50 Weeks/50 Movies: The Wrap-Up.

Well, I made it through another project year! Yesterday I posted my wrap-up for the Video Game Movies project, and now it's time to wrap-up the 50/50 List.

Fun Fact #1: Between the 60/60 and the 50/50, I have now posted a review every single Wednesday for the last 2 years and 2 months.

Of course last year, I posted up a whole ton of stats, such as number of hours watched and longest month, etc. But I don't think this year's project was even close to being as ambitious as last year's with all the Extras I had added in. So I'm not bothering with that this year. I will, however, rank months and films in some Top and Bottom lists!

But first, I wanted to share a few minor stats with you. Let's look at decades of films I watched. I saw one from the 20s, two from the 30s, three from the 40s, two from the 50s, three from the 60s, five from the 70s, fourteen from the 80s, twelve from the 90s, and seven from the 2000s. If I were to pick a favorite decade from these films only... well, if I wanted perfect track record, I'd say 20s, as that was only Sherlock Jr., which I loved. But that wouldn't really be a fair choice. Between the three highest counts, I'd say 80s and 90s are pretty even. I bought two from the 80s and one from the 90s, though eventually two from the 90s (I just haven't gotten around to the other one yet). If I'm forced to choose, I'll say 80s, but just barely.

And how many ratings did I dish out of each type?

Royale with Cheese - 6
A Keanu 'Whoa' - 20 (though I think my opinion on at least one film might have gone up since the initial rating)
I Am McLovin - 12
Stop Saying OK! OK. - 6
Feed Me, Seymour - 2
The Zed Word - 2
She's Gone From Suck to Blow - 0
A Hot Mess - 1
WTF - 1

Fun Fact #2: I ended the 60/60 List last year with the Jack Nicholson classic, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. This year, I ended the 50/50 List with Infernal Affairs, which is, of course, the film that inspired The Departed... co-starring Jack Nicholson.

But let's get to the part y'all really want to see... the lists.

BOTTOM 10 FILMS

Based on ratings and personal memory, I ranked my 10 least favorite films of the project. Though keep in mind, there were very few I actually considered poor films. Because to me, being boring or having me not care a thing about the movie or its characters are far worse crimes to me than the film being poorly made. I watch films for entertainment, so these films had the largest portions of least entertainment for me.

10) Lone Wolf McQuade

This is the one I hate putting on here, because by every account it should entertain the heck out of me. And Jason is going to murder me for its inclusion here. However, outside of a few scenes here and there (and those scenes in and of themselves are rather glorious), this film didn't really do too much for me. Sorry, Jason.

9) My Favorite Year

I just didn't find it funny. I thought Peter O'Toole was fantastic in the film, but besides me realizing that it's just Get Him to the Greek, there was nothing surprising about this to me.

8) Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

It had some really good ideas... but there was just some really poor execution. Amazing ending, though. I'll give it that much.

7) Black Orpheus

I honestly don't remember much about this film except chickens and masks. I think.

6) Out of Africa

It was a very beautiful-looking film, but I felt it was overly long and just not that interesting. And as I said, boredom is the worst thing a film can give somebody.

5) Rushmore

I am just not a Wes Anderson fan. Though I will say, I did kinda like Moonrise Kingdom. But I couldn't get into this one.

4) Friday the 13th - Part 3

The big argument between Joel and Jason on whether this or Part VI was the better film was infinitely more interesting than this film. Part VI all the way.

3) The Invisible Man

I realize this is the 3rd film from Joel's Month to appear on this list. Um... sorry, Joel. On the upside, I can promise this will be the last one to appear. I just didn't find it all that interesting, particularly since it's a story we've all seen done a hundred times since this version. The effects in this film were good, though.

2) The Red Shoes

There was a big dance number about halfway through, I believe, that was fantastic. Otherwise, I didn't care much about the film. Couldn't get into it.

1) Richard III

Despite its meta aspects, this was boorrrrrriiinnngggg. I couldn't get into the story, the characters, or the language of it. Therefore, I was just begging for it to end most of the time.

(Note: The last 3 films are prime examples of what I mean by they aren't bad films, but I just didn't care for them.)

TOP 10 FAVORITE FILMS

Please keep in mind that these aren't necessarily the films I think are the best; these are the films I was entertained by the most or just feel were my personal favorites throughout the project.

10) The Pusher Trilogy

I know it's kind of a cheat, but when you put them all together, they form one pretty dang solid experience. Let's just say it's a three-way tie.

9) Naked

This is one film I think I've grown to appreciate more the longer I think about it. And I haven't been able to stop thinking about it all year since I first watched it back in February. David Thewlis gives one of the best performances of all time in this film... in my humble opinion, anyway.

8) City Lights

While some gags go on just slightly too long, it's hard not to love this charming Chaplin film and some of the genius therein.

7) Peeping Tom

I'm with Steve Honeywell on this... I like this much better than Psycho. 

6) Hausu

Talk about a trippy movie. I definitely want to see this again just to experience how bizarre this movie gets. You've not experienced weird until you've seen Hausu.

5) Gymkata

And you've not experienced bad until you've seen Gymkata. I originally had this ranked much higher, but I realized I honestly couldn't justify putting it above some of the following films. It's damn entertaining, but it's almost blasphemous to put something so terribly made over the next couple films, no matter how entertained I was. (And I do now own this movie, by the way.)

4) Double Indemnity

One of my favorite full-length feature classics. I loved every minute of this movie and how it seemed to absolutely perfect the noir elements.

3) Sherlock Jr.

But it couldn't win me out over the brilliantly meta Sherlock Jr. While not a full-length feature, this is one that if you hate it, you just need to stop watching movies.

2) Grosse Pointe Blank

I was so surprised by how much I loved this movie. I don't yet own a copy, but I will in the near future, hopefully. While it's nothing special, especially in comparison to the last couple films, it's just damn entertaining. And it has a fantastic soundtrack, to boot.

1) Big Trouble in Little China

The second I watched it for Nolahn's Month, I went out and bought a copy immediately. And I've watched it a couple times since then, as well. I just hate that I hadn't seen this movie when I was younger, as I would have adored the heck out of it. Thank you, Nolahn, for making me watch this.

RANKED MONTHS

And now it's finally time. I'm sure you've been wondering... whose months did I like more? Where did you make the list? I decided to remove myself from the count since I only had 2 films anyway. Plus, I think this should be more about your lists that you gave me instead. After some careful calculating with your scored films along with how I feel now, I've ranked each month from least favorite to favorite in terms of the films I had to watch and how much I liked them. So here you go...

11) Joel

Again, sorry, Joel. But our tastes just don't mesh, it seems (though let's be honest, your taste doesn't mesh with most people's :P). Open Your Eyes was definitely a high point, though.

10) Travis

This month gave me the amazing Naked and the weirdly entertaining Hausu. But unfortunately, those weren't enough to counter the boredom endured by The Red Shoes and Black Orpheus. Videodrome was good, though I don't really remember much now except for the stomach vagina.

9) Jason

Sorry, buddy. You had some fun B-Movies in there, but while I overall enjoyed most of the films, the scores (and my feelings) weren't really all that high across the board. I will take away from this, though, that Snake Plissken is a total badass and Re-Animator is totally fun.

8) Rachel

Despite having my least favorite film of the project in this month, I overall enjoyed myself. I loved Much Ado. Titus was very strange, yet fascinating. And Scotland, PA was just damn fun.

7) Steve

I'm pretty sure it was Double Indemnity that got you super kudos here. Though Body Snatchers was good, the 70s version is better. I liked Devil's Backbone, but liked Pan's Labyrinth better. Peter O'Toole is the reason to see My Favorite Year... but I liked the overall comedy in Get Him to the Greek better (but not by much... didn't really love that film, either).

6) Dylan

The only reason you weren't higher on this list was Rushmore. The second half of Road House is fantastic. Trainspotting is rather respectable, though dark. And Point Break is... well... Point Break.

5) Jess

It was High Fidelity and Grosse Pointe Blank that shot you up into the Top 5. We already know my thoughts on Out of Africa, and Star Trek: First Contact was fun, though it did take me a while to get into it. But those Cusack films... great stuff. And I'm sad I hadn't seen them before now.

4) Kai

This was one of the most solid months. I don't think I outright disliked any of the films this month, although I didn't really care much for the majority of Pusher II. I did love how it ended, though. The rest of the films were great crime drama thrillers... and we all know we don't get enough of those.

3) Dan

The comedy and charm of City Lights. The dialogue of His Girl Friday. The smooth coolness a la Drive of Le Samourai. And... a western. Though a western with both John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart. This was easily the classiest month of the year.

2) Nolahn

It was hard not putting you at number one, brother. Between having my favorite film of the project along with the brilliant badness that is Gymkata, it was hard not to put you at the top. Not to mention the hilarity of Three Amigos. It may have been Ruthless People that brought you down a bit. I remember liking it, but I don't remember much else about it, and it was the lowest rated of your month. But a fantastic month nonetheless. And I'll say... you were barely beaten out. And I mean by mere fractions.

1) James

But I had to give the top spot to James for having consistently brilliant films. Sherlock Jr. is amazingly meta and charming. Peeping Tom made me rethink Hitchcock. We Own the Night came out of nowhere, but had one of the best car chase sequences I have ever seen on film. I don't even like many westerns, but I think my words were something along the lines of "If I really liked the genre, Once Upon a Time in the West would probably be my favorite." And then... Suspiria. Well, you can't win them all. But even that film had that crazy freakin' soundtrack. Solid month of some generally solid movies.

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

And that will about do it! That's all I have for you in this wrap-up. I hope everyone enjoyed the project this year and enjoyed me looking over your assigned movies. I know I had fun doing it, too. Unlike the video game series, I actually often looked forward to the next movie I had to watch for the project. It's been a good year!

50/50 Review #50: Infernal Affairs.

I'll come out and say it--I'm not a huge fan of The Departed. It's not because I think it's a bad film. It's not. I even liked it. But I only saw it for the first time maybe a couple years ago, which would still be at least 4 years after it came out. This movie had been hyped up like crazy. It was lauded as one of the greatest cop dramas of not only our time, but possibly of all time. I had 4 years to let that sink in when I watched it. Then when I did, I guess I missed something within the setup of the film and was totally lost and confused for the majority of it. I didn't know who was who or what was going on. I eventually caught on, but by that point, I hadn't become overly invested in the characters. It also didn't help that, not long before I finally watched it, a major character's death was spoiled for me (to avoid spoiling others, I'll say the elevator scene death). So the shocking twist that grabbed so many... had zero effect on me. Needless to say, everything was going against me when I watched that film. And I will be the first to admit that I need to rewatch it, and I will. But first let's talk about the original version.

The film follows pretty much the same story. Sam (Eric Tsang) is a Triad leader who wants to infiltrate the police. The mole that gets in is Lau (Andy Lau). At the same time, Superintendant Wong (Anthony Wong) sees potential in a new cadet named Yan (Tony Leung), who he sets up as an undercover cop in Sam's gang. Both moles are in their respective positions for years, moving up the ranks. But when each group realizes there's a mole in their organizations, both moles are tasked with finding out who the other is.

I don't know why, but for some reason, I really liked this version more than The Departed. I did start out slightly confused at different points as to what exactly was going on or if it was present day or a flashback or what, but that never lasted long. I know it's pretty much the exact same story, but I did like the tension that built up in finding out who the moles are... and its the moles who have to figure it out. I think what helps this one work out a little better than the other is pacing. This has a very fast pacing. The film is only 100 minutes, while The Departed is 2 and a half hours. Granted, I know it takes elements from the entire Infernal Affairs trilogy, but the primary story is the first film. I also really liked the whole morse code aspect, which is not in the remake. I thought that was clever and fun.

Another thing I really liked in this that wasn't in the remake was Lau's novelist girlfriend. She's writing a novel about a schizophrenic who starts to lose his identity. The themes between her book and what is going on in the film is pretty on-the-nose, but I really liked that aspect of it. It added a level of meta to the story, and you know how I appreciate meta.

On the whole, though, I really don't have much to say about the film. It was cheesy in parts with the melodrama of the music during certain scenes. But on the whole, I thought it was intense, it had a great sense of character and theme, and it had a great concept that it pulled off well. And the story wasn't bloated--it had a story to tell and it told it. It wasn't perfect, but it was still pretty dang entertaining and well made. Like I said, I'll go back eventually and re-watch The Departed (so you don't have to yell at me in the comments about it). But as for this one...


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. And that will wrap it up for both Kai's Month and the 50/50 List! Kai had a rather solid month all around. 3 Keanu's and a McLovin! I'd say that's pretty dang good! As for this project, keep an eye out on Friday for the wrap-up post on the 50/50 as a whole. It won't be as crazy in-depth as my 60/60 wrap-up, but it'll have some good lists and fun facts. And that'll about do it!)

50/50 Review #49: I'm The Angel Of Death: Pusher III.

Time to wrap up the trilogy. In this review, I'll talk about the film alone and then give my thoughts on the trilogy as a whole. But first, let's look at this. This film follows Milo (Zlatco Buric), a drug boss in the previous tow films. He's trying to kick the habit of using drugs, but it's becoming incredibly stressful due to it being his daughter Milena's (Marinela Dekic) 25th birthday, and he has to cook for 60 people. Unfortunately, after a misunderstanding with a drug trade, Milo ends up with about 10k or ecstasy instead of heroin. While waiting for his heroin to show up, he decides to entrust the ecstasy to Little Mohammed (Ilyas Agac), who says he can sell it quick. But when he doesn't show back up with the money and makes no contact, Milo gets into trouble with the other guys and has to make a deal... with some disastrous results.

Unlike the other two, I really had to think on this one. When it ended, I wasn't sure what I thought or felt. This film, while so similar in structure to the other two, feels different. It's more personal. Milo was the villain of the original film, so to have you sympathizing with him here and wanting him to succeed was an interesting maneuver. Fortunately, Milo is also a pretty great character, and I loved him in the first film, as well as his brief appearance in the second film. Radovan, Milo's partner in the first film, also makes a rather memorable appearance in this film--which is pretty cool considering he's probably the best character in the entire trilogy. But still, while the film was equally as gritty, the personal feeling of the story made everything that much more gut-wrenching (no pun intended... if you've seen the film).

But in the end, I do believe it's probably tied with the first film to me, ranking-wise. The characterization here was superb. Milo is such a complex character that you do kind of feel for, so that makes the overall film that much more depressing and difficult to watch as he just continues to lose it and slip further and further out of control. And everybody just pushes him around, from his colleagues to his spoiled brat daughter. The dangerous, in-control drug lord from the first two films is only a glimmer here, instead replaced with an old man caught in a transitory period where he wants to better himself and is failing.

It is a bit of a slow burn, though. The first 50 minutes, I found, were quite slow, and I checked the clock a handful of times. But the last hour it definitely worth the wait. Like the first film, the slow build of drama until things start spiraling out of control is needed, and the spiral itself is both suspenseful and hard to watch. The entire segment with the prostitute deal was intense, and all I wanted was Milo to snap and beat the crap out of some people. And then the final 20 minutes or so with Radovan was crazy and disturbing (and if you have a weak stomach, beware). And the way it was filmed--in Refn's style of "calm, nonchalant violence" (as best as I can describe it)--is used perfectly in the film's climax.

To briefly discuss the trilogy as a whole, it's one of the most solid trilogies out there. It's not perfect, but it's really dang good. I did prefer the first and third to the second, though I still thought the second was good... just in a different kind of way. I like the complex characters these films present, and I like how all the movies are at least loosely tied together in the characters they share. And what might feel like a flatter character in one film will be expanded on in another, which will give entirely new meaning to that character in the other film. All the films have an open-ending, and they all have different emotions that they leave you with. The first film ends almost as if it's to-be-continued and a sense of dread. The second film ends with a glimmer of hope. And the third film ends rather depressingly--empty and hopeless. To me, my favorite ending was ironically the second film, as it wrapped up things with the story, the character, and theme while still leaving it open to what actually happens. The ending to this one (the third) is currently my least favorite, as it just ends on what's pretty much a symbolic shot. It's not bad... it's just not my favorite type of ending. It's an open ending, but unlike the other two, I didn't leave the film asking (at least too strongly) "what happened next?" And, ironically, that's what made me have to think about my feelings on the film more than the other two. So perhaps that means this was the strongest ending, and to that I can easily concede. I just preferred the other two (particularly the second).

Overall, though, this third installment was very good. The acting was really good. The writing--especially the characterization--was fantastic, as it was with all the films. The direction was tight, especially when it came to any of the violence. I love Milo and Radovan, so seeing more of them is always a good thing to me. I do recommend the film, though you'll want to start with the first one. It was explained to me that this is a trilogy experience, and it really is. You don't need to see each one for them to make sense. They all stand alone. But they work best when you watch them in order, as the character connections and expansions are what make this trilogy such a treat. They're good alone. They're great together. But as for this one on its own...

A Keanu 'Whoa'

50/50 Review #48: With Blood On My Hands: Pusher II.

After my surprising liking of the first film, the next two had a lot to live up to. I found out almost immediately that while this is a trilogy, it's not the typical trilogy where it picks up right where the last left off, regardless of the to-be-continued feeling the first film left off with. Though we do follow a familiar face in this film--Frank's best friend in the first movie, Tonny. At least a couple years after the first film, we follow Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) as he's released from prison (something unrelated to the events of the first film). He goes to his father, the Duke (Leif Sylvester), to get work as a car thief for a chop shop, but his father doesn't trust or respect him. Meanwhile, he also discovers he might be the father of a baby boy from a promiscuous woman named Charlotte (Anne Sorensen). And on top of all of that, he needs to help is friend Kurt (Kurt Nielsen) get the money he owes or else it might be both their necks on the line.

This film is much more of a drama than the first film, which was basically a drama-thriller. This film is all about Tonny searching for a little respect and recognition. And if that theme isn't clear enough, the camera continually focuses on the tattoo on the back of Tonny's bald head which says "Respect." Nobody gives it to him, and he's verbally and emotionally abused throughout the entire film while he's trying desperately to please people and put his life back together.

I didn't like the film as much as the first, but I did still think it was well done. I also appreciate what it was doing by turning it into more of a character piece on Tonny and his hunt for redemption. While he wasn't as engaging of a character as Frank from the first film, I did feel for him by the end of the film and really rooted for him to come out on top somehow. Because while everybody else was calling him a pathetic loser, it always hit that much harder when you looked at how pathetic most of those people were.

Unfortunately, outside of Tonny, the film took everything I liked about the first film and pretty much dropped it. There were still hints at some of the realism of characterizations, but it wasn't as prevalent this time around. Instead, it amped up the focus on the drugs and how all the characters not only did drugs but centered their lives around them--in other words, the exact thing I appreciated the first film for not doing. And because of this, I had trouble connecting with any of the characters. I didn't think they were as strong as in the first film (outside of maybe Tonny and his father).

So while I didn't like it as much as the first film, I do think it's worth watching if you've seen the first. It does hint at Frank's fate from the first film, and the evolution of Tonny is done very well. I do really like the final scene of the film. And there's a pretty great scene that brings back Milo (who I believe will be the focus of the final film, as well). I wish it had the great dialogue and characterization of the first film, but what it does with Tonny is good, too.


I Am McLovin!

50/50 Review #47: Pusher.

I learned last year during my 60/60 Project that when it comes to crime films, the ones centering around drugs typically interested me the least (Hell, even with Pulp Fiction, my least favorite part is the Uma Thurman section). I didn't know what it was about them, but I just could not get into them for some reason. But now, after watching this, I think I've figured it out. The film follows Frank (Kim Bodnia), a drug pusher with incredibly bad luck. He's already in debt to drug lord, Milo (Zlatko Buric), but he takes one more favor and gets a lot of drugs to pull off a deal with a guy Frank was in prison with. But the deal goes bust when the cops show up and Frank loses all the drugs in a lake. With seemingly the world against him, Frank is running against the clock to get the money he owes Milo before it's too late.

I realized while watching this that the reasons I typically can't get into drug-related films are 1) The characters aren't likable or relatable to me and 2) the focus of these characters is usually either gaining power or looking to make their next score. And character is really important to me in any form of fiction. Even if you have a non-existant plot, if you have strong or interesting characters, I can overcome the former issue. Fortunately, Pusher doesn't fall into those problems.

What I noticed first off was that these characters are human. Their entire existence isn't drugs or power or any of that. Frank and his best friend, Tonny, goof around and act normal on their down time. They have some great dialogue together, and the first 30 minutes of the film is really there to make you feel for these characters and the relationships they build with each other. Even later it discusses the lives of other characters, like Frank's kinda-girlfriend, Vic. Even more than that, there's a great scene where Milo's right-hand man, Radovan, is talking with Frank about wanting to open up a restaurant and get out of the business. But what I loved about that scene was how it wasn't like every other "This is my dream to get out of this bad business" scene in these types of films. Instead, it was just a normal, lighthearted conversation. In other words, this film builds some good, realistic characters who I can really get behind and sympathize with.

Frank in particular is incredibly easy to root for. I mean, he's a drug pusher and isn't the greatest person in the world, but he has some of the worst luck ever. Things just get worse and worse for the guy, one thing right after the other. And it's not like he really did anything wrong (in his world) to be put in this situation. It was just a combination of terrible timing and the luck of Job (biblically speaking). And when he gets betrayed by people, it hits pretty hard since the film builds up relationships very well.

Like Refn's other films, there's a lot of sudden extreme violence. And while the film might not be as artistically or stylishly made as Drive--or even Bronson--you can see that same cinematic eye beginning to come together. It doesn't linger on the blood or make a big deal out of it. It's just part of whatever is going on at the time. And I think not stylizing it or glorifying its use like practically every other action or thriller film adds a layer of gritty realism to the film.

All of that being said, the movie isn't perfect. It feels about 20 minutes too long and could have been trimmed down a bit. I felt it right before the third act (where he has about 2 hours left). There's a chunk of the movie that focuses on him and Vic that just kinda goes on for a while and could have been cut down. Yeah, it's building up their relationship, but it does so for just a wee bit too long and slows down the pacing of the film.

But otherwise, I think this was a good start. I think Netflix knew my aversion to drug-related films and scored it low, but this is one of the rare instances where I think I'd score it a star higher than suggested. It's a really good little thriller, and as it's the first part of a trilogy (which, of course, I will be watching this whole month), it ends with a to-be-continued kind of feel to it (and aspects of the story feel incomplete). So if you're going to check it out, you might as well prepare yourself to watch a trilogy rather than a solo film. I don't know how worth it the entire trilogy is just yet, but the first film, at the very least, is pretty good.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

50/50 Review #46: Grosse Pointe Blank.

Blah blah blah ambiguous intro here... why haven't I seen this movie before now? Martin Blank (John Cusack) is a professional assassin who once worked for the government and now works freelance. After screwing up a hit, the company that hired him forces him to take another job to make up for it, which just so happens to be back in his hometown... where his 10-year high school reunion is taking place. With a little push from his secretary Marcella (Joan Cusack) and kinda-psychiatrist, Dr. Oatman (Alan Arkin), he decides to go and face his past. While there he meets up with an old friend, Paul (Jeremy Piven) and a long-lost love, Debi (Minnie Driver), who he stood up at prom and never saw again until now. Unfortunately, things aren't that easy. Another hitman, Grocer (Dan Aykroyd) wants to start an assassin's union that Martin refuses to join, so he hires a couple FBI agents (Hank Azaria and K. Todd Freeman) to catch him in the act to take him down. Meanwhile, another assassin (Benny Urquidez) is after him because of another previous hit he screwed up. And all Martin wants to do is make amends with Debi.

I'll just come out and say it: Easily in my Top 5 of this year's project. This movie was so much fun. The dark humor between the situations is great, which really shined in the climax where he's killing people in between a heartfelt discussion. And I loved the fact he literally tells everybody he's a contract killer the entire movie and nobody believes him. Just the idea alone that a guy who grows up to be an assassin decides to go to his high school reunion is fantastic.

This movie really works due to John Cusack's charisma and delivery. You believe his moral and/or psychological conflicts, but at the same time he's able to pull off the fact he could easily kill someone. And his little ticks, like never liking his back to an open area or a window was great. Similarly, Dan Aykroyd as the villain was totally unexpected, but it worked, since he was totally trying to be a smarmy businessman at the same time. Jeremy Piven wasn't in it a whole lot, but I loved his scenes and his chemistry with Cusack. Arkin is good in his role, of course, though his role is technically where the film falls apart a little bit. And Joan Cusack's character was a little hard to get into at the start, but she grew on me by the end. And Minnie Driver was just incredibly adorable in this film and had great chemistry with John Cusack, as well.

This is one of those "really positive... not much to say" kind of reviews. I really liked everything about it. The comedy was good--I did laugh out loud at least once. The action was solid and fun when there was some. The characters were really good. And the soundtrack to this movie was also pretty dang fantastic. I know this was kind of a lame review, but that's what tends to happen when you love a movie and don't have much to say without getting repetitive or boring. If you haven't seen it yet, do so.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. And that will wrap it up for Jess' Month! Got to end on a high note, huh? This month was scattered. There were low points (Out of Africa--good movie, just not for me), high points (this and High Fidelity... ironic), and mid-points (Star Trek: First Contact). But on the whole, it was quite an enjoyable month! And next month we wrap things up with 3 flicks that are actually a trilogy... and then the original version of a modern American classic. So for December, it'll be Kai's Month!)

50/50 Review #45: Star Trek: First Contact.

I knew a bit in advance the list of films for this particular month, and my knowledge of Star Trek at the time was a passing knowledge of the characters in the original series and the Next Generation (and the reboot film). So I decided that, since this film apparently takes place soon after the finale of Next Generation, that I would check that out. Unfortunately, of the 7 seasons, I only completed the first 4 (and the season premiere of the 5th) before getting distracted with other things... which was, coincidentally, a year ago this month. But did that cause any problems with the film?

The movie picks up as Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) is having nightmares about being assimilated by the Borg--an robotic alien race who conquers entire races and brings them in to their own kind. As it turns out, the Borg have finally reached Earth, and the Enterprise decides to fight back. But when they get there, they notice the Earth has long since been assimilated and realize the Borg must have traveled back in time to do so in the past. The Enterprise then follows the Borg into the past to stop them and realize they've followed the Borg to the day before Earth receives First Contact... the term associated with the moment a planet gains the ability to perform faster-than-light travel and an alien race introduces themselves to the planet to let them know they aren't alone in the universe. So now it's up to Picard and Riker (Jonathan Frakes), and the rest of the crew, to stop the Borg and help Zefram Cochran (James Cromwell) finish his space mission so that First Contact can still happen and the future can happen as planned.

The first thing I noticed about the film is that it throws you into everything without so much as an introduction. It expects you to already know the characters (who they are and what they do and their relationships with each other) and a lot of the backstory, particularly with Picard and the Borg. Fortunately, the two episodes this movie heavily references are at the end of Season 3 and the beginning of Season 4 (the season finale and premiere, respectively), so I was at least familiar with the situation. But the first 30 minutes or so was still incredibly jarring. There's no easing in to the movie. It just throws you in media res. And even having the character and background knowledge that I did, I still felt off balance for quite some time.

It eventually does slow down and allow you to catch your breath, however, once they get to Earth and the initial Borg raid on the Enterprise has finished. And it's at this point that the film splits into two primary stories. On Earth you have Riker, Geordi, and Troi trying to help Cochran. On the Enterprise, you have Picard, Data, Worf, and Beverly trying to stop the Borg from assimilating the entire ship. Also on the Enterprise is Lily, played by Alfre Woodard. She was easily my favorite part of the film. The way she is able to give Picard some attitude without the repercussions of insubordination was fun. The sequence where she accuses him of wanting revenge and he snaps is brilliant. In fact, most of the good stuff came from on the ship. The stuff on Earth with Cochran was OK, but nothing special. And it was basically the same joke over and over--Cochran is a drunk who likes to play rock music really loud. I just often found myself really enjoying the ship story and wanting to go back to it when it was focusing on Earth.

The film isn't bad once you can get into it. The time travel aspect is full of plot holes, but that's time travel for you. As a fan of Next Generation, I already had a connection with a lot of these characters and was able to have a feel for them already. However, I do think the film was made for fans of the show only. I can't see an outsider (or someone who just watches the films) being able to watch this film and comfortably be able to follow or understand it perfectly. Every major plot point or character development is something that's built on from the show. I otherwise don't have much to say about it. I was entertained by it once the chaos of it balanced out, but it still wasn't perfect. Still, I liked it well enough.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. Apparently I'm in the minority despite the positive rating, as from what I've read, this is a lot of people's second favorite after Wrath of Khan.)

50/50 Review #44: High Fidelity.

I was looking forward to this one quite a bit. I'd heard about how great it was endlessly for years, so it was hyped up quite a bit. But was that a good thing? The film follows Rob (John Cusack), a total asshole who owns/runs a record store with Dick (Todd Louiso) and Barry (Jack Black) and keeps failing in his relationships, yet can't figure out why. His latest break-up was with Laura (Iben Hjejle), who left him for a douche named Ian (Tim Robbins). Rob also likes to make Top 5 lists, so he recounts his Top 5 worst breakups and then revisits them to try and figure out what exactly is wrong with him. The film also co-stars Catherine Zeta-Jones, Lisa Bonet, Joan Cusack, Lili Taylor, and Sara Gilbert.

When the film started, I really wanted to like it. But John Cusack was making it really, really hard. His character was just so unlikeable (and, at times, loathsome). His sad-sack, oh woe is me attitude mixed with his music snobbery and general elitism wrapped in a shell of total asshattery made me almost shut down completely and, sadly, give up on the film. But at some point, and I'm honestly not exactly sure when (sometime in the first 25 minutes or so), it turned from annoying to strangely charming. I stopped wanting to smack the guy and started becoming hooked in to his personality and stories and lists. And I was so pulled into the film that, before I knew it, it was over. Like the main characters in a favorite film of mine--Attack the Block--Rob went from "Is this who I have to follow for the whole movie?" to "this guy is truly fascinating."

And there's no doubt about it that Rob is a total ass, but he does grow as a character and learn from his mistakes by the end. And the journey to that point is pretty entertaining. What I loved the most about the film is how inspiring it is. I'm not really all that knowledgable about music, so the majority of what they were talking about was like "Um... OK." But to me, the movie isn't about the music itself, but rather what the music represents. You can take "music" and substitute it with anything you love. The film is all about passion. Finding passion in what you want, whether that's a relationship, a job, or a side-gig. And coming from a guy who has found himself in a professional rut, as someone who has been trying to figure out what he really wants to do with his life, I found the passion presented in this film to be equally inspiring and personal.

On a more base level, the acting was well done. John Cusack was really believable in the role, and (of course) I did love all the meta, breaking-the-fourth-wall aspects of the film (which was basically the whole movie). Jack Black was incredibly entertaining in a very Jack Black role. He pretty much stole every scene he was in. And Tim Robbins was really funny, and I totally was not expecting him to pop up (that first fantasy sex scene where he's introduced had me going "Whoa! WTF? Haha." (Or something similar.) Though if I could make a trade, I'd cut out Joan Cusack (as I'm not really sure what her overall purpose in the film was) and add in more Todd Louiso, who definitely deserved more character development.

Overall, though, I did end up really liking it. I don't think it's perfect, but it is still really creative and entertaining. Perhaps if and when I watch it again, I'll get into it faster knowing I won't actually hate John Cusack the whole time. It's good stuff, and I really don't have much else to say about it... so I'll go ahead and stop there.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Yes, I thought about doing a "Top 5" list with this review, but I figured it's probably been done to death at this point.)

50/50 Review #43: Out Of Africa.

This... is one really long movie. Going in, I knew very little about the film except the setting and its stars and that there's a romance. And now that it's over... all I'll probably remember is the setting, it's stars, and that there was a romance. Karen (Meryl Streep) moves to Africa with Baron Bror (Klaus Maria Brandauer). But after he sleeps around with others and leaves her, she begins a love affair with Denys (Robert Redford).

And that's the story of this just shy of 3-hours movie. I'm a sucker for a good romance (I said good romance. Not like Twilight or any of that crap). At least for me, a romance is as strong as its female lead and as fascinating as its male lead (I suppose for a LGBT romance, it's as strong as its main character and as fascinating as its romantic lead). Where something like Twilight fails (and it fails in many, many places... but speaking from a romance perspective) is that Bella is about as weak as you can get in a main character of any variety, romantic or otherwise. She's a cardboard cutout with a hole at the head for women to poke their faces through and take her spot (I won't get into the whole "terrible person" thing). And then you have Edward, who is just not a fascinating character, either. He's a creepy, sparkling, asshole stalker. And both of these characters exist purely for the other. They have no lives outside of this romance, and everything they do revolves around it--it's even brought up within the books themselves at one point. The story is a feminist's nightmare.

Don't worry, I'm not going to say this is Twilight in Africa. Not even close. Robert Redford has the best character in the film, and I'm constantly drawn to his charisma (as always). But there's one scene in this movie that basically says everything I felt about this relationship and about Karen. They're sitting by the fireplace, and Redford wants to go on a Safari. Streep doesn't want him to go since he just came back from one. They argue, and Redford accuses Streep of confusing what she needs with what she wants and how she always has. And Streep doesn't help her case when every word out of her mouth shows how she lives to be in a relationship--that's her sole purpose in life. If she's not married, she needs to be looking to marry. You can call it a view of the times, but it bothered me. I had a lot of trouble getting behind her character and didn't find her very likable (except when she was interacting with the natives). So what I'm getting at here is that the movie was fascinating and enjoyable when Redford was on the screen. But when it was just Streep... it took a lot more work to keep itself going for me.

One thing that really helped was the setting. The visuals of this film were gorgeous, from the landscapes to the wildlife. Anytime the focus was brought to the scenery or, say, the lions (particularly the lions), my attention shot up considerably. Also, as stated before, anytime there was attention given to the tribespeople, I found myself interested. I liked the deal she makes with the boy with the hurt leg. Anything to deal with that was fascinating. Unfortunately, that didn't come up all that often (at least considering the running time).

Otherwise, I'm struggling finding much to talk about. Redford is great, but he's barely in the film until the last hour. Up to that point, it felt like it was going to be a long haul with only some occasional good scenes (anything in the previous paragraph). It's definitely not a bad movie, as evidenced by its multiple Oscar wins. It just had a romance I had trouble with due to a character I couldn't entirely get behind, and a length that was far too long (...and don't get me started on the accent). But the setting, visuals, and overall culture of it was great. If anything, see it for that. Well, and Robert Redford... but that's kind of a given.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

50/50 Review #42: Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers.

As most people know, Halloween 3 is not a Michael Myers film. It's some weird flick about Halloween masks that kill people. So when that bombed, they decided to go ahead and bring back the signature villain and dub it The Return of Michael Myers. The film picks up ten years after the second film when Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) is being transported to a different facility. He wakes up, kills everyone, and escapes. Why? Because the next day is Halloween, and Laurie Strode's daughter, Jamie (Danielle Harris), is out there. And he wants her dead. So Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) is on the case to find her before Myers can.

The film gives off a decent atmosphere; however, it's not very scary. There aren't that many big scares, and the actor playing Myers seems rather scrawny or awkward and isn't very intimidating. And then that mask just looks silly in comparison to other variations. But there are some good scenes in it, like the rooftop scene and, of course, the ending. The ending is pretty shocking, and I was lucky enough not to know what happens. Though I've heard the next film completely negates it, so that sucks.

Otherwise the film came off as just a generic slasher. Outside of Loomis, the characters weren't very interesting, and the story was almost non-existent. And even Loomis is just saying "He isn't a man; he's evil" or some variation the majority of the film. He doesn't really do much in the movie outside of a really good performance in the final moments of the film. But I can't care about the characters. They just... had no personalities. And there was nothing to keep me invested in any of them... outside the fact that Jamie was a little girl and you rarely want kids to die in horror movies (unless they're creepy kids... or bad actors).

But it did have some good ideas that I wish it had gone with or expanded on instead. For instance, there's an implication at the beginning that Dr. Loomis could just have gone crazy after all these years and was just having paranoid hallucinations. Had the film been from his perspective, they really could have played that up. What if Myers really had been dead or totally invalid as he was supposed to be, and Loomis was just imagining this other stuff was happening. And even the teens in the town dressing up as Myers, as they did in the film, could have helped play it up. And going this route could have made the ending even stronger. Imagine--he goes through all of this just to realize Myers is really gone and he's kinda crazy. And then BAM, we get that same ending. That would have been awesome. As it is, Myers was really there, and there was another aspect of the film they could have done more with: The Town Vs. Myers. You don't see that too often in slashers. But the rednecks form this lynch mob... and nothing really comes of it except they make a pretty big mistake (that nothing ever comes from) and then when they're really needed, they're like "screw it." I wish they had set up the town to trap Myers so it was like a cat and mouse game, back and forth between him and the rest of the town.

On the whole, though, I found myself checking the time often. I just found it difficult to really get into.  Like I said, there were good ideas, and the one idea it goes with (the ending), they can't apparently stick with thanks to the follow-up. Again, the atmosphere was alright, but it wasn't really scary or exciting. A good scene here and there, but that's about it. It's not bad, but it's nothing super-fantastic, either.

Stop Saying OK! OK.

(P.S. That'll wrap up Joel's Month! I must say, it wasn't a very exciting month, unfortunately. I only actually liked one film (Open Your Eyes). Otherwise, the movies were anywhere from dull to blah (or just plain bizarre in the case of Watership Down). But now it's time to move on to the next month! Next month I'll be taking on Jess' selection... which, I'll admit, is an interesting mix of films.)

50/50 Review #41: Watership Down.

Was I supposed to be on drugs while I watched this? Watership Down tells the story Fiver (Richard Brier), a rabbit with some psychic-esque abilities, and his wise friend, Hazel (John Hurt). One day Fiver gets a feeling bad things are coming to their warren (home), so he talks a group of rabbits in leaving with him to find a new home. Along the way, they face many dangers and eventually have to figure out how to prosper in a new land.

The story and its themes are inspired by Homer's The Odyssey and Virgil's The Aeneid. In other words, for an animated flick about bunnies, this film is dark, depressing, violent, and totally screwed up. Despite my love of the old Greek and Roman tales, I had a few difficulties getting into the story. I couldn't tell you why, but it was just something about it that didn't click with me.

It might have been the characters, as I had a difficult time for a while telling them apart. They did have their own characteristics, but there were still plenty of times it was difficult remembering which rabbit was who and what their personality was (if they had one) and what their role is in the story. Couple that with trying to mentally compare it to its inspiration, and I found myself lost for a good chunk of the movie. Even after I figured them out, I still couldn't much get into them. Perhaps it was the lack of differentiation or emotion in their voices (partly, anyway).

But I think it's the animation that needs to be discussed here. I've never really seen anything like it in a movie before. It's quite unique (Side note: how do you catch a unique rabbit? Unique up on it!). It almost looks like a painting that's turned into animation. But a really trippy painting that starts wigging out on you after you take some hallucinogens. Because this movie ends up in some very bizarre places visually. It sometimes drifts smoothly into almost a dream-like or nightmarish state where everything is off-the-walls, weird, or terrifying. It's also one of the most violent animated bunny movies I've ever seen, and the animation of violence and blood is both unsuspecting and quite well done. Apparently people still complain about the film's PG rating, and it remains today to be the most violent PG animated film ever made.

On the whole, though, I didn't really dislike it. In fact, once I got into it, I did enjoy it--even if it got really crazy at times. I particularly liked the character of Bigwig, as he was a pretty badass bunny. The animation was good and really interesting, which allows it to flow in and out of those strange sequences without seeming out of place. I doubt I'll watch it again, as I wasn't really in love with it, though I can see why somebody would be. It just wasn't all for me.


I Am McLovin!

50/50 Review #40: Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes).

This is the film that was remade as Vanilla Sky (in which Penelope Cruz actually reprises her role, strangely enough), which I saw years ago and didn't care a whole lot for. But I heard this one was, of course, much better. But what would I think? The film follows Cesar (Eduardo Noriega), a young man who has inherited his deceased parents' money. On his birthday, his best friend Pelayo (Fele Martinez) brings a date--the beautiful Sofia (Penelope Cruz). Cesar almost immediately falls in love with her and uses her as an excuse to ditch an overly obsessed one-night stand, Nuria (Najwa Nimri). But Nuria doesn't appreciate this and tricks Cesar into getting into her car, which she then crashes. Cesar is horribly disfigured in the wreck, and Sofia won't talk to him anymore. We also discover the story is being told in flashback while Cesar speaks with a psychiatrist named Antonio (Chete Lara), who tries to get a confession out of him. Apparently Cesar killed someone. But as he tells the story of what happened, Cesar explains how his whole world has gone insane and it becomes hard to tell dreams from reality. To share any more than that would be a disservice to the film.

So on that note, you might have gathered that I liked it. And I did. I haven't seen Vanilla Sky in about a decade, but I strangely remembered a handful of things as they happened in this version (a very strange deja vu feeling, which is kind of ironic considering the film). I also remembered the ending, so it wasn't very surprising when it came down to it.

What I liked best about this film was how it messed with your head. You really were never sure what was a dream and what was real. You didn't know if Cesar was insane or if it was something like Fincher's The Game going on (and this shares some similarities with that, as well). Even by the time the film becomes obvious, the way it's made still made me keep guessing. That being said, I would have liked it if was a little more ambiguous. By the time we get to the climax, it's practically spelling everything out for you. The ultimate ending would also work better if they'd left everything else a little more ambiguous. In other words, it should be been a little closer to something like Inception, where you can look through the film or debate about the truth of everything. Instead, it really only leaves you with one way of looking at it, and everything about it is explained.

Besides that, the film looks really good visually. The aesthetics in dealing with Cesar's face is done well. From the prosthetics on his face to the masks that he wore, everything looked really good. On top of that, the film was shot beautifully. There were really some fantastic shots in this movie, and it was really nice to look at in that regard.

The acting is really good, as well. Eduardo Noriega is very believable, and you really feel everything he's going through. He also manages to play the role so well that, just like him, you're having difficulties knowing if everything that's happening is just some paranoid scheme against him or if it's all something much more. And, of course, Penelope Cruz is just as fantastic as she is beautiful (and she's insanely beautiful). I also really liked Chete Lara as Antonio. By the time we get to the end of the movie, you really like the guy and feel for him, especially in the climax.

Overall, yeah, it was a really good movie. Everything was done really well. And even thought I already knew the ending from Vanilla Sky, it was still so well made that I was continually second guessing myself. Again, I would have liked to have seen a more ambiguous ending. I think that would have made the film even stronger. But otherwise it was good all around.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

50/50 Review #39: Friday The 13th - Part 3.

Earlier this year for the list, I had to watch Part 6 of this series, and that was some goofy fun. But, interestingly enough, I was also given Part 3 to check out later the same year... and it's time to check it out. Granted, this one doesn't have the same positive reputation. And I'd actually seen bits and pieces of this one years ago, but never the whole thing. So what would I think? The film picks up right where the last one left off. Jason Voorhees survived and is now stalking a new set of crazy kids and wacky adults at a lake. And this time he gets a hockey mask. (Yeah... nothing much new here outside of this being the first time he gets his mask.)

The first 15 minutes are incredibly slow. It starts off literally at the end of the last one, and you see the climax again. This lasts about five minutes or so. But then for the next 10 minutes after that, we're introduced to this middle-aged couple who run a store near the farm by the lake. You know they're just there to be killed. But it's the longest build-up for a pointless kill scene ever. These aren't major characters. They have nothing major to do with the plot. They're nothing characters, and it takes them 10 minutes of way too much build up to have lame, boring deaths.

Finally, we're introduced to the main characters. I won't spend too much time here, either. The characters are stereotypes, sure... but they're practically racist. The Hispanic character, for instance, is feisty with her mother and doesn't have enough money to pay for groceries--all she has are food stamps. Otherwise, the characters, what they say, and everything they do makes no sense. Of course, I don't think it ever does in these kinds of films. (In fact, some of this brought me back to Cabin in the Woods... there was even a Harbinger!) Still, some of it had to do with the actual writing. In particular with the lead girl, Chris, if felt like there was so much cut out of the script or film. They talked about how she's been seeing and hearing weird things ever since they showed up at the farm, but they never showed any of it prior to her saying it. It just comes out of nowhere.

And then there's Jason himself. Jason bothered me in this... because he wasn't Jason. Jason Voorhees is supposed to be a big, slow, silent killer... you know, like high blood pressure. But more violent. And he's superhuman. But here, he's way too human. He's slowed down by books hitting him. He groans when he feels pain (more than once!). He moves quickly and stumbles about. Although he does finally get his signature mask in this film...

Let's not forget that this was originally in 3D... and boy does it show. The film just looks ridiculous in 2D, as it's painfully obvious where all the 3D gags were. There's even a minute-long (or so) yo-yo gag... for absolutely no reason other than to have a yo-yo at the screen. Or a random juggling scene. Long or sharp objects are often pointed directly at the camera. Stuff (like glass) flies at the camera when it shatters. There's something constantly playing at the 3D aspect... and it was just stupid watching it in 2D.

I will give it credit where credit is due, though. There were some moments that worked well. There's a scene where they think they're gonna get pulled over by the cops so they start swallowing the weed, and it turns out the cops aren't trying to pull them over. That was done well. There's a part where a biker gang siphons their gas early on. I completely forgot that moment until Chris tries to escape with the van and it runs out. That was given a nice setup and payoff. And there's a really creepy moment near the end where she opens the barn doors and Jason is just hanging there staring at her.

Otherwise... it's just kinda... OK. There's no nudity in the movie (did y'all give me the only two Friday the 13th movies with no nudity?). The violence in this movie is actually not really shown. There are a couple that are (the head squish was the best), but on the whole... most of it happens while the camera isn't looking. In short, the characters sucked. The writing was lame. The pacing was off in places, though it worked well in others. Jason wasn't very Jason-like. The 3D does not work in 2D. And it needed more blood and nudity. The film wasn't terrible, and parts of it were entertaining (especially when you pretend the Cabin in the Woods stuff is going on behind the scenes). I just wanted more from it. So I guess if you want a clear winner between the epic battle of Part 3 and Part 6... Part 6 all the way.


Feed Me, Seymour!

50/50 Review #38: The Invisible Man (1933).

Due to some Netflix and/or postal service issues, I had to rearrange some films for this month. So I began with the one film available on Instant Streaming, which also happened to be the one film I was looking least forward to this month. The Invisible Man follows the story of a scientist named Jack (Claude Rains) who goes crazy after an experiment turns him invisible. He wants to rule the world by doing whatever he wants, like commit murders, and even turns to Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan) for assitance, despite Kemp not wanting anything to do with it.

The worst thing about this film is the acting from anyone not named Claude Rains. The most annoying by far was Una O'Connor as a co-owner of this bar Jack lives above at the start of the film. You know that scene in Clue where Mrs. Peacock thinks she's been poisons and gives a shrill, annoying scream until she's slapped? Imagine that shrill, over-the-top scream for 25 straight minutes rather than 10 seconds. If I didn't have to watch this film for this project, I would have turned it off in that first 25 minutes for that alone. It was the most unbearable, annoying character I think I've ever seen.

That being said, it does start to get better after that. Most of that is actually thanks to Claude Rains, whose mostly vocal performance is pretty fun. Also, the visuals of the film are interesting--some fascinating--due to the time period it was made. Any of the invisibility tricks (including the ending shot) are in particular great.

On the whole, though, the film is just kinda dull. There's some interesting aspects, but when you don't give a damn about any of the characters, it's hard to care about the story. No character is three dimensional (...no pun intended?). And you don't get to know Jack before he becomes invisible, so he's already crazy by the time he's introduced. Because of that, you don't care about him, his transition or journey as a character, his relationships with other people, or really anything about him. And the people he associates with are pretty one-note, as I mentioned before. It's just either cops that are coming after him, a guy who won't work with him, or the woman he once loved who still loves him. (Fun fact: this character is played by Gloria Stuart, who you might know as Old Rose in Titanic. Funnily enough, her character's name here is Flora... as in plants and flowers. And she's in love with a guy named Jack. After almost 70 years in film, she really didn't expand her range much, huh?) Anyway, if you're into those classic "monster movie" types, it's fine. I just wished it had a lot more to it.


Feed Me, Seymour!

50/50 Review #37: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1956).

I went into this expecting to do nothing but compare it to the 1978 version, which was an early favorite of mine from last year's 60/60 List. And as much as I both wanted to and tried not to... I found it was really hard to. They're, of course, the same story... but explored so differently. The film picks up with Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy), who has made his way to another town and making the authorities think he's insane. He tells his story of how his hometown was taken over by pod people, and they were going to slowly start taking over the world.

The pods themselves are really freaky, mostly because they remind me somewhat of Little Shop of Horrors, and that still causes plants to freak me out despite it being my favorite movie of all time. And although this film had a visual freak factor to it, that's the one area I did prefer the 1978 version. That version just had an amazing and gorgeous visual style and use of dream-like camera angles to add to everything. I loved the look of the '78 version, so that was hard to get past while watching this one. But still, while it didn't bring anything special to the table in that regard, it worked well--and sometimes better--elsewhere.

This is a nicely paced, taut noir thriller (much more than the horror it's labeled as). It's not as slow of a burn as the one that follows it, from what I remember, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Funnily enough, I was fighting falling asleep (due to tiredness, not the film) near the end, right around the time the characters themselves are fighting falling asleep so as not to turn into pod people... so there was a bizarre meta quality to watching this film that made it that much more intense.

Of course there's the comparison of endings, as well. The '78 version has the classic downer/shocker ending, which is fantastic (and a bit preferred). This version has a happier ending. Though apparently the happy ending was a studio choice, and the original ending was supposed to be in the scene right before it where Miles looks into the camera and says "You're next!" I'll admit, that was really creepy. And that only added to the exploitative nature of the film. In a way, it reminded me of something like Reefer Madness, where it was a fictional event used to scare people into thinking a certain way. In this case, it was used as a parallel with the red scare/McCarthyism (ironic, since the lead character is played by Kevin McCarthy). You can't trust anybody! And soon, if you're not careful, they'll come in the middle of the night while you're sleeping and take you and your family and brainwash you! Again, I know that was the entire idea behind it, so it works. It just felt, at times, a little beat-you-over-the-head with it, particularly toward the end.

Otherwise, it was a really good little film. Again, it's both easy and difficult to compare it to the '78 version. In a way, they both have their pros and cons. And I can't say which one is better. I think I prefer the '78 for both its ending and its visual style. But this version is much tighter in its pacing. I'd recommend checking it out if you like any of the other versions. It's a different enough cut of the story to keep you engaged, and it does get really creepy at times--mainly with the pods. Good stuff.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. That will do it for Steve's Month! It surely was an interesting month! It spanned the gamut of feelings, from eh (My Favorite Year) to good (Devil's Backbone) to really good (Body Snatchers) to new favorite (Double Indemnity). But now it's time to move on. Next month I'll be going into some bizarre, potentially dangerous territory. That's right, it's time for Joel's Month.)

50/50 Review #36: Double Indemnity.

My first and until now only Billy Wilder flick was The Apartment... which I didn't care much for. I didn't hate it, I just wasn't all that impressed and thought it was a bit uneven. So when I discovered today's latest flick was Billy Wilder, I wasn't exactly jumping through hoops to watch it. But should I have been? This 1944 noir classic follows an insurance salesman named Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) who, one day, goes to renew some auto insurance for Mr. Dietrichson (Tom Powers). But he's not home, and, instead, Walter meets the man's wife, Phyllis (Barbara Stanwyck). Lust hits them quick, and it's not long before Walter realizes Phyllis actually wants to put up accident insurance on her husband and then knock him off to get the money. Walter wants nothing to do with it... at first. And then he begins using his inside knowledge on how they can pull the perfect murder and get twice the amount of money using a double indemnity clause. And everything seems to work perfectly... until Walter's boss, Keyes (Edward G. Robinson), starts to suspect something and begins inspecting the case further.

So far Steve has been been off in his estimations on how I'd react to his suggestions. He thought I'd love Devil's Backbone. I thought it was pretty good. He thought I'd really like My Favorite Year... I didn't. And he thought I'd like this one alright, but that's about it. And yet again, he's wrong. I absolutely loved this movie. Like... added to Top 3 favorite classics kind of love. I might let it sink in a little more, but my gut reaction was putting it in my number 2 spot, right behind 12 Angry Men (which is my current favorite classic). There was hardly one thing about this flick I found bad.

The writing, first and foremost, was astounding. I was hooked by the time Walter and Phyllis first met and every single word that came out of their mouths were double entendres. And as the film went on and became darker, the wit slowed down, but the fantastic lines still rolled on. I loved lines like "how could I know that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?" and "I couldn't hear my own footsteps; it was the walk of a dead man." There were so many fantastic lines in this movie that I could literally keep going for the rest of this review.

What really helped those lines, though, were the actors and the directing. At times, I was reminded slightly of His Girl Friday and the quickness of the dialogue and the wit that came with it. I loved not only the speed of the delivery, but how strong and meaningful all the lines in this film were. My copy of the film had an introduction before it, and the guy stated that this was easily the best performances in the careers of everybody who participated. I'm no classic film buff by any means, but Hell... as far as I know, he's right. Everybody did so well.

I loved the framing of the shots. There's an intense moment where Keyes is leaving Walter's place and Phyllis is dropping in, but they can't be seen together, so Phyllis is hiding behind Walter's open door with Keyes just on the other side. That's a great shot. I love the decision not to show the actual murder, but instead you hear it. And then all the shadow shots, which I suppose are usual for the genre.

The use of noir voice-over is so natural as it has a perfect, in-story reason for it to be happening. There are some nice twists at the end that caught me off guard. The reversal of the match lighting in the final scene. I know I'm gushing, and this doesn't make for a very entertaining review. If you want negative, the best I can give is that maybe there were 1 or 2 scenes that dragged for a minute or so too long, but that's about it. Great writing, great suspense, and just all-around great flick. I guess I kinda liked it.


Royale With Cheese