Knocked Up: It's like Funny and Awesome had a baby

With Knocked Up Judd Apatow continues his frightening, almost Pixar-like, string of unmitigated successes. I'd really like to go deeper than that but, to be honest, I saw this movie a while ago and now I'm having trouble remembering it well enough to do it justice. Can I just say that it rules?


I am now convinced that Harold Ramis is the biological father of Seth Rogen.

Mr. Woodcock: Since both "wood" AND "cock" mean penis it's doubly funny!

The main problem with studios creating films is that they tend to be made by committee (I know, you're all impressed by my original insight). This results in movies that try to be everything to everybody but end up as generic works with no clear vision. I can handle a film with terribly misguided vision but one that just wanders from scene to scene with no apparent purpose? That's the worst. I just sit there thinking "Why was this made? There is no reason for this movie to exist. It's just taking up space."

As you've probably guessed, Mr. Woodcock is one such film. There's nothing particularly awful about it, it just seems completely unnecessary. Part of that is that is has no focus. This is the kind of movie that introduces a romantic interest for the lead (Got to draw in the females aged 18-49!) only to get distracted and forget about her.

Other than that? Uh, I like Amy Poehler and Ethan Suplee. I mean, in general. Not so much in this.


Watching this film reminded me that Susan Sarandon is still really attractive. Am I developing a thing for cougars?

The Brave One: Jodi's got a gun, everybody is on the run

Here's something that I find really disconcerting when I see a film in a theater: The main character will perform an act of vengeance that is completely indefensible and then the audience cheers. Now, I don't mean a crappy action film or some other comic-book-come-to-life movie where the characters are cardboard and no one's meant to take their actions seriously. I'm talking a serious film where the lead makes a choice to end someone's life in cold blood at the expense of their soul.

It's a scenario that the filmmakers have clearly created to comment on how violence begets more violence and the only way to break the cycle is to abandon your quest for revenge and learn to cope with your grief in a more constructive way. When the protagonist chooses to kill, not only do they perpetuate this chain of suffering, but they themselves are forever changed. Murder is not something you can commit without sacrificing part of your humanity.

This is a bad thing. A very bad thing. It should not be applauded. Yet, it seems that every time I see it happen the crowd gives an enthusiastic response. I find myself filled with outrage that the audience could be so callous and that they could so completely miss the point of the film.

I don't know, maybe I'm taking things too seriously. Perhaps I should get off my high horse and talk about the picture at hand, The Brave One (Warning: Spoiler Alert).

This is an incredibly well-made film that I absolutely hated. I don't have a whole lot to say other than that I spent the whole movie fuming that my fellow moviegoers "just didn't get what this film is about" while they "inappropriately cheered on a demented killer" only to discover at the very end that I was the one who didn't understand. Apparently, Neil Jordan is totally for vigilantism . . . and not a huge fan of the rule of law. So, I guess I'm the asshole.

Oh, and I know that Jodie Foster is almost 45 and probably not that into penises but she is still smoking hot. As is the dangerously-close-to-my-mother's-age Mary Steenburgen, for that matter. Say, let's see what we can do about getting these two ladies together.


"I am dark, and you are light."
"You are blind as a bat, and I have sight!
Side by side, you are my amigo, Negro, let's not fiiiiiiiight!"

Woman in the Dunes: Dunes in the Woman

Sometimes a movie really catches me off guard and Woman in the Dunes did just that. It's another one that I got from Roger Ebert's Great Movies and I actually thought it was an Antonioni film. So, I was surprised to discover that, instead of a dour Italian movie with subtext about Architecture that I'd never understand, I had rented a Japanese film directed by someone I'd never heard of.

The movie begins with a young man who travels from the city to the shore in order to study insects. He then falls asleep on the beach as the lazy day drags on and ends up missing the last bus back to Tokyo. When he wakes up one of the locals offers to show him to a home where he can spend the night. The young man follows him down a rope ladder where he meets the woman who will host him for the night. The woman is attractive but she seems overly shy, as if she were frightened of something.

At this point the film gradually turns into a nightmare scenario for the young man who soon discovers that the ladder has disappeared and that he is trapped in a pit. He tries to climb out but the walls are made of sand that quickly gives way under his feet. And to make matters worse the pit is slowly collapsing on itself. The young man and the woman must work for hours each day to collect the sand that falls on them so that the other villagers can remove it using a device that functions like the barrel in a well.

This fantastic scenario is used to meditate on issues of freedom, responsibility and justice. I'm not sure that I agree with the filmmakers points (or even, that I have properly understood them) but this movie certainly forces you to confront them head-on seems capable of causing great debate. I'd recommend seeing it with someone who has a sharp mind. I wish I did.


Sure, that looks hot but think of all the places that sand is getting into while they're at it.

The Hottest State: Is love or maybe hate, wait-no, it's Texas

Ethan Hawke, apparently, wrote a book. He then adapted said book into a screenplay and directed it while also taking a minor, but significant, role for himself. The result is The Hottest State, a solid film which delves into some pretty well-worn territory without really bringing anything new.

The movie begins on a promising note when a Texas girl decides to get it on with a guy in the back of a car after hearing him tell a version of the "God Damn Fish" joke. The result of their coupling is a suspiciously Ethan Hawkeish young man played by Mark Webber. He eventually meets Catalina Sandino Moreno (the chick from Maria Full of Grace) and what follows is a lot of joy and a lot of sorrow for the two of them.

It's basically a "Life of an Affair" film that gets hijacked at the very end by a "Finding Yourself" film (yeah, I thought that was weird too). It's well acted and provides some charming moments of young love tempered by painfully awkward and occasionally hostile scenes to keep things interesting. I feel like Hawke has proven himself as a competent director with this movie but he needs a more inspired script to really shine.


Love hurts. Hey, somebody should write a song about that.

The Chronicles of Narnia - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: Aslan, king of the whose?

Watching The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was an odd experience for me. I read the book back when I was in elementary school or, if I recall correctly, my father read it to my sister and I (but I read the rest of the series all by myself!) and I didn't remember much about it. In fact, near the end of the film, I began wondering if the White Witch would be defeated at the end of this movie and, if so, who was the antagonist for the rest of the books? It wasn't until this film was in production that I was introduced to the idea that Aslan=Jesus. Funny, how things that seem so obvious now can go completely over an eight-year-old's head.

This brings me to another thing that I had absolutely no memory of: Santa Claus. Really? The Narnianinians (or whatever you call them) celebrate Christmas? Christmas? The Mass that celebrates Christ's birth? That only works if Aslan totally and completely is Jesus. As in Aslan, lion-god of Narnia, is the word of God, Elohim, made flesh and sent to Second Temple era Jerusalem to be crucified for man's sins. Based on the fact that the Narnianites refer to the humans as "sons of Adam" and "daughters of eve" I think that's what C. S. Lewis is getting at. Well, that and my foggy recollections of the big reveal at the end of "The Last Battle". I guess I should really just read the series again.

As for the film itself, it's a serviceable adaptation but it never really astonishes. The CGI effects are well-done but not excellent, the actors are good to pretty-good but not exceptional, and the big battle scene is impressive but not epic. I couldn't really point out anything that's wrong with it, it's just that there wasn't anything that the filmmakers really nailed either. The real problem with this adaptation is that it makes Lewis's magnum opus look like a second-rate Lord of the Rings.


Are you a good witch or a, uh . . . nevermind.

Head: Hey, hey we're waiting to be taken seriously by people who do lots of drugs

I'm certainly no expert on the subject but as near as I can tell The Monkees were created as a spoof of The Beatles, only once they were assembled the group decided that they actually wanted to be The Beatles. It was this tension which was the undoing of their TV show's second season (at least, that's what it sounds like here) and what motivated the pre-fab four to deconstruct their mythos in the film Head. This movie features Annette Funicello and Frank Zappa which, I think, says everything you need to know about what it tries to achieve. And why it fails.

The film has a circular structure but no plot that I could identify. There seemed to be a theme that involved subverting each of the Monkees studio-defined images (in real life Peter Tork is not, in fact, retarded) but it was a little hard to make out. The whole thing is very psychedelic. And by psychedelic, I mean drug-influenced, somewhat juvenile, boarder-line incoherent and still kinda compelling. Or, at least, interesting in it's uniqueness.

Even if Head is more or less a complete fiasco, it sill has a prominent (or, at least, unique) place in film history. It was directed by Bob Rafelson, written by Jack Nicholson and Rafelson, and produced by Bert Schneider, Nicholson and Rafelson. The next year Nicholson and Schneider went on to do Easy Rider and after that all three of them were involved in the creation of Five Easy Pieces. These men, like the phoenix, rose from the ashes of an ill-conceived musical to begin a decade of challenging, revolutionary films. Also, Dennis Hopper was hanging around the set (he can be seen in the background, briefly, along with Rafelson and Nicholson) so you know he was mixed up in this whole thing, even if he doesn't have any official credits.


The choreography for this film was done by Toni Basil which begs the question: Did she find Micky Dolenz to be so fine?

The Most Beautiful: By beautiful, we mean efficient

Akira Kurosawa may be the greatest director of all-time but everyone has to start somewhere. For Kurosawa that was Judo Saga. Unfortunately, Netflix doesn't have that so I had to start with his second directorial outing, The Most Beautiful. It's not very good.

The film is a piece of Japanese wartime propaganda from 1944 (not an especially good year for Imperial Japan). It's about the Japanese equivalents to Rosie the Riveter and it involves a lot of noble suffering while doing one's duty to one's country and concerns about efficiency.

Other than the historical glimpse that the movie offers, the most interesting thing about this was the dreadfully bad subtitles. Clearly, this DVD wasn't made with Western audiences i mind. One special feature offered a Kurosawa bio which noted that the legendary director's "other masterpieces . . . were also frequently awarded in many Film Awards". It also noted the sad story that "at the age of sixty-one, the depressed Kurosawa committed suicide and fortunately was saved". Fortunately indeed, less-than-proficient translator. Fortunately indeed.


This woman's admirable patriotism inspired her to toil long into the night, building something which might have been used to kill your grandfather.

Superbad: More like SuperAWESOME

When Seth Rogen was 13 years old he began writing a movie with his best friend Evan Goldberg. Naturally, they named this project Superbad. Then they spent approximately half their lives punching up the script and their restless effort really shows. This film is filled with great lines that are really sold by the casual style of the cast lead by Michael Cera which gives the movie a spontaneous, improvised feel.

Cera seems to embody the essence of the movie which takes his fresh-faced innocence and adds vulgar wit. It's truly a marvel when someone can make a film so hilariously raunchy while keeping the core sweet without copping out and getting all cheesy (I'm looking at you, American Pie). It's a delicate balancing act and Superbad pulls it off flawlessly.

It's also a great example of what I'm going to call the "All Night" movie (it's sort of a sub-genre of the Coming of Age film). It's a movie that takes place over a roughly 24-hour period, generally from sunrise to sunrise, where a character or characters begins what seems like a typical day but ends up as a voyage into the unknown of the night. By the time daybreak is upon them they've seen things that challenged their beliefs and they are forever changed by the experience. Great examples of this genre include After Hours, Do the Right Thing, Dazed and Confused, Clerks. and Before Sunrise (yeah, I doubled-up on Linklater. So what?).

Wait, I seem to have gone off on a tangent. Did I mention how funny this movie is? Because it is hilarious (I won't spoil anything for the people who haven't seen it but the best joke is totally not a big deal and affects, like, eight percent of the population). The best part is that the comedy springs forth from the characters naturally. It doesn't feel like set-ups and punch-lines. Most of the laughs come from the characters' organic interactions which makes viewing it feel like you're hanging out with your friends. Or at least, it would if your friends were really good at comedic repartee.

Basically, this movie totally and completely rules.


FunFact: Seth Rogen is very funny.

The Matador: In real life only creepy loners get into the cloak & dagger game

After a seven-year stint as the world's coolest spy and five years as Remington Steele (who, I was surprised to find out, is not a razor) Pierce Brosnan lets loose in The Matador. Way loose.

Brosnan riffs on his previous spook work by playing an international assassin. Only instead of playing a worldly and debonair man of mystery he plays a washed-up loser who's reduced to getting drunk alone in his hotel room on his birthday because he can't even get his old pals to take his calls.

Eventually, Brosnan meets up with Greg Kinnear in a hotel bar in Mexico and the two make a natural connection. Kinnear is enamored with Brosnan's top secret, jet-setting lifestyle which provides an escapist fantasy for his dull, suburban existence and Brosnan is able to make a rare human connection and indulge his dreams of a stable life and a loving support system of family and friends. Of course, things are never easy for a hit man and Brosnan attempts to enlist Kinnear's help to pull off (you guessed it) one last job.

I've mostly just described the plot but what really struck me about this film was the tone. Unfortunately, that's also the most difficult thing to describe. The Matador treads a fine line between being a thriller and being a satire. I'd describe it as a character study but I think that's sort of a vague phrase and I'm not sure that it helps. I could say that it's a dark film with bits of comic relief but I'm not sure that it isn't a comedy with a seedy undertone. Can I just say that it has a certain . . . I don't know what.


Yes, Pierce Brosnan is wearing cowboy boots in that picture. You're welcome, ladies.