Day 35: The 39 Steps (1935)

Two years ago I saw the theater version of this in London, England; and two weeks ago I caught it again in Gananoque, Ontario. The theater version is composed of only four actors and uses every scene from the movie, turning it into a much more humorous version. The play, and film, are both worth seeing as they are good in their own rights.

A Canadian (woot!) is at a show in London when a counterespionage agent asks to hide in his apartment, but when she is killed that night, he flees and tries to stop a plot to sneak top secret information of the country. In a great example of a dark comedy, that works well on both levels. The film pushes things to make them funny without making them absurd, and it works wonderfully. Hitchcock lulls the viewer into a state of readiness by starting a scene with what appears to be a break in the running from the law, then all of a sudden someone identifies him and he's on the run again - the viewer isn't given a chance to relax, it's go from start to finish. With great acting, great dialogue, and with Hitchcock's signature style, it's a joy of a ride.

Day 34: The Trotsky (2009)

I already saw this film once this year, actually 3 days before I started this project, but my brother and friend both wanted to see it, and I was eager to see it again.

Leon Bronstein, a Montreal high school student, believes that he is the reincarnation of Leon Trotsky. He believes in the ideals of Trotsky, and starts to fight for a student union in his high school. A fantastically-funny Canadian film! I loved this film. One of my favourite films in a long time. The film appealed to me for numerous reasons: it's Canadian, it's a teen film (personal interest), it has the awesome Jay Baruchel, and it's about Trotsky. Truly demonstrates that Canada can produce humorous intelligent well-shot and well-produced films.

The humour is a bit broad, in that it helps to know a bit about Russian history, but the humour works. It doesn't resort to too many high school cliches - just enough to stay within the genre. The film is intelligent enough to be approachable by both youth and adults. My only real problem with the film is it's double use of the Odessa step sequence. The first time it's funny in a tongue-in-cheek way, but the second time is a bit much. For those in the audience with no understand of the Odessa steps will be even more in the dark.

The film deals with an issue, in my opinion of somewhat serious concern: are teenagers today just bored or apathetic? And, whichever it is, what's the solution? Leon seems to have the answer: just believe in something, anything, and pursue it. It doesn't have to be as ridiculous and as absurd as believing you are the reincarnation of Trotsky, but believe in something and do it. Just don't be apathetic. I think that's a message we can all stand behind.

Also, on a side note, I do would like a shirt that says "Dwight, are you my Stalin?"

Day 33: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

The next in Hitchcock's films - the most financially and critical successful films of his British films. This would be the only film Hitchcock would ever remake, and as such, most people have probably only seen the 1956 remake.

Finally a Hitchcock film that actually looked like a Hitchcock film! Bob and Jill Lawrence are vacationing in Switzerland with their daughter Betty, when they befriend Louis, who is shortly thereafter assassinated. Louis' dying words to Jill are of national security, but before she can pass along the message her daughter is kidnapped. Bob and Jill, unable to go the Police, try and stop the crime on their own. A fast-paced suspense that doesn't slow down. Peter Lorre, of the fabulous film M, plays a great villain, though he's not in the film nearly enough. Overall a great film that truly highlights Hitchcock's talent from an early period, and it only gets better from here.

Day 32: Andy Warhol (1987)

After an afternoon spent at the National Art Gallery at the "Pop Life: Art in a Material World" exhibit, it seemed fitting to watch a documentary on the artist who started it all.

This was the first documentary done on Warhol following his death in 1987, which examines his life through examples of his works, archival footage, and interviews with friends. Knowing very little about Warhol, this film provided a great assortment of information, and was, thankfully, not a talking-head documentary. Not having seen any other documentaries on Warhol, I am unable to judge how well this film provides a view of his life, but I was intrigued and interested throughout, so I'd say it was a successful documentary.

Day 31: She's Out of My League (2010)

I failed to see this in theatres, and was waiting for it's DVD release. My main desire to see it was for Jay Baruchel, and I was hoping the film would lean more to the comedy side of the romantic-comedy spectrum.

The premise is simple: an average guy, Kirk, meets a "perfect 10" woman, Molly, they start dating, but lack of confidence and family and friend's influence quickly erode the relationship. Sadly, the film tires to overcompensate for the romantic aspect of the film by filling in with crash and crude humour from Kirk's friends. The film changes from the ridiculous and silly to gag-me-with-a-spoon romance from scene to scene. The characters are incredibly one-dimensional, especially Kirk's family and friends. Despite the film's overall cliche message that beauty is not just on the outside, they fail to establish why Molly is interested in Kirk, besides that's he funny. This is an example of the Seth Rogen complex - only in Hollywood movies is funny enough to win the girl. In a film that is all about the loser getting the perfect 10, shouldn't they at least try to convince the audience it's feasible? While it's not the worst romantic-comedy out there, and, actually, considering the many many terrible romantic-comedies out there, it's not the worst; but it's far from great.

Day 30: Nuit et brouillard / Night and Fog (1955)

I took a class last year that was in the history of Jews on film. Our professor mentioned numerous films that he would have liked to have shown but didn't have time for, including both this one and Homicide. Shortly after the class ended, I noticed both were for sale through Criterion so I picked them up. I have since been meaning to watch Night and Fog, but much like other films on the topic of the concentration camps, one needs to be in a certain mood to watch them. I find that most times I sit down to watch a movie, I'm rarely in the mood to watch something along the lines of Schindler's List. Despite this, there remains great value in watching and experiencing these films. One of the best parts of my high school education, in my opinion, was that we were shown Schindler's List, and I strongly feel that all high school students should be screen not only Schindler's List but also Night and Fog as a documentary comparison to the fictional tale.

On the 10th anniversary of the end of WW2, Resnais ventured into the concentration camps with his video camera. His work combines colour shots from modern-day (1955) empty concentration camps with black-and-white archival footage from the war to provide a glimpse into the horror that was the holocaust. Michel Bouquet provides a gripping narration that is sprinkled throughout, leaving much of the film silent creating a very sombre mood for the images to be witnessed and felt by the audience.

This film is powerful and moving. As a history student, I have done a lot of reading, studying and discussion on the second world war and the holocaust, but no number of texts can provide the sense that this film does. While some people may find it difficult to watch at times, it is exactly for this reason that everyone should this film.

Day 29: True Romance (1993)

I'm somewhat ashamed to say I've never seen this movie before. I've had a copy for quite some time now, having picked it up used at a video store years ago. My main interest in it was that it was the only film Quentin Tarantino had written that I hadn't yet seen. Glad I finally got around to watching it, it's a shame it took me so long.

With one of the most misleading titles of all time, this was a fantastic action film. Not sure if the romance between Alabama, a new call girl, and Clarence, a Elvis fanatic comic-shop-employee, is ever true, but it sure is filled with violence. While the film requires one to turn off your brain, and bask in the glorified violence, sex and cliches that fill the screen; and that's exactly what makes the film so good. The dialogue is undeniably Tarantino, and provides some excellent scenes - in particular the scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken. Filled with some excellent actors in small parts like Brad Pitt as a pothead and Samuel L. Jackson as a gangster, the film encapsulates the 90's action film perfectly.

Day 28: Waltzes from Vienna / Strauss' Great Waltz (1934)

Hitchcock said that this film was ""the lowest ebb of my career," and that he only directed it because he had no other film projects that year. This is the only musical Hitchcock would ever direct.

A very simple plot. A musically-talented son of a famous composer is forced by his father to abandon music and work in a bakery where he falls in love. A rich and beautiful contessa hires the son to write a waltz for her poetry, which makes his girlfriend jealous. The son manages to pull off a masterpiece, impress his father and stay loyal to his girlfriend. All of this is set to music. Overall it's a basic humorous musical, though nothing special about it. Being not a great lover of musicals, and as there was little, if any, discernible Hitchcockian characteristics to the film, I was not overly fond of the movie.

Day 27: Toy Story 3 (2010)

Went to see this with my whole family - parents and three siblings. This is a rarity, and the last time we probably all went to see a movie together was Toy Story 2. It's not common that a movie comes out that we all want to see, and even less common that it's one we want to all see in theaters. That is one of the charms of Toy Story 3 - it appeals to people of all ages.

What needs to be said about Toy Story 3? When it comes to films from Pixard, one expects entertainment and they have yet to let us down. Toy Story 3 is one of those few sequels of a sequel that doesn't falter and is as good as the original and the sequel. This is a near perfect trilogy. While it was a bit darker than the first two, it was done effectively. It was funny, charming, and a good conclusion to the trilogy. It delivered everything I was expecting, and is well worth seeing. A true joy.

Day 26: Rich and Strange (1931)

Another Hitchcock film. Another attempt at a comedy.

Fred Hill is unhappy with his life and believes that an inheritance will make him happy, so he sets off with his wife Emily to travel. Once on a large ocean liner, they each develop a relationship with other people and carry on flirtatious affairs. They both realize the folly of their ways, and help each other escape the sinking ship before returning home to an acceptance of their normal life.

The most notable aspect of the film is that despite being a "talkie", the vast majority of the film is shot and presented in classic silent format with exaggerated actions and most notably title cards! Despite it being a simple story, there are a few examples of Hitchcock's flare with the camera. He experiments with items leaping towards the screen, the travel montage in Paris is clever, and the visual play on the use of the number 19. The film has a very haphazard feel to the editing of the film, with moments of comedy being broken up by long periods of montages with no talking. It's not a typical Hitchcock film, and while it may be reminiscent of comedies of the 1930s, it is not particularly funny either.

Day 25: Jennifer's Body (2009)

Picked this up at the video store for 3$. Figured it was a small amount to pay to see if this film had any value whatsoever. I have to say, it's the worst 3$ I've ever spent. This was possibly the worst film I've ever seen. Diablo Cody takes her weird-teen-talk from Juno to a whole new level of ridiculousness in this film, using words like "you're so jell-o" to mean being jealous; and that's only the tip of the absurdity of this film. Megan Fox's attractiveness is not worth having to endure the rest of the film. An absolute waste of money and time.

Day 24: Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

Numerous friends over the last two years have suggested I watch this, but never got around to watching it. The main reason I had no real desire to see it it because it is a musical, and music is not my cup of tea. That being said, I saw it on sale used at the video store and decided it was about time I finally saw it.

In the near future, following an epidemic of human organic failure, a company, GeneCo, steps in to provide new organics at a cost. If you miss a payment, however, GeneCo will send repomen to retrieve their property from inside you. This might sound vaguely similar to the plot of Repo Men, but despite the similar premise the two films take very different approaches. Repo! is a musical evolving around the dying president of GeneCo, his three greedy children, the Repo man and his sick daughter. While clearly an attempt to create a new Rocky Horror Picture Show, it fails to carry through. While not entirely un-enjoyable, it was cliche and formulaic. The musical quality of the film quickly feels gimmicky, and the film would have benefited from being told in a narrative fashion. It left a lot to be desired.

Day 23: Ninja Assassin (2009)

I was looking for movies to rent, this was the only one of the recent new releases that I hadn't seen, and figured it would be at least a decent action film. It failed to meet my even lowest expectations, and really had no merit. It tried too hard and took itself too seriously to be a spoof, but didn't have any substance in was of acting, story, or real action to give it legs to stand on. Really not worth watching.

Day 22: Helvetica (2007)

Last night I was really not in the mood to watch a film. It was the first time since I started this project that I really didn't want to. Must be some form of film fatigue. Regardless, I walked over to my DVD shelf and looked for something that wouldn't require too much thinking and would hopefully be enjoyable. Lacking any comedies, I remembered I had this documentary. I originally picked it up because my brother, an English major whose into this sorta of thing, wanted to see it. He watched it a while ago, but I had never gotten around to it. I figured a documentary about a typeface couldn't require too much brainpower, and somewhat bashfully, I admit the short run time of 80-minutes also allured to me.

I can just hear people now: "A documentary about a typeface? Why not just watch paint dry?" Granted, save for those few typography enthusiasts, it would seem that Helvetica is a hard sell, but the directors use helvetica as a springboard to discuss fonts, typography, graphic design and global consumerist culture. Helvetica, a typeface designed in 1957, has become the norm of contemporary capitalist consumer culture. Look around and you will see helvetica used everywhere - from warning signs, to instructions, to federal government department headings, and to most company logos. When Macs were first created, helvetica was the default font and Microsoft quickly copied suit. Arial, the almost identical twin of Helvetica, is the default for most Microsoft products now. Helvetica is all around us, there is no escaping it. The film explores this notion, and then interviews various people in the industry who discuss the benefits and the repercussions of this global monopoly of this typeface.

While I enjoyed the documentary, it failed, in my opinion, to properly delve into the issue. My biggest complaint is that for a documentary about Helvetica, it spent almost no time on the technical qualities of the font itself. There is a couple references to the design, but with no visual guides it was next to useless to people who can't visualize the font. There was no comparisons to other fonts, which would have been very useful to highlight why Helevtica has become the global default typeface. In one scene, they go into the archives of the typography firm that owns Helvetica and we see the original markup of the letter A being pulled out of a folder, but that's it. Why couldn't they pull them all out, lay them on a table, and perhaps, crazy as this seems, explain what makes the font so unique. I kept waiting for the technical explanation but it never came and it left me questioning why the would choose to leave out the most obvious aspect of a film on a typeface - you know, actually showing the typeface. Considering the poster demonstrates the typeface as the "cast", you'd think they'd show up for some form of discussion. Don't get me wrong, helvetica makes an appearance - about every 5 minutes. Every 5 minutes or so we're entertained with an artistic montage of helvetica being used all over cities and logos. While this was enjoyable for the first 2, 3 or even 4 times as it clearly demonstrates the popularity of the font, it quickly becomes obvious it is being used as filler to beef up the otherwise somewhat light documentary. While I enjoyed the film, it left me wanting more, and wishing for less filler.

Day 21: The A-Team (2010)

This summer is seems that we are getting three versions of this movie genre - that of the elite rogue hard-down-by group of trained soldiers. First we had The Losers, now we have The A-Team, and later this summer we'll be getting The Expendables. Three films within such a closely defined genre in one summer suggests not only lack of thought and originally in Hollywood, but also that the films are likely to be less then stellar. I saw The Losers last month, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I was less inclined to see The A-Team, mainly due to having never seen the TV series and knowing little about it; but after the recommendation by a friend, I decided to give it a try. Perhaps because The Losers and The A-Team are based on previous stories (a comic series in one case, and a TV series in the other) that they are able to not be constrained by the genre and actually create good movies.

I am not a fan of this trend of remaking 80's TV series and movies. It's only been 20 years, and we're already recycling material? What's next - the new and updated version of Intolerance or Citizen Kane? That being said, I was disappointed that the film was as enjoyable as it was because the more successful these remakes are the more likely they will continue.

I was glad to be able watch the film knowing nothing about the series and not feel like I was missing out on the story. Undoubtedly knowing the story would add value to the viewing experience, but it was not necessary. The film opens in Mexico, where we get to see how the four characters meet and come together. We then jump 8 years forward to where the A-Team is working as an Army covert Alpha team in Iraq with 80 successful missions completed. They are given a new mission, which goes awry and they are framed for; resulting in them escaping from prison and attempting to clear their names. The rest is all explosions, killing people and insane plans that miraculously work. The film is a summer action film - it knows what it is, and it doesn't try to be anything more. Not only is the film a fun action film, but it's actually really funny to boot. I was gladly surprised at how entertaining the film was, and am looking forward to The Expendables being enjoyable as well to complete the trifecta.

Day 20: The Midnight Meat Train (2008)

I saw the trailer for this back in 2008, and was mildly interested in seeing it, but as it never appeared in any local movie theater I quickly forgot about it. Later that year in one of my film classes, we had a representative from OFRB (Ontario Film Review Board) come talk to us about the rating system, how it works, how they rate films and so forth. She happened to mention that they had just given out their first R rating to a non-adult film since the division of the higher end ratings into either R or 18A (all films up to that point getting the later). She asked if anyone could guess the film, and no one could, and see then said it was The Midnight Meat Train, and it seemed like I was one of the only people in the room who had heard of it. This explained why I had not seen it in the local theaters - R rated films are a harder sell since 18A since you have to be over 18 to see R rater films. The fact that this was the first film in Ontario to garnish the elusive R rating basically confirmed that I had to see it. How much worse could it be then the Saw films or the Hostel films, all of which gained the 18A rating?

That's a good question. I'm not particularly sure what pushed this over the edge from 18A to R. While there were indeed some graphic scenes of violence, nothing particularly offended me or seemed worse then other films.

It's a horror film about a serial killer who murders people on the late subway train, and a photographer stumbles on to him and attempts to uncover his identity. Basic horror film premise, but with a refreshing take on the genre. I'm somewhat shocked this hasn't garnished a wider mass appeal. It was more entertaining than most horror films, has good actors - Bradely Cooper, Leslie Bibb, and Vinnie Jones - and it's plot doesn't fall apart in the first half the film, and actually saves the most dramatic segment of the film for the last 5 minutes. While it clearly left room for a sequel, it seems unlikely that one is going to happen with the less than stellar success of this one. Not sure what else to say; I enjoyed it and horror fans probably would to.

Day 19: Gremlins (1984)

I watched this when I was a kid, and haven't seen it since. A while back I saw it at the movie store and picked it up with the intention of watching it again, which of course never happened, and it sat on my shelf with all the other DVDs. Last night, I return to Gizmo's world of Kingston Falls (for keen observers, the same lot used to film Back to the Future).

All I remembered from this film was the three rules - no bright lights (sunlight kills), no water, and no feeding after midnight. In fact, I was shocked when Gizmo was the only gremlin, and I couldn't figure out where the other ones were going to come from. So, I might as well have been watching the movie for the first time. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and while it is obviously dated, it was a fun trip down nostalgic lane. Watching the film, though, brought up a large number of questions:

1) When can they be feed? Now, bear with me for a second here. The rule is that you can never feed them after midnight. Well, without a set time limit, it is always after midnight. Even 11:59 is after midnight, though granted closer to a different midnight. Is there an implied time that it ok to feed them? Is it at sunrise? Is it 8am? 7am? Or maybe it's ok to feed them after noon, since noon and midnight are the opposite of each other? I don't know the answer to this, but I know if I ever bought Gizmo I'd be sure to ask for clarification on this rule.
2) How is snow not water? Stripe escapes and runs across their snow covered lawn, and later the 1000s of gremlins run all over town and yet never undergo their water transformation.
3) What is with Kate? Seriously. Sure she provides a love interest for our generally incompetent protagonist Billy, but why give her such a messed up back story? For those of you who don't remember, she hates Christmas because when she was a kid her father dressed up as Santa and tried to climb down the chimney but got stuck and died. Not only does this have no relevance to the film, how is that even PG-13?
4) Where is everyone else in the town? Like really? Does no one else live there? There is a few scenes with other town folk being terrorized by the gremlins, but in the final scene in which Billy blows up the movie theater, no one is around! It's up to one boy to save the entire town?
5) The mom is kick-ass. She kills four of the original 5 gremlins by herself in her kitchen, and not just in some timid way. She knifes one, she pushes one into the food blender, and she microwaves another. She is the only person in the film who kills any Gremlins by hand. The rest are killed by sunlight or the explosion.
6) Who blows up a movie theatre? Like really? It was almost day, and they die in sunlight. They really just had to wait maybe 30 minutes and the issue would be all resolved, but no. Logically, let's blow up a building, and start a huge fire. Seeing as there is no one around for any of this, is the fire department around to put the fire out or is the whole town going to burn now? It's such a terrible solution to the problem.

Day 18: Number Seventeen (1932)

The next on my list of Hitchcock films to watch.

Number Seventeen was the last film that Hitchcock made for British International Pictures, partly due to the fact that Hitchcock didn't want to film this. He was forced to as punishment over the poor financial success of Rich and Strange. Hitchcock has since said that this film was a disaster and a low point in his career. I couldn't agree more. The highlight of the movie was that it was only 63 minutes long.

The film is based on a play, and it's evident as the entire film takes place in only two locations, one for each half the movie. The film lacks explanation, lacks characterization, and lacks rhythm. It takes place at an empty house in which some thieves have stashed their stolen necklace, and the return to collect it and escape the continent by train (which passes directly under the house), but the neighbour's daughter, a homeless man, and a police detective get in their way.

I can't think of anything positive to say about this film, aside from the fact that in 1932 it may have been considered a generally decent thriller, but it has not stood the test of time (unlike most of Hitchcock's other films).

Day 17: Sunshine Cleaning (2008)

I have this bad habit of going into a movie store, noticing a film, or films, that I want to watch, I get them, but then they sit on my shelf for months or years going unwatched. The get hidden behind even more such movies I've picked up, or, as the case often is, when I'm in the mood to watch a film, these just don't cut it. This is one of those films. The trailer looked promising - a quirky indie film with heart; and so it sat on my shelf for over a year. This project will hopefully help me clear the cobwebs off some of these movies, and finally get around to watching them. Today was the first time I picked one of these cast-away movies up to watch.

Following a 2001 NPR All Things Considered report about two women in Seattle who started their own bio-hazard removal service, the filmmakers got the idea to make a fictional film around that premise. So our film features Rose, and her sister Norah, starting Sunshine Cleaning, a bio-hazard crime scene cleaning company. If this was not a pleasant enough life for Rose, she is also a single mother of a 7-year old who is constantly in trouble at school (though, he's just a hyper child being a child), and is having a one-way affair with her high school sweetheart who knocked her up but married someone else. If this movie doesn't scream happiness, I don't know what does.

There is a great premise here for a dark comedy, and even great actresses with Amy Adams and Emily Blunt, but sadly the film does not capitalize on either. The plot takes forever to get going and then once it does, it doesn't go very far. The movie gets lost in its various subplots, never finding solid ground to stand on. Adams and Blunt give wonderfully charming performances, but they are not enough to save the film. It's a shame to see a novel idea and good actors wasted by seemingly lack of structure in the script. The most memorable part of the film is the character of Winston, played by Clifton Collins Jr., who is an one-armed hardware store owner who helps Rose and Norah get the industry figured out. Sadly, he is tossed into the film to provide a possible love interest for Rose that never goes anywhere. The film could have been a lot better with a cleaning up of the script.

Day 16: Splice (2009)

I hadn't really heard/seen much about this film, but as nothing new came out today, there wasn't much choice, and I'm always keen on Canadian films (even if they are co-productions). Had I realized it was directed by Vincenzo Natali, the director of the awesome Canadian cult film Cube, I might have been more inclined to see it. Regardless, I saw it either way.

Premise of the film is rather basic. Two uber-smart scientists find a way to splice genes from different animals together to create a new lifeform which contains miracle compounds that will cure health problems. They want to take it one step further by splicing in human DNA, but they are told to shut down the project. They, of course, do not listen and a new creature is born, which they raise in secrecy. The vast majority of the film concerns these two scientists, Clive and Elsa (bonus points to anyone who knows where their names come from), as they create and raise Dren, the new lifeform. There is hardly any horror elements in the film at all. While they try at various times to include some horroresque moments, they pass quickly without much shock value. The third act feels forced, unexplained, and just falls apart by altering the pace and mood of the film. It feels like the film needed an ending and they just took the easiest, rather ridiculous, path; all the while leaving room for a sequel of course.

I was not sure what to expect when I sat down, and I did not leave disappointed. I enjoyed myself, but the film could have done a lot more with the idea, and the story feels improperly finished. This is not a film that will leave a mark on the scifi genre.

Day 15: The Skin Game (1931)

A couple years I decided I was going to watch all of Hitchcock's films in order. Hopefully now with my 365in365 project I'll finally get through the remaining ones. Today, I watched the next one on my list. Hitchcock's 5th talkie - still in Britain at this point, and still shooting in black and white.

This is the most boring/bland Hitchcock film I've ever seen, which is rather surprising, given that it has the most scandalous of all Hitchcock's film's titles.. It's a melodrama, and a poor one at that. The story evovles around two landowners - one of them being a proper landowner, and the other a working-man who made it rich. The working man, Mr. Hornblower, wants to buy some land near that of the gentleman landowner, Mr. Hillcrest, in order to build some factories. The factories would disrupt Hillcrest's view of nature, and so obviously he objects, and a feud begins. How is this suspenseful feud resolved you ask? Well, by blackmail of course! It turns out that Hornblower's daughter-in-law used to help men get divorces by being seen with them, allowing the men to claim they were being unfaithful to their wives. Apparently this is quite disgraceful and distasteful in 1931. The movie is about as exciting as I make it sound.

The only redeeming part of the film is that neither Hillcrest nor Hornblower can be said to be good. They both pursue their actions for their own selfish gains with no concern for others, and as such, there is no clear side to cheer for. This may have been novel in 1931, but the lack of a "hero" in a film is nothing new. The only reason to watch this would so that you could claim you've seen all of Hitchcock's remaining films.

Day 14: Robin Hood (2010)

The problem with seeing so many movies in theaters, is that when you're out with a friend and they want to see a movie you are usually left with the films you have intentionally not seen. Last night this was the case, and we opted for Robin Hood. I had not actively not seen it prior, I just had no real desire to do so. Though I'm glad we saw this over Killers or SATC2.

I hadn't read much on the film seeing that it's called Robin Hood, I figured I had a general gist of what the film was about. I was somewhat surprised that the film dealt with the legend of Robin before he was the legend, a prequel of sorts to all the other Robin Hood stories. Due to this, we are entertained by battle scenes and ambushes in which Robin does most of his fighting hand-to-hand with swords. There is only two or three scenes in which Robin demonstrates his amazing bow skills, which was disappointing - isn't that what you expect from a Robin Hood film? To make a Robin Hood film as high tech and well funded as this one and not demonstrate some amazing arrow shots? I was rather disappointed.

The film was long at a running time of 140 minutes, and with a handful of scenes with slow pacing this could easily been cut to below 2 hours. The pacing of the film overall felt choppy - switching from short (and not nearly enough) scenes of action to slow paced romance ones. That being said, I enjoyed the story, particularly since it was part of the legend that I had not previously seen on film. While I was hoping for a Ridley Scott/Russel Crowe approach on the classic story of Robin Hood, I guess I'll need to wait for the sequel that I'm sure we will one day see.

Day 13: Get Him to the Greek (2010)

It was cheap movie night at the movie theatre, so decided it was worth seeing something in theatres. I've wanted to see Get Him to the Greek since I saw the first trailer, despite knowing that the movie would most likely be pretty bad, but it looked funny. As a sidenote, one of the best part of the film was the the character in the credits listed as "S&M Guy Who Looks Like Moby" played by Thomas Nowell. I'm not quite sure when Nowell made an appearance in the film, but he got the best character name in the film by far.

I have to say that I'm glad I'm not old enough that I've "matured" beyond this kind of humour. I really hope I never do "mature" beyond it, but it seems that this type of drug, and occasionally sex, humour is considered crass and immature. I guess that makes me immature. In any regard, the film is not a "good film," but it's funny. It's not as well written or as well acted as it's somewhat prequel Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but considering Jason Segel didn't write this one it is not surprising. The most confusing aspect of the film is that Russell Brand's character Aldous Snow is the same character as from FSM, yet Jonah Hill, who had a prominent role in FSM, plays an entirely different character in GMTTG. While I enjoy Jonah Hill, is there not another actor in Hollywood who could have played the role? Speaking of FSM, the cameo by Kristen Bell as Sarah Marshall was one of the highlights of the film. Overall, the film was funny if you find this type of humour funny, which I do.

Day 12: Jeux d'enfants / Love me If you Dare (2003)

I remember seeing this in the local indie/foreign movie theater in Ottawa when it came out in 2003, and I remember thinking it was a really good romantic film. Over the last seven years, I've recommended it to a number of people, but no one seems convinced enough to watch it. Seeing it on my DVD shelf, I was curious to see if it was as good as I remembered, so I popped it in, and watched it again. It, indeed, lived up to my memory, and it remains one of best romantic films (not really a romantic comedy) that I've seen.

Okay, quick recap about the film, though it won't do it justice. This little boy and little girl are friends, and they have this tin carousel container that they pass back and forth between each other. Whomever controls the carousel can dare the other to do anything, and they have to do it if they are "game", and once they complete the dare they get control of the carousel. This goes on from childhood into adulthood where it starts to interfere with their lives as it so be expected. The film is a lot better than it sounds, trust me,

What I find most alluring about the film is that the characters, Julien and Sophie, are probably some of the meanest characters in film, yet they aren't bad guys. You know how children tease, hurt and punish those of the opposite sex that they fancy? Well, this game of teasing extends beyond that. Neither of them can explain their love for each other, because the game is always in the way. The game brought them together, but it also keeps them apart as adults. The film is about maturing, about dealing with one's past, about dealing with one's mistakes, and about taking responsibility for one's feelings. No one, or at least I can't imagine anyone, passes a carousel back and forth and dares each other, but people play with the emotions of those they love all the time, and this film visualizes it.

Perhaps the best part of the film is the ending. I won't ruin it for you, but it poses the audience the question "are you game?". It turns the film around on the audience, and asks if they are willing to accept what they have seen and have been told. So watch it, and decide for yourself if you're game or not.

Day 11: 49th Parallel (1941)

This is a criterion DVD I picked up a while ago. The main reason I picked it up was because it was a WW2 propaganda film ABOUT CANADA. I'm a sucker for Canadian films, and even a bigger sucker for films about Canada. Whenever a TV show or a film even mentions Canada, I get giddy. I'm lamely nationalistic like that. So, how could I pass up on this? Sunday night, I was out of town in a hotel with my dad the night before my graduation, and I wanted to watch that we'd both like. At first he complained that this film "wasn't a real film" which he uses to mean that it has subtitles. My dad refuses to read subtitles and considers any movie that uses them not worth watching. Thankfully despite being about Nazis, no subtitles were used. While I would have preferred to watch Nazis speaking German for authenticity (or even used a German accent), I guess that their speaking perfect British English allowed my dad to enjoy it with me.

I'm probably not the best person to critique this film. I'm a huge fan of history-related films, of war films, of propaganda films, and of films about Canada. This film could have been someone reading the phone book standing in front of a map of Canada and I probably would have enjoyed it. Thankfully it was a lot more enjoyable than a reading from the phone book. The plot centers around the sinking of a u-boat in Hudson's Bay, and 6 Nazi soldiers who managed to survive. These 6 Nazis try and find some way out of Canada and back to Germany. As they flee, they cross much of Canada, allowing Europe to get a glimpse into the Canadian landscape. The film served a couple purposes. It was a way to thank Canada for their involvement in the war, and it was intended to show Americans how real the threat of Nazi Germany was, and how close the war could possibly come to them. Canada is used throughout the film as a foil to which Nazi Germany is compared - Canada is the epitome of Nazi Germany apparently.

The film plays around with one's understanding of Canada's geography. The Nazis start in Hudson's Bay, from there they travel to Churchill, to Winnipeg, then by foot to Banff, and there by foot over the Rockies to Vancouver, where they then fly to Edmonton/Calgary, then fly to Toronto, then train it to Niagara falls. All within a week or so, in 1941. If you manage to avoid the obvious impossibility of this, it does provide a glimpse into many different parts of Canada's landscape. From the north to the prairies to cities to the Rockies to Niagara falls. The film clearly wanted to share as much of Canada as possible, and was willing to bend the plot to fit it. Not only that, but the Nazis never come anywhere near the 49th parallel border between Canada and the US. The depiction of Canadians is just as bad, filling the film with stereotypes.; yet, considering the film is a propaganda war film, I wasn't overly offended. Despite the freedoms they took with both the country and the people of Canada, it was fun to see Canada depicted at the time, and the story was fun enough to keep the audience's attention.

Day 10: In the Loop (2009)

I was, again, looking online for films to rent when I came across this one under a list of best missed films from last year. I had never heard of it, but the cast looked good, and it got good reviews, so I figured I'd give it a try. I'm so glad I did! This is one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. Political comedy at its best.

The premise of the film is simple - the US President and the UK Prime Minister want war in the Middle East, but not everyone on their staff do. What follows is a comedy of failures in epic proportions that lead to the outbreak of the second gulf war. For those who are cynical, or even somewhat less than convinced, that the government acts effectively will enjoy the examination into how a series of failures, misunderstandings and lies can lead to war.

I don't want to say too much about the film so that I don't ruin it for anyone, but in short, the film is hilarious and well the price of a rental.

Day 9: Teeth (2007)

I don't remember where or when I first heard about this film, presumably it was back in 2007 when it was released. As it never got a theatrical release in my city and since I usually didn't remember to look for it at the movie store, I was shocked last week to realize that I hadn't yet seen it upon coming across it in a movie store.

My initial impression was how low budget the film's production was - it could easily have been filmed by someone in one of my film classes, and the discrepancy in the lighting and quality of the image from one shot to the next threw me off. Yet, once I was able to move past the low budget-ness of the film (to be fair, it is a low budget horror film) I found myself quite enjoying it. The plot is not overly complex - Dawn, a teenage girl, has vagina dentata and must deal with the issues it causes - but it is the film's message that is created throughout the subtext that carries the film. Much more of a satire than a horror, and all the "horror" elements are easy to see coming. There is nothing jumping out at the audience, the "horror" occurs pretty predictably, ie. whenever someone has sex with Dawn. Jess Weixler is
wonderful as Dawn, as she finds a way to turn her imperfection into a form of empowerment. Despite Lichetenstein's production shortcomings, he makes up for it with style and message, creating an enjoyable black comedy. The film could have been better and could have gone further, and I was expecting more, but it still remains a film worth checking out.

Day 8: Bande à part / Band of Outsiders (1964)

After dinner and drinks with my brother and my friend, we went back to his place and decided to watch another Criterion DVD. In my time at film school, I was never taught about the French New Wave, and the only French New Wave film we were ever shown was 10 minutes from Breathless and that was for its use of the city, not its place with FNW. So, sadly, my knowledge of and viewing history of FNW is severely lacking, but that just leaves more room for me to watch them on my own.

Watching Band of Outsiders was a delight. I was particularly impressed (as I always am when this occurs) by Godard's ability to make the viewer aware that they are watching a film without having it detract from the viewing experience. The "minute of silence" scene was brilliant, though I wish it had lasted a full minute, and seeing the madison scene finally made the Thurman and Travolta scene in Pulp Fiction make sense. Overall, I enjoyed the trip through 1960's Paris and the joy that Godard clearly took in filming the film.

I need to continue watching/reading up on FNW, I think 400 Blows will be watched in the near future.

Day 7: The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)

I decided to end my first week with a film I've been wanting to see for months now, ever since the trailer was making its rounds on the Internet (in case you haven't seen it, go watch it first).
A couple months ago I had just finished watching The Room with some friends, and the following day I had a conversation with my brother:
Me: You should rent The Room and watch it with your friends. It's probably the worst movie ever made. It's awesome!
Brother: Uhh... why would I want to watch a terrible movie?
Me: Because it's awesome!
Brother: Right... anyways, have you heard of The Human Centipede? That trailer is the only film any of my friends talk about.
Well, I had heard of THC before, but I was kinda surprised that my brother wanted to see it, so with that conversation in mind, and considering he was over last night, it just made sense. With that we sat down to watch this "100% medically accurate" horrorfest.

This is not really a film that can be commented on without ruining the plot (though the trailer does that already), so I'm not going to try and avoid spoilers. To be honest, my main desire to watch the film was to see how the human centipede actor's acted, as it must be one of the worst acting jobs ever. The film took the first half of the film getting to the surgery, and by taking its sweet time it was just teasing the viewer. Tom Six, the director, knows that everyone just wants the centipede to be made, and so he delays it as long as possible. Is the viewer's anticipation to see the surgery happen a comment on our desire for horror and the grotesque? It reminded me to an extent to Funny Games, in which the director is playing with our desires of what we want to see. The fact that the acting is nothing to write home about, aside from Dieter Laser as the Doctor who just radiates creepiness from his first scene, does not well the waiting. Once the centipede procedure happens, it becomes a typical horror film attempt to escape for the centipede, and here the film drags along for a bit, but the finale brings the film back to life, and ends with a rather shocking scene. Considering that this film was made to prepare audiences for The Human Centipede (Full Sequence), the film does not end with an obvious plot from which to form a sequel off of, which surprised me. I am rather confused how a sequel will emerge from this film, but I am anticipating it as much, if not more, than this film.

After watching the trailer I assume almost everyone will quickly decide if they want to watch this film or not, as you would either be intrigued or disgusted. Most people I've shown the trailer to have been the latter and stare baffled at me asking why would I ever want to watch this. Aside from general curiosity, I wanted to know if the film could rise above its concept, as it is one thing to have an idea for a creepy film, it is another to carry it through. Thankfully The Human Centipede manages to carry the film above its concept, though just barely, being saved by the performance of the doctor and the subtle variations on conventional horror films. For a film in which two of the main actors stop speaking half way through (you can imagine why), and one only speaks German, the Doctor is left to carry the audience through the film in his German accented English, and he does it rather effectively.

The film, obviously, has many plot holes, and while I'm not sure how legitimate the tagline ("100% medically accurate") is, especially considering the sequel's tagline is 100% medically INaccurate, these are above beside the point, as the same could be said for any horror film. The film presented a new, unique, and grotesque idea for the horror genre and managed to carry the concept into reality - that is noteworthy in and of itself. If when you watched the trailer you were intrigued, you'll probably enjoy the film. If you were disgusted by the trailer, you'll probably just be furthered disgusted by the film.

Day 6: Out of Sight (1998)

I quickly realized that I would not be able to depend on my stockpile of unseen DVDs and new releases to meet my 365 target, so I was searching online for some older films to rent. I did a search for heist films, as it's a genre I enjoy and will not enough films, and came upon this title, which I didn't remember having seen. Sadly, I had seen it before, though I didn't remember how it went at all. As I watched each scene I recall having seen it before, but with no idea what would come next, an odd experience. I'm assuming that's highly due to the fact that this film came out when I was 12 and I probably watched it around that time.

This film really shouldn't be considered a heist film at all, it was much more a romantic comedy, though not so much comedy as romance. It was a drawn out romantic story between two unlikely characters - a bank robber and a US Marshall. The film wasn't bad per se, just not really my cup of tea. Horribly cliche, predictable, and unbelievable. At least Clooney and Lopez are enjoyable actors to watch for two hours.