BLACK SWAN.

Let me start off by saying I'm not a huge Aronofsky fan. I still need to re-experience Requiem for a Dream, as the last attempt was in the middle of the night when I was much younger and I fell asleep halfway through. I thought The Fountain was one of the most boring (though pretty) films I've ever seen. I did really enjoy The Wrestler, though. All that being said, I went into this movie both knowing it was supposedly one of if not the best movie of the year mixed with my previous feelings for the director's films... and I wasn't sure what to expect.

Black Swan tells the story of Nina (Natalie Portman), a ballerina obsessed with perfection. She's very child-like, coddled by her obsessive and controlling mother, Erica (Barbara Hershey), a woman whose own dreams for the ballet were dashed when she was younger. Nina is soon casted in Thomas' (Vincent Cassel) own version of Swan Lake where the lead must play both the White Swan and the Black Swan. Thomas isn't sure Nina can pull of the Black Swan despite being magnificent at the White Swan role. Meanwhile, a new ballerina named Lily (Mila Kunis) comes to town and starts to shake things up a bit. Slowly, Nina loses control of reality as she tries to grasp the soul of the Black Swan, fighting between her own paranoid imagination and her sanity--is she really turning into a Black Swan or is the role just getting to her?

The best two words to describe this film are basically the same two words I've been hearing all over--visceral and sexy. There was a woman nearby who had brought her two small children with her--and at one point, she even left the theater (assuming to go to the bathroom), and she left the two little kids behind alone! First, you should never do that... ever. But second, if you ever were to do that, this is certainly not the film you do that in (this isn't even a film to bring them to in the first place). Half the time I was cringing from some disturbing moments, and the other half of the time I was watching Natalie Portman having sexy times. And that's about as close as I'm gonna get to talking about the famous lesbian scene.

So that lesbian scene was pretty hot.

Er, sorry.

Anyway, the scene where Natalie Portman is mastu...

Sorry, off track again. I need something to take my mind off all the sexy times.

OK, so how about the time when she rips the skin from her fingernail down to her knuckle. Oh yeah, baby. Sorry, I threw up in my mouth a little. Back on track.

Like I was saying, this movie is visceral. There are a lot of disturbing images in this movie, and I don't just mean all the fingernail stuff--and there are a lot of fingernail-related moments. The imagery of the film is unsettling, from the back rash to the mirrors. I want to take a moment to discuss the mirrors. This film is full of mirrors. Almost every scene has multiple mirrors. This movie must have been a nightmare in post-production. Still, the way they were utilized, either fragmenting reflections or having reflections moving slightly off from when the real person is moving, was magnificent. I want to see the movie again simply to watch the mirrors the entire time.

The acting is solid, as well. Natalie Portman is gorgeous as usual and, dare I say it, very sexy at times. But that's the point of the role, right? Seduction. Mila Kunis has been surprising me quite a bit lately, shedding her Jackie persona from That 70s Show. And this movie really helps her jettison to the next level. Vincent Cassel is fantastic and creepy, too. One actress I wasn't expecting (which is kinda how she's been a lot lately) is Winona Ryder as Beth, a former big name in ballet who is retiring. Her performance is gut-wrenching... in the sense that she reaches through the screen, grabs your intestines, and wrenches them from your body. It's a pretty intense role.

And that's another great way to describe this movie: intense. Don't come into it thinking you're in for a wonderful romp into the world of ballet. It's a heavy look into the psychosis of a young woman who has to make such a huge personality shift for a role that it literally destroys her from the inside out. It's a study of the mind and its slow decline from sanity, showing you every painstaking second of this woman whose life is swirling down the drain for the hope of perfection. And the music is good, too. (Understatement.)


Royale With Cheese

TRUE GRIT.

Warning: Mild spoilers.

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

As I come to the end of Western Month, I'd like to end with the film all of this was leading up to (though not as a part of 60/60, mind you). True Grit tells the story of Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a 14-year-old girl whose father was killed in cold blood by Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). With quick wit and a sharp mind, she eventually hires Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to hunt Chaney down and bring him to justice. Along for the ride, however, is Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) who wants to bring Chaney in for the death of a politician back in Texas. The film also includes Barry Pepper as "Lucky" Ned, the outlaw that Chaney is riding with.

The most notable thing about this film is how it showcases the humor of the Coen Brothers. There is a lot of dialogue in this movie, and at least half of it (if not more) is quite funny. The interactions between the characters, particularly between Mattie and, well... anyone else... was always delightful to watch. The first 2/3s of the movie didn't really have any action at all, but it just flew by thanks to the sharp writing and great acting.

And the acting really is fantastic. The three leads of Steinfeld, Bridges, and Damon are superb. I don't typically pay attention to awards until the final nominations are revealed for the Oscars, but I have heard that Steinfeld is only up for supporting actress, which is ludicrous. The girl was in practically every frame of the film, more than any other character. She is not only the lead actress, but the lead character. To grant her supporting actress is like a slap in the face. And she deserves that lead nomination. She was absolutely fantastic. However, despite the fantastic acting here, the acting (and partially directing) is where the film falters.

Like with the Coens' other western--No Country For Old Men--this film sinks in its third act. Once Tom Chaney and gang are introduced, everything just starts getting... strange. Now, I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare. But here, Brolin acts Chaney like he'd rather be playing Lennie in Of Mice And Men. It doesn't go (to quote Tropic Thunder) "full retard," but there's something amiss with Chaney that completely threw me off. And then you have another member of his outlaw gang that walks around making animal noises... and that's it. That's his sole purpose in the movie: animal noises. Chickens, cows, you name it. It wasn't funny... it was stupid, and I'm not exactly sure what the Coens were thinking. Then, to top it off, the film's antagonist switches to Barry Pepper's Lucky Ned, despite having only heard of the guy maybe twice in the entire film prior and never in more than an offhand comment or question (the most we hear about him is during the "cabin" sequence, and we're only hearing about him because he's riding with Chaney, their main target). But the big showdown in the film isn't even with Chaney, but between Cogburn and Lucky Ned. Granted, Pepper does a great job with the character, but it just feels strange spending the entire movie going after Chaney and then having a finale hardly focusing on the guy (which might have been for the better anyway).

Still, the third act wasn't a complete waste. Unlike No Country, there were some redeeming factors in its finale. And the overall film was definitely worth seeing. Between the writing and humor, the good cinematography, and the (mostly) great acting and directing, True Grit is a fine western. Was it my favorite western I'd seen this month? No, but it wasn't the worst, either. I say it's pretty far up there in the most enjoyable, though.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Review #8: Seven Samurai.

God, what the heck can I even say about this movie? Let's set it up first. While it's one of the longest on this list, it was in my Top 3 Most Anticipated. This was my third Kurosawa film, and the other two were damn good. So adding that and everything I'd heard, my Julianne Moore's (read: expectations. Listen to LAMBcast, people) were pretty freakin' high. In other words, if this movie were anything less than a masterpiece, I was going to be disappointed.

For those who don't know, the movie is about a village of peasants who hire seven samurai to rid them of a gang of bandits that have pillaged them to the point of having nothing left. The head of this samurai squad is a Ronin named Kanbe (Takashi Shimura). Along to help are a mix of other samurai including one who might not even be one, a silly man named Kikuchiyo (Toshiro Mifune). Together, they plan on how best to take down the bandits and then, finally, attempt to accomplish their plans. From here on, you'll have to forgive me name-wise, both with characters and actors. Besides the two I just named (and a few of the villagers), it was tough for me to keep names straight, and I'm too lazy to look up on Wikipedia which was which.

This movie truly is one of the greatest films ever made. It has everything: a great cast of characters who are layered and who evolve, great acting, fantastic camera use, fitting music, exciting action, tense drama, fun comedy, secret romance, and a sprinkle of sadness when characters start to die. And I said it before with The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but there needs to be a reason for a movie to be this long (this one clocks in about 3.5 hours). GBU had no reason to be as long as it was. Seven Samurai, on the other hand, utilized every minute with purpose, whether to develop story or character.

The stealer of the show is, without question and without much surprise, Kurosawa regular Toshiro Mifune. At first he comes off as some insane man following them around. But as the movie continues, you start to realize what makes him tick, what drives him to do what he does, and you really grow attached to the guy, wondering what he's going to do next. The next is probably a tie between Kanbe and the quiet but super-skilled samurai, both showing wisdom and strength in their age.

I also mentioned both comedy and romance in the film. The comedy surprised me, honestly. I know Kurosawa has done comedy (and one of the three I've seen of his is one of them), but for some reason I wasn't expecting the jovial nature of a lot of the characters in this movie. It was really refreshing. And then there's the romance. There are two main "love" issues in the film. The first deals with one of the villagers named Rikichi who gets upset anytime someone brings up how he should have a woman or something like that, and it slowly builds to a reveal of what exactly happened. But the main story in this area is between Kanbe's protege and a peasant girl named Shino. They meet on accident at first, as Shino's father--Manzo--makes her pretend to be a boy so that the samurai won't rape her (as samurai are apparently known to do). They end up meeting in secret and building this relationship, all of which intertwines itself with the main story. I would say that the relationship could have been touched on a wee bit more, but the movie is already long enough.

In fact, I broke down GBU into three parts when I reviewed that one. This one, on the other hand, can be broken down into four, and they are so easily split into four sections that I wouldn't be surprised if Kurosawa planned it as such. The first hour focuses on finding the seven samurai and putting the team together, so to speak. This is a very entertaining portion of the movie. It was a lot of fun watching them try to sift through their choices and get everyone together.

The second hour is all the planning and preparation. This is where the movie slows down and starts building all the subplots and character development. This is also going to be the part of the film where a lot of people iffy about the long time span of the film might struggle the most. I certainly wouldn't say it's boring. There are a lot of good moments in this part, mostly thanks to Toshiro Mifune. But it's certainly the part of the movie with the least action.

The third hour is when all the fighting with the bandits begins. It isn't non-stop action, either. It's a very nice balance of action and then pulling back to not only have the characters strategize, but to give us further development with these characters and their respective subplots. Neither type of segment lasts too long, going back and forth pretty equally. However, where I personally started to feel the drag of the length of the movie was near the end of this hour. There is kind of a stretch between things happening near the end of this hour, but thankfully the fourth section of the movie sweeps in and saves the day.

The last 30 minutes are, as labeled even within the film, the final showdown. This is where everything comes to a head. All the subplots come together--major characters start dying, others start to show their true character (both good and bad), secret relationships come to light, and the final fight with the bandits occurs. I found it kind of a downer ending, despite the outcome of the battle (hey... it's been out for 56 years... I think I can safely allude to the ending without much repercussion). But at the same time, I found it interesting how it did exactly what people complained about with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--either not showing major deaths on screen or not making a huge deal of it when it happens. It has a "this is war--death happens and we need to move on... we can mourn later" attitude.

So overall, I don't really have a summation. This film is damn near perfect, and I can see why it's considered one of the greatest films ever made. I can now add myself to the ranks who agree with this. Sure it's long, but I found it worth sitting through. However, would I sit down on a rainy day and watch Seven Samurai just because I feel like it? Probably not, but that has more to do with the length than anything. It might not crack my Top 10 Favorite Films Of All Time, but it certainly cracks what I feel to be the Top 10 Best Films Of All Time and, if I were to split the categories, Top 10 Favorite Classics (and/or Essentials). That being said, if you've not seen this film, definitely check it out. It's long, but it's worth it.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. That'll wrap up "Western" Month... whew, what a month! We'll be starting into "Foreign" Month next week with my transitional film, the modern Asian classic: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.)

60/60 Extra: The Good, The Bad, And The Weird.

I know this isn't a well-known or classic film of the genre, but it's a good transition between the previous film and the next one. This film is to the action western as, essentially, Hot Fuzz was the buddy cop/action films. Taking place in World War II-ish Manchuria, this film is a strange hybrid that almost feels steampunk, but isn't. After a man hires another to take a treasure map onto a train, he then goes and hires Park Chang-yi (Byung-hun Lee)--the Bad--to steal it back so that he'll have paid the first man but will have retained the map. Unfortunately, a bumbling train robber named Yoon Tae-goo (Kang-ho Song)--the Weird--steals the map first, not knowing what it is. In the middle of all this is a bounty hunter named Park Do-won (Woo-sung Jung)--the Good--who is out to capture and/or kill Park Chang-yi, thinking him the dastardly Finger Chopper. Their three stories continually intersect throughout the film, and eventually Yoon Tae-goo and Park Do-won travel together, following the map to its supposed treasure.

This film is f**king fantastic (and if you don't believe me, take a gander at its 7.4 on imdb and 83% on Rotten Tomatoes). The thing that threw me at first, however, was the time period. You're never given anything directly stated, so after seeing steam engines, cowboy hats, and horses, I was thrown off when motorcycles appeared. Not to mention the strange clothing, giant war hammers, more modern guns (in comparison to old west revolvers), and more. But about halfway through, I looked it up and saw it took place in the 1940s, so everything started making more sense (except maybe the clothing, but maybe that's what it was like in 1940s Manchuria).

Once you get past that little bit of confusion, everything else is superb. This movie is an action film, no doubt about it. It's almost non-stop. And outside of Kung Fu films and bent reality actioners like The Matrix, Equilibrium, Wanted, etc., it's some of the coolest action I've seen. The movie starts off with an awesome train heist and shootout and doesn't let down from there. A couple noteworthy moments include shooting a guy at a distance in the face through his sniper scope, shooting while swinging over rooftops on a rope-pulley system, facing a Japanese army between horseback and jeep/convoy, and--of course--the final showdown at the end. And more... so much more.

The movie isn't overly serious--knowing exactly what it is--but it didn't become what I most feared, either. It didn't become absurd or overly goofy like a Stephen Chow film (which are good in their own right, but it's not what I wanted here... and thankfully, I didn't get that). The film does ground itself in reality. Yes, it is pretty weird at times and the action can be over-the-top, but it never gets cartoonish or comic book-y. It has a good balance of seriousness and comedy.

The acting is superb, too. Byung-hun Lee is menacing and unrelenting as "the bad," and you wonder how anyone could ever beat him (and he looks awesome). But then you have Woo-sung Jung as "the good," who is a badass himself, able to shoot accurately from afar--making him even deadlier close up. It took me a while to get used to his looks (he's not your typical strapping hero), but his acting quickly makes up for it. Then you have the comedic Kang-ho Song as "the weird," who is more bumbling than weird. He plays the character perfectly with a sense of silliness but an air of skill, as if perhaps actually knowing exactly what he's doing after all. He leaves you questioning through most of the film if he's actually an idiot or if there's more to him than meets the eye (no, he's not a Transformer).

Just like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, the characters switch around among their labels throughout the film. And, of course, there are other similarities besides the characters. The basic plot of the film being the three hunting for a hidden treasure in the middle of a war-torn land is straight from the aforementioned film. But it also pays homage to other westerns, such as A Fistful of Dollar, For A Few Dollars More, Once Upon a Time in the West, Duck You Sucker, and even, despite not being a western, a bit of Raiders of the Lost Ark (thank you IMDb for the list of film connections). As I said at the beginning, this film is to the action western what Hot Fuzz is to modern buddy cop/action films. It pays homage to these other films of the genre inside a sometimes serious, most times funny, over-the-top action film.

If you're a fan of Sergio Leone's work, especially the namesake film, I'd definitely recommend checking this one out. It's absolutely fantastic. Even if you're not a fan of westerns but love a good action film, totally seek this out. However, I want to say that, apparently, there are at least two versions of this film. The one on Netflix Instant Streaming is an inferior cut--from what I've read--leaving out a couple key moments near the end of the film. And speaking of, don't turn off the film once the credits start rolling. About a minute or so in, you're shown another scene (which is also where one of the essential moments is missing from, apparently, in the Netflix version). Anyway, I'll stop rambling now. If I wanted to give any negatives, it would be that at just over 2 hours, the film does feel a slight drag at the end of its second act/beginning of its third act, but that quickly goes away. So yeah, definitely check this out. The action alone is worth it.


Royale With Cheese

2 In 1: Restrepo And Exit Through The Gift Shop.

There's really only one thing connecting these two movies: they're critically acclaimed documentaries from this year. I'm sure I can think of something silly if I dig deep (perhaps that both are docs that will mess with your head), but I'm too lazy for that. So without further ado, I'll just get into them in the order I watched them.

Restrepo.

I had to force myself to watch this, as I knew it was going to be a tough watch. I don't watch documentaries or war films on a regular basis, so it would be hard on that front, but of course, I knew the subject material was going to be really rough and upsetting. And it was. This documentary follows a year in the life of the Second Platoon in Afghanistan's most dangerous valley. After the death of "Doc" Restrepo, the unit builds a new outpost (O.P.) in a strategic area and call it O.P. Restrepo after their fallen friend. The rest of the documentary details the unit's triumphs and failures at O.P. Restrepo and on the battlefield.

As I said, this was a tough film to watch as people were dying every 10-15 minutes. And this kind of brings in my biggest issue with the documentary. There are constantly new people showing up in the documentary that it starts becoming difficult differentiating between who is who. There is a main cast of people it focuses on--primarily in the 'interviews' that take place after-the-fact. But while in the valley, there were new people showing up all the time, throughout the entire documentary, and it never explains where these people are coming from. Were they there the whole time and you're just now showing them? Are they new recruits? What's going on?

Also, if the film really wanted to use pathos on its audience, it could have done a lot more. I mean, there's a lot of pathos there, but when it mentions people who have died, my only reaction was "... who was that?" The way they're talked about, it's as if we'd been following them the whole time, but we haven't. If the filmmakers wanted the pain of war to hit hard, then they needed to show these people, let us get to know them so then when they died, we have a stronger reaction of "Holy crap, war totally sucks." We still get that from the film, but it's not as strong of a message as it could have been.

Or was that really the message? There were a few instances where I couldn't tell if this was a pro- or anti-war film. A good handful of the soldiers, despite hating it there, were a bit gun- and kill-happy. There's a particular scene I remember where the soldiers are celebrating because they shot up a guy and his limbs, apparently, started flying everywhere. And they were ecstatic about this. They were elated that they not only killed but supposedly mutilated another human being. Then there was a time when the main soldier guy (I can't remember his name, sorry) was upset that he had accidentally killed innocents in a bombing, but his reaction, despite being upset, was basically "well, it was their fault for living among terrorists. Moving on." Maybe that was his way of rationalizing the event so to not be driven mad, but it just feels so... wrong.

Because of these kinds of things, I wasn't sure whether the film was trying to show me the detriments of war and how it affects its soldiers or how, if it weren't for these soldiers and O.P. Restrepo, that section of Afghanistan would be an even worse hellhole than it is (thus showing the benefits of war). So I guess thematically and emotionally, the film could have been done stronger. Or maybe the point was to show the morally gray area that war resides in, how it can do both good and bad, how it affects all sides.

Regardless, it was still a powerful film. The highlight is the Mission Rock Avalanche segment near the end. That whole part of the film was very tense where they just explain (instead of show) how things started going wrong, how one guy in particular got shot up and nearly died, and how close everyone really came to dying (though a couple did). But then it goes and shows parts, and there's a very real moment (I know that's kinda weird to say for a documentary) where this soldier just loses it emotionally and breaks down when he sees one of his fallen comrades. On the whole, if you're into intense documentaries and/or you like to subject of war, then this is definitely a film to check out.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

Exit Through The Gift Shop.

This movie made my head hurt. It's a documentary directed by a street artist (Banksy) about a Frenchman (Thierry Guetta) who starts making a documentary about street artists--including Banksy--but then becomes a street artist himself, only to have Banksy take over his documentary and change the subject of said documentary around. And in the end, it's not even a certainty that any of this documentary is even true. It's basically as if Charlie Kaufman made a documentary.

Thierry Guetta is a total nutball dipshit, to put it nicely. He's introduced to us as a family man who carries around a video camera filming every second of his life, then stores the tapes away in containers never to view them. He's very slow and naive, unable to form coherent thoughts or sentences (even taking into account English isn't his first language) and unable to comprehend even the most common sense notions. And even if it weren't for the fact that every single person in the documentary tells you how insane and stupid Thierry appears to be, you'd still be able to tell that they didn't exactly like him. Hell, even his cousin won't talk to him anymore (according to the closing information, anyway).

Now that we have our main character, we're taken on a ride into the semi-illegal (they never say straight-up if it's illegal or not what they do--graffiti is illegal, but they don't exactly do "graffiti") world of street art. There are different kinds of street art, as well. There are those like Space Invader who put images of the Space Invader aliens up around cities. There are those like Shepard Fairey who put up giant sheets of Andre the Giant with "Obey" underneath (though he's moreso known now for his famous rendering of President Obama's portrait). And then there's Banksy, who is like the DaVinci of street artists, doing anything from wall paintings to restructuring a phone booth so that it looks completely bent over.

Then, about 2/3s into the documentary, everything turns around. We're introduced to Mr. Brainwash, who is Thierry's street artist persona. After Banksy sees how much of a failure Thierry is at filmmaking, he tells him to go try his hand at street art. So basically, after having years of observation hours, Thierry takes up his new moniker and rips off everybody he's watched in the past. He doesn't do anything new or exciting. In fact, he basically does one thing and copies it ad nauseum. And people eat it up.

This is where the message of the film comes in, though there could be many messages you could take from it. If you're looking at the whole documentary as true, then the film is a study on the idiocy of the mass population, the ridiculousness of modern art, and how a person can go from nothing to millionaire overnight if s/he knows how to play their cards just right. It isn't about talent, it's about a little luck and who you know. Or, if you look at the film as a total lie, it's just another work of art from Banksy, taking his street art from stationary pictures to moving ones; he takes something that is generally seen as normal--a documentary--and turns it on its side as an act of sociological study, much like his bent phone booth. He could be putting out something that he knows is completely ridiculous just to see how much people actually eat it up, much like the people as portrayed through those interested in Mr. Brainwash's art. Or it's just straight-up satire. Any way you look at it, it's incredibly meta, and in that regard, I like it.

Still, regardless of how you look at it, the movie is fascinating. It's either the most ridiculous or most genius documentary I've ever seen. It could be slightly pretentious depending on how you looked at it, but isn't all art? Art in and of itself is an overt act of self-expression that is put on display for all to question and ponder (as if it's important). That's pretty much pretentiousness right there. But I digress. If you're interested in the world of street artists and seeing who is quite possibly the daftest subject of a documentary ever (whether or not he actually exists as portrayed is another question), then this film is for you. It's certainly not boring.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

Random Ramblings of a Demented DoorVlog S2.4.

Here's episode S2.4.

This particular episode references Episode 5 of Season 1. This is what you need to know...

Previously, in Episode S1.5 of The Vlog: The floor of Nick's apartment got covered in lava, and Nick somehow gained the ability to levitate over it.

Last time on The Vlog: DPR has been continually fixing strange things that have been going on at the apartment every week, from being driven silent to being stuck in a time loop. Also, someone appears to be trying to help out, giving him advice on how to fix these anomalies (particularly the loss of voice issue, as DPR received a letter--originally addressed to Nick--explaining what to do). Also, in present day, Nick's couch was gone.

Nothing particularly interesting behind the scenes except that I thought I had recorded a clip, but the camera had other ideas at the time... so I had to re-record it later once I realized it was missing (this happens to me more often than you'd think). I also had to attempt to upload the damn thing 3 times, which was annoying. I have no idea why it isn't as wide as it usually is within the frame of the player. Finally, I don't like how the levitation bit turned out this time around, as it didn't appear as seamless as the first time around... but oh well.

And, oh yeah, you get your first "glimpse" at one of many new guest characters this season.

Anywho, enjoy!

The Demented Podcast #5 - The Demented Encyclopedia.

For an early Christmas present to y'all, here is the next Demented Podcast a wee earlier than usual!

For this episode, I am reunited with Travis McCollum of The Movie Encyclopedia. It's the longest episode so far, but not by much. We take on a short "The Challenge" that is a bit seasonal, I believe... but funny.

Then we get into our main discussion: Hollywood trends. From 3D to comics/graphic novel adaptations to (unnecessary) sequels, we cover it all in a discussion that is actually not a Top 5 list. (Warning: There are some spoilers for Season 1 of The Walking Dead if you haven't seen it yet.)

But then we get into what has to be a Demented Tower for the books. Travis aims to break a new record, but is he gunning for Rachel's Top Score or is he taking Jason's Bottom Score Challenge? As a side note, this particular episode was very intensive to edit. Believe it or not, while recording, the Demented Tower alone went on for AN HOUR AND A HALF. And this was all talking and rambling and thinking out responses, folks. This wasn't just pure silence that I could easily trim down on as per usual. But you know what? I took that 1.5 hour time and somehow brought it down to 30 minutes.

Finally, keep an ear out for a fun little Easter Egg at the end of the closing music! It was too good to pass up.

Current Leaderboard (The Demented Tower):
1) Rachel - 179 Points
2) James - 135 Points
3) Jess - 95 Points
4) Jason - 33 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.



That being said, enjoy! Thanks goes out to Kevin MacLeod's Incompetech website for great, royalty-free music. And thanks to Google for helping me find a website that will give me free video game audio samples.

Unrelated To Movies: New Novel.

That's right, I finished yet another novel. It's just the first draft, and it happens to be the shortest of my novels thus far (clocking in at just under 61,000 words). I'm hoping to flesh it out in later drafts, of course. But as for now, here's some info:

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

Detective Paul Wilson is curious when blood-soaked Aidyn Cassidy shows up at the police station and requests to see him--especially since he has no idea who she is. While she tells her story, Paul is faced with unnatural occurrences and strange visions, forcing him to question not only his own sanity, but the validity of Aidyn's story. And her story isn't that easy to swallow.

Aidyn, at 16, does not get along with her parents. Fed up with Aidyn's attitude, they set up a weekend getaway for the family, including Aidyn's two siblings, in the form of a camping trip, grasping at the hopes of familial bonding. However, the family is soon forced down into an old, nearby bomb shelter for safety after an unseen enemy attacks. Now stuck in the dark shelter, the Cassidy family gradually becomes more paranoid as tempers rise and deep, dark secrets bubble to the surface. So not only must they face an unknowable enemy above, but they must also survive each other in the one place that should keep them safe.

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

If you'd like further information on the book, such as how it came out or maybe more information on all the major characters, you can click here and read all about it. Anywho, just felt like sharing!

60/60 Review #7: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

There are two kinds of westerns in this world: the fast-paced actioners and the slow-burns that last for 3 damn hours. When you look at the western, this one is basically the quintessential film. For the unacquainted, the film introduces us to "the ugly," a bandit named Tuco (Eli Wallach) with very few morals; "the bad," a professional assassin named Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) who never fails to complete a mission once paid; and "the good," a con artist known only as Blondie (Clint Eastwood) who captures a bounty and then frees the outlaw, only to capture and repeat the process. Blondie and Tuco are working together until things begin to derail between them. Angel Eyes is doing a job hunting down a man who has changed his name to Bill Carson. And all three venture through a Civil War-torn south to find buried treasure in a cemetery.

Like any good movie, this one can be split into three parts (but unlike most films, each part is an hour long instead of roughly 30 minutes). The first hour introduces us to the main three characters and how they interact with each other. This hour, despite its slowness, is good. The little segments introducing each character is fun, and the first 10 minutes don't even have dialogue. Still, it left me wondering if we were ever going to get to the point.

The second hour sets up the hidden treasure plot and has our characters together in an army camp. So we finally get to the point and the movie starts picking up a bit. However, whereas the first hour actually felt like a western, this hour starts giving it an overall war film feeling (which continues into the bulk of the next hour, too).

The final hour at first builds steam with a fun shoot-out and one of my favorite lines in the movie ("When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." Just his delivery of the line is fantastic). But then the movie slams on its breaks for a mostly unnecessary bridge sequence that has Blondie and Tuco at another army camp. It wasn't a bad sequence--just unnecessary. The best part (besides the big explosion) is a very quiet moment when Blondie gives a dying soldier a puff of his cigar. It's such a fantastic moment. After the nearly 30-minute detour, we have our grand finale at the cemetery. The whole cemetery sequence is very well done, of course. Really good stuff.

The acting was solid. Clint Eastwood, who I had yet to see act well, does a really good job here. And Eli Wallach does well, too. But the true star of the film, for me anyway, was Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes. I wanna see this guy in other stuff. He was menacing yet somehow elegant--the best kind of villain. And his distinct look really set him apart, too.

One thing I particularly liked was how, despite being labeled in a very black and white manner, the characters weren't black and white. Blondie wasn't all that "good." Angel Eyes might have been "bad," but he did follow a code of ethics. Tuco was really the only one who didn't walk a gray area. He was selfish and did what benefited him the most--in fact, at times, he was more "bad" than even Angel Eyes.

Anyway, I'll just get into my final notes now. The film's score is wonderful (and famous--despite not having seen the film before, I knew the main theme that plays throughout). The film was basically 2/3s dubbed over in English and 1/3 actually spoken in English. I thought that would get annoying, but you really don't notice it after a while. The film's biggest flaw is really its length. I could have easily done with about an hour or so less and wouldn't have been bothered any. Things did start feeling repetitive in the last half of the movie with all the Civil War stuff, so that could have been trimmed down a lot. I don't mind long movies, but as many people have said in the past--there needs to be a reason that it's that long. Here, there's no reason it needed to be 3 hours long. The pacing was mostly fine up until that last hour.

So that's it. I refrained from being cliche and doing this in a "good, bad, ugly" format (mostly because, honestly, there wasn't anything ugly/terrible about it). Would I go out and watch this again? Probably not--at least not for a good while. But am I glad I saw it? Definitely. Anyway, keep an eye out before next Wednesday for another 60/60 Extra that will help transition from this film into the Japanese western that is coming next (it's not exactly a classic, but it's too good of a transition to pass up). As for this film, however...


A Keanu 'Whoa'

Jason Soto's The Night Before Christmas.

Jason Soto has made his Christmas Special for Jason Makes A Video, and he asked me to be a part of it. It's just a short bit, but it was fun trying to come up with something to make it funny/awkward. As for the rest... enjoy as Jason and Cokie do their own rendition of The Night Before Christmas!