March Recap

Three months into the project and my pacing is a little behind.  Again, more with the blog posting than the actual movie watching (at this point, 74 movies posted, 82 actually viewed).  I did manage to slip in several more classic features this month, including "City Lights".  The Charlie Chaplin movie totally captivated me.  Also, fewer trips to the theater this month as I wasn't inspired by too many of the choices.  For the month of April, I may aim for a larger selection of titles from the 1960s... and again, catch up on the blog.  Thanks to everyone that has checked out this project.  Over 1100 views, which are appreciated.

Movie #74- "Spaceballs" (1987)

"Blazing Saddles" is one of the funniest movies ever made.  "Young Frankenstein" would also appear on that list.  These movies were sharply written satires containing plenty of quotable moments, and in the case of "Blazing Saddles", social commentary.  There was also a love for the movies that were being sent-up.  You can notice the appreciation, knowledge, and respect that Mel Brooks had of the old westerns and horror movies.
And that was my biggest complaint with "Spaceballs".  Here is a film that merely feels like a cash grab.  It's as if the box office totals of "Star Wars" caught Brooks' eye and since no one had done a parody of the series, an idea was born.  I'm guessing they banged out a script that afternoon and boom, "Spaceballs" got produced.
By the point of this film, the decline of Mel Brooks had already set in.  While I haven't seen "Silent Movie", "High Anxiety" and "The History of the World Pt. 1" were hit-and-miss affairs.  At least with "High Anxiety", Brooks has an understanding of Hitchcock.  In "Spaceballs", the jokes are painfully obvious and juvenile (they were in "Blazing Saddles" and "Young Frankstein" too, but at least they were funny).  The only laugh I got out of this film was the commercialization of "Star Wars", especially since it continues to grow.
It's sad to see Brooks reduced to this.  It's like watching your cool, funny uncle turn into the uncle that does the quarter in your ear trick when you're 20.

Rating: 3/10
Movies I've previously seen: 6
First time viewings: 68

Movie #73- "City Lights" (1931)

"City Lights" is absolutely brilliant.  Charlie Chaplin is known around the world for his Little Tramp character, but I'm sure very few have seen his films.  I admit to falling into that group and it's a shame considering how much I truly appreciated this piece of work.
Chaplin was daring enough to release a silent movie when sound films had taken over the industry.  He didn't need the spoken word to convey his beautiful story of a penniless man finding love with a blind woman.  That is the tender, emotional side of the film, which is carefully balanced with the comedy aspect.  The side of the film finds Chaplin befriending a man of means who only enjoys the company of Chaplin when he's been drinking.  Sober, the wealthy man wants nothing to do with him.
As I've aged, my appreciation for physical comedy has dwindled.  I grew up watching the antics of the Three Stooges.  The main reason is that physical comedy is used as a lazy way to get laughs and often the set-up telegraphs the joke.  A pie, a ladder, a pool... all have their inevitable conclusion.  And that's what makes "City Lights" so magical.  This form of comedy becomes an art form, a carefully choreographed scene.  Sure, you see some of the jokes coming, but others simply surprise you.  One such brilliant scene features a fight in which Chaplin not only uses the referee to his advantage, but also a knockout sequence that will make you chuckle about the ending of "Rocky II".
Funny, touching, and sweet, "City Lights" is magnificent film.

Rating: 10/10
Movies I've previously seen: 6
First time viewings: 67

Movie #72- "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" (2012)

Peter Jackson knows a thing or two about creating an epic.  He can produce a movie of this magnitude in his sleep.  And while it's easy to get caught up in the spectacle of his work, something seems to be lacking with "The Hobbit".
I cannot consider myself a fan of Tolkien since I've never read any of his writings (I did give "The Hobbit" a try, although I don't remember why I didn't finish).  Yet without the background, I still enjoyed the work Jackson did with the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.  For me, the final movie serves as a crowning achievement. However, whether it's my advancing age or the massive scale of the project, I had an issue of remembering what happened from film to film.  I went to each installment hoping something would jog my memory as to the events of the previous film.
Same problem with "The Hobbit".  After viewing it, I came to the conclusion that I might be able to name three dwarfs, four if I'm lucky.  Maybe it's because I'm not immersed into the world of Tolkien, but it seemed as though most of the dwarfs were indistinguishable from each other (character traits, not looks).  And while Saturday Night Live did a funny sketch about the amount of walking in the film, there is a lot of running from one fight scene to the next.
The highlight of "The Hobbit" is the battle of riddles between Bilbo Baggins and Gollum, which takes place toward the end.  I still look forward to the next chapter since the first film of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was my least favorite.  That's assuming I can recall anything from "The Hobbit".

Rating: 7/10
Movies I've previously seen: 6
First time viewings: 66

Movies #70 & #71- "The Wizard of Oz" (1939); "Oz the Great and Powerful" (2013)

"The Wizard of Oz" has to be the most iconic film ever.  Regardless of the generation, people know the fabled story of Dorothy from Kansas and her trip to Oz.  The Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Cowardly Lion are pop culture touchstones along with the Wicked Witch of the West.  As familiar to the story as one might be, it's still a treat to go back and watch this classic.
I watched "The Wizard of Oz" during the morning, then caught an afternoon matinee of "Oz The Great and Powerful".  It had probably been at least 20 years since my last viewing of the Oz classic (I admit, it was tempting to try to sync it up with "Dark Side of the Moon").  But the wonder of the film is how well I still remember it.  The songs, the sights, the flying monkeys, taking you back to the thrill of the first time you saw it.
The one element that stuck out to me this time was how much Toto really is an unsung hero.  He leads the trio to Dorothy, reveals the true identity of Oz, and basically runs, jumps, and bounds all over the set.  Toto should have received something from the Wizard as well (I realize he got to go home, but that was Dorothy's wish).  The dog got cheated.
So that brings me to "Oz The Great and Powerful", which explains how Oz, well, got to Oz.  Sam Raimi tries to deliver a film worthy of the iconic film, yet misses the mark.  Like "Avatar" and "Life of Pi", it's a marvelous piece of eye candy.  If you get the opportunity to view it in 3-D, I would recommend it (the opening credits are really cool).  As good as the film looks, I found the story lacking and the performance by James Franco a bit off.  Normally I like Franco.  However here, his acting seems too smug for the character.  This is a case where an unknown may have been the better choice.  Of the witches, Rachel Weisz shines as Evanora while Michelle Williams' is bland as Glinda.  For me, it also created some questions pertaining to the original.  If she knows the Wizard is a fraud, then why does she willingly send Dorothy on a suicide mission?  To help the characters find strength within themselves and almost get killed in the process?  Or clean up the mess that she helped orchestrate in this film?  Doesn't sound like a good witch to me.
If you get the opportunity, read about some of issues that occurred with the script since Warner Brothers owns the rights to the aspects of the 1939 film.  No ruby slippers, no Munchkinland, and a slightly different color for the watch.
"Oz The Great and Powerful" is a sight for the eyes that can't meet the lofty goal.


"Wizard of Oz" Rating: 10/10
"Oz The Great and Powerful" Rating: 6/10
Movies I've previously seen: 6
First time viewings: 65

Movie #69- "Thor" (2011)

I don't really have much to say about "Thor".  I applaud the people at Marvel for brilliantly setting up "The Avengers" movie by linking them to "Iron Man", "Captain America", and "Thor".  Kenneth Branagh initially seems like an unusual choice for director, but given his past efforts, going from the classic storytelling of Shakespeare to the Norse mythology of Thor isn't that huge a leap (the CGI, that's another story).  "Thor" is more concerned with the back story of Thor and Loki as well as Thor's arrival to Earth than any battle with evil forces.  Again, plot points are set in motion in preparation of "The Avengers".  Better than "Captain America", but not as good as the first "Iron Man" movie.

Rating: 7/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 64

Movie #68- "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975)

A continuation of my love for movies from the 1970s. 
I'm not much of a book reader, yet I have actually read the book in which the movie is based.  That was back in my junior high days, so I have very little memory of the printed word from over 35 years ago.  My book choices were very simple in those days.  Either books revolving around comedy or books that were tied to movies.  It didn't matter if the movie was adapted from the book or vice versa.  I wasn't a purist, just seemingly interested in the difference between the two (I say seemingly because I haven't seen all the movies tied to the books I read.  "2001" is also on the list.)
Jack is ultimate Jack here.  He won an Oscar for his performance and his scenes with Louise Fletcher (also an Oscar winner) crackle with conflict.  Both are determined to break the other.  Some have referred to Nurse Ratched as a horrible person, but misguided might be a better description.  In her mind, the structure and group sessions will help the patients.  The rush of the power trip is an added bonus for her.  Yet is Jack's R.P. McMurphy any better by claiming insanity to ditch work detail?
Several familiar faces dot the landscape with my favorite secondary character the Chief.  The novel is written from his point of view, and you watch the character go from silent, non-entity to a strong-willed individual.  Though it wasn't McMurphy's original intention, he helps free that character along with the several others, but finally at great cost to himself.
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" won 5 Oscars, beating "Jaws" and "Dog Day Afternoon" that year for Best Picture.  Again, I can't express enough my growing love for movies from that decade.


Rating: 10/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 63

Movie #67- "Harold and Maude" (1971)

The films of the 1970s are fast becoming my favorites.  These were films that took chances, covered controversial topics, and gave us truly intriguing characters.  While "Harold and Maude" may have only received cult status, that shouldn't lessen its impact.
"Harold and Maude" is a comedy that deals mainly with death.  Harold is obsessed with it; attending funerals, driving a hearse, and staging various acts of suicide for the attention of his mother.  He is a young, rich kid, but even with all the luxuries he has at his disposal, Harold is dour individual lacking any joy or happiness.  Then he meets Maude.
As played by Ruth Gordon, Maude is a firecracker.  The fact she is approaching 80 doesn't slow her down.  She is a free spirit, living life by her own rules.  Maude first encounters Harold at a funeral, something that is also a vice for her.  Another vice... "borrowing" cars so she can get home.  Harold is drawn to her anarchic soul and soon a friendship develops, then an envelope pushing romance.
The way the subject matter is handled is the key to the movie.  It's dark and funny, full of joy and heart.  The surrounding characters are repulsed by the romance, yet you root for Harold and Maude anyway.  Even with the topic of death, the film maintains a certain sweetness to it.  The ending, which I originally thought was clear cut, has been the subject of debate.  No spoiler.
The music of Cat Stevens is sprinkled throughout the film, which does get a little tiresome at times.  However, "Harold and Maude" is another gem from the 1970s.

Rating: 9/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 62

Movie #66- "Dracula" (1931)

Horror films have changed so much over the years that it's tough to comment on one that's over 80 years old.  You want to respect the historical aspect of the film, and still take into account the actual enjoyment of said film.  Even after all those years, there is still plenty to enjoy with "Dracula".
First, Bela Lugosi is Count Dracula.  This is truly the performance of his life, inhibiting the iconic figure that would be remembered for generations.  Yes, Nosferatu cut a scarier image, where Dracula was a more subdued and almost sophisticated figure.  He had a grace and elegance to his manner.
"Dracula" starts strong as a stagecoach approaches an eastern European village carrying passengers unfamiliar with the surrounding doom.  The villagers offer a warning, which is not heeded by one traveler.  The dark, eerie tone that is set gives the viewer great hope.  Then the film shifts from to England, which changes the tone of the film.  We now get a brighter, mostly indoor setting and a slower pace.  "Dracula" is based on the stage production that starred Lugosi, and unfortunately the movie embraces a stagy quality.  Van Helsing is introduced, immediately identifying the Count's secret, spending a fair amount of time explaining his theory.  No one believes him, which leads to more explanation. 
Beyond Lugosi, Dwight Frye is also entertaining as the insane Renfield.  His acting serves as a bridge between the silent era and the talkies.  "Dracula" may no longer be a scary event and some may snicker at the effects (you can see the wires on the bats, but I saw wires during "Firestarter", so that problem obviously wasn't cured in 50 years).  However, "Dracula" is one of the cornerstones of the horror genre, mainly for the performance of Lugosi. 

Rating: 7/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 61

Movie #65- "Nowhere Boy" (2009)

When I was in school, you were either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan.  I gravitated toward the Beatles becoming a Stones fan later in life, discovering you can like both.  I don't remember if it was based solely on the music and if the personalities of the band members played a part.  Of the quartet, John had the most intriguing qualities.  He was a complex individual, a man of deep thought with a dark streak.  A talented songwriter who could also be his own worst enemy.
"Nowhere Boy" covers the adolescent years of John Lennon.  This is when John begins his musical exploration and the success of the Beatles still a few years away.  The opening chords of "A Hard Day's Night" ring out at the start, yet most of the soundtrack contains pre-Beatles material (there is a John Lennon song used in the closing credits).  The main focus here is the relationship John had with his mother Julia, and his aunt Mimi.  Both woman were contrasting spirits.  Mimi was stoic, strict, and straight-laced while Julia had a carefree attitude and embraced rock and roll.  It's touching to see the effect these two women had on John's personality and his musical career.
That isn't the only relationship followed as "Nowhere Boy" examines the beginning of the Quarrymen along with Paul and George's entrance into the band.  The film doesn't always paint John in the kindest manner, occasionally exhibiting some dickish behavior into the mix.
Movies about rock and roll figures tend to be loud and over-the-top, yet this one takes a quieter, low-key approach.  Aaron Johnson is quite good as the young Lennon, trying to shed some light on the complex musician.

Rating: 7/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 60

Movie #64- "Firestarter" (1984)

Starting in the late 1970s and into the 1980s, Stephen King adaptations were the craze.  Some were met with success while several were not as fortunate.  The only King movie/book combo that I've waded through is "Christine."  While I did enjoy both (the book more than the film), it's easy to understand the dilemma.  There is so much volume to the work of King, that it's difficult to translate it to the screen without missing key elements to the story.
For what I can guess, "Firestarter" is a shining example of the problem.  Taking a 400 page book and cramming it into a two-hour film.  So many elements of the script appear to be working against each other that the pacing of the movie is off.  The action zooms along with certain aspects receiving little to no explanation.  You start with brief back story, which turns into a chase, then becomes government conspiracy with a supernatural ending.  Drew Barrymore's powers seem to expand beyond the ability to start fires for the conclusion.
"Firestarter" is sunk more by the script than anything.  The acting isn't really the issue. Three Oscar winning actors are in the cast with two of them (Art Carney and Louise Fletcher) terribly underused.  George C. Scott has the most dynamic role, yet there is too much mystery surrounding his character.  Martin Sheen is solid as expected.  My only acting issue occurred with David Keith, who at times, is a little over the top.
The music also seems out of place.  Tangerine Dream provided the soundtrack, and their music is more geared toward sci-fi than supernatural.  Many scenes are punctuated with music that isn't appropriate for the mood.  (Side note, I've seen Tangerine Dream in concert.  Three guys, plenty of computer banks with a few guitar solos.)
This was another in the series of Movie Channel Roulette and I am apparently losing that game.

Rating: 4/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 59

Movie #63- "Miller's Crossing" (1990)

In looking at their film biography, I was amazed at how many of the Coen brothers films I've watched.  I have missed only three of their films; "The Ladykillers", "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "Miller's Crossing."  As with any director, you have your favorites... and not so favorites.  I would place "Miller's Crossing" in the middle in terms of appreciation, although it is a shame that the film doesn't receive greater mention with other Coen brothers works. 
"Miller's Crossing" is the Coen's homage to the gangster films of the 1930s and 1940s.  They aren't only interested in the style of the era, but "Miller's Crossing" also contains plenty of their sly, subtle humor.  It's the story of two rival gangsters ready to go to war.  Gabriel Byrne is caught in the middle.  Throughout the movie, his character is slapped, punched, slugged, or thrown down the stairs.  He receives an incredible amount of abuse, yet bounces back for the next scene with hardly a scratch.  You also get a couple scenes that have the classic Coen brothers touch to them.  One involves a boy, a dog, and a corpse, while the other arms Albert Finney with a never ending Thompson gun.
The Coen brothers rarely disappoint.  "Miller's Crossing" may get lost in the brilliance of their other work, but it's one worth visiting.

Rating: 7/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 58

Movie #62- "A Day at the Races" (1937)

The Marx Brothers are the kinetic energy of comedy.  It is a comedy of constant motion.  Jokes and puns bouncing off the walls, with only the occasional musical interlude to give the audience a breath.  That barrage of antics keeps the viewer engaged.  And because of that energy, Marx Brothers movies usually clock in at 90 minutes or less.  That is the main problem for "A Day at the Races", a movie that is nearly 2 hours long.
30 extra minutes wouldn't seem like a issue, unfortunately that frantic pace gets broken up with longer musical numbers and a dull subplot.  This is one of those times where you feel as if a studio had been tinkering.  This isn't to take anything away from the comedy of the Marx Brothers as "A Day at the Races" contains plenty of inspired scenes, including a track betting sequence with Grouch and Chico and a bedroom scene with Groucho's continual use of the simple phrase "Thank you" (for some reason, his reading of the phrase made me laugh). 
But the film is stuffed with too much.  A shorter running time could have given it a better pace.  I don't put the blame on the Marx Brothers though, as their jokes zing in the normal, frantic tone.

Rating: 7/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 57

Movie #61- "Double Indemnity" (1944)

I took a class in college that centered on the film noir genre.  Our professor took us on a journey of the detective films from the 1940s and 1950s, investigating the seedy side of crime.  Several of the required viewing movies were based on the work of Cornell Woolrich.  During that course, I developed an appreciation for that film style.  The dark settings, the femme fatales, and the stories of doomed men.  While "Double Indemnity" isn't from the work of Woolrich, it is definitely influential in the world of film noir.
Unlike the mystery movies of today, where everything has to contain a "surprising" twist, the basic ending is given to you in the first few minutes.  Fred McMurray has been shot.  The love of a woman and greed are to blame.  From there, we take the roller coaster ride of how McMurray's life turned upside down.
The movie is great as is the story behind it.  The novella from which the film is taken is based on a true story.  The Hays Code slowed not only the bids on the script, but shaped some of the story.  The director and writer did not get along yet were able to produce a fruitful collaboration.  A gas chamber sequence was shot for the film, then never used (and apparently lost).  Classic Hollywood stories from behind the scenes.
It's also strange seeing McMurray in a role like this, given that I was only familiar with his Disney work as well as "My Three Sons."  A strong starting point a study of film noir.

Rating: 9/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 56

Movie #60- "Friday Night Lights" (2004)

I have lived in or near towns where high school football is the hot ticket.  Maybe not to the level of "Friday Night Lights", but these were schools with winning traditions.  They were proud to own multiple State Championships.  It was amazing how these small communities could produce winning football teams year after year, able to compete with schools in larger areas.  I only experienced this from the outside as I was not part of the inner circle nor did I attend any of the games.  You could get that feeling by just stepping out into the community.
"Friday Night Lights" is an "in your face" football movie.  Director Peter Berg is dedicated to the realism of the football sequences, giving the film a documentary feel.  The film does get bogged down by a few sports movie cliches, especially when dealing with the parents.  Unlike other films about sports, this is not about a team that is initially thought of as an underdog.  The team expects a championship, the coach expects a championship and the town expects one.  The challenge occurs when the star player gets injured.  Even then, expectations aren't diminished as the armchair quarterbacks worm their way into the coach's office to offer advice.
The film is based on a non-fiction book and it appears some aspects may have been toned down.  Football is king for this town, and that also comes with a price.  More emphasis is placed on what occurs on the field than in the classroom.  Racism also plays a role.  The adults of the town are lenient toward the behavior of these young men, so they live vicariously through them on game night.  "Friday Night Lights" not only celebrates football... it also offers an ugly side.

Rating: 8/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 55

Movie #59- "Red Dawn" (2012)

Hollywood... STOP REMAKING FILMS FROM THE 1980S!!!  This is not a request.  It's a demand.
I admit that I haven't seen the original, so I can't complain about how this has desecrated a part of my past.  I know some hold a special place in their heart for the original.  I hope it's not as terrible as this remake.
My biggest complaint with "Red Dawn" is that it doesn't make any sense.  I can suspend my belief of reality for movie logic.  In "Red Dawn", North Korea invades the United States with the help of Russia.  It was supposed to be China, but that would hurt overseas distribution.  So why are we invaded?  Nobody seems to know.  Where is our military?  Apparently an EMP has rendered them useless along with our infrastructure, although that doesn't stop a Subway sandwich shop from operating.  For some reason, the North Koreans concentrate on the Pacific Northwest, in this case, Spokane.  Thankfully, one Marine is able to escape and with the help of a small group of high school students, he's able to lead an insurgence against the North Korean troops.
"Red Dawn" revels in a lack of logic to the point that you believe it's the film makers goal.  Plenty of gun battles and explosions because the students have a seemingly endless supply of guns, ammo, and explosives.  This film plays as unintentional comedy especially because it tries so hard to be serious.  When the troops get down, Chris Hemsworth is ready with another motivational speech.
It would be a long list of elements I found hilarious with this film.  "Red Dawn" got the MST3K treatment in my household.  I'm willing to bet that someone has devised a drinking game around it. That's one way to enjoy it.

Rating: 2/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 54

Movie #58- "Inglourious Basterds" (2009)

Christoph Waltz recently hosted Saturday Night Live and one of the sketches was a Tarantino parody called "Djesus Uncrossed".  I admit that I enjoy humor that isn't afraid to cross the line, and this skit made me laugh enough to watch it twice.  It also got me in the mood to revisit "Inglourious Basterds", especially since my wife had missed it the first time around.  Here's are a couple things I noted about the second viewing of "Inglourious Basterds":
1) You really catch things you may have missed the first time.  Whether it's the dialogue, the action, or maybe what initially seems as a throwaway moment, Tarantino really packs several layers into his movies.
2) You get the re-live a couple great performances, especially from Waltz and Brad Pitt.  In Waltz, Tarantino has created a character that is well-schooled, charming, yet incredibly threatening and scary.  Meanwhile Pitt seems to be having the time of his life.
3)  On the downside, the element of surprise is taken away.  One of the great aspects of Tarantino is his ability to take the viewer to unexpected places.  Here, he rewrites history in a grand and explosive fashion.  That knowledge can let the steam out of a fantastic ride.  But I did find myself getting excited for the reaction of a first time viewer, knowing what was to follow.
I would like to go back to the "Kill Bill" movies to see if these points hold true.  There is a bit more distance involved, so the memory may be hazier.  Regardless, Tarantino films do not disappoint.

Rating: 8/10
Movies I've previously seen: 5
First time viewings: 53

Movie #57- "The Town" (2010)

You have to credit Ben Affleck with an amazing second act.  He wins a screenwriting Oscar as his career is starting to take off.  He stars in some big, box office successes, then makes several bad choices, with the low point culminating at "Gigli" (several classic films I haven't seen, yet I've seen "Gigli... as bad as advertised).  So he mounts the comeback, taking lesser roles in smaller films, working his way to the director's chair.  Affleck has now directed three major motion pictures.  Two of them he had a hand in the screenplay, to show that "Good Will Hunting" wasn't a fluke.  All three films are solid works.
Affleck's secret seems like a simple recipe... surround yourself with quality actors.  You look at the list of talent he has worked with, and it's quite impressive.  Each of his films has netted one Oscar nomination in an acting category.  Even when Affleck is in the main role, he is able to blend with the ensemble.  I didn't think he was showy in "Argo" and in "The Town", he leaves the heavy lifting to Jeremy Renner.
My only problem with "The Town" was the ending.  I felt the script played it too safe with the Aflleck character.  On the flip side, most movies about criminals center around one heist, and "The Town" gave us three, exciting crimes.  Now that Affleck has gotten out of Boston with his story telling, I'm curious as to where he'll go next.


Rating: 8/10
Movies I've previously seen: 4
First time viewings: 53

Movie #56- "Wonderland" (2003)

What has happened to Val Kilmer?  Here's an actor that captured early commercial success with "Top Secret" and "Top Gun", made some inspired choices in the 1990s and 2000s ("Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" is a favorite), then has picked some low profile films with a few bombs thrown in.  In looking at his film profile over the last couple years, there very few selections that I even recognize.  He's usually a treat to watch, even in his films that I didn't like ("The Doors").
"Wonderland" is the kind of independent movie that actors line-up to be cast in, because it gives them a chance to show range and play against type.  Dylan McDermott is a dirt-bag biker, Lisa Kudrow is the sad, put upon estranged wife, and Kate Bosworth is the drug addled teen with the wrong guy.  At its center is Val Kilmer as Johnny Holmes.  Yes, the Johnny Holmes of porn legend.  However, this concentrates on Holmes after his stardom has faded, and he's turned into drug addict in search of his next score.  The novelty of his profession is what keeps his friends around.
"Wonderland" is based on the true story of a grisly murder that took place in Los Angeles.  Holmes was a suspect in the crime.  This was a story I was unfamiliar with, and my wife steered me in the direction of the film.  The murders are told in two different versions, one being McDermott's point of view and the other, from Holmes.  You feel that neither man can be trusted and as an audience, we're left to decide which story contains the least amount of lies.  "Wonderland" is a film that lacks a hero.  The police aren't interested with the victims of the crime.  They only want to solve the murders because it may lead them to an L.A. club owner they've been chasing.
Again, another fabulous Kilmer performance in a small film.  I didn't know what to expect from "Wonderland", but was wowed by the results.  It's the gloomy side of "Boogie Nights".

Rating: 8/10
Movies I've previously seen: 4
First time viewings: 52

Movie #55- "Puss In Boots" (2011)

Another edition of Movie Channel Roulette, and this time I went with an animated feature.  Puss in Boots was introduced in the second Shrek movie, gaining some attention as a supporting character.  I haven't seen any of the films beyond "Shrek 2", although I know Puss in Boots played a part in the following two movies.  As the Shrek series wound down, apparently producers felt Puss had enough mojo for a spin-off.  I see the logic in the move, but the payoff is lacking.
Puss is given a back story in this film, while a couple classic fairytales are woven into the plot.  Puss grows up with Humpty Dumpty (middle name: Alexander), climbs the beanstalk in search of the goose that lays the golden eggs, and battles Jack and Jill.  Not a bad combination.
Unfortunately, I found Puss a fairly one-dimensional character.  He works as a supporting player; a fearless, swashbuckling cat, that occasionally uses the cute, big-eyed routine to get out of tricky situations.  In the role of leading player, I found him rather dull.  Again, since I've haven't seen the last two Shrek movies, I don't know how Puss in Boots has been developed.  For me, the highlight of the film is Zach Galifanakis, who voices Humpty.  This is a character with dark secrets and a twisted idea of friendship.
Overall, the kids will like it because it is fairly fast-paced and will keep them entertained.  As an adult, it just didn't hold my attention as well.

Rating: 6/10
Movies I've previously seen: 4
First time viewings: 51

Movie #54- "For Love of the Game" (1999)

To me, baseball is a beautiful game.  Football is my preferred sport on television, but in baseball, I love the ballpark experience.  The pace of the game, the strategy, and the lack of a clock, are all elements I enjoy in the game.  There are comparable, dramatic aspects with each sport.  The excitement of bottom of the ninth inning, game winning home run... a touchdown pass as time expires... a buzzer beating three point shot in basketball.  But I couldn't think of a comparison when it comes to the perfect game.
In the modern baseball era, the perfect game has happened only 21 times.  Such big names as Cy Young, Sandy Koufax, Catfish Hunter, and Randy Johnson have each tossed one.  But any pitcher, on any given day, could throw one.  Phillip Humber, Dallas Braden, and Len Barker are three other members of that club.  Lightning can strike at any time.
The perfect game is the premise of "For Love of the Game".  This was the remaining Kevin Costner baseball movie that I hadn't seen.  Here he pitches for the Detroit Tigers and is at the end of a Hall of Fame career.  Well, they continually imply end of career.  His numbers aren't that bad for a last place team.  As a pitcher strives for perfection, you want to know what's going through his mind.  Here, it's a boring, casual romance that we're lead to believe is more important than it actually is.  In fact, Costner seems to form a stronger bond with the woman's daughter.
Director Sam Raimi gets a blown save with this appearance, and a waste of Vin Scully (still love the man's voice).  I wish they have kept this movie in the ballpark.

Rating: 5/10
Movies I've previously seen: 4
First time viewings: 50

Movie #53- "The Master" (2012)

Paul Thomas Anderson is an amazing director.  His work borders an epic quality, often challenging the viewer.  I can see why actors would like working with him, because he provides them with meaty roles.  Yet I've had a problem with his last two films.  His characters are so larger-than-life that they overwhelm the story.
In "The Master", Joaquin Phoenix is a WWII veteran with an uncertain future.  He wonders from job to job, while suffering from episodes of PTSD.  He appears to lack any goal in life until he stumbles upon a cult called "The Cause."  That group is lead by a dynamic individual, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Some have made a correlation between "The Cause" and "Scientology".  Anderson has denied that claim and I think he's far more interested in the relationship between the two men than the origins of a religion.  Hoffman and Phoenix need each other in the story, but for different reasons.
The center of the film is Phoenix, performing like a bull in a china shop.  You can't your eyes from his performance, especially in his scenes with Hoffman.  While the acting is top notch, I felt I was missing something in the story.  I had a similar feeling with "There Will Be Blood".  Great performances, yet I didn't grasp the point of the story.
It's a challenging piece of work that won't fit everyone's taste.  Not necessarily a bad thing.
 
Rating: 6/10
Movies I've previously seen: 4
First time viewings: 49

Movie #52- "Deliverance" (1972)

Worst... canoe trip... ever.  At least for Ned Beatty.  And Ronny Cox.
Like the Bond movies, this is another one I remember from network television and the "ABC Sunday Night Movie."  We usually spent Sunday at our grandparents, so we generally would hit the road mid movie.  Up to this viewing, I never knew how the movie concluded.  I'm not going to spoil it here.
I did something different with this film as it's the first one in which I watched the DVD extras.  John Boorman had several interesting things to say about "Deliverance".  In the past, I've mentioned the richness of films created during the 1970s.  Boorman talks more in detail about that fact, on how the studio left them alone, allowing Boorman to make the film he intended.  No studio notes, focus groups, comment cards, or any other elements that now factor into films.
Another comment that caught me was the inclusion of the "squeal like a pig" sequence.  Apparently, that part of dialogue was intended for the television version of the film.  After shooting it, they felt it worked better than the original dialogue.  And so an often quoted portion of "Deliverance" was born.
As to the film itself, I consider it a piece of modern horror.  Four ordinary men, taking a trip where an unspeakable, yet potentially real episode occurs, and they might find in the strength to save themselves from the situation.  I'm just surprised this hasn't become a reality series. 

Rating: 9/10
Movies I've previously seen: 4
First time viewings: 48

Movie #51- "About A Boy" (2002)

In his movies, Hugh Grant appears to do a slightly different variation of the same character.  The charming, stammering Englishman, sometimes a womanizer, other times lacking in maturity (at times, both), but usually with an optimistic mindset.  Every once in a while, he gets cast in a movie where that character is given the chance to shine.  That happens in "About A Boy".
I've read some reviews that refer to this as the male equivalent to "Bridget Jones".  Maybe because it take place in England, but I would disagree.  While there were subplots about family and career, the center was built on romance.  The main focus was a woman torn between two men.  Here, romance is an element, not really the key.  The romantic interest (Rachel Weisz) doesn't make an appearance until about an hour into the film.
"About A Boy" is based on a Nick Hornby novel, and like all of his other work that has translated into film, he looks beyond the male/female relationship.  Hornby takes apart the other relationships that men have in their lives.  In "High Fidelity", it was music.  In "Fever Pitch", it was a sports team.  And here, it's a man and his relationship to adolescence. 
To heighten the comparison, 12-year-old Marcus stumbles into the life of Will (Grant).  Marcus appears more grown-up than Will, although circumstances force it upon him.  The initial pairing seems awkward at first, but over time, the two become a team.  Marcus is taunted at school with no major male role model in his life.  And Will really has little to occupy his time.  As expected, the two learn something from each other.
I liked the bond that develops between Will and Marcus.  I give the directors Chris and Paul Weitz credit for leaving the action in England, unlike "High Fidelity" and "Fever Pitch", which moved it to America.  And while Will may become more stable in his life, he proves that you do not have to entirely give up your adolescence.  This was a pleasant surprise.

Rating: 8/10
Movies I've previously seen: 4
First time viewings: 47