Once

What Sarah said:

Once is a bittersweet romantic story between two musicians in Dublin. I really like that it feels genuine and has an unambitious story with music that gives me the shivers. There is not much else to say than this is a simply wonderful film that I thoroughly enjoyed. You need to watch it too.

Mike’s verdict:

Nothing bad happens in this movie.

Such a blunt declaration in a review would normally be decried as spoiling some mystery or diffusing tension before it can build – but in this case nothing is spoiled. Once is fantastic because nothing bad happens, and the audience deserves to know it ahead of time.

At its base, the film is an uncomplicated story about two people whose lives have intersected at precisely the right time for them to help each. It’s Ireland’s Lost in Translation.

A nameless man is approached on the street by a nameless woman, and they connect through music. Their relationship is neither Hallmark’s immediate-love, nor Hollywood’s immediate-hate/eventual-love. Instead their connection grows with an organic realism that exposes the subtleness of life. The characters are flawed, sometimes unsure of themselves, and ultimately make decisions they regret. But they are also self-reflective and forgiving. At times they over-react, but still manage to refrain from digging in behind their own stubbornness. They are individually complicated, and yet they recognize that everyone else is too. They come across as actual people rather than the symbolic archetypes that films often portray.

The film is truly engaging from start to finish, with a consistently unpredictable plot that acts as an opportunity to observe as the two lead characters learn about each other and realize their own motivations. And it is made all the more enjoyable by the backdrop of a tremendously moving soundtrack. The music is integral to the plot and has a presence that pulls the film close to the line of “musical”, but without upstaging the characters themselves. The story is not an excuse to showcase the music, rather the music is a narrative tool that helps progress the story.

There is also a delightful band of secondary characters who are clearly not the focus of the story but are important nonetheless; and all have the kind of depth that suggests additional stories to learn about, if only we had more time. An origin story for the ragtag backing band, or 24 hours with the unwitting music producer could make engaging films in their own right.

The whole supporting cast is refreshingly positive – plenty of stories would makes use of the father, the mother, the bros next door, and certainly the estranged husband, to add melodrama. But Once is free from the hurt and sadness that often characterizes compelling storytelling, and flatly rejects the tradition of devising increasingly complex ways to depict human trauma. Nobody is unrealistically insecure, everybody is encouraging, everyone is good in the way we all want people to be good.

But who expects a dramatic film in which nothing bad happens? I wish that someone had told me ahead of time that nothing bad was going to happen, because I am clearly too pessimistic to accept that a film can tell a compelling story without resorting to trauma for the characters. I spent the entire movie in anxious anticipation of the bad thing I was sure was about to happen. Bad things always happen when people are having a nice time.

But Once doesn’t need to invent tension just to get its point across – it simply presents situations. And if the viewer’s own expectations build unnecessary tension, then so be it. This is just nice movie about normally complicated people living normally complicated lives.

And it’s wonderful.

Nothing bad happens.

Just enjoy the story.

9.5/10

The Menu

What Mitchell said:

I think you would like the movie The Menu. I really like how it examines the absurdity of haute cuisine and I think you would appreciate that as well. And weirdly, I would have liked to try that meal, except for the dessert.

What Jeff said:

Forget [Mitchell’s] review!

Mike’s verdict:

I’m very glad that I didn’t know anything more about the film beyond what Mitchell said – a lot of the charm comes from scenes that could be easily spoiled by knowing the premise ahead of time. So if you haven’t already seen it, stop reading now and come back after.

The Menu is an absurd, and a fantastically irreverent, criticism of anyone who can afford to be taken in by the delusion of “haute cuisine”. Serving a commentary on class conflict, the film marries the flavours of Carnage, The Cabin in the Woods, and a dash of Sideways – each delicately combined and spread atop a thin Saw wafer. It’s ridiculous and a lot of fun.

The casting makes an interesting ensemble of unlikeable side characters who collectively meet all of the stereotypes for patrons of gourmet restaurants: the washed-up actor and his unhappy assistant, the creepy old business man and his clueless wife (Judith Light is most definitely not the boss this time), the insufferably pretentious food critic and her high-flown editor, and the trio of arrogant finance boys who actually use the phrase “Do you know who we are?”.

Ralph Fiennes does a good job as the head villain chef too (though it’s still hard to see him and not think of Voldemort anyway), and Anya Taylor-Joy is quite believable as the scrapy under-dog hero. Her final play for survival is a cleverly satisfying way to resolve the story. The only mis-step is Nicholas Hoult‘s character whose choices are simply confusing.

Overall, The Menu is an entertaining way to poke fun at people who like plates of foam.

8/10

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story

What Tristan said:

This is a great movie to go into without any expectations at all. If you roughly know Weird Al’s history, you sort of roughly know how this movie is going to go. And yet, it will not be anything like what you expect. It’s a fun movie, it’s pretty good acting, and it fits with how Weird Al wields his craft: a parody artist through and through.

Mike’s verdict:

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story is a musical comedy biopic that chronicles the rise of the legendary parody musician, “Weird Al” Yankovic. Directed by Jay Levey, the film stars Aaron Paul as Al Yankovic and features a talented ensemble cast including Mary Steenburgen, Gary Cole, and Patton Oswalt.

Right from the start, Weird: The Al Yankovic Story establishes its playful tone with a hilarious opening sequence that sets the stage for the irreverent humor that follows. The film charts Al’s journey from his humble beginnings in California to his eventual rise to fame, and along the way, it’s filled with countless comedic moments that are sure to delight fans of Yankovic’s music.

Aaron Paul gives an energetic and charismatic performance as Al, perfectly capturing the singer’s quirky personality and infectious sense of humor. The film also does an excellent job of capturing the look and feel of the different eras that Yankovic’s music has parodied over the years, from Michael Jackson‘s Thriller to Nirvana‘s Smells Like Teen Spirit.

Despite the film’s light-hearted tone, it does touch on some of the more serious aspects of Yankovic’s career, including his battles with record labels over the years. However, these moments never overshadow the film’s sense of fun, and the result is an enjoyable and entertaining biopic that will have viewers tapping their feet and humming along to the music.

Overall, Weird: The Al Yankovic Story is a joyous celebration of one of the most unique and beloved figures in pop music. It’s a film that’s sure to please fans of “Weird Al” Yankovic’s music, but it’s also an enjoyable and accessible comedy that will have broad appeal. Highly recommended!

Just kidding!

The review above is actually what you get when you ask ChatGPT:

Can you write a movie review for Weird: The Al Yankovic Story in the style of the blog at reviewmike.wordpress.com?

I thought it would be interesting to see how close the robots are to putting me out of work, but clearly, I have nothing to worry about. Leaving aside the fact that it sounds like a grade 9 book report, there are quite a lot of factual errors in the generated review. In fact, the whole second sentence is a bit of a mystery; the film was directed by Eric Appel (not Jay Levey), it stars Daniel Radcliffe as Weird Al (not Aaron Paul) , and the cast does not include Mary Steenburgen or Gary Cole. To be fair, Patton Oswalt does make an appearance but he’s not exactly the most notable actor. At least the robots got the general vibe right – it is light-hearted and sure to please fans of Yankovic’s music.

Mike’s actual verdict:

I went into this without knowing anything at all about Weird Al’s history. I know some of the songs he appropriated, and even made a bootleg cassette of one of his albums many decades ago (by placing two tape recorders next to each other, no less). But otherwise I had no expectations.

Of course it is a parody. It took far too long for me to realize that Toby Huss (as young Al’s father) was being intentionally campy rather than just a terrible actor. Eventually I figured it out, but the pure fantasy of the film’s plot was still somewhat hard to get used to. The whole story feels like it’s being recounted from the point of view of a child who can’t separate memory from daydream, and I was anticipating that by the end we’d be disappointed with a “then 10 year-old Al woke up” ending. Thankfully that didn’t happen and Daniel Radcliffe did an excellent job of not reminding me of Harry Potter.

Over all, Weird is undeniably a lot of fun. The form-factor of the film is right on point for the other musician biographies that have been released over the last few years, but of course all of the specifics are absurd. It’s quite a clever effort to do with film what Yankovic has made a career of doing with music. Silly and unpredictable, the film is a refreshing departure from the seriousness that usually plagues biopics. The fake cameos that re-imagine Yankovic’s life were particularly well done, though I did have to keep reminding myself that Evan Rachel Wood was supposed to be Madonna.

There’s not much substance to analyze, but sometimes a movie is just meant to be an enjoyable few hours. I did learn something though – I’d always just assumed that “Al” was short for “Alan”.

8/10

Nothing but Trouble

What Jeff said:

This is a bizarre film which I vaguely remember from childhood.  When I rediscovered it, it turned out to be technically awful, but a tremendously entertaining distraction.  I recommend it for the lulz.

Mike’s verdict:

This movie is basically The Hills Have Eyes. The unlucky family on vacation has been replaced by a pretentious businessman who has been bamboozled into giving a woman he’s just met a ride to Atlantic City, and the unforgiving desert has been replaced by a house full of dangerous traps and gizmos. But the violent and disfigured rural family is the same, and so is their sense of “justice”.

Of course, there are a few differences between this film and the classic horror trope. The businessman, played by Chevy Chase, is a bumbling idiot, and all of the eyes belong to John Candy and Dan Aykroyd.

These hills have googly eyes.

Movies written and staring Dan Aykroyd – especially those including John Candy and Chevy Chase – can’t really be critiqued. You can ignore the fact that Aykroyd received a Worst Supporting Actor Razzie; this film is meant to be a technically awful, tremendously entertaining distraction – and that is certainly what it is.  Some of the best bits involve a barely recognizable Daniel Baldwin getting exactly what he deserves, Tupac in his film debut as a member of Digital Underground, and a cameo by what must be the first ever in-dash GPS navigation system. Demi Moore is a somewhat surprising inclusion, given that this is the immediate follow-up to her Golden Globe-nominated performance in Ghost and only a year ahead of the release of A Few Good Men. In any case, Moore does a good job as the sole but futile voice of reason in an Aykroyd/Candy/Chase universe.

Good fun. 10/10

The Dig

What Jesse said:

Yeah and I also want you to watch The Dig.

Go

Mike’s verdict:

The Dig is not exciting. It’s not suspenseful or mysterious; there are no larger than life personalities and the plot is very straightforward. But it is quietly, unexpectedly, dramatic. The film leans into the understated performances of Carey Mulligan and Ralph Fiennes, allowing it to firmly capture and hold attention – without actually needing to demand anything.

The story is told with a plain, but delicate, simplicity that carries the audience gently along with characters who – despite being set nearly a century ago in what might as well be a another universe – are entirely relatable today. There is a tender grip that you don’t notice until then end when it gracefully lets you go.  Indeed, it was only during the epilogue that I realized I had spent nearly two hours with a shallow anxiety, waiting for the disaster that was surely going to disrupt the story I was enjoying.

But there is no disaster.

There is just life, seen from the perspective of two people who have been brought together by a shared passion for how the past reaches into their present.

There are, of course, trials and frustrations – but they are reasonable. Problems are only as big as they need to be – nothing is embellished for the sake of entertainment. Aside from a strangely tangential love triangle that briefly distracts somewhat from the real narrative, the film does very well to avoid introducing tensions where they are unnecessary.

Mulligan and Fiennes have a solid chemistry that is allowed to fill the scenes they share but it is never exploited. Their connection exists, it’s overwhelming, and it’s unacknowledged.

And in the end you find out that the story is a dramatic telling of actual history – the past reaching into our present.

Jesse really under-sold this one.

9.5/10

The Truman Show

What Sarah said:

I don’t like this movie but I think there are themes revolving around determinism that would spark an interesting discussion that we could spend many hours on the balcony with several beers discussing.

Mike’s verdict:

Sarah was right, in so far as this film was able to spark discussion. Unfortunately, the steady decline into winter greatly hampered the hours available for sitting on the balcony – though thankfully not the availability of beer.

She was also right that the discussion, at least initially, revolved around determinism. I went into The Truman Show knowing the basic premise – a man, living in a completely isolated world, is unaware that his entire existence is controlled for the sake of others’ entertainment – so it was not a far leap to the question of free will. However, I quickly found myself drawn away from my favourite (and, quite frankly, the correct) way of explaining the universe. Determinism isn’t the concern here. Truman has no less of a free will than you do.

Superficially, it appears as if Truman’s life is being inordinately controlled; everything he does is guided by the unseen force of the program producers solely for the benefit of others. As observers from the outside we are aware of the cameras, and the actors, and the container. We recognize that Truman is being manipulated; that everyone involved in his tiny universe wants, first and foremost, to keep the illusion alive, and secondly, to provide an entertaining program for the viewers. And of course his life is entirely devoid of privacy – everything he does is known, to everyone.

Yet Truman still has as much free will as you or I. His innate ability to make decisions, to choose his responses to life situations, is no different than that of the audience. Without question, the options available to him in most situations are severely limited and, worse, he is completely unaware of those limitations. But in terms of his actual ability to make decisions, he is no more suppressed than anyone else on Earth.  In fact, within the cinematic universe The Truman Show only works as entertainment because he has free will. His personal agency is a necessary condition for the audience to enjoy watching him.

If we take a step back (okay, maybe take two or three steps back) to look at ‘real’ life side-by-side with Truman’s mini-world, the differences are really only a matter of scale: Truman was raised to believe that there was no need to leave the town he’d always lived in; that his life would be comfortable and fulfilling there; that ‘other’ places would be unnecessarily dangerous or just generally not as nice to live in.  Millions of people around the world have lived, and will continue to live, with exactly this belief. 

Truman’s world had strangers going about their own lives, briefly interacting with him in seemingly arbitrary but not inconsequential ways. It also included people with whom he developed relationships, directly affecting the decisions he made.  In real life, we have these same influences – the woman who cuts you off in the store parking lot, the man your mother insists you go on a date with. 

Truman had his decision-making ability limited by outside forces, guiding him to move about his world in ways that were not necessarily of benefit to himself, but of benefit to the larger system in which he existed.  We all stop at stop signs, we all wait patiently in queues, and we all exchange our labour for easily accountable and pocketable credits. 

We have all had our decision-making ability suppressed for the benefit of a larger system. Most of us call that system “society” and we like to think our participation is voluntary; that it comes from a conscious decision to enter into the “social contract”.  But this is a convenient lie.  In truth, individuals do not choose to enter the contract; there is no “opt out” clause for society.  Vast systems of progress that have been developing for thousands of years narrowly focus the effective influence we have over our own lives, while paradoxically ensuring that we have a certain amount of influence over the lives of others.

To be fair, individuals in a society derive some benefits in return – usually in the form of security for the necessities of life.  But Truman also receives these benefits; it is crucial for the show producers to ensure that he remains healthy.  And just like Truman the amount of effective influence we retain as part of the social contract is minimal, especially compared to what we are required to give up. (Whether or not the control we relinquish is truly worth the security we receive in exchange is a question for another time.)

The point of this film is not to make the viewer imagine how they would feel if it turned out that their whole life were controlled for the benefit of others.  It is, in fact, to highlight that all our lives are controlled for the benefit of others.  For Truman, the control is very focused – he has everyone’s attention.  In our ‘real’ world, control is instead spread across a boundless system of individuals who are mostly unable or unwilling to work together. We’re manipulated just like Truman, the difference is that there is no single puppet master – for us, it is the death of agency by a thousand influencers. 

But the most important aspect of our situation is that the manipulations we suffer are universal. The conditions of the social contract are meant to affect everyone more or less equally. We can blissfully ignore our society of micro-manipulations because they don’t single anyone out.  That is not the case for Truman.  What really, truly upsets us about The Truman Show is not the question of free will, nor even the question of privacy – it is the terrifying notion of being the only one who isn’t in on the joke. Truman’s life is just as mundane as yours; it wouldn’t be worth watching if he consented to being watched. The audience is entertained because he doesn’t know that he is entertainment.  He is being treated differently. 

We all want to be recognized as special. We do not want to be treated as different. 

There’s an interesting sub-theme that I found to be fairly subtle and is never directly address by the film itself, but could make for a whole other line of discussion: the audience… do they have free will?  Do the individuals who are drawn obsessively to spend every minute watching Truman go about his mundane tasks actually have any of their own personal agency?  Truman lived in an idyllic ocean-side town with friends and neighbours. He lived decades of this life with relative contentment; only questioning his existence when the mechanisms of the illusion began to fail.  On the other hand, his audience is comprised of individuals who are clearly so engrossed in Truman’s life that they neglect their own. They are so enveloped by obsession that they cannot bear to be away from their view screens. Whose agency is really being suppress by The Truman Show?  Is it the man who has been given an overwhelmingly ideal life, or the mindless hordes who cannot bear to miss any of it?

8/10

Office Space

What Tristan said:

I recommend that you watch Office Space! This is one of those rare examples of a 20 year old movie that has aged well (especially for a comedy…). While the setting is the late ’90s’ dot-com tech office era, the common office stereotypes that existed at that time still exist today. Sure, they all use CRT monitors and actual floppy disks, but the interpersonal relationships and annoyances are timeless. The supporting story is implausible, but in the spirit of the whole movie as a parody, I don’t think it will take away from the experience.

Mike’s verdict:

This is a movie that by all accounts I should already have seen.  For reasons long forgotten it managed to stay outside my periphery, and eventually reached the point where not seeing it was almost a part of my self-identity: I hadn’t seen it when it was a ‘thing’, so the chance was missed.  In any case, it turns out that all I needed to overturn 20 years of disinterest was an earnest recommendation, so here were are.

The first thing I noticed in this film is how flimsy and drab everything looks.  Compared to modern movies, Office Space makes no effort to create a set with dimension. Both the apartment and the titular office feel thin, unsaturated and empty. Everything looks utilitarian cheap.  But of course it does… it’s the ’90s and the focus is on the employees of a generic company office.  The dullness is very much the point; and while more recently the Googles and Shopifys of the tech world have made some strides, the office building of this film is still extremely familiar.

In fact, everything about Office Space is familiar.  The managers, the cubicle neighbours, the aggravations, the disillusions of the employees, the printers that are always broken; all of it is superbly related-able. The movie is certainly a parody in spirit, but like all good parodies it is firmly grounded in a reality that existed and still exists even two decades later.  Tristan is spot-on – some of the technology looks out-dated, but the characters, and the way they interact, are so distinctly humans-in-an-office that the set doesn’t matter.  Not only does this film not suffer from the anachronistic backdrops at all, if anything they serve as a reminder of the mind-numbing lack of creativity that offices so regularly spiral into.

At the same time, the dialog is hilarious and the supporting cast caricaturizes the personalities of everyday offices perfectly. Everybody is a little over-the-top; but really only a little over-the-top.  Where the film exaggerates, it does so only because it would take too long to depict the “death by a thousand cuts” that drives the motivations of all the main characters.

A supremely enjoyable watch. 10/10

The Runaways

What Sarah said:

You should watch The Runaways for the feel, look and sound of punk in the ’70s. It’s a biopic with a bit of a coming of age feel, and focuses on the relationship between singer Cherie Currie and guitarist/vocalist Joan Jett during the creation of the all girl punk band The Runaways.

Mike’s verdict:

I wasn’t very familiar with The Runaways before watching this film.  I was definitely aware of Cherry Bomb in the same half-remembered way that I know a lot of songs from the 1900s.  For those who don’t remember, back in the day exposure to music was primarily through radio – a medium that made identifying artists and song titles a bit of a crap-shoot. You had to be lucky, or really interested, to hear the song and the DJ announce it’s details. It probably doesn’t help that I also would have been paying attention about 25 years after the band was actually in rotation. Either way, as it turns out I am familiar with a few of the their songs – I just didn’t realize they were connected.

Of course, I’m a lot more familiar with Joan Jett’s music. I’m sure that has a lot to do with the fact that her career continued long after The Runaways‘, and it doesn’t hurt that she stamped her name on her next band…

In any case, I have no real emotional attachment to the music that might skew how I feel about the film.  Still, I did have some expectations about how it would go.  Dirty clubs, unseemly characters, angry girls, drugs, tour bus foolishness, at least one slimy band manager, and obviously punk rock music.  And in a lot of ways, that does sum-up the basic plot of the film.

But as much as the film is superficially about the band’s development, it actually does have a lot more to say about the relationship between Jett and Currie.  At least it implies there is a lot to say about their relationship. In fact, it sort of implies a lot about a lot. Somehow I get the feeling that a true director’s cut would be a Scorsese-length epic.  Time passes almost too quickly, even for the whirlwind pace of the music industry, and a number of scenes felt like there was supposed to be more.  Hannah Marks‘s Tammy, for instance, is left as an awkward side character but could very easily have been used as a proper dramatic device.  I also believe that some issues that were skipped over entirely would have been addressed directly if this film had been made in 2020 rather than 2010.

Even so, I did enjoy the feel of the film. I don’t have any memories to rely on, but the depiction of 1975-76 feels faithful.  The locations, the clothes, the sounds; all work very well. And say what you want about Bella Swan, but Kristen Stewart was an entirely believable Joan Jett. Dakota Fanning was also quite believable – almost too believable considering she would have been roughly the same age as the character she was depicting.

All of that to say, The Runaways is a good film and I enjoyed watching it.  However, there is another aspect that should not be overlooked: namely, the fact that it has provided an excuse to get (re)acquainted with the band members and where there lives have gone since the band disintegrated.

There isn’t too much surprising to say about Jett. She’s in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Currie continued her music career (despite what the film suggests) with a certain amount of success, particularly once she started performing with her sister.  She also stared in a number of films, including Foxes with Jodie Foster.  But most interestingly, she is now a chainsaw carving artist – she even has a very GeoCities-esque website that showcases her art! Yup, chainsaw art.

Sandy West, the drummer and only member other than Jett to remain with the band for their entire run, died in 2006 at the young age of 47… from lung cancer brought on by a lifetime of very punk-rock smoking.

Micki Steele, one of only three original members (with Jett and West), left the band before they were even picked up by Mercury Records. But in the ’80s she changed directions entirely, joining The Bangles!

Lita Ford had a fairly unremarkable solo career, but she did record a duet with Ozzy Osbourne.

Finally, Jackie Fox, who at 15 turned down early acceptance to study math at UCLA in order the join the band, went on to study linguistics and get a law degree from Harvard after she left the band. In addition to working as an attorney now, she also spends her time on game shows like Jeopardy!.  And most interestingly, she is the only member of the band who refused to give her permission to be depicted in the film. The producers had to invent the fictitious bass player Robin, played by Alia Shawkat.

Sometimes it’s really worth looking passed the film.

8/10

North by Northwest

What Claudette said:

We watched North by Northwest because a colleague recommended it and a book about mid-century modern highlighted this movie for examples of that style I had to watch it. Tristan and I also could tell that Hitchcock had a sense of humour as shown in the closing scene with the train.

Mike’s verdict:

This was a highly entertaining film to watch.  There are no lessons to learn, no philosophy to consider, no heavy issues that stay with you for days. It’s just an old-fashioned, regular guy gets caught-up in the spy world, mystery – with just the right ratio of exposition to ambiguity.  The story isn’t complicated, because it doesn’t need to be. Every honest person has imagined being suddenly wrapped-up in a spy thriller, following clues, meeting strange people and ending up as the reluctant hero. All this film does is boil the fantasy down to its components: regular guy, mysterious woman, respectable villain, generally menacing but equally incompetent henchmen, compassion-free government agency; and then strings them together with unlikely but romantically plausible encounters. It even manages to throw in quite a few funny moments to keep things lighthearted.

There are no truly surprising twists – most audiences will anticipate all of the possibilities.  But there is still a sense of unsureness: Is she a spy? Is she a villain? Is she just a convenient plot misdirection that will be thrown away after a quick tryst on a train?

There are definitely some strange scenes that I can only presume made sense in the context of the late ’50s.  I struggle to understand why Cary Grant‘s Roger Thornhill decides to call his mother from the drunk tank, or why he subsequently takes her with the police to the mysterious Townsend house.  And for that matter, Jessie Royce Landis‘ character as Thornhill’s mother seems entirely unnecessary given that she doesn’t have a role at all after the initial set up of the plot. Maybe she’s just introduced to give Roger Thornhill some credibility as a good boy?

Either way, the scenes certainly don’t detract much from the film; they just feel out of place.  But the rest of the characters fit their roles well and the locations are believable – at least if you can suspend your disbelief just enough to accept that the villain lives in a house literally on top of Mount Rushmore.

As with Vertigo, I once again found myself envious of the of the late ’50s social scene.  It just seems so civilized! And of course, Grant’s suit has been called the “greatest in the history of cinema“.  Maybe I’m just caught up in that spy-thriller fantasy, or maybe I’m just envious of any time when people were still allowed to meet for drinks.

Overall, great movie.

9/10

Vertigo

What Tristan said:

Ok, we watched Vertigo last night. It’s from 1958 and first thing I noticed was the amount of dialogue! It really doesn’t rely on special effects like modern movies do. That said, I kinda feel that the movie really handholds the audience through key story elements with the camera work. It has a great twist at the end, and it’s really cringe-y in places in modern #metoo context. Unsatisfying ending.

Mike’s verdict:

I went into Vertigo telling myself that I needed to watch the film bearing in mind the perspective of someone living in 1958.  There have been drastic changes in movie technology, script writing and even visual story-telling since Alfred Hitchcock imagined the film and I didn’t think it would be fair to judge it from the perspective of 61 years (!) in the future.  But by the time I reached the end I had realized that I can’t compensate for time passing – 2019 is the perspective that I have so that is how it will be judged.

Thankfully, I think that the basis of the film has stood up to the march of time fairly well. Or, perhaps more fairly, I don’t think modern society has actually moved on as much as we’d like to believe.  There are indeed some awkward aspects of the film that don’t necessarily fit well with contemporary ideas, but I’m not convinced they would actually be absent if the film had been made more recently. I also noticed some of the hand-holding camera work, but I was able to forgive it. I think if the whole thing was re-shot today many of the clues would be just as direct, albeit perhaps a little more subtle.

I found the story itself compelling. I was afraid it was going to move slowly compared to modern movies but the pace was actually fine.  The introduction of key characters was succinct and the introduction of the mystery happened quickly. I really dislike mysteries that don’t give you all of the relevant details (it’s too easy to trick the audience when they don’t have all the information) but in this case when it was all over I felt as if my failure to guess what was happening was in fact my own failure – there is just enough detail to predict what’s going on if you pay attention and make some thoughtful speculations.

That said, I almost called out the twist very early on – a few key bits of dialogue seemed suspiciously specific and it got me thinking on the right track.  But ultimately I didn’t get it quite right so the film does get points for fooling me. Even so, it turned out that I imagined a far more interesting resolution than what actually developed, so I agree with Tristan’s assessment that the final outcome is unsatisfying. Maybe it is my 2019 perspective, but I expect movie character motivations to be more complex.

I also found the characters compelling.  They all fit well with the atmosphere of the film and at one point I found myself envious of the dapper late-50s social scene.

My only substantive complaint of this film is that there is an abrupt shift about midway through that feels like a whole section has gone missing. The reasoning for the shift itself is clear and ultimately justified, as it lines up with story elements surrounding psychological changes in James Stewart‘s character. But the speed and intensity of the shift doesn’t work. There needs to be more connective tissue to show the development of the character from one phase to the next.  Having gotten to know ‘Scottie’, I found myself in disbelief that he could change so drastically.  Moreover, at the same time that this shift happens Barbara Bel Geddes‘ character outright disappears. In the first half of the film she is built up as a significant and core character, only to be thrown away without even mention later on. Again, her absence can be explained reasonably within the story arch, but there’s no effort at all to do so. Perhaps there are bridging scenes that didn’t make the final edit.

Over all, I was entertained. The mystery left me a surprise and I enjoyed Hitchcock’s honest attempt to use special effects at a time when film technology was fairly primitive. I just wish that more effort had been made to link the two parts of the story.

7.5/10

Sing Street

What Jesse said:

You need to watch Sing Street. Just saw it and it is awesome. Homage to the mid-80s. Was made last year and it’s set in Ireland. Dublin. Awesome scene where main character’s (15 year old kid) older [brother] is educating him and their father on the power of the “music video” and the world-changing awesomeness of Duran Duran.

Mike’s verdict:

That grammar-free stream of consciousness mess is all Jesse saw fit to give me. No hint at a plot. No indication of thematic direction. Not even a genre! So it was with a tremendous amount of faith in Jesse’s judgement that I sat down to watch Sing Street.  And minutes in the film it became clear why Jesse had avoided telling me about the story: it’s just another boy-comes-of-age film.

You know the story; you’ve seen it many times: an adolescent boy struggles with a tough but caring home life, a bully at his new school, and an abusive authority figure, all while trying to make sense of a girl – and of course he finds himself in the process.

<sigh> This movie has been done to death.

But nevermind all that; you should watch Sing Street anyway because it is fantastic.  I don’t know where or when Jesse watched this film, but I do know exactly at which points he cheered, laughed, shook his head in dismay, and cringed – because there are moments that are universal to every teen boy.  Details may differ, situations are exaggerated, and the results are unlikely, but the feelings are spot-on.

This film is hopeful all the way through, in a sense that many of this genre fail to be. It doesn’t need overwhelming hardship to make its point. The protagonist struggles meaningfully but realistically, and over comes his life in ways that most boys can only do in day-dreams. Yet as the credits roll, the viewer is left with the sense that while the hero has managed to win in the first chapter of his life, there is still very real potential for disaster to come in the next. Struggle is balance with success, tipping only slightly under the weight of the unknown future.

The story is helped along well by reliable acting – perhaps not surprisingly all the school-age boys are very believable as school-age boys. Even the cleverer bits of dialog seem natural. It’s also supplemented by light symbolism that subtly adds dept: “You can’t put rabbits on the bed and not expect them to shit on your bed.” is surely an apt metaphor for life.

The backdrop to all this is a soundtrack that aggressively makes itself a part of the narrative when its needed, or slips subtly into ambiance when its not. There is a deliberate contrast between songs used in their original 80s glory, followed by quiet piano arrangements that feel timeless. It’s easy to forget that this is a contemporary film.  That is, at least until you realize that it understands the 80s music revolution far better than anyone in the 80s ever could have.

Sing Street is a thoughtful and original take on a very over-done genre. But most importantly, its enjoyable – it uses only the cliches that it needs to lay the foundation, and then layers a tapestry of commercial and original music that revives the 80s perfectly. Jesse absolutely got this one right.

10/10

p.s. It’s definitely worth sitting through the short credits to hear the last bit of music.

Snowpiercer

What Jesse said:

Watch Snowpiercer. Do it now.

Mike’s verdict:

I got a copy of this movie years before Jesse recommended it to me, but I never got around to watching it. For some reason I ended up forgetting what it was about or why I found it interesting in the first place. I actually believed that it was a foreign film with subtitles. If Jesse hadn’t recommended it, I’d probably never have watched it at all.

I’m glad that I finally did; given Jesse’s sparse review though I could easily have forgotten about it again. Since he didn’t elaborate on why I should watch Snowpiercer, I will have to assume that he recognized the film for what it truly is: a review of some of the most enduring themes in the history of political philosophy.

I suspect that many people will walk away from this film thinking it is a commentary on economic inequality – something along the lines of the 21st century protest movements that hope to up-end the so-called ‘One Percent’. Certainly, inequality is a major factor here – economic divide is the source of the film’s main conflict. But Snowpiercer isn’t about economic inequality – it’s about the rationale for maintaining that inequality.

The train here should be looked at as a metaphor (thinly veiled) for a society – everything
humanity needs ,thought not necessarily everything it wants, is within the train, while exiting means stepping into the cold, harsh reality of nature. But just as there are consequences to joining any social contract built to protect humankind, living on the train requires sacrifices to maintain balance. Economic classes develop both from the balance and in support of the balance. The upper-class in the front needs the idea of the poor in the back as much as it needs to physically oppress them. Moreover, the poor need to believe in the possibility of revolution just to maintain meaning in their lives. The train is an intricately designed state; meant to allow the human race to continue living safe from the dangers of nature, even if some lives will be more comfortable than others. The point is not to make every person’s life good, but to maintain a balance that will keep humanity in existence, hopefully until nature itself is less brutal.

The architects of this state understood that classes would be necessary, what each class would require to maintain it’s end of the balance, and how to manipulate both sides to facilitate that balance. The philosopher kings control the state through invisible hands that direct the people; deciding where sacrifices are necessary and building mythologies to make these sacrifices palatable. In the back of the train, the mythology is built on the great revolutionary uprisings that are never successful but close enough to give hope. In the front, people are taught to respect and revere the balance – ‘everyone has their place’.

It almost works. And it like it. Snowpiercer is a contemporary exploration of the social contract, continuing the work developed through Hobbs, Locke and of course Rousseau. That said, their are definitely flaws in this film. Leaving aside arguments against it’s philosophical commentary (that would be a whole other kind of blog), Snowpiercer has some pretty annoying holes: Where does the ‘flammable’ industrial waste / narcotic actually come from? What sort of witchcraft powers the train? Why does the train even need to keep moving? Many of the details seem needlessly implausible.

Even so, the acting is good, the story avoids being too obvious, and the ending was nicely
ambiguous. Jesse got it right, well, I assume.

7/10

Slow West

What Jesse said:

Yo, I got another one fer ya. This one is called Slow West and it stars Michael Fassbender and some kid named Kodi Smit-McPhee, who, turns out, I’ve already seen in another great movie – The Road.  Anyway, this is kind of a weird love story about a pasty-faced lovesick kid (Kodi) who travels from Scotland to the badlands of 19th century America in search of his massive crush, a girl named Rose.  The kid is uber naive and idealistic about his quest so you know he’s in trouble as soon as you see him in the New World.  Throw in some crazy bounty hunters and a jaded gunslinger with an agenda and you got yourself a pretty quirky twist on the old western genre.  I really enjoyed this one so cancel your plans for the Pokemon Go hunt and go see this movie right now. Go.

Mike’s verdict:

Apparently I took a while getting around to watching this one – as evidenced by Jesse’s outdated reference to a game that I was too old for even a decade ago when anyone cared about Pokemon.  Part of the delay was life – I was busy doing non-movie-related activities. But I was also very skeptical about this movie.  I’m not a fan of westerns generally and the idea that Jesse might have uncovered a good one seemed pretty remote.

Thankfully, this isn’t really a western, or at least it doesn’t feel like one.  It does tick all the western boxes: dusty plains, wooden buildings, people riding horses, everyone has a gun, nobody can aim a gun, the good guy looks just like the bad guys, nobody is ever in a hurry, it rarely rains but when it does everyone just gets wet, etc. Yet somehow this film feels less like western and more like fantasy.  I can’t quite place it, but the atmosphere doesn’t feel like it’s intended to be part of our reality – it has the same once-upon-a-timeness as the beginning of Stardust. You can sort of relate to the characters, but their reality is clearly askew.  This is particularly strong at the start, before the film shifts to the New World, but it continues right through to the end.  That said, it’s doesn’t feel completely foreign in the way that Cowboys & Aliens does.

The whole thing gives off a slight awkwardness that I enjoyed, and also left me constantly guessing where it was going to take me.  In the end, the basic result is pretty obvious – you can predict how Jay’s quest to find Rose is going to turn out just from the interaction between the two characters in the first five minutes. But this is definitely one of those movies that is more about the details of the absurd journey, than the details of the absurd ending.

Aside from some minor gruesomeness near the end, Slow West is fairly easy to watch, has a nice unrushed – but not too slow – pace and is packed with dry humour that you need to pay attention to notice (ha, salt in the wound!).  It’s like an easy-listening radio station during ‘the cool DJ’s’ shift – nothing overly special, but a fine way to spend a few hours.

8/10

Rudderless

What Jesse said:

I just watched a movie that literally left me speechless. It’s called Rudderless and it stars Billy Cruddup and Anton Yelchin, and was directed by William H. Macy (whom I’ve actually met while waiting for a flight in Vancouver!) I really had no idea what to expect from a movie about the fairly difficult topic of how to deal with unbearable grief following a tragic family event. But then there’s the music (I know that sounds like a non sequitur, but stay with me). Cruddup plays Sam, a man whose life takes a nosedive after losing his college-aged son Josh in a mass shooting. A while after this event, Sam starts to play music in an apparent attempt to learn more about his dead son. Overall, I thought the performances were top-notch, and the movie had some funny as well as some very powerful moments. Awesome. Watch it.

Mike’s verdict:

Finally, a decent recommendation!  It’s been ages since Jesse has recommended any movie at all, let alone one that I thought would interest me. I will admit that based on Jesse’s description I was only vaguely sold on this though.  Human strife is tedious so it takes a good deal of talent to make me think it worth spending my evening. That said, Jesse did get this one right.

On the surface, Rudderless is an engaging and clever look at a side of violence that is rarely considered in film, as the plot follows characters that are normally tangential in stories about mass shootings. This film doesn’t look at the classic victims of violence, nor the classic perpetrators of violence. Instead, it circles those who are affected indirectly. But in a way, even the over-arching plot is itself actually tangential to the real focus of the film/ This is more a story about a man trying to escape his life, and his rediscovery of music as a means to propel himself to fulfillment, than it is a story about a mass shooting.

To be clear, the actual plot itself is pretty light. There’s a nice twist (that you’ll almost certainly foresee if you’re paying attention) but not a whole lot really happens. The pace is good, and the characters are interesting, and that’s enough to satisfy the basics without overdoing it or taking away from the real point – which is to follow a man who reconnects with himself as he tries to reconnect with the son he never really knew.

And along the way you become immersed in a fantastic soundtrack that in some ways over-shadows the rest of the film, but is just so much fun.  You likely won’t ever hear a better rendition of The Wheels on the Bus and Kate Micucci (remember Lucy from The Big Bang Theory?) has an angry/sad open-mic ukulele performance that is perfect. Even William H. Macy (whom Jesse thinks he met in an airport but it was really a 52 year old woman wearing a big hat) is superb as the nondescript open-mic bar owner.

I like this movie – it’ll be going in the ‘keep’ pile, and I’m going to hunt down the soundtrack too.

9/10

 

The Babadook

What Jesse said:

Finally an accurate depiction of parenthood! A well crafted unsettling tale about family. I give you… The Babadook. Essie Davis is mesmerizing as a single mom slowly getting to the end of her rope. And that kid…yikes! Go see it now.

Mike’s verdict:

I hadn’t heard of this one before Jesse suggested it and I think he intentionally tried to mislead me by saying it was about family; thankfully The Babadook is not really a story about family in the way Jesse insinuated, though on a certain level it definitely speaks to the relationship and influence of parents on children.

On the surface, this film is a standard haunted-house ghost story that reminded me a lot of The Shining. There’s no terrifying father figure in this, but Essie Davis‘s early on portrayal of the exhausted mother is eerily similar to Shelley Duvall‘s. Similarly, Noah Wiseman does a less effective but still admirable job of channeling Danny Lloyd as the creepy child. And although it’s less literal than in The Shining, I definitely felt a similar sense of isolation on the part of the characters. Beyond the characters themselves, the atmosphere of The Babadook also reminded me a lot of The Conjuring.

The story base – a scary monster that only a child sees – isn’t particularly novel, but there’s no doubt that this movie is disturbing.  Every setting in this film is designed to build anxiety; the house, the car, the hospital, a treehouse, and even the position of a neighbour’s window, all would have made me uncomfortable even if the activity happening around them didn’t. Added with just the right lighting and some cinematography tricks, the visuals had me uncomfortable from start to finish and I was aware of that discomfort the whole time.

Even better than the visual is the audio. Thinking about it now, I realize that I can’t recall a single moment when I was aware of the soundtrack. A frequent problem with ‘scary’ movies is over-use of those sounds that we all recognize as tropes. In the right measure they add to the atmosphere, but too much pulls you out of the moment. The Babadook feels natural at every point, even when the monster’s noise is at its worst.

That is the face of this film – an effective ghost story that left me needing to watch an anxiety-reducing comedy before moving on with my night (thank you, Archer).

But I think there is actually much more here.

The Babadook isn’t really about a haunting at all – it’s the story of a woman’s rapidly surfacing psychosis, which has been brought on by the overlapping events surrounding the death of her husband and birth of her son.  What at first seem to be the aggravating and sometimes frightening actions of a disturbed child, are in fact the reactions of a child attempting to live with the symptoms of his mother’s illness. There is no Babadook, only the disassociated personality of a woman who resents the child that is a daily reminder of the husband she lost.  The “disobedient child” is actually a completely normal child trying to live with a woman who is sometimes a loving mother and sometimes a terrifying monster. His fascination with building weapons isn’t a burgeoning sociopathy, it’s a very literal attempt to protect himself and the mother he loves from her own demons.

This film speaks very clearly to the need for parents to understand how directly their own fears, disappointments, anxieties and whole mental state affect their children.  It’s an ironic, thought-provoking, and clever take on the “haunted-house”, and a satisfyingly entertaining scare.

8/10

The Grand Budapest Hotel

What Jesse said:

Jesse didn’t really say anything about this one as far as I can remember but he did suggest we get together to see it.  It’s not the strongest recommendation, but a recommendation none the less. We never got around to finding a good time, so I decided to watch it myself.

Mike’s verdict:

Wes Anderson makes strange movies; sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. Within minutes of opening, The Grand Budapest Hotel projects a feeling similar to The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou which, despite a strong cult following, didn’t work for me. That put me a little on edge to start and in some sense that feeling stayed with me throughout the film, though in the end I felt I had been well entertained. I think anyone who enjoyed Life Aquatic will likely enjoy Grand Budapest but the latter will probably find a broader audience.

Grand Budapest managed to mostly fix the things I didn’t like about Life Aquatic. It’s still very Wes Anderson – you’re watching for an understated quirky story populated by overstated quirky characters. But this time the two halves meshed really well. The endless string of cameos was a lot of fun and the whole cast did a fantastic job. In a lot of cases it took me a moment to figure out why a person was familiar.

One really nice surprise was the variety of cameos this time. You don’t just get the standard Wes Anderson movie fare. A whole new group of recruits meant a wonderfully sparing use of Owen Wilson and no Ben Stiller at all!

The story still moves a little slow, but like with all of Anderson’s films you are expected to make use of the pace to look around at details in the background.

7/10

Gravity

What Jesse said:

Gravity was stupid but very entertaining. There’s only so much Clooney doucheyness a man can possibly endure and that movie pushed that limit to the brink.

Mike’s verdict:

Jesse got this one dead-on; Gravity is stupid. The story failed to suspend my disbelief in almost every way and at no point did I accept the progression of the plot as even remotely plausible. It’s one thing to have the hero be an expert that can make fantastical last-minute achievements to stay alive, it’s another thing entirely to have these achievements made by a bumbling idiot who just randomly mashes buttons. On top of this, add terrible dialogue and Sandra Bullock’s extremely annoying soliloquies. The whole thing is so bad that I barely even noticed the Clooney doucheyness.

As a film, my rating is 1/10. The story is just that bad.

That said, the cinematography in Gravity is absolutely stunning. The visualizations of Earth, the detail in the space stations and the actors fluid motions were fantastic. Even the final scene back on Earth looks great. The physics wasn’t even close to perfect but the most noticeable errors at least made things look good – this is science fiction after all. I don’t think I agree with James Cameron’s judgement that Gravity is “the best space photography ever done”, but I’ll admit it is the best fake space photography ever done.

Assuming a big enough display and the sound turned off, Gravity could be an engaging addition to the background of a party; particularly with the right music playing. But I would definitely not invite people over to watch the movie itself.

Godzilla

What Jesse said:

They’ve finally made a movie that does Godzilla justice. It isn’t going to win any awards for Best Acting, but it’s not about the people. There was even a scene where I was compelled to cheer out loud!

Mike’s verdict:

Godzilla has been done. And done. And done. And done.

It’s been done so many times that when Jesse first mentioned seeing it, I was reluctant to say the least. Of course there is always something alluring about movies with large monsters rampaging through major cities, so eventually I came around. In fact, when I found out Jesse had gone to see the movie without me I was annoyed – so much so that I made him go see it again in Imax 3D.

Unlike the mess that happened in 1998, this time Godzilla did not disappoint.

The story is pretty similar – big monsters do their thing, and measly little human cities happen to get in the way. Measly little humans also run around pretending like they are doing something about it.

But this time there is a lot more emphasis on turning Godzilla into a superhero – and it works. With most monster movies I cheer for the monster because, well, who wants to see the humans actually win? But in this case it seemed like cheering for Godzilla was the morally correct option. Plus, without even being told which scene he cheered out loud at, I knew exactly what Jesse was talking about as soon as I saw it.

One thing I hadn’t realized going in (or at all until Jesse mentioned it after the movie) is that the film stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson, the skinny kid from Kick-Ass. Except he’s had some work done: he’s no longer skinny, nor a kid. Unfortunately, while we have the technology to enhance his body, he still has his skinny-kid voice. It bugged me the whole movie; I just didn’t understand why until Jesse pointed out who he was.

Overall, Godzilla is a very good monster movie. The effects are believable, the story is logically consistent, and very little time is wasted on the development of characters that nobody came to see.

8/10

Prisoners

What Jesse said:

It’s good. Watch it. And when you’re done you’re going to watch Enemy too.

Mike’s verdict:

Prisoners is a captivating thriller / mystery that manages to keep a decent pace and avoid over-done plot devices despite resting in a very crowded genre. The abducted child/helpless parent film has been done many times, but this one manages to present a mystery engaging enough to keep it interesting.  The pieces of the puzzle are laid out in a way that they keep you guessing and building theories all the way through, but they also do fit together to make a coherent picture at the end. It’s a ‘satisfying’ mystery in that once you have all the information the story makes sense.

The atmosphere is quite effective as well. Most of the film takes place in the rainy days of late November and the dreariness really adds to the sense of helplessness.

One aspect that I very much appreciated, but others may find to be a fault, is the very minor emphasis put on character development. The film isn’t about parental anguish or the struggle of a cop – it’s about the mystery of what happened to two little girls. For me the characters were as fully developed as they needed to be to get the story across, without wasting my time.

I like the title too – it’s unclear even to the end who it should refer to (the children, their parents, the abductors) and the ambiguity adds to the mystery.

However, there are a few aspects that I didn’t like. I think Hollywood has greatly overstated how easily the average family-man can be pulled by grief to the point of doing despicable things to another human being; and this film is an example of that.  Even worse, the torture scenes (admittedly tame by today’s standards) were entirely unnecessary as they didn’t really advance the plot. Perhaps the point was to show the uselessness of torture, but if that’s the case this is the wrong movie for making that statement.

Overall, it was an interesting and entertaining mystery. You won’t be talking about it for days, but it’s worth an evening on the couch.

7.5/10

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.