Mears, Willa Ford
dir. Marcus Nispel


I'm not going to say I am ashamed to have seen this movie, as a matter of fact I suggested to a friend we check it out. See, I am of the age where the Friday The 13th franchise actually means something. I remember the advertising for almost all of them. I think I may have even owned the Alice Cooper single for Part 6: Jason Lives (1986). Go ahead and laugh, I also bought the Ramones single for Pet Cemetery (1989) when it came out and can probably sing all the words if you give me a minute. All of that being said, I know what should and shouldn't be expected from one of these puppies and I enjoy them for the sheer revelry of blood, boobs and bad to mediocre acting. Yes, it is a very high standard that I require from a Jason movie, but their have been several that disappoint on all levels, so there was a chance this reboot could be a big letdown.

So is this a breakthrough of the horror genre? No. Is it the best film in the series? No. Does it deliver everything that one could want from a Jason movie? In spades. There is nothing new or breakthrough here, as a matter of fact the biggest criticism for such a film is how safe it does play it, but it works. Anyone who goes in knowing abut the franchise or wanting to see what the movies are about, you get it here.

There is a quick little intro that explains Jason's origins and then a lengthy prologue that sets up the rules of the slasher film while showing off Jason's machete skills on a group of high and horny 20 somethings. We then get into the movie where it takes the rest of the running time to knock off a new batch of high, horny or just plain douche baggy 20 somethings while kindhearted and empathetic characters look for a missing sister. (She was in the original group slain in the prologue.) We hold out little hope for her and I won't spoil how or what condition she's found in, that would be no fun.

Jason is a classic character of the slasher genre. When he's not on screen, he can be anywhere at any moment. You never know where he's going to pop up. It's part of his other worldliness that can be used to great effect. He's like Jack Bauer in 24, traveling great distances in unrealistic time frames. It's illogical, but adds to the tension because we know he could be around the next corner even though we just saw him back down the street. We chuckle at it, but would miss it if it wasn't there.

The kills start off a little shaky, but keep getting better as the movie goes on. There is one real shocker with a bow and arrow as well as a classic axe kill. It delivers all of the gore and blood that the franchise is famous for. It's odd that I (maybe we as a society) could find a certain nostalgia in movie violence, but we must otherwise they wouldn't have made the movie the way they did. There are all sorts of views on movie violence. I could go into an entire diatribe about violence in the cinema, but that is for a different time and post. For now we'll just say this is a movie that is supposed to be entertaining the audience through violence. It is violent and I was entertained, so check-plus on the report card for that.

I'm not going to say director Marcus Nispel delivers a better visual style than previous films. He delivers the modern style just like the ones in the 80's did. I'm sure in 5-10 years it will look just as hokey as the originals do now. He does the job making sure the camera points in the proper direction and delivers a movie that he can be commended on for not letting us down.

The acting is all over the place, but never any good. The women are there for looks, which works. Three sets of breasts are shown and it proves that real one are always nicer then fakes. Every guy is forgettable. The only one I recognized was Ryan Hansen from Veronica Mars (2004-07) and he receives the best death of the bunch. Other than that, I'm sure we'll see plenty more of the guys when we go to buy a car in a few years and plenty more of the women in a centerfold.

My scoring here is going to seem odd, but it gets the ranking that it does because it's good for what it is and Platinum Dunes, the production company, didn't fuck it up like they did with other remakes of horror classics like The Hitcher (2007) or The Amityville Horror (2005). If you like the Jason movies, you'll enjoy it. If you've never seen one, it's a good primer. If you never liked them, it's not worth wasting you time.

8.2 out of 10

Everyone Is A Critic: Jedi Knight

One of the things I love about Netflix are the member reviews. When I find someone who interests me I add them to my followers list and keep an eye open for any new reviews.

This week we say hello to Jedi Knight. He's even cool enough to include a picture of himself and a cinematic philosophy on his profile.

JEDI KNIGHT




"I watch a lot of movies. I don't listen to film critics or other people. I make my own judgment. I'm against piracy."


Here are some highlights from a few of his seven hundred plus reviews:

Gran Torino
"Gran Torino has Oscar written all over it. Clint Eastwood gets better and better with every film he has ever done. This film does have racist innuendos, but it didn't stop me from seeing this film. I'm not a racist or prejudice in any way. I live in a town where people like me is racist against. I'll watch anything with Clint Eastwood. I hope that he wins a Best Actor Oscar and a third Best Director Oscar." Rating: 5 star

The Day The Earth Stood Still (2009)
"I'm so glad that I ignored the evil film critics. This remake is great. It is similiar to the 1951 original. I did watch the original before I saw the remake. Keanu Reeves was great at Klaatu. I liked GORT in this version a lot better than the one in the original. I recommend that you see this film." Rating: 4 star

88 Minutes
"88 Minutes is a wonderful suspense movie. Al Pacino is a great actor. It is also very fast-paced. If you are into all of the CSI and Law and Order shows, you need to watch 88 Minutes. I recommend it." Rating: 4 stars

The Bank Job
"This would have been a really good movie if it didn't have any sex and nudity in it. It had a good story, but the sex and nudity didn't need to be in it. Stay away from this movie." Rating: 2 stars

Walk Hard: The Dewy Cox Story
"This is one sick movie. Fans of Ray Charles, Johnny Cash and every artists that this movie parodies should stay away from this movie. This film has way too much nudity. I wanted to throw up after watching this movie." Rating: 1 star

And of course...

Fireproof
"Fireproof is a movie that every married and engaged couple should watch. You might learn something from watching this. It might help save your marriage or relationship." Rating: 5 stars

Review: He's Just Not That Into You

He's Just Not That Into You (2009)
starring: Ginnifer Goodwin, Ben Affleck, Justin Long, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, Kevin Connolly, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore, Bradley Cooper
dir. Ken Kwapis

I'm not going to say I was dragged to this movie. It was a bargaining chip. I saw this, so my friend would go to see Coraline. Guess which one I preferred? If you guessed this one, you're wrong.

In all honesty, it's not awful. It's predictable, it's manipulative, it's derivative, it is way too long for its own good, but I got exactly what I was expecting. Apparently some of the ladies sitting in the theater got more out of it as they audibly gasped at certain points. Men, we're such jerks. But face it ladies, the female characters we're just as bat-shit crazy as the guys were. If you can't admit that, then don't look around the room to search for the crazy chic, you're it.

Now for the good news, there could have been a good movie there. It's a real shame that nobody saw the potential. This could have worked like gangbusters if they had treated it more like Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex* (1972). I found out afterward that it was based of of some self help book, itself inspired by a Sex & The City episode. Sounds like the material Woody Allen worked with to adapt into his film, right?

The first few minutes are cute as a little girl learns that men who act like jerks secretly like them. Then a montage of women in different cultures yak back and forth about why the guy hasn't called back. It's a cute bit and has some chuckles. Then throughout the film there are monologues into the camera by random people about relationships. It's a little too When Harry Met Sally (1989), but they are funnier than anything else in the movie. A vignette angle making fun of, while pointing out realities about the ins and outs of relationships might have created a much more enjoyable film.

Of the main stories, there were two moments that stood out. One was fascinating, the other infuriating. The fascinating came when Bradley Cooper's character confesses an affair to Jennifer Connelly's wife character. (I don't even know or care what the names are.) It takes place in a Home Depot and her reaction was something that I have never seen before on screen. It is an interesting moment of self denial, on both character's parts, and makes for something that is a breif moment of reality in a very unrealistic film.

The second comes at the end when a nice idea about how a real relationship doesn't need to fall into the cliche of marrige is obliterated when a proposal comes. It's the biggest moment of bullshit and made me want to spit. Two people had matured to the point of accepting each other and deciding to be with eachother, personal vows versus public, then shot gun it with no real reason other than to manipulate the audience to an "Awe, how sweet!" moment. It was the sugar candy on top of the sugar frosting on the sugar coated cupcake. Even the cupcake sounds easier for me to swallow than most of this movie.

But the biggest crime was the missed opportunity.

3.5 out of 10

*But were afraid to ask

The Eclectic Choice: Perfume

Perfume: The Story Of A Murderer (2006)

dir. Tom Tykwer

Director Tom Tykwer broke through in America with the wild Run Lola Run (1998). Since then he remained his own man and made such diverse fair as The Princes And The Warrior (2000), Heaven (2002) and the Clive Owen thriller The International (2009). No one could predict one project leading to another and no one could predict how successful he'd be in adapting the book, Perfume: The Story Of A Murderer.

This was a novel that was claimed by many to be unfilmable. Even Stanley Kubrick said it couldn't be done! But Tykwer proved everyone wrong by creating a thrilling, humorous and scent filled movie that doesn't even require smell-o-vision to attack your olfactory lobe. Tykwer found visual and musical patterns that help create a sense of smell and a main character with motives so unique it's hard to tell if you are for him or against him.

Ben Wishaw turns in a marvelous performance as Grenouille. He moves from situation to situation encountering scent after scent until he becomes so obsessed with creating the most incredible perfume, that he resorts to a series of killings. The outcome if this adventure could never be guessed and the ending is pretty damned divisive. It's so out there I still remember saying, "What the fuck?" out loud in the theater.

Some of the acting is uneven and there are small moments with pacing problems, but it is an overall satisfying ride and very original. Derivative is a word that does not exist in this movie.

Buy it now, but don't expect this to smell pretty to everyone.

Review: Coraline

Coraline (2009)
starring voices: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Kieth David, John Hodgman, Ian McShane
dir. Henry Selick


I'm goona keep this one simple. It's too long and there is something very small that is missing that makes me not really care about Coraline getting to the end of her adventure. I think that has to do with it being too long. Running at an hour forty-five, this sucker would have been much better had it fallen in the 75-80 minute range. The drag starts kicking in around 90 minutes and they just keep piling on event after event, climax after climax. It is a common problem that should start being called LOTR syndrome.

Other than that, it's a pretty magical and beautiful film. It's filled with great character and set designs, some really nice voice work, especially by Kieth David, and a musical score that blends fantasy, chaos and that gothic touch that holds a twinge of Franz Waxman.

This is not for little kids. I was floored by how many parents were there with three and five year old kids. I was not floored by the amount of crying, screaming and demands to leave out of fear I heard during the movie. Come on parents, watch a preview, think a little, be a responsible adult and responsible movie goer. Don't take the little ones to see it, this is for the 10 and up set. Tweener girls will give it a big thumbs up. I'd much rather see fleets of girls in Coraline hoodies and backpacks than some damned Nightmare Before Christmas accoutrement. This far exceeds Selick's previous work and makes up quite a bit for the Monkeybone (2001) debacle from a few years back.

I'm still not sold on the latest 3-D craze. I can see it working with slasher films that hurl axes or machetes at the viewer. It looks fine here, but I was much more interested in the look and design of the film rather than the distance between fireplace and chair. I don't want my movies built around a gimmick, I want the story and the characters. 3-D seems to limit creativity rather than add another dimension to it. (Yes, bad pun intended.)

Not being a 13 year old girl, I'll not revisit this film as often as others, but it is well made despite time span flaws and is such a breath of fresh air to watch a form of animation that has a level of tangibility to it rather than an electronically added drop shadow.

8 out of 10

R.I.P. James Whitmore

James Whitmore 1921-2009


Whitmore is probably known to most oeople today as Brooks from The Shawshank Redemption (1994). It was a plumb role in a plumb film, but Whitmore contributed quite a bit over his 87 years on this planet.

For me, the killer role came early in his career as Gus in The Asphalt Jungle (1950), John Huston's slice of fried gold. He'd also play the cop Ben Peterson in the awesome Them! (1954). How many of us (not suffering from mental illness) can say we fought off giant radioactive ants? Other films of note include The Eddie Duchin Story (1956), Planet Of The Apes (1968), and Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970). He also did enough TV to make you wonder how the guy lived so long in the first place. It seems he was always appearing in something. 146 TV appearances and films alone.

His IMDB resume doesn't even touch the acres of stagework that he did. He played Will Rogers, Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt and had takne home a Tony at one point. The guy was "An actor's actor", according to longtime friend and fellow actor James Arness. I'd have to agree.

Sure, Whitmore isn't James Cagney or Bogart or even Sterling Hayden. But what he brought to the screen was always fun to watch and as almost everyone will say that his performance in Shawshank is endearing, heartfelt and heart-breaking. Even if you didn't know his name, he touched your soul.

Review: Che Pt. 1 (The Argentine)

Che (2008)
starring: Benecio del Toro, Demian Bichir, Rodrigo Santoro, Julia Ormond
dir. Steven Soderbergh



I find it interesting that we sit around and complain about the standard structure of the biopic and then when someone comes and messes with it, we get upset about it. It's kind of ridiculous and then I discovered Steven Soderbergh has said the same thing about his epic tale of Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Great minds think alike. But it's true, Che is unlike any other biopic and deserves kudos for beings as such.

This isn't a movie about getting us to sympathize with Guevara's cause or hating him for being a killer, but showing the process of how the Cuban revolution took place and what his feelings were about it and why he was involved. AT this the film succeeds with flying colors. Flashing between Che's trip to the UN in 1964 and his push through the jungles of Cuba as they move towards Havana, helps create the psychology and conviciton of his beliefs. It's laid out for the audience to witness and either accept or reject it, but it cannot be dissmissed that we see why he did what he did. That is the power of Soderbergh's film and the power of a one of a kind performance by Benico del Toro.

Del Toro gives a flawless turn, never playing on our sympathies or hatred. He just plays it for keeps, a man with a series of beliefs who will stick to them no matter what the cost. But it is never through grand gestures or giant monologues rousing the troops to take action. It's all about small moments and that's where this deviates from your standard biopic. This is a film about small moments and not about grand gestures or giant confrontations. It's about the brief moment of disappointment when learning Fidel wants him to train instead of lead. The passing off of a medical bag as he moves from being a doctor to become a guerrilla. A laugh shared with friends late at night around the table.

Che is a film based on the notes in between the notes. The events that seem very minor or inconsequential, but say just as much if not more about a person than the sweeping portraits that are portrayed in history books. This isn't Lawrence of Arabia (1962), because it's not intended to be. That's the greatest achievement of this film. For once a viewer is allowed to decide for themselves and not be persuaded by cinematic intervention.

Che is a man who has entered the pop culture lexicon and become representative than more than the sum of his parts. Now we can see the parts and decide for ourselves what the myth of Che Guevara means to us as individuals and not as a social conscious.

9.5 out of 10

The Eclectic Choice: Ruthless

Ruthless (1948)
dir. Edgar G. Ulmer


Ulmer was a real king of the B film world and ruthless is no exception. It may not carry over a lot of the visual flourishes from his masterpiece Detour (1945), but it is a fascinating little noir that looks at love, greed and ambition with a fun story and some pretty well drawn characters.

It's a bit like Citizen Kane (1941) with its flashback structure as we follow the life of Horace Woodruff Vendig. Opening at a party celebrating Vendig's philanthropy, we're introduced to people from his past. This triggers the flashbacks, starting with his impoverished childhood and the act of humanity that begins his cutthroat journey to the top of the investment world.

The acting is par with the exception of the always awesome Sydney Greenstreet as Buck Mansfield, the big financial fish that Vendig sets his eyes on destroying. Greenstreet is one of those character actors that light up the screen and give anything he does a level of energy and easy charm. There is a very small cameo by a mustachioed Raymond Burr that is also fun as he passes on money and advice to a young Vendig in an early flashback, but Greenstreet steals the show.

Ulmer was a filmmaker that was known for squeezing as much as possible out of a ten dollar budget. The seams always show, but there are always moments that rise above it's poverty row roots and delve into a dark side of humanity that very few big budget filmmakers could have gotten away with.

I can't really recommend a purchase though because of the quality of the print. But it's well worth a rent and discussion with fellow film nerds after.