And the next review will be...

Apocalypse Now.

Not because I want to review it but because it happened to be scribe-o-rama's turn to choose the next film for us to review.

And because of comments I made in the last post of my disdain for this era in history and said films about it.

So the scribester gave me a list of five 'Nam themed movies to choose from and this was the first one I found. Once I had it, I didn't bother to search for the others.

Actually, this was the one movie on that list that I thought would be the most palatable and had actually wanted to see it for one reason, which shall be disclosed as part of my review, despite the genre.

Since this is the direction we're going next, I will give it fair treatment in my review, which you can expect sometime over the holiday weekend.

But scribe has been warned: in the next review I shall gain revenge for making me suffer this!!! Fortunately for him, I was able to locate the film on DVD and not VHS, as has been the case before, which softens my wrath a wee bit...

Scribe's Ten Most Overrated Films of All-Time (or Something Like That):

The following is reprinted from a list I scribed 2 years ago on my Organized Chaos blog. The purpose of the list this time is for Green to analyze and respond within the text of this blog and for others to leave comments.


Keep in mind that the criteria for this list do not exclusively include terrible movies that I didn’t like. Some of them are films that, while enjoyable or of high quality, did not live up to the hype upon first viewing nor on subsequent ones.


Number 10: “Braveheart”
Not at all a bad movie. It has many merits working in its favor including good cinematography, realistic battle scenes and Mel Gibson’s last appearance with rock star hair. However, it’s an inherently flawed movie due in no small part to Gibson’s novice direction and over-reliance on slow-motion and bizarre imagery. It was, however, a good training session for his superior directorial efforts on “The Passion of the Christ.” What really hurts this movie is that you’re forced to choose between the more civilized brutes from England or the kilt-wearin’ barbarians from Scotland.

I liked this movie, too. I agree it's got a lot going for it. Funny though that this movie won Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director in 1995, so if Gibson's directing was bad here, the other four nominees for Best Director that year must really have been crap-tastic.


Number 9: “Full Metal Jacket”
Again, not a bad movie, especially during the first hour’s basic training scenes, but it has achieved undeserved classic status. Once the soldiers arrive in “Vietnam,” an old abandoned English studio, the film takes on a surreal yet fake tone replete with laughable philosophical observances and over-wrought attempts at shocking violence and tragedy. Kubrik, an elderly British director, knew nothing of the Vietnam War except what he’d read in newspapers and it shows. Best part of the movie: “Me so horny! Me love you long time!”

I've never seen this movie and I never will. I can't stand 99% of war movies having to do with Vietnam. In fact the only decent Vietnam film was "Good Morning, Vietnam!" largely because of the strength of the performance of Robin Williams in the title role.

Number 8: “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory”
Much like director Tim Burton, I am not one of those people who hold this film in holy regard. My generation was reared on this fatalistic rubbish thanks to TV but I resisted seeing it until I was an adult due to lack of interest. When I realized I might lose my Gen-X membership card if I didn’t see it, I subjected myself to the horror…the horror…

If you're talking the Gene Wilder version of this film, then it's not so bad. In the pre-Star Wars era of special effects, some of them are top-notch. Overall, remember that it's supposed to be a syrupy kid's movie. If you're talking the Tim Burton remake then you can forget it. As much as I admire the work of Burton in "Batman", "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands", and the overall work of Johnny Depp, their collaboration here in this version of this film makes the elder version Best Picture Oscar-worthy. And that's saying a lot.


Number 7: “Top Gun”
Ah, the days when war was portrayed as a fun time had by all. OK, technically it was a Cold War, but nothing was cooler than watching a bunch of flight jockeys play shirtless volleyball in-between MIG hunts. The aerial sequences still hold up in this era of CGI, but the action on the ground is grade school melodrama at best.

Over all, this is a good, watchable movie, despite the ground level, grade school melodrama. The aerial sequences are cool. This is the film that rocketed Tom Cruise to fame and fortune, before he got all weird on that Scientology crapola. Yep, blame it on the "Danger Zone."

Number 6: “Forrest Gump”
Featuring stupid tag lines like, “Life is like a box of chocolates,” this simpering melodrama about a seeming ‘tard who was a genius in the business world was one of the more agonizing 2 ½ hours of my life. Hanks’ horrible southern drawl not withstanding, the entire film is just one big excuse to have Gump go from place to place and “learn things.” The morphing into historical footage was a neat trick when I saw it the first time in Woody Allen’s “Zelig!”

I don't recall any major hype before this film was released and think it's only notoriety came after Tom Hanks copped his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar in 1994. Aside from the Best Picture and Best Director Oscars that it also won, of course.

Number 5: “To Kill a Mockingbird”
This is a personal prejudice of mine based on my general disdain for the book. Gregory Peck turns in his finest performance in this sermonized piece of drek that teaches us that black people are idiots who need the protection of well-meaning white folk.

You know, this is one of those films that was always on my "to see" list, but since I'd read the novel in high school, never found the real need to watch it. Gregory Peck's performance nitwithstanding, there was always something more appealing at the video store to choose from.

Number 4: “Silence of the Lambs”
Poorly acted. Poorly written. Poorly directed. I laughed during this exercise in schlock. This film has earned a legendary status based on the performance of Anthony Hopkins as fun-lovin’ Hannibal Lechter, folk hero of the truly fucked up.

I'm not really into psycho-killer horror movies but this one was good. I haven't seen any of the recent Lechter spin off movies and don't intend to. Since "Lambs" swept the four major Oscars in 1991, someone must have liked it. Either that or there was a big payoff somewhere that escaped every one's notice, except for Bubba, whose got a huge wedge of soap shoved up his.... sleeve. Yeah, sleeve. That's it.

Number 3: “The Matrix”
This overwrought, under-thought, exercise in pseudo-intellectual pablum is the worst thing to hit theatres since...well, ever. I went and saw this before the hype. While the rest of the pimply-faced scratchy-voiced fan boys had no idea what the Matrix was, I'd already been reading about the movie and its supposed "complicated plot" for 6 months. Needless to say, it sounded highly derivative of William Gibson, but not un-intriguing (is that a word?) As I watched, all I could think was, "Why am I not liking this?" It took me a day to realize it was the over-reliance on visuals, the Swiss cheese plot and the TERRIBLE acting! Perhaps the current generation is superficial enough to consider this a worthy replacement for Star Wars, but I'm still waiting...

If the current generation expects this to be a worthy replacement for "Star Wars", then they're dumber than I thought. This film was the best of the trilogy. I hadn't seen or heard of it until I watched it on pay-per-view at cheesy motel I was staying at in Maine, during the weekend of my older sister's "wedding". All of the hype flew under my radar, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The special effects and acid rock soundtrack make this movie what it is. While the acting was sub-par overall, it gave me an appreciation for Laurence Fishburne, a terribly underrated actor and introduced the world at large (outside of Oz) to the talented Mr. Weaving.

Number 2: “Titanic”
Where do I start, with the historical accuracy or the Harlequin Romance level sub-plot? How about the unlikely love story between a filthy New York con artist and an English socialite who's about 80 years his senior? Maybe the shitty CGI work that reminded me the actors were on a sound stage? I could just stick with the fact that a great writer/director like James Cameron should have known better. Yeah, let’s go with that one.

What can I tell you except that I liked this movie, Harlequin Romance level plot and all. Saw it twice in the theater, I did. Kate Winslet is a babe. For my further comments, see my SNMR review.

Number 1: “The Blair Witch Project”
Heralded as some type of film making breakthrough for the new millennium, it was really just a bunch of morons making scared noises in a forest. Featuring absolutely no plot, one scare and a trio of the most unlikable assholes this side of Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street,” this low-budget garbage raked it in at the box office by exploiting the minimalism credo to its maximum. Yes, “less is more” but nothing is still nothing.

Lived through the hype. Ignored the hype. Life went on. Never wasted my money watching this film. This genre really doesn't do anything for me. Didn't I say that before?

Since it was his idea...

Myabe one of these days, Scribe-o-rama will actually come out with his first list on whatever topic he chooses, so I can rip it to shreds, er, comment on it. Then we can all rip it to shreds! {Did I say that?}

And it would be nice if we actually had another movie to review while we were waiting.


In the mean time, "don't worry, be happy. be happy now."

A NEW DIE-RECTION!!!

Let's face it, this movie review shit's gettin' old...the game is to be sold, not to be told.

So let's move in a different direction and mix it up a bit. And have I got just the thing!!!

What do Americans love almost as much as midget porn???

LISTS!!!

Americans will sit slack-jawed and erect for anything that compiles a bunch of items into a list. I am gonna email Green with my ideas and we will start putting things together.

Stay tuned, you ungrateful whores~
(Green told me to write that part)

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"

Ummm, lists. Yeah, lists. Gonna git me some-a-dat. Yeah. Uh-huh.

And maybe we can work on another movie review at the same time!

Imagine that, doing two things at once. Lists and a movie review... oh, the possibilities!

"That's as handy as skiing and doing your taxes" and as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

1) Lists.
2) Movie Review.

"Yeah, BABY!!"

"I like this plan. I'm happy to be a part of it!"

OK, enough of this candy-ass ass-candy sweet rectal flavored sugar coated topping ass candy with like a chewy nugget center ass...candy...stuff...YEAH

I feel we need to get back to what makes this blog great: Stuff that I come up with that Green obediantly complies with! (My preposition notwithstanding)

Is it not my turn to issue a challenge to God's favored son? (Don't tell Jesus...he's delicate!)

Green, come here suh! I challenge thee to review a...movie!!!

Yeah, what you said.

So your next movie review challenge would be...

C'mon, man let's have it!! Spit it out, boy! I ain't got all day, y'know! Sheeee-it!

Rashomon

A word from your not-so-friendly neighborhood Scribe:

This next review is our first one to feature a "guest reviewer," namely American Guy, the Frank Zappa lookalike whose cowardly hatred of the current presidential administration caused him to run like a lil bitch to the Great Land of Oz. All without ever consulting me to see if I might need a like-minded person to lean on from time to time! But whatever, he's good people. Good bi-sexual people.

So the brothers blood decided to review the film "Rashomon," one of those bloated Kurosawa epics that tests one's faith in God or fate by slowly plodding through some long-winded diatribe about the human condition and honor and loyalty. It'll probably shock you to learn I didn't want to review this'n, and so the torch was passed temporarily to AG. Next time, I promise, we will get a little threesome action goin'. Without further ado, AG is up first:

American Guy's review:

First of all, thanks to the boys for the invite to do a guest review. This has long been one of my favourite films, which is why I suggested our two sages should give it a go. Little did I know they’d throw it back at me asking me to talk about it as well.

At its core, this is a film about the nature of truth. A woman is raped and her husband (a samurai) is murdered. In trying to determine what actually happened, the police interview all involved: a local peasant who found the body, the notorious bandit who raped the woman, the woman and (through a spirit medium) the victim himself. The four parties all have contradictory stories as to how the events unfolded, and they all are true from their perspective (the woman portrays herself as virtuous; the bandit, brave and fierce…). Yet the question remains as to which one of them is relaying what really happened. If they are lying, it’s clear that their lies are to themselves – which then become their truth.

If you want easy answers and a nice tidy ending, this may not be the film for you. This is Akira Kurosawa in 1950 Japan after all, not Hollywood. As with many other folk, Kurosawa was my first exposure to Japanese film, and frankly, he really has to rate up there as one of the world’s best. I first saw this film at university nearly 20 years ago for an anthropology class, and though I had not actually watched it again until now, it made a tremendous impression on me.

(Off-topic side note: George Lucas often cites Kurosawa as one of his biggest influences, and many elements of Star Wars owe a direct debt to the work of the Japanese filmmaker.)

I've been trying to get Green to check Rashomon out for a few years now, what with our ongoing discussions about god and nature and all. This is a great cautionary tale for anyone who thinks there’s such a thing as absolute truth. The film’s point is that all truth is relative. While each of the players are obviously lying about at least part of their experiences, they’re also telling the truth as it relates to them. To quote from the Moody Blues: "just what truth is, I can’t say any more."

Which brings me to my next point: If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because this story and all its themes have been borrowed from extensively over the years, in everything from Star Trek to The Usual Suspects. Even if you’ve never seen or even heard of Rashomon before, you’ve felt its influence.

From a technical perspective, the film is brilliant as well. Shot in glorious, beautiful black and white, the film makes superb use of light and shadow, not just to set the mood, but as part of the storytelling itself. The sets are minimalist to the extreme, consisting only of a damaged gate (the Rashomon of the title), a forest glen, and the police station - portrayed as an almost blindly white open space with little more than the actors sitting on open ground. And the character portrayal – wow. The bandit, as played by Toshiro Mifune (who some of you may remember from the TV miniseries Shogun – for which he was Emmy nominated) was absolutely brilliant. He was maniacal, almost inhuman. Yet at the same time honourable, and even compassionate. Had this been an English language film, he would have been a shoe in for an Oscar.

The whole film was shot on the cheap (apparently the studio wasn’t sure it would work), but doesn’t suffer for it in the slightest. Kurosawa’s mastery and innovation (he pioneered several film techniques that have become standard today) more than carried it through.

I don’t like the whole star rating system; it seems a shame to confine such an extraordinary film to such a mundane framework. So I’ll give this film 5 pineapples out of 5.


Green's Review:

AG did a nice job in his review, didn't he? Despite that and the fact that AG has accused me of being "Rain Man"-like in my ability to remember even the smallest of details of past conversations, I have no recollection of him ever pitching to me that I watch this movie. And I knew him long before our days at our respective universities. I won't even tell him that I fell asleep on the film several times and had to keep rewinding the grainy, choppy VHS tape in order to not miss anything.

(A side note: I wonder if AG remembers the film we watched at the campus cinema when I visited him at his university for a weekend. I remember the name of the film but not much about the film itself, such an impression it left on me.)

Anyway, I digress:

He did such a nice job that I won't bother to rehash his plot synopsis, debate the historical significance of Kirosawa nor the technical merits of this film on modern cinema as we know it.

What I do disagree with is the existence (or lack thereof) of absolute truth vs. personal viewpoint.

This film correctly raises the question of what really happened in the glen. We are left to wonder which of the four witnesses is telling the truth and which three are lying. Or is there a nugget of truth in what each viewpoint has to offer? Either way you slice it, there IS an absolute truth to be found here. It's just that the film is designed, (hear that?) designed to make us wonder and leave us hanging, therefore making us doubt the existence of absolute truth. A doubt that AG has fallen for hook, line and sinker. Sadly, many others, too have fallen with him.

A personal perspective on the other hand enables you to have divergent viewpoints but retain the core truth. For example, I could say to you that my family and I went to Florida for a week of vacation. I could also say to you that I went to Florida, but not tell you why. Further still, I could say to you that my family went on vacation. Finally I could say to you that a bunch of us just got back from Florida, not mentioning who went, why we went or how long we stayed.

Each of the four examples above is equally true in its context and point of view and in each case certain details were omitted. These details add supplement to the narrative (or put meat on the bones as I like to say) but don't diminish in the slightest the absolute truth at the core of each statement.

I digress again:

The film doesn't get a perfect score from me simply because of the addition of the baby scenes toward the end of the film. The existence of the baby is never mentioned in the body of the film until it haphazardly appears in the closing scenes. The baby is totally unnecessary and serves no purpose whatsoever in resolving the dilemma of the film. I also think it's rather cheesy to have had to incorporate a "spirit medium" just to have the fourth viewpoint added in, when three perspectives would have sufficed to tell the story just as well.

**** out of *****

AND THE #1 REASON I CHOSE GREEN TO BE MY CO-REVIEWER:

Despite his insistence on literal interpretations of the Bible and so forth, even he would never react this way to a satirical scene in the Simpsons movie:

Simpsons Watcher Finally Offended
by thinkerbells1477 (movies profile) Jul 27, 2007
319 of 1892 people found this review helpful
I have watched the Simpsons for years and enjoyed the humor more than not, but I think the movie goes too far in mocking Christians. Grandpa's "religious experience" looks too much like a seizure to watch without discomfort. That really upset me as a Christian who believes in the Holy Spirit and as a person with family members who have suffered intensely from serious seizures. It just wasn't enough that Grandpa's experience was portrayed as an intentional act of God or that he was accurate. Some things are sacred, and some things are never good-natured.
'Nuff said~

Wait and see what's next

I know I am.


Waiting, that is.


As soon as I can get a hold of the suddenly AWOL scribester, we'll converse on which movie to review next...

If scribe-o-rama is able to get the dvd/vhs of a movie recently suggested, then we'll have a surprise for you.

Once again, stay tuned and we'll get back to you as soon as humanly possible. (Man, I feel like a horribly scratched record when I type that...)

Broken Flowers

Scribe's Review:

This movie is like having sex with a virgin: It starts off slowly and painful, there's lots of grumbling and pain, then suddenly you got full frontal nudity and things don't seem too bad!

Then she calls you the next day and you realize it isn't over.

In yet another moody, introspective Jim Jarmusch treatise on man's inner suffering, Bill Murray stars as an aging ladies man who suddenly receives a letter from an anonymous former conquest warning him of the possible arrival of an illegitimate son. With nothing to go on except a letter written with an old typewriter and a pink ribbon, he is coaxed into going on a ridiculous quest to locate the mother in question.

A thin plot, to be sure, and the first twenty minutes are filled with such dull, agonizing slowness that one almost feels that the movie has been placed on auto-pilot. Bill Murray is swiftly becoming the beleaguered, pathetic everyman in his new films and it is beyond annoying. How many times can this once active comic genius sit on his ass and stare at the camera in the name of "subtlety?" Apparently, at least one more since that's all he does until the middle portion of the film.

Jeffrey Wright is Murray's only friend in an atypically uninspired performance as a wanna-be detective. It is their unlikely bond that causes him to travel from chick to chick, searching for clues in the lamest and dullest way possible.

The films' conceit is its smug self-assured belief that it is presenting a minimalist, deeply philosophical commentary on regret and unhappiness. Films like this always wind up being more of a loosely bound collection of scenes than an actual narrative and this one is no exception.

Sadly, "Broken Flowers" only starts to become even remotely interesting at the very end of the film. But the left field ambiguousness of the so-called resolution just serves to remind the viewer of the overall pretentiousness of this poorly wrought effort by a hit and miss filmmaker.

Well, there is one other thing it serves to remind us of: Bill Murray is not only no longer cool, he is also little more than a pitiful shell of what he once was~

** out of ******

Green's Review:

Bill Murray stars as Don Johnston, an aging bachelor who was once the ladies man. Just as he's being dumped by his current fling, he receives this mysterious letter from a former girlfriend, hand addressed, typewritten on pink paper and mailed in a pink envelope. With no signature and a faded, unreadable postmark, the letter advises him that he has a 19 year old son, whom he didn't know about and has obviously never met. Due to the incessant badgering of his neighbor Winston, Don goes on a cross country quest to visit each of the four former girlfriends to see if they have any sons and to see if any of them will fess up. There are clues that each may be the one as there are subtle hints of pink at each woman's place. Not surprisingly, none of the four admit to writing the letter or having a son. Don never finds out who his son is or who the mother could be. When he gets back home, he sees a young boy on a "quest" and buys him a sandwich. They talk and Don, beginning to look hopeful, assumes this kid is his son. When confronted, the boy runs away. The movie ends with Don staring off in the street, dazed and confused as a car drives by with a boy in it who sort of resembles Don...

The DVD cover proclaims this to be a very funny film and one of Murray's best performances. I found it to be neither. The film is basically an exercise in uselessness and serves no purpose whatsoever. I like some sort of resolution to the films I watch and this movie provides none of that. The only conflict is his reluctance to go on the quest in mthe first place and his confrontations with each woman, none of which are overly compelling. The extremely talented Murray is horribly miscast in this role. The set of four widely different and extremely flaky women whom Murray's character seeks answers from provide the only semi-interesting point in the whole movie. Of the four, Sharon Stone's character was the one I liked best, primarily because she slept with him like no time had passed.

I had never heard of this film before we were prompted to review it and I can now see why. Do yourself a favor and avoid this film, unless you like to waste 106 minutes of time better spent watching a better movie.

*1/2 out of *****