60/60 Extra: Swingers.

A couple years ago I saw another Favreau/Vaughn film called Made, and I thought it was hilarious. I was continually told that they're even better in Swingers. But do I agree with that? The film follows Mike (Jon Favreau), who has recently broken up with his girlfriend of 6 years and moved across the country to L.A. There, with the help of friends Trent (Vince Vaughn), Rob (Ron Livingston), and Sue (Patrick Van Horn), he tries to get over her and move on with his life.

To be honest, it wasn't until about the halfway point that I "got" the movie. It was around the time of the Scorsese/Tarantino conversation (and then subsequent slow-mo walk). There is some fantastic meta stuff in this movie. But besides getting into the film based on the meta stuff, it took me a while to realize the whole point to the movie.

At first I was wondering what the point was. Frankly, I was kind of bored after a while with the film seemingly going nowhere. It was party after party, random conversation after random conversation. But when I picked up on the notion that the film was basically a study of love in its different forms, it made more sense. Mike had the painful loss of love and the awkward stance of moving on. Trent is a sad, pathetic individual who puts on a self-entitled smooth exterior. And Rob is in between, sympathizing with both sides. And all three are rather pathetic as failed actors/entertainers just trying to make it in the business they love. The film itself is like a love letter to film, as shown through the more meta moments.

The acting was good all around. Favreau was good at being awkward, depressed, and desperate. The "phone call" scene started funny... but then got painful and sad and you couldn't help but cringe and feel bad for the guy (while at the same time wanting to shake him). Livingston was good at being the friend, though there wasn't much beyond that with him. And then, of course, Vaughn did what he does best--acts annoying and never shuts up.

Due to the fact that I didn't really start liking it until about halfway through, I might eventually need to give it another watch at some point. But I can tell you that my enjoyment of it did slowly rise as the film went on. I wasn't in love with it at the end, but by the time it was over... I did feel that it was pretty money, baby.


I Am McLovin!

60/60 Extra: Dazed And Confused.

I've said in the past that I'm not one to love movies with little plot. I typically need something that pulls the story along, and it can't just be a "day in the life" kind of thing... which is precisely what Dazed and Confused is. But did this one break that mold? The film takes place on the last day of school in May 1976. The main conflicts include Pink (Jason London) not wanting to sign a form for football that means he can't drink or do drugs; a kid named Mitch (Wiley Wiggins) who is moving into his freshman year of high school and is trying to avoid the seniors, but ends up hanging out with them all night; and Mike (Adam Goldberg), Tony (Anthony Rapp), and Cynthia (Marissa Ribisi), who question their inclusion in life as they know it. The film also co-stars Rory Cochran, Joey Lauren Adams, Milla Jovovich, Cole Hauser, Ben Affleck, Parker Posey, Matthew McConaughey, and a bunch of people that didn't really become famous.

While I was still moderately bothered with the fact that essentially nothing happens during the hour and 45 minute time span, I still liked the really liked the movie. A lot of the characters come in and out of the story, some more important than others. I do think that there were a handful of unnecessary characters that bogged down the film a little bit, and it could have been slightly more focused in its unfocused...ness.

The acting was solid all around. The iffiest was probably Wiley Wiggins, but I gave that a pass considering he had the most interesting story to me. But on the whole, it's good that the acting held up, as movies like this rely on the actors since there is no real story to drive the film. However, the other best thing that drives this film is the soundtrack. I recently had a discussion with one Kai Parker who declared that this film had one of the best soundtracks ever. Now that I've seen the film, I have to agree. I really loved the soundtrack, and it held the movie together as if it were a character in and of itself. I feel the music was really at the heart of this film.

In the end, it's hard for me to say how I really feel about the movie. It was fun and charming, but the lack of cohesion makes it not my cup of tea. So while I did end up liking it quite a bit, it's not one I can say I would be revisiting over and over. However, I might just have to get the soundtrack, because that is something I could check out frequently. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative or trying to discourage anyone from this film. It's actually really well done. It's just, again, not my favorite type of movie.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. For the record, I had a tough time choosing between this and a Keanu 'Whoa'. So, needless to say, this is on the higher end of this rating.)

60/60 Extra: Boogie Nights.

This is going to be one of those difficult reviews. Where do you even start with a movie like this? Well, I guess we can start with expectations. Paul Thomas Anderson has four major films. I've now seen three of them. I really liked There Will Be Blood, though it had its problems. I hated Magnolia, though I need to see it again. And from what I've heard, Punch-Drunk Love is a love it or hate it kind of movie, with a majority leading toward the latter. I also saw the 2.5-hour time span of this film and thought "great, another super-long drama." Fortunately, that's only partially true.

The film is about the ups and downs of the porn industry and everybody involved with it in the 70s and 80s. Leading the cast is Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler, a high school drop-out who wants to make something out of himself based on the fact he has a huge... talent. He teams up with director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and his wife(?), Amber Waves (Julianne Moore). He befriends another couple of porn stars named Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Also on tap are Don Cheadle, Luis Guzman, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Thomas Jane, and Alfred Molina. (And holy crap, Tom Lenk was in this? Buffy fans know who I'm talkin' about. Twas his first role, apparently.)

So yeah, obviously, this has one epic cast. I'm not even going to bother talking about the acting, because it's all pretty stellar. And they were backed up with some fantastic writing, to boot. What I was most surprised about was how funny this movie was. IMDb labels it as a straight drama. I mean, I should have known from There Will Be Blood, but still. The first hour and a half (and/or the 70s segment) had me laughing out loud at times. There are definitely some fantastic quotes in this film.

But then came the drama. The last hour of the movie (and/or the 80s segment) is practically straight drama, which was an rough transition from the lighter fare of the first 90 minutes. I thought the following 25-30 minutes was difficult to get through. I thought it dragged, bringing the what had up until then been excellent pacing down to almost a halt. Fortunately, it does pick up again. Right before the 2-hour mark, in maybe the last 30 or so minutes of the movie, it grabbed my attention again. This is the part where everybody's lives have hit rock bottom. Don Cheadle can't catch a break; Wahlberg, Reilly, and Jane are failures; and Reynolds and Graham have sold out--and all of this comes to a head in a great moment.

Besides that little rough patch, I thought the film was fantastic. The camera work, the style, and the editing were superb. And I thought the music was decent for the most part, but when you have a mixture of Jessie's Girl and 99 Luft Balloons during a shootout, you have some geniuses at work. I said this was a tough review because reviews that rave are dull to write and boring to read. I suppose if I wanted to spark some conversation, I would say this: There's some serious reverse-Oedipus Complex stuff going on here. The mom at the beginning came off as jealous that her son/Wahlberg was getting off with another girl (and/or posters), and Julianne Moore constantly saw Wahlberg as her son... and then banged him continually. That's all I have to say, so I'll just leave it at that.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. ...Penis.)

60/60 Extra: Brokeback Mountain.

I want to start off by saying that, although I live in Texas, I am not homophobic in any way, shape, or form. I fully support the GLBT community. The only reason it has taken me this long to see this movie is, well... I just never got around to it. That being said, let's get into the review. It's almost pointless to talk about the plot, because everybody knows what this is just by the title. Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) are two cowboys who get a job wrangling sheep on Brokeback Mountain one summer. They grow close--very close. The job ends and they move on to their normal lives, having relationships and building families. Ennis marries Alma (Michelle Williams), and Jack hooks up with Lureen (Anne Hathaway). But their relationship with each other rekindles, though it slowly destroys both their lives.

I know this film won 3 Oscars (including adapted screenplay, as it was adapted from a short story) and was nominated for more. But... I just couldn't get into it. I didn't find it all that interesting. Now, the idea behind it is interesting--two guys share a romance that tears apart their personal lives during a time when such relationships are forbidden. There's room for great conflict, great drama, and great character development. But I wonder if the fact it came from a short story and was turned into a 2+ hour movie is a bit telling. I don't think there was enough plot to stretch it into such a long movie. Because of this, I was mostly just bored.

What saved the movie was the acting from the two leads. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are fantastic. Ledger, though, was the standout to me between the two, which makes it even sadder to me that he's gone. I didn't care for the female leads, though. Michelle Williams seemed awkward and forced, like she wasn't quite sure she knew what she was doing. And Anne Hathaway almost felt out of place. Apparently Anna Faris was in this movie, too, but I must have blinked, because when her name came up in the credits at the end, I did a double-take.

Overall, I appreciate what this movie did for the GLBT community, and I really liked the two male performances. However, it could have been trimmed down, as I mostly just found it rather dull. I mostly blame me not caring for Ang Lee, though. This is the fourth film of his I've seen, and only one of those four I didn't find particularly dry--which is funny, considering it was the one based on a Jane Austen novel. (Crouching Tiger was good, but rather slow at times itself. Don't even get me started on Hulk.) So I'll just leave it at that.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: Dead Alive.

It was a shock to a handful of people that I'd never seen this movie... which isn't entirely true. I'd seen at least part of the lawnmower scene! Anyway, despite having known about this movie since I was a wee lad, it turns out I didn't know much of anything about this movie (story-wise), as I thought it was something totally different than what it turned out to be. Lionel (Timothy Balme) is a momma's boy to the extreme, doing anything and everything for his mum (Elizabeth Moody) to make sure she stays happy. But when a young woman named Paquita (Diana Penalver) starts to take an interest in him, he begins to get conflicted. However, while spying on one of their dates, Lionel's mother gets bitten by a rat-monkey from Skull Island (yes, that Skull Island) that infects her until she dies and reanimates as a zombie. She eventually infects others as well until everything culminates into a massacre at their house.

Also for those unaware, this was actually directed by none other than Peter Jackson (I did know that one). So the film does have some chops behind it. Strangely, however, I felt the visual style was reminiscent of Sam Raimi (or possibly early Tim Burton at times). It had a very Raimi feel to it, though, with the gore and gross-out factor.

And holy crap is this movie heavy on the gross and gore. Granted, it's done in a cheesy, insanely over-the-top way... but that doesn't stop it from being the goriest movie ever made (a title which I still believe it holds). I knew it had a lot of blood and gross things, but I honestly didn't expect what I got. It's really not for those with a weak stomach, as even I thought I was going to get queasy once or twice.

There are also some fantastic moments in this film. The climax in and of itself is masterful, and you can tell how it's a classic bit. But even some lines throughout are hilarious in their absurdity. My favorites in particular are "I kick ass for the Lord!" and "Your mother ate my dog!" It's not all blood and guts, though. There's a sweet romance at the core of the film, and you really want Lionel and Piquita to end up together.

Overall, if you like horror/comedies or you're a gore-hound... you've most likely already seen this. But in the off chance you haven't, definitely check it out. It's fantastically cheesy, gross, disgusting, and awesome all at the same time. I know I didn't say anything too deep about this film, but there's not all that much you can say. It's one of those films you'll either really dig or really won't... and for very simple reasons. But me? I dug it... quite a bit.


Royale With Cheese

60/60 Extra: The Changeling.

I'm relatively sure this one was a victim of hype. After all, when everybody and their mother tells you that The Changeling is one of the greatest ghost story movies ever made, you go into it with rather high expectations. But before you grab your torches and pitchforks, let me actually give you my thoughts. The film has a unique story in that John (George C. Scott) has recently lost his wife and daughter in an accident. He moves to Seattle where the historical society puts him up in an old mansion. However, strange things start happening, and he starts to figure out that the history behind what happened in the house might involve a bigger cover-up than one might think.

Besides the hype, I think the one disadvantage going into the film was that I'd seen dozens of ghost films... and all the tropes are the same. It might have been more original in 1980, but I literally knew every little thing that was going to happen (scare wise). Because of this, the film really wasn't scary whatsoever. It was just too predictable. There was one big that freaked me out, though. Despite seeing it coming a mile away (no pun intended), the moment following getting rid of his daughter's bouncy ball made me jump and gave me chills. I think it was more for the sound play than the event, though.

Speaking of, they probably could have played more with the fact he lost his wife and daughter. Besides the aforementioned scene, the only purpose it plays is a catalyst for his move and is never truly utilized within the plot. The story almost entirely focused on the current mystery.

All of that aside, it reminded me of a mixture of The Orphanage and Stir of Echoes (but grander in scale in conspiracy). It also felt strangely of J-Horror. I can see a lot of influences--or at the very least similarities--in modern Asian ghost stories from this film. The story itself was more intricate with the ghost itself wanting vengeance for what happened. Not to mention the ending was totally bizarre and rather metaphysical.

Another more unique turn of events for this film is how it paces itself. By the end of the first hour, you learn the Who, What, When, Where, and How. After another 10 minutes, you learn the Why (and another Who). I wondered what could possibly be left to do. But the last 35 minutes take an interesting direction and show us how the characters deal with the information they've learned. Whereas in most ghost stories, once you learn the mystery, it's fixed in minutes and that's about it. Here, you learn the mystery and still have a whole other third of the film left for them to try and find a solution.

Overall, the movie was slow paced at times (particularly in the first 30-40 minutes). The first hour (the true ghost story aspect) was quite predictable, but only predictable because I've seen all the films that have followed since. With the exception of maybe one moment, it wasn't very scary--it was more creepy and atmospheric. But it was still quite a solidly made film, especially for its time, and I especially recommend it if you're one who loves ghost stories and/or gets scared a little more easily than I do. It does have some unique takes on the genre, even by today's standards--the Title issue being the most unique. I recommend it.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. I do have to mention the "wheelchair" scene at the climax. That might have been terrifying when this first came out, but dear God was I trying to hold in my laughter at how ridiculous that looked. The boy's voice, too, was marginally silly.)

60/60 Extra: The Lost Boys.

Premise: A guy gets turned into a vampire, so his little brother must team up with some comic book store workers to find and kill the leader before it's too late.

Starring: Jason Patric, Kiefer Sutherland, Corey Haim, Corey Feldman, Dianne Wiest, and Edward Herrmann.

My Reaction: This movie was just plain fun. It's not the most fantastic film ever, but it's really enjoyable. There's so much WTF and coolness to it. I mean, the shirtless, hardcore saxaphone player? How can you watch that and not laugh at it's strange, hilarious awesomeness (especially the fact that Corey Haim is more interested in watching him than hot females). It's totally not a perfect film, and it has its flaws. For instance, I don't think they could have said "Michael" or any variation thereof any more. Click here if you don't believe me. It's a cheesy 80s "horror" film. It's not great, but it's fun. And click here for the best scene in the whole movie.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. You'll notice this was out of the original order. Dead Alive was to go here, but literally the day I was going to watch it was the day it left Instant Streaming, so I had to switch these two to give myself a little extra time.)

60/60 Extra: Casino.

Note: For only the second time in this project, I will have to use the short review format.

------------------------

Premise: Two mobster friends have troubles while running a Casino in Vegas... or something.

Starring: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone, James Woods, Kevin Pollack, and Don Rickles.

My Reaction: I can't emphasize enough... how little I cared about this movie. It's not that I didn't care for it. It's that I just really didn't care. It starts out somewhat stylish enough with an interesting alternating voice-over and whatnot. But that just keeps going. After 40 minutes of voice-over explanations and no real story to speak of... it lost me. I'll be honest--I just started chatting it up with my podcast co-host, Steve for the next 2 and a half hours or however long I had left in this way-too-long movie. Yeah, I was still paying half attention to the movie, but it was so dull and uninteresting to me I just couldn't care less. It's not a poorly made film on a technical or acting level. Not at all. It was just yet another flick that wasn't for me. Sorry.


Feed Me, Seymour!

(P.S. Only for quality purposes and random bits of intrigue do I give it this high of a rating. It certainly doesn't deserve to be in the same lower ratings as some of the other films I've seen. Again, I don't think it was bad--I just didn't care.)

(P.P.S. Just to spur things on even more... I, funnily enough, wrote this review while I was only half-paying attention, as well. I was watching television of some sort.)

60/60 Extra: Carlito's Way.

This is the third Brian de Palma film in a row for this month, and it seems they've been decreasing in my favor as they went. I loved The Untouchables. Scarface was alright, though overrated. And then there's Carlito's Way. The film follows Carlito (Al Pacino), a man who has recently gotten out of jail thanks to some info that his lawyer, David (Sean Penn), found about his arrest. But instead of getting into trouble again, Carlito wants to keep clean and go straight. But with people like Benny (John Leguizamo), Pachanga (Luis Guzman), and Lalin (Viggo Mortensen), he finds it harder and harder to keep out of things.

I'm probably going to get some flak for this, but I really did not care for this film. Everything just felt... wrong. Let me try to explain what I mean. It almost seemed as if this film was a joke. The overall tone I took from the film was... goofy. The acting, the music, the costuming and characters... it just felt silly. Don't even get me started on that horrid voice-over narration.

The acting was painful, at least to me. Sean Penn was good, I suppose, but Pacino drove me crazy. His accent was bizarre, and the way he delivered his lines was just strange. I know I'm sounding repetitive, but that's the best way I can describe it. And then there was Viggo Mortensen. It wasn't until halfway through his scene that I even realized it was him... he was so unrecognizable. And it was that scene when I first realized how ridiculously goofy the movie was.

As for the music... I suppose the songs themselves were good, but their use was more cheesy than anything. The best example of this is a love scene between Pacino and the main female... set to Joe Cocker's "You Are So Beautiful." I'm not kidding. It was so painfully bad. I couldn't stop thinking about how much of a joke everything seemed.

If I were to give a compliment to this film, I'd say the last 15-20 minutes. The climax of the film is tense and nicely done. And the whole scene on the escalator (what is it with de Palma and escalators?) was fantastic. But otherwise, the movie was, again, goofy and came off like a joke. The voice-over was bad, something about Pacino was off, the use of music was cheesy... and, yes, the movie was too long for what it was. Needless to say, it wasn't one of my favorites. There were some things in it I liked, and I didn't hate it or anything. It was just... not for me.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: The Untouchables.

I said last time I was surprised how I liked the first film of this month so much. Let's make that 2 for 2. This one takes place during the Prohibition during the reign of Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Treasury Agent Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) is out to get him, so he puts together a team including beat cop Jim Malone (Sean Connery), Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), and a young rookie named George Stone (Andy Garcia). Together they become known as the Untouchables, as they are somehow beyond the law, yet cannot be bribed or turned dirty. Patricia Clarkson also co-stars as Ness' wife.

I was into this movie from the opening credits. Why? The music. I think that had a big reason as to why I enjoyed this movie so much. The score of this film is absolutely fantastic. But that shouldn't be a big surprise. Doing a bit of looking about, the composer is the same man who composed, among many other things, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (then again, he also did Salo...). But anyway, I just loved the score from opening to closing.

The film is also very well paced. It's 2 hours long and, in something quite rare lately, I didn't feel that length. In fact, the only reason I would look at the clock was because I watched it at a late hour and needed to see how much time I had left before I had to get to bed. So, yes, it held me captivated, and I never felt it really dragged at all.

The acting was both a strength and a weakness. Sean Connery was fantastic, and he was my favorite character in the film. Dr Niro and Garcia ate up their scenes in their respective ways. Costner was fine, though his character was relatively dull... at least in comparison to the others. But I think he acted it to the best of his abilities.

There's also some good action, though at times it can get a bit cheesy. There's a particular scene with a baby carriage (with a long setup) and a long slow-motion shootout that comes to mind. It's a fun scene in a strange way, but it's also very silly at the same time. I don't hold it as a detriment to the film, though. It's charming in its own way.

And I think that's the best way I can describe the film. Sure, it's violent and gritty at times, but there's a certain charm to it. The music, the characters, the action, the dialogue... it just has a great charm to it all. Most movie reviewers will tell you that positive reviews are much more difficult to write than negative ones, so I'll just leave it at this. It's a fun film, and I recommend it to those who like the crime genre who have not yet seen it.


Royale With Cheese

60/60 Extra: Murder On The Orient Express.

The more I see of Sidney Lumet, the more I love this guy. It started with 12 Angry Men (which is still my favorite). Then Dog Day Afternoon. Then... Before The Devil Knows You're Dead, which... unfortunately... I didn't really like (it was too dark and serious for my tastes). Find Me Guilty was in there somewhere, which sports a Vin Diesel with hair and acting. Next was Network, which I saw earlier this year for this project. And now, finally, this one.

Based on the Agatha Christie novel, Murder on the Orient Express gives us an all-star cast all stuck on a train where a murder has taken place. On the train is detective Poirot (Albert Finney), who sets out to discover who could have killed this person and why. Among those joining Mr. Finney in this film include Lauren Bacall, Martin Balsam, Ingrid Bergman, Jean-Pierre Cassel (who is actually father of Vincent Cassel), Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael York, and Sean Connery.

I only have one complaint, which is that the movie takes 40 minutes for anything to happen. Granted, it's not a wasted 40 minutes. It's used to introduce all the characters (and there are over a dozen), as well as a few scenarios that take place around the time of the murder, which are recalled again at the end of the film. Despite it being necessary, I wonder if it could have been tinkered with a bit to shrink it down any.

The acting is all fine and relatively quirky (particularly Albert Finney). But the one I wanted to point out was Anthony Perkins, obviously famous for Psycho. I thought while watching this that, boy, was he doing his best Jimmy Stewart impression. Nothing else to add... just wanted to make that note.

I did know the twist for this film going into it, unfortunately. But it only took away partial suspense. Even though I knew the "who," I was left curious as to the "how" and "why." Of course, I would have preferred knowing nothing, but knowing what I did, I still wasn't bored with the film. If you haven't seen the film and don't know the twist, I suggest going into it like that. It'll be a much more fun surprise.

The last thing I wanted to cover was the tone of the film. It deals with a very serious subject matter, but on the whole it's handled like Clue. It's a relatively light movie (with the exception of the flashback at the end that shows how it was done and whatnot). And there's some really quirky comedy--again, particularly from Finney, who is just strange in his brilliance. But the part that really sets it up more lightly is the music, particularly at the beginning and end. I went with it at the beginning, but the ending music threw me off, especially coming right after a bunch of serious stuff. So I suppose in that regard, there were some tonal issues, but nothing major enough for it to ruin the film.

So check it out if you haven't already. I don't think it's perfect, but it's a damn fine mystery. It was personally fun to see a collection of all these actors and actresses I've come to see over this project get together, as if everything were almost leading to this film. I know I didn't say a whole lot about the film itself, but what is there to say, really? If you like mysteries, it's one you can't pass up. Good stuff.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Extra: The Hot Rock.

So, I bumped this review back to give myself more time to finish the novel. Well, that didn't happen. Life got busy. And I didn't get incredibly far, either. But from what I got from it, I enjoyed it. The novel is a totally quick and quirky comedy heist story with larger-than-life characters and scenarios. I was particularly excited for the film version, as well. First off, it stars Robert Redford, who I've loved in both films I've watched of his for this project. Second, the screenplay was done by William Goldman, who also wrote/adapted Butch Cassidy, Heat, and The Princess Bride. So I figure if anyone can capture this novel with its characters and dialogue, he can. To top it all off, the premise is outstanding.

So color me disappointed.

The Hot Rock gives us the story of John Dortmunder (Robert Redford), a recently released criminal who immediately gets a heist job from his brother-in-law, Kelp (George Segal). A man named Dr. Amusa (Moses Gunn) wants a special diamond being held in a museum because it is symbolic for his people in an African nation. So they put a team together that also includes Murch (Rob Leibman) and Greenberg (Paul Sand). Unfortunately, despite their brilliant plans, things don't go so well, and everything starts going downhill. This leads them on a wild mission that forces them to have to pull heist after heist to try and steal this diamond again and again.

Perhaps it's better I didn't finish the novel, as I might have enjoyed the film even less. This novel would probably be excellently adapted in the hands of, say, The Coen Brothers (though it doesn't typically meet their standards of violence or absurd endings). This particular adaptation, however, really failed to grab the quirk and humor of the novel. I did notice it was somewhat there in the script, so maybe it wasn't totally the fault of William Goldman.

This brings me to my next point--the actors/directing. The story is played so straight and the actors so flat, it's no wonder the movie felt lifeless. That was my biggest problem. There was no fun or excitement that would typically go with, really, any heist comedy. None of the actors have chemistry with each other. There's no life to their words (especially Redford, which saddens me). At the very least, Dortmunder is the straight man of the bunch, but he's also like the Danny Ocean. But he was not smooth or charming. He was just... dull.

The music (or lack thereof) is also partly to blame. When there was a soundtrack, it never really did anything to elevate the mood. But the majority of the time, there was nothing. Now, I've run across a handful of films on this list alone that have been able to pull off the nearly empty soundtrack yet still give us a tight film. This was not one of them. It desperately needed... something.

I do think, though, on the whole, that it wasn't a bad film. It just could have been so much better. As it is, it's OK. I know I said a bunch of negative, but it was still somewhat fun to see the different heists and whatnot (even if I don't agree with how they do the last one). And you might wonder what my thoughts would be had I not compared it to the book. Keep in mind--I only got maybe 25% through the book. Even if I hadn't read what I did, I still would have felt the same about the blandness, especially in comparison to its potential based on the premise alone. Oh well...


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: The French Connection.

Man, this was a tough one. I'm gonna get Hell for this one... so let's just get this over with. The film follows two cops in the narcotics unit, the foul-mouthed 'Popeye' Doyle (Gene Hackman) and his partner, Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider). They start getting wind of a big drug deal about to go down, so they spend a couple months following its suspects and staking everything out before they make their move. But there's a French connection--a French man who has come to the States in order to make the deal.

This might sound confusing to those who read the Heat review, but my issues with this film are almost the exact opposite reasons of my issues with that film... but at the same time, almost the exact same reasons. Let me explain. As I mentioned, Heat had too many unnecessary subplots that tried to deepen the characters but ended up just staying at a shallow level and never amounted to much. Despite this, I could follow that film easily and always knew--and even, at times, cared--what was going on. This film had no subplots. It didn't try to make its characters very three-dimensional whatsoever, with the exception of the last minute of the film (which I'll get to later). And even watching with my fullest attention, I had a hard time following or caring much about anything.

First and foremost, I didn't give a damn about any of the characters. And it wasn't because I disagreed with their personalities or anything like that. They just felt so foreign (no pun intended). Almost nothing about their personal lives was explored. All we saw of them, for the most part, was them following people for the entire movie. I just... felt nothing for these characters. And if I can't get invested in the characters, then... you're gonna have a hard time grabbing me for the movie.

Of all the kinds of "cops" films out there, the narcotics/drugs ones always tend to be my least favorite (Training Day notwithstanding). They just don't really catch my interest. So, as with Training Day, they tend to need to catch me with great characters and some fine acting. They've already lost me on the characters. Can they at least make up for it in the acting?

Gene Hackman does the best with what he's given. And as he's the main character, I'm happy for that. He's at least interesting as the "bad cop," the one with the attitude. I suppose maybe because of the time the movie was made, but I would have liked to have seen more with the character. Besides that, he has a moment in the last minute of the film where you notice he's really lost it due to his obsession. And then you get the ending--which I think might have worked better had they stopped there and left it ambiguous. But whatever.

There are two scenes that I feel should be mentioned, both involving trains. First is my favorite scene in the film: Gene Hackman is following the French dude into a subway station, but the Frenchman knows he's being followed. So he keeps getting on and off the trains at that station to throw off Hackman, and Hackman keeps having to come up with excuses to follow him on and off the trains. It's almost a comedy routine, but I found it pretty clever. The other scene is the famous "still holds up today/most epic scene ever" car vs. train chase scene. Going in, I heard nothing but excellent things about this, and I was waiting just to see this bucket of awesomeness. And then it happened and... I was so sorely let down. Not only is about half the car part done in first person so you're rarely even seeing the car as it speeds on, but the car and train are almost never shown in the same shot. It gives a feeling that it's not really a race as much as two separate scenes juxtaposed against each other. And on top of that, almost literally the entire thing has Gene Hackman honking that damn horn, and it got really annoying pretty fast.

I'm just gonna end this review there. On the whole, I can say that director William Friedkin made a solid film. "WHAT?" you say, after I just finished ripping it apart. No, I think that on a technical level, this movie isn't bad. I mean, Hell, it won 5 Oscars, after all (nominated for 8). And you know the guy is a talented director. Right after making this, he went on to direct The Exorcist, nominated for 10 Oscars (winning 2). (Coincidentally, co-star Roy Scheider was only 4 years away from starring in a little known horror film of his own.) Anyway, all of my issues with this movie are--for the most part--purely personal. The story and the characters and the filmmaking, etc., weren't bad by any means. They just weren't what I want and like in a film. Hence, that's why I feel this was a tough one.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: Strangers On A Train.

I think I've reached that time of the month where I'm just kinda bored with the theme and am ready for something new and different. Though I'm not saying this was bad, either. Let's just get into it. Bruno (Robert Walker) seems like a nice enough guy at first, but you slowly realize he's quite the psychotic socialite when he begins chatting up pro tennis player Guy (Farley Granger). He has the crazy idea to commit the perfect murder: In order to avoid getting caught with motive, swap murders with a complete stranger. Guy blows this off at first until Bruno kills Guy's wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers), so that he can be with his true love, Anne (Ruth Roman). Now Bruno waits, expecting Guy to knock off his father, and when that doesn't come... he starts getting a bit too obsessive.

It's funny that the next Hitchcock film I have planned to watch after seeing Horrible Bosses is Strangers on a Train. (If you haven't seen the former yet, it takes some inspiration from and even references the latter on multiple occasions.) Anyway, thankfully that didn't detract too much from seeing the film, since the overall story is much different. Still, though... I found it hard to stay focused at times.

I think a lot of that had to do with the pacing. The whole movie seems to go from interesting moment to completely dull moment way too often. It's more prevalent in the first hour, I feel. But after the damn near perfect pacing of Rear Window, this one seemed more of a let down. The build up is strange as it almost takes too long but then ends abruptly on the first kill. I totally wasn't expecting it right then (despite the fact he literally stalks her out in the open like an idiot for 10+ minutes of the film). I will say, though, that Miriam's death scene is hands down one of the best shot murder scenes I've ever seen on film. The reflection through her glasses is totally surreal and fantastic, and it's easily the best part of the entire movie.

Besides that, the best part comes from Robert Walker in the last 30-40 minutes of the movie. You know he's a bit crazy before this point, but it's here when you really start feeling uncomfortable suspense, like he can do anything whenever he wants to. There are some fantastic moments of suspense, including a part where Guy is leaving Bruno's house very slowly, since there's a bit of danger involved. I knew there was still 20 minutes left, but I honestly had no idea whether or not Guy would die--that wouldn't have surprised me with Hitchcock at all.

Overall, it was a good film with some problems here and there. I think it could have been a bit tighter, personally (but what do I know?). The symbolism of the tennis match juxtaposed against the lighter bit didn't hit me right away, but even after I got it, I felt maybe the editing could have been slightly different. By the time we reached the relatively cool climax on the merry-go-round, I had nearly lost interest in the film. Again, that's not to say it's a bad film... I just think it was a mix of things in the timing of my viewing (and I don't mean due to Horrible Bosses). I'll probably like it more in the future, but I'll just leave it as is for now.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. For the first time this month, I actually saw Hitchcock's cameo--though to be fair, it's probably been the most blatant of the bunch.)

60/60 Extra: The Birds.

I've always known of this film, even as a little boy. There's a certain time of the year, every year, here where I live where hundreds and hundreds of blackbirds pack the power lines, bridges, etc., and are always cloaking the sky. My mother would always make the joke "The Birds!" in reference to this film. But now I've finally seen it. I wasn't sure how I was going to feel going into it. There are very few older horror films that are scary to people of this modern age. And after two let-downs in a row, I was starting to get nervous.

The Birds focuses on the daughter of a San Francisco newspaper mogul, Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren). She makes acquaintance with a young lawyer named Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), who plays a prank on her to get her back for something she had done in a courtroom a while back. This perks her interest, so she decides to return the favor by following him to his hometown for the weekend to deliver a pair of lovebirds for his little sister's (Veronica Cartwright) birthday, since his joke on her involved this information. While she's there, however, all the birds start acting funny and attacking the townsfolk, and they must barricade themselves inside to stay alive. The film also stars Jessica Tandy as Mitch's mother.

I liken the film to Jaws for a few reasons, outside the obvious "animal attack" genre. Both movies are roughly 2 hours long, and the first hour of each is more focused on character building and giving us the setting than anything else. Sure, both have minor attacks here and there, but it's mainly a slow build to the good stuff. Then, of course, the second hour has all Hell break loose. Both even have a relatively older person who is an expert on the animal in question.

First I'd like to talk about the first hour. It's strange, because I simultaneously really liked it but had issues with most of it. The character of Melanie is not a good person. In fact (much like James Stewart in the second half of Vertigo), she's a total creeper. She goes out of her way to stalk this man she doesn't even know, being vague about her reasoning, and admitting she doesn't know the guy or his family, but wants to know where they live--all the while with a smile on her face. Not to mention she tracks down his 11-year-old sister's school teacher to find out her name, then further admits she doesn't know her, but wants to give her a present. Tell me how that doesn't come off like a pedophile. And nobody in the town does anything about it. They might give her a strange look at first, but they just go along with it! Then there's the relationship between Mitch and his mother that comes off more incestuous than how they explain it in the film.

But after a while, the setup starts to become a bit much. Sure, I suppose almost everything was necessary to set up characters and whatnot, but there could have been plenty to cut down on. It didn't need to last as long as it did. Fortunately, it's not too dull. The relationship between Melanie and Mitch is fun and entertaining. Hitchcock also throws in some quirky humor here and there (I particularly laughed at one bit where she's driving like a crazy person, and the lovebirds in the cage are leaning left and right to match the turns). If there hadn't been the chemistry between the characters, I would have had a bigger problem with the first hour, but overall it seems to work.

Then the second hour starts and the real horror begins. Talk about freaky stuff. There were some truly terrifying moments in this film. I'll tell you what--I dozed off a couple times near the end (due to the time of night, not the movie itself), and I was still feeling the suspense and freaky-ness just hearing flapping of wings and other sound effects, which would startle me back awake and focused. That's how intense the movie gets (and all without a soundtrack!). And although the effects and/or how they filmed some of the bird scenes seems old or dated now, it's sure mind-blowing how he pulled it off for the early 60s.

If I found fault in any of the attack scenes, it would actually be in one of the most famous scenes in the film. Melanie and Mitch are in a restaurant as the birds start attacking, then she ends up trapped in a phone booth and watches the entire town being attacked. First, why the heck would over half the people in the restaurant run out onto the street when the killer birds start attacking people? Why leave safety for no reason? And then once Melanie is trapped in the phone booth, she knows the birds eventually stop attacking in their pattern, but she tries to open the door at least 3 times with birds flying right at her (and this is before they start breaking the glass). None of that made any sense to me. Stay inside!

Otherwise, the movie is pretty damn good. It's quite scary (in the same way Jaws is scary), the chemistry between the leads is good, and the effects are fascinating for the time period (I do know that he used real birds, though sometimes they were there and sometimes they were superimposed or something). If you like this kind of movie, and haven't seen this already, definitely check it out.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Extra: Psycho.

Warning: If, for whatever reason, you don't already know really anything about Psycho and are curious to see it, there are spoilers ahead. But I'm sure there can't be many of you out there.

------------

Psycho is considered by quite a few (apparently) as Hitchcock's best, or at least as a fan favorite. Regardless, it's the one everybody knows. But that also means it had the highest possibility of disappointment going in... but was I? The story at first focuses on Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a young woman who ends up stealing $40,000 and running away. On the road for hours, she ends up at Bates Motel, run by shy nice guy Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Norman, however, starts to show all is not what it seems when he begins having mommy issues... and peeks through a hole in the wall to spy on Marion in her room. And then Marion is killed in the shower (spoiler?), and the rest of the movie has a private detective named Arbogast (Martin Balsam), as well as Marion's boyfriend Sam (John Gavin) and sister Lila (Vera Miles), trying to find her.

So I'll start off with the admission: Unfortunately, to me, Psycho suffered from a mix of "classic film overhype downfall" and "I knew everything about it already anyway." And that's a hard mix to get over on your first viewing. For the first hour, I was pretty dang bored. The first 30 minutes is just Marion's personal life, stealing the money, and making a run for it. There's some suspense here and there with cops and whatnot, but she's such an unlikable character that I didn't care. The next 30 minutes is the most famous part of the movie. She shows up at the Bates Motel, Norman gives some classic lines ("We all go a little mad sometimes"), and we see the classic shower scene. But that whole part of the movie, while good, was so inundated in my movie knowledge--as it is with most movie fans--that I felt like I'd seen it a hundred times already.

However, we move into the last 45 minutes or so, which is the part of the movie I didn't know much about at all. The film becomes more of a detective mystery (despite knowing the mystery upfront), and it picked up quite a bit for me here. The film garnered some suspense because, even though you know Norman isn't the good guy, you somehow don't want him to get caught. But then, during the last 10 minutes of the movie, we're dragged to a halt. We get nothing but exposition here. It's a guy telling us the psychosis behind Norman and why he acted the way he did. Some of it was interesting, but a lot of it did drag.

The acting was decent, primarily from Anthony Perkins, who was the highlight of the movie. I felt the movie suffered when he wasn't on screen, as his moments were the best. And it was interesting to see Martin Balsam in something outside of 12 Angry Men. Everyone else, though... they were good, but it suffered from "classic acting" syndrome, which I think is a bit strange for a movie in the 60s, but maybe not. Not to mention it's strange that this movie feels more dated than Rope, a film made 12 years prior.

Overall, it was good, but I think I was too hyped on it (again, mixed with knowing almost everything major about it). Because of knowing most of it, I felt the suspense was very little. If you're going to watch classic mystery/thriller or Hitchcock, however, it's an essential. Definitely watch it for Anthony Perkins' performance. Otherwise, and especially if you know most of the twists and whatnot, try not to go into it with the mindset that you're about to watch one of the greatest director's greatest movies... or, like me, you'll leave disappointed.


I Am McLovin!

60/60 Extra: I Spit On Your Grave (1978).

I'm starting to catch one of the biggest downfalls of the 60/60 formula that I'm picking up on a lot. It usually happens around the end of the month, and it's where I find myself saying or thinking "Had I seen this movie at a different time..." or "Had I not just seen 5 other movies just like it..." and things like that. And now it makes me feel even worse, because it makes me feel jaded or desensitized. But after all the messed up stuff I've seen in the last few weeks, it really is like "Oh... a movie with rape. Again." Followed soon by "Oh... absurd violence. Again." And there's still one after this!

I Spit On Your Grave tells the story of a young woman named Jennifer (Camille Keaton) who rents a summer house to write her first novel. But then four guys including Johnny (Eron Tabor), Stanley (Anthony Nichols), Andy (Gunter Kleemann), and the mentally handicapped Matthew (Richard Pace), get together and rape and assault her. They leave her for dead, but she recuperates and plots revenge. Then, one by one, she hunts them down and takes care of them.

To be fair, I literally almost saw this same movie about 2 weeks ago in Irreversible. A 20-minute (or so) rape scene that causes intense violence in retribution to follow. Granted, with Irreversible, the violence happens before the rape since the movie happens in reverse chronological order. But you still get the idea. But on the whole, this movie just kinda... bored me. It takes way too long to get going. The first 25 minutes is all set up to characters that won't have any kind of development and you don't really care for (except maybe Matthew, which made me wonder what Woody Allen was doing in a 70s horror/exploitation flick... probably a funnier joke if you've seen the movie). Then they drag the rape out way too long. And the thing is--it's not even 20 minutes of rape. It's like, 1 minute of rape and over-the-top acting, then 5 minutes of nothing mixed with some running away. Rinse and repeat... 3 times. After that is another long 20-25-minute segment where literally almost nothing happens. She's recuperating and the guys get paranoid about what they've done.

It's not really until the last 20 or 25 minutes that the revenge happens. And even then, with the exception of maybe the bathtub scene, it's all rather dull and unexciting if you're looking at it from a horror movie aspect. I was more disturbed and thrilled by Freaks, which was made 46 years before this. But, again, it could just be due to placement on this list. There've been many a person scarred by this movie, apparently. But, to me, it really wasn't all that shocking.

On a technical aspect, everything is pretty unrealistic. I've seen more realistic sex from Tommy Wiseau (and we know how he likes his bellybuttons... and that could also be considered rape because, honestly... would you have consensual sex with Tommy Wiseau? But now I'm getting off topic...). One of the rapes in particular was just so ridiculous it completely threw me out of the movie. It was more like he was having a seizure--or maybe he had too much herbal essence shampoo--who knows? Not to mention all the guys would lay down and get off completely flaccid. As for the revenge violence, once we finally get to that point, the bathtub scene (again) is probably the only intense moment... even though with the angle of her arm mixed with what we last saw and what we see right after, it seems she's holding the blade straight instead of sideways, which makes absolutely no sense.

Is it a good movie? Not really. Even viewing it as an exploitation flick, I was bored. Is it worth watching for any sort of historical value to cinema? Nope. I mean, the film isn't God awful. I didn't hate it or anything. I was just bored by it. Maybe it was too hyped up as one of the most messed up movies ever. Maybe it was just viewed at the wrong time. Either way, it was just... there.


Feed Me, Seymour!

60/60 Extra: Irreversible.

I went into this movie relatively cold. All I knew about it was that it had an infamous rape scene (what is it with rape this month?). I wish I had known a little more going in... so I'll share what I know with you now. The movie plays in reverse (a la Memento) and details a night in Paris as Marcus (Vincent Cassel) goes on a manhunt for the guy who raped and brutally beat his girlfriend, Alex (Monica Bellucci).

Info #1: Apparently the whole script was only 3 pages long, and the majority of the dialogue was improvised. Every scene was filmed multiple times, each lasting anywhere between a few minutes and 20 minutes. In some scenes, this is really obvious. In others, it's pretty fascinating the dialogues they came up with.

Info #2: Each scene is basically a Long Take, which is very impressive. So not only do these actors have to make up their own dialogue, but they have to do it in these massive takes without screwing up. In fact, there's one scene where somebody asks Marcus what his name is and Vincent Cassel replies "Vincent." By this point, the Long Take had been going on at least 10+ minutes, so in order to avoid redoing everything, he plays it off like a joke and gives his character's name. But on the whole, the Long Take stuff is pretty cool.

Info #3: The first 30 minutes or so annoyed the crap out of me--but apparently it was meant to. The cameraman was like a guy with cerebral palsy during an earthquake (no offense to anyone with cerebral palsy). The camera literally never stopped spinning like in a sphere. Up down left right diagonal back forth... it was insane. And on top of that, almost everything is in shadow or red light, making it even harder to discern what's going on. However, the director did this in order to purposefully make his audience uncomfortable, upset, sick, etc. And it's also there to show Marcus' mental state. There's also a super low-pitched frequency (like what one would hear during an earthquake) that affects people by making them feel sick, too. So the director relished in the fact that about 200 people walked out of this film at Cannes in the first 30 minutes. However, I didn't think it was artsy or anything. I didn't think it worked all that well as a clever device. I just found it incredibly annoying.

Info #4: The infamous rape scene... maybe had I watched this film first this month, I'd react differently. But after all these other rape-involved films (some of which do it much more hardcore than this one), it probably didn't strike me as much as it meant to. What did make it harder to watch was the fact that it was basically the camera set on the ground and the rape happens in a single shot for 10+ minutes. In fact, the only thing the director told the two actors, besides how it needed to begin and end, was that they couldn't go over 20 minutes. Yeah. Otherwise, the only thing that boggled me was the fact some woman on the street told Monica Bellucci's character she'd be safer traveling in an underground tunnel by herself in the middle of the night rather than calling for a cab (and then she believed her). Yeah, not buying that.

Overall, the film wasn't as painful as both Netflix (2 stars) or the first 30 minutes would have me believe. Once the camera calms down a little bit and you can actually discern what the hell is going on, the movie gets more bearable. Granted, that's exactly when the rape happens, so it throws you off again. I probably enjoyed it more from a technical standpoint than by what the film was in and of itself. The long take business was pretty awesome and very well done (though apparently there were little cuts here and there to mix together multiple takes). It is a tough movie to get through, and I'll probably never watch it again. It's a roller coaster ride of emotions, though I'm not sure I liked being forcefully manipulated by the director like that. If you're gonna see it, do so for the aesthetic... but I really wouldn't bother due to the subject matter.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: Salò, Or The 120 Days Of Sodom.

It's very rare a movie can make me feel like this. I can only think of one other time in recent memory, actually. Made in 1975 (and subsequently banned in many countries), Salò is an updated adaptation based on the book by the Marquis de Sade and tells the tale of four fascists who kidnap a bunch of boys and girls (who may or may not be 18) and take them to an off-the-map mansion outside the city of Salò. While there, they must follow specific rules or pay the consequences. Long story short, the boys and girls are there to be raped and tortured for 120 days until their ultimate demise. Think of it like Hostel meets 2 Girls/1 Cup as directed by a 70s gay porn director who is trying his hardest to be arrested for every kind of sexual/taboo crime imaginable. And then put it in Italian.

The movie is nearly 2 hours of deplorable activity. I mean, it starts with rape and works its way down the gutter from there. And the worst part is that the film isn't even focused on the point of view of the victims, but of those doing the deed--and they're happy and turned on by everything. This truly has it all: rape (gay, straight, regular, and anal), public humiliation, urination, scat (eating and somewhat bathing), stories of pedophilia (among most of the other things already mentioned), mental and physical torture (including burning, scalping, whipping, and the cutting-off of things), and eventual murder. And that's not even everything. You might be wondering, if you read my recent review on Visitor Q, why some of this stuff bothered me this time and not that time. It's a mix of the situations these characters are in and the tone the movie sets up. In Visitor Q, it was like a very bizarre, pornographic, absurdly taboo cartoon. In here, the situation is set up as realistic, as if this actually happened--mix that with the fact that all of the stuff done in this movie is done in the tone that it excites these people and is seen as a good thing. There are exceptions to that, though--you do see the victims upset and wanting out of this man-made Hell. And at the end, some of the adults have even had enough and know how evil things are.

This review will be short. There's absolutely no redeemable quality to this movie. There's no plot. Characters don't really change or evolve. It's just 2 hours of ultimate depravity. I cannot recommend this movie under any circumstances. By the end, I was actually sick to my stomach (and I still am, as I write this review). And that's a total rarity when it comes to watching movies for me.


She's Gone From Suck To Blow!

(P.S. Not to be childish, but the pun of that rating and this movie are totally coincidental.)

(P.P.S. Not to continue being childish, but I honestly did not purposefully plan this review to go up on 6/9.)

60/60 Extra: Eraserhead.

Warning: Major spoilers below... if that's possible.

---------------------

Guys... gals... I don't even know. There's so many things I could say, but really... what's the point? There is none... just like this movie. How about a summary of the film? Let's see. Henry (Jack Nance) lives in a run-down apartment in some industrial town and often has dreams and/or hallucinations about alien worm thingies, a woman with cancerous bulby cheeks who sings and "dances," and some kind of rock planet. Later, after trying to cut up a cooked baby chicken that starts oozing while humping the air and his girlfriend's mom has some kind of seizure orgasm, he finds out his girlfriend had a mutant baby. That baby is like the Human Torso from Freaks had sex with Jar Jar Binks and spliced their DNA with a velociraptor (and/or a shell-less turtle). It gets sicks at one point. Henry has sex with a neighbor lady in a hot tub full of milk. Tons of dreams and/or hallucinations mixed in with this. Or it's just quite possible random shit just keeps appearing. I don't know. Henry's head falls off and is replaced by the head of his mutant baby, only for his decapititated head to fall through a puddle of what I assume is blood and land on the street in a completely different location. It loses its hair and is picked up by a boy. He takes it to a store and a guy drills into it, takes something out, and plugs it into a machine that produces erasers on the backs of pencils. Oh, it was all a dream! Well, at least everything from the head falling off bit onward. His mutant baby starts laughing at him. A creepy man fondles his neighbor lady. She sees him with a mutant baby head. He de-cocoons his baby to reveal grotesque innards. Then he kills it with the scissors. But then it starts oozing copious amounts of oatmeal or something and elongates its neck. The lights flicker a lot. The baby head gets enormous. The lights finally go out, the rock planet explodes like an egg, and inside is a man with boils sharpening a blade. Cancer-cheeks chick hugs Henry as they stand in endless white. The End.

Here are some interesting notes: This was David Lynch's first movie. The script was only about 20 pages long. Lynch refuses to give his own interpretation of the movie because he wants viewers to do it themselves (which I think means even he doesn't know). And it's one of Stanley Kubrick's favorite movies of all time.

Speaking of, I owe that man an apology. Five minutes into this, and I was begging for 2001: A Space Odyssey back. Don't get me wrong, there was something almost hypnotic about this movie. It was one of those train wrecks that you want to look away but just can't. By the halfway point, I was just watching out of morbid curiosity. I honestly had no idea what to expect next and, frankly, had long since given up caring (that was gone in the first few minutes). And unlike 2001, I honestly wasn't bored... just completely in a state of constant 'head-tilt-mouth-agape'.

This is pretty close to an unreviewable movie... mainly because I'm not sure I can accept it as a movie. I don't even know if I can call this movie too pretentious. It's just... weird. And I mean Salad Fingers weird (look it up), but without the bizarre humor. Maybe even moreso. The point is... I have no point. The only way I think I'll see this again is if I make someone else watch it and just watch their reaction as it goes on. My summary does it no justice. I promise.


WTF