Day 97: Spellbound (1945)

Another Hitchcock film. I first saw part of this film in my first year film class. After watching Un chien andalou, a experimental film written by Salvador Dali, we were shown the dream sequence from this film as another example of Dali's venture into film.

The film provides a different avenue for Hitchcock in that it is a psychological thriller that depends entirely on the theories of psychoanalysis. Set in an mental hospital, Dr. Constance Petersen, Ingrid Bergman, is smitten by the new director of the hospital, Dr. Edwardes, Gregory Peck. When Edwardes starts to act oddly, Constance realizes that he is not Edwardes, but an amnesia patient, and together they must help him remember his past in order to avoid a murder charge.

Considering that psychoanalysis was new at the time, especially in film, the viewer is subjected to various explanations throughout the film. While it would be hard to imagine a film today relying entirely on psychoanalysis, it would have surely been something new and fascinating in 1945. Due to it's peculiar plot, it's hard to judge the film compared to other Hitchcock films. I found it hard to find believable, and found it to be overly predictable. Dali's dream sequence is, without a doubt, the highlight of the film. Also, it might contain the shortest amount of colour in a black and white film, and it works beautifully. Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman are fantastic as usual, and provide enough entertainment to compensate for the weak story. Not one of my favourite Hitchcock films.

Day 96: The Little Shop of Horrors (1960)

I picked this film up a while ago, and when I sat down to watch it, I was confused by the black and white. I kept watching, figuring it was a film technique and would switch to colour at some key point. When it kept playing in black and white, and when Rick Moranis never appeared, I paused the film and went on IMDB.com. To my surprise, I had picked up the original film, of which I didn't know existed, and not the 1986 remake I was expecting. Nonetheless, I sat back down and finished the film.

Mushnick's is a florist on skid-row, and business is doing terrible. When the cleaning boy Seymour says he's developed a new flower, Mushnicks instructs him to bring it in in an attempt to encourage people to visit the store. Seymour discovers that the plant needs blood to survive, he supplies it with some of his own, but soon discovers it's not enough to quench it's thirst.

The film is a b-movie from the 1960s about a man-eating plant, that is surprisingly funny. Shot in only two-days, the film is aided by its silly script and its tongue-in-cheek tone. Not a horror-film at all, but a funny b-movie that can't be taken too seriously.

Day 95: Traffic (2000)

Somehow I managed to miss viewing this when it first came out, might be due to the fact that I was 14 at the time. I've had it on Criterion for awhile now, but for whatever reason, never picked it up to watch.

"For someone my age, it's a lot easier to get drugs than it is to get alcohol." This line, spoken by one of the high school students in the film, expresses the point of the film - the war on drugs doesn't make it harder to get drugs, it just creates a much higher cost for them. Not only a financial cost, but a cost of lives as well. The film traces the drug trade from the bottom to the top of the supply chain, illustrating three stories effected by the drug trade. The film doesn't attempt to preach a message, it simply portrays stories and lets the viewer come to their own conclusion. The film might reinforced already existing believes on the illegality of the drug trade, or it might change them.

Day 94: Bon Voyage (1944)

In 1944, Hitchcock made two short films as propaganda for the war effort. Each about 30 minutes in length. Neither film have anything of any particular value to them; nothing that sets them apart as being a clear Hitchcock film, or even as a good propaganda film. They will probably only be viewed by Hitchcockian completists now.

Day 93: Aventure malgache (1944)

In 1944, Hitchcock made two short films as propaganda for the war effort. Each about 30 minutes in length. Neither film have anything of any particular value to them; nothing that sets them apart as being a clear Hitchcock film, or even as a good propaganda film. They will probably only be viewed by Hitchcockian completists now.

Day 92: Lifeboat (1944)

This is one of the few Hitchcock films I'd never seen before. When I started reading about Hitchcock I was very eager to see this one, but anxiously waited until I had seen all his previous ones.

In perhaps the best one-set films, Hitchcock chronicles the adventure of a group of shipwreck victims in a lifeboat. When there boat is sunk by a German Uboat, they manage to make it to a lifeboat, but shortly thereafter, they are joined by another man - the captain of the German Uboat! The Uboat was struck by the ship before it sank, and so the survivors must survive with an enemy on board. With starvation, thirst, injury, and isolation plaguing the survivors, the last thing they need is an enemy alongside them, and it just adds to the tension of the film.

Single-set productions are fairly rare, and they are hard to pull off. Classic examples, aside from Lifeboat, include Phone Booth and the Seinfeld episode The Chinese Restaurant. That being said, it's an impressive feat to shoot a 2-hour film that takes place entirely from start to finish on a lifeboat. Only a director with true skill, and with a well written script, in this case by John Steinbeck, could keep the audience interested for so long. The film works wonderfully. Hitchcock is at his best, and he keeps the tension high the entire film. I don't know why this film isn't more well known, but it's a true gem.

Day 91: Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Another film in Hitchcock's cannon. Hitchcock often said this was his favourite film.

Hitchcock considered this a "family film," and his intention was to "bring violence back into the home, where it belongs." The film features the Newton family, a personification of the average American family. The family is happy, but their daughter Charlie, is bored and wants some excitement in her life. Much to her delight, her uncle Charlie (whom she is named after) decides to come for a visit. Charlie does indeed bring some excitement to the family, as police after him as a potential suspect in a series of murders.

Joseph Cotton is excellent as Uncle Charlie, and he makes the film. The film is somewhat irregular for a Hitchcock film in that the audience is aware of Charlie's guilt from the beginning, so it's not a case of mistaken identity as is Hitchcock's standard mode-of-operation, but instead, the film is carried on the performance of Cotton. The film highlights that horror can be very close to home, even at one's own dining room table. At a time when WW2 was ravaging the world, and Americans were fearing evils abroad, they were reminded that evil can be found a lot closer, and in the least suspecting places.

Day 90: Et Dieu... créa la femme / ...And God Created Woman (1956)

One of the DVDs I picked up at the Barnes & Noble's Criterion sale.

The breakout hit for Brigitte Bardot - the film that made her famous. Or so I've read. I had no idea who Bardot was before this film. In what was a scandolous film at the time, Bardot plays a sex-driven young woman whose well known around town. When she is threatened with being sent back to foster care, the brother of the man she loves steps up and offers to marry her. Juliete, Bardot's character, is, of course, unable to change her ways and is cheats on her husband.

The film is a pretext to show off Bardot and nothing more. She spends the film in various states of undress, though never nude. It's easy to see why the film caused a controversy in the 1950s, and while it's relatively tame by today's standards, the film still encapsulates the beauty of Bardot. The story is fairly simple and predictable, but the viewing experience isn't found in the story but from watching Bardot.

Day 89: Saboteur (1942)

Moving along in Hitchcock's films. The poster above is not the actual movie poster, but a recent minimalistic poster design that I liked.

Barry Kane is accused of starting a fire in an airplane factory, an act of sabotage against the American's war efforts, and goes on the run in an attempt to find the real saboteur and clear his name. He quickly finds himself caught up in an ring of evil-doers who are trying to sabotage multiple aspects of the American war effort, and Barry tries to stop them.

This is one of many (11 by my count) films that Hitchcock made with the ordinary man is wrongly accused, and must go on the run from the police to clear his name. The first example is The 39 Steps, one of his best British films, and continues with others including Spellbound, North by Northwest, The Wrong Man, and Frenzy. This is one of Hitchcock's signature theme, and one he is very talented at. This film feels very much like an American remake of The 39 Steps, as it shares many of the same elements - handcuffs being a main plot point, the unwilling blonde who doesn't believe him and who he is stuck with, men who want to kill him to prevent him from getting in the way of stopping their evil plans, and a cross country journey (here it being America as opposed to England/Scotland). Hitchcock, as is expected, manages to weave together romance, comedy, and a thriller into another wonderful film. I feel like this is often overlooked when people talk about Hitchcock films, but it really shouldn't be. Also of note, it's the first time Hitchcock used an American landmark as a background for his films, in this case being both the Hoover dam, and the Statue of Liberty. This is a theme he would revisit, famously, again.

A couple points that struck me:
- Barry's last name is Kane. Considering that Citizen Kane was released the previous year, it is hard to imagine this not being deliberate.
- The film has elements of propaganda in it, such as speeches about what it means to be an American, what it means to live in a democracy and the like, though they are crafted into the plot and are not as blatant as many other films. Yet, the entire film is based on the fact that Kane doesn't want to go to the police because he fears they won't believe him, and it'll be months before anything happens. How is suggesting that American police officers being ineffective positive? Is the value of American independence and strength, as shown by Barry, greater than the institutionalized power as represented by the police? It just seems to be a contradiction.

Day 88: Loft (2008)

I was in the video store with a friend trying to find something to rent, and I wandered over to the foreign film section in hopes of finding something decent to watch. The cover of this film caught my eye, and the description piqued my interest. A quick lookup on RottenTomatoes on my blackberry indicated no reviews, which wasn't very helpful, but decided that even if it was terrible, it'd be better than watching the usual Hollywood drivel.

Loft is a Belgian film, and I was hoping it would be spoken in French (since I am somewhat bilingual in French) but it was done in Flemish, so I had to rely on subtitles. On my IMDB research, it appears the film is undergoing a Dutch remake to be released in December of this year. I am confused why there would be a need to remake a Belgian Flemish film in Dutch, but apparently there is a reason.

Five men, all married, share a loft downtown that they each bring their mistresses too. When they find a dead woman in the loft, they begin to suspect each other as there is only five keys to the loft. This leads to a whodunit, that quickly spirals from the five men to their wives and mistresses. Everyone is a suspect, everyone has a secret to hide, and no one is innocent.

The film opens with a man falling onto the hood of a car, followed by different men being interview by the police. Each question and answer makes us understand less and less, and then the narrative begins. The cinematography was great, especially considering a vast majority of the film took place within the small loft. The film grips the audience's attention within minutes and holds it for the nearly 2-hour runtime. The film encapsulates what is required to make a good thriller. The audience is provided with enough information to not feel cheated, but this information is often proven to only be half the truth and the audience quickly reels to try and figure it out for a second, third, and fourth time. A film that leaves the audience guessing until the very end, that has a strong cast, is shot well, and doesn't resort to cliches is well worth watching. This was a very pleasant find, and well worth checking out if you're in the mood for something slightly different than the usual Hollywood.

Day 87: Charade (1963)

Trying to find a movie that my parents and I can watch together is always a challenge. They rarely, if ever, go to the theatre, so they rent films. Any new blockbuster releases they have any interest in seeing, I've already seen in theatres. They usually have no interest in foreign or indie films, so usually I've forced to re-watch something I've already seen unless I can find a suitable older film. Suitable usually entails finding something that has actors they recognize in it. So when I picked this up on Criterion a few weeks ago, I figured it would probably pass the test since it had Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, and Walter Matthau in it.

Regina (Audrey Hepburn) has decided she is going to divorce her husband, but while away on a ski vacation with her sister, her husband sells everything they own and flees. He turns up dead, but with no sign of the money. The CIA question Regina about the money and ask her to find it for them - it seems the money was stolen from the Americans in WW2. Soon after, Regina runs into three men who are all after the money as well. Regina is aided by Peter Joshua (Cary Grant) who offers to help Regina, but who might have ulterior motives of his own.

I was quite surprised. This is one of the funniest romantic-comedy-thrillers I have seen. A film with great direction, Stanley Donen (Singin' in the Rain), with two great classic actors both as excellent as always, one of the best comedic actors ever (Matthau), and a well written script that is a delight from start to finish with enough red herrings and false clues that keeps you guessing from start to finish. Truly a film unlike anything they make today. If I didn't know otherwise, I'd swear Hitchcock had something to do with this film - it's such a perfect example of mixing comedy, romance and thriller that he was known for. The film is perfect all around. I can't believe it's not better known.

Day 86: The Expendables (2010)

The action film of the summer, and will probably be one of the highest grossing films of the summer. Would have been pretty hard to avoid seeing this one.

A team of mercenaries are hired to head down to a small island in South America to overthrow a dictator and his ex-CIA backer. The mercenaries are played by a cast of classic American action heroes including: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. This falls under the premise that if you put enough famous people into a film it has to be good.

I was expecting a decent summer action film. Nothing great, but a film filled with enough action and cheesy one-liners to make it entertaining. Sadly, I was rather disappointed. The film had a very poor plot, as it to be expected, but for some reason, they felt the need to try and explain and justify the plot for half the movie. Up until the last 20 minutes, there was barely any action. I felt like they forgot they were filming an action movie and just threw it all in at the end. I didn't not enjoy myself, but even with my lowered expectations I still felt like the film didn't deliver. It really just wasn't that good of a movie, not even that good of an action movie.

Day 85: The Honeymoon Killers (1969)

Picked this up on Criterion a few weeks ago. The film was originally intended to be directed by Martin Scorsese, who was fired after spending too much time and money on master shots. François Truffaut saw it and named it his favourite American film.

Based on the true American crime story of Raymond Fernandez and Martha Beck, who met through a lonely-hearts correspondence club, and proceeded to kill numerous women together. While Ray lures lonely women into marriage, Martha pretends to be his sister, and together they rob and kill these women. In real life, the 1940s' slayers were dubbed by contemporary tabloids as 'The Lonely Hearts Killers', and faced the death penalty in San Quentin in 1951.

The film is carried by the character of Martha Beck, an overweight nurse - an outstanding performance by Shirley Stoler. Her presence on the screen carries the film through it's rather unconventional format. Her size, especially compared to Ray, is often used to fill the frame, suggesting the claustrophobic nature of their relationships and the crimes they committed. The film revolves just as much around the killings as it does around Ray and Martha's relationship. Ray is clearly still a child in many ways, and Martha adopts a motherly tone towards him. Their relationship is a confusion between dependent/independent, and two lovers. The film is filled with humour, black humour obviously, right up until the end, but the last murder leaves the audience shocked and in despair. The film's ending of a love letter being read aloud is the final provocation towards the audience. It's a unique film that I won't soon forget.

Day 84: Ladri di biciclette / Bicycle Thieves (1948)

Often included on lists of top films ever made, and I managed to pick it up on Criterion a few weeks ago. One of the editing rooms in the Film House had a poster for The Icicle Thief, a film that parodies this one, and every time I saw it I kept thinking to myself that I should get around to watching Bicycle Thieves, but I'd then always forget.

The film is comprised of a very simple story. Antonio is offered a job, but for it he needs a bicycle. Unfortunately, he recently pawned his bicycle. His wife pawns her sheets so that he can get his bicycle back. With bicycle in hand, he heads off to his new job of hanging posters around Rome. As he's hanging posters, his bicycle gets stolen. Antonio, along with his son Bruno and some friends, search throughout Rome for his stolen bicycle. The film appears, at first glance, to be simply about a stolen bicycle, but it's really about so much more. In a classic example of neorealism, the film presents an examination into despair, poverty and loss. More important than the search for the stolen bike is the relationship between Antonio and his son Bruno. Desptie being amateurs, both Antonio and Bruno are played wonderfully, and both characters are full of real emotion. Bruno, also, is the cutest child I've ever seen on film, absolutely adorable. The cinematography of the film is gorgeous, and the world of Rome is brought alive by the camera. The film is one that truly requires a second, and possibly even more, viewings. It is a simple story that says a lot. I need to watch it again, and focus less on the bicycle and more on Bruno. The real story has nothing to do with Antonio, but rather how Bruno's view of his father is changed and impacted by the story. Antonio has a lot more at stake here than just his bicycle, which happens to be his means of production, but also his son's outlook on him and life.

Day 83: Suspicion (1941)

Continuing on with my watching of Hitchcock's films. This one is the only time an actor won an Academy Award in a Hitchcock film - Joan Fontaine won for Best Actress in a Leading Role. The film itself was nominated for Best Picture, but lost to How Green Was My Valley. Considering that both Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon were nominated as well, I can't see Suspicion ever having a chance.

A shy young woman, Lina (Fontaine), marries a charming gentleman, Johnnie (Cary Grant), but once married she discovers that he is broke, has a gambling problem, and is unable to keep a job. She then starts to suspect that he is trying to kill her.

Spoiler Alert: I'm going to discuss the ending.

In the end, it turns out that Johnnie has no intention of killing Lina, but rather was intending to kill himself so she could be free of his debt and gain his life insurance. Yet, Hitchcock wanted him to actually be guilty, and in the original cut he succeeds in killing Lina. Apparently the studio and test audiences could not accept Grant as a murdered, so the ending was changed. It's a shame that Hitchcock lost his creative control, and the film's ending, in my opinion, feels fake. On a similar note, apparently the studio asked Hitchcock to remove all scenes in which Grant looked menacing. This "edited" version ran 55 minutes, and so the studio had to let Hitchcock put them back in. This was classic Hitchcock, in that he shot things so they could only be edited one way so that his vision wouldn't be lost in the editing room.

This wonderfully produced, directed, acted and written suspense thriller turns out to be nothing more than a neurotic aristocrat who assumes the worst about her husband despite not doing any wrong, and that convincing herself (and us) that he's killed before and now is about to kill her is all just her imagination? The ending is such a slap in the face to the audience, along the lines of "How could you be so silly for believing this?" The original ending would have made this a significantly better film.

Day 82: Get Low (2009)

This was showing at the Bytowne, and I managed to win free passes to see it through Twitter. Can't turn down free tickets to a movie.

From the film synopsis, it is "a movie spun out of equal parts folk tale, fable and real-life legend about the mysterious, 1930s Tennessee hermit who famously threw his own rollicking funeral party... while he was still alive." Starring Robert Duvall as the hermit, and Bill Murray as the funeral home director, the duo bring an incredible amount of talent and charm to this subtle humorous film. A film that allows both actors to provide emotional and real roles that resonate with the audience - granted either actor could sit on the screen for an hour and people who watch, but thankfully they provide a lot more here.

The film does lag a bit, and could have used some faster editing, but it provides a slow-paced drama that allows the characters to develop and prosper. The climax of the film comes with a speech given by Duvall at the end, and he delivers it with such grace and skill that you'd swear he was telling a true story. Overall, it's a compelling story, with flawless acting with spot-on casting choices, deftly directed, and with camera work supports the story with warm tones.

My one complaint is that the film should have ended one scene earlier. I was actually convinced the film was over, and then came on a short scene that felt tacked on and was unnecessary, and in my opinion, ruined the flow of the ending.

Day 81: Mad Max (1979)

A film classic that I, for some reason, had never gotten around to seeing. I went to the video store to rent it, and in my lack of knowledge on the film, rented Road Warrior, which is in fact the sequel, so I had to go back and get the original.

Set "a few years from now" in a dystopic Australia, biker gangs rule the highways and towns, and a small police force try to keep the peace. Mad Max (Mel Gibson) gets frustrated with the lack of authority in the system and takes a vacation with his family, but when bikers kill his wife and baby he seeks out revenge. Filmed in Australia, starring the then unknown Mel Gibson, for only $350,000 this film has taken on a cult status.

I hate to say this, but I really didn't enjoy it. It was boring, pointless, and illogical. Maybe I'm missing out on something obvious, but to me it was one of the most boring films I've seen in a long time. I'm highly debating if I even want to bother watching Road Warrior now. Can anyone explain to me the appeal of this movie?

Day 80: Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000)

I was back in Kingston packing up my apartment getting ready to move, and my brother offered to come down and help me pack. As we were packing up my DVD collection, a rather timely undertaking, he asked if I had Urban Legends 2, which I responded that most likely, and evidently I did. The film was shot at his University, Trent University in Peterborough, and he wanted to see how many buildings he recognized. Truth be told, the most enjoyable part of watching the film was not the film itself, but my brother's confusion over their use of the buildings in the film. For example, "What? That door doesn't lead to anything like that." or "I'm so confused, I'm positive there is no clock tower there." [In fact, he is right, there is no tower. A 150 ft. tower was built at an estimated $150,000.00.]

The sequel to Urban Legend loosely, and I mean really loosely, follows the same premise of the first - a killer is killing people according to urban legends. The killer is new, as is the campus. In fact, the only tie to the first film is the campus security guard is the same in both films. Unfortunately, the killer in this sequel doesn't even really stick to murdering by urban legends - he does a couple this way, then I guess gets bored and just starts killing aimlessly. This is, perhaps, the worst horror film I've ever seen. The only redeeming value for me was that the killings took place at a film school, which was neat to see. There is nothing new in this film, and it's just a waste of time. Even my brother was disappointed, as almost all the shots are of the same building, just from different angles.

Day 79: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Last year, I heard the mention of a Toronto-based indie graphic novel being turned into a movie, so I eagerly went to the store and bought the whole series (well, all that had been released up to that point). I was surprised at how, for lack of better words, awesome the comics were. While obviously set in Toronto, the creator, Bryan Lee O'Malley, managed to capture and preserve on paper what it's like to be a early-20s living in Toronto, crammed filled with video game references. As the film became more and more publicized, I started counting down the days. This was, without a doubt, the film of 2010 I was most eager to see.

Scott Pilgrim is unemployed, living in a bachelor apartment with his gay best friend (sharing a mattress), is in a band (whose skill is questionable), and is dating a 17-year old high school girl. All in all, Scott's life is rather uneventful. That is until he dreams of Ramona Flowers, literally the girl of his dreams, who he then runs into the following day in real life. By some miraculous luck, Ramona agrees to go out with Scott - though she failed to mention one catch, he has to fight and defeat her seven evil exes. These exes include a world-class skateboard, a set of twins, a vegan, and a girl.

All I can say is that the film was awesome. It not only lived up to the comic, to the hype, to my expectation, but it blew them all away. The film has taken the essence of video games and transferred it to the silver screen with such precision and ease that it makes one wonder why it took people so long to realize this could be done. This one of a kind film, while hopefully not, will most likely spur on a series of copy-cats, but they'll never capture the originality and charm that Scott Pilgrim has. The film is as close to a perfect film that I've seen in a long time. Well worth seeing, and not only once, but numerous times.

Day 78: Date Night (2010)

When this was released I decided that it would probably make for a decent comedy rental, but not something I had any desire to see in theatres. As it was released this week on DVD, I picked it up as a rental.

In an odd mix of comedy and action, Carell and Fey star as a couple out for a romantic date when they are mistaken for kidnappers, and their night gets drastically more complicated than originally planned. The film seems to have a fool-proof plan - take two of the funniest comedians from television and put them together into a movie - but sadly, as is often the case, good ideas on paper rarely translate well onto celluloid. The film had its funny moments - mainly due to the general funnyness of the two leads - but between these funny bits are a lot of unfunny ones. What could easily have been a hilarious movie, ends up only being somewhat amusing. That being said, is it not OK to sometimes just be amused? I laughed, but expected a lot more. Some of the funniest bits in the movie are the ad-libbed out-takes during the end credits.

Day 77: Luftslottet som sprängdes / The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest (2009)

The third film has yet to be released in North America, but thanks to the wonder of the Internet and all-region DVD players, I was able to watch the PAL version of the Swedish film with decent subtitles. I had no desire to wait months for the North American release to finish the trilogy.

The third time around Mikael is again working to free Lisbeth's name, as she lies recovering in hospital in police custody. Lisbeth plots her revenge from insider her hospital room, while Mikael is uncovering a secret outside that not only effects Lisbeth but all of Sweden. This film is more of a spy/espionage thriller, and though not quite up to par of American films within the genre, it provides an enjoyable ride. This film, in my opinion, would be the hardest to understand without having read the book, mainly because a lot of characters are introduced with no background information. Despite this, the film provides a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, and leaves me anxious to see the American remake. While I am against remakes in general, I enjoy the story so much, that another version of it can't be a bad thing.

Day 76: Flickan som lekte med elden / The Girl Who Played with Fire (2009)

Sat down and watched the two remaining films in the trilogy in two days. The second and third films (like their books) are really one story, and are best enjoyed close to each other. Seeing as they are both over 2 hours, though, it's probably best not to watch them back to back.

Lisbeth and Mikael are back again, this time investigating a sex-trafficking ring. Lisbeth is charged with three murders, and while she goes into hiding, Mikael works to clear her name. Noomi Rapace, as Lisbeth, and Michael Nyqvist, as Mikael, remain perfect casts for their roles. This film is a mystery-thriller (or at least for anyone who hasn't read the book), and it's a lot more action packed then the first film. Not as good as the first, but still a worthy sequel. Lisbeth is a unique heroine to the silver screen, and Rapace plays her incredibly well - that alone is worth seeing the film.

Day 75: Hausu / House (1977)

When this title was announced as part of Criterion's fall lineup, I was intrigued. I'd never heard of it, so I looked it up, and my interest was piqued. Coincidentally, my local indie-film house was screening the film, and I managed to even score two free tickets through Twitter. So I got to see the film before the Criterion release, though the print I saw was not in the best of shape, and I'm hoping for a better quality one on the Criterion version.

I'm at a loss of words on how to properly describe this film. One of the headlines at the local theatre at which I saw it read simply "WTF," and this encapsulates my feeling exactly. The film follows the horror film narrative style, but is hardly scary. It is more of a comedy, but even it doesn't fall into that category easily.

The basic premise is that a group of girls visit one of the girl's Aunt over a break from school. Upon arriving at the house, weird things start to happen, and the girls start disappearing one by one. It turns out that the Aunt is dead and that the house is haunted. This plot synopsis, while accurate, does not even begin to explain the film. Each scene is filled with absurdities, randomness, and humour. The film defies comparison, and needs to be seen to understand. I can say, rather affirmatively, that you have not seen a film like this before, and it's one you should check out.

Day 74: Che: Part Two (2008)

The second film (The Guerrilla) was a lot slower. This film covers Che's role in the attempt Bolivian revolution - that would eventually lead to his death. The film examined more the physiological effects on Che and the other revolutionaries in trying to lead a less popularly-supported revolution, and the pains of waiting. This film, however, in my opinion, better demonstrates the guerrilla warfare that Che and his men practiced. The film, also, barely touched on America's and the CIA's involvement in Che's death. The film was good, but just not as good as the first.

Day 73: Che: Part One (2008)

I've been wanting to see this for some time. It didn't come to Kingston sadly. I was in London where it was showing, but by then they were only showing part two and not part one, so I missed it there too. When I found out Criterion was releasing it, I decided to wait for their release. I ordered the Criterion release through the local video store in Kingston, but when it arrived weeks later it was the non-Criterion release (which I don't understand why anyone would buy when a Criterion edition exists), so I didn't get it and waited. I finally managed to pick it up a few weeks ago at the Barnes & Noble Criterion sale.

Che is a well known pop icon, but how many people know who he actually was? As a history student, I studied Che briefly, but never in great depth. For this reason I was interested in seeing this biopic, especially considering it was directed by Soderbergh.

The first film (The Argentine) focuses on his role in the revolution in Cuba. The film portrays Che as a revolutionary fighter, a doctor, and a social philosopher. The film is fast paced, and intercuts scenes from an Interview done in New York and a speech to the UN following Castro's rise to power with the progression of the revolution in Cuba. The film demonstrates how an Argentinian doctor became one of the leading figures in Cuba’s struggle for independence. I found the first film to be a lot faster paced and flowed better. The acting, especially Benicio Del Toro as Che, was superb. Whether you know anything about Che or not, the film is well worth checking out.

Day 72: Post Grad (2009)

I was at home tired and somewhat burnout from movie-watching and had no desire to watch any of the films I had on my list to watch. While in the kitchen I noticed this DVD on the counter - presumably rented by one of my sisters. I had never heard of the film before, but I recognized Alexis Bledel and decided that a chick flick was about the extent of movie watching that I could take for the day.

Ryden has her whole life planned out, but when she loses her dream job to her arch-nemesis, her car gets wrecked and she loses her dream apartment she is forced to return home to live with her eccentric family while she looks for another job.

This film is so bad in so many ways, I don't even know where to start. The first problem is that the film doesn't know what it wants to do with itself. It puts Ryden back at home with her family, all of whom are eccentric, and all of whom need a subplot of their own, which deludes the film as they try to tie each subplot off, taking away time from Ryden's story. Ryden's best friend is a guy who is in love with her, by Ryden is unaware or doesn't care, and he isn't in the majority of the film. Ryden's family has a hot older Brazilian neighbour who Ryden falls for, and who, inexplicably, also falls for Ryden.

The film could easily have been good had it focused on the trouble of getting a job for a post grad in today's market - it's a reality faced by a lot of people, and could work as a film. The problem is that they diverge from this almost instantly and try to fit in as many chick flick cliches as posssible - the best friend whose in love with her but she fails to notice, the attractive older guy, the dysfunctional family, and the biggest one of all - that despite her best efforts, nothing goes her way.

I would have been fine with the film being so overly predictable and cliche, except for the ending. So Ryden has had her life planned out from childhood - do well in high school, get scholarship, keep scholarship, graduate, and get job at company X. She, of course, doesn't get job at company X, but, wait for it, company X calls her near the end of the film and hires her! It's a wonderful world after all! Her dreams have come true! She must be thrilled! BUT WAIT! She decides that despite having no car, no money, and only just found a job that she is going to throw it all away and move to NYC to follow her bestfriend because she realizes she loves him. WHAT?! What kind of moral is this? It teaches girls that their dreams are second to that of love. Throw away a dream job for a guy? Move to NYC with no money and no job? I hope love will pay for food and a place to sleep, because NYC is far from cheap. Worst message ever. Love may be important, but so are dreams. What terrible trash.

Day 71: Some Like It Hot (1959)

One of my friends, Mal, suggested I watch this one. I don't always agree with Mal's movie taste (she has an odd fixation with 17 Again), but as I've never seen a Marilyn Monroe film before, I figured it was about time.

Two male musicians witness a mob hit, so in order to escape they join an all-female band headed for Florida disguised as women. On the way they meet Sugar Kane (Monroe). The film descends into a farce from there, that, as can be guessed, relies heavily on the fact that the two men are dressed as women. It's films like these that make me wonder what happened to classic comedies? Why can't we see more films like this - where the humour is not based on crass childish humour, but rather it relied on wit, timing, inventiveness and suggestion - not shock or gross-out value. Not that I'm against the former, I just find a lot of value, and comedy, in the later, and it seems these films are bygones.

I was amazed at some of the themes in this screwball comedy - mainly that a millionaire is pursuing one of the "women" and they become engaged. When the "woman" comes clean that she is in fact a man, the millionaire simply shrugs and says "Well, nobody's perfect!" That's the 1959 reaction to gay marriage? I can't imagine the same reaction used in a film today.

Day 70: Primer (2004)

I've heard people discuss Primer before, and read of it on various must-see Sci-Fi film lists online, but for whatever reason never got around to it. Now that I have, my head hurts.

The plot of this film is possibly one of the most complex plots ever filmed, and I'm pretty sure people who have seen it hundreds of times are still only guessing. The gist of the film is that two guys create a time-machine that allows them to live a day, then go into the machine and live it again, but this time knowing the outcome of the events of the day. While they use this to play the stock market at first, they start experimenting and things get complicated. After having watched the film, I read the Wikipedia synopsis 5 or 10 times and still don't fully understand. I studied the very detailed (and confusing) timeline that is all over the Internet, and am still confused. I get the general gist of what happened, but I couldn't explain it and do not fully understand. It's not a movie you can fully understand.

Considering the film was shot for $7,000 and Shane Carruth wrote, produced, directed and stared in the film, it's quite the achievement. This is a far stretch from some film school film project, it's sci-fi film that demonstrates the truly confusing nature of trying to use time travel in film. Sure the film is often out of focus, not always white-balanced, a lot of dialogue is muffled and hard to understand, they use technical terms without explanation, and most importantly the film lacks continuity. Yet, while these things would normally ruin any other movie, they work for Primer. The film works because it seems real - it portrays normal, almost wooden, scientists because that's what they'd be in real life. Inventions are just as likely, if not more so, to come from someone's garage then from some large lab, so why not make a movie that demonstrates this?

At the end of the day, there is no hero to cheer for, there is no moral, there is no message, and there is no costly special effects. The film is simple in its approach, and honest, and because of this, it's easy to accept it in all its confusion.

Day 69: Män som hatar kvinnor / The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Having started, and finished, the Millennium trilogy over my vacation last week, I was eager to see the Swedish films that are based on the novels. The American English version is in the pre-production phase now, but I'm not a fan of American remakes of foreign films (I have no problems reading subtitles), and I'd rather not wait years to see the entire trilogy when there already exists a perfectly good one already all completed.

The film was rather loyal to the novel, though it did simplify various aspects of the novel in order to fit the rather lengthy novel into the running time of the film, and even then the film runs over 2.5 hours. The film centers around Mikael Blomkvist, a journalist, and Lisbeth Salander, a small-tattooed-piercing-filled-goth-introverted-hacker. After Blomkvist is convicted of libel against one of Sweden's biggest CEOs, he accepts an offer from a welathy industrialist to investigate the 40-year-old disappearance of his grand-daughter. Blomkvist turns to Salander for assistance and together they uncover a very dark past.

The film does a great job capturing the essence of the film, and despite its lengthy run time, I kept wishing they had filmed more. I'm eager to see the other two films in the trilogy. The acting was great (will be hard for the American version to come close), and the cinematography provided the already intriguing story with even more reason not to take your eyes off the screen. Salander is a hard heroine to portray, but Noomi Rapace does an amazing job. Even if you haven't read the books, the film is worth a watch.

Day 68: The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

I've often been criticized for liking everything when it comes to movies, and while that's hardly true, I do enjoy a wide range of films. I don't expect the same thing from all movies. I expect a lot more from a classic film, then from a summer blockbuster. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy both. Most films can be enjoyed in some way. If a film provides a form of escapism for a few hours and doesn't bore you, it's done its job. Great films will do a lot more than this, but a good film only has to cause enjoyment. I wanted to see The Sorcerer's Apprentice because it looked fun, and because it starred Jay Baruchel, of whom I am a fan, and Nicholas Cage, who despite what a lot of people say I rather enjoy. Maybe I have bad taste, but so be it.

Balthazar Blake (Cage) was one of three apprentice's of Merlin, and he has spent the last 1300 years searching for the Prime Merlinian - the person who will take Merlin's place. This person is Dave (Baruchel) in modern day NYC. Balthazar must train Dave to become the Sorcerer he is meant to be in order to defeat Morganas and save the world. Considering this is a Disney movie (based loosely on a scene from Fantasia which is reenacted in the film) the outcome of the movie can be predicted by pretty much everyone. Despite being predictable and somewhat childish, it appealed to my inner child and I left the theater grinning.

Day 67: Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

A few weeks ago I won tickets to the Ottawa advanced-screening of this film over Twitter, but unfortunately the screening was last week while I was out of the country. While I didn't get to see it for free, I still was eager to see it.

In this remake of the 1998 french film Le dîner de cons, Paul Rudd stars as Tim, an executive whose raise depends on him bringing a Schmuck to his boss's monthly "dinner for idiots". Tim runs into, literally runs into him with his car, Barry (Steve Carell) an IRS employee who creates miniatures with dead mice. This spirals into a classic farce, with the usual gags that go along with that.

While hardly a perfect comedy, it is very funny. The actors - Rudd, Carell, Galifianakis, Clement - carry the film. It proves that if you put enough funny actors in a movie, you have a chance to end up with a funny movie. The movie is terribly predictable, but charming. The trailer for the film presents a good image of the film - if you laughed during the trailer, you'll probably laugh during the movie.

On a side note, I was quite shocked and pleased to notice that Chris O'Dowd was one of the "Schmucks." Not only is O'Dowd one of the actors in the humorous BritCom The IT Crowd, but his last name is the English variation on mine, which I think is cool.