One Week

What Jesse said:

You need to watch One Week. I really enjoyed this Canadian flick. It’s loaded with amazing cinematography and a decent soundtrack. I think I really connected with what the main character went through as he tried to make sense of life after getting a shocking diagnosis. There’s plenty of conflicting opinion on this one but I really enjoyed. As road movies go, this one is a real gem.

Mike’s verdict:

I enjoyed this one, but I’m not sure it was really for the right reasons. There’s quite a bit to like in this movie, but the main components – story, writing, acting – are fairly unremarkable. They’re not bad exactly, but not particularly engaging either. The story itself has been done – many, many times – and I don’t think this version brought anything new. Joshua Jackson is believable enough as the terrified hero, but Liane Balaban‘s performance is rather flat.

Even so, I had a good time watching One Week. For one thing, Jesse is definitely right about the cinematography; there is some great footage of Canada. And I actually thought the soundtrack was better than just decent. (Stars!) The cameos by Gord Downie and Joel Plaskett were fun too.

But my main reason for enjoying this film was the novelty of seeing familiar places. Canada is so rarely depicted as Canada in movies and television. It was neat to see Ontario road signs and all the silly things that Canadian towns use to put themselves on the map – like the totally random giant red paperclip in Kipling, Saskatchewan.

If anything, the best part about the story is that it doesn’t get in the way of backdrop that has so many interesting things to see. A nice light early evening flick.

7/10

Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!

What Jesse said:

I watched this awesome documentary about the Australian film industry last year and thought it was hilarious. It’s always amusing watching “dignified” high-brow people squirm, and you get plenty of that in this doc about how exploitation films like Mad Max and The Howling became the face of Australian cinema during the 70s and 80s. It seems like in order to compete with big budget Hollywood movies, the only way to go was to go for shock, gore, and all of the over-the-top activities associated with generally bad scripts, hilariously bad performances, and some truly ill-advised stunt work by people who were either incredibly brave/dedicated, or just plain stupid. Enjoy.

Mike’s verdict:

I’m still a little on the fence about reviewing documentaries because there is a very different dynamic between the film and audience compared to traditional fiction-based films. But since there are definite qualities that make documentaries more (or less) enjoyable to watch I’m going to give it a try.

I think that I might have missed the point that the writers were trying to make with Not Quite Hollywood. Before last night, my thoughts on American movies from the late 60s through the early 80s could be summed up as: boobs, gore, and busted cars. After watching Not Quite Hollywood, my thoughts on Australian movies from the late 60s through the early 80s can now also be summed up as: boobs, gore, and busted cars. The only real differenceseems to be the accent.  The writers tried to make the argument that Australian films of the time were somehow ‘worse’ – more boobs, more gore, more busted cars. Maybe that’s true – but I wasn’t convinced. What really came across for me was a feeling that the people involved in Australian genre films had lost their audience at some point after the 80s, and wanted a way to get back in the spotlight. Maybe the film would have come across as less self-serving if it had been written by someone not obviously involved in the subject.

In any case, none of that changes the fact that this film is quite interesting. For me, the most surprising thing was just how closely American culture and counter-culture in the 60s and 70s were mirrored in Australia. Women’s liberation, the sexual revolution, anti-Vietnam protests, the abortion debate: they all feel like very North American subjects to me – obviously because that’s the angle that I learned about them from. Realizing that these issues were being dealt with in very similar ways in Australia (and probably other western countries) at the same time is fascinating. In hindsight it shouldn’t be surprising at all, but perspective  is everything; especially regarding the teaching of history. Placing films on the backdrop of the culture that produced them is eye-opening. It would have been nice to have had more actual comparison with American films though; at least to make the differences more obvious.

While the content of Not Quite Hollywood was definitely engaging, I did find that at certain points I was impatient for the film to move on. The section covering horror/gory films seemed particularly drawn out. It wasn’t a case of the gore being too much, but actually the opposite – eventually I was bored.

In some sense this film actually falls victim to the same issue that its subject matter was criticized for – it tried to be over-the-top, but instead was just too much. A re-edit to bring the film down to an hour and 30 minutes would make it much more accessible.

7/10

Her

What Jesse said:

Crazy movie about a guy who falls in love with his computer’s operating system. Joaquin Phoenix does a great job as an introvert going through the painful/depressing process of separating from his wife while trying to deal with the “feelings” he is developing for the latest technology available: an artificially intelligent OS very competently played (voiced) by [CENSORED].

Mike’s verdict:

Jesse got lazy with his overview of this one – probably because Brad Pitt isn’t in it – but I happen to know he liked Her a lot more than the above suggests. He definitely thought the artificial intelligence was portrayed more than just ‘competently’, and he went on a lengthy tangent about how Phoenix’s acting may or may not be affected by the untimely death of his brother.

In any case, Jesse and I agree that this film was fantastic. Whoever wrote the IMDB blurb did the film a real disservice because it sounds like Her is either a ridiculous comedy that should be staring Ben Stiller, or a geeky sci-fi flick about computers. It’s not either of those.

Her is primarily about people: how we define who and what is a person, and how we understand our connections to others. I expected that the human-computer interactions would be awkward or cheesy, but in fact they are all very natural. Spike Jonze chose to have the artificial intelligence act ‘normally’, so you can’t tell the difference between a conversation with a computer and a conversation with a live person using a  telephone. Perhaps I’ve just grown accustomed to our ever-connected environment, but to me most of the movie felt like Phoenix’s character was just in a long-distance relationship. The futuristic technology is so familiar that it never seemed like much of a stretch from what we have today; the electronic interaction never seemed out of place.

Of course there are major differences in how ‘meat’ people and virtual people see the world and that is explored brilliantly. Jesse thinks this is a story about how individual expectations based on initial impulses can turn terribly wrong when they’re allowed to develop in the imperfect, often irrational, mind. He sees the film from the ‘meat’ point of view, essentially limiting the computer to a fancy imitation of a person. He thinks Phoenix’s character tricked himself into believing a computer could be a person and then learned from his experiences. Looking at it that way, our ‘meat’ protagonist is not just the focus but the only concern.

For me that is only part of what this film is trying to say. I don’t think we are supposed to make a distinction between the ‘meat’ people and the virtual people – they’re all people, and there are actually two equal leading roles. The key is that the two main characters have different desires, view points and intentions based on their environment and abilities. Exactly like the world we live in today.

Overall, Her is a great film. The writing (there are some super awkward moments!), the music, the cinematography, the acting; everything is spot on.

10/10

One last note: I censored Jesse’s bit about the actor who voices the computer. She does an incredible job given the difficulty of expressing the character without body language, but you’re better off not knowing who the voice belongs to if you don’t already know. By the time I got around to starting the movie I had forgotten who the actor was. The voice was so familiar though that I couldn’t help but look it up halfway, and I immediately regretted it. Once you know who it is, you’ll only be able to picture her and it changes the movie.

The Purge

What Jesse said:

I was expecting the average thriller but was pleasantly surprised that the movie had a more philosophical / political tone to it. The sequel will be out this year and also looks interesting. The concept takes class warfare to the extreme and was a little over the top but I thought it was effective overall.

Mike’s verdict:

I wasn’t really expecting much from this film, and that’s pretty well what I got. It’s a fairly standard thriller with dark scenes, spooky music, and startling jolts. At least on that level I think The Purge did a decent job of building suspense; there are certainly worse suspense-dramas. Of course all of the ‘twists’ are obvious – that’s how Hollywood thrillers work – but the atmosphere was good. My main complaint is with all that the film left out. The idea of a 12 hour legal free-for-all is in itself very interesting and exploring that idea within a suspense thriller could definitely work. Unfortunately, Jesse managed to get more out of that side than I did.

There is so much that could be explored from a philosophical point of view: Do people really need a ‘release’ from aggression? Are the consequences of such a release worse that the stress of not allowing it? Are there groups that will be unfairly exploited? How hard is it for a person to be convinced that the suffering they are inflicting is justifiable? And even beyond the philosophical, there are practical questions that could be looked at: Should only murder be allowed? What happens if someone is seriously hurt, but manages to survive? What about other crimes like vandalism or theft? Should the entire effort be started and finished during the 12 hour window or can I set a trap ahead of time that will be triggered during the specified time? Can I set a trap during the 12 hours that will be triggered sometime after?

But The Purge didn’t really touch on these to any great degree. There are clear references to the fact that certain people believe the whole exercise is nothing more than an excuse to kill the homeless. But these are rare, and there’s hardly any real discussion of the implications. Most of the movie is about the family trying to stay alive given the uncertainty of the villains, and whether that uncertainty comes from the free-for-all concept or not, its effect is just like any other suspense thriller.

I think this film would have worked better if the writers had completely left out any overt references the philosophical side. We would have had exactly the same suspense, but the audience would be able to read into it as much as it liked. Or The Purge could have gone in the complete opposite direction and actually explored the concepts that it was hinting at. Essentially, I like the concept and want it to be covered in a totally different movie.

5/10

The Dallas Buyer’s Club

What Jesse said:

Remember when I said I was gonna give you a “happy movie” to review next? Forget that. You need to watch The Dallas Buyer’s Club next. What an amazing  performance by an almost unrecognizable Matthew McConaughey! Jared Leto also turns in some serious work in this crazy “David vs Goliath” story. This one’s definitely a strong contender come Oscar night. Wow.

…

There is some unpleasant scenes for sure but I was surprised to find out it wasn’t really an “AIDS movie” (like Philadelphia). It’s really about the “little” guy taking on the big bad FDA. There were actually quite a few very funny scenes. Pleasantly surprised with this one.

Mike’s verdict:

Most movies are appraised based on the elements of film – writing, directing, acting, set design, etc. If one of the key elements is missing, the lack is reflected in reviews. Even movies that don’t have anything specifically wrong in those elements end up getting panned by critics if there isn’t something that stands out. It isn’t enough to be not bad; most films need to actually be good.

But for some reason certain films get a pass based on their topic. They don’t need to be stand-out good as long as there’s nothing stand-out bad. This is especially true with films involving the poor treatment of an already marginalized group. Unfairness is somehow universally acknowledged as cause for a good review; sympathy is applauded as long as nothing is undeniably wrong.

This is The Dallas Buyer’s Club. It isn’t bad, but it isn’t good either. Any interest in it relies entirely on the theme. I’ll admit that the story concept was decent and the characters were fairly imaginative. McConaughey obviously put a lot of effort into his role and so did Leto – in fact I think Leto did the better job. But as a whole the film is unremarkable. I didn’t want to stop watching it, but it didn’t hook me either.

The only engaging aspect of the film is the interaction between the patients, the doctors, the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies. I found myself wondering just how closely the excuses and arguments reflect reality. But of course that’s not really the point of the film so that interest is left quite unfulfilled.

Was the public treatment of AIDS victims in the 80s (and ever since) terrible? Yes. Do pharmaceutical companies intentionally mislead everyone to inflate profits? Probably. Is the FDA completely bought-off. It wouldn’t surprise me. But The Dallas Buyer’s Club isn’t a documentary, it’s entertainment. And entertainment should be entertaining.

One thing I agree with Jesse on – this is exactly the kind of film that does well on Oscar night.

5/10

Welcome to the Dollhouse

What Jesse said:

Welcome to the Dollhouse. Plenty of cringe-inducing  moments in this one, plus some really great performances from the young actors. It won the Grand Jury Prize at the 1996 Sundance.

Mike’s verdict:

Welcome to the Dollhouse is, quite simply, about how much it sucks to be a kid. Written entirely from the perspective of one unhappy girl, every scene is intentionally exaggerated to emphasize just how unfair her world is. Her parents don’t love her as much as her siblings, her teachers don’t appreciate her effort, and all the kids at school think she’s ugly. She’s every 12-year-old girl who ever lived.

The film actually does a good job of portraying the awkwardness, disappointment, and unfairness that, all combined, pretty much define the early teen years. The kids definitely give decent performances, and the atmosphere really is effective. Even the conflicted bully from a bad home is believable.

Unfortunately, the film’s intention is ambiguous because its aim is slightly off.  As an affirmation that all kids feel the world is unfair, Welcome to the Dollhouse would be a worthwhile lesson for most children. The problem is that the film isn’t actually meant for children – the message is delivered too subtly. It’s only recognizable through hindsight to someone who’s already lived it and survived well enough to look back rationally; only an adult is going to understand what the film is saying. On the other hand, the lesson is wasted on an older audience for exactly the same reason. If you can understand the message, you don’t need to learn the lesson.

Maybe I just have a thicker skin than Jesse, but I didn’t find much in the way of ‘cringe-inducing moments’ either. I could recognize that a character felt awkward, but it didn’t translate to me being uncomfortable for them. At most I felt sorry for the girl in a ‘don’t worry, you’ll understand when you’re older’ kind of way.

This one gets 5/10. I wasn’t bored, and the production was good all around. But it didn’t give me anything to think about.

Happiness

What Jesse said:

…And, in honor of the passing of the great Philip Seymour Hoffman I want you to watch Happiness, a truly twisted piece of film-making. Hoffman’s performance is disturbing and brilliant and the opening bit with Jon Lovitz is absolute genius.

Mike’s verdict:

Happiness is about the most unfortunate family ever – even by movies standards. It’s centred on three sisters living very different lives but with a common undertone – nobody is happy; everybody is lonely. Even the people in their lives are lonely. And it’s really uncomfortable. So very uncomfortable.

But unlike most awkward films, Happiness is not just a series of unfortunate events or poor choices. Instead, the discomfort comes from its honest portrayal of life. Quietly anxious but evenly understated, Happiness is shocking because it all seems so tangible. The characters are real people with real flaws. Some of them are lost, some of them are sad, some of them are monsters – but they’re all still very substantial.

I really enjoy awkwardness in movies, and I definitely enjoyed this one. The acting is great, the dialog is witty and the pace was perfect – true awkwardness is not as easy as it seems. Even the soundtrack was well-chosen; Hoffman’s character’s theme song would definitely be All Out of Love.

However, this movie is not for everyone. There are a few scenes that are Hollywood icky – American Pie style. And the real awkwardness involves a level of discomfort that falls somewhere between that of Shame and Humpday. But it’s worth seeing if you’re into that sort of thing.

Favourite line of the movie: “Everyone uses baggies, that’s why we can all relate to this crime.”

8/10

Testament

What Jesse said:

I got another “must watch” for you. It’s called Testament (1983). Great little movie about what happens to regular people after the “flash” of a nuclear attack.

The movie was originally made for TV but was so good that they decided to release it theatrically. The leading actress, Jane Alexander, even got an Oscar nomination for Best Actress!

Mike’s verdict:

If Testament happens to be on TV (where it belongs), and there isn’t something more interesting to watch (like curling), and there’s some reason why you can’t just go do something else (like clean the garage), then it’s better than watching an informercial for a “guaranteed” real estate system. Maybe.

It’s not that Testament is bad exactly; it’s just boring. Nothing happens. It’s a nuclear apocalypse and nothing happens. Jesse thinks the movie is about how ‘regular’ people live through an attack. And in a sense that’s true; in this case the attack is close enough to cut off power and communications but not close enough for the initial blast to incinerate everyone – leaving lots of regular people sitting around wondering what to do next. The problem is that these so-called regular people don’t act the way that regular people would act after a nuclear attack.

The intention is clearly to explore emotional fall-out through the metaphor of actual nuclear fall-out. But the writers missed the mark. Yes, regular people will need to try to continue living their lives. We can’t all suddenly become heroes that fight the invaders. But people should be upset. Really upset. Smashing things upset. In Testament there are maybe three scenes where anyone displays an emotion stronger than mild aggravation.

The film presents an extremely rosy outlook for an apocalypse. Instead of people switching to survival-mode and doing whatever is necessary to protect themselves, Testament pretends that communities would actually remain as communities. Even as bodies start piling up, most of the living go on being good neighbours. Not only is this a fantasy, it’s also a very dull one.

Does Alexander act well? Sure. But that doesn’t make the story any more interesting. It was neat to see very young Rebecca De Mornay and Kevin Costner though. 4/10

The Spanish Prisoner

What Jesse said:

You should watch The Spanish Prisoner. It’s another movie where I had no idea what was going on until the end. Once it’s over you’ll think back through everything and realize how much you missed. This is a movie that you have to pay attention to the whole way through, and even then you won’t understand it until it’s done.

Mike’s verdict:

The Spanish Prisoner is mostly how Jesse described it – except for the fact that it’s brutally obvious.

Anyone who understands the reference in the title knows exactly what this movie is going to be about – there’s no hiding the fact that something sneaky is going to happen to our protagonist.  So the key then is to make sure that the audience can’t guess who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Red herrings should be everywhere, and they should be believable. The good guys should look like good guys, the bad guys should look like good guys, and the completely irrelevant characters should look like bad guys. It’s the only way to make the twists work; unfortunately, that didn’t happen. I won’t ruin the story for anyone that wants to watch it, but know going in that the mystery is in how the trick is pulled off rather than who is in on it.

But it’s not all bad. I did enjoy seeing the setup and delivery of the con, which was entertaining even if the hero’s mistakes were blatant and superficial. I also enjoyed the style of dialog which is more often found in a stage play. It’s peculiar and has an odd cadence that at first feels unnatural, but it grows on you. This was especially true for Rebecca Pidgeon‘s character Susan who is fantastically awkward to watch.

This film immediately reminded me of House of Games. It has a very similar dialog style and con-artist motif too. I didn’t realize it until starting to write this review, but the two films have a very good reason for being similar. They were both written and directed by David Mamet; House of Games coming a whole decade earlier. If I had to choose, I’d say the earlier film is better. It’s got a gritty, low-life con-artist feel where The Spanish Prisoner tried to be slick.

For its dialog and clever scheme, The Spanish Prisoner gets a 6/10. But if you’re going to watch it, watch House of Games first.

After the Dark (a.k.a. The Philosophers)

What Jesse said:

Ah! That [something interesting Mike said] reminds me of a great movie I saw called After the Dark. It’s about a group of kids in a philosophy class who are assigned to consider an apocalyptic thought experiment. The world is ending and there’s only room in the bunker for half of them – who, and how, do they choose? At first I thought it was going to be just another tense apocalypse movie full of kids from a Gap commercial. It is exactly that, but it’s also much more. It’s totally a trick – you think you’re signing up to be entertained and then, bam! – you get schooled in philosophy!

Mike’s verdict:

I completely agree with Jesse on all counts for this one; it’s an apocalypse movie full of Gap commercial kids that teaches you some basic concepts of philosophy. And it’s totally entertaining.

At the beginning I was a bit hesitant because the class starts with a discussion of some very cliché philosophical thought problems. I was worried that I was going to have to sit through an entire class of Philosophy 101 students reading from the first 2 chapters of a text-book. Thankfully the exposition is only used to set the scene and the film very quickly moves on to far less obvious considerations.

The dialog is well written, the cast is surprising dynamic and the plot really works well. This film moves fast, and you move fast with it. It’s exciting – I really wanted to see how the kids worked through their predicaments, and I silently cheered when they chose to run the experiment one last time. Oh, and the initial setting in Borobudur, Indonesia is really cool. It would be an amazing place to watch the beginning of the end of the world.

After the Dark is a terrific film, right up to the end. Unfortunately, the ending itself was fumbled. Back-story was tacked-on as if to add one more twist into the plot, but it was needless and greatly took away from the strength of two main characters. There’s an obvious point where this film should have ended and you’ll know it the first time you see it.

Overall, I really liked After the Dark and I wish I could give it a perfect score – but the ending was forced and completely out of character with the rest of the film. Even so, 9.5/10.

Zardoz

What Jesse said:

Time for another weird movie I saw long ago. I know why I started watching it (it looked like a promising sci-fi romp), but I don’t know why I kept watching through to the end. The whole movie feels like an acid trip. Anyway, if you figure out what this flick is trying to say, please let me know…

I give you: “ZARDOZ“!!!! (I would say “enjoy” but I’m not sure it would be appropriate…)

Mike’s verdict:

By the time he participated in Zardoz, Sean Connery had already completed most of his run as James Bond – meaning he could have done anything he wanted.  My first impression was that he chose the role of Zed because he was looking for a working vacation – there were very few lines to memorize and 90% of the cast members are attractive young women who have trouble keeping their tiny tops in place. But sometimes first impressions can be misleading, and I think that Connery actually saw something much more in this film.

Zardoz isn’t just a sci-fi romp. The distant future setting is really just a means for exploring other themes.  At it’s base, Zardoz is a thought experiment. It’s an exploration of the human condition through the nature of mortality and a critical examination of how organized religion informs our understanding of that condition – and, since it’s the 1970s all of this is seen through a veil of post-hippie ideals. Love and sexuality, equality and superiority, immortality and humanity, knowledge and instinct, are each deliberately portrayed in caricature. The intention is to illuminate these concepts along a continuum rather than treat them as strict dichotomies.

And I think it works. The film is a bizarre trip, for sure, but its goal is to present the audience with questions rather than answers.

As I noted, Connery has few lines in this film. But if you pay attention you’ll see that much of what he does say is unconsciously thought-provoking. “I see nothing inside, except my own complexity.”

10/10

Don Jon

What Jesse said:

The next movie I want you to watch is Don Jon. Should be right up your alley…

Mike’s verdict:

Jesse hasn’t seen this one – his “recommendation” was actually meant as a thinly veiled insult because I implied he was lame for thinking The Conjuring is scary. But Jesse doesn’t understand what this movie is actually about. All he knows is that Scarlett Johansson is in the trailer and the IMDB blurb mentions porn. Well Jesse, you can’t trust everything you find on the internet.

Don Jon is not about sex. It’s not about addiction, or unrealistic expectations. It’s definitely not about Scarlett Johansson.

Don Jon is an unpretentious and insightful portrayal of the love that develops out of total, genuine, unflinching honesty. This is not the Hollywood-fairytale-ride-off-into-the-sunset love; it’s the complete release from anxiety that only happens when nerves are exposed and there’s no reason left to hide.

I think Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an amazing actor. He has an unbelievable range (have you seen Hesher?), so I didn’t need the recommendation from Jesse – I would have watched Don Jon even if only to find out what kind of writer / director Gordon-Levitt is. He does not disappoint – especially considering this is a first attempt at writing a feature film.

But Gordon-Levitt doesn’t hold up the film alone. Julianne Moore, for one, is fantastic. You don’t end up feeling like you fully understand her character, but I think that’s intended – and it works. Her role reminded me a lot of what she did in Chloe. Johansson also does a good job – she’s totally believable as a Jersey girl – but she was clearly type-cast for the role.  Tony Danza on the other hand was definitely not type-cast and he was a pleasant surprise. I probably wouldn’t have even recognized him if I hadn’t noticed his name in the opening credits. Finally, one actor I think most people will over look is Brie Larson. She plays Gordon-Levitt’s sister and does an incredible job with very little. She only speaks in one scene but her character’s personality manages to come through as well as any of the leads’.

Obviously, I really liked Don Jon. It’s honest, it’s unashamed, and it ends exactly when it should. It gets 9/10, losing a single point only because a lot of the nudity was unnecessary to the story. Certainly some of it was needed to force a point, and I understand that in some sense the excess was intentional. But I think that it makes the film inaccessible to exactly the audience that most needs to see it. Even so, if you’re not a prude Don Jon is definitely worth seeing.

The Wolf of Wall Street

What Jesse said:

Watch The Wolf of Wall Street. Martin Scorsese proves that he’s still interested in making real movies – Hugo was just an accident.  Leonardo DiCaprio is fantastic, and you get to see a whole new side to Jonah Hill. It’s really long though.

Mike’s verdict:

The Wolf of Wall Street has everything that I look for in a movie; the story, the script, the acting are great. All the pieces really are there and I agree with everything Jesse said. It kind of reminded me of Blow – but with stock brokers instead of drug dealers.

DiCaprio portrays an intensity that most people don’t even have in real life, let alone when acting as someone else. (Does DiCaprio remind anyone else of a young Jack Nicholson?) And it’s nice to see Hill can be something other than his own goofy self for once. He should do more serious films.

Unfortunately, despite all that this movie just doesn’t click for me. For one thing, it’s exhausting. It may not be that uncommon but 3 hours is definitely long for a movie with this level of intensity; especially since a lot of the length comes from scenes that seem to languish. I don’t feel that Scorsese has a good sense of when to end a scene – he frequently plays everything out on-screen rather than let the audience use its imagination. Usually, he pushes the boundary ‘just enough’ without really stepping over it, but in this case I had that ‘ok, I get it, let’s move on now’ feeling more than once. And by the mid-point I’d actually forgotten about Matthew McConaughey‘s character entirely because there was so much else going on.

A few scenes actually felt like they were stretched out on purpose just to make the audience uncomfortable. And one scene in particular was so over the top that if it was in a Will Ferrell movie most people would laugh at it. Since in this case it’s intended to be serious it’s a little hard to watch. And it doesn’t help that there isn’t a single redeeming character to identify with.

This movie is clearly about ambition and excess – but I think it falls victim to the dangers that it intends to warn of. It could use one more good edit to tighten everything up. Of course, I’m sure that when the Blu-ray comes out there will be an option for a 4 hour Director’s Cut instead of the abridged version that I’d rather see.

Over all, I’m still willing to give The Wolf of Wall Street 7.5/10 because it really is very well acted, and the story is interesting. But I’m in no hurry to watch it again.

Burn After Reading

What Jesse said:

Hey Mike, have I mentioned before that Brad Pitt is dreamy? I watch all his movies because he’s dreamy. Oh, speaking of Brad Pitt being dreamy, there’s a movie you should see. It’s called Burn After Reading and Brad Pitt is adorable in it. He says funny things. So dreamy. Frances McDormand is pretty good in it too. And there are some other funny people who you’ll recognize.

Mike’s verdict:

When Jesse told me about Burn After Reading he only mentioned Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand by name. Somehow he managed to leave out that the film co-stars: George Clooney, who’s really goofy; John Malkovich, who’s quite good – obviously; Tilda Swinton, who’s fantastic; Richard Jenkins, who pretty much reprises his awkward character from The Visitor; and J.K. Simmons, who doesn’t get nearly as much screen time as he deserves. 

I actually had reservations about this one because it’s a comedy with so many big names. I like comedy, but I prefer clever funny rather than idiot funny. Too often, writers rely on funny people to make up for silly dialog and slapstick situations. Being a recommendation from Jesse, I knew it could really go either way.

In this case, it’s clear that the goal was to try for clever but I don’t think Burn After Reading quite hit the mark. It’s close. It’s definitely funny, but not always cleverly so. Much of the film was just too silly for the caliber of talent that is involved. Though J.K. Simmons really uses his minimal role to steal the show. His deadpan is great.

About halfway through I thought the best part of this movie would be Brad Pitt being punched in the face, but (without giving too much away) I was wrong.

Overall, I didn’t find this one exceptionally funny other than Simmons’ character,  but it was definitely amusing. It’s a good watch for a light evening when you’re not drunk enough to watch Jim Carrey but still don’t want to have to think too much either. Plus Stuart the comic shop owner has a decent cameo. It’s nice to see him get other work.

7/10

The Host

What Jesse said:

The Host. It’s a monster movie in the classic tradition of monster movies, only it’s different because the effects are brilliant. It really looks like there is a monster. Instead of making a monster that moves all around perfectly like it knows what it’s doing, this one flip-flops around. It moves just like a mutant fish thing really moves.  In fact I think they just hired a real monster for this one. That makes the most sense. I think you’re really going to like this. It’s not like Hollywood monster movies. Hollywood never shells out the cash for a real monster.

Mike’s verdict:

At two hours, this movie is about an hour and 30 minutes too long. It started strong – goofy for sure – but still engaging. Then it descended into just plain boring. By the one hour mark, not only did I start wondering how much longer I had to watch, I actually found myself checking Facebook on my phone. And no, I didn’t hear the chime of a notification first. Apparently my psyche just felt it was time for a dose of cat pictures.

At least up until that point the story made sense. After the one hour mark it turned into some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy movie. There’s a monster on the loose, but the whole country is preoccupied with tracking down one guy and his family for some reason. I completely lost track of what the ‘bad guys’ were trying to accomplish. And don’t even get me started on the totally random brain surgery scene.

The characters are even worse than the story. They’re all completely annoying; not one of them is a person I’d want to spend two minutes alone in an elevator with. Oh, except for one random homeless guy – he’s pretty funny. If you watch the movie, which I hope you don’t, you’ll know exactly who I mean. That is, assuming you make it to the hour and 45 minute mark.

But even if the producers had come up with a good story and engaging characters, the movie was doomed anyway because the acting is terrible. I’m sure a little bit is lost in translation, but awkward dialog doesn’t account for awkward movement. I’ve seen some amazingly acted foreign films with dubbed sound. This is not one.

I’m giving this a 3/10. I’ll admit that Jesse is right about the monster – it really is life-like. But that doesn’t fix the rest of it.

ps. There was one more thing that bothered me but I didn’t feel it fit into the review. At one point a Korean character is talking to an American character through the use of a Korean / English translator. But I was watching with the official English dubbed voices. The people who recording the dub apparently didn’t notice that the scene required two different languages – so all three characters were speaking in English! It was confusing, and exactly the kind of tiny annoyance that shows lousy craftsmanship. I don’t know how much control the producers have over language dubbing so I didn’t take it into account, but it was still aggravating.

House (“Hausu”)

What Jesse said:

Have you seen Hoozoo, Hauzoo, Hosso, uh, whatever it’s called – it means House?  It’s a crazy 70s Japanese flick. There isn’t even anything else I can say about it. It’s  crazy. There’s a piano scene. That’s all I can say.

Mike’s verdict:

Wow. There definitely is a piano scene. A ridiculously absurd piano scene. You see it coming like a train wreck in slow motion and it’s fantastic in its absurdity. The whole movie is.

I haven’t seen too many other Japanese movies from the 70s (or any at all), so I don’t know if House is typical or something completely different. It’s a lot like the classic American horror movies of the time; at least it has the same basic format – a group of friends in an unfamiliar environment are killed-off one at a time in increasingly gruesome ways. But where American horror takes itself seriously (even if the audience doesn’t), House almost feels like a spoof. It’s so over the top ridiculous that it’s hard to believe it’s not intentional. It feels like a caricature right from the beginning with a bizarre music montage that goes on so long you’ll start to wonder if you’ve been tricked into watching a musical. Plus, the seven girls all have silly nick-names that are clearly intended to reflect their character’s individual theme. Melody, for example, plays the piano. Even the dialog seems intentionally goofy at times, and not just in the way that asian movies always get goofy when they are translated. This feels like it would still be goofy even if I understood Japanese.

My favourite thing about the movie? Kung Fu. She’s sort of a hero – in an Adam-West-Batman meets Hit Girl kind of way.

The only thing that bothers me about House is the fact that it has subtitles. I don’t mind having to read once in a while, but this movie is very visual and I can’t properly appreciate it because I have to focus on the very bottom of the screen. That’s not really the movies fault but it’s still an issue.

Overall, I liked it and this one will probably stay in my collection so that I can share it with others.

9/10

This is the End

What Jesse said:

Hey, I have a movie you need to see. Actually, let’s go see it in the theatre. I’ve already seen it once with other people and didn’t bother to invite you. But I want to see it again and don’t want to go alone. What? It’s not in theatres anymore? Okay, well how about this then: we’ll wait until it’s available for home viewing, you can get it for me, and then we’ll watch it at my place. Oh, and every time I see you for the next month I’m going to ask if you have it yet, so don’t take your time.

Mike’s verdict:

This is the End is hilarious from beginning to end. Especially the end. What could be better than a bunch of celebrities, playing funnier versions of themselves coming to terms with the apocalypse while partying at James Franco‘s house? James Franco is a surprisingly good actor, but I’d never really thought of him as funny. He’s definitely funny now. Awesome cast, loads of cameos, fantastic writing. 10/10

Time Bandits

What Jesse said:

If you’re going to watch 12 Monkeys, you might as well watch Time Bandits too. They were both directed by the guy who wrote Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and they form a loose trilogy with Brazil. Don’t bother with Brazil though.

Mike’s Verdict:

I probably would have enjoyed this a little more if I had seen it 25 years ago. For most of the movie I felt like I was actually watching Holy Grail but with short people substituted for witty dialog. What can I say: it’s a children’s movie from the early 80s.

I did really like the undertone commentary on theology though, and I suppose I wouldn’t have caught any of it had I watched this when I was a kid.

6/10

12 Monkeys

What Jesse said:

The 90s were great. I wish I could live there again. Oh, and there was this movie called 12 Monkeys. It was pretty good because it happened in the 90s. The guy from Monty Python directed it, but it’s not funny. Brad Pitt is dreamy in it. He’s always dreamy, but especially in 12 Monkeys.

Mike’s verdict:

I’ve paraphrased a little – Jesse didn’t actually use the word “dreamy”, but I’m trying to keep this space mostly family friendly.

I will admit that Brad Pitt did do a good job with this. I’m not really a fan of him because most of the time he just acts like Brad Pitt and I find that makes it difficult to think of him as the character he’s supposed to portray. But in 12 Monkeys he does a really good job of pretending to be mentally unstable. Especially the first few scenes he’s in.

Bruce Willis on the other hand is just Bruce Willis. He’s always Bruce Willis. But in his case it works because in every movie the character he plays really is Bruce Willis. Plus he doesn’t seem to age.

Madeleine Stowe did an okay job too, though she didn’t really have the same dynamic range as Willis and Pitt.

Overall, I was entertained. The story was interesting, it had interesting characters, and it had interesting settings. It’s too bad it looks like it was filmed in the 90s, but I’ll still give it 8/10.

Take Shelter

What Jesse said:

Check out “Take Shelter“. Intense performances. The main character`s paranoia/fragile mental state really comes across. Great little film. Enjoy.

Mike’s verdict:

I mostly agree with Jesse – there are some very intense performances in Take Shelter. Unfortunately, I found the best parts rather spaced out with dull sections that just took too long. I’m sure the intention was to build intensity slowly, but in this case the slow pace lost momentum and had to start building all over again. If I feel the urge to see how much of a movie is left, I take it as a flag that things aren’t moving fast enough. I not only felt that urge with Take Shelter, but I actually checked three times – and there was still 40 minutes left at the point when I checked for the third time. I never found myself wanting to stop watching though, I just wanted the plot to move on.

One thing I really liked was that the characters mostly reacted realistically. Movies involving mental illness frequently rely on the ‘rational’ characters greatly over-reacting (or just over acting) as a means to advance the plot, but this movie managed to avoid that. I also really liked that Michael Shannon was able to portray an unraveling mind without letting that mind lose a sense of conscience. The tension between reality and delusion is all-encompassing, and you can see it pulling the character in all directions at once.

The only thing that really bothers me about this film is the last 30 seconds or so. The ending is a cop-out. Given the kind of audience that looks for this type of independent film, I don’t think it was necessary (or even warranted) to give it a Hollywood ending. Still, that is only the last 30 seconds.

Overall, Take Shelter is a decent movie that will keep you watching until the end – even if it does get a little slow at times.

7/10 (But let me redo the last 30 seconds and it could have an 8 instead.)

Black Dynamite

What Jesse said:

You should come spend your Saturday night in my basement with a bunch of other dudes. We’ll get pizza and check out Black Dynamite. I just watched the trailer with the sound off and my eyes closed – I think this one will sweep the Oscars this year.

Mike’s verdict:

4/10  (+5 for the pizza, -1 for making me remember Arsenio Hall)

Battle Royale

What Jesse said:

You’ve never seen Battle Royale? You have to see it. It’s crazy, it’s violent. Children kill each other – what’s not to love?

Mike’s verdict:

A Japanese alternate universe dystopia, Battle Royale is the film adaptation of a 1997 novel by Koushun Takami. The premise is a group of children are taken to an island and forced to fight each other until only one is left alive. To make sure they don’t all just sit around singing Kumbayah instead of fighting, the children are forced to wear collars that will explode if at least one of them doesn’t die every 24 hours. There is ubiquitous surveillance so that the organizers can keep tabs on everyone. Oh, and certain areas of the island are rigged to keep the kids moving around. Sound familiar? No? That’s okay, Suzanne Collins hasn’t heard of Battle Royale either.

The thoughts you have when you walk away from a  movie are certainly important, but the thing I look for most in a film is its effect on how I feel while I’m watching. Obviously this can be a result of a few different components but I’m mostly concerned about atmosphere. Sometimes it’s awkward situations or really effective music, sometimes it’s tense scenes and sometimes it’s the literal atmospheric conditions the characters are in – for instance, seeing people being rained on or falling in the mud.

Watching muddy children try to kill each other definitely elicits discomfort. Since I’m pretty that’s the point Takami was trying to make, I give Battle Royale a 9/10.

It could have had a perfect 10, but I found a few scenes in the middle moved too slow.

Midnight in Paris

What Jesse said:

Hey, [the wife] made me watch Midnight in Paris and it turns out that it’s actually pretty good – for a chickflick.

Mike’s verdict:

I’m not a fan of Owen Wilson. If he or Ben Stiller are involved (and annoyingly they are often together) then chances are pretty good that I won’t like the movie. But I am willing to accept that once in a while people can surprise you, so I often agree to watch their movies anyway. And just as Stiller surprised me with Greenberg, so too does Wilson.

I really liked the fantastical nature of this one. Being able to see personalities come to life from artists that usually just seem like bylines was a lot of fun. I’d love to know how close the fictional versions were to the real people. And the acting was all great – even Wilson was pretty good, though Marion Cotillard definitely upstaged him.

The only thing I didn’t like was Rachel McAdams‘ character. I think McAdams did a fine job of acting, but the part she was given seemed unrealistic. Too often writers make their characters (especially female ones) overly irrational just to progress the story. It would have been better if the two leads had a more natural falling out to get things moving.

8/10

Dragon Day

What Jesse said:

I saw a trailer for a movie with a great premise, but I know that it’s going to be awful – so you should watch it for me.

Mike’s verdict:

Dragon Day is not awful. It’s low budget for sure, but not awful.

To start, I really liked the cyber-attack apocalypse premise. The technical explanation of how the attack was supposed to have been carried out was a little nonsensical (nanocore duplex microwave transmitters??) but plenty of big budget movies have nonsensical technology – I’m looking at you, Pacific Rim.

In fact, this movie isn’t even supposed to be about the technology anyway. It’s about what happens to our society when the things that we have come to rely on are very suddenly taken away. The fact that 50 years ago we could live without all our technology doesn’t matter – we probably can’t live without it now, and definitely not if it was taken away without warning. Dragon Day does a good job of creating a believable atmosphere in the wake of a complete technology shutdown.

Likewise, the movie isn’t about the attackers either. Aside from some fairly brief exposition to bring things into (very important) context, little time is spent dealing with the ‘real’ bad guys.

Admittedly, the acting is below average. This has a lot to do with fairly bland writing though and I think for the most part it’s still passable given the budget. The same goes for the cinematography. Someone apparently wanted to play around with some depth of field tricks, but they were more annoying than anything else.

A few other reviews I’ve read have criticized Dragon Day as xenophobic American propaganda. I can see how this might come across in the trailer – I was initially concerned about it as well. However, those reviewers either didn’t watch the whole movie, or they missed a very crucial part of it.

Overall, I give Dragon Day a 6/10 because the story is there even if the budget isn’t.

The Spectacular Now

What Jesse said:

Got another one fer ya. It’s called “The Spectacular Now“.  [The wife] and I really enjoyed it. Great story, solid performances.  Go see it mofo.

Mike’s verdict:

The Spectacular Now has all the hallmarks of a stereotypical high school coming of age movie. The popular boy is dumped by the popular girl, only to find something better in the “plain” girl he never noticed before. There are parties and a prom. There is the teacher that really cares, the useless father, and the good intentioned but misguided mothers who just don’t understand. And, of course, there is graduation.

But unlike the typical high school coming of age movie, The Spectacular Now feels real. It doesn’t remind you of all the high school movies you’ve seen, it reminds you of high school.

Foremost, the casting is believable – Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley actually come across as real high school kids. They’re not made to look perfect from every angle. They don’t talk about their lives using the vocabulary of an English literature grad student. And the “plain” girl doesn’t take off her glasses to reveal a supermodel when the popular boy starts paying attention to her.  Instead, this is the entirely likely story of a young man and a young woman, both of whom are confronted by the reality of their lives and honestly try to make the best of them. Their choices are often short-sighted, but they never portray the over-the-top irrationality that most Hollywood teen movies rely on.

There is a relentless intensity of nervous energy that falls somewhere between anxiety for what might happen to Aimee and the anticipation of Sutter’s next mistake – and it’s made all the more potent by the film’s realism.

9/10

Possession

What Jesse said:

One of the weirdest movies I have ever seen. Good luck.

Mike’s Verdict:

Possession is utterly incoherent. Andrzej Zulawski‘s 1981 film set in Berlin, West Germany (not the 2002 romance with Gwyneth Paltrow) is the kind of movie that manages to build a cult following not because it develops some subtle-yet-meaningful symbolism that only a few people “get”, but because it truly doesn’t make any sense. It’s incomprehensible; and that makes it cool. Even worse, it gets critical acclaim not because it’s a fantastic film, but because critics don’t want to have to admit that they have no idea what is going on.

Unfortunately, since Possession is an art house film we’re socially obligated to ignore the parts that don’t make sense. Instead, we’re supposed to step back and let the meaning come to us through its surrealism rather than trying to understand what is happening on a story level. It’s not about the story, it’s about art.

Fine. But if a message is going to be portrayed in story form, I’d prefer that story to be coherent. Even Beyond the Black Rainbow made some sense.

It’s not all bad though – the acting is fantastic.  Isabelle Adjani and Sam Neill express their characters’ disintegrating relationship with an amazing intensity. And while the mess of a story often left me wondering why Neill’s character was behaving in certain ways, I never doubted the behaviour itself.

5/10 – 2 points for Adjani, 2 points for Neill, and 1 point for the man with the pink socks

The Quiet Earth

What Jesse said:

The Quiet Earth was one of the first movies that Jesse recommended to me and it’s been so many years since that I don’t remember what sort of ridiculous arguments he used. They must have sounded good enough at time.

Mike’s verdict:

Fantastic. 10/10

The Quiet Earth is one of those movies that manages to put you on a wave riding from subtle to in-your-face and back again without making you sea-sick. At it’s base, the film is heavy science fiction that requires a major suspension of disbelief – and that will likely turn off a lot of viewers. But the story isn’t about the science – it’s about the people and how they come to terms with their predicament. Jesse got this one right.

ps. This movie is based on a book of the same title by New Zealand author Craig Harrison.  Being a big fan of the movie, I looked everywhere for a copy of the book. At the time, there had only been two editions of the novel released – the original hardcover and a subsequent paperback. They had been out of print for so long that hardcover versions were being listed at more than $1000US, but I managed to find a great deal on a very well-read paperback copy for $150 from a New Zealand used book dealer. Do not spend $150 on this book. It’s terrible.  However, as of this writing it appears that Amazon has a listing for a new edition of The Quiet Earth set to be released in May 2014. At the new edition price, it’s worth reading if you like the movie – but definitely start with the movie first.

Oldboy (“Oldeuboi”)

What Jesse said:

Yo – you have to watch Oldboy – it’s a Korean revenge flick and it’s awesome. It’s so awesome that I can’t even tell you about it. Just watch it. Oh, and it’s going to be remade this year so you’ll want to watch the original first. It has subtitles though – sorry.

Mike’s verdict:

This one was fairly good. A lot of Korean films lose pretty much everything in translation (at least I assume that’s the problem, since people are always raving about them and I never get it). But Oldboy came through pretty well. I thought it moved a little slow in the middle, but that seems to be what we call ‘building suspense’ now anyway. My main concern with Oldboy is the big twist. It’s super obvious. I mean, super, super, obvious. It’s the very first thing you think. That being said, it’s so super obvious that I immediately discounted it as too obvious. So when I finally reached the big reveal at the end, I had spent so much time exploring all the other possibilities that the truth really was a big shock. Kudos Chan-wook Park, kudos.

Bottle line: It’s not a movie I plan to watch again, but I’ll give it an 8/10 for the mind-games. And I’ll definitely check out the Spike Lee version when I get the chance, if only to see what he does differently.

UPDATE: I’ve now reviewed the Spike Lee remake too.

The Conjuring

What Jesse said:

Dude – watch The Conjuring. It’s scary. Like, totally scary.  I was really scared – but in a good way. It’s not lame like most movies that are supposed to be scary. You’ll be scared too. Seriously.

Mike’s verdict:

(This review is a lightly edited version of an email I sent to Jesse immediately after watching The Conjuring. That email was itself the main impetus for the creation of the mike reviews movies suggested by friends blog.)

All that Blue’s Clues and Thomas the Tank Engine has made Jesse soft. The Conjuring was pretty decent as far as ghost movies go, but it wasn’t noticeably scarier than some others I’ve seen. Sort of reminded me of The Exorcism of Emily Rose (which I liked) but with annoying and unlikely secondary characters.

Part of the problem might be that I dislike movies where the ‘authorities’ have some kind of emotionally scarred history that they need to contend with – ie the chick ghostbuster seeing something scary at a previous exorcism. Really, she’s a bloody ghostbuster and she’s only seen something scary once? They could have at least made it that she had actually been possessed or something. The emotional block from the past is a cliched and far too easy way of pretending that characters have depth. It’s like the writers finish the movie and then realize that they haven’t explained what some character’s issue is; ‘well if we can’t work it into the movie proper then lets just throw it into the back story’. Lame.

Don’t even get me started on the cop that doesn’t believe in ghosts but is still more than happy to spend days and nights in the house anyway. And since when does the church refuse to help people just because they weren’t baptized? Oh wait, on second thought that actually makes sense…

I really didn’t like the museum of supernatural objects either. First, it’s clearly stolen from Warehouse 13. And second, it’s stupid – if you are a proper ghostbuster with a healthy respect for the supernatural objects that you are busting, you don’t store them down the hall from your daughter’s bedroom. At least in Warehouse 13 they have the sense to keep the objects buried in the mountains of South Dakota.

The movie definitely had some good creepiness though. Aside from the first bit about the doll where it looked like it was going to be a comedy, there were lots of scenes with creepy atmosphere. And they didn’t rely on the jump scare too much either. The very last scene looking at the mirror could have been an easy scare but they didn’t go for the cheap jump.

I give it a 7/10 since most of the issues are industry tropes that ‘real’ reviewers expect to see. It could have had an 8 but they chose to use an unattractive woman as the mother. That’s just lazy.